!Undertaker!: Ahhh, thank you! i think i was mixing it up with Gothic Checkers... have never really played Czech Czeckers. Thanks for the help!! :)

Turkish Checkers Rules

First of all, I apologize from everbody. The rules of Turkish Checkers game on Brainking site, do not reflect the right rules. And just because of this, many game partners have negative and hard discussions, and as a result, most of them protest and leave the site. If the site management does not update with the right rules, we afraid, there wont be left any master player for Turkish Checkers.

As an example, Turkish Checkers is based on “Maximum capture is mandatory” rule. In Brainking this rule is not supported. When you give three pawns, your opponent may choose to capture two pawns. In addition, when there is an equal number of capture alternatives, the King has a priority on pawns in Brainking. There should not be such a priority for the King.

Previously, most of our friends, contacted to the site management, and got correction promises from the management, but nothing has changed.

We have prepared a complete document having all set of rigth rules of Turkish Checkers with many screen shot examples. This document has been sent to the management and it is also available on www.brainrook.com site as an article but waiting for management’s publishing confirmation.

We desire your valuable support to stop this wrong situation. If you like, you can leave your supportive messages to http://brainking.com/tr/Board?bc=87

Fencer
Thank you very much for your kind supports on behalf of all of my friends.

Tutagil:
Learned this game on a trip in Greece when i was
9 years old, played often with people from Turkey and from Greece, and was surprised that players didn't agree with the interpretation of the rules: a Greek player
thought that a King may after capture turn 180 degrees and continue capturing; a Turkish player had the opinion, that after a checker promotes to a king, the turn is not over, but the new born king can continue capturing
opponent pieces. Until today, i don't know of a comittee that ever defined "official" Turkish Checkers rules.

The Brainking rule of the priority of King capture is new, however it allows very sharp tactic, see game Turkish Checkers (Adana 01 vs. CryingLoser)
where in Turkish Checkers variants without move priority the move 8...e6-f6! would have been a blunder, but here after 9.e4xe6xe8 f6-e6 10.e8xe5xa5 d6-d5 White has to capture with the King, 11.a5xe5, and with 11...f5xd5xd3xb3xb1 Black gets advantage.

CryingLoser:( White has to capture with the King, 11.a5xe5, and with 11...f5xd5xd3xb3xb1 Black gets advantage. ) yes ! very nice for black.

ustica tnp:
Oh my!!!
Fencer has stealthy modified the rules!
King capture seems not longer to have priority!
Before some minutes, White made move #11 that was not allowed with King capture priority.

Before one year, i suggested that a game should be ended with the rules it started, for this time it could have
another name, i.e. "Turkish Checkers Old" or something similar. It's exciting to start a game, to reach a winning position and then after a hidden rules change to look
upon a lost position :-( What a sh*t!

CryingLoser: This situation is very good for people that like to play Turkish checkers but very bad for you, Crying Loser, and specially unfair.
Fencer could be warn us about that. Well, Crying Loser, you can request Fencer to cancel your game. I think will be the correct decision. :)

CryingLoser: wow!!! i never see a stupid rule in Turkish checkers . like i say to my friends he is a Comunist Site.

CryingLoser: I agree with Undertaker. The right decision it's to erase the game. Rules can not be changed in the middle of the game (that's obvious). I think this is a "primary question", checkers are not properly watched in brainking, because Fencer don't like those games. Something similar would never happen in a gammon or chess variant...

Undertaker, Gabriel, Ustica, thank you.
Have written to Fencer to erase this game. Hope he will answer in the next days, before i am forced to make the next move not to lose by time.

CryingLoser:

Seems the game was erased... Reason?!?!?!?!?

Rules have change or not? Are we going to repeat something that happen long time ago with Czech Checkers where the rules change at middle of the games? And at that time no games were erased!

I have no problems with the change of the rules but this is basic! To play a game we need to know the rules!

If the rules have changed I ask for all the Turkish games that started before the change of rules and still not finish to be erased also!

So what rules was changed - and for what game or games?

If the rules were changed, why wasn't the site notified? I don't play checker games very often, but I learned the rules enough to play a few games here and there - and if there is a rule change, I need to know about it (Most players probable do not ready the discussion boards.)

When a rule change was done to another games (Hasami Shogi) a notice was put on the top of every Hasami Shogi game so all players knew of the change.

