Joshua Kronengold wrote:
I need to check in the book, but I do think that over-icing needs to be clarified as previously discussed. "if you could remove a piece and have it still be iced" is too ambiguous.
Yes, that's ambiguous; yes, you need to check in the book. PwP, p. 89: > If so many attackers are pointing at a defender that some of them are > extraneous, that defender is said to be “Over-Iced”. > > An attacking piece is extraneous if subtracting its value from the > total value of the attacking pieces leaves a number that still exceeds > the value of the defensive piece. My apologies to class attendees if I was unclear when describing this rule in the class. The hand-outs use the same text as the book. (I just don't have it memorized verbatim. =^) -- Elliott C. "Eeyore" Evans eeyore@xxxxxxxx