Will-o-Wisp 13-17 defense

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Ed, what KR thinks about 11-15 23-19 9-13 22-18 15-22 25-18 13-17!? 21-14 10-17 ...

See diagram. KR trunk line maybe helpful here. Also I will not be completely surprize if this move (13-17) is an earlier lost

Lowder played this questionable move against D. Oldbury and R. King in his GAYP WCM's, but had a little sucess. His total score balance in this line is negative, however he was able to win a game against each opponent (lost more).

White to move

[Ingo_Zachos]

The "credits" of this line: there is no known and published refutation.

The "debits" : Black conceeds the centre and ends with a piece on 21, not cooperating with the other pieces, so the line is a "strategical handicap line", and why play with a handicap so early ?
I think after 5. ... 29-25, 6. 5-9 25-22, 7. 17-21 both the "common" 7.- 27-23 as well as 7.- 22-17 gives white an edge. He has the inatiative and no weaknesses, Blach has a man on 21 and no initative, a poor result for the first player, I would say...
So even without "refutation", which can't be found due to the complexitiy of the position, I would rate 13-17 hardly as a good move...

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Dear Ingo !

It is not so simple and obvious, as it looks like In general - you right. This is weak move and maybe even lost (thats what I asked Ed), however ... Elbert Lowder is well known as World class player. Per his long and brilliant career he always tried to experiment and get an opponent to virgin territory. Often enough some of his moves are weak or lost, but all of them are always "poisen"

Look at this position again. The main strategic idea of 13-17 move is -"take over" white center and try to get them run eventually out of moves. And sometimes it works in such positions.

At this point I feel more comfortable, after 29-25 5-9 to play 18-15! instead 25-22. You wrote that man on 21 do not cooperate very well with other pieces. Well ... this is "alone soldier" who has an individual task - limit mobility of white pieces on left flank.

Adantages of move 18-15 are obvious - it gives white much more freedom and puts more pressure on red position.

After 25-22 etc white have centre, true, but remember - there is strong center and there is weak center ! This is just general considerations without much calculations.

Elbert was able to win this line against such giants as Oldbury and King. If it would be so simple bad move - how they can lose it ?

Alex

[Ed Gilbert]

I cannot get a conclusive result on this position from a single search of a few minutes. I can only say that it looks weak for black. I'll let the automatic book generator work on it tonight and we can see what is has tomorrow.

-- Ed

[Alex_Moiseyev]

It is my pleasure to present this attractive and interesting game.

MS State tourney, 2003
Petal, May 24-25
A. Moiseyev vs L. Carmier
Rd3, G2

11-15 23-19 9-13 22-18 15-22 25-18 13-17 21-14 10-17 29-25 5-9 25-22 17-21 27-23 8-11 32-27 4-8 24-20 6-10 22-17 9-13 26-22 1-5 31-26 5-9 27-24 2-6 19-15 10-19 24-15 7-10 23-19 9-14 18-2 11-25 26-22 25-29 28-24 8-11 22-18 13-22 2-6 11-15 18-11 10-14 6-10 14-18 10-14 18-23 19-15 23-27 24-19 27-31 14-9 22-26 30-23 31-27 15-10 27-18 19-15 29-25 10-6 3-8 11-4 18-11 6-2 25-22 9-14 DRAW

I typed this game from my original notes, so typos are possible

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I'll let the automatic book generator work on it tonight and we can see what is has tomorrow.

I completely screw up my posts Originally I responded to Ed Gilbert, but later overrided my post wih game against Lisle Carmier. I repeat again my response to Mr. Gilbert ...

If KR will be able to provide us a definite solution regards status of this variation - it will be a great "analytical masterpiece" and addition to checkers theory. There were several publications and analyses in the past, trying to prove soundness or unsoundness of this line. Many expert players still continue to use it occasionly for variety includng myself.

Regards,

Alex

[Michael Holmes]

I have not seen Lowder's games but I knew he played this line. In the games on the ACF website, also sent to moiseyev a long time ago, I have five games listed. For example the first is a draw:
[Event "Holmes MS 11-15 23-19 9-13"]
[Date ""]
[Black "Red"]
[White "White"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
1. 11-15 23-19 2. 9-13 22-18 3. 15x22 25x18 4. 13-17 21x14 5. 10x17 29-25 6. 5-9 25-22 7.
9-13 27-23 8. 8-11 24-20 9. 1-5 28-24 10. 6-9 32-28 11. 4-8 31-27 12. 17-21 19-16 13. 12x19
23x16 14. 2-6 16-12 15. 6-10 27-23 16. 9-14 18x9 17. 5x14 22-18 18. 14-17 18-14 19. 17-22
26x17 20. 13x22 14-9 21. 22-26 9-6 22. 26-31 6-2 23. 10-14 23-19 24. 14-18 19-15 25. 31-27
24-19 26. 27-23 19-16 27. 18-22 28-24 28. 11x18 2x4 29. 22-26 4-8 30. 18-22 24-19 31.
22-25 8-11 1/2-1/2

At the time I was looking this game over I thought that 1-5 was new at move 9. Has Lowder or someone else played this before? Red wants 18-14 with many ways for red to win and a win or two for white but mostly white has to be careful to draw.
Michael

[Ed Gilbert]

I stopped the book generator before I left for work this morning and looked at its results. The 13-17 defense is a draw. I will post the analysis later -- probably tomorrow as I won't be home until late this evening.

