Here's a cute position arising in analysis from 10-14 24-19 6-10:
Black: 1 & 28; White: 5 and 32 Black to move. A dead draw of course, but unusual for such a position to arise in play. I have the run-up if you want it.
Also: 10-14 24-19; 6-10 22-17; 9-13 26-22?; 5-9 22-18; 13-22 30-26; in the 3rd Int Book, 1973, RLF states that there seems to be nothing stronger than 1-5 as played, but 14-17! 21-5; 2-6 26-17; 10-15 19-10; 7-30 would seem to kill it for White.
Two points discovered during research for 21st Century Checkers, 10-14s.
All the best Richard Pask
10-14 24-19 6-10
-
Richard Pask
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:15 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: Much!
-
George Hay
- Posts: 1044
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:41 am
- What do you like about checkers?: Checkers is a game of pure logic.
- Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
Re: 10-14 24-19 6-10
It would be great if you posted the run-up to the double corner ending!
thank you, George Hay
thank you, George Hay
-
Richard Pask
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:15 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: Much!
Re: 10-14 24-19 6-10
Dear George, Here's the run-up: 10-14 24-19; 6-10 22-17; 9-13 (now my preference too!) 28-24; 13-22 25-9; 5-14 26-22; 11-15 22-17; 7-11 29-25; 11-16 25-22; 16-20 23-18; 14-23 27-11; 20-27 31-24; 8-15 30-26; 4-8 17-14; 10-17 19-10; 2-6 21-14; 6-15 26-23; 12-16 14-9; 16-19 23-16; 15-18 22-15; 8-11 15-8; 3-28; 9-5: Forms Position. Analysis by the legendary Samuel Gonotsky.
-
George Hay
- Posts: 1044
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:41 am
- What do you like about checkers?: Checkers is a game of pure logic.
- Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
Re: 10-14 24-19 6-10
The Nemesis 10-14, 24-19, 6-10
-
Bill Salot
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:57 am
Re: 10-14 24-19 6-10
Richard, regarding the shot that killed the 26 22 move in the 3rd International (1973), it was shown before by Jim Loy in his Elbert Lowder book (2007), Page 77. Jim attributes his many corrections there to Nemesis.
My question to you is, "Did you discover it via a computer program too?"
It fooled Landry, Lowder, Fortman, and Churchill. I dare say it would fool any master who faces it for the first time across the board. Do you agree?
In any case, it demonstrates a great idea for a problem composer to build on.
Bill Salot
My question to you is, "Did you discover it via a computer program too?"
It fooled Landry, Lowder, Fortman, and Churchill. I dare say it would fool any master who faces it for the first time across the board. Do you agree?
In any case, it demonstrates a great idea for a problem composer to build on.
Bill Salot
-
Richard Pask
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:15 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: Much!
Re: 10-14 24-19 6-10
Dear Bill,
On this occasion I found it myself, during the process of establishing whether, after 10-14 24-19; 6-10 22-17; 9-13 26-22; 11-15 30-26; 15-24 28-19 would be best, transposing into 9-13 21-17; 6-9. (After 25-22 at 6th, 11-15 30-25; 15-24 28-19 is indeed best). It was RLF's comment in the 3rd Int Bk which prompted me to look more carefully. FULL CREDIT TO JIM LOY/NEMESIS THOUGH.
That said, I have, of course, used computer analysis to advantage on hundreds of occasions - in my case WCC Platinum - and in my series of books, 21st Century Checkers, have made my view on crediting clear: I always err on the side of crediting the program, but at the same time take full responsibility for any errors; as every author should.
What is interesting to me is the extent to which human being and programs need to work well together to generate the output which is most useful to a practical player: a continuation which may suit a computer program down to the ground may be highly unsuitable for us.
Certainly, the programs have helped to redemonstrate the enormous scope of our game, and make us feel even more humble.
Lastly, I'd like point out that, irrespective of the errors the programs may discover, it shouldn't dent our admiration for the greats of the game, and RLF was definitely one of those. A really nice moment for me was when, having seen my obituary for RLF in The (London) Times, albeit uncredited which is their stated policy, The New York Times (I believe) contacted his family in order to write their own: naturally they were very pleased with this development , and it proved to be a fitting tribute to a true legend.
On this occasion I found it myself, during the process of establishing whether, after 10-14 24-19; 6-10 22-17; 9-13 26-22; 11-15 30-26; 15-24 28-19 would be best, transposing into 9-13 21-17; 6-9. (After 25-22 at 6th, 11-15 30-25; 15-24 28-19 is indeed best). It was RLF's comment in the 3rd Int Bk which prompted me to look more carefully. FULL CREDIT TO JIM LOY/NEMESIS THOUGH.
That said, I have, of course, used computer analysis to advantage on hundreds of occasions - in my case WCC Platinum - and in my series of books, 21st Century Checkers, have made my view on crediting clear: I always err on the side of crediting the program, but at the same time take full responsibility for any errors; as every author should.
What is interesting to me is the extent to which human being and programs need to work well together to generate the output which is most useful to a practical player: a continuation which may suit a computer program down to the ground may be highly unsuitable for us.
Certainly, the programs have helped to redemonstrate the enormous scope of our game, and make us feel even more humble.
Lastly, I'd like point out that, irrespective of the errors the programs may discover, it shouldn't dent our admiration for the greats of the game, and RLF was definitely one of those. A really nice moment for me was when, having seen my obituary for RLF in The (London) Times, albeit uncredited which is their stated policy, The New York Times (I believe) contacted his family in order to write their own: naturally they were very pleased with this development , and it proved to be a fitting tribute to a true legend.