Going over "the Sixth"

[Gene Lindsay]

Alex, as I was going over some of the play in "The Sixth", on page 22, I noticed underneath the diagram you say, "Full credit for this line, which now gets a new life, goes to Clayton Nash!"
I am not sure what you mean by this, Clayton was merely following PP given in America's Best Checkers page 120 noe D. He got a couple of nice wins on an old line but he neither corrected or improved upon it.

Gene Lindsay

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Hi, Gene !

I disagree with you on this matter. Indeed, this move 15-18 is not a new one. However it was considered before as "weak". Clayton got a credit, because with his analyses he changed the status of move. Today personally I am considering 15-18 as even defense.

Again - Clay got credit not for this move, but because of changing is status.

If you disagree with me about status - this is another question and another story. We can discuss this. It's just my personal opinion.

If you read again my quote, you can see - the words "now get a new life" are most important part of my message, where I specified exactly - for what I am giving credit !

Alex

[rich beckwith]

As noted in the 2006 Ohio Book, this line goes back to at least the 1927 2nd IM, (it was played twice by AB Scott.....although not with much success the way he played it). As Alex pointed out, he is merely giving Clayton credit for reviving the line with better play for red. I used the line in Prague in 2005 and won a game with it.

[Ingo_Zachos]

I found it in Kear's Encyclopedia, p. 450, var. 7 ff.
There a game Scott-O'Connor is quoted, red winning
Also Tescheleit's "Master Play" has it on p. 77
There a game Scott-Smith is quoted, this time white winning
Tescheleit gives it as "doubtful"
It was always reached by the 1. 9-13 24-20 move order.

Note:
Tescheleit also only gives 7. 15-18 23-19, 8. 4-8 26-23, and now he only gives 9.1-5 instead of the losing 9.7-11 Hallet played against Alex, as drawn.
But Kear's also gives 9.6-9 as drawn.

In the 7. 15-18 28-24 line Tescheleit only gives 8. 10-15 as a weak drawn line.
Obviously 8. 4-8 is better.
Note also that Bernard Coll played this 7.15-18 line against Nash in the USA vs. Ireland & UK internet match on IYT.
So Nash might have found his inspiration there.

Summary:
The line was used in the 2 move era with Scott obviously being its strongest supporter and slept well in the 3 move era (although there was a Caldwell-Rolader game at the Southern Sates Ty 1972).
Solan played it against Alex at the Ohio State Ty 2004, and in 2005 Nash played it extensively at the GAYP nationals, this time with the 1. 11-15 22-17 move-order, presumably after Coll played it on him (here the young master may inform us if my assumption is true) .

It's "Old wine in new bottles" as they say here in Germany.
And as we all know: the older the wine, the better!


Greetinx from rainy Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[Gene Lindsay]

Alex did you read ABC? It does not say that it is weak,(It says another idea here is such)and it says that A B Scott had ASA Long and Newell Banks in probable losses on this line. Clayton also followed the play give in ABC move for move until his opponents varied. So, yes I definitely disagree with you. I guess you can say he revived an old line(simply by playing it) but changed the status, no. How can you change the status of a line by merely following previously pp? He may have changed the status of this line for you, simply by making you aware of it.

Gene Lindsay

[Gene Lindsay]

Richard, there is no better play for red. Clayton played it move for move as given in ABC until his opponents varied.

Gene Lindsay

[Gene Lindsay]

For the benefit of those of you who do not have ABC, here is ABC page 120 note D) Another line runs:9-14, 29-25, then 15-18 (cooked up by the daring Scottish expert, A. B. Scott). He got it on twice against N. W. Banks and Asa Long and had both masters in probable losses! Continue: 15-18, 28-24, (Banks tried 23-19, but it seems untenable against correct play), 4-8, 24-19, 8-11, 25-21, (Heffner's 13-9, 6-13, 26-22, is easiest, as played by Lieber vs. Gonotsky), 1-5, 19-16, 12-19, 23-16, 14-17, 21-14, 10-17, 27-23, (Long's 26-22 against Scott is also questionable), 18-27, 32-23, 6-10, 26-22, 17-26, 31-22, and white's position is drawable, as first demonstrated by Willie Ryan, although he lost it twice in important play! Gonotsky took 10-14 against him in the 1929 Chicago tourney, later winning on a slip, and Edwin Hunt varied with 11-15 in a match at Nashville in 1930, also winning on a misplay, and finally Rubin tried 10-15 in the 1938 Cedar Point Tourney and this time Ryan made no errors and drew. The littleknown Hunt game went: 11-15, 16-11, 7-16, 20-11, 10-14, 13-9, 14-17, 22-13, 5-14, now 13-9 is a simple draw, but Ryan went 30-25, and Hunt gently pushed 15-18, 23-19, 14-17, and Willie resigned in disgust.

Gene Lindsay

[Ingo_Zachos]

Gene,

Read my post plz.

Scott even played it before the 2nd IM against Smith (loss) and O'Connor (win), and Tescheleit was published before ABC (and even before 2nd IM), of which Fortman, that made the commentary in ABC, page 120, obviously was not aware of.

It might be even possible that it was published before Scott, maybe in a magazine that I don't have, as the idea seems quite common to me.
It is also mentioned in Fortman's BC, opening 26, note E). Here Fortman quotes Scott and gives a game in BDJ (i.e. British Draughts Journal), game 173. Unfortunatly I don't have the BDJ, so I cant' see if this line is even older then I expected.

Note:
It is always reached by the 1.9-13 24-20 two-mover, not by the 1.11-15 22-17 GAYP move order Nash used.

So it was indeed not new, but history often gives credit to the wrong people, as Columbus is still hailed as the discoverer of America.
My history teacher was quite upset when I puzzled her with the simple question: How can one discover a continent already inhabited by millons of people ?
She had to admit that this was impossible and that the history books were terribly wrong.

Obviously Alex' missed that ABC, Tescheleit and 2nd IM games, and thought Nash was the innovator in this line when he revised the 2003 first version of his comments as he describes in "The Sixth", page 20, note D !

Now he has more information at hand, but the book is alreday written.
Anyway, Nash at least deserves credit for re-introducing this line into modern master practice with considerable success.
Not a bad feat either, as he was even more successful as his predecessor Scott was.

Greetinx from surprisingly cold Dortmund, Europe

Ingo Zachos[/i]

[rich beckwith]

Thanks for the fine comments, Gene and Ingo. I was unfamiliar with the ABC play until I looked it up last night and found where Fortman gave it favor in his annotations, which was new to me. Curiously, the modern texts, including Fortman's Basic Checkers, seem to disfavor the line. This seems to be one of many lines of checker play that cycle in and out of fashion.

[Gene Lindsay]

Richard it is curious that the modern texts don't even mention this move. It seems to me that this move was quite popular in the 30's & 40's, but its popularity waned after Hefner's 13-9 pitch was introduced(not much to it after the pitch and squeeze).

Gene Lindsay

[Lindus Edwards]

That 15-18 line is "old hat" and doubtless known to novices, experts and masters alike. Hugh Devlin played it against me in the English Open some twelve years ago jokingly saying, "A cook by A.B. Scott." I smiled and jokingly replied, "I have never heard of him."
Some things are so old that they are new