-- Ed

[Ed Gilbert]

The database built by the opening book generator shows that 13-17 is a very narrow draw. If white takes the strongest attack shown in the trunk line below then almost every black move is a star move (only move that draws). Numbers shown in curly braces like {-86} are kingsrow search scores.


[Event "Kingsrow analysis of Will-o-Wisp 13-17 defense"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
1. 11-15 23-19 2. 9-13 22-18 3. 15x22 25x18 4. 13-17 21x14 5. 10x17 29-25 {A,B} 6. 5-9 {*,C,D,E} 25-22 7. 9-13 {*,F} 24-20 8. 8-11 {*} 27-23 9. 11-16 {*} 20x11 10. 7x16 28-24 11. 16-20 {*} 19-15 12. 20x27 31x24 13. 3-7 {*} 24-20 14. 7-10 {*} 23-19 15. 1-5 {*} 20-16 16. 5-9 {*} 32-27 17. 2-7 {*} 27-24 18. 17-21 {*} 24-20 19. 10-14 {*} 15-11 20. 14x23 11x2 21. 6-10 22-18 22. 10-14 16-11 23. 23-27 19-15 24. 14x23 26x19 {-1}

{A} 19-15 6. 5-9 29-25 7. 9-13 25-22 8. 1-5 27-23 9. 7-11 24-20 10. 5-9 28-24 11. 3-7 32-28 12. 9-14 18x9 13. 11x27 {-1}

{B} 27-23 6. 5-9 18-15 7. 9-13 29-25 8. 6-9 32-27 9. 9-14 24-20 10. 17-21 {-1}

{C} 6. 6-9 25-22 7. 9-13 24-20 8. 1-6 27-23 9. 8-11 32-27 10. 17-21 27-24 11. 5-9 19-16 12. 12x19 23x16 13. 6-10 26-23 14. 10-15 16-12 15. 7-10 23-19 16. 10-14 19x10 17. 14x23 22-18 18. 13-17 10-6 {-86}

{D} 6. 8-11 25-22 7. 17-21 27-23 8. 5-9 24-20 9. 9-13 32-27 10. 6-9 19-16 11. 12x19 23x16 12. 1-6 27-24 13. 6-10 {back to trunk line in note C}

{E} 6. 17-21 27-23 7. 8-11 25-22 8. 5-9 24-20 9. 9-13 32-27 10. 1-5 27-24 {back to trunk line in note C}

{F} 7. 17-21 27-23 8. 9-13 32-27 9. 6-9 24-20 10. 8-11 19-16 {back to trunk line in note D}

[Ed Gilbert]

If KR will be able to provide us a definite solution regards status of this variation - it will be a great "analytical masterpiece" and addition to checkers theory. There were several publications and analyses in the past, trying to prove soundness or unsoundness of this line. Many expert players still continue to use it occasionly for variety includng myself.

Alex, I have placed the opening book on this Will-O-Wisp line on my web server. It can be downloaded here. http://pages.prodigy.net/eyg/Checkers/wow.odb This book shows not only the trunk line from my previous post, but all the side variations in which black loses when he does not play the exact drawing line.

In order to use this book file, you need to first install Martin's new CheckerBoard, and also the new KingsRow just posted today. These programs both have a number of improvements, so this is a good thing to do even if you don't care about this particular Will-O-Wisp line. Once the new programs are installed, download the Will-O-Wisp book file 'wow.odb' into the engines directory under CheckerBoard. To use the bookfile, use the CheckerBoard menu 'Engine', 'Command', and type into the text box

set bookfile wow.odb

KingsRow will reply with "bookfile set to wow.odb". You are now using the Will-O-Wisp 13-17 book.

-- Ed

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Thanks, Ed and Martin ! This week I have alot of travelling betwen Pittsburgh, Columbus and Cinicnnati. I will reinstall everything over the weekend.

Very nice analyses, Ed, I like them and want to include in my book or publish later somewhere.

Regards

Alex

[CheckersStrongplayer]

Hey Ed that Kingsrow of yours is pretty weak come on Cake is able to beat it.... Cake is so easy to draw.

[Patrick Parker]

KINGSROW IS VERY STRONG YOU PROBABLY DONT HAVE MORE THAN 256 RAM AND CANT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE PROGRAMS.
ANYWHO
I THOUHT 13-17 WAS A LOSS A WHILE BACK WHEN I FOUND IT SOMEWHERE SHOWING LOWDER PLAYED IT. MY PC COULDNT BEAT IT AND I THOUGHT MAYBE IT JUST WASNT ABLE TO FIND THE WIN. THANKS FOR LETTING US KNOW IT DOES DRAW AND THAT PERHAPS I CAN RELY ON MY PC FOR ACCURATE PLAY.

IS 35 PLY A RELIABLE SEARCH DEPTH?

[CheckersStrongplayer]

Ohhh, that must be the problem with me then because a i have a 256 mb of RAM. Now about the requirements for them how come they don't demand a 256 mb of Ram?

[matthewkooshad]

Ohhh, that must be the problem with me then because a i have a 256 mb of RAM. Now about the requirements for them how come they don't demand a 256 mb of Ram?

If this really interest you, http://www.howstuffworks.com/ram.htm . Will-o-Wisp 13-17 defense

Edit: To clarify the above for the questionable confusion that is mentioned in the following three posts: I posted that link for information about RAM if you want to learn about it. This thread is about Will-o-Wisp 13-17 defense; questions about computer ram or critique of a programmer's computer specs recommendations should not be in this thread. Please slow your words down as nothing was meant offensive.