sixth received

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Hello, everyone !

Today I had mailed a last portion of SIXTH to all buyers to the rest. It took in total 3 business days for me to fill out all orders - some from several months ago when people pre-paid, and some orders - most recent.

In general, people should start receiving the books at the middle-end of this week, and 99% of them should get mail by the end of next week.

Unfortunately 2 buyers from Croatia and Italy, countries where there is no "priority mai" service from USA, should get book in 4-6 weeks.

I am asking everyone now:

1. If you don't receive a book in the next 2-3 weeks, lets say - end of June - let me know. I have all receipts available.

2. If book was delivered, but some other bad things happened - destroy bounding etc - please, let me know immediately and I will replace it for you.

3. If you ordered a regular copy, but I sent you a bonus copy - keep it ! It is my fault, not yours.

4. If you ordered a bonus copy, but I sent you a regular copy - please, let me know immediately.

I want to thank again everyone who bought the book, and especially - people who pre-paid for the regular or bonus edition. I hope SIXTH will help you to improve your level and you have enjoyable time reading it !

I am almost empty with my cooks today, because most of them accumulated for 10 years I putted into my book. However, I am OK with this, because this will force me to work and study checkers to get a new ones on board.

Checkers is an ocean !

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[Gene Lindsay]

Alex, after going over Ed Trice's best play for both sides in this position you force a trade and have a winning position reached from McCulloch's Masterpiece, therefore this position is simply a difficult embryo of McCulloch's Masterpiece.

Gene Lindsay

[matthewkooshad]

therefore this position is simply a

You are quite the critic Gene, do you ever play checkers online? I would like to play you sometime.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

difficult embryo

Hmmm ... in this case we should probably call original 12x12 position as most difficult embryo of anything happened on the board !

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[Gene Lindsay]

To Matthewkooshed, No I don't play online but I would be happy to play you in person for any amout you would like (minimum of $500 in Miss. or $250 in TN).

To Alex, an embryo of a position, is a position that can be forced into that position, therefore your statement makes no sense.

I think the position is very nice and extemely difficult, it just hit me wrong to call a position that has occured only once(as far as I know) 7th position. Saying, in effect that it is as important to know as such positions as 1st thru 6th position. I can't find the book I read it in but I am sure it was Wiswell who gave the reasoning for the criteria of the numbered positions. I think it was Wiswell as well that said a position that can be forced into another position is simply an embryo of that position.

Alex, I am sorry if I offended you that was not my intention.



Gene Lindsay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

that was not my intention.

Nor mine, Gene !

I wasn't offended at all and my remark was quite humoristic I don't take this matter very serious. It was Ed Trice idea giving the number to position, and I didn't have much objections. When you get my book SIXTH you can see, that the words "7th position" are belong only to Ed Trice. Later Richard Beckwith started using it

Personally - I would like to give some number to "Eliminator Draw" man down ending, which happened in my game against William Docherty and also is covered in "6th"

However, perhaps you right, and we have to respect all our heritage and be more accurate and serious with such things as terminology and credits.

In other hands, Asa Long mentioned once, that position #3 never occured in his long career (neither mine in 10 years).

I partially disagree with Wiswell about embryos. "Forcing play" may have it's own value. Many positions and problems are forced into position #1 or #2, so ... should we call all of them embryos ?

Sincerely,

Alex

[Ingo_Zachos]

Derek Oldbury in his Encylopedia wrote that they stopped using numbers after 6 positions "...entirely unable to agree on suitable candidates for the 7th, 8th, etc., the numbering method broke down."

And it is good that it broke down.
Even 3rd position is not as frequent as for instance, some bridge family members, or patterson's drawbridge, so even these 5 or 6 are not the most important endgames.

In chess, the name of the composers of the endgame or the players that played it for the first time in master practice are used to identify the positions, so why not call it Moiseyev's 2004 win or draw etc.

In this way the great players of all times could be honoured, or those who composed a masterpiece.

Numbering is less appealing to me, as indeed some endings r related and the numbers with their stringent hierarchally order give illusive information as, for instance, position number four is not related to position number five.
So this discussion is to me like a storm in a glass of water!

Greetinx from Sunny Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[Patrick Parker]

storm in a glass of water...ive never heard that before

i like your idea about naming after those who play it
i think thats done to some degree now or the
person who makes a problem gives it a name or someone does

but i like having standard positions? the idea is appealing to
a student i think anyways ....i certainly have alot to learn from the first 6....i didnt know there was 6...so ive learned something already

[Gene Lindsay]

Pesonally, I think we should follow the heritage and traditions our forefathers have set fotrth in our grand ole game. Naming the position The Moiseyev-Beckwith Position and The Moiseyev-Docherty Eliminator Draw would be in keeping with this tradition. As for 3rd position I have had it a few times but only once that I can remember against a master player. 1st and 2nd position are definitly the most common, but I have had all 6 positions more than once as well as Roger's Draw, McCulloch's Masterpiece, Bowen's Twins, Strickland's Position and Peterson's Drawbridge. Recognizing these positions has also helped me avoid falling into the losing side of these positions that lose and being able to draw a few games with the ones that draw. For you young players Boland's Famous Positions is well worth having and it will pay dividends to go through it and digest each position in it. I have not gone through it in several years now myself and it would probably pay me to go back through it.

Gene Lindsay

[matthewkooshad]

No I don't play online but I would be happy to play you in person for any amout you would like (minimum of $500 in Miss. or $250 in TN).

You want me to pay you money for you to play me in checkers? I was going to let you play me for free. I hope when I am your age that I still have a free attitude toward younger players who want to play checkers. Email even allows us to play for free. I can call you too if you don't want to do it via the computer. Let me know

[Alex_Moiseyev]

$500 in Miss. or $250 in TN

Is it official currency course on Wall Street ?

Alex

[Gene Lindsay]

Matthewkooshad, what I was proposing was a stake match. I'll even give you 2 to 1 odds. My $1000 against your $500. As far as I am concerned playing online or by mail proves nothing except who has the best computer and programs, the only way to play checkers that means anything is in person. I know some of you computer guys will diagree, but that's my opinion and that's why I don't play on-line anymore. In person its harder to cheat and/or cuss a guy out for beating you, with him sitting across the board looking at you.


Gene Lindsay

[bazkitcase5]

Gene, I think you have misunderstood something along the way...

Matthew is a Minor level player who is practicing and trying to improve. He respects you as a master player and was basically just asking if you would like to play a game. He was not challenging you to some stake match, nor was he planning to use a computer to try and beat you.

If you do not play online, then thats one thing, but proposing a stake match against a younger, minor player who is simply wanting to play and learn against a master player is slightly out of line, in my opinion.

Infact, online can be a great way to practice. To get over your bitterness towards cheaters and bad attitudes, all you simply have to do is play only those who you know and trust. I know many tournaments players, including me, Jonathon Chappell, Alex Moiseyev, among many others who play at http://www.kurnik.org

I don't like playing against cheaters anymore than you do Gene thats why I only play people I know and by doing so, I generally get in some good practice games.

Clayton Nash

[matthewkooshad]

Thanks Clayton for the note. I understand your point of view too, Gene. I am just wanting to have fun games with people who I have seen play checkers before. I only like to play players that go to tournaments or I know will go to one some day. I don't like to play a game where I don't have confidence of what I am playing against.

I am considering your offer though, haha. You offering your money to me is good initiative for me to study to improve hehe.

[Patrick Parker]

2 to 1 money odds
ill take that offer
though not in the amout you offer not yet anyways

i got my copy of sixth today
it is best checker book i own