gooner: There are quite a few very good players we would like to recruit but they are scattered and not on any one fellowship. There was an awesome international team on IYT called GST (I think those were the initials) but I don't know if they are still there.

Purple: You have the monopoly though!! On the internet maybe yes!!

We would like to challenge any team in the world.

!Undertaker!: It is great! Congrats, Undertaker! I believe Fencer will accept it, I see no reasons to forget this variant.

I wrote an article about classic checkers in BrainRook.com to try introducing this variant in BK. Looking the article in this Link

Andre Faria: Oh, but I've no doubts about that...!

Andre Faria: Eheheh, I believe we'll be silenced... Well, I'll find you "out there"... eheheh

!Undertaker!: I don't know, but maybe you'll find some answers here. A lot of people knows a lot about "programs" here...

Hi. Can somebody explain me one question? When I finish a game, I can do download PDN code to analyse that game. However, it’s necessary a program to see it. Can anybody tell me the game this program?

gooner: I was so far behind I almost resigned several times but he is not a very good player so I hung around.

Purple: Standard white win after move ten I think, there are better people out there to disagree with me

Checkers: Purple vs. nuts til the end
Game over. You won.
Red: Purple (rating: 1718) [Clock: 7:01:53]
The game is over. You won.
This is game #3099306.
Playback Controls 1.11-15 24-20 2.8-11 27-24 3.4-8 23-19 4.9-14 22-17 5.15-18 26-22 6.18-23 22-18 7.10-15 18-9 8.6-13-22 19-10 9.7-14 25-18-9 10.5-14 31-26 11.14-18 26-19 12.18-23 29-25 13.2-7 25-22 14.7-10 22-18 15.1-6 21-17 16.6-9 17-13 17.9-14 18-9 18.10-14 9-6 19.14-17 6-2 20.17-22 13-9 21.22-26 9-6 22.26-31 6-1 23.31-26 30-25 24.26-30 25-22 25.30-26 22-18 26.26-30 19-15 27.30-26 15-10 28.26-22 18-14 29.23-26 14-9 30.26-30 10-6 31.30-26 1-5 32.22-18 6-1 33.11-15 9-6 34.26-22 5-9 35.22-26 1-5 36.18-23 6-1 37.15-18 24-19 38.23-16 20-11-4 39.18-23 28-24 40.23-27 32-23 41.26-19-28 4-8 42.12-16 8-11 43.16-19 11-16 44.19-23 16-19 45.23-27 19-23 46.27-32 9-14 47.3-8 14-18 48.28-24 18-15 49.8-12 2-7 50.12-16 7-11 51.24-27 11-20 52.27-18-11 1-6 53.11-15 5-9 54.32-28 9-14 55.28-32 20-24 56.32-28 24-27 57.28-32 27-23 58.15-18 14-10 59.18-27 10-15 60.27-23 6-9 61.32-27 9-14 62.27-31 15-18 63.31-27 18-22 64.27-31 14-10 65.23-26 22-25 66.31-27 10-15 67.27-24 15-11 68.24-19 25-21 69.26-22 11-7 70.19-15 7-10 71.15-6 21-17 72.22-13*

I would like to wish all who will be competing the best of luck in the English GAYP Championship being held in London this coming weekend!

sobek:Thanks sobek

Checkers 4 fast
Any fast players here?

Checkers 1800+, 4 fast players
For really fast players, something like a "live tournament".

Standing after sixth round:

Ronald King 17 points, William Docherty and Bagtyiar Durdyev, 14 points, Richard Beckwith, Miles Hannigan and Jim Morrison 13 points, Mustafa Durdyev and Shane McCosker 12 points, Clayton Nash 11 points, Donald Oliphant 10 points, Colin Young 9 points and Frank Bednall 6 points.

DMatt: "I beat the last 3 human world champions in at least one game."



I've beat Alex Moiseyev over 30 games at Kurnik.org. According to your standards, I must be a grandmaster!



You also said "I can't help it that I was good at a game that you wasted decades of
your life playing. It's a joke. It's a child's game, and you act purely
infantile if you insist that I can't play the game."



I've only been playing since 2002-2003. If checkers is a joke, then why
include yourself in the ACF website forum? Are you sure you want to be
involved in our "joke" game? hmm. If checkers is a child's game, then
why include yourslef in anything checkers related? Are you a child?



