WQ Round # 8 " FOR ALL THE MARBLES "

[Alan Millhone]

Hello Checker/Draughts Players:

Final round has begun...........................

Beckwith Vs. Lubabalo are now playing to decide the WQ winner !

Lubabalo and Dr. B just now had a draw in game # 1 (Man down line of the Glasgow) 25 minute game.

2nd. game a draw. I will post final standings on another posting.

Laverty playing Nash

Thrane playing Schwartz

The rest decided on draws as none of the rest have a chance of winning.


Sincerely:
Alan Millhone, President
American Checker Federation

[Alex_Moiseyev]

The rest decided on draws as none of the rest have a chance of winning.

1). If Francis decided that he doesn't have chances to win (both games) - so be it !

2) Due to Honor Points - earlier draw agreement is not a perfect sportsmanship and may have influence / impact on the final outcome.

3) In addition - people can earn extra rating, IM / GM norms, prizes etc.

I am very, very disappointed

Alex

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Lubabalo and Dr. B just now had a draw in game # 1 (Man down line of the Glasgow) 25 minute game.

2nd. game a draw.

Hot congratulations to Lubabalo - winner of the World Qualify GAYP Tournament and now - official Challenger. I wish him good luck in the upcoming match and glad to see that we have a new strong world class player in our fraternity.

I also wish him to consider seriously to switch to 3-moves style from childish miserable GAYP. 3-moves is a really and truly king game where Lubabalo skils and talent can be released in the most efficient powerful way.

Sincerely,

Alex Moiseyev

[Ingo_Zachos]

...

I also wish him to consider seriously to switch to 3-moves style from childish miserable GAYP. 3-moves is a really and truly king game where Lubabalo skils and talent can be released in the most efficient powerful way.

...

You forgot something:
the game is called checkers, not restricted checkers.

Nobody can claim to be good at checkers, if he does not master the original game.
He may later switch his attention to any sort of different restriction he prefers.

Or....
do you have another reason for urging him to play 3-move?
Are you longing for a new challenger ?

Anyway, the 2008 World Championship match will be between two continents and see a new face, and perhaps...
What more can we expect for the promotion of our game ?

Greetinx to the players of the WCDF Qualifier from a man that wishes he had made it there,

Ingo Zachos

BTW: What happend to the 11-man-ballot World Championship ?

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Dear Ingo,

In Soviet Union, especially during Stalin era, it was a rule in camps and jails, when people were convoyed: "step right, step left - escape !"

Same thing with GAYP

3-move is called restricted style, but it is restricted by ballot. However, all 156 ballots together give us a whole picture and cover initial position. GAYP is only a small portion of all this play, less then 20%

All good 3-moves players are also good (not necessary best) in GAYP. But it doesn't work in opposite way. Did you ever thought - why ?

Alex

[liam stephens]

SOUNDS FAMILIAR ?

It is, perhaps, an adverse reflection upon the conditions under
which matches are played that these rest games and stale lines
appear so often. To give facts and figures: of the thirty-eight games
played in the previous World Title contest on the three-moves
ballot (Tinsley v. Hellman), some twenty of the games were played
along lines which were well known and previously published. Of
the forty games featured in a recent two-moves ballot match
(Tinsley v. Banks), about twenty-five of the games shuffled along
time-honoured paths. This is not an account of what happened
between this player or that way back in 1882; this is here and now.
Over fifty per cent of the games played by modern masters are
mere repetitions of hackneyed stuff; and when one considers games
churned out on a specific openings, such as 10-15, 24-19 (a two-
mover), or 11-15,22-17,15-18 (a three-mover), the percentage
shows a sharp increase, to around seventy-five per cent or more.
Balloting has fai1ed.
Evidently, a great deal of rethinking on the subject is necessary.
Furthermore, it is vital that a satisfying solution be found soon;
already there are ominous signs - we read articles on 'Is Three-move
Killing the Game?' in various journals. Players are known to be
drifting out of the game, claiming that it has become a memory
test instead of a trial of skill across the board. Is there any real
difference between playing the same book game over and over
again on one opening, as in Martins' Rest, or playing book repeats
on a number of different openings ? One needs to memorize a greater
number of games, that is all. The only apparent justification for
introducing balloted openings that was ever advanced was that
they would increase the percentage of original games played and
that consequently the players who possessed the highest degree of
extempore skill would come into their own. Time has exposed this
fallacy in all its pitiful weakness. The analyst has come into his
own; the crossboard player has vanished from the scene. There are
the walking encyclopaedias; there are the also-rans.

Derek Oldbury - International Draughts and Checkers, Page 77.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

SOUNDS FAMILIAR ?

