I think, that even with the present rules there is still the possibility to draw if both players are equal in pieces and none of them want to attack (or to make a senseless attack). If one of the players has an advantage in material after the middle game, he should IMHO win. It means: There would be probably more draws with the Alfonso's rules. There is a lot of draws in chess or checkers - so what? Playes who can't or don't want to see a draw and want to play forever to make their opponent tired are not worth playing with. :-)

I don't know exactly which move (number) are we talking about. I tried to explain how I understand the rules.

Let's say, that there is

(a) a black piece on c1, white on c2 and nothing on c3 = black can't jump, because he can't move backward at the beginnig of his move...

(b) a black piece on a1, white pieces on b1 and c2, and c1 and c3 are empty = black can/must jump from a1 to c1 and because he's already moving, he must jump further to c3.

Piece on last row can't move except horizontal jump is correct.
Piece on last row can jump backwards too, but only in a multiple jump where the first capture must be horizontal.

Yesterday I played several games following the Alfonso's rules with my chess partner and I'd say, they are much more equal and challenging then Bell's rules. I'd strongly suggest to either switch completely to them or at least really make two variants, "Bell's Alquerque" and "Alfonso's Alquerque".

NM: I agree that two variants, "Bell's Alquerque" and "Alfonso's Alquerque", would be probably the best solution. The question is whether Fencer agrees too... :-)

Hrqls: Without c2-c3 will the White presumably lose. -- To be honest, I think the game is by far not as good as it seems.

Stevie2: Sure. :-)

But you are obviously not from Portugal, you are stating you are from GB. Will I be accused from racism againgst the Britons (or am I off topic and will be deleted again?) if I'll point to your finished games? There is a lot of resigns after about 4 moves. I'm quite sure it's only for fun and not to manipulate the ratings, correct? Dear Stevie2, if I'd see such "fair" behavior by the Czechs, by the Americans, by the Martians, I'd mention it -- and I presume nobody (maybe besides of the subjects) would accuse me to be a racist.

1. c2-c3 c4-c2
2. c1-c3 e3-c1
3. c3-e3

Until here are all moves (besides c2-c3) forced. What now? (Only "Alfonso rules", f**k the Bell :-))

Hm, but I'm affraid that as long as there is a forced jump -- and it has to be there, without forced capture the game (all variants of checkers) hasn't any sence -- the White will have a quite big advantage after c2-c3. Let's play (rather analyze together) a postal game without the Bell rules. Actually we can do it here all together, without really to play a game.

We can play (many) unrated games to try to find some solution. After my second or third game I sat down with pen and paper and went through all openings and several moves -- I didn't find any defence (against proper play) and I'd really like to find it, because the damned opening is killing the game. (On the other hand, if we'd find one path to draw or win with Black against c2-c3, would it make the game equal?)

Nuno Miguel: I don't know or I don't know very well the games you mention (pente, spider lines, chess variant etc.), so I can't say anything about them. If I would, I'd most probably write something similar as here.

If somebody or better let's say, if you would put two invitations to alquerqe, for White and for Black, I'd of course pick the game as White, no doubt. :-) I can only repeat, that IMHO the best way to play this game is one two games match (NOT two games with switched colors).

Did I really played with 3:5 ratio? Funny, I'll check who invited whom (besides of tournaments). Btw, as I started to play alquerqe, I thought it's better to play with Black. Then I found the "unbeatable" c2-c3 opening...

About the Alfonso rules: I'm not really sure, but I think that without the Bell rules there could be much more draws. With them a draw is nearly impossible. Not with the c2-c3 opening (White has +2 pieces, why should he draw), so maybe only with the other openings if the situation is equal and the White don't want to attack.

No, of course not, why for God's sake should I? Btw, I wouldn't say "I'm always attacking them".

Hi Andre, sure I wrote this after I saw your invitation yesterday. But I didn't mentioned it if I didn't saw two or three invitations (to play Black) from (I think) Nuno Miguel in the past days. Don't take it personally, I really don't mean it so. I don't complain, I'm only laughing about something what I'd call "a bait". :-) (In my humble opinion somebody who played the game several times and don't think it has even chances for both players should offer only the two games matches.) And you are of course right that nobody is forced to accept.

Sorry, if I offended you, I don't wanted to.

I can see quite often open invitations to alquerque by the strong players. They offer only games, where they play White. This is what I'd call "the real sportsmanship". :-)

I'd say the statistic says nothing. It's a statistic from many "I'd like to try this one too" games. After I started to play alquerque I thought that it's an advantage to play Black. Definitely not! I suppose we all agree that Black can be glad if he/she can draw...