'all men are created equal' derived from checkers

[manturtle]

Years ago I stumbled across the curious possibility that Jefferson derived his phrase 'all men are create equal' from Checkers. As you know, then Draughts, where all the 'men on board' are equal at the start of each game. Being trained as a mathematician, as well as a Euclidean to boot (rhymes with Floridian), I eventually caught on to the checkers-draughts metaphor my fellow Euclidean Thomas Jefferson was using... checkers being a sea-going metaphor of men on board sailing and assailing each other; tacking on diagonals into the prevailing trade winds. With that discovery it became simple enough to prove the phrase's draughts origin far beyond any reasonable doubt, the proof more tedious than difficult. Nobody seemed to care about the idea of the origins or the proof at the time, which worked out better for me. So this is all little known but not unknown.

Within the boring details there's a simple 10x10 expansion of the game different from International Draughts which theoretically requires a higher level of playing skill than in ID. That 'Confederated Draughts' version expands the 8x8 board to 10x10 but not the number of men keeping them at their original 12. Just picture ringing the standard 8x8 starting board with a single width mote of spaces and keeping the rules the same. Thus moving the King's row right out from under those four men on each side.

Has anyone ever played such a 12 piece 10x10 board variation of Checkers? And does it indeed require a higher level of skill to play than the ID expansion of both men and board?
(I need to remain neutral for furthering investigations and not play checkers or chess or it will really scramble my already scrambled noodle.)

[George Hay]

manturtle, I marked your review on Amazon as helpful, what a refreshing change from the ugly and ignorant (I could go on) "chess not checkers" theme. But how much of this is speculation about Thomas Jefferson, who, like Benjamin Franklin, is well known to have an interest in chess? There is even some doubt that it was Dr. Samuel Johnson who wrote the dedication in that first of checkers/draughts books in English in 1756, the year Mozart was born.

"At" Checkersland (the computer program) I have played some English Draughts style checkers on a 10x10 board, both 15 men on a side and 20 men on a side. The 20 men on a side seems more natural to me, and I suppose that is why the Polish 10x10 style evolved that way. At my current level of play I like playing English Draughts on an 8x8 board and Polish Draughts on 10x10 board. The board size even helps me remember what rules I am playing under. If I play English Draughts on 10x10, I would surly miss some easy classic shots when converting back to Polish Draughts on 10x10. When I play Polish Draughts on 8x8, I find it too easy to jump backwards with a man for defensive purposes, and then when I switch back to English Draughts on 8x8, I am in trouble!

But getting back to Jefferson, where are the references?

--George Hay

[George Hay]

I did a little google searching and to my pleasant surprise, I was able to find this article on Benjamin Franklin by former USCF President John McCrary.

http://www.benfranklin300.org/_etc_pdf/ ... cCrary.pdf


One section is titled THE MYSTERY OF THE REFERENCE IN 1756 and I quote:

"Thus, the mystery remains: How did the 1756 book on draughts, published in England, come to contain such a duplication of Franklin’s main concepts? (Interestingly,some believe that the dedication may have been written by Dr. Samuel Johnson, but to this writer’s knowledge clear proof has not been found for such an assumption.)"

The Morals Of Chess has appeared as The Morals Of Checkers, and ascribed to Franklin. Yet it was evidently altered years later to feature Checkers, not Chess. I have not been able to track down an original of The Morals Of Checkers in Franklin's writings, but how do you prove a negative?

--George Hay

[liam stephens]

Thank you George for the link to the McCrary article.

Boland's Famous Positions, page 42 has an article titled:
BEN FRANKLIN ON MORALS OF DRAUGHTS
and quotes The Draught Board 1870 as source.

However, the article in The Draught Board, page 180, is prefaced by a caveat which reads as follows:
"The identity of the sisters sciences is so close that an exposition of the teaching of one may, with an almost imperceptible alteration,
made be to do for the other. The following on chess is so applicable to draughts, also, that we cannot resist the temptation
of commiting a plagiarism and adopting it as - THE MORALS OF DRAUGHTS - by Dr. Franklin."

It may well be that the failure to include this caveat led to the subsequent attribution of the article to draughts/checkers instead of chess.

Incidentally, I believe it is now accepted by most authorities that both the dedication and preface in Payne's book were written by Dr. Johnson.
Richard Twiss in Miscellanies (1805) was quite categorical on this point.

Regards - Liam Stephens.

[manturtle]

@ George Hay, it's those supporting the idea that Jefferson in some way plagiarized the phrase from some earlier source that are doing the speculating. Jefferson himself shot down those ideas when asked about how he came up with the true Bill of Rights aka the Declaration. Historians are notoriously bad at getting these sorts of things right. They assume at the start the existence of a single, earliest ancestral form and that underlying assumption taints their search for the origins of just about everything.

