Missing the mark

[Alan Millhone]

Hello Everyone:

Been reading all the recent posts and have some thoughts of my own on adding players to our ranks. Obviously Checkers and the ACF is dwindling. In the beginning I felt the youth tournament sponsored by Mr. Niederhoffer would attract more young players. In Vegas he offered the top youth prize of $ 5,000.00 . That attracted a few more young players, but not that many more that usual.

In Tennessee Mr. Alex chatted with me about two internet players he knew that would attend but lacked the funds to attend, rent a room, meals,etc. So they did not attend. I feel this happens a lot. In Medina for our Nationals two young players came and had no money for a room for the week of our Nationals. The one player from Ohio was going to sleep in his van for the week in the hotel parking lot ! One of our players stepped forward and shared the room for the week with these two young men.

Rather than splitting hairs or women in checkers, youth in checkers, who should play together,etc.etc. all of which promotes absoutely nothing but hard feelings we should direct our energy and resources towards this goal:

Establish an ACF " slush fund " ...................... Now to define that for everyone.

On a " case by case " basis the ACF Executive committee or ? Is approached by an ACF Member or by a player themself ( not limited by the age of 21) who wants to attend say an ACF National tournament, but does not have the money to get there , or can get there and has no money for a room (several could share one room) or can get there and maybe can pay for a room but no money for meals,etc. You all get the idea

If a player wants to come and no money for gas a " moneygram" can be sent before they leave with enough money for gas to get them there and a little extra for a meal along the way. Will we be taken ? On rare occasion yes we will. Is that a good enough reason to abandon my idea ? Absolutely not ! My approach is an expansion of Wayne Gober's " dream young " proposal. Wayne, any comments to my idea ?

Money donated for this fund will be recorded. Monies will be expended as needed and as requested on a case by case basis. Criteria ? Carefully listen to each request, see what funding is available and go from there.

Currently we have no money in this "stimulus" account. Donations most welcome. If endorsed I will ask Dr. Beckwith to create a "button" on our ACF web site. All of your comments most welcome and am sure there will be discussion on my idea.

Mr. Alex you reading this ?

Also, on another note the ACF is a diverse organization that respects our youth, women and men of all walks of life, all levels of expertise, color of your skin, religion,etc. Let us strive to be one happy family and promote the game we all love to play.


Sincerely:
Alan Millhone, President
American Checker Federation
" LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND "

[Pedro Saavedra]

There is one additional way of increasing participation. There are many on-line (live and turn-based) players who do not attend crossboard tournaments for reasons other than financial. In many cases there are job or family obligation, and in others health reasons. Sometimes I feel the ACF should be called the ACCF (American Crossboard Checkers Association).

If ACF sponsored more Internet events, including titled events (state championships, international matches, national championships in different styles, placing as much emphasis on these as on crossboard titles (or at least some) it would get the loyalty and participation of many more players. Some will come to crossboard tournaments once in a while, and others will be contributing to the game and feel that their membership is worthwhile to checkers.

Pedro

[waynegober]

Alan,

I just noticed this thread and certainly think this is a noble effort in the right direction. I agree on the dead end arguments that just cause hard feelings. Personally have been in those too many times and intend on avoiding them like the plague . I think you and I discussed another idea which, to me, seems to have value.

Create an electronic version of the ACF bulletin and offer it free to anyone for 1 year via email. This will cost the ACF very little and may draw in some paying members after the free year. Also, offer this in addition to a regular membership. This electronic version could offer additional pages (no cost).

In agreement with Pedro on the internet promotion. I know it takes dedicated people withn time....... but we as an organization could do a better job of promoting things online..... This is an area where the young guns have expertise and I might suggest they could help the ACF on this !!!! Ok you guys who like to complain, step up to the plate .

Wayne

[rich beckwith]

There has long been a "Dream Young" fund on the ACF Store/Donations page for tournament travel for youth. (I guess the description excludes anyone over age 21 who needs travel existence, but any donors are welcome to specify "no age restriction" with their donation, if desired.)
When the Dream Young concept was introduced a few years ago, a few donations were received, so we do have some very limited funds already that haven't been tapped into.

ACF has offered in recent years a reduced-rate junior memebrships with e-bulletin. (On ACF Store/membership page)

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Mr. Alex you reading this ?

yes

[Irma Sierra]

Hola...

If the ACF organizes online tournaments for youth, what about if the prize is to take them to a real tournament?, this would be very encouraging for real online players and keep the big youth cheaters out of the contest ...very easy: YOU WIN, YOU COME

[jpost]

Josh brings up a point I'm about to make. This might be a radical idea for older players, but I think we should have a ACF-sanctioned 1/0 online tournament, both 3-move and GAYP. Have a new title for "U.S. 1/0 Online Champ, 3-move" and the same for GAYP, and host two tournaments to decide the winners.

What this will do is attract youth to the game (and the ACF) while keeping them in their roots of speed checkers. This is a good way to get them to perhaps venture away from 1/0 games and begin playing in tournaments when they realize the ACF is hosting events around them.

