From: Colin Paul Adams <colin <at> COLINA <dot> DEMON <dot> CO <dot> UK>
Date: 8 feb 1999
Subject: Re: none

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Vanier <mvanier <at> BBB <dot> CALTECH <dot> EDU> writes:

    Michael> I haven't played Chu (yet; I'm eager to try), but I find

Go for it! (oops, pun not intended - Chu for it!).

    Michael> elaborate here?  Wayne Schmittberger has argued that the
    Michael> tactical complexity of Chu is so great that, in fact,
    Michael> strategy dominates tactics because it's hard to read many
    Michael> moves deep, and so the important thing for Chu players is
    Michael> to learn to intuitively assess the merits of a position,
    Michael> much as Go players have to.

That's an interesting comparison, which I hadn't thought of (I am a Go
player, so perhaps I should have done so). I'll extend it - in Chu, as
in Go, it's important to know when you HAVE to read deeply, and when
you can get away with a glance analysis. This comes from experience,
of course, as well as from thinking about the nature of the game.
--
Colin Paul Adams
Preston Lancashire