3 moves US National 2016.

[S_McCosker]

Congratulations to Sergio Scarpetta, Alan Millhone and Wynnell Neverson on winning their divisions at the US National Championship. I would like to attend the next 3-Move national in 2018 so hope to see you guys there.

Also shout out to the ICF players Chee, Alfredo and Lorne on a fine performance especially in a field of 3 former world champions plus many more GM's.

Shane McCosker.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I would like to attend the next 3-Move national in 2018 so hope to see you guys there.

This is certainly a pleasant news !!

Shane, it will be a great honor for all of us (ACF players) to see you there as well as any other foreign player. I hope we can provide you enough competition. If you collect $50 every month, that will be probably close to pay for tickets after 24 months ! You also can hope to get some prize which may cover all / most / some of your expanses.

ICF players Chee, Alfredo and Lorne

Lorne is not 100% online player. He is a winner of ACF Major Division from previous year. Indeed it wasn't easy for him first time to be in such powerful company, but I agree with you - it was a great accomplishment and experience for him, Chee and Fredo.

Real play is 250% different then online play and we just proved this one more time. Fredo told me that he was surprised how limited are his knowledge's of PP. I also can confirm - Chee play improved since last year, when he finished 14 (out of 20) in Branson. This event was very, very successful in many ways.

[Chexhero]

Alex, I agree with Clint that your comment about the 2018 National scoring method came off a bit insulting. Last I checked, people who play in masters are not amateur or "average" players who don't appreciate scientific, consistent play. I think it is fair to say there are good arguments on both sides as to whether or not round scoring is the best method or not. I myself prefer game scoring because I believe a player with a greater number of wins vs. loses as opposed to another player deserves more points. I get your preference of each 3-move ballot being its own game, but I and others players just don't buy that. I do respect your opinions though. Another reason why I prefer game scoring is because it of course goes more in line with our rating system, which only calculates game by game scoring method. Thankfully, the crosstable put together by Frank and Mary was able to notate game by game results.

The tournament itself was good. It was in a fine location, the conference room was good, and of course the prize money was tremendous. I also enjoyed being in the company of fellow young checker players. I only had a few complaints. One of them was in regards to the 4 point Bye's rewarded to players in the masters. Players who received Bye rounds received them because they were losing more rounds than winning as compared to other players. It made no logical sense to reward them with 4 points when they did not have to play anybody (mainly because they weren't winning enough rounds). I know this sounds harsh, but this is the Masters division of a National tournament and everyone I spoke to did not think this was fair. This is one of the main reasons 9 people ended up tied for 8th place. I also had concerns regarding the overall professionalism in the tournament. In my second game against Mr. King, I only had 15 minutes left to play. He had around 45 minutes left. He refused to write his moves while I wrote all mine out despite being under time pressure. I told the referee's about this after the game, but they said nothing to him. As a result, he continued to do this against other players. John Acker in a recent post mentions the need for both players to write out their moves during the games. I agree wholeheartedly and think this should be one of the rules enforced, at least in masters. If a player refuses to write out their moves, they should forfeit the game. The room was also very noisy throughout the whole tournament. If we want more professionalism at tournaments, I don't think it is out of line to demand that we keep the room fairly quiet during games. But overall I really enjoyed the tournament and playing everyone. I believe this is the first time we reached over 50 players since 2010. It was also great to see a great turnout among younger players, especially in the masters.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Joe, I also understand and respect your opinion, but don't buy it.

In one place of your topic you are talking about professionalism, which is very good. But in other (scoring method) you truly support wrong method. Scoring every game would force players try to win weak side by any price - making less proved non-scientific moves, overplay etc. Do you realize that this will be different game ?! Our fathers in 1950's who played under rule "winner take all" had a warrior spirit, and we have milk instead blood Opps, did I insult someone ?

