How Should GoldToken Take Checkers to The Next Level?

[BillyBoy]

EDITED

[BillyBoy]

EDITED

[Patrick Parker]

Some great ideas Danno12! Because it is online, I don't think GoldToken's ratings will be the same as ACF ratings (however, our rating system has been approved by the ACF), but if we do head to head gaming, it will have to have its own rating, yes. As more ACF members play at GoldToken, you will be able to weight yourself against them and how they stand up online. Players play differently online vs in person. A great in person player might be beatable online and vise versa. The pressure is completely different. And now that GoldToken offers non rated games, it will open up a whole new avenue for players to play without any pressure.


i agree with alot you say here

[Bob Murr]

This was a short powerpoint presentation that I put together about 2 years ago for an Elementary school class that asked me to do an exhibition for the 4th and 5th graders. I sent the file to Bob Newell to see if there was any interest in this method. I have never been asked to do another presentation. I thought about maybe trying to make a series with increasing difficulty, but there never seemed to be any interest so I more or less abandoned the idea.

[Patrick Parker]

i havent even looked at your lessons
but i have also used power point to teach checkers
didnt know anyone else had ever done it...kinda cool

[Bob Murr]

This little presentation could be vastly improved and expanded by someone more skillful than me. I just wanted to try my hand at it. The school kids loved it, and wanted more. The administrator who asked me to do this is no longer with the school district. I have talked to others, but they always ask, "could you demonstrate chess instead?"

[Patrick Parker]

who wants chess

[Bob Murr]

Educators, after all isn't checkers just a simple child's game?

[Pedro Saavedra]

who wants chess

Hey, I some times feel like the child of a mixed marriage in the presence of racists of either race.

Pedro
Member, ACF and USCF

[Bob Murr]

Actually, I love both games. My previous comment was "tongue in cheek" and not intended to offend anyone. I have heard so many very intelligent people look down on checkers and I do not tire of trying to explain the qualities of checkers to them, it just seems futile at times.

[Patrick Parker]

i like chess as far as problem books go and such
but playing it only in person ......and not on a high level

[Pedro Saavedra]

i like chess as far as problem books go and such
but playing it only in person ......and not on a high level

Who says anything about high level? I'm a past president of a state chess federation and used to write a chess column for a newspaper, but never made even expert (my highest rating was 1953, and most of my life I was around 1800). I prefer checkers to chess, though I think chess has one advantage in today's society. Every country has its own checkers version, and in a nation of immigrants we do not find universal embracing of one kind of checkers. Chess has the same rules everywhere, and perhaps for that reason is more suited to our diverse society. Having said that, I prefer to play checkers.

[john reade]

Actually, Chinese chess has different rules.

[Patrick Parker]

shogi?

[Ingo_Zachos]

Actually, Chinese chess has different rules.

Actually, xiangqi is a different game.
To call it "Chinese Chess" is not correct, one could also call chess "european xiangqi", and that would not be stricly true either.
Both games may have a common anchestor (chaturanga), but even that is not a proven fact, though quite likely.
They have different traditions, different rules and different (and rich!) literature, and two different and independent World Ferderations.
The fomer Chess World Champion, Xie Jun, who was a very strong xiangqi player in her youth, also sees chess and xiangqi as totally different games.
Xiangqi has more complex rules and is less strategic, but more tactical.

I play chess and checkers in tournement, both on a low level, but I see more similarities between checkers and chess then between xiangqi that I played on the internet, and chess.
In chess and checkers planning is more important then in xiangqi, that is much more a game of calculation.

To summarize:

Chinese chess, or to be more precise: xiangqi, is not a different style of chess, but a totally different board game.
Both may have a common ancestor called chaturanga, but today they r completely different games, not just variations of one game.

Chess has some minor styles, like Suicide Chess, Fischer Chess or Janus Chess or Atomic Chess or Bughouse, but these r not that popular as the main style, and you can be sure that each player playing those styles also knows the rules of the "original" game of chess.

In checkers/draughts there are more styles that r apparently very close relatives, though one should not underestimate the difference that even a slightly different majority capture rule can make.
The difference is that here the styles r sometimes even spead over many countries, but no style is spread in all countries.
That makes it difficult to communicate the game to beginners, and it leads to funny misunderstandings, if two people meet and both introduce them to the other as checker/draughts player )
But it can also make them embrace the game even more, once they found out about their different styles, and they begin to exchange knowledge about those styles.

Greetinx from sunny Dortmund,

Germany