The Declaration's success was preceded by lots of failures to produce a unifying freedom document by others. And it's in those failures where the chess-based metaphors are located.

Independent co-discovery is common in both math and science. Newton, Liebniz (sp?) and likely Archimedes are all independent co-discoverers of Calculus. Each arriving at the same end result through independent means. And so independent co-discovery has to be included in the possible origins of the famous phrase. And nobody's considered that possibility.

As the assigned lead draftsman, Jefferson had to distill down everything he knew about the shared beliefs of his fellow Revolutionaries. That's a mathematical, abstraction-derivation process. And polymaths can work their magic through the use of the best-fitting metaphors.

For over two centuries no one has ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Jefferson stole that phrase from some smart dude named so and so, without proper attribution. And at this point those plagiarism cases are done. But Checkers? That's a whole different ball game that raises another question: Is chess just checkers for dummies?

[George Hay]

Liam, thank for coming through with not one, but two clarifications on checkers history!

--George Hay

[George Hay]

manturtle, I would give chess it's due as almost as good as checkers. I like to play chess, but I love to play checkers. (I can only wish a Checkers For Dummies book would be published by John Wiley & Sons.) I like your historical perspective, and I greatly admire the Age Of Reason, aka Age Of Enlightenment, of the Eighteenth Century.

--George Hay

[tgf]

Definition of socialism - some men are more equal than others

[manturtle]

George Hay, the chess versus checkers smartness thing may be more of left brain versus right brain sort of thing. More precisely the l-mode R-Mode idea proposed and used by Betty Edwards of 'Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain' fame. Each game utilizing a different, somewhat opposite way of reasoning. Chess could be more book smart with checkers more street smart? Who knows?

As for any references to the origins of the phrase there really isn't much more than Jefferson trying to explain the basics of his process when asked. Everything else is the historical speculation launched when Jefferson's explanation seemed insufficient, and oddly distant. In modern hindsight, Jefferson's explanation partly fell short because the math and science to better explain it didn't exist at that time. The Founders and Framers way ahead of the math team in the human factors now dealt with in Game Theory.

In math circles, Jefferson's template for the Declaration came to be known as the 'axiomatic method'. The 'self-evident' came from Franklin but the structural framework Jefferson used was undeniably based on Euclid's ideas of postulates and the proofs based on them. No great surprise there; Jefferson part of the Euclidean collective of his day, at the height of the Euclidean age. He and his Revolutionary friends all first trained in the art of reason and proof in Euclidean Geometry.

With the true origins not resolvable by historians and their methods, that leaves the mystery up to math and science to prove those origins beyond any reasonable doubt. And that's when Draughts aka Checkers becomes the only viable option.

[chipschap]

"With the true origins not resolvable by historians and their methods, that leaves the mystery up to math and science to prove those origins beyond any reasonable doubt. And that's when Draughts aka Checkers becomes the only viable option."

I hate to be a naysayer about such a fascinating conjecture, but saying that something is the only viable option, and then assuming it must be correct, isn't so simple. Something is not the only viable option just because it's the only option presented. That falls far short of definitive proof.

Could your conjecture be correct? Certainly. Would I like it to be correct? Indeed I would! But alas, it seems it must remain a theory rather than a demonstrated fact.

[manturtle]

chipchap, Can the conjecture be proven to be correct? Certainly, but not with defective historical methodology. Would I like it to be correct? No way! I’m doomed at the get go on this one. Count me among the naysayers for personal survival reasons alone.
The first person to prove the true origins, whatever they may be, is toast. Prove Checkers-Draughts to be the origins and you’re toasted, baked and southern fried. But alas, mathematics is the pursuit of truth at the highest level of rigor and proof known to humanity. And the truth of the origins is inescapable when the mystery is approached mathematically and scientifically.
One of the first mathematical moves on the board is to discredit all historian “pre-existing usage of the phrase” arguments simultaneously. Using the reasoning and logic in all such arguments you could prove the Beatles’ Lennon and McCartney have no legally justifiable claim on the lyrics of ‘Yesterday’ and ‘Help’; since those two words and other words used in both songs were used by others long before the start of the Beatles. Similarly, you could prove that the Animals also have no legitimate claim on ‘the House of the Rising Sun’ since it’s a tune that dates back centuries, at the minimum. Pre-existing usage of any word or phrase does not eliminate the possibility of a legally recognizable claim to some new and novel use that’s worthy of credit. Both copyrights and patents are commonly known to work that way.
With the multi-lingual cellist Thomas Jefferson’s novel usage of ‘all men are created equal’ the phrase skyrocketed over time to the top of the charts, eventually going viral internationally. Had Jefferson and the rest of his Revolution Number Five man band set his words to music there would be no question of who gets the credit for the lyrics that still speak to so many hearts. And in that way, the validity of ALL historian arguments about pre-existing usage of the phrase go poof. Jefferson getting proper credit for his novel use.
With all such historian arguments swept off the board and the table simultaneously, that opens up the Origins of the Phrase game to unconsidered possibilities. And that game begins with Draughts ends in Checkers. It’s the only viable option of the origins provable far beyond any reasonable doubt.
My preference to be a naysayer on this one won’t save me; your reluctance to be a naysayer won’t either. Like a dope, I checker-mated myself into this corner. Oh well. lol

