I am currently working on this as part of the endgame section of Logical Checkers Book 3, and it seems that there is still much to say on it!
Black, 12, 20, kings on 22 and 30
White 31, 32, kings on 23 and 19
White to play and win: … 19-15; 22-17 15-18; 30-25 and 31-26!* brings out the Clayton correction in double-quick time
However, the play normally runs … 19-15; 30-25; 23-26 22-17; 15-18 25-30; 26-23(A) 30-25; and now 31-26!
A: However, in the 1978 US Nat Ty, Don Lafferty played Boland's 18-23 here, followed with 30-25 and now 26-30! is the Lafferty correction, holding the white win after 25-22 23-19!; 22-18 30-25; 17-21 31-27; 21-30 27-24; 20-27 32-14. First Position.
At * perhaps White should play 23-26 anyway: the Lafferty correction appears to be just as good as the Clayton correction.
What do people think?
Clayton-Tinsley Endgame
-
Richard Pask
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:15 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: Much!
-
Bill Salot
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:57 am
Re: Clayton-Tinsley Endgame
Richard,
I don't know what to think.
Surely with the concurrence of an 8-piece database, there can be no question about the outcome of any variation played from this position. Isn't that sufficient?
So what are you asking?
You have pointed out a longer dual solution, which, to a composer like me, detracts from both the beauty and criticality of the position.
To a player, surely there is no added value in learning a different way to win, unless it is easier. There was no excitement when Boland found a dual solution to Third Position. Don't expect any now.
To a historian/analyst/explorer like you, there may be a thrill in every new discovery. Is that what is behind your question? If so, why not shoot for something even bigger, like looking for a third way to win it or for proof that there is no third way?
Richard, I am just pulling your leg to get a reaction
.
I don't know what to think.
Surely with the concurrence of an 8-piece database, there can be no question about the outcome of any variation played from this position. Isn't that sufficient?
So what are you asking?
You have pointed out a longer dual solution, which, to a composer like me, detracts from both the beauty and criticality of the position.
To a player, surely there is no added value in learning a different way to win, unless it is easier. There was no excitement when Boland found a dual solution to Third Position. Don't expect any now.
To a historian/analyst/explorer like you, there may be a thrill in every new discovery. Is that what is behind your question? If so, why not shoot for something even bigger, like looking for a third way to win it or for proof that there is no third way?
Richard, I am just pulling your leg to get a reaction
.-
Richard Pask
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:15 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: Much!
Re: Clayton-Tinsley Endgame
Dear Bill, Thank you for this - I think!
Answering my own question is not nearly as interesting as reading the views of others, but here goes.
My interest in this endgame is almost entirely practical, as it features in my Logical Checkers series, Book 3, and I am trying to instruct the reader.
1. Following Derek Oldbury's approach as outlined in his Square World magazine, I made a short chronological study of the position/situation. (I'm sure you are aware of Dr Newland's problem chronologue's in the American Checker Monthly magazine. This is not merely of academic interest, but shows the practical difficulties/developments players and analysts faced over the years. This is much the same with midgame landings: if dozens of players went wrong at a certain point in the past, this is apt to be repeated in the future. Moreover, without this rich history of human development, the game would be very much poorer - yes, it's fascinating in its own right too.
2. Willie Ryan, on the advice of the endgame authorities, held the position to be a draw for the defender, with or without the opposition: Jeff Clayton showed that the attacker could win with the opposition: an amazing correction.
3. It seems incredible to me that there could be a second way of winning - the Lafferty way. (And that BOTH could have been missed for so long.) Also, the significance of this was not picked up in the 1978 US Nat Ty annotations. For many players the Lafferty approach may prove preferable (the First Position aspect may make it longer, but not necessarily harder)- I have given both ways in my presentation so that they can choose.
4. The endgame databases, and the top programs in general, are a tremendous tool. However, although the databases give a definitive outcome, they can't explain the strategy behind the win/draw, nor the 'toughest' defence/attack, nor the 'best' method for a human being - unless there is one single route throughout of course. This is where a human being is required as an intermediary - something which occurred on hundreds of occasions when I was writing Complete Checkers.
5. As we all know, MFT made a monumental effort to show that this endgame could be won with or without the opposition. Indeed, in America's Best Checkers, the photograph shows himself and Hellman analysing this very endgame! With the benefit of the databases, several holes can be found in his analysis in Checkers magazine, which brings me to another point. My admiration for Tinsley, Hellman, Long and Boland etc.. is very well known, and is of course shared by every checkerist. These occasional flaws don't diminish this admiration one iota; what they do is redemonstrate the mind-blowing scope of our wonderful game. (Dr Schaeffer made the valid point that once the 8-piece databases had been completed, the program was superior in this phase of the game to even the greatest players. For myself, this was true when the 4-piece databases were completed, and will indeed form the basis, God willing, of a future book - Checkers in Miniature: a definitive guide to the 2 v 2 endgames.)
6. In closing, I would say that given the frequent occurrence of this endgame*, an alternative method of winning is of definite relevance.
I know now what I think about it at least!
* In Logical Checkers I show 9 different ballots running into the Clayton-Tinsley endgame. One of these is the 40th game of the King-Lafferty WCM, where Don missed a tough win which would have secured him a 5-4 victory!
Answering my own question is not nearly as interesting as reading the views of others, but here goes.
My interest in this endgame is almost entirely practical, as it features in my Logical Checkers series, Book 3, and I am trying to instruct the reader.
