It wouldn't surprise me. I get peeved sometimes too at those 2-for-1 shots. lol

;)

There is a difference between stating an opinion and throwing false accusations of cheating at games. You lied on your profile, just_me. You do play head games. Good day.

Not at all. I *do* have a problem with someone mouthing off and tossing accusations at people he doesn't even know and has never played, all without even bothering to think about what he's saying.

Just stating the obvious, just_me. The rules of CHECKERS state that you must take a jump when available. Do you always argue against standard rules of classic games and then accuse people you don't even know of cheating?

Look at my ratings sometime and then see if it makes sense to accuse me of cheating at ANY game. Then get a life.

Besides, just_me, if the players in question are programmers, it wouldn't really be difficult at all to modify their programs to play a version that did not force jumps. If you suspect someone is using a program, I'd say the best thing to do is simply not play them.

A version with no forced jump? That's not checkers. Even as children we played checkers with forced jumps. That's checkers; it's part of the rules. If you don't like it, you play a different game.

This is getting too confusing to follow. *rofl*

There's nothing wrong with playing against a computer program to test ideas, and they're great when you want an opponent and don't have a human handy. Well, to a point, anyway.

I don't understand what you mean by not sporting, unless you're implying that people are using engines to decide their moves for them. That's not really what I'm talking about.

Another thing about game engines--there is the challenge involved with programming them. I haven't attempted an actual engine yet, but I've got an AI system designed that I plan to try out one day. Who knows, I might just use checkers and build an engine myself.

Not sporting? *shrug* I suppose it depends on the type of challenge you're looking for.

Oh yeah -- to answer your question about studying by myself with a checkerboard... well, the computer can point out things I may never see on my own. One doesn't sharpen iron against clay, and I can sharpen my mind a lot better against something that sees more than I do. That's the thinking, anyhow.

I know some of you guys like checkers engines. Cake sans Succi is one that I downloaded with Checker Board, a Windows interface. How does this it hold up to your favorites?

Checkers was boring. I mean, sure, I had three brothers and at least as many cousins (sometimes more) to play against. After a while, though, only one of them could beat me reliably. Checkers was too... easy. Then Dad taught me chess, and checkers went out the window. Chess was for adults, and I was growing up. Checkers was a child's game, right? Chess with training wheels?

Well, yes and no. It was a child's game only because children were playing it. I downloaded a checkers program this weekend, and after getting my butt kicked several times (I did win one game, out of about six), I remembered that my roommate mentioned liking checkers. So, I installed it on his computer and watched him get *his* butt kicked a few times. Then we started thinking. We switched to two-player mode and had a proper human versus human game. And you know what?

We discovered that checkers isn't quite the child's game that we remember from bygone years. It's every bit as full of tricks and traps as chess, even if a little simplistic in its move choices, even if a little weird with its forced jumps that enable you to draw your opponent's pieces out and force double and triple jumps. No, it ain't chess (my roommate is thankful for that), but somewhere, somehow--sometime when I wasn't looking--it grew up into a sophisticated game. It taunts you mercilessly, makes you think and then reconsider. It tests your powers of visualization and logic.

Checkers is an interesting game.