-------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Joshua Kronengold <mneme@xxxxxx> > Hmm. I suppose I should do some analysis on my own play, since it > seems pretty successful (don't remember my scores prefectly -- two > 34ish, one in the 38-40 range, but for those not there, I won every > game). A lot involves establishing a good early position and > defending it from all comers -- if I can set up three towers that have > 15-20ish pionts of my own pieces in them, without setting up a > self-split (the real trick to it), I'll usually win even if I > can only hold two of them by the endgame. Just to fill in the data... Josh, you got scores of 37, 40, 34 (in that order), all for wins. Also there was some talk about the mathematical futility of playing the last round, considering Mr. Kronengold's three wins. IF Josh Drobina won his fourth game with 53 AND Josh K was held to 0 points, it would have been a tie. Then, for every three points J.K. got, J.D. would need four to maintain that tie. e.g. If J.K. got a measley 12, J.D. would need an additional 16 on top of the 53 for a total of 69 (dude). J.K. gets an average score of 30? J.D. would need a 93. That's closer than I thought, but since the highest score through the first three rounds was a 41 and the highest I recall ever was a 48, I don't feel too bad for calling the tourney. Ryan