I also looked at the rule page - and even compared the rule page to the rules from July 2006, and I don't see anything different.

Turkish Checkers says rules are same as Czech Checkers - and Czech Checkers says rules are same as Checkers. Normal checkers still has this rule:

"However, when a queen (in variants with long jumps) can make a jump, the player cannot select a pawn to jump with."

So what has changed - and why would something be changed and (1) users not told and worse, (2) not indicated in the game rules?

Ferjo:
>Seems the game was erased... Reason?!?!?!?!?

On 22 Oct. i wrote Fencer the following mail:
*******************************************************************
Subject: Game ID 2837052

Hello Filip,

in the game ID 2837052 the rules (priority of King capture) are changed. The last move of White would be not possible with the known rules.
Since it is fair that a game should be ended with the same rules it started, please erase this game.
*******************************************************************

From Fencer i got no reply. All i can see is like you that
the game is erased. It seems to be more probably that
the game is erased by Fencer, than to be erased by a bug, and if so, then we can guess that the rules are changed, but don't ask me if they are changed to the rules Tutagil regards as the "right" ones (with maximum captures etc etc.) or is just the King capture priority is removed; also i cannot answer open questions to some
refinents i mentioned, so if a King may after capture turn 180 degrees and continue capturing; if in the case a checker promotes to a king, the turn is over, or the new born king can continue capturing opponent pieces.

After the erasing of the game Adana invited me, and
as a sportsman i accepted, although the rules are so poorly described that i don't know which rules are valid.

Like you, i have no problems if we play according to the
"Tutagil rules", according to the "Fencer rules", or whatever rules should be valid, for me it's only important to know from the first move of a game which rules are appended and that this rules don't change until the end of a game.
Now i play with Adana assuming the "Tutagil rules" are valid, let's hope no other surprise is waiting...

coan.net: Sorry, Coan, but that is not true.
That rule that you said it's common to all checkers - "However, when a queen (in variants with long jumps) can make a jump, the player cannot select a pawn to jump with." -, well... that's false. It is maybe a rule for Czech Checkers, maybe a rule for Turkish... nothing more. It isn't a rule for any "serious" variant, like clasic or international checkers.

Gabriel Almeida: Oh, sorry - I did not mean to make it sound like I was talking about "Official" checker rules or anything like that.

I was talking about what was listed on this site in the game rules:

http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=7

According to this site rules, that is what it says. If Fencer has changed the rules to the game, he has told no one - the rules page still lists the old one, and I think Fencer needs to inform users if any rule changes has taken place.

.... the question of if this site rules are the same as the "Official" rules - well I'm sure that is a debate in all it's self..... (which as a mostly non-checkers player, I honestly don't know much about.)

coan.net: Please mind that that game is not the standard checkers here in Europe. That is the standard Checkers version in America, also the way you learned to play checkers, probably. In Europe, however, is (International) Checkers the standard version.

CryingLoser:

I absolutely agree with your post, and I wasn't directly question you about the deletion of the game or the rules of the game. I just want to know the rules of the game, is simpler as that.

Hope Fencer clarify this issue for us players. This is a game site, right? So the game rules should be the mainly important here, correct?

Assuming that the game was delete for change of rules, where are those rules mention, Fencer? And what happen to the games that started before the change of the rules? Are all be erased?

Ferjo: We also ask this kind of questions to management to understand the physchological bacground of these dialog mistakes :). Is there a problem within the management and Turkish Checkers, players or Turkish people, we could not understand? No one has to like this game, but people complaining about the problems for almost years. There is no any kind answer describing about the plan, workload or priority about bugs. Actually there is no an answer. "We will solve them when we have time and we advise to ignore related complaints" : what does that mean? Maximum capture rule is the hearth of this game. Until supporting this main rule weshould not name it as Turkish Checkers. Developing and supporting such a game site is not an easy job but after the contribution of many people, the colour of the responsibility changes. This responsibility becomes very serious and requires a professional approach. Developer people (just like me) dont have a good communication skills. In some cases, it is better to hire a person just for communication. We, as a players of Turkish Checkers, are waiting a logical, transparent, respectfull and a sincere message from the management that describing the update plan for this game. If there is a plan to fix those bugs in 2 months (as an example) people desire the right to know that. If you change a rule, you should inform, if you respect to your job. We are not expecting an emotional and amateur reflexes (such as blocking this message and other messages and removing some rights). Before nervois reactions, the management should understand that we try to help them to increase the number of players of this game and members of this game site.

