In that connection perhaps Fencer could put checker pieces on the chess games. :o)

Hello,
Anybody can indicate me the references of a good book which describes tactics and strategies of Checkers? And a link to command it by way of Internet?

Hello Michou
Is posting links allowed on this db? If so I have a couple of links if not send me a message and I would be glad to send them to you.

Posting is very welcome. I was thinking of Jim Loys pages and the links from there. All contributions welcome and if you can make the links clickable so much the better.

Thanks Aragon for letting me know
Here are a couple of starters

http://www.usacheckers.com/excerpt-ryan.html
http://www.usacheckers.com/excerpt-oldbury.html

Thanks Chief KM
Jim Loy is great he has many great pages and resources. http://www.jimloy.com/checkers/checkers.htm

Very good sites. Thanks Daedal

Daedal: You can even post live links :-)
http://www.usacheckers.com/excerpt-ryan.html

That's great may I ask how you made the link live?

<a href=http://some.where.com/page.html>This is my link</a>

Thank you to all which have answered.

I am still a beginner at this game,but I was realy impressed with this site.
Take a look and post your comments.
mij


http://www.geocities.com/dream_help/shot1.html

Lots of good info there for beginner and advanced alike. Thank you.

Anybody here like to play the Diabolical Denny opening. Would like ayones thoughts on it

you mean this one??10-14?? Denny. 5th best way to begin the game.
10-14 24-19!(A) 6-10 (14-18 or 11-16 White better) 22-17 9-13 [11-15 17-13 (26-22

Outstanding Ustica KM.

Yeah but I thinking more along the lines of 10-14, 22-18, 7-10 opening 65 in the ACF Deck. But I like you line of play beter thank you

Wow. You gentlemen are super advanced. This is much appreciated. I will get a board set up and follow along.

OPENING 10-14. 22-18, 7-10

10-14, 22-18, 7-10 (A), 25-22 (B), 11-16 (C), 18-15 (D), 10-19, 24-15, 14-18 (E), 23-14, 9-25, 29-22, 3-7 (F), 22-18, 7-10, 27-24, 10-19, 24-15, 16-19, 21-17(G

.A) One of the newer openings introduced into the official ACF ballot in 1970, but the White attacks are somewhat stilted. The late Prof. W.R. Fraser, of Montreal, Canada used this twice in free-style play vs. Tom Wiswell, in their 1960 title match. Since he was 'scorched' twice with it, he entitled it "Eraser's Inferno", but it is hardly that hot!...

B) The only move to secure new play, as 24-20, 24-19 or 26-22 transpose into openings shown later in this book.

C) One of the key moves to sustain the soundness of this opening. The natural 3-7 follow-up (as in Opening #45 ) does not work in this case after White's *29-25, and all replies have been shown to lose in 'Master-Play'..

D) This middle exchange opens the position to some extent, and has been played by Marion Tinsley on occasion. There are two additional major choices:

1) 24-20, *16-19 ( in contrast to #2 in this note, this is forced, and 8-11 loses, with White one move ahead, after 27-24, 10-15, 24-19 etc; see ACFB #159, page 60.) 23-16, 12-19, 27-23 ( as 18-15 is an ancient Robertson Guide Bristol; 11-16, 24-20, 16-19, 23-16, 12-19,22-18, 10-14, 18-15, 7-10, 25-22, but still capable of producing new play.) 8-12, 23-16, 14-23 ( it is now best to Play a piece short for a time, as 12-19 allows the powerful 18-15, with a possible win. See analysis by Jim Keene and Ed Ebert in "Master Checkers"Vol.5, #3, p.22) 26-19, 4-8 ( this delay is easier then the immediate 10-15, 19-10, 12-19, as both the 10-7 pitch or 30-26 give White excellent chances.) 32-27 ( or 22-18, 9-14, 18-9, 5-14, 29-25, 2-7, 25-22, 10-15, 19-10, 12-19, 22-17, 6-15, 17-10, 7-14, 32-27, 8-11, 30-26, 14-18, 27-23, 18-27, 31-24, 1-6, 21-17, 6-10, 17-13, 10-14, 13-9, 14-17, 9-6, 3-8, 6-2 then 15-18, 24-15, 18-22 to a draw. Don Lafferty vs. E.T. Rolader.) 2-7, 30-26, (or 22-18, 8-11, *19-15, 10-19, 27-24, 3-8, 24-15, 12-19, 30-26, 9-13, 29-25, 6-9, 31-27 and 7-10 etc. Draws; Keith Todd v. John Caldwell, 1970 mail game. But if White tries to hold on to the piece with 31-26 at first instead of 22-18, then 8-11, 27-23, 9-13, 29-25, 6-9, 22-18, 3-8, 25-22, 10-14, 30-25, 1-6, 19-15, 12-19, 23-16, 14-30, 16-12,11-18, 12-3 and 7-10 etc; and he is repentant—Red Wins. Don Lafferty vs. Ron Johnson, in the 1973 Lakeside Ty.) 8-11, 29-25, (and again. White must be cautious, as 27-23, 9-13, 29-25, 5-9 etc; goes into a Red win from a Bristol, as in Stiles v. Gould; noted by E.F. Hunt, in Ryans"New Checkergram',' 12/34, p. 181.) 9-13, then the necessary return with 19-15, 10-19, 22-18, 6-9, 25-22, 1-6, 27-24, 3-8, 24-15, 12-19, and 22-17, etc. Drawn. K. Todd v. JD Williams, 1975 I-D mail ty.

