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.
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