Supportive Correction!

[Richard Pask]

The reader's attention is drawn to my latest book, Complete Checkers; Insights, Lesson 234: Faulty Bridge.

This can be read freely on Bob Newell's excellent website, The Checker Maven, and it is essential to do so in order to understand this post in context.

It has long been this writer's contention that the general advice, frequently given to novices, to make a policy of retaining men on squares 1 and 3 (or 30 and 32) and to readily move those on 2 and 4 (or 29 and 31) is not very helpful and this is brought out in stark relief in this particular lesson.

A number of examples, often horrors created by me for the occasion!, are given to demonstrate the structural weaknesses which typically result from the early movement of the man on 2/31. However, to retain a sense of balance, several positive examples are given; principally Examples 20-23. Of course other sound examples exist - I make no attempt to be exhaustive - but they don't undermine the general teaching points being made.

Two of these horrors, Examples 11 and 12, are as follows:

Example 11: 10-15 23-18; 6-10 27-23 [In the section on the openings, the powerful 18-14 is recommended with White]; 2-6!? [It is made clear that the natural 1-6 should be played. Incidentally, when I refer to 2-6!? as 'A "Lowder" move', I hope it is apparent that I mean a Lowder-like move and not an actual game played by the great man] and

Example 12: 10-15 23-18; 7-10 27-23; 2-7!? [The section on openings recommends the natural 3-7 of course] into Example 11.

From both the context of the lesson and the recommendations of the openings section, I trust it is obvious that these radical moves are to be avoided with the Black side! A further clue comes in the phrase 'may hold up', which surely implies 'may not hold up'!: definitely not the kind of move I would recommend.

Continue: ... 23-19; 10-14 19-10; 14-23 26-19; 7-14 22-17; 14-18 and here, instead of 32-27 as given, the talented analyst Brian Hinkle, utilising the might of KingsRow to advantage (as I myself have frequently done) shows that 25-22! leads to a White win. Thank you to Brian for this.

Why a 'supportive correction'? Well, from the standpoint of a practical player and teacher, Brian's correction serves both to strengthen the general point being made and to further bolster the side I am championing in Examples 11 and 12. Here, White. Readers may therefore wish to alter 2-6!? to 2-6? and 2-7!? to 2-7?

To allay fears that, every time a point is made about Complete Checkers: Insights or the forthcoming Complete Checkers: Repertoire, I will be popping up with a lengthy essay, readers may be readily assured that I will not! It's just that the issues arising here are particularly interesting.

Finally, having worked so hard on these 2 books for so long - many minor and some major improvements will be revealed in the latter book in due course -, may I say that I am not seeking direct criticism from readers in the foreseeable future! That is, I am happy to rest on my laurels (or bask in my ignorance if you wish!) for quite some time; happily letting my work be judged on its overall merit as an imperfect, but hopefully high quality contribution to the literature.

Naturally, 'Criticism, kindly tendered is the salt of checkers/draughts', and it of course goes without saying - the wonderful freedom of expression which we treasure - that readers are at liberty to post proposed criticisms of my, or anyone else's work whenever and wherever they like.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Richard, though I agree in general that earlier development man on 2 (31) is danger, I can give you at least one very good contra example:

9-14, 22-17, 6-9, 26-22, 2-6! which almost equalize position and good response to 26-22 attack,

Respectfully,

ALM

[Richard Pask]

Dear Alex,

Of course I totally agree with you. As I mentioned, my list of sound examples is far from exhaustive.

[Richard Pask]

Alex,

One of the things which made a strong impression on me during the writing of CC: Insights was the incredible degree of exactitude which checkers demands.

This is well illustrated by the following 2 examples:

Example 1: 9-13 23-18; 5-9 26-23; 1-5? (an unnecessary waiting move which transforms an even ballot into a very tough one) into 9-13 23-18; 6-9 26-23; 1-6

Example 2: 9-13 23-18; 6-9 26-23; 1-6 31-26? (transforming a strong White position into an inferior one)

Yes, a micro-study of the opening moves is both valuable and informative.