3- Move tough deck ?

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Gene / Mac,

77 is a good and realistic number ! I had agreement with Lisle Carmier about 78 - half deck ! To make "card system" easy for random drawing procedure, we should have 75 or 80

[Gene Lindsay]

Alex, I was thinking 80. It would be easy to make 8 cards of 10 or 10 cards of 8. However 78 would work as well 13 cards of 6 like our old 3-move deck except smaller.
Do you like Pask's evaluation? What would you change?

Gene Lindsay

[Mr. Checkers]

I am going to bring a little "Checker Trivia" over here for discussion. Years ago the opposite side of the 2-Move and 3-Move cards was used for either advertising or for displaying checker problems. Since this is a new venture I am going to suggest that the ACF sell the opposite side of each card to investors that would like to put their advertising on them. I will donate $25 for the advertising space on one card, so if you have 78 cards then all you need is 77 more sponsors to advertise. Advertising of course would be appropriate and checker related as much as possible. We would be advertising our museum on our card. This is food for thought.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

80 sounds as a good number for me But there should be 20 cards, each has number on it from 1 through 4, and each card has 4 openings. In step #1 you randomly pick number (1-4), and in step number two - opening.

Gene, I came across Richard Pask evaluation. There are few openings in question, which seem as uneven to me ...

9-13 23-18 12-16
9-13 24-19 11-15
10-15 21-17 11-16
11-15 23-18 15-19

In total - 81 (!)

Mac / Gene, what do you think ?

In other hands, if you tell me to cut 10 more, I can do this easy

Alex

Alex

[Macb]

Hello Alex. & Gene,

I think that we should agree on the total number of openings or we will never get through with this process. 80 has been recommended and I support that number as it is an even number that can be transmitted to cards without much trouble. Once, we agree on the number of openings , then it will be an easy process to determine which openings should be included. Lets start with 80 if that is the number all agree to. I submitted a list of 61, Pask has a list, and Alex, you threw in a few so lets add all these up and see what we have and then reduce to the agreeable number.

[rich beckwith]

Before we get to deep into this....please note that a tough deck was already created for use for the 2004 National with the 12 new openings already included. (Hallett and I drew the Black Hole with it after we split our Octopus games.)

Unfortunately I don't know how many openings are in the deck (maybe 78?), but Al Darrow said he is sending me what he used.

[Macb]

Hello Rich,

An easy solution is to use what we have. Why re invent the wheel? I am for using what we already have. More new cards need to be made, however, so all can purchase them if they want to. Thanks, Rich for reminding us that a deck already exist that is adequate.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

use what we have

We don't have anything ! The one Richard mentioned ... they took a standard ACF tough deck and wrote manually on some cards 3rd opening (some cards had 2 openings listed on it, some - 3)

========================================================

Why not doing it properly and follow committee recomendation ? I am not in favor 96 openings.

Alex

[Gene Lindsay]

Richard, your point is well taken, that is why I suggested we use what we have now for this year's ty and put a lot of thought into which openings we eliminate. Alex is probably right the tough deck we used last time probably had close to 100 openings in it. In Dallas the last ty Tinsley attended, he remarked (after drawing a tough deck opening) that the tough deck needed to be re-evaluated. He said there were a few openings that were to easy to draw, to be in the tough deck. Also Alex, I do not think that 10-15, 21-17, 11-16 is in the tough deck that we have now nor do I think it should be. I do agree on 9-13, 23-18, 12-16 and I'll have to think about the other 2 (maybe?) On 12-16, 21-17, 9-14 it may be considered even, (I personally consider white best) I think it will produce more wins than any of the 4 you mentioned.

Gene Lindsay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

produce more wins

English question ... What does it mean "tough" - weak/critical opening or just level of complexity and scope ?

12-16 21-17 9-14 is extremely complicated confusing opening, thats why you have many wins here on both sides, but is is even.

I can also give you several more even openings at the highest complexity and scope.

[we can drop 10-15 21-17 11-16, no problems, but I disagree with Paul Devis, Elbert Lowder, Richard Pask and whover else thinks this opening is even]

for 11-15 23-18 15-19 opening see position on the cover page of SIXTH on the ACF website front page and my game #20 with Ron King from WCM 2003.

Alex

[Gene Lindsay]

Alex, I have a "tough" time with it from both sides (he,he). That's fine we can drop it, I don't like to play it anyway. If we then drop 10-15, 21-17, 11-16 and use your other 3 that gives us 80. This is agreeable to me.

