whats wrong boys u afraid of a game u can't hook your computers to?

At the risk of being a Plonker I must agree with you APolaris.

No, my problem is that checkers without the jump is literally a non-profound game. All it is is pieces moving around diagonally, with no real threat to them unless you make the absolute dumbest of moves, whereas with the forced jump, you have to worry not only about squeezes and center control but about people getting in shots, including the brooklyn, longer stroke combinations, sacrifices that can force you into a devastated position, and other fascinating play that makes checkers the profound game it is. It's BECAUSE of the limitations placed on the rules of checkers that it's the world's most profound game. In checkers without the forced jump, what deep, complex combinations of moves can you make that ultimately result in such great wins as some of the shots, and what actual threats can you make against the opponent? Without the constant threat of shots and other devastating plays that need the forced jump, I can't picture checkers being a challenging or particularly deep game. This is exactly why most people *think* that chess is more profound than checkers: because they play the version with no forced jump and therefore declare it easier.

Plonker!

ur only problem with that is,u can't hook your computer up to that game.thats mind against mind.so if u think that is a kids game u must be one.

LOL! Checkers without the forced jump? That's a kid's game :P It's the version that has no actual strategy. The forced jump, because it is the basis for everything from shots to sacrifices and even lovely pieces of work like the brooklyn, is the very foundation of checkers as a strategic game that takes actual skill. Take that away, and all you have is an easier version of chess... instead of the game Poe once said is, while less complex, more profound, than chess.

By some quirk I am now #10 on the checker ladder and the only top player with a challenge open is Raymond Faircloth. He looks way too good. Congrats to Esperanza who recently took a huge ladder jump by making Purple blue. LOL

Exactly. That is what I know. The three time repeated position is (unfortunatelly only) a chess rule...

Rule #12
A draw is declared when neither player can force a win. When one side appears stronger than the other, and the player with what appears to be the weaker side requests the referee for a count on moves, then, if the referee so decides, the stronger party is required to complete the win, or to show to the satisfaction of the referee at least an "increased" advantage over his opponent within 40 of his own moves, these to be counted from the point at which notice was given by the referee. If he fails to do this, he must relinquish the game as a draw.

:))

Thanks alot Purple.:)

Fencer might put it on his feature request list. Tell him it's Canadian checkers. :)

Doses that mean that we can't start a game on here called open checkers?

Just screen your opponents but the site won't let you pass up a must jump.

I just checked out checkers games.there is 9 different games where is OPEN checkers? That called mind against mind. How about starting that. Leave the computer out it. then we can find out who the checker players really are.How about that Purple?

It's checkers.

Its not in Canada Purple. this is 2004 . Rules change i don't know what book you are looking in. But since i was a kid, here you could here. I never heard of it until i come online.

Rule dates back to 19th century.

Why can't checkers be played like on a real board? Whats this must jump rule?

A couple of years back there were people who declined draws in a 1/1 game in opposite double corners. They could drag them on for just spite. You had to write to the site to get the game declared a draw. Then they adjusted their computer so that the machine automatically called 3 consecitive same moves a draw. Now you have to write to have the game go on and both parties have to agree to it. Big pain.

I thougt the rule, that after a position is three time repeated, the game is a draw, is only in chess. At least I can't find it in "Rules of Play and Laws for Standard American Checkers" by ACF. (I mean, I'm glad to hear it!)

Btw, note that we can switch in the settings the colors for checkers, so that we start the game with the black men. :-)

Here specifically is Ray's game I mentioned in a below posting. As you can see the position does repeat 3 times which officially calls it a draw. But his opponent did not request IYT to make it a draw until Ray had already found the win! Should the draw have been allowed or should they have let Ray win at this point? After all, the draw wasn't offered at the point that it should have been asked for.

