Difference between revisions of "Talk:Template VI1/Intrusion on the 3rd row"
From HexWiki
(Created page with "This page is completely wrong as it stands. Red's suggested counter to the 3rd row intrusion does not work; blue can play on the second row under the two stones and win. This...") |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | This page is completely wrong as it stands. Red's suggested counter to the 3rd row intrusion does not work; blue can play on the second row under the two stones and win. This page needs to be either deleted (I removed the link to this page from the page "Defending against intrusions in template VI1" so probably nothing links to it now?) or completely rewritten. Red has three winning moves after blue's intrusion, but none of them are this one. | + | This page is completely wrong as it stands. Red's suggested counter to the 3rd row intrusion does not work; blue can play on the second row under the two stones and win. This page needs to be either deleted (I removed the link to this page from the page "Defending against intrusions in template VI1" so probably nothing links to it now?) or completely rewritten. Red has three winning moves after blue's intrusion, but none of them are this one. I verified these assertions with a computer solver. If people want any more details they could ask in the little golem thread http://littlegolem.net/jsp/forum/topic2.jsp?forum=50&topic=659 where this was pointed out. |
Latest revision as of 00:10, 24 April 2016
This page is completely wrong as it stands. Red's suggested counter to the 3rd row intrusion does not work; blue can play on the second row under the two stones and win. This page needs to be either deleted (I removed the link to this page from the page "Defending against intrusions in template VI1" so probably nothing links to it now?) or completely rewritten. Red has three winning moves after blue's intrusion, but none of them are this one. I verified these assertions with a computer solver. If people want any more details they could ask in the little golem thread http://littlegolem.net/jsp/forum/topic2.jsp?forum=50&topic=659 where this was pointed out.