2) 29-25 ( perhaps the natural development, which featured in the Fraser- Wiswell games.) now the cramp with *8-11 must be allowed, if White desires to use it. The 16-19 'dyke' loses a piece here, as there is insufficient backing; also 16-20 is bad after the 18-15 exchange, and lastly, 3-7, 24-20 is shown to win in M.P. page 184, Var.F.,.After 8-11, continue: 18-15 ( against the 24-20 pin, Red has just enough time to consolidate and save this entire opening with 10-15, 27-24, 6-10, 24-19, 15-24, 28-19, then *3-8 draws, as mentioned many years ago by Marion Tinsley in an interesting article published in "E.C.B.".page 1825, 4/52.Cont: 32-28, 9-13, 18-9, 5-14, now 28-24 is a mistake after 11-15! 20-11 and 1-6, but 22-18 instead, then both 1-5 or 1-6 will draw. See the 1976 Nat. Ty. games; Fuller v. Langdon.) 11-18, 22-15, 10-19, 24-15, *3-7 (Eraser's 9-13 vs. Wiswell is too great a handicap after either 15-10 or the 23-18 exchange.) 26-22,( or a Welsh cook with the 23-19 exchange, used in mail play by G. Davies and Wm. Edwards. Cont; 16-23, 26-19, 4-8..We prefer this over the immediate 14-17 x which allows 28-24; Todd v. Edwards..After 4-8, then 27-24— as 28-24 can now be met with the 6-10 exchange, and about even—now the 14-17 x is satisfactory, and 32-27, 5-9, 31-26, 9-13, 26-23, 6-10, 15-6, 1-10, 23-14, 10-17, 27-23, 8-11, 24-20, 7-10, 25-21, 17-22, 23-18, 2-6, 18-14 etc. and 13-17 drew. Fortman v. Edwards, in the 8th US-GB mail match.) 9-13, 31-26, *l6-19-prepared to play a piece short, which White is unable to retain- 23-16, 12-19, 27-23, *19-24, 28-19, 4-8, 32-27, ( or 21-17, 14-21, 32-27, 7-11, 23-18, 2-7, 27-24, 5-9, 24-20, 7-10, 19-16, 10-19, 16-7, 6-10, 7-3, 8-12, 3-7, 10-14 etc. Drawn M. Tinsley vs. E. Langdon; 1975 Lakeside Ty.) 7-11, 19-11, (also 22-18, 13-17, 18-9, 5-14, 19-16, 11-18, 16-12, and 11-16 etc; the Fraser analysis in "Art of Checkers"; later by M. Banks v. R. Bailey, 1974 Nat. Ty.) then 11-20 etc. draws after 22-18 and 6-10. Rex v. Romphf, in the world mail title play-offs; later by Childers v. Vestal in the 1978 I-D mail ty..... This entire 29-25 variation is limited to very few White attacks of substance, and after the two key moves are known ( the 3-8 in the 24-20 line, and the 16-19 exchange, followed with the 19-24 pitch in the 18-15 variation.) the defence has little to fear in the way of cooks.,..

E) Generally favoured, and no doubt best, although the 16-19 exchange may also be sound, as played by Rev.Vestal vs. the writer, in the ACF 200 club mail ty. As White's best attack against it goes into a variation of Opening #50-B ( 10-14, 23-19, 7-10 ) it will be shown there.

