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

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?

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

Please confine to checker discussion

Yep, nothing to it.

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

EdTrice: Do you have two examples?

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

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.

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.

EdTrice: Very interesting.

Tried that with Trice. I opened with the Rattlesnake and he changed his move from the agreed openning. His program did the rest.

Try Feature Request which Fencer reads.

Caraheiro is banned

Yep

Kiss of death. :)

Very reasonable. Most people on BK play 64 game matches. LOL

I suppose if you can't shut people up on the checker board the next best thing is to shut them up on the discussion board. By default this makes Ustica the winner.

A game of checkers with Ustica

But Ustica is a credible opponent and it is not a frivolous challenge he makes. Playing within the BK framework..each man to his own devices..the match would be highly interesting. I can not think of a valid reason to avoid it.

I don't think Ed can beat Ustica.

A lot of people including myself have beaten Chinook (it took me over 100 tries) and since it imposes a 4 min time limit per move it is unlikely those folks are using a program against it as it would allow no "deep study" time. Chinook apparently self corrects too because the same line won't work twice. It is sad a draw is a loss there because that pads Chinooks stats. Ed I'm sure many of your opponents betray their amaturism within a few moves and I assume you would put away your hardware at that point..or their won/loss record is so mediocre you don't consider them a threat. Allowing of course for a possible sandbag.

There is a lot of arguement over what is "cheating" there. I think it is the same rules for checkers. The question being debated is under what circumstances (if any) is the use of a program ethical? My opinion is that it is permissable if your opponent is informed BEFORE the game starts and is also using a program. Then it becomes a mine against yours type of thing. It is also OK IMO to analyze completed games. What is not acceptable is using one against an opponent who is not without their knowledge. There is a down side in any case..if you once use a program you can NEVER win another game that does not raise the cloud of suspicion..even if you stop using one. I have webtv and could not if I wanted to but I have always been fascinated by what programs can do. I recognize Trice as an accepted authority on the subject.

Checkers related subjects should be all that is discussed on this board for everyone..including myself. From this point on it will be. PM's and other boards can be used for other stuff.

Also Slam is a friend and without him there would have never been a Kam for me.

Thanks for the post Mike but I am not sure the checkers DB is the best forum.

Thanks. Wish some genius could come up with a way to make it webtv compatible.

In explaining third position Jim Loy says that repetitive moves (to try to trap) do not result in draw. On most of these internet sites they indeed do.

The move ends when you get the King.

With webtv I have no computer. Also 50 losses means it must be a lousey one. LOL

At the risk of being a Plonker I must agree with you APolaris.

By some quirk I am now #10 on the checker ladder and the only top player with a challenge open is Raymond Faircloth. He looks way too good. Congrats to Esperanza who recently took a huge ladder jump by making Purple blue. LOL

Fencer might put it on his feature request list. Tell him it's Canadian checkers. :)

Just screen your opponents but the site won't let you pass up a must jump.

Rule dates back to 19th century.

A couple of years back there were people who declined draws in a 1/1 game in opposite double corners. They could drag them on for just spite. You had to write to the site to get the game declared a draw. Then they adjusted their computer so that the machine automatically called 3 consecitive same moves a draw. Now you have to write to have the game go on and both parties have to agree to it. Big pain.

Darn right. On IYT was manuevering waiting for my opponent to make a mistake an I got slammed by the draw rule. No draw had been offered by either of us. The game was 4/4 even so there was a lot of checkers left.

Plonkers does not sound good whatever it means. :)

Clint Olsen is awesome for a young guy. Master of the Smother. I got a draw first time I played him and never won another except when he timed out wit a winning board.

There are some people who cut their teeth on the internet and then started playing competively in Las Vegas where it is over the board. Michael Heckert was so good that everyone accused him of programming when he was not and he got really stressed about it and quit playing for awhile. But he went to Las Vegas and won some youth division or something and proved everybody was wrong. Mainly we have to take people's word for things or just not play them.

If he forwarned opponents before games or the games were unrated or he was playing againt an admitted programmer I do not think it would be cheating. Very hard to prove anyway.

Perez is me or Perez is programming?

Many times tournament players on IYT have known each other for years and both know the other is using a program. That is not cheating. There was a great guy named Richard Fortman who said "bring on your program" even though he didn't use one himself. Did pretty darn good but he had 90 years experience. LOL

Especially by people of the feminine persuasion. But the alarm bells go off when a mediocre player becomes a world beater overnight. Again, no names.

I don't know Whitey or Jess. My name there is Purple. Just because someone has a program doesnt mean they always use it.

If APolaris is Perez he is a pretty good player. Number 14 on IYT ladder and looking at the one's ahead of him they are 90% programmers.

The name Anthony Perez is well known in the checkers community. We are close on the IYT checker ladder as I went from 40 to 15 after beating Manbear. I won't last there long as I am losing to Esperanza.

I hope the games (if they are played) will not be private games so we checker fans can follow the moves.

When I play Chinook the return moves are instantaneous. This is all second hand knowlege but I understand that when you play against Nemesis as long a you make book moves it is very quick. If you go off book the program evaluates your moves and gives the operator a choice of replies and assigns each one a value which takes a bit longer. You can put the Nemesis on "deep study" in which it can take a lot of time or accept a move which is the result of a quick study. I have no doubt Ed's program is more state of the art and high tech. I believe he has said that the operator does make a differance, everything else being equal.