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.
Lista de boletines
No tienes autorización para escribir mensajes en este boletín. Para escribir mensajes en este boletín se require un nivel mínimo de membresía de Brain Peón.
I edited out what I thought was a mild insult. If this continues I won't have much choice..you people are not talkig about checkers but about each other. Maybe the Boiler Room would be more fitting for this.
As a person who is somewhat immersed in the quest to learn more about checkers and as a person who considers himself to be a fairly logical thinker, I must admit that I have found recent discussion in this board to be of interest to me. I found the discussion to be amusing, entertaining, and all in the context of checkers. If there was intention to prevent hostility, that objective should have been made more obvious. Personally, I find discussing discussion to be boring and rarely useful. If an interjection is to be made, it should be clear, concise, and well placed.
I hope everyone has a great day and plays well in all their games.
~John
EdTrice: That is true so I left it but I just wanted it to stop there before something got started. There is always someone prepared to be insulted. Wouldn't most people just like to talk about checkers?
As far as I can tell, nothing was discussed but checkers. Checkers moves, checkers endgames, checkers software, checkers positions. What's your problem Purple?
Wh ydoes 'published play' have to come into account in every checker game? I've seen people lose sure wins because of human error or time out. Not everyone who plays online games consults a database of former games to determine if the game is a win or a loss. That would take the FUN out of playing,wouldn't it?
How often can 3 kings on 2 kings end in a draw? I've got a game right now with Stevie where I've got my 2 kings in opposite corners and he is unable to trap one.
EdTrice: I have come across it only 1 time where the 1 King was strategicaly placed on a border..not in double corner. The 2 Kings could never get the move.
EdTrice:
The English (EDA) introduced a 4 fold repetition rule in the early 1990's along with clarification of "making progress". But even 3 fold repetition is OK - with perfect play you NEVER need repeat a position - so you have a couple of chances to get it right - or do you want forever :)
Jumper2: The site owner Pat told me once he knows nothing about checkers. The original purpose of the rule was to prevent a player who was in a 1-1 mathmatical draw from refusing the draw offers and carrying the game on forever. You are right in that it is a bad rule when applied in other cases. If someone stubbornly refuses a cerain draw here Fencer will step in when notified and declare the game a draw.
This rule is totally wrong in checkers. You have to repeat a move everyonce in awhile to run the opponent out of moves. We should get up a petition of 2000 plus players signing it so management knows their is a problem. or flood the mail with individual protests. Jim Loy should be a big help with this problem.
There is a pretty simple formula for 3 Kings to defeat 2 Kings in opposite double corners but it takes a bit of shuffling back and forth to line the 3 up properly. On IYT my opponent knew how to do it (I had the 2 Kings) but in the process of aligning he duplicated the same position 3 times and the site declared the game a draw. Unless someone knows a super fast way to do this I think it tilts the game unfairly.
(ocultar) Puedes utilizar etiquetas HTML en tus mensajes o, si eres miembro de pago, puedes también hacer uso del Editor de Texto Enriquecido (RTE). (pauloaguia) (mostrar todos los consejos)