Fractional 3-moves decks

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I decided to open this tread as separate topic and separate it from "drawing topic". From my personal view the whole 156 deck is very much evenly divided in 3 big groups:

1) Critical openings
2) Uneven but not critical openings
3) Even openings

These group don't match exactly to GAYP-2 moves-3 moves historic classification but close enough.

We may have 4 different types of deck:

FD - full deck
BD - balanced deck
TD - toough deck
ED - even deck

1) Full complete 156 deck where all drawn openings (as it's known today) are included.

2) Balanced decks which don't include critical openings.

3) Tough deck ... 50-60 critical openings

4) Even deck: GAYP and all other even openings.

Each type has it's own points and can be used in different situations depends of event calibre and level of players (Division).

World title related events (QT and match) shall use FD.

I propose to discuss this here - if if make sense to create such decks, it's effectivness and promotional points.

I think ACF Minor Division can play ED and Major Division can play BD.

TD can be used occasionly (as it is today in ACF) or for play-offs etc

What do you think ?

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev

[MostFamousDane]

Balanced deck should be used in all situations except play-offs where the tough deck can be used.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Sune / John,

can you argue your statement ?

Benefits, advantage / disadvantage, new membership, improve performance and quality of games, promotional aspects etc ...

Alex

[MostFamousDane]

Well I would prefer what I call a deck of openings with scope (probably closest to your balanced deck) but I would also remove openings with little scope for both players.

1. It reduces the element of memorization - in my opinion a goal in it self but it also lowers the bar of entry to our game which could mean more players.
2. It reduces the element of luck which is really important as long as we keep running with tournament forms like swiss that are completely inappropriate for our game. If all the openings are roughly of the same difficulty and scope it matters less which specific openings are drawn a tournament.

[Chexhero]

but I would also remove openings with little scope for both players.

No opening has little scope. There is no only 1 or 2 ways an opening can be played, not even a critical one. You be surprised how many good ways white can play black hole.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

No opening has little scope.

10-15 24-19 15x24.

Richatd Pask wrote in "Solid Checkers" about this opening (quoted DEO):"Very little would have been lost to the world of draughts if this ballot ballot had never been born." (Derek Oldbury)

I agree with Derek though had a chance to score couple wins in this opening on serious occasion.

In Solid Checkers Richard pask had even a separate classification based on Scope: - VERY LIMITED, LIMITED, FAIR, BROAD, VERY BROAD

Great classification (!) and I totally agree with this principle and concept, though my personal view on the scope of some openings differs from Richard view.

Another opening with LIMITED SCOPE: 12-16 22-17 16-19

VERY LIMITED scope: 9-13 21-17 6-9

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I agree with John ! When I proposed to used different fractional decks in different Division, I assumed people want it and like it. However my personal opinion is the same as John's.

Using "lower decks" inflate checkers and inflate evrything out fathers were dreaming for.

However ... I can recommend Sune to use 11 man ballot for his purposes - no memorization at all and everyone is on his/her own and have even chances.

There are 3 main, MUST components in checkers

1) Knoweldges and/or memorization.
2) Calculation and visualization skills.
3) Positional understanding.

Every component is important, crucial and cannot be ignore. Sune wants to remove memorization and I don't undertand - why this component is less important than 2 others ??

[MostFamousDane]

I agree with John ! When I proposed to used different fractional decks in different Division, I assumed people want it and like it. However my personal opinion is the same as John's.

Using "lower decks" inflate checkers and inflate evrything out fathers were dreaming for.

However ... I can recommend Sune to use 11 man ballot for his purposes - no memorization at all and everyone is on his/her own and have even chances.

There are 3 main, MUST components in checkers

1) Knoweldges and/or memorization.
2) Calculation and visualization skills.
3) Positional understanding.

Every component is important, crucial and cannot be ignore. Sune wants to remove memorization and I don't undertand - why this component is less important than 2 others ??

Well one of the things I love about checkers (when you play one of the proper openings) is that players can have widely differing strenghts in the 3 components and still have a chance to beat each other. With some of the openings 2 and 3 are completely irrelevant - that was what my previous example was supposed to illuminate. It is difficult to argue for or against memorization since it is a matter of taste but I'll chance one argument - monkeys have better memorization skills than humans!

When you play an opening with good scope you can still study the opening and build up knowledge (higher level reasoning) even if there are too many lines for you to simply memorize (monkey braining) - you can study the opening for typical patterns and try and understand the situations and techniques that are typically relevant in the opening.

[Ingo_Zachos]

In 3-move the component

1) is more telling then the other two.
As there are 156 chances to outmemorize the opponent, and many openings require very exact knowledge of the right defense to hold the draw.
Limited knowledge on a number of openings will be decisive. That way Alex beat Miki in their match. He was well prepared on the new openings, while Miki wasn`t. And it caused enough points for Alex to win narrowly. BTW: this was caused by a random draw that caused many new openings, more then you could expect in 40 games. Even in a match the distribution of opening difficulty may be equal, but may yet cause a different result.
Checkers/Draughts seems to be a card game. No joke intended.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the classification, I think they are very useful. Especially to those who want to prepare, It could be essential to know the most difficult openings that are book-bound and to spent more time on memoriting and preparing them, as they would take given the assumption that all 156 opnings should be studied equallandi
Also, training sessions with the hard deck or a certain selection (special deck) that feature typical "Pioneer" or other landings would be a vwery useful method to prepare.

