Ryan Pronks Annoying Message

[mday]

ACF ratings are a lot more established than WCDF ratings. WCDF are still too provisional. Canning's games in 2005 WQ are played like a 1700.

[Patrick Parker]

wcdf ratings are about as accurate as a ww2 bomb


i didnt introduce that idea tommyc........u did.......i was just tired of you hinting at it........and asked if thats what ur speakin at......

looks like though you still cant say whether or not that is .........

hes not a goose but a yellow chicken ....my bad ......its not speed but
lead paint hes been eating

[Bob Murr]

In reply to Ed's original post, Ryan Pronk is the current American 3 move youth champion (also the AZ state champion). I first met Ryan several years ago and he has always been a true gentleman and shows proper respect for everyone. I can't imagine Ryan ever doing what you describe. I am deeply troubled by what this has brought about with all of the name calling, etc. Ryan certainly does not deserve the black eye resulting from all of this. Ryan is a very knowledgeable player and has no need to ever cheat nor would this even be a possibility.

[Patrick Parker]

yeah bob......seems like the least likely person to cheat was accused

[tommyc]

Im truely amazed that Patrick Parker was the one to bring the "cheating allegation" into the conversation?? and i cant see why.

As for the Ed Trice thing which was a despicable thing to do.........you better take that up w/ that gentleman .

[Ingo_Zachos]

STOP IT!

It was a mistake, that some believed Ryan Pronk was accused of cheating.

Fact is:
Someone obviously misused his name to "challenge" Ed Trice.
Ryan has clarified that. Period.

Nor do I like that level of your discussion.
I "met" Ryan at kurnik, and my impression was good.
He was polite, interested in checkers and he has a very good understanding of the game, I can only hope to get a small share of. His results already mark him as a strong player, and if he confirms the Tennessee result, he will soon rise in both ACF and WCDF ratings, no question about that.

I also met (and played and analyzed whole nights!) with Tommy (and Shane) in Prague, and my impression was also very favourable.
Like me he began playing at an advance age and his understanding of the game is obviously better then his results over the board. In Prague he was handicapped by the fact that he did not feel well with his eyes and that he did a great job in coaching Shane McCosker, altough Shane did "only" took third place in the juniors.
Actually, he played the Men's Qualifier "en passant" , just because Igor asked him to do this favour, as Ireland would have no representative without him.
He knows that others play better across the board, but if you give him a chance he will grab it, as Richard Beckwith may tell you.

I remember that the Inferno 1. 9-13 22-18, 2. 10-14 was what concerned him most in Prague, and I still wonder what his final verdict is...

Concerning the ratings:
1. Canning, Tommy or Thomas appears twice on the ACF list, once with 1791, and also on 2055.
This is a caused, as I believe, by the fact that it is hard to identify a player sometimes, and that goes for both the ACF and WCDF rating, as we calculate events we did not play in, and have to rely sometimes on the correct spelling of the names on the crosstables that were sent to us.

If any rating would be as accurate as a WW II bomb, I would be happy, as these boms won a war, remember ?
At least we in Germany remember.

Once more, for all to read:

Rating does only reflect reported results, not understanding of or quality in your games.

These r features of a player, that can not be measured, in contrast to results that end in a win, a loss or a draw.

Do not overestimate any rating, it was thought as a tool to determine the title holders, or maybe, to help to nominate teams for international events or to qualify a player for the respective section in a ty.

But even here, one has to see that factors like age and prospects for the future r maybe even more important...

Also a player can be badly underrated as for instance John Estes in the WCDF rating or overrated as Joseph Margolin in the ACF rating.
This is because he had a longer break, or did not play against masters that much before, or that we simply "missed" a result that was not sent to us. For instance we have no results from Barbados ty's since 2004, with the exception of the King-Francis match.

So, if we could plz forget and forgive about this useless and redundant topic and can we turn our attention to the goal of playing checkers/draughts or to promote the game ?

Greetinx from sunny, but cold Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Ingo, does WCDF rating formula counts each individual game or the whole round ? If each game - than I know what is wrong and can be improve.

Concerning this topic I can say - I like it. It's done in spirit of old BBS forum - "storm in glass of water" or "too much for nothing"

On my part I tried to say something about checkers - posted and annotated game, but it was ignored so solidly by everyone I'll try one more time.

Red to move


Ryan played here 1-6? and lost. Why ? Because white can take control of square 23 immediately and stop 14-18, as I did in the game. Lets think white mans 25 & 26 are on the square 29 & 30. In this case 1-6 would be the best move giving red some edge,

So, the point is, that red can build temporairly this formation: 6,9,10,14 but should play immediately 14-18. If white can stop 14-18 - than red should prevent this. In fact - when I played later 23-19, I opened gates again for red allowing them to play 14-18 and this missed a win.

See diagram below. Never do this again !



Sorry for off topic. I hope moderator forgive me and do not ban for this.

Sincerely,

Alex

[Patrick Parker]

tommyc u made it sound like u were saying he was cheating

No i have nothing against Ryan. As you are aware he has a laptop computer .......why mention the fact the he has a laptop?
over and over ..........

and mention that he was with alex........and what does that mean?

[tommyc]

Middle diagram....From Alexs 1st posting@note (B) 25-22 11. 4-8 22-17 12. 6-10??

But instead of the 610? block-up 1418* looks to put white into a weak ending!! tho it still seems to draw ok.This looks the better way for red now forcing white to find the draw!!.

Either way its not easy beating the Champ.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

1418* looks to put white into a weak ending!!

Tommy,

I agree that 14-18 is much better than 6-10, but I disagree that ending after this move is weak for white. Position after 14-18 seems an even to me However, after 14-18 the position is still playable and can you beleive or not - but white still has some chances.

Just my opinion only. During the game I was thinking seriously about 26-22 trade after 14-18 to eliminate this powerful man.

Alex

[tommyc]

My words come true..................

"Either way its not easy beating the Champ"

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I still don't understand - where red has any reasonable advantage here (see diagram below) ?

Tommy, Ryan and others ... just trust me - there is alot of play here after 14-18 and both sides have chances to screw things.

I saw all this development when trade three-for-three and didn't see any "red signs" for white. Red has some pressure on center squares here, but white may trap red pieces and potentially even build formation: 28, 24, 19, 20 if red doesn't play 14-18. If red plays 14-18, trap may occur on the higher horizontal row


White to move.