EdTrice:your start the red position with 60% winning! and the white is got 3 checkers block! if white move#6 3-7 and still can Draw.

EdTrice: thanks! thats was taught me a lot .. now to use it in my own game ;)

There is a pretty simple formula for 3 Kings to defeat 2 Kings in opposite double corners but it takes a bit of shuffling back and forth to line the 3 up properly. On IYT my opponent knew how to do it (I had the 2 Kings) but in the process of aligning he duplicated the same position 3 times and the site declared the game a draw. Unless someone knows a super fast way to do this I think it tilts the game unfairly.

This rule is totally wrong in checkers. You have to repeat a move everyonce in awhile to run the opponent out of moves. We should get up a petition of 2000 plus players signing it so management knows their is a problem. or flood the mail with individual protests. Jim Loy should be a big help with this problem.

Jumper2: The site owner Pat told me once he knows nothing about checkers. The original purpose of the rule was to prevent a player who was in a 1-1 mathmatical draw from refusing the draw offers and carrying the game on forever. You are right in that it is a bad rule when applied in other cases. If someone stubbornly refuses a cerain draw here Fencer will step in when notified and declare the game a draw.

EdTrice: It's an IYT rule. No checker fedration ever signed off on it.

EdTrice:
The English (EDA) introduced a 4 fold repetition rule in the early 1990's along with clarification of "making progress". But even 3 fold repetition is OK - with perfect play you NEVER need repeat a position - so you have a couple of chances to get it right - or do you want forever :)

EdTrice: I have come across it only 1 time where the 1 King was strategicaly placed on a border..not in double corner. The 2 Kings could never get the move.

EdTrice: Do you have two examples?

How often can 3 kings on 2 kings end in a draw? I've got a game right now with Stevie where I've got my 2 kings in opposite corners and he is unable to trap one.

But they have only just got to the oposite corners

Stevie: It takes a handful of moves to line up the three but there is lot of published play on how to do it.

http://www.h4ns.net/checkers/games/tp_endgames2.html

Yep, nothing to it.

Wh ydoes 'published play' have to come into account in every checker game? I've seen people lose sure wins because of human error or time out. Not everyone who plays online games consults a database of former games to determine if the game is a win or a loss. That would take the FUN out of playing,wouldn't it?

to EdTrice: Ed sorry, but your program is 30 days trial and non free

Six month ago I downloaded WCC(in text free gold edition) from oficial web, but working 30 days,and every day I readed 30, 29 , etc...

Ed sorry, I download today again and it is free

edit board feature?

oh...I thought you were talking about BrainKing.

really?

Please confine to checker discussion

As far as I can tell, nothing was discussed but checkers. Checkers moves, checkers endgames, checkers software, checkers positions. What's your problem Purple?

John Baker: Comments about "smart people" and "oh really" are the beginning of a flame war. That is my problem.

EdTrice: That is true so I left it but I just wanted it to stop there before something got started. There is always someone prepared to be insulted. Wouldn't most people just like to talk about checkers?

EdTrice: LOL> Let me re-phrase. Shouldn't people posting on this board have checker discussion as their agenda?

Tuesday: Got me there. Trice probably knows.

Things that are interest only to the two people talking and not to everyone else are better on a chat board. Not on a checker DB.

Thanks Tuesday

I hope to start a tournament called WONDERFUL WORLD OF CHECKERS aimed at players 2000+ please look in tournaments if you ars interested
Thank You

As a person who is somewhat immersed in the quest to learn more about checkers and as a person who considers himself to be a fairly logical thinker, I must admit that I have found recent discussion in this board to be of interest to me. I found the discussion to be amusing, entertaining, and all in the context of checkers. If there was intention to prevent hostility, that objective should have been made more obvious. Personally, I find discussing discussion to be boring and rarely useful. If an interjection is to be made, it should be clear, concise, and well placed.
I hope everyone has a great day and plays well in all their games.
~John

bristoljohn: That should be a real challenge. I hope you get lot's of players.

I edited out what I thought was a mild insult. If this continues I won't have much choice..you people are not talkig about checkers but about each other. Maybe the Boiler Room would be more fitting for this.

EdTrice: If I get tired of editing I will have to ban. Nothing about checkers will be touched as long as personal insults are not included.

EdTrice: That was pretty interesting.

http://www.h4ns.net/checkers/

Nomad is very knowledgeable about checkers and has agreed to help moderate here. Thanks again.

http://www.checkerworld.com/

Purple: Nice job of moderating. The discussion sure has improved over the last 2 months.

John Baker: You are welcome to contribute.

so much of a nice job....no-one has posted in over a month

Game #722777 between two of the premier checker players around..Nomad and George Miller. A great game to watch.

Purple: Two enormous talents. I'll check it out.