[manturtle]

Getting back to the idea of number of men and skill level let’s say an old checker-master faces off against a young novice willing and wanting to learn from the master. The master can’t deliberately make mistakes to even up the odds or help the newbie by suggesting moves for his young opponent; that’s improper and a real checker-master as teacher wouldn’t do that. So the true master is stuck with the option of removing some of his pieces. The master, obviously playing the role of the seasoned ‘13th’ man in control of of his onboard team of 12, must sacrifice some of his own men for the sake of honesty and fairness.

So let’s say four men on board must be removed from play. With his four men on the front lines of battle being the oldest or first generation, the middle four men the amidships-draughtsmen as the second generation, and the master’s third four being the men physically closest to him... the youngest generation with all 4 draughtsmen being born on board the King’s Row of the newbie. The question then becomes, which row of four get sacrificed by the checker-master in the name of differing skill levels, honesty and fairness? It makes sense that the youngest men must get removed, thus handicapping the master while maximizing the newbie's chances of earning kingship for his men.

That suggests that in a master versus master situation the same should be done for both masters to increase the skill level of play. Each master, as the 13th man of his onboard team of 12, should remove his youngest generation. And that suggests when expanding the 8x8 board to 10x10 no additional men should be added to truly increase the skill level of play. The former King’s row in the board expansion now meaningless, the new row added for both masters becomes a Captain’s row in a kingless, seafaring world of sailing and assailing draughtsmen onboard.

Simple enough in theory but is that how it works for real?

[manturtle]

George Hay, the title of that book on your wish list is off the mark; an oxymoron that concedes defeat before the opening move.

“Checkers for Dummies” makes no sense at all, where “Checkers for Smarties” swiftly and deftly sums it all up, leading the reader into a stellar journey where no idiot’s guide or book for dummies has gone before.

If you like chess yet love checkers there’s a detectable, Vulcan versus Human thing at work in the background. That too, implies a logical left-brain, machine-like process for chess versus an intuitive right-brain or whole-minded process that speaks to some measure of humanity living within the playing of checkers. Something old, deep and mysterious shrouded within the very antiquity of the game... something that touches the human heart in ways that chess never has and never could.

Being a bit of a half-Vulcan myself the applicable quote here is:
“Fascinating.”

[George Hay]

manturtle, one thing I've been thinking about lately, the pursuit of Happiness, is from the Declaration Of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I know the phrase "life, liberty, and property" pre-dates the Declaration, but in the Declaration, "property" is replaced with "the pursuit of Happiness." And it is not "Happiness" that is listed "among these" "unalienable Rights," but rather "the pursuit of Happiness." And the pursuit of Happiness could be anything from acquiring property to playing checkers. In the Will Smith movie, The Pursuit Of Happyness, it even included solving the Rubik's Cube.

--George Hay

[manturtle]

George Hay, Jefferson said he added nothing new to the Declaration but his approach was novel and innovative. It was a refinement, rearrangement and restatement of the thoughts of the Revolutionary Collective he was a part of. Euclid himself likely doing the same sort of thing with the geometry that eventually bore his name.

As the master craftsman of the Declaration, Jefferson corrected the errors, eliminating the faulty lines of reasoning such as “property” being an unalienable right, for that is a ‘Right’ of Kings and royalty. And with the postulate of ‘all men are created equal’ leading things off then either everyone has such a right or nobody does, but Life and Liberty are insufficient. There’s a need for at least 3 things to establish a Euclidean plane and ‘pursuit’ is a living thing; a self-directed motion of the individual. As you stated the pursuit could be anything yet the Happiness also opens things up. Both pleasure and pain are included in the happiness; whatever floats your boat without illegally sinking the loved boats of others.

At least some portion of the “property” thing got moved by Jefferson to the anti-slavery part of his original wording, that part deleted by the Continental Congress. Here it is:

“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”