Linear Planning is the last of our important strategy skills that can be learned playing games. We may have dreams that seem unattainable, such as strong family relationships or financial security. Linear Planning can help by reducing a complex goal into a series of much smaller and more manageable steps. Tower of Hanoi Card Game is a two player game based on the puzzle of the same name, where nine cards are randomly dealt into three piles. The cards must be rearranged into order according to some simple rules. At first view it seems impossible to work out the game, until you use logic to consider the consequences of a move and break it down into smaller pieces. Instead of tackling the entire set of cards, try working with only two cards and get them into the right order. Using this approach my eleven year old son can now solve the game in less than ten minutes, although it has taken a lot of practise.
For a major twist on your classic business and real estate board game players are also invited to check out the Anti Monopoly game, the twist is that players will get to choose from free enterprise or working towards getting a monopoly of their properties. In addition, it gives you real life legal problems that you must overcome before you can become the winner of this game. In this process you will be able to decide whether or not your competitor is charging fair market values or is he a monopolist and wants to have all of the properties and charge huge fees.
In China, the game known as Xiangqi developed early on, although its first known actual literary reference was in the 9th Century. The King piece in this game is known as a General and the object of this game is to subdue the opponent’s General. The corresponding piece of the traditional Queen is known as an Advisor or a Guard, depending, and their sole purpose is to protect the General. They are stuck in a small space with this piece, unable to move beyond to battle. Other pieces involved with this game are Elephants, Horses, Chariots, and Soldiers, all of which figure greatly into other Chess-like games.
Having missed that chance, on move 37, Anand decided to liquidate into a drawn endgame when he exchanged the last pair of rooks. It was a tacit admission that he couldn’t see realistic chances of transforming his residual edge. In fact, he offered a draw. Carlsen opted to play on, but the position had fizzled out.
While Anand deserves praise for creating pressure with black, he didn’t quite play precisely enough to take it away. Carlsen deserves his share of kudos for defending brilliantly in a very difficult position, though he needs to re-examine his opening strategy that got him into a mess.
Christian Sánchez (Rosario, Argentina) wonders whether Assiac’s name was really ‘Heinrich L. Fraenkel’, as given by Jeremy Gaige in Chess Personalia (Jefferson, 1987), or whether there was a mix-up with Dr H.L. Frankel. Our correspondent notes the discussion of Fraenkel/Frankel in C.N.s 3244 and 3385 (see pages 205-206 of Chess Facts and Fables).