Have a Wetpaint account? Sign in
The Medcalf Defense
Consider the following ending to an Achilles Defense:
1.k8 2.g9 3.g5
Black chose to switch to a Beam Defense in the end (3.g5) because if he had continued the Achilles Defense (3.h5), White could have continued it also, in his favor (4.d6).
So what can White do in this situation? None of the standard attacks on a Beam Defense work here.
Hammer attacks (4.g7 or 4.h7) don't work:
(Of course, depending on what pegs exist to the right, this might actually work for White, but let us say for the purposes of illustrating the Medcalf Defense, that the pattern of pegs on the right is favorable to Black.)
Skirting around it (4.g4 5.h3 6.f6 7.f4) doesn't work:
And finally, tilting past it (4.j6 5.i9) doesn't work:
(Note Black's double threat here: h7 or g10.)
Rather than a typical attack on the Beam Defense, a double threat must be created.
Double Threat, 1st Attempt: 4.e8 might work in some contexts, but here it doesn't, because the same 5.i9 from the previous picture is such a potent threat:
Although white can block at peg h7, black can counter with j6.
Double Threat, 2nd Attempt: 4.e10 threatens 6.e5 or 6.j6, but the double threat is too localized, and can be neutralized easily with something like 5.i4 or 5.h7:
Now if White attempts e5, the link on g5 makes it safe to go around e5 with a beam setup (c5).
So, none of the typical attacks work. Time to try the Medcalf Defense.
The Medcalf Defense is:
This appears, at first glance, to be a dumb move. Locally, a Mesh Defense below a Cardinal Line leads to a losing Ladder Chase:
But in reality, White has just led black into a double threat:
Now White has a pair of viable threats, c9 or j6, and the winning position.
Of course, the effectiveness of this position depends on White's ability to connect the e10-g9 group to the bottom side of the board. Some supporting white pegs are necessary. Peter Eirich (left in photo) did not have enough supporting pegs for this defense to work in the Twixt championship game at the 2006 World Boardgaming Championships (WBC) and lost to David J. Bush (right in photo). Also, this defense can be countered if it is executed too far away from the edge of the board, as illustrated in pete99 vs György Csizmadia.
There are too many variations to address in this space. Sometimes this defense is successful and sometimes not, depending on the surrounding pegs, as illustrated by these examples of the Medcalf Defense in actual games:
pete99 vs nie_wiesz
pete99 vs passenger
Alan Hensel vs Klaus Hußmanns
Alan Hensel vs Tim
Axel Wehrenberg vs pete99
Axel Wehrenberg vs pete99
Axel Wehrenberg vs pete99
Axel Wehrenberg vs pete99
pete99 vs Axel Wehrenberg
David J Bush vs Kd Hoffmann
This defense is named after Steven Medcalf, who discovered it in January 2006 after observing a Twixt game between Klaus Hußmanns and Peter Eirich, which Peter might have won, had he known the pattern. Thanks to Klaus Hußmanns for alerting me to this pattern, and to Peter Eirich for exploring it and explaining its origins to me.
Article contributed by Alan Hensel.
1.k8 2.g9 3.g5
Black chose to switch to a Beam Defense in the end (3.g5) because if he had continued the Achilles Defense (3.h5), White could have continued it also, in his favor (4.d6).
So what can White do in this situation? None of the standard attacks on a Beam Defense work here.
Hammer attacks (4.g7 or 4.h7) don't work:
(Of course, depending on what pegs exist to the right, this might actually work for White, but let us say for the purposes of illustrating the Medcalf Defense, that the pattern of pegs on the right is favorable to Black.)
Skirting around it (4.g4 5.h3 6.f6 7.f4) doesn't work:
And finally, tilting past it (4.j6 5.i9) doesn't work:
(Note Black's double threat here: h7 or g10.)
Rather than a typical attack on the Beam Defense, a double threat must be created.
Double Threat, 1st Attempt: 4.e8 might work in some contexts, but here it doesn't, because the same 5.i9 from the previous picture is such a potent threat:
Although white can block at peg h7, black can counter with j6.
Double Threat, 2nd Attempt: 4.e10 threatens 6.e5 or 6.j6, but the double threat is too localized, and can be neutralized easily with something like 5.i4 or 5.h7:
Now if White attempts e5, the link on g5 makes it safe to go around e5 with a beam setup (c5).
So, none of the typical attacks work. Time to try the Medcalf Defense.
The Medcalf Defense is:
This appears, at first glance, to be a dumb move. Locally, a Mesh Defense below a Cardinal Line leads to a losing Ladder Chase:
But in reality, White has just led black into a double threat:
Now White has a pair of viable threats, c9 or j6, and the winning position.
Of course, the effectiveness of this position depends on White's ability to connect the e10-g9 group to the bottom side of the board. Some supporting white pegs are necessary. Peter Eirich (left in photo) did not have enough supporting pegs for this defense to work in the Twixt championship game at the 2006 World Boardgaming Championships (WBC) and lost to David J. Bush (right in photo). Also, this defense can be countered if it is executed too far away from the edge of the board, as illustrated in pete99 vs György Csizmadia.
There are too many variations to address in this space. Sometimes this defense is successful and sometimes not, depending on the surrounding pegs, as illustrated by these examples of the Medcalf Defense in actual games:
pete99 vs nie_wiesz
pete99 vs passenger
Alan Hensel vs Klaus Hußmanns
Alan Hensel vs Tim
Axel Wehrenberg vs pete99
Axel Wehrenberg vs pete99
Axel Wehrenberg vs pete99
Axel Wehrenberg vs pete99
pete99 vs Axel Wehrenberg
David J Bush vs Kd Hoffmann
This defense is named after Steven Medcalf, who discovered it in January 2006 after observing a Twixt game between Klaus Hußmanns and Peter Eirich, which Peter might have won, had he known the pattern. Thanks to Klaus Hußmanns for alerting me to this pattern, and to Peter Eirich for exploring it and explaining its origins to me.
Article contributed by Alan Hensel.
Kd_Hoffmann |
Latest page update: made by Kd_Hoffmann
, Jan 27 2007, 6:00 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Added one match
- Kd_Hoffmann
6 words added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