Also it could be useful to have different decks in serious tournements. The FID uses different decks in Italian Dama for different occasions, just like Alex proposed.
My question: At which occasion was the hard deck used and which openings did it include?

Would be a good idea to have a 3-move match extended with openings that are only hard-deck openings as kind of a "tie-breaker" in my mind, say if it is drawn after 40 games, another 20 games with reduced time limit and hard-deck openings could be played within one or two days say at the World Championship in 3-move, instead of having the title holder keeping the title in case of a tie.


Greetinx from Dortmund,

Ingo Zachos



Greetinx from still grey and cloudy Germany,

Ingo Zachos

[Ingo_Zachos]

In 3-move the component

1) is more telling then the other two.
As there are 156 chances to outmemorize the opponent, and many openings require very exact knowledge of the right defense to hold the draw.
Limited knowledge on a number of openings will be decisive. That way Alex may have beaten Miki in their match. He was well prepared on the new openings, while Miki wasn`t. And it maybe caused enough points for Alex to win narrowly. BTW: this was caused by a random draw that resulted in many new openings, more then you could expect in 40 games. Even in a match the distribution of opening difficulty may be equal, but may yet cause a different result.
Checkers/Draughts seems to be a card game.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the classification, I think they are very useful. Especially to those who want to prepare, It could be essential to know the most difficult openings that are book-bound and to spent more time on memorizing and preparing them, as they would take, given the assumption that all 156 opnings should be studied equal.
Also, training sessions with the hard deck or a certain selection (special deck) that feature typical "Pioneer" or other landings would be a very useful method to prepare for these kind of postions.

Also it might be useful to have different decks in serious tournaments. The FID uses different decks in Italian Dama for different occasions, just like Alex proposed.
My question: At which occasion was the hard deck used and which openings did it include?

Would be a good idea to have a 3-move match extended with openings that are only hard-deck openings as kind of a "tie-breaker" in my mind, say if it is drawn after 40 games, another 20 games with reduced time limit and hard-deck openings could be played within one or two days say at the World Championship in 3-move, instead of having the title holder keeping the title in case of a tie.


Greetinx from Dortmund,

Ingo Zachos



Greetinx from still grey and cloudy Germany,

Ingo Zachos

[Alex_Moiseyev]

In That way Alex may have beaten Miki in their match. He was well prepared on the new openings, while Miki wasn`t.

Dear Ingo,

this is certainly not true. In our last match the score in new openings was 3-2 (in my favor) but one my win came from taken away for nothing 2 mans.

Black Hole, games 3-4, everyone won a game
Wilderness, games 11-12, I won 1 and one draw
Twilight Zone, games 29-30, everyone won a game.

So ... we should say that Michelle Borghetti was very well prepared to this match, easy drewed weak side of several critical openings and mainly my wins in match came from cross aboard play. In terms of preparation I didn't feel any serious domination in this match.

If you want to argue anything, please, look at the games first.

This legend about role of new openings in my match with Mr. Borghetti (Ingo call him "Miki") is going and going and I don't understand why. Do you want mislead people and change history ?

If Michelle Borghetti will win in Lille and want to be successful in our match, he has to imporve his cross aboard skills.

If I want to win match, I have to be in better physical form and don't get so tired to the end of match.

My question: At which occasion was the hard deck used and which openings did it include?

Last revision of ACF Tough deck was in 2006. The committee consisted of me, Gene Lindsay and Mac Banks. We selected 80 openings and ACF approved and printed cards.

We are using Tough Deck in ACF Master Division when first two games out of four resulted to drawn resulst (two draws or everyone won a piece).

Here is a topic on this forum in 2006 where three of us discussed and finally formed ACF Tough Deck:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=357&hilit=Tough+Deck&start=45

Respectfully,

A. Moiseyev

[MostFamousDane]

Here are some statistics I have gathered from the match:

17/39 times Moiseyev made the first move out of published play
3/13 times Moiseyev made the first move out of published play in non-drawn games

Obviously there could be cases where the player played some moves of the published play not by knowing it but seeing it on the board. The opposite can also be true the player purposefully diverting from published play. Lastly the players could have gotten the play from more exotic literature (that I didn't have on hand) or prepared the play himself.

