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.