Dear Chee, Basic Checkers was published before Solid Checkers, and of course Richard Pask used Fortman's epos as his major reference.
So, yes, Solid Checkers corrects quite a few BC lines, and gives some other lines, but you won't find an improvement on SC in BC.
Richard Pask is a scientific worker, and those profit from the labour of their predecessors.
Note:
Always do a source analysis.
Get the years of publication and if available, the reference list.
Checkers is a scientific game, and so the latest source profits from the older ones.
Basic checkers vs Solid checkers
-
Ingo_Zachos
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:41 am
- Location: Dortmund, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Basic checkers vs Solid checkers
You can rent this space for advertising, if you like!
-
Alex_Moiseyev
- Posts: 4358
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: .....
Re: Basic checkers vs Solid checkers
Yes.Chee Xiong wrote:Can you go without Basic checkers?
Yes.Chee Xiong wrote:does Basic checkers still have something to offer that you won't get from Solid checkers?
You din't ask one more question: Can you go without Basic Checkers and Solid Checkers ?
Answer still will be - Yes. You can study it from program opening book.
Choice of source depends on your personality. I am using all 3 of them - Basic Checkers, Solid Checkers and opening books.
I am playing checkers, not chess.
-
john reade
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:50 pm
Re: Basic checkers vs Solid checkers
Ingo,
Have you fixed dates for the Korbach Tournament 2011 yet?
John.
Have you fixed dates for the Korbach Tournament 2011 yet?
John.
-
Richard Pask
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:15 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: Much!
Re: Basic checkers vs Solid checkers
Firstly, Basic Checkers. Like many wonderful things in life, it has its flaws. That said, it is a far greater work than Solid Checkers - for one thing, it came first -, and has the advantage of having been written by the game's number one annotator.
Other, less prolific but nonetheless insightful and first-class, annotators in my view include: Samuel Gonotsky, Samuel Levy, Nathan Rubin, Marion Tinsley (obviously) and Maurice Chamblee. (Not an exhaustive list!)
I did not intend Solid Checkers to be an update of Basic Checkers - I referenced hundreds of books other than Basic Checkers in its production -, but I suppose it's inevitable that it tended to be viewed as such. It's flattering that it's included in discussions alongside RLF's opus. (RLF often told me he hoped to produce a second edition of the 9-13s and 9-14s.)
In my view, 21st CC, 9-13s is far superior to Solid Checkers, 9-13s - no comparison: 1) It incorporates many improvements, addtions and corrections; 2) It includes the 5 new openings, greatly expanded from The Golden Dozen; 3) It includes key notes within the body of the variations; 4) It takes each variation to a definite conclusion; 5) It has been meticulously indexed. That said, each reader is fully entitled to his/her own opinion.
Other, less prolific but nonetheless insightful and first-class, annotators in my view include: Samuel Gonotsky, Samuel Levy, Nathan Rubin, Marion Tinsley (obviously) and Maurice Chamblee. (Not an exhaustive list!)
I did not intend Solid Checkers to be an update of Basic Checkers - I referenced hundreds of books other than Basic Checkers in its production -, but I suppose it's inevitable that it tended to be viewed as such. It's flattering that it's included in discussions alongside RLF's opus. (RLF often told me he hoped to produce a second edition of the 9-13s and 9-14s.)
In my view, 21st CC, 9-13s is far superior to Solid Checkers, 9-13s - no comparison: 1) It incorporates many improvements, addtions and corrections; 2) It includes the 5 new openings, greatly expanded from The Golden Dozen; 3) It includes key notes within the body of the variations; 4) It takes each variation to a definite conclusion; 5) It has been meticulously indexed. That said, each reader is fully entitled to his/her own opinion.