If you say you can't use a program in a 3 minute game timer in
checkers, then this is a perfect timer for us to play eachother. I am
offering you a cash match of $100 each, winner takes all, to play me at
Kurnik in a set of 10 games GAYP and 10 games (5 ballots) of 3-Move.
with the 3 minute timer. We will paypal the money to Alex Moiseyev as a
neutral money holder :) After the match, Alex will paypal the $200 to
the winner.

sobek: thanks for the updates,keep up the good work

sobek: We are checker players!! So?

patch: me secret :-))))))))))))))))))
So, it is me job, for checkers players

sobek: I am curious to know where you found the information re Stonehaven

News from Qualifying Tournament, Stonehaven.

Standing after fourth round:
Ronald King 12 points, William Docherty 10 points, Richard Beckwith and Mustafa Durdyev 9 points, Bagtyiar Durdyev, Miles Hannigan and Jim Morrison 8 points, Clayton Nash and Shane McCosker 7 points, Frank Bednall, DOnald Oliphant and COlin Young 6 points.

Won Mustafa Durdyev 30 points
2. Ron King 29 points
3.Tom Watson 24 points
4. Bagtiyar Durdyev 23 points
5. Shane McCosker 22.points
Good job from Mustafa and younger Shane

sobek: you are much better informed on the world draughts scene than I am,thank you

patch: oldest is Mustafa, second Bahtyiar, next Parahat, next Amangul (world champion GAYP), Bashim}3th. in junior) and I forgot name of same young (12yr), he won turkmenistan championship in international draughts. :-) Interesting family :-)

2006 Checkers Single Elimination Championship

11 more players needed!

City: thank you Nick

well done Patch my son!

Nick

sobek: not much good with names but I think it was Bahtyiar,the oldest brother

patch: thanks, and Mustafa or Bahtyiar Durdyev won?

Durdyev won the masters with Ron King and Tom Watson second and third,gooner was refering to patch,seniors winner

I ask too:
Who is winner and where is table from tournament?

 
gooner: YAY THE WINNER GREAT JOB WINNER







Who is the winner ? :)

gooner: Yes,it's good to see hard work and dedication pay off in the only way to test one's true ability! Congratulations to the winner!

A big congratulation to the winner of the seniors section in Stonehaven Scotland last week. A regular on bk and a deserved winner after years of dedication to the game. Its not all doom and gloom here after all.

I find it a total joke that you persist in trying to convince others you are "so great". Like I have said before real genuine players don't boast try just play face to face..........

Why don't you answer the question about you playing in proper tournaments? You are adament you are good and that is the sure fire and easy way to prove people wrong, yet you don't.

Stop digging this hole for yourself,as soon you won't be able to get out of it.

Hmmmm!!

Alex Moiseyev has posted something interesting on the ACF page about something discussed here.

http://usacheckers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=713

Purple: We can only compare ability here of real life players which to me is ironic considering we have this discussion in a forum on the internet. Computer checkers started to ruin actual tounaments aswell when the EDA decided to allow them in. One player I know actually walked out of a tourney after being drawn against computers in the first two rounds and he has been playing checkers all his life. The man who turns up with his laptop and a disk takes second prize when winning the tournament. Something is badly wrong there.

Checkers is more than a child's game. It is a game that tests one's competitiveness and skill.
With the introduction of computer programming,the best and only way-IMO-to determine who can beat whom is through one on one ,face to face ,play.
This is,and can be,achieved through tournament play such as the one taking place in Scotland as we speak. :-)

If anybody remembers the old Banks'e Ladder..the top ten or 12 players there were so damn good they would rattle your teeth. It was mail play however.

Nomad: I agree. It can be great fun to speculate if Ron King can beat Alex or how would Wylie or Anderson do against today's top players. We can compare ability without calling any of them drunks, cheaters, scoundrels etc. LOL. Then this board will be being used to it's best value.

Sorry to bring this up but I must.

This is getting a bit off topic. Can we stick to disussions about the game and not about each others ability or skill. It is too close to baiting and flamming for any good to come. I am sure all of you are great players, as such I am sure there is a more honorable way for everyone to settle these misunderstandings. Thank you

Still missing the point.

I had been recovering from a broken back when I played Alex in 2004, already nearly 2 full years since I played any so called "serious checkers." If you really chatted with Alex, I find it HARD TO BELIEVE he would not mention this. And if you tell me such an injury would not impact your play, you are wrong.