BTW. I am OK with absolutely everything except:

1) Quantity and quality of breakfasts. On the 2nd day I switched to McDonald's
2) One day my room which I shared with Brian Hinkle, were not cleaned
3) Noise in playing room.
4) Method of awarding prizes: "a little bit to everyone".
5) 4 points for bye.
6) Most players in Master Division don't get much progress and improvement and still use an old luggage of pp knowledge's.
7) No young stars on horizon.
8 ) We had trophies only for Division champions, no trophies for 2-3 places, best scored ladies and youths.
9) No recording games and use clocks in all 3 Divisions.
10) My play in Branson wasn't very fresh and in fact - I was in lost in 3 games against Richard Beckwith, Larry Keen and Lubabalo Kondlo. This is too much.

All my exceptions have nothing to do with excellent Mary and Frank work + sponsors tremendous support and efforts. Many thanks again to Jeannie and Joe. It was unforgettable event for me, perhaps one of the best in 20 years since 1996 when I started playing Anglo-American checkers.

[clintolsen]

Scoring every game would force players try to win weak side by any price - making less proved non-scientific moves, overplay etc.

I don't understand the logic behind this statement. Can you elaborate on this?

In my opinion, scoring by ballot forces players to try to win the 2nd game if they lose the 1st. Scoring by game means each game is a unique event and the outcome of the 1st game has no impact on how the 2nd game is played.

[Chexhero]

But in other (scoring method) you truly support wrong method. Scoring every game would force players try to win weak side by any price - making less proved non-scientific moves, overplay etc. Do you realize that this will be different game ?!

Suggesting scoring by game method "forces" players to make non-scientific moves to try and win the weak side is 100% incorrect. First off, the player on the weak side could just try and play for the draw obviously, which is usually not easy on a weak side of an opening. Do they really deserve no credit for drawing the weak side of a tough opening? Furthermore, you are assuming the player on the stronger side will play it perfectly. This is not always the case as mistakes do happen. Or, the player on the stronger side may be the one who tries to mix up the moves to avoid a known pp draw, possibly getting themselves in trouble. Your argument fails because you are assuming the player on the strong side will play the strongest line of attack and make no mistakes every time, but this is simply not true. When deciding on a valid scoring method, I don't think it is fair to decide it on such narrow-minded thinking like this. Another thing to take into account is not all openings are unbalanced and critical. There are many quite balanced openings in the 3-move deck with both sides have a variety of different moves to make. Seems fair that a person who draws one side of a balanced opening deserves more credit then a person who lost both sides of one. Clint also makes a good point above. Richard Beckwith lost 1st game to me and then played for a win in the second game by playing risky moves, which he ended up losing. Your round by round scoring also forces a different game.

Opps, did I insult someone ?

Yes you did.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Yes you did.

This is how 1st Amendment works It protects a free speech.

Here is a text of 1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

For instance ... I said "Amateur player" and you responded that there is no amateur players in Masters Division. This is your opinion and I respect it. But I also have my opinion - from 23 players who recently played in Branson in Master Division, we can easy make this number 16 or even 14 and don't miss anything in terms of quality. Choice of Division shall be base on rating + performance + recognition, not on people preferences and ambitious.

People who played this year in Master Division and suppose to play in Major Division (in my eyes) are players who cannot survive in 75%-90% games against Masters, don't have any reasonable level of published play knowledge's and cannot scientifically make calculations to generate a proved moves.

Your round by round scoring also forces a different game.

Here is where I totally agree with you.

[Chexhero]

Alex, thank you for letting me know the 1st amendment of the Constitution. First time I ever heard of it and I am truly inspired . I never knew someone had a freedom of speech to say as they pleased in our country. Though if you have freedom of speech to say as you wish, I can only assume that I do as well! In all seriousness though, I never claimed you don't have a right to express your opinion. You do. But I also have a right to accuse your speech as being insulting and demeaning. Feel free to disagree, but everyone I have talked to so far feels your speech was an insult to master players. For your information though, ratings, past performance, and recognition were used to group players in masters, not people's preferences and ambitions.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

For your information though, ratings, past performance, and recognition were used to group players in masters, not people's preferences and ambitions.