The response of the management to this message is important for us. If they continune to ignore, we will discuss to leave this game site together (in 1st January).

We still preserve positive intention and believe that we can remove negative deposits via positive dialogs and constructive feedbacks in both directions.
I hope the management accepts this message as a positive feedback.

With my best wishes

Ferjo: In more than one aspect Turkish Checkers seems to be singular, not omly the written rules, but also
http://brainking.com/en/UserAgreement
seem not to be appended here, where else you can find a player who plays against himself, see
Turkish Checkers (recepdb2 vs. recepdb)

CryingLoser:
Lol,
but there could be some good explanations, same family that share the same nick, etc...

@Atila, I know its very frustrant than trying to play his favourite game and the rules are not accordingly with the official ones. We portugueses trying to add the Portuguese variant to the site, and we feel the same frustration.

I think we just need to be a more patient and wait for the events. I still believe this will happen one day. However the situation of changing rules is not understandble, because we have prior experiences and I'm sure (as some user said before) if this happen with other variant, this will be anounce on the Site in several ways.

So come on Fencer give some light here.. ;-)

Ferjo: I think you and Atila are absolutely right. Atila, I think Fencer's problem is not with Turkish people, but with checkers in general. Well, there are other sites where checkers (Portuguese/Spanish/Classic, Turkish, Internacional, Russian... all "serious" variants) are well treated. But it's not the case in Brainking. So many people concerns about advising Fencer to pay more atention to it... In that point, I disagree with you, Ferjo: I don't think it ever changes. Fencer simply hates checkers, will never pay atention to it. I think it's unuseful keepin'on waiting...

Oh, and by the way... I think this is the mais reason why so many checkers players that used to play a lot here, may be found in another games site (I will not say it's name, but almost all of you, checkers players, know it). People it's moving away, and it's paying to play in this other site (like I've done), because there, people likes checkers. And for that reason, it have thousands for that game. Yes, this can be also business, Fencer. Can't you see it?

Gabriel Almeida: Here i would agree more with Ferjo, that we should be more patient. The prob on this site were the instable connections in the last days, and it's clear that this would have priority. Now the connection to Brainking is working as good as ever, and the next things on fencer's Todo-List would be done, hopeful some work in rule-description included.

Ferjo: When it is allowed that one can make a second
Brainking account, for family members or whatever, then our prob can be solved easily: we create simply a second account, and play nonrated Turkish Checkers games with our first account, so we can check up by experience which rule is appended and which is not,
without have to get this experience by surprise in a rated game.

CryingLoser: More patient? For what? Fencer priorities are very strange. Portuguese people tried introduce classic checkers in BK, we did a petition, I wrote an article in Brainrook and until now, nothing. I think Francesco LaRocca requested him to introduce Italian checkers, Ustica requested to introduce pool checkers, and many people already request him to introduce international and Russian checkers. These are the variants more played in the world (classic, international and Russian checkers). What did Fencer do? He introduced Hawaiian checkers, a stupid game, played in small islands in Pacific North. This is a joke? Who many people requested him this game? Is Hawaiian checkers priority? But wait, there’re more incredible games like one way checkers or parachutes checkers. In one way checkers, the white player has clear advantage. Is it an interesting game? Is this priority? Not, for me.
So, because of that reasons, when I’m finished my games here, I’ll leave BrainKing. I prefer play in Ludoteka.com. There, I can play Classic (Spanish) checkers, anglo-american checkers, International checkers, Russian checkers, Italian chechers, Pool checkers, Turkish checkers (with true rules), Thain checkers and Frisian checkers.Besides, I prefer play in real time.
Like Fencer said: “BrainKing is not afraid of a competition, so feel free to visit other game sites and compare them with us :-)”. OK Fencer, for me Ludoteka is better than BrainKing. http://www.ludoteka.com/juegos.html?hizk=en

!Undertaker!: Well, Undertaker... you said the name! ;)
I think this is the point! Noone who really likes checkers can understand Fencer's options in this kind of games. And that's why we - checkers players of brainking - are playing in Ludoteka. There, we REALLY can play checkers. That's it...

!Undertaker!: I'm not a big Checkers player or anything, but wanted to mention http://www.goldtoken.com as a possible site.