1. Following Derek Oldbury's approach as outlined in his Square World magazine, I made a short chronological study of the position/situation. (I'm sure you are aware of Dr Newland's problem chronologue's in the American Checker Monthly magazine. This is not merely of academic interest, but shows the practical difficulties/developments players and analysts faced over the years. This is much the same with midgame landings: if dozens of players went wrong at a certain point in the past, this is apt to be repeated in the future. Moreover, without this rich history of human development, the game would be very much poorer - yes, it's fascinating in its own right too.
2. Willie Ryan, on the advice of the endgame authorities, held the position to be a draw for the defender, with or without the opposition: Jeff Clayton showed that the attacker could win with the opposition: an amazing correction.
3. It seems incredible to me that there could be a second way of winning - the Lafferty way. (And that BOTH could have been missed for so long.) Also, the significance of this was not picked up in the 1978 US Nat Ty annotations. For many players the Lafferty approach may prove preferable (the First Position aspect may make it longer, but not necessarily harder)- I have given both ways in my presentation so that they can choose.
4. The endgame databases, and the top programs in general, are a tremendous tool. However, although the databases give a definitive outcome, they can't explain the strategy behind the win/draw, nor the 'toughest' defence/attack, nor the 'best' method for a human being - unless there is one single route throughout of course. This is where a human being is required as an intermediary - something which occurred on hundreds of occasions when I was writing Complete Checkers.
5. As we all know, MFT made a monumental effort to show that this endgame could be won with or without the opposition. Indeed, in America's Best Checkers, the photograph shows himself and Hellman analysing this very endgame! With the benefit of the databases, several holes can be found in his analysis in Checkers magazine, which brings me to another point. My admiration for Tinsley, Hellman, Long and Boland etc.. is very well known, and is of course shared by every checkerist. These occasional flaws don't diminish this admiration one iota; what they do is redemonstrate the mind-blowing scope of our wonderful game. (Dr Schaeffer made the valid point that once the 8-piece databases had been completed, the program was superior in this phase of the game to even the greatest players. For myself, this was true when the 4-piece databases were completed, and will indeed form the basis, God willing, of a future book - Checkers in Miniature: a definitive guide to the 2 v 2 endgames.)
6. In closing, I would say that given the frequent occurrence of this endgame*, an alternative method of winning is of definite relevance.
I know now what I think about it at least!
* In Logical Checkers I show 9 different ballots running into the Clayton-Tinsley endgame. One of these is the 40th game of the King-Lafferty WCM, where Don missed a tough win which would have secured him a 5-4 victory!
-
Bill Salot
- Posts: 448
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:57 am
Re: Clayton-Tinsley Endgame
Richard,
Now you are making sense. Thank you.
Now you are making sense. Thank you.
-
Alex_Moiseyev
- Posts: 4353
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: .....
Re: Clayton-Tinsley Endgame
Richard,
for myself an obvious practical consideration my choice is Clanton correction. Easy remember and easy to understand an idea of winning way.
In addition, by using Lafferty correction red can choose a way to return to original setting. In other words - if you don't know how to win by Clayton correction, you can't use successfully Lafferty way!
AlexM
for myself an obvious practical consideration my choice is Clanton correction. Easy remember and easy to understand an idea of winning way.
In addition, by using Lafferty correction red can choose a way to return to original setting. In other words - if you don't know how to win by Clayton correction, you can't use successfully Lafferty way!
AlexM
I am playing checkers, not chess.
-
Richard Pask
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:15 pm
- What do you like about checkers?: Much!
Re: Clayton-Tinsley Endgame
Dear Alex, Many thanks for this!
You are of course correct: I hadn't realized that, against the Lafferty approach, Black could forces things back to the original setting.
For me, there is a lot more 'justice' in this!
As you say, it means that strictly speaking there was really only one correction, the Clayton correction, and that Don's approach is merely subsidiary to this.
Of course, I am 100% certain that Don knew all about the Clayton correction, and that his approach, which is sound, was by way of a first 'sally' (as DEO would put it). If his opponent were to lose as he did, so be it; if he forced White back to the beginning, then Don would play Clayton's 31-26!
For myself, I quite like the Lafferty approach, but from a teaching standpoint logically there can only be one way: the Clayton way.
You are of course correct: I hadn't realized that, against the Lafferty approach, Black could forces things back to the original setting.
For me, there is a lot more 'justice' in this!
As you say, it means that strictly speaking there was really only one correction, the Clayton correction, and that Don's approach is merely subsidiary to this.
Of course, I am 100% certain that Don knew all about the Clayton correction, and that his approach, which is sound, was by way of a first 'sally' (as DEO would put it). If his opponent were to lose as he did, so be it; if he forced White back to the beginning, then Don would play Clayton's 31-26!
For myself, I quite like the Lafferty approach, but from a teaching standpoint logically there can only be one way: the Clayton way.
-
George Hay
- Posts: 1054
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:41 am
- What do you like about checkers?: Checkers is a game of pure logic.
- Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
Re: Clayton-Tinsley Endgame
Richard Pask, I liked the Lafferty approach until I read Mr. Alex's critique of it. But then, how Lafferty used it still makes sense when I read your reply. What I liked about the Lafferty approach was that it resembled the American Position (Logical Checkers, Book 2). Also, Lafferty is not moving the man off 31 and that looks "natural" to me, as in moving the Kings instead of the Men. The shot for First Position will work fine (Logical Checkers Books 1 and 2). I would have to say the Clayton approach is the best for me to avoid a circular line of play that is difficult for a wood pusher like me to get out of.
--George Hay
--George Hay