Yes, but neither me nor Ron King or anyone else today is close to this "Encyclopedic" level. I can see alot of area for improvement my play. The programs change published play in 3-moves more than 30% and it would take a several years / decade for human to adopt it, publish and learn this play.

We are living in very interesting, Renessans era in 3-moves checkers

3-moves style has better balancing between requires skills: knoweldges and crossaboard. Both are necessary evenly. For GAYP we have some disproportion here and detail knoweldges play major role !

Alex

[tommyc]

Renaissance era in 3-moves checkers ...........

Yes indeed with the introduction of the "12 new" openings brought abt by Mail players and the power of new and alternative computer analysis i would have to agree totally w/ Alex.A whole new renaissance is presently at work in checkers.

[Patrick Parker]

i wish chinook would add a new opening or two
914 22 18 14 17......well one can wish

[Patrick Parker]

also in comment on the oldbury article
it takes programs over 50,000 move opening book to really be successful
cake has 1,000,000 kingsrow has 800,000 unsure exactly
i would call this that kind of knowledge that i would catagorize as
comprehensive and does not exist in humans

156 openings 156 lines of play
say 3 distinct lines for each
30 moves for each line
is this even close to the knowledge a program has?
and thats the knowledge maybe the best players in the world might have

if anyone agrees or disagree feel free to correct me

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Ed Trice, co-author of WCC program stated that 200,000 positions in opening book with "sufficient engine" is enough. WCC opening book never seriously exceed this number.

The average number of playable lines in each ballot is 8-10, not 3, because just one different move generates a whole new world. With 156 ballots we should consider 1,200-1,500 lines, each - 20 moves.

In total it would give us 25,000 - 30,000 something positions. Personally, I think I am more or less familiar with 8,000-10,000 from them.

More likely Tinsley and Hellman numbers were close to 20,000

Alex

===============================================================
All these statistics are for 3-moves. For GAYP all numbers should be 10 times less

[Ingo_Zachos]

This is a fine calculation, showing that 3-move gives indeed "memory players" a greater advantage then GAYP, in contrast to what many believe...

In GAYP, as Alex rightly pointed out, you need a lower number of lines to have a coherensive(solid) opening repertoire, and the rest (middlegame and endgame) can be reached without any substancial disadvantage, so your crossboard skills will tell there (provided you developed an opening repertoire and you have no memory slip).
In 3 move, your well booked opponent knows the opening with red and white of a crazy opening that you would not condsider to play if you had a free choice, and gets a slightly or decisive advantage, and you get less/no chance to show your crossboard skills.
In 3 move you have to have a better memory as you have to learn 156/144 openings, not just about 10-20 as in GAYP, but once you did, you'll have a stable and reliable advantage over players that did not spent hours on memorizing Basic Checkers or Solid Checkers...
That's why players with crossboard skills and little pp-knowledge may develope better and first in GAYP then in 3 move.
It simply needs less memorization, and, most of all, gives more scope for using your crossboard skills!

Greetinx from sunny Dortmund,

Ingo Zachos

[Patrick Parker]

so....gayp only study gayp games
what if opponent plays 12-16.....24-20 ....11-15 free to choose
insane opening but very much not something u would study
if u only study gayp

[Ingo_Zachos]

so....gayp only study gayp games
what if opponent plays 12-16.....24-20 ....11-15 free to choose
insane opening but very much not something u would study
if u only study gayp

Don't get me wrong
I did not tell anybody not to study 2-move, 3-move or 11-man ballot games.

They contain a lot of tactical ideas(especially 11-man ballot) and endgame technique that can be applied in all styles.
Only a fool would not look at Moiseyev endings, only because they were not played in his favourite style.

My point was:
In 3 move a good memory is even more advantageous then in GAYP, and crossboard skilled players will find it harder to overcome their "handicap" in opening theory as in GAYP, as in GAYP you can limit your opening repertoire, with one good line against each first move, and a good line against each answer to your favourite move, say 11-15.
That reduces the time you need for studying "published play" enourmously.

In your example:
If you chose 1.-24-20 ("Dundee Lassie") against the Dundee, you dont have to study lines with 1.- 22-18 or 1.-21-17 or any other first white move against 1.12-16.
Of course, you must still learn something against 1.12-16 24-20, 2. 11-15, but not against 1. 12-16 23-18, 2. 16-19 or 1. 12-16 22-18 16-19 or 1. 12-16 22-17, 2. 16-20, just to mention a few examples.

Does this explain what I mean ?
In 3-move building a solid repertoire is a much more time-consuming business then in GAYP, that's why memory is more telling in 3-move then in GAYP.

Greetinx from sunny Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[tommyc]

Ingo...............That is stating the obvious.