GoldToken has recently been choosen to become the official playing site of the American Checker Federation (ACF). So GT has been working hard making sure all rules are correct and everything - and has been adding checker variants. (Plus GT is the official game site for the New Zealand Draughts Association (NZDA) also)

But they have:

* Checkers
* Armenian Checkers
* 11 Man Ballot
* Brazilian Checkers
* Canadian Checkers
* Czech Checkers
8 Man
* Frisian Checkers
* Giveaway Checkers
* International Checkers
* Italian Checkers
* Pool Checkers
* Restriction Checkers
* Russian Checkers
* Spanish Checkers
* Turkish Checkers

I'm not sure how many of you have tried out that site, but it sounds like they are trying hard to bring their Checker games up to par - so it might be a place for Checker fans to check out.

!Undertaker!: I agree with you. Although I mainly play other games, the fact that things like this are ignored here at BK makes this site a much poorer site than is should be. View my profile for my thoughts on this. I did not renew my paid membership when it ran out many months ago and I will probably leave when I finish the few tournaments I am still active in.

Everyone: Just so you are all aware, writing on the checkers board won't change anything. Fencer does not read this board! If you would like to write so that the management listens this is not the place to do it. Either write on a public board that Fencer reads more (such as the Feature requests board) or message him directly. Just be sure not to expect an imediate response.

nodnarbo: That is exactly what I was going to say....besides being a public board, Fencer doesnt like grievances aired publicly. Write him a PM and you might have more luck in getting a reply.

coan.net: Thanks coan.net. I didn't know this site. It's very interesting with good games.

nodnarbo: "Just be sure not to expect an imediate response"? ahahah. Of course, I know that. There're one year and some months ago, I sent a message to Fencer, asking when he would go to introduce classic checkers in BK. His answer was: In soon. Do you see classic checkers here?
Ah, and if I or you or other people talk about checkers on a public board like BrainKing.com or Feature requests, he despises that comment. It's simple.

!Undertaker!: Exactly!
Maybe we should PM him just linking this board! ;)
I'll do that!

Paying members shouldn't be trying to 'get an audience' with the silent, inscrutible leader of this website. It should be the other way around! He should be reaching out to us. We shouldn't be trying to write nice PMs, say things in just the right way, 'hope' he'll condescend to respond to us....

I for one believe fencer is terribly discourteous and all the site features in the world won't change that. For that reason I will not be renewing my membership here...I have joined GoldToken and find things more pleasant and the checkers more involved and serious. And, most important, the management on GT actually appreciates the paid membership....

Greg

Greg Murray: I must tell you I ABSOLUTELLY agree with your position. I think the same, and that was the reason why I also haven't renew my membership. I'm playing more in Ludoteka, but I Goldtoken it's also a great site, where checkers are taked more seriously!

Parachute Checkers (mangue vs. joshi tm)
after 11th move of black.
Why am I forced to take 2 pawns with my Queen?
I cannot play f8-a3 and I do not understand why. Did the rule changed?

mangue: No, I think you're confused.
In this situation, you're forced to take 2 pawns. These are the rules. You could only choose if you had other queen in E5, for example. So, you could take E5 to G7 or E5 to A1 or F8 to F2. But if you only have one possible capture, so you have to take all possible pieces.
Do you understand?

The rule: "If, after jumping, it is possible to jump over another opponent's piece, the player must capture this piece too"

That rule has always been like that - and I always try to make "traps" that will take advantage of that rule when I can.

even if the rules makes sense, I thought it was different before. However, by looking at my previous games, I cannot find a counter example, so I must be mistaking. Thanks

This is a good variant. Any chance of getting it added to the site? I can post a general how to play if anyone is interested right here.

Walter Montego: How about posting a URL to the rules of the game?

I'm assuming your search for Jump Checkers came up empty?

Kevin Hill in 1975 made this game up while him and Steve Owens were having a discussion about how to play Checkers. I used to play it a lot back then, but it more or less died out. Talking with Bepop on this site got me to remembering the game. Like Kevin's Embassy Chess, he hasn't gotten around to setting up a web page or site about the game. He says it'll happen soon. I saved some of the conversation with Bepop and will post it in a day or so if there's any questions about the play if someone wants to give Jump Checkers a play or two.
========= ======= ========= ========== =======

Jump Checkers is set up like regular checkers on an 8 × 8 board. The play of the game is only on the 32 dark colored squares. There's two kinds of pieces in the game, Men and Kings. So far it's like regular Checkers, eh? Jump Checkers is won in the same manner as regular Checkers; the player that moves last wins the game.

