Потребителско име: Парола:
Регистрация на нов потребител
Отговорник: Gabriel Almeida , david upshaw 
 Checkers

Discuss about checkers game or find new opponents. No insulting, baiting or flaming other players. Off topic posts are subject to deletion and if it persists the poster faces sanctions. This board is for checkers.


Съобщения на страница:
Списък с дискусии
Тук не Ви е разрешено да публикувате съобщения. Изисква се ниво на членство най-малко Мозъчна Пешка.
Режим: Всеки може да публикува
Търси сред публикуваното:  

15. август 2003, 07:12:40
Esperanza 
First, my dear Chief KM, you must know how very honored I am that you would seek my comments. I will proceed.

While my innermost being does not rest easy that I would dare to register the least disagreement with the esteemed Usurper KM, I find myself unable to disregard my duty to checker aficionados everywhere and therefore am compelled to explain my inability to agree (but, indeed, disagreeing only in part)with the conclusions of the analysis contained in footnote A. While I do acknowledge the veracity of the major thrust of footnote A, to-wit, that white's line of attack is somewhat stilted, Usurper KM's continued assessment of what is hot and what is not--I most respectfully submit and urge your patient indulgence in doing so--is flawed in that the variation played by J. Beam against Lord Dinglehoff in their match of 1837 has not been properly considered. Using your modern terms, surely, Usurper KM, you must acknowledge just how hot the variation really is! The now famous and aptly named "Duckwalk Tease" variation with its lengthy volumes of analytical annotations presents to the uninitiated player a most unusual and even bewildering formation with its waddling progress of pieces. (Because of the already lengthy annotations I trust you will all forgive me for omitting setting them forth once again.) The very name of the variation, of course, is derived from the duckwalk-like vacillations seen in the paths of the advancing checker pieces. Make no mistake, unorthodoxed though the variation may be when superficially perceived, one who has never encountered the play of this deceptive variation would find its lines so alluring and seductively attractive and temptingly vulnerable that such a one is often in fact teased into abandonment of all fundamental truths of right and wrong checker moves. The unwary and foolish one ultimately is forced to confront the intolerable situation of being irredeemably and irrevocably entangled in the tenacious tentacles of defeat.

One interesting side note for those of you alert to the origins and nuances of language words and phrases: Lord Dinglehoff was said to have been so humiliated upon his inglorious defeat that he, without intent or forethought, did respond to his lingering depression generated by his disasterous loss in such a way as to give rise to a descriptive maxim that is forever engrained into English language usage. Even to this present age we too often hear of those who are intoxicated to an extreme and outrageous degree referred to as being "drunk as a Lord". (Of course, as you might know the phrase was shortened with the passage of time and the name 'Dinglehoff' was omitted from common utterances. You will hear the name used now only upon the most formal and sophisticated occasions.)

PS: Chief, sorry I was delayed in presenting my studious analysis. Are there other matters you might wish me to comment on? lol

15. август 2003, 14:12:18
Purple 
Относно: Re:
I'm sorry I asked. LOL. (I thought NOBODY wrote more prolificaly than Usurper KM. I stand corrected)

15. август 2003, 23:58:51
Usurper 
Относно: Re:
My dear Lobogal:

Your analysis of the Duckwalk Tease is astute and my omission duly noted, however there is a point you fail to consider, all the more surprising given the perceptive player you are. BTW, Lord Dinglehoff is actually my great-great-great-great uncle on my mother’s side before the family got irrevocably tangled up with a bunch of nasty Scotsmen, and his alcoholism (family diary) stemmed not originally from his infamous Duckwalk Stumble but rather his inability to lose while intoxicated or win sober. Scotch on the Rocks and Brandy were ever keys to success but having promised his beloved (future third) mistress that he would curtail his habit if she would only exhibit the Duckwalk Tease for him in private audience, he never thereafter was able to regain his composure on the checkered playground. A tragic story particularly as her Duckstrut became markedly less captivating (less inspired?) in the ensuing years whilst no other mistress could do it justice at all. He is described by most contemporaries as a lugubriously morbid man, others as a waste of God-given talent.

I have studied this line of play and see that, possibly due to a misprint of the original, 9-13 should have been followed by 24-20 rather than the deceptively “hot” 32-28, which concludes then in a draw only if Black misplays terribly with 8-12. 24-20, on the other hand, sets the game aright while revealing its truly luck-warm nature with a 14-17 28-24 etc. follow-up. Both get kings but neither triumph as play bogs down along the G-line (consult Oldbury’s diagonals of attack & defense). Even the rank novice will notice the insipid play here, too much skirting about the edges of the neglected battlefield. Better to take the plunge in a daring frontal assault (e.g. 6-10!) and skewer the Duck. Of course it needn’t be said that 33-29 is out of the question since modern board modifications have rendered that formerly dramatic alternative passé if not obsolete.

Notwithstanding the above, I was pleasantly surprised to learn one important piece of knowledge which had long eluded me, leaving a kind of vacuum in my innermost being. Having forgotten the name of Dinglehoff’s illustrious opponent, it always escaped me why I and others in my clan have long preferred J. Daniels over J. Beam. Now I know. Again, for interested enthusiasts it might be appropriate here to discuss the closely-related yet truly “hot” Prancing Pony variation. But I will resist the temptation.

16. август 2003, 04:32:52
Purple 
Относно: Re:
More and more people are openning with 9-13. I don't mind defending it but I would never choose it in a GAYP game as my first. The only disadvantage to the 11-15 is that the opponent can force you into a single corner game which temporarily takes control away but with practice you can get the move back fairly quickly. When confronted with 9-13 the reply I like best is 24-19 although 22-18 is more "book." I never used to believe that a game can be lost after 3 moves but experience has made me face that reality so the opening is super important. The Duckworth Tease is not all it's quacked up to be. :o)

Дата и час
Приятели на линия
Любими дискусии
Дружества
Подсказка на деня
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Филип Рачунек, всички права запазени
Нагоре