F) We prefer this as the more restrictive way, although 5-9 seems sound also, then 22-18, 3-7 ( or 9-13 first then 27-24; instead of 26-22- Langdon v. Tinsley, 1975 Lakeside; after 27-24, #3-7, 26-22, *8-11, 15-8, 4-11, 30-26, 6-10, 32-27, 16-20, 26-23, 1-5, 24-19, 2-6, 31-26, 6-9, 19-16 etc. Drawn. R. Chamberlain v. R. Romphf, in the world mail title play-offs.) 27-24, 9-13, 26-22, 8-11,5-8, 4-11, now White has the strong 24-20; instead of 30-26; a Vestal-Rex 1978 I-D mail game, to an eventual draw....

.G) Cont: 2-7.( not 5-9, 17-13, 1-5, than 15-10 etc; to a White win- Williams vs. Rex, 1975 I-D mail ty.) 31-27, 12-16, 17-13 ( White has nothing with 27-23 after 8-12. 16-20, 27-24, 20-27, 32-16, 8-11, 15-8, 4-20, 30-25, (if 26-23, 6-9 etc. draws. Rex v. Looser, 1978 I-D mail ty.) 6-10, 25-21, 10-14, 18-9, 5-14, 26-23, 7-11, 13-9, 11-15 and 23-19 etc. Drawn. Lloyd Hills vs. R. Fortman, 1977 6th vs. 7th Dist. mail match, and excellently played by the many-times Nebraska state champion

Supplementary play; 10-14, 22-18, 7-10, 25-22, 11-16, 29-25, 8-11, 18-15, 11-18, 22-15, 10-19, 24-15, 3-7, 26-22, 9-13, 31-26, 7-10(passing up the key *l6-19-see above.) 15-11, 10-15, 27-24, 5-9, 23-19, 16-23, 26-10, 6-15, & 24-19 etc. White Wins. E. Lowder vs. E. Bruch, 1979 Lakeside Ty....

Corrections

Trunk at note F .5-9 ( instead of 3-7) is no doubt best.

Trunk @ 15th move 7-10 as given loses ;instead 5-9 still draws

Trunk note G instead of 31-27 to draw, White has Tinsley`s 32-27* to winfor White, over the Editor in practice.See the 1980 ID mail booklet.

Note D var 2 . Instead of the 14-17 exchange Red has two good alternatives in 14-18 ( Fortman v M Long in mail play) or 7-10! As in Childers v m Long also in mail play.

Note F @ 3rd move. M Tinsley mentioned to the Editor that the 8-11 exchange ( instead of 3-7 ) is also sound after 26-23 and 6-10.

Note F @ 13th move.Instead of 30-26, White also has 24-20, as played in the 1980 Id mail ty

I have a lot of learning to do around here. Thank you kind sir. most impressive

NP. Trust me I don't have this memorized. lol. These are Fortman's notes which can be found at the English Draughts Association website.

http://home.clara.net/davey/

Usurper could you repeat that? (J/K) Thanks for the work and research. Lobogal, I know you're reading this. Your comments please? LOL

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

I'm sorry I asked. LOL. (I thought NOBODY wrote more prolificaly than Usurper KM. I stand corrected)

Do you think that I should add a page with "real" books recommended by BK players? With links to Amazon.com or elsewhere to buy them.

Outstanding idea. We get many requests in our KM Checker Fellowship for example.

Cool, start posting your recommendations :-)

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.

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)

The Prancing Prince variation is not the glamorous play the name suggests. Rather than being named after a handsome Prince high stepping proudly on his way to rescue the beautiful Princess, an old country checker player looked up from his game and saw the hired man carefully stepping high walking across the cattle feed lot and from that distance mistakenly thought the man was prancing. Usurper KM states he has resisted the temptation to provide the analysis of the Prancing Prince variation. Well, I doubt that. He does not often resist temptation, or so rumor has it. I do not have sufficient time to begin that discussion either as I am overdue with a pledged literary review of an amazingly fine short story. I know, I know, my review will be longer than the story. All this checker analysis has delayed me.

However, my dear Usurper KM, there is a matter of urgency I must bring to your attention: Please have your agent call mine. The Hollywood movie producers are negotiating for movie rights to our discussion of the Duckwalk Tease, a movie that promises to be full of deception, allure and seduction. And, of course, your correction showing how skirting the edges coyly often results in shocking plunges into daring frontal assaults should sell plenty of tickets.