The Men move one square diagonally forward. They may also jump over one of their own Men or Kings and land on the unoccupied square directly afterward (Chinese Checkers style). The Men may not jump the opponent's Men or Kings unless they are making a capture or split jump. A capture by a Man is made by jumping over ANY piece and landing on the square directly after the jumped piece that is occupied by the opponent. The enemy piece is removed from the board. There are no double jumps and capturing is not mandatory. Strictly optional.
A split jump is similar to a capture, except that the Man lands in a square already occupied by a Man of his side. When this happens, both Men occupy the square together. They are not put together into a King, but remain two separate Men. When one of the Men in a split jump is moved his place to be moved to is one of three squares. Either directly across orthogonally or to one of the orthogonally side squares. If the square is occupied by the opponent, it is captured. The Man left behind in a split jump is just a regular Man again and moves like he did before becoming a part of the split jump. If the opponent can move to a square occupied by two Men in a split jump, he captures them both if he chooses to move there. Kings may not be a part of a split jump, only the Men. If a split jump Man is moved to a square held by the player with a Man, it is a split jump and the two Men are as usual in a split jump.
When a Man reaches the last row of the board he is promoted to a King. This is done in the usual way by placing a Checker on top and crowning him. A King can move like a Man and also has extra movement and capturing abilities. A King may move one square diagonally in any direction. A King may move sideways orthogonally to the next square that's part of the board. If a King moves sideways to such a square and it has an opponent's piece or split jump there, it is captured. A King may move straight across forwards or backwards orthogonally only to capture an opponent's King. A King cannot make this move to capture an opponent's Man or an opponent's split jump, only a King, and a King may not make this move without capturing. A King may jump any piece and land on the square directly afterwards without making a capture. If a game becomes a game where all the pieces on the board are Kings, a King gets one more capturing ability. When it is all Kings, a King may capture another King that is two squares away diagonally. (Think of it as if the King had jumped a piece and landed on the King)

That's the rules. :) It's simple enough, but it plays a lot differently than regular Checkers. It can get complicated too.

Yeah, that was rather underwhelming, but I suppose I'll go ahead and post the rest just in the case a Checker Variant enthusiast might give the game a try and have some questions about the play.
========= ========= ========= ========= ======= =========

A King is a lot stronger than a Man. A Man just has two movement places compared to a King's six. A Man can be blocked just by putting any piece in front of it though such a blocked Man can jump over the blocking piece if it can make a capture or split jump. A Man can only capture by jumping over any piece first, whereas a King can capture simply by moving sideways or jumping over any piece forwards or backwards and landing on an opponent's piece and a King can capture a King straight across too. A King early in the game can clear out the opponet's backrows very quickly by capturing moving sideways, so you have to prevent your opponent from getting a King unless you are able to get one yourself. A split jump can fight off a King as it can be split apart moving one of the Men sideways. This can keep a King away from the split jump or force the King next to the split jump and then to jump over the split jump to get past it safely.
The Men can make split jumps and this can be a powerful set up. As the split jump is moved apart you can relay the Man forward and get behind the opponent's defense. A split jump is vulnerable to attack right next to it though and a good threat is to immediately jump one of your Men towards the split jump setting up the capture of the split jump on the next turn, thereby forcing your opponent to play out the split jump instead of letting him keep it there threatening you.
When the game is nearing the all Kings stage you have to be carefull because when the last Man is off the board the Kings get the extra capturing move and this can be a lot of trouble if you haven't prepared for it.
======= ======== ==== =========== ========== =====

More added=====>
Walter Montego: (1. November 2007, 00:04:12) No, a piece may jump over any piece to make a capture. The piece that is jumped over remains where it is.
Kings can jump any piece and do not have to make a capture unless the jumping lands on a piece. Nothing happens if a Kings jumps a piece and lands on an unoccupied square.
Men can only jump an opponent's piece if they make a capture or a split jump. Men MAY NOT jump an opponent's piece and land on an unoccupied square. Men can always jump over their own side's piece (King or Man) and land on an unoccupied square.