Gene Lindsay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

From "Solid Checkers" + new openings + ACF forum ... here what we've got:

9-13 ballots

01) 9-13 22-18 6-9
02) 9-13 22-18 10-14
03) 9-13 22-18 10-15
04) 9-13 22-18 11-15
05) 9-13 22-18 11-16
06) 9-13 22-18 12-16
07) 9-13 23-18 6-9
08 ) 9-13 23-18 10-15
09) 9-13 23-18 11-15
10) 9-13 23-18 11-16
11) 9-13 23-18 12-16
12) 9-13 23-19 6-9
13) 9-13 23-19 10-15
14) 9-13 24-19 5-9
15) 9-13 24-19 6-9
16) 9-13 24-19 10-14
17) 9-13 24-19 11-15
18 ) 9-13 24-19 11-16
19) 9-13 24-20 5-9
20) 9-13 24-20 6-9
21) 9-13 24-20 10-14
22) 9-13 24-20 11-16

9-14 ballots

23) 9-14 22-17 5-9
24) 9-14 22-17 6-9
25) 9-14 22-18 10-15
26) 9-14 22-18 11-15
27) 9-14 22-18 11-16
28 ) 9-14 23-18 14-23
29) 9-14 23-19 14-18
30) 9-14 24-19 11-16
31) 9-14 24-20 10-15

10-14 ballots

32) 10-14 22-17 9-13
33) 10-14 22-17 11-15
34) 10-14 22-17 11-16
35) 10-14 22-17 14-18
36) 10-14 22-18 6-10
37) 10-14 22-18 7-10
38 ) 10-14 22-18 12-16
39) 10-14 23-18 14-23
40) 10-14 23-19 6-10
41) 10-14 23-19 7-10
42) 10-14 23-19 11-15
43) 10-14 24-19 6-10
44) 10-14 24-19 7-10
45) 10-14 24-19 11-16
46) 10-14 24-19 14-18
47) 10-14 24-20 7-10
48 ) 10-14 24-20 14-18

10-15 ballots

49) 10-15 21-17 6-10
50) 10-15 21-17 7-10
51) 10-15 21-17 9-13
52) 10-15 21-17 15-18
53) 10-15 22-17 6-10
54) 10-15 22-17 7-10
55) 10-15 22-17 9-13
56) 10-15 22-17 15-19
57) 10-15 23-18 6-10
58 ) 10-15 23-18 9-14
59) 10-15 23-18 11-16
60) 10-15 23-19 11-16

11-15 ballots

61) 11-15 21-17 9-13
62) 11-15 21-17 15-19
63) 11-15 23-18 15-19
64) 11-15 23-18 12-16
65) 11-15 24-19 15-24
66) 11-15 24-20 12-16

11-16 ballots

67) 11-16 21-17 7-11
68 ) 11-16 21-17 8-11
69) 11-16 22-17 7-11
70) 11-16 22-17 9-13
71) 11-16 22-18 7-11
72) 11-16 22-18 16-19
73) 11-16 23-18 7-11
74) 11-16 23-19 16-23
75) 11-16 24-19 7-11
76) 11-16 24-20 7-11

12-16 ballots

77) 12-16 21-17 16-19
78 ) 12-16 22-18 16-19
79) 12-16 24-20 8-12
80) 12-16 24-20 10-15

=========================================

I like this tough deck !!!

Gene / Mac, your turn now. What do you think ? I will post openings from existing ACF deck, which are not on this list later ... and we'll see - what we are really missing

Alex

[Alex_Moiseyev]

From my personal, not full, ACF tough deck, I was able to locate 14 from 16 openings, which are part of old ACF tough deck, but will not be on new deck (if we choose it)

01) 9-13 21-17 5-9
02) 9-13 24-20 10-15

03) 9-14 23-19 11-16

04) 10-14 24-20 11-15

05) 10-15 24-20 6-10

06) 11-15 22-17 15-18
07) 11-15 23-18 9-14
08 ) 11-15 23-18 10-14

09) 11-16 21-17 16-20
10) 11-16 23-18 8-11
11) 11-16 23-18 10-14

12) 12-16 21-17 9-14
13) 12-16 21-17 16-20
14) 12-16 23-18 16-19

[Macb]

Hello Gene & Alex.
I have reviewed the list of 80 openings and I would only recommend one change. I would add 12-16 21-17 9-14 and drop 12-16 24-20 8-12. 12-16 21-17 9-14 is an opening that can lead to wins on either side and their is a lot of play on this opening that has not been shown to date in National tournies. George Miller put out an entire manual on this opening and players with computers are still losing games on it. I think 80 openings should be the max as recommended.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Mac, I accept your correction.

Someone may have objections regards this opening (12-16 21-17 9-14), but I was in lost in this opening against Ron King (WCM 2003, G27) and can't say - it's easy

Everything sounds good for me.

The next step will be - develop cards.

Alex