Nice…
If you’ll pardon the fact that it’s the obvious move: Barons Court
Remember diagonals.
Almost, but not quite. You are overlooking the fact that, technically speaking, ‘Holborn’ involves a silent letter. We know from the official adjudication after the fiasco of the '03 European Invitational (second quarter final, Oona .v. Aaronovitch) that silent letters can shift outside, parabola or not, provided stirrups have not been declared and Actons have not been squiggered. I agree it’s not a great move, but it’s most definitely permitted. (A better move, might I suggest, would be to go Seven Sisters and then declare rivers. This nullifies the seemingly obvious defence of Balham, because such a play would obviously contravene the no thirds rule. Your opponent is thus very likely to play contrary motion advancing West, in which case most lines of the De Fere’s Gambit will lead to significant advantage. See Pagner’s 50 Greatest Victories, Volume 2 [revised edition] for further analysis).
Well remembered. I’d like to challenge the standing reverse loop, avoiding the Smithson Trap and circumventing Earl’s Court. With the Jubilee line still without reworking, I can get from there to Bond Street.
I don’t understand this bit at all.
Many thanks for your reasoned argument regarding shifting and silent letters, I was working from the Proceedings of the VIIIth Australian Grandmasters, which as you know was held 6 months prior to the '03 European Invitational. The Proc VIIIth AG has until now been considered the definitive guide to shifting (inside or out). I will therefore have to reread the '03 EI adjudication carefully as it obviously has a greater impact on the game than I had previously thought. I’m glad you brought this important matter to my attention.
I’m somewhat, suprised that you end your discussion with the advice to, either in whole or in part, play De Fere’s Gambit. Your argument thus far was impeccable, and so it makes it difficult to understand why you would make such an error. To do so in this situation is to completely ignore the 2005 Lyttelton Ruling * that the 12 moves comprising De Fere’s Gambit can not legally be played after your opponent plays a contrary motion advancing west. However, it might ofcourse be that you meant De Fere’s Offence No. 28 variation IIIe **; which is a frightfully easy mistake to make and many have (and will no doubt continue to do so).
*Annals of the National Society 130(3): 24445-25897
** The Complete Unabridged Transcripts of the 2005 New Mexico Open, Volume 7 (also available as an audiobook).
Does anyone know a good version of Mornington Crescent for Windows? Or are all computer players hopelessly weak?
I don’t think anyone has attempted it - it’s thought that Mornington Crescent may be NP-complete.
You’re absolutely correct, of course. My apologies, it was a sloppy typing error. I meant to refer to De Refe’s Gambit. I hope that makes it all clear.
On the subject of minor corrections, I note that you referred to the ‘Annals of the National Society’. I hope you won’t mind if I point out that all players (except those tiresome renegades who insist on the widely discredited Trellis Rules) now accept that the opinions and verdicts stated in the Annals of the National Society are not binding in Tournament Play, at least not for ranking tournaments conducted under the auspices of the MCWC. I know it’s only a small point, but it might be an important clarification for newcomers.
Hi Lynne-42. Let’s see if I can clarify the point.
In the position being discussed, rather than looking at Balham in isolation consider all of the Northern Line south of Goodge Street. If you opt for a standard move, such as, say, Royal Oak, you would obviously be tempted to declare Babbingtons, leaving open the possibility of a Klizzenger Reverse around either South Kenton or Elm Park. At first this may seem like a sound strategy, leading to strong development over water without incurring contrary motion. However, consider a reply such as Alperton!!. This is a classic case of Styffer’s Block, and leaves you with no choice but to play one of several generally dissatisfactory and unpromising moves, such as Osterley or - heaven help us - Stamford Brook! You can play through the variations on your own, or just refer to Djordjevich’s rather startling analysis in The MCQ July 2003. In short… the supposed standard moves just don’t work.
So if the ‘standard’ moves are open to such devastating counter-play, what can you do? It was Wragsby who came up with the elegant and ingenious answer in his third chair game at the Euarasian Eliminator rounds for the World Matchplay 2004 series. He played Balham!, greatly surprising most of those watching, correctly anticipating that he would then be able to follow up with a DLR move (eastwards) declaring quarridge. It doesn’t take much anaylsis to see how breathtakingly delightful this combination is. In just two moves, you have nullified the Chaffington Trap, rendered all Central Line plays more or less impotent, and smartly eliminated any possible moves across water except for Borough or Lambeth North, both of which are practically suicidal! (See The MC Matchplay Yearbook, 2004, for an extended analysis by Klaus & Hocht).
I hope that makes it a little clearer.
Thank you, Ianzin. It’s all fairly obvious when it is explained so well. Much appreciated.
I’d join in, but i’m afraid i’m hopeless. I always end up switching eastbound even after a suspended Deckard’s is declared (and of course end up in knid).
Hurry up, teams - I’ve got a gig in Hull on Thursday.
Anybody mind explaining what the hell is going on here? Or is this like cricket and, being a Yank, I have no way to comprehend?
Carry on.
See second paragraph in the Rules section.
Usram has provided a link to the Wikipedia MC page. Alas, I see that the persistant vandalism of the ‘Rules’ section has surfaced again, this time with some time-wasting clown perpetuating the tired, boring old joke that ‘there aren’t really any rules’. Can nothing be done to kill this tedious rumour? Not only does it hurt the reputation of the game and devalue the skill that goes into advanced play, but it can discourage new players from taking up the game. I shall be writing to the IMCS to see if they can do anything to stomp out this kind of mischief.
sigh If anyone here on the SDMB wants clarification of any of the standard rules, or general tips on beginners’ play, I’ll be happy to oblige.
What’s the best way to handle Sven?
Ask Samantha.
Or Ulrika.
Here goes. My first attempt at this level. [deep breath]: Clapham Junction.
Hi there Lynne-42. I’d love to have a game, or provide commentary, or adjudicate. However, the MC portion of this thread is already a hijack, strictly speaking, and to wilfully start a game here would sort of be a hijack of a hijack. I think at some point we would be told off by the Mods or relocated. So, if you want to start a game, it’s probably best to do so over in M&PSIMS. - Ianzin