[jpost]

A lot of people don't have respect for 1/0 games, but regardless, we need to make concessions for younger players if we want to attract them to the game.

[waynegober]

I think perhaps I have reached the older player catagory . I consider 1/0 checkers to just be another form of checkers such as "mail play". I never cared for mail play personally, however, I never considered it a bad form of checkers either. I would play some 1/0 checkers myself and have tried a time or two. I dont have the physical capabilities to move the mouse fast enough. I also do not disrespect the 1/0 players (are they all young?). Some of them are wonderfully talented players. I would just love to see em get out to some tournaments. Others feel that way too, evidenced by the desire to have "slush funds" , "dream young" funds used for travel and accomadation expenses for the young players who can't afford to go to a tournament. The ACF has promoted various forms of checkers through the years besides 3 move. I view 1/0 or blitz as just another extension of it all.

But, we can't do it all right now. It's like asking a terminal patient in the hospital to work a 60 hour week. The ACF is on life support and must slowly rebuild in many areas. Without placing blame anywhere, we as a checker community must come together and help improve the status of the organization and the game. Now, you can rightfully say, "wayne what have you done". To which I answer, nothing except play and try encourage others to play. In part, I am like so many of you and others, I don't know what to do. One thing desperately needed in the ACF...... Alan and others have enough load already.... is an overall coordinator who can keep abreast of the areas of need and direct those wanting to help to the work that is needed to be done.
If that is a post already occupied by someone, I did not know and no personal attack is intended.

Too long a post
Wayne

[jaguar72]

Too long a post

No it wasn't. Excellent post.

V/R,

Gary Jenkins/jaguar72

[Jay H]

Wellllll...
If we could ever get the American news media to stop printing dribble such as this....



the game might get a little more respect from potential sponsors, and the public in general.

Regards

Jay H

[jaguar72]

Wellllll...if we could ever get the American news media to stop printing dribble such as this....the game might get a little more respect from potential sponsors, and the public in general.

Regards

Jay H

True.

But, yeah, well, it's the media, Jay. What did you expect?

What I really, really disliked were the media reports from a couple of years back that gleefully (and there is no other word for it) and quite condescendingly described checkers as being "solved" (because of Chinook) and went on to compare it to tic-tac-toe because checkers was, they said, completely predictable and because all games were a forced draw. Theoretically true, I guess, but practically it makes no difference at all and I remember thinking at the time (and I was not then a checker player) that it was a profoundly ignorant thing to say about checkers.

I remember reading that same story with a few variations in, oh, perhaps ten or fifteen different newspapers and magazines as well as online news and have also seen those thoughts expressed on various gaming websites.

The inference is, of course, since checkers is "solved" it's obviously not worth anyone's time or effort. People read this stuff and believe it.

I wish the (obviously) nonplayers who write this junk would take the time to learn something about the game and then play a game or two with a good player. After all, the game is "solved", right? How difficult could it be? Well, it would be a real experience for them, a real ego-buster.

Sigh. Tic-tac-toe? Sorry for the rant, but such ignorance makes me grind my teeth.

V/R,

Gary Jenkins/jaguar72

[liam stephens]

At the time of the “Checkers is solved” debate, I scribbled down the following remarks. Not sure if I ever showed them on here.

Now, after all the Hoo, Haa Haa, what have we learned?
That the game if played perfectly ends in a draw?

Well proof of that (if any proof were needed) was provided early in the last century by Gonotsky and Lieber, and was, no doubt, well known, if not proven, since the days of Anderson and Wyllie.

And now I read in other sources that Chinook has only weakly solved the game of Checkers (whatever that might mean - enough to make one go weak at the knees).


Forgive me, boys and girls, if I say that this saga brings irresistably to mind an old standard from Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess:

“It ain’t necessarily so.”

[jaguar72]

At the time of the “Checkers is solved” debate, I scribbled down the following remarks. Not sure if I ever showed them on here.

Now, after all the Hoo, Haa Haa, what have we learned?
That the game if played perfectly ends in a draw?

Exactly so, Liam.

And, as I'm sure you well know, World Champion Emanuel Lasker and many others made exactly the same observation about chess at least a hundred years ago.

Okay, so both games are finite. What real difference does it make?

I read somewhere that checkers has some 500 billion billion possible moves (I may not have that figure right but that's what I dimly remember; no matter, it's a beyond-belief number...). So there you have it: I'll just take a couple o' weeks and learn 'em all and then challenge Alex the next time around.

Simple, eh? Just like tic-tac-toe... .

V/R,

Gary Jenkins/jaguar72

[jaguar72]

I read somewhere that checkers has some 500 billion billion possible moves (I may not have that figure right but that's what I dimly remember; no matter, it's a beyond-belief number...). So there you have it: I'll just take a couple o' weeks and learn 'em all and then challenge Alex the next time around.

Apparently that 500 billion billion figure was more-or-less correct...um, maybe it'll actually take three weeks...besides, I gotta finish memorizing Lees' Guide first... .

Shouldn't be a problem.

V/R,

Gary jenkins/1972