Furthermore, I won a game, 1 out of 3, with 1 draw, all played late at night after hours of playing his son in Gothic Chess, plus we had a few beers as well.

I would rate his play as "not that great" but under the circumstances, this was by no means a tournament. It was 3 blitz games, at varying time controls.

In 2002, Alex also had Nemesis when we played in Banks Ladder. I was able to defeat him in one game. The common claim I hear is "Nemesis doesn't lose" or can't lose or something similar, but in the hands of a World Champion, who can also "check its play", it did lose.

Why? Using WCC as a "tool" I was able to "look ahead" and lead it down paths leading to positions my own experience knows will lose, and that a program will not see until too late.

I have done this here to Pedro, winning from 110+ moves out if you count both sides.

It's not too hard to do IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY to back it up. You can't do this if you are mindless computer player.

And, as many people know, Alex won't play you on the internet unless you play 3 minutes or quicker. Anyone care to tell me how someone could have time to enter a move into a computer, wait for it to think, then make its move, all in under 3 minutes?

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, so drop it.

I won my own games. I have wins against the last 3 world champions - Alex, King, and Lafferty.

Al Lyman still has my blitz game with Laffertry from the GameZone saved somewhere. This was played without a clock but still in about 5 minutes total with about 20 people watching. And again, it was BEFORE GIL AND I MADE WCC, so you mind telling me which program was being used???

If you still have that email, forward it to me at GothicChessInfo@aol.com or else I consider it a forgery.

The NACA was based in New York and there were COUNTLESS events sponsored by them. Mostly offering exhibitions at carnivals, the NACA players always drew a crowd when playing simuls. The president of the company was a retired fire chief who played a pretty mean game.

Sorry, you can't convince me that something I know is true did not exist - I was in some of their tournaments and was a volunteer at two of their simuls, playing 20 boards each time.

And finally, get a life.

I can't help it that I was good at a game that you wasted decades of your life playing. It's a joke. It's a child's game, and you act purely infantile if you insist that I can't play the game.

I beat the computer world champion in 1996.
I beat the last 3 human world champions in at least one game.
And all of you losers keep trying to say I can't play because you are basically jealous of my ability to play a stupid game.

The matter is not closed, it is open, as long as you persist in your nonsense.

Gooner: Karpov signed it. It is a PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT. If they did not want to sign this, why bother with a 100 page document outlining every single detail.

The top line says it isn't a contract????????

Socrates: That was my point all along

DMatt: Alex Moiseyev once sent me a message at the ACF Forum regarding Ed Trice.



This should solve any confusion:



<table class="forumline" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="1" width="100%">
<tbody><tr><td class="row2"><span>From:</td>
<td class="row2" colspan="2" width="100%"><span>shr</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="row2"><span>To:</td>
<td class="row2" colspan="2" width="100%"><span>Passionate Draughts</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="row2"><span>Posted:</td>
<td class="row2" colspan="2" width="100%"><span>Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:44 pm</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="row2"><span>Subject:</td>
<td class="row2" width="100%"><span>Re: Ed Trice</td></tr></tbody>
</table>




<span>"Concern your question about Ed Trice. I can't
tell that he is my close friend. We played very actively online back to
1997-2001. I played with WCC on Mac Banks ladder. Ed also often helped
me with WCC 10 pieces database to analyse some positions. And finally,
one time, when I visited my old son in Phili, we both came to Ed house
and spent one evening.


It was wonderful time. I met him and his family (wife and
daughter). All I can tell you - his personality is: "heavvy nurd". He
likes jokes, fooling people etc. But he is really nice person. We
played couple checkers games, and I wouldn't rate his level higher than
"very advance novice" <img>


When I played with him online at the end of 90's, it was obvious to
me, that he uses program. In fact - he tested program. So - for him it
wasn't wasting time or fooling only. But he wanted to make it more
attractive. It didn't bother me at all.




<span>Regards,



Alex
"



Trice evidently never participated in any NACA 11-man ballot event as
he once claimed. I guess he claimed his offline games were in Roberto
W.'s Games Database - but I was a member in Roberto's club and there
were no such games. Roberto also said none of the games were played by
Ed Trice and there wasn't any "NACA" event games in the Database.



So...the truth is obvious now - so the discussion should end.