Given that Borghetti was relatively succesfull in the games where he diverted from published play it seems likely that at least some of the times were on purpose. Given that many of the games followed very long lines of published play I think it it relatively safe to conclude that both players are encyclopedias and that Moiseyev at most showed only slightly more published play knownledge than Borghetti

Here is the raw data:


Game 1: until move 24 is key openings "9-14, 22-18, 11-16", variant 20 - 19-16 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 2: until move 12 is key openings "9-14, 22-18, 11-16", variant 23 - 25-22 by Borghetti is out of book
Game 3: until move 17 is golden dozen "black hole", variant 3 - 2-6 by Moiseyev is out of book (Borghetti wins)
Game 4: until move 21 is canning's compilation, "the black hole" variant d, 12-16 by Borghetti is out of book (Moiseyev wins)
Game 5: until move 38 is key landings 1, 27-24 by Borghetti is out of book
Game 6: until move 31 is basic checkers 28, variant F, 16-12 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 7: until move 21 is basic checkers 91, variant G, 7-10 by Borghetti is out of book
Game 8: until move 19 is kear's guide 36 variant 55, 4-8 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 9: until move 39 is kear's guide 33 variant 49+, 8-11 by Borghetti is out of book
Game 10: until move 10 is Solid Checkers 54 variant 8, 4-8 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 11: until move 13 is Golden Dozen Wilderness 2, 23-19 by by Borghetti is out of book
Game 12: until move 10 is Golden Dozen Wilderness 2 variant 9, 16-20 by Borghetti is out of book (Moiseyev wins)
Game 13: never goes out of pp kear's guide 46 variant 10x
Game 14: until move 27 is Solid Checkers 17 variant 4, 7-10 by Borghetti is out of book
Game 15: until move 20 is Solid Checkers 63 variant 8 2-7 by Borghetti is out of book (Moiseyev wins)
Game 16: until move 8 is Solid Checkers 63 variant I-III, 16-19 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 17: until move 21 is Kear's guide 46 variant 38, 30-26 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 18: until move 9 is Kear's guide 43 variant 19k, 25-21 by Borghetti is out of book (Borghetti wins)
Game 19: until move 11 is Solid Checkers 16 variant 5, 16-20 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 20: until move 10 is Solid Checkers 16 variant 5, 16-20 by Borghetti is out of book
Game 21: until move 30 is Solid Checkers 12 variant 4, 10-14 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 22: until move 20 is Solid Checkers 12 main variant, 17-22 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 23: until move 21 is Solid Checkers 50B variant 12, 10-15 by Borghetti is out of book (Moiseyev wins)
Game 24: until move 5 is Solid Checkers 54 variant 11, 24-20 by Borghetti is out of book
Game 25: until move 6 is Solid Checkers 70 main variant, 8-11 by Borghetti is out of book (Moiseyev wins)
Game 26: until move 28 is Basic checkers 70, variant 1, 18-22 by Moiseyev is out of book (Borghetti wins)
Game 27: until move 11 is Solid Checkers 103 variant 6, 29-25 by Borghetti is out of book
Game 28: until move 16 is Solid checkers 103 variant 3, 11-16 by Borghetti is out of book (Moiseyev wins)
Game 29: until move 16 is Canning's Compilation Twilight Zone 7-16 variant 3, 8-11 by Moiseyev is out of book and the losing move (Borghetti wins)
Game 30: until move 30 is Canning's Compilation Twilight Zone 7-16 variant 2, 6-10 by Borghetti is out of book (Moiseyev wins)
Game 31: until move 43 is solid checkers 47 variant 6, 8-3 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 32: until move 15 is Solid checkers 47 variant 13, 26-23 by Borghetti is out of book (Borghetti win)
Game 33: until move 16 is Kear's guide 35 variant 57, 3-7 by Borghetti is out of book
Game 34: until move 28 is Key Openings, 9-14, 22-17, 11-15 variant 12, 24-28 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 35: until move 11 is Solid Checkers 132 variant 10, 28-24 by Borghetti is out of book (Borghetti win)
Game 36: until move 10 is Basic Checkers 128 variant 1, 3-8 by Borghetti is out of book
Game 37: until move 12 is Anderson's Double Corner main, 7-10 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 38: until move 33 is lees guide 11 variant 1, 22-18 by Moiseyev is out of book
Game 39: until move 10 is Solid Checkers 134 supplement-2, 2-7 by Borghetti is out of book
Game 40: until move 10 is Solid checkers 134 variant 7, 5-9 by Moiseyev is out of book

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Sune, great ability to hijack any topic ! haha Nice and interesting statistics though. I like them, thanks.

BTW. I won game 12 - on your lists it shows win for Borghetti.

Returning back to topic - it would be very interesting question: what happened in match if we play different deck - more balanced or more critical ? Any assumptions here would be speclations only, however it would be true to say - it is very possible that things may go completely into different directions.

So ... fooling around with decks we may well manipulate with title !

Are we looking cross aboard champion, or booked champion, or well balanced, with better memorization ? Picking each of these factors and putting them on front or behind may generate different champions.

We know that A. Long was slight better cross aboard player than M. Tinsley, and W. Hellman was better knowledgable. The history didn't give a chance "to combine Long and Hellman" but changing deck may have such effect !

[MostFamousDane]

Sune, great ability to hijack any topic ! .

Well to be fair it was you and Ingo who first started discussing who was the biggest book player between you and Borghetti - I just provided some facts . Even in the other topic my input was relevant since if you only play even openings there is no need to fix the drawing of the openings .

haha Nice and interesting statistics though. I like them, thanks

You're welcome.