From: "'Ben Bednarz'" <BenFB <at> AOL <dot> COM>
Date: 1 feb 2001
Subject: Re: Antwort: Ranging vs Static

I can't speak for the pro, but I know I always preferred the ranging rook
because I was more comfortable with the resulting positions; I had better
instincts for how to expoit them.

Ben Bednarz

In a message dated 2/1/01 2:25:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
amsawyer <at> BELLATLANTIC <dot> NET writes:

> Subj:       Re: Antwort: Ranging vs Static
>  Date:    2/1/01 2:25:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>  From:    amsawyer <at> BELLATLANTIC <dot> NET (Alan Sawyer)
>  Sender:  SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL (The Shogi Discussion List)
>  Reply-to:    SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL (The Shogi Discussion List)
>  To:  SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL
>
>  >>But is the percentage of won ranging rook games (in professional play)
>  >>really greater for the ranging rook side?
>  >>
>  >  Normally, the ranging took side loses more than half the games.  But
>  >very recently, ranging rook has been scoring well, especially in title
> games.
>  >
>  >>And if this is so, why do pros not play much more double ranging rook
>  >>ames?
>  >
>  >     I predict that we will see many more such games soon.
>  >
>  >>Jochen.
>  >
>  >     Larry
>
>  Has there been a breakdown of who does better in each game type as either
> black or white?
>  I know that usually it is around 51% : 49% but do these ratios change
> depending on whether double static, static vs ranging (both
>  ways around) and double ranging?
>  Alan
>
>
>  ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
>  Return-Path: <owner-shogi-l <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL>
>  Received: from  rly-xb04.mx.aol.com (rly-xb04.mail.aol.com
[172.20.105.105])
> by air-xb04.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 17:25:05
-0500
>  Received: from  cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com
[209.119.0.109])
>  by rly-xb04.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 17:24:59 -0500
>  Received: from grape.ease.lsoft.com (209.119.0.34) by
cherry.ease.lsoft.com (
> LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id
<22.00275B73 <at> cherry <dot> ease <dot> lsoft <dot> com>
> ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:24:56 -0500
>  Received: from TECHUNIX.TECHNION.AC.IL by TECHUNIX.TECHNION.AC.IL
>            (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 212855 for
>            SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:24:47 +0200
>  Delivered-To: shogi-l <at> techunix <dot> technion <dot> ac <dot> il
>  Received: from mailgw2.technion.ac.il (mailgw2.technion.ac.il
[132.68.238.35]
> )
>            by techunix.technion.ac.il (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38222153E1 for
>            <SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL>; Fri,  2 Feb 2001 00:24:47
+0200
>            (IST)
>  Received: from c014.sfo.cp.net (c014-h003.c014.sfo.cp.net [209.228.12.67])
> by
>            mailgw2.technion.ac.il (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B888CB41D for
>            <SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL>; Fri,  2 Feb 2001 00:26:25
+0200
>            (IST)
>  Received: (cpmta 22416 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 13:45:53 -0800
>  Received: from unknown (HELO flashcom.com) (216.48.231.160) by
>            smtp.flashcom.net (209.228.12.67) with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 13:45:53
-
> 0800
>  X-Sent: 1 Feb 2001 21:45:53 GMT
>  Received: from onecell.com by inman with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.8.5.0.R) for
>            <SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL>; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:30:41
-0500
>  Received: from gallileo by onecell.com with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.8.5.0.R) for
>            <SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL>; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:28:47
-0500
>  MIME-Version: 1.0
>  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>  X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>  X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>  X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
>  Importance: Normal
>  X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
>  X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL
>  X-Return-Path: amsawyer <at> bellatlantic <dot> net
>  Message-ID:  <DGECJOMLNOAJKPIGKCGGIEDMCBAA.amsawyer <at> bellatlantic <dot> net>
>  Date:         Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:25:45 -0500
>  Reply-To: The Shogi Discussion List <SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL>
>  Sender: The Shogi Discussion List <SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL>
>  From: Alan Sawyer <amsawyer <at> BELLATLANTIC <dot> NET>
>  Subject:      Re: Antwort: Ranging vs Static
>  To: SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL
>  In-Reply-To:  <3.0.6.32.20010201144136.009827a0 <at> mail <dot> wizard <dot> net>
>
>