1. 9-14 24-20 2. 11-15 22-18 3. 15-22 25-18-9 4. 5-14 29-25 5. 8-11 25-22 6. 4-8 22-17 7. 11-15 30-25 8. 15-18 27-24 9. 18-27 32-23 10. 8-11 25-22 11. 11-15 24-19 12. 15-24 28-19 13. 7-11 19-16 14. 12-19 23-16-7 15. 2-11 31-27 16. 3-8 17-13 17. 14-18 22-15 18. 10-19 26-22 19. 8-12 22-18 20. 6-10 21-17 21. 10-15 20-16 22. 15-22 16-7 23. 22-25 7-2 24. 25-30 2-7 25. 12-16 7-11 26. 16-20 11-16 27. 19-24 27-23 28. 24-27 23-19 29. 27-31 19-15 30. 30-25 17-14 31. 25-22 15-11 32. 22-18 14-9 33. 18-14 9-5 34. 14-10 11-8 35. 20-24 8-3 36. 24-27 16-11 37. 10-6 3-7 38. 6-2 7-10 39. 2-6 10-7 40. 6-2 7-10 41. 2-6 10-7 42. 31-26 11-16 43. 26-23 16-11 44. 23-18 11-16 45. 27-31 16-19 46. 18-23 19-26 47. 31-22 7-2 48. 6-10 2-6 49. 10-7 6-9 50. 22-17 9-6 51. 1-10 then the game was declared a draw by IYT after Ray's opponent requested it.

Darn right. On IYT was manuevering waiting for my opponent to make a mistake an I got slammed by the draw rule. No draw had been offered by either of us. The game was 4/4 even so there was a lot of checkers left.

Ok, you know that draw rule that says if you repeat the same position 3 times within a game, it's declared a draw? Well, my friend Raymond Faircloth had a game on itsyourturn lately where he had an easy winning position, but his opponent offered a draw. The game was on move 51 and he was up 3 kings to 2 men. His opponent offered a draw, he refused, and IYT declared the game a draw. The reason: that rule. On moves 37, 39, and 41 he allowed the same position to occur 3 times: red men on 1 and 27, red kings on 6 and 31; white men on 5 and 13, white kings on 7 and 11. Raymond eventually found the win and his opponent also made some dumb plays, but then the opponent emailed IYT requesting the game be called a draw because of the 3-position repetition, and they allowed it!

My question is this: if a game has a position repeated three times, it's declared a draw, right? But if the opponent does not request a draw upon the repetition (Ray won the game at his 51st move, 10 after the last repetition) but then offers the draw long after the repetition when the other player is winning, is the game still declared a draw?

why is there so many winers and poor loses playing on this site..LOL i've only been here 2 weeks, also only been online games for the same amount of time...I think there should be a special game desighed for these unforutate people .and can.t spell teether..LOL..GERRY

Nah, there's an "er" in it.

I guess it must mean "brainier," then, or maybe "brainer" as in someone who brains. You never know... some people have hammers

It means Brainy!! LMAO

Plonkers does not sound good whatever it means. :)

Plonkers, the whole lot of ya.

Case closed then.

That's what I stated... that I hadn't played live yet but am planning to when circumstances will allow. But when you're going to college classes, it's hard to keep up even with practice, let alone to travel somewhere you can't afford to, without a car, and still manage college. Especially if you have Crohn's disease and have been to the hospital four times since January, twice for surgery, and might have to go again anytime. So it might be a while before I can go. Believe me, I would love to just for the chance to prove those people wrong.

And by the way, your "seasoned grandmansters" for the most part didn't believe a word of what was posted. The only players to believe that horrific lie, if I'm not mistaken, were Post (see below, I shouldn't even have to comment in addition but he's hardly a grandmaster), Clint (he's admittedly good, but still human and therefore fallible) and some other people whose names are so obscure I can't even remember them. Here are some people who believe my side, on the other hand: Alex, Lindus, Wilma Wolverton, Jan Mortimer, Jim Loy, Richard Fortman, as well as many people who have played as many as 300 games online with me each (and therefore know a lot more about my playing style) such as Corey Modich and Francesco LaRocca. Ever noticed how the people who believed Post's lies have one thing in common: only one of them has even played a game with me online, and he only played two?

I was stating what was written on checker solutions AP by seasoned grandmasters, it's up to you how you want to take these comments. You will also have to let me know where we played a live game because as far as I know I only played you twice on IYT. Obviously if this is mistaken identity you have my apology.

Oh, one more thing... I didn't even play checkers in 1995-6. I started in 1999 or maybe 2000.

I know who you mean, but it isn't me. My name's Anthony and I'm from New York. The guy you're thinking of has a name that starts with an R. I remember being surprised when I saw that name on the wall of honor, knowing that none of my family are strong checkers players. I think his name was Raul.

