Online National Teams Competition.

[Ingo_Zachos]

Dear checkerfriends,

The Coll brothers and I discussd the idea of a National Teams competition like the Home internationals or the Chess Olympiads, and we had the idea to start a first attempt ONLINE.

We may use IYT at the first attempt, and we r thinking about 3 man a National Team, maybe also a 2nd team is allowed if enough players feel ready to play for their country. Later we could also organize a competition at kurnik or yahoo in real time.

To avoid cheaters, I would suggest that we only accept players that r known as tournament players or mail players, no faked names and no proggers.

If you want to nominate a National Team plz contact me:

nimzo@gmx.de

Of course, WCDF federations have the first right to nominate a Team.

Don't forget the real names of the players, the board order and the names they have on IYT.


Also email me if you r interested, but you don't know if your Nation has a team. I will try to make ends meet.

I hope that these ballon will prove worth it, and that it could be a sign for the checker commumity to organize crossboard team competitions for National Teams.

Greetinx from Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Of course, WCDF federations have the first right to nominate a Team.

Dear Ingo,

I would not recommend you to link WCDF to this event. It is not true and may confuse people - they may think that this is an official and serious event.

Sincerely,

Alex Moiseyev
checkers player

[kim willis]

Ingo,

I have to say in many years i have been online this will not turn out the way expect it too.I know this threw experience.For i would like to know how u will keep the proggers and cheaters from entering this?
And you sau only real names well these kids these days are pretty smart when it comes too computers,u might be surprised what they can do.

Sorry Ingo,i just would not suggest doing anything like this,it has been tried before.

kim

[Patrick Parker]

welll i would say if u are going to try and do this........
dont bother using IYT there will be cheaters .....
i know mail play gives u more time to think and all
but people at iyt play with an acf rating around 2400
then go to kurnik and hit acf rating around 1700
wonder what makes a difference.......
i wonder how those people would do in a live tournament

ur idea .....thoughts are in the right place......but doing it thru iyt wont turn out well......i dont believe

[Pedro Saavedra]

Patrick asks:
> but people at iyt play with an acf rating around 2400
> then go to kurnik and hit acf rating around 1700
> wonder what makes a difference.......
> i wonder how those people would do in a live tournament

I have a friend who asks how over the board players would do in a correspondence tournament.

I do not play OTB for several reasons. Some are health reasons (bad neck, sleep disorder that affects my alertness, etc.). But one other reason is that I do not care to memorize the openings. It is not my cup of tea. I would not mind 11-man ballot, but there are many players with more time or experience than I who know the 3-move and GAYP openings much better than I. But if I have access to the literature during a game (something perfectly permissible in correspondence, e-mail and server-based tournaments) I can look for improvements and try to refute the improvements others make.

Some OTB players look down at correspondence and turn-based players. They must be proud of their memory. This is not to say that I think memory decides OTB play (Alex, for instance, would clobber me at 11-man or at a new checker variant with similar, but not identical, rules to our checkers) but it is a requirement.

So if you hear me say that Alex is the Mac Banks of Over the Board Checkers, you will know where I'm coming from.

[Patrick Parker]

your friend asks how we would do in a mail tourny
i would do poorly no books or progs for me

how would mail players do..........otb in a tournament

[Pedro Saavedra]

> how would mail players do..........otb in a tournament

For myself, I would do poorly, in part because I would be playing folks who have memorized openings. In chess, correspondence chess is considered the kind that produces the best chess games, and I feel correspondence checkers yields some of the best play. Which is why I find going over mail-play games more satisfying.

You choose to define true checkers skill by OTB play. I define it by mail-play. Somebody else may think that blitz play is the true test. They different modes, and each is a skill in its own right.

What I think is that ACF should not consider itself as only concerned with OTB or live Internet play. I, for one, lost interest in live play of any game some time ago, except perhaps as a social activity if I visit a fellow player. I like to be able to take my time, to analyze, to see what others have played in the same position and so forth. Without those elements I would not enjoy the game. This is why Mac Banks and Dick Fortman are among the players I most admire.

Now, I recognize that the game owes as much to the great OTB champions as to any mail-play champion. I regret that I never saw Tinsley play, but I can go over his games at will. And I do like watching games being played. But for myself, I prefer mail or turn-based play a zillion times. I like printing a game and looking at the position during a break at work or on the train. And I like playing many games at once.

And I resent folks who dis my favorite mode of play.

[Michael Holmes]

Patrick, I played two draws last night against Clayton Nash at Kurnik. I have a rating there of 1444. And although this rating is much lower than the one with the ACF I submit that the ratings are only a small measure of the possible playing potential of each player. They are very much needed in order to rank ourselves and class each player. However, the number does not define us but rather we define the number and can play much differently than what the number "suggests" we will!

[tommyc]

""You choose to define true checkers skill by OTB play. I define it by mail-play. Somebody else may think that blitz play is the true test. They different modes, and each is a skill in its own right. "says Pedro.

Checkers is supposedly regarded as scientific,but there is no science applied to OTB play its simply for one side or the other a game of chance wit and craft.

Blitz play is even more a game of chance.

The only science applied to checkers is in Mail play where complete analysis of move and counter move is examined.
To prove this ask the question why are OTB players not allowed to play Barred openings,simply b/c the are not scientifically proven draws!!

Im my opinion OTB players could in fact play Barred openings and 90%+ of them would draw.b/c of the possibility of the unknown win.

So if checkers is a proven science it is only a science in Mail Play,everything else is chance.