If so then I can confirm that criteria's which were used for selection are relatively soft. But in reality I think it was just Mary and Frank sitting at referee table and accepting registrations, both are very, very nice people who just didn't want to insult anyone

[John Acker]

Most players in the Masters had a rating over 2000 going in, except for the players who were promoted for winning a previous Majors: Gary Wilson, Lorne Wells, and Desmond Maughan. Alfredo Mercado was placed in the Masters (correctly, IMO) on the strength of his online performance, and evidently something similar happened for Chee Xiong. As I said in another thread, every division will have underrated and overrated players, and given a relatively small rating pool mismatches are inevitable. We could potentially reduce this by playing round-robin with smaller groups, but with Swiss pairing it comes with the territory.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

promoted for winning a previous Majors:

How far (years) we can go back ? Or maybe this is a life insurance ? In my eyes only Lerno as last winner of Majors is qualify.

Alfredo Mercado was placed in the Masters

Yes.

and evidently something similar happened for Chee Xiong.

Evidentially or accidentally ?

We could potentially reduce this by playing round-robin with smaller groups

BINGO!! All we need - 14-16 players Round Robin in Master division. Cutoff can be done based on rating, no barriers. We can make exceptions for foreign guests like Sergio or Shane and they will play "on invitation". But total number of players (16 or whatever) will be unchanged

[bazkitcase5]

Maybe we should just create a Grandmaster only division - then Alex can play his round scoring against the other handful of top players that happen to show up and he won't have to worry about us average players anymore

[John Acker]

promoted for winning a previous Majors:

How far (years) we can go back ? Or maybe this is a life insurance ? In my eyes only Lerno as last winner of Majors is qualify.

I believe winners from the past three years have to play up, but I can't locate specific documentation for that rule. I'd be inclined to promote the division champion for the next tournament in that style, and after that use rating cutoffs. Most division champions are fairly close to the rating ceiling for their division anyway, and if they stay active then they should break into the next ratings group fairly easily.

[Miki_Borghetti]

I also had concerns regarding the overall professionalism in the tournament. In my second game against Mr. King, I only had 15 minutes left to play. He had around 45 minutes left. He refused to write his moves while I wrote all mine out despite being under time pressure. I told the referee's about this after the game, but they said nothing to him. As a result, he continued to do this against other players. John Acker in a recent post mentions the need for both players to write out their moves during the games. I agree wholeheartedly and think this should be one of the rules enforced, at least in masters. If a player refuses to write out their moves, they should forfeit the game. The room was also very noisy throughout the whole tournament. If we want more professionalism at tournaments, I don't think it is out of line to demand that we keep the room fairly quiet during games. But overall I really enjoyed the tournament and playing everyone. I believe this is the first time we reached over 50 players since 2010. It was also great to see a great turnout among younger players, especially in the masters.

I completely agree with you.
Michele Borghetti

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I also had concerns regarding the overall professionalism in the tournament. In my second game against Mr. King, I only had 15 minutes left to play. He had around 45 minutes left. He refused to write his moves while I wrote all mine out despite being under time pressure. I told the referee's about this after the game, but they said nothing to him. As a result, he continued to do this against other players. John Acker in a recent post mentions the need for both players to write out their moves during the games. I agree wholeheartedly and think this should be one of the rules enforced, at least in masters. If a player refuses to write out their moves, they should forfeit the game. The room was also very noisy throughout the whole tournament. If we want more professionalism at tournaments, I don't think it is out of line to demand that we keep the room fairly quiet during games. But overall I really enjoyed the tournament and playing everyone. I believe this is the first time we reached over 50 players since 2010. It was also great to see a great turnout among younger players, especially in the masters.

I completely agree with you.
Michele Borghetti

I had more and tougher experience with R. King - In 2005 World Title Match in Anderson one time I played with him game and was in your situation with 2 differences:

1) He played "against my clocks" and made fast moves when I was short of time

2) ... and now ... after the game was over he asked me to give him a scoresheet because he needed a copy !!! Amazing and fantastic, but nothing can bring Russians down - I gave him my scoresheet and offered my help to copy moves for him.

In Branson after I won 1st game against King, I wanted to shake hands but he refused.

However this is just funny stuff. Correct scoring, using clocks and recording games is #2 thing to do in terms of professionalism.

Tell me - what is #1 ?

AM