Then try scrolling down more, ustica. He did claim it, using as his source some guy named Post who accuses everyone who plays better than he does, and hasn't attended a live tournament, of using a program. And by this I mean EVERYONE. Even a woman named Kristen on zone who loses on published play for Old 14th.

i don t see where gooner a accuse you. why you say he his? gooner is very nise person.

I can't wait to play him live if that ever happens. I wonder if there would be any intimidation factor.

Clint Olsen is awesome for a young guy. Master of the Smother. I got a draw first time I played him and never won another except when he timed out wit a winning board.

Heckert is well known to me. He was definitely not a program user, but yes, people did accuse him of that all the time too. Many other names like Olsen, Nash, Mortimer and even Moiseyev have gotten called online cheats by people (my only guess is they were jealous kids who play live and wish they did as well as those they accused would, like the ones I see on zone all the time). In many of these cases they were also accused before they got to be in a live tournament. If you ask me, they use it as a cheap ploy so that they can discourage people who are better than they are from going to tournaments, so they don't have to worry about competition that might get in their way as much.

There are some people who cut their teeth on the internet and then started playing competively in Las Vegas where it is over the board. Michael Heckert was so good that everyone accused him of programming when he was not and he got really stressed about it and quit playing for awhile. But he went to Las Vegas and won some youth division or something and proved everybody was wrong. Mainly we have to take people's word for things or just not play them.

I agree with Stardust here. There is no reason behind it. The point of playing checkers online is to enjoy it and have fun, as well as to develop ability. A person simply copying moves from a checkers engine and playing them on a board is doing neither.

Oh, and gooner (probably Post or some other bum like that who hounds people because he's jealous of them and has nothing better to do)... sorry pal, but two people claiming I use Nemesis (something I don't even have a copy of) doesn't make it true. In fact, I've been helping to run a community to drive people like that OUT of zone, and suggesting to MSN and other sites ways to stop them such as something that can detect checkers engines running in the background. If I were someone who did this, would I be trying to find ways to stop it? This is why I get annoyed by such accusations... because what you accuse me of is the very thing I've been taking time out of my busy schedule for THREE YEARS to PREVENT people from doing! But, as pretty much everyone but yourself and three other people knows, my integrity is unquestionable, and you haven't really convinced anybody to the contrary.

And pointing out that one game was close to what a program would play doesn't "prove" anything. In fact, I can provide you with many games that prove I DO NOT use any form of engine to make moves for me. I do practice by playing against one, which has been the cause of much of my learning.

I should also add that if you were to post that game again, you would find that at least a few moves, when compared to Nemesis' choice, were unaccounted for - that is, there was no comment about them being similar. They were the ones that didn't match. Coincidence? I think not. Additionally, there is the simple fact that I can explain to you the reasoning behind every move I chose. A program user copies moves because the engine analyzes them as "best". I can tell you the reason behind a move I make. A cheat can not.

Simple as that. But if that's not enough... check out the fact that I'm a Christian and, furthermore, an Eagle Scout. My honor is something that is a part of my very identity as a human being and a person on my level of honor would never cheat to get anything. And don't even bring up that crap about a person "using a program only in some games and not in others." I find people who use programs in ANY games offensive and disgusting human beings, and have a very strong opinion that people like that will never get anywhere. And I find it is also most likely true that if a person were to bother using one, they wouldn't bother using it for some games and not others, or for only part of a game. That would just be pointless. Your hounding of me and flaming of every message board I go to gets ridiculous, and I'm tired of being harassed by liars. If you're ever going to post another accusation, post it after, whoever you are, I've played you live. I'll do you one better: play the exact line LIVE with me, whenever I get to play live that is, of the same game you claim I used a program to play. I'll play out the same win move by move and then explain to you why I made each move. No program user could do that.

How can playing via computer program be satisfying to the competitive spirit?
I can understand using one to test one's own competence but not to use one in place of play.

You should read checker solutions Bill.

If he forwarned opponents before games or the games were unrated or he was playing againt an admitted programmer I do not think it would be cheating. Very hard to prove anyway.

Sorry Bill Typo error

He is a cheat using nemesis

This is getting too confusing to follow. *rofl*

Perez is me or Perez is programming?

Many times tournament players on IYT have known each other for years and both know the other is using a program. That is not cheating. There was a great guy named Richard Fortman who said "bring on your program" even though he didn't use one himself. Did pretty darn good but he had 90 years experience. LOL

There are to many of them around at the moment

Cheat would be be the word that springs to mind