Preliminary indications are that a theme running through the movie will augment the hot story line showing how Uncle Dinglehoff's personality obsessions with wild women and alcohol as outlined by you have passed down through the multiple generations to present day family members. Seeking to give the movie a documentary flavor, the producers are seeking a real life descendant, perhaps a great-x-great nephew, who exhibits those same character traits. Of course, I could think of no one for that staring role! I have declined the role of one of your uncle's mistresses. It is against my moral standards to be filmed in the nude. I would absolutely never, never, ever do that! It would be like selling my soul. Besides, those producers did not even approach the money figure I deserve for such a role.

Reports are that the script writers have done a fair job, but without an engrossing mystery sub-plot, the quality of the script is a bit checkered. Alas, the writers have abandoned their exhausting efforts to intertwine a mystery theme into this steamy production; everyone already knows from reading your previous post that it was you, Usurper KM, who skewered the Duck. I hope that doesn't skewer up the whole *#@$%&@ movie project!!!

hmmm Sounds interesting Lobogal! Perhaps the Playboy Channel could pounce on the movie rights. Afterall they aren't so concerned with overall plot or ...um...great script writing! Perhaps such a film would give the players in this little drama the outlet they require! :-)

I tracked down my agent, who was already in the process of making contact with yours. Strange. I didn’t know Leslie was your agent. Oh uh, yes, the Prancing Prince. Never have I read finer, no-punch-pulling comments than yours on that dreadfully dreary Opening. But it was, of course, the Prancing PONY that I had in mind! So enticing is the Pony that members of the opposite sex can scarcely play it (or finish!) unless they are first bound in strait-jackets while a neutral (eunuch) referee makes the moves indicated, ignoring pleadings, threats and other language and behavior of a non-publishable nature. Though the outcome of the movie is certain there need not be any lack of a building…anticipation. The camera can zoom in to a close-up, for example, of a single drop of sweat rolling down the bridge of Player X’s nose, to hang poised at the tip for an awful, intensely exciting moment, only to Plop! onto the checker board while his eyebrows hunch and his eyes fix in fiery concentration on…the game before him. His opponent, meanwhile, dabs the perspiration from her neck with a handkerchief (not his!). “It’s hot in here,” she purrs. “Have you moved yet?” Certainly you are correct about my noted inability to resist temptation. I have never been tempted to do so. But, family history aside, it doesn’t mean I’m an easy target! By no means. Even Dinglehoff never gave in without a prolonged struggle, often muttering to himself out loud: “I can’t believe I’m doing this!” A truly noble character whose charm was outweighed only by his manly firmness. BTW, I think it horrendous that you’ve been asked to play such a role! My lord, in the nude?? As if you were that cheap. I have accordingly directed my Finance Minister to release the necessary funds. Looking forward to your analysis of the story you mention. Perhaps some of it can be incorporated into the Duckwalk Tease film project.

How do you guys REALLY feel about The Rattlesnake? Daedal help me out!! Ustica KM? Anybody? LOL

I myself Like variants of the Rattle snake But not the Rattle snake as published(9-14, 23-19, 10-15?) the third move being a bit on the weak side to suit my taste. I would much perfer 11-16 on the third move but all togeter on the 9-14 opening I usually stay with Double Corner Dyke (9-14, 22-17, 11-15, 25-22, 15-19). Tinsley himself thought it was an inferior opening he just couldn't find anyone to prove it to him

I was going over the list of banned openings. (114 of them) and can't believe that many are "thought to lose" but the big boys must know what they are doing.

This is true but this head line is straight of the ACF Page "The ACF is preparing to extend the current 144 three-move deck to 156 openings. This will include 11 new openings that are now believed to be drawable after years of analysis and mail play. "

The KM Checkers tournament which is now underway features some great match ups and I hope everyone looks in on the games. You will see some top notch checker players in action (myself excluded) and some exciting games.

I exceedingly quake and fear. Good luck to all. Where's my Brandy?

Not clear if Brandy in question is female or beverage but in either case it is often a remedy for the shakes. Jury is out on whether checker game will benefit. :o)

aaaaaaah Usurper KM, did you find your Brandy? I know where mine is, in the state of Mississippi. Hahaha

I should have been clearer. The Brandy I drink I always spell with a capital B. Now as for brandy....

A Happy Birthday to Chief KM a Great Guy and Checker player
May you have Many More

happy birthday Chief

Happy Birthday to You

Happy Birthday to You .....

Happy Birthday O Great Chief.... :o)

Happy birthday to You ..... and MANY MANY MORE !

Wanda TNP