| Player 1 |
|
#player1 JJB John J. Bulten
#player2 GT Greg Thornburg
>JJB: CDLOVYY 8H DOYLY +32 32
#note 1:03 [23:57] Look for a better one. Coyly 34 (up 1.6).
>GT: AP J6 PA. +14 14
#note 1:14 [23:46] Declining pa 7i/9i 19.
>JJB: ?CFGHLV I7 F.H +26 58
#note 0:39 [23:18] Fog 22 adds 2.4 value (6.4 more synergy).
>GT: AEX K4 AXE +24 38
#note 0:28 [23:18] Also axle k6 28.
>JJB: ?ACCGLV L1 CLAG +26 84
#note 1:03 [22:15] Missed opportunity for vagal 4h 26, same score but V dump worth 4.7 more.
>GT: DEO 1L .ODE +21 59
#note 1:15 [22:03]
>JJB: ??BCIQV 10G CInQ +43 127
#note 1:17 [20:58] Exchanging to C?? is in second place, by 12.6.
>GT: EEMN M3 MENE +24 83
#note 1:50 [20:13] GT opts for a Collins-only 4 rather than neem, and JJB's distraction from crazy racks allows him to share the momentary lapse. GT beats alternatives even though column M is indicated for several.
>JJB: ?BBNSUV K10 SNUB +27 154
#note 2:51 [18:07] Exchanging to NS? is in second place, by 4.6!
>GT: FLU N6 FLU +27 110
#note 0:20 [19:53]
>JJB: ?BDEJSV 13I Jo.BED +50 204
#note 3:06 [15:01] This is getting ridiculous, thinks JJB, as he spends more time trying not to burn the second blank; but j?bbed (AIO) is correct by static evaluation, where jube 12j 26 is 1.6 behind.
>GT: INT O6 TIN +23 133
#note 0:23 [19:30] Closing up GT's own opening.
>JJB: EILOSTV N10 VOI.S +34 238
#note 1:25 [13:36] Now there is no bingo lane at all after so many heavy racks, but there is a triple-double.
>GT: AOV 14G AVO +15 148
#note 0:25 [19:05] Pretty safe from triples!
>JJB: EELOSTW 2N EW +21 259
#note 1:27 [12:09] He could have seen the same dump for 10 points higher: owe/avow 31.
>GT: EIORU 15C OURIE +8 156
#note 0:31 [18:34] Euro/joe 15 might be preferable, but with more Is coming maybe not.
>JJB: AEELOST E8 OLEASTE. +66 325
#note 1:04 [11:05] JJB is thankful for the opening, not realizing that oleates 70 has also opened up.
>GT: IO O14 OI +8 164
#note 1:20 [17:14] That uncovered triple draws unhealthy attention like a magnet. Oi d12 10 and probably qi j10 13 are better.
>JJB: AGNRRSZ D11 ZA +37 362
#note 0:52 [10:13] Improvement: zag j2 39 (by 2.9).
>GT: DGIIR D4 RIGID +23 187
#note 0:51 [16:23] Now a good dump, but GT is still being laden with Is, getting 6 in the second half.
>JJB: AEGNRRS F2 GARNERS +68 430
#note 1:04 [9:09] As JJB calculates, equal to grainers 5a.
>GT: HOP C3 HOP +22 209
#note 3:41 [12:42] These 3 have several better sites than on the ladder, notably pho f11 30.
>JJB: AEENTTW B1 TWAT +22 452
#note 3:24 [5:45] Another opportunity to play owe 31, although much of the 19.5 diff is unhelpful without a lane. Tew 2a 24 is 19.1 ahead and does open a lane. W hooks evade JJB this game, but this ugly play providentially sets up a crazy endgame.
>GT: AIIKMTU C7 KAT +29 238
#note 2:30 [10:12] JJB is so flustered by Ts that he hurriedly writes GT's play as atos*. GT has the right spot but kami 34 is the natural best play, forcing JJB to only one terne (namely, terne etc. 15i 16 (not b10), tui b10 9+4, net of 31). Instead he lets JJB get the unblockable out worth 19, net of 10 to GT.
>JJB: EENNRRT 1H REEN.... +33 485
>JJB: EENNRRT -- -33 452
#note 2:21 [2:46] JJB can do a good tern and get just as straightforward an out in two: tern 15i 15, tum 13e 16, pinner 5c 16+4, net of 19. Instead he goes extension hunting and selects a phony one, which nets 3 points to GT and -3 to JJB due to missing a tern.
>GT: IIMU C12 MI +13 251
#note 2:16 [7:56] It occurs to GT that JJB's invention should merely be written recode, and he challenges after 0:28. Now GT has the third opportunity of the game to play an unblockable out in two, with the key being the only IU play, tui 1b 4, then repay j4 24, mi c2 13+10, net of 3. Are more points available? The actual play, mi/mas (which JJB still obsessively notates as mi/mat!), threatens tui but is blockable; yet JJB will net 10 by not blocking, so mi nets 3 to GT, same as tui. Other pairs, including the best (tum 16 and qi 13), fall into negative net due to the stronger out of tern/pinner already mentioned (many alternatives, including tern/ern). GT's declining the out was optimal.
>JJB: EENNRRT 15I TERNE +16 468
#note 2:21 [2:46] JJB can literally go out in two terns!! In the fourth (!) unblockable out in two, he merely blocks tui with tern 1b 5, to which the best is qi j10 13, and one good tern deserves another at tern 15i 15+2 (backup out was reagent 4i 9), net of 9. However, it is now preferable to let opponent go out, with repay j4 24, tui 4+10, net of 10 instead. JJB's actual choice took a slightly wrong terne (15i 16), netting 8 after tui 4+4.
>GT: IU - +0 251
#note 0:32 [7:24] The previous challenge went so well GT tries challenging this terne; he too loses a terne. Instead of tui 4+4, he allows rin 12m 6+4, diff of 18.
>JJB: NR 5C ..R. +12 480
#note 0:26 [2:20] As the game drags on, JJB apparently misses tui and believes that he will still get two more turns (ternes or pirns). Rin ends the game with 10 points. Pirn 12, tui 4+2, is clever but 4 behind.
>GT: IU J10 .I +13 264
#note ~0:14 [~7:10] In turn, GT eschews tui 4+2 in favor of qi 13, nah 6+2, net of 1 less.
>JJB: N 3A N.. +6 486
#note 0:55 [1:25] JJB missed endgame optimality for three terns, but plays best at last.
>JJB: (U) +2 488
#note In an otherwise quiet game essentially won by JJB on cycling through heavy draws, a fascinating endgame (full of tuis, tern(e)s, and erns) offers each player two opportunities for unblockable outs in two, each rejected; in fact, each player made 3 out of 4 suboptimal endgame plays, though GT's mi/mas was a counterintuitively correct balance of points and leave. Points improvable based on tiles played: JJB 42, GT 59. Points improvable based on values: JJB 73.1.
|