A split jump is a special move. Only the Men can make it, never a King or Kings. To do a split jump a Man must jump ANY piece of EITHER player and land on a Man of HIS side. The two Men occupy the square together. Yes, there's usually not room enough to accomodate them so you might lean one on the other or you can just have them side by side in the square overlapping into the unused colored squares, just don't stack them on top of each other as it'll look like a King and that is not what it is. If you're playing in a noisy enviroment or with someone that's not paying too close of attention to the game for some reason, you might also point out to your opponent that you just made a split jump. This can help prevent confusion or an argument from developing.

I'm not sure if I'm clear on the jumping. All jumps in Jump Checkers cover the same distance. The piece that's going to do the jumping must be right next to the piece that's going to be jumped. When the jump is complete, the piece that did the jumping is on the square immediately on the other side of the jumped piece. That's it. No roaming or flying Queens. It looks like a jump in regular Checkers except that the piece that is jumped over is never captured.

Men can capture in two ways. (1) By jumping ANY piece and landing on the opponent's piece in the immediate square after the jumped piece. (2) By moving off of a split jump. When one of the two Men that occupy a square in a split jump is moved it must go to one of three squares. Orthogonally sideways or forward straight across. If an opponent's piece occupies the square, it is captured.
Kings capture in four ways. (1) They can jump any piece and land on an opponent's piece. (2) They can move orthogonally sideways and if the square is occupied by an opponent's piece, the piece is captured. (3) If an opponent's King is orthogonally straight ahead or behind the King, the King may move to capture the opponent's King by occupying that King's square. (4) At the stage of the game when the only pieces on the board are all Kings, a King may capture an opponent's King by moving diagonally two squares. (This move looks like a jump and landing on a King without a piece being jumped)

Captures are optional. No double jumps. In Jump Checkers you have to guard your pieces similar to how it is done in Chess. Trades are like that too. The not having to make a capture rule is one thing that makes Jump Checkers a lot different than most Checkers variants. Having two Men on one square is different too. And no double jumps is another. Kings are a lot stronger than Men, so make sure you don't let your opponent get a King unless you can get one yourself or have a defensive line that the King can't break up or else that King will eat up all your pieces in a few moves and the game will be over. When you have two Men in a split jump, you can control the three squares that one of the Men must move to when the split jump is broken up. A King can't easily fight against a split jump unless he can position a piece to jump onto the split jump. As I said earlier, one way to fight split jumps is to immediately jump a piece towards the square with the split jump's two Men on it. This threatens to capture the two Men in the split jump and it attacks it from the diagonal. The split jump Man leaves orthogonally. It'll take a few games of play to see how to use split jumps to your advantage and also how to thwart them. Though this may seem obvious, you should never make a split jump that is subject to immediate capture! You'll lose two Men and I can't imagine a position where that would be a favorable outcome.

Walter Montego: Hi, Montego. INstead of a "jump checkers", I would rather see in brainking some important variants, played all over the world, with true championships, like Russian checkers, classic checkers, Italian checkers or International checkers. In my opinion, those should be "checkers priorities" here. But it doesn't mean I disagree with the introdution of jump checkers, of course. Just a question of priority!

Gabriel Almeida: Why not have those games and Jump Checkers? Those games you mention are all just slight variations of the same game. Yes, that makes them different games, but not as much as the differences between Atomic, Extinction, Embassy, Loop, Dark, or Giveaway Chess variants. As for Jump Checkers, it truly is a different kind of Checkers. Play a couple of games and see for yourself.

You got me curious about the Checkers games that are on this site. That's a rather strange and incomplete list, I will agree with you there! It looks rather skewed towards Czech versions too, which I assume is the flying Queen/King rules. This might have something to do with where Fencer is from?

Just regular ol' Checkers has a few variants in the playing rules that I'm sure aren't available as choices here, either. I never play Checkers, but it is a challenging game. I sure wouldn't play the game online as it can now be played perfectly by machines and computer programs. Is there a Dark Checkers version? Would it be or is it as playable as Dark Chess is?

I'm still rooting for Jump Checkers. Maybe Fencer will never add it, but at least he knows of the game, and now you do too. He's added other obscure games here and I've seen him add games that were made up on the fly, like how Ambiguous Chess was added to the site. Jump Checkers may not be widely known or even played any more, but it isn't just some game out of the blue. Well, yes I guess it is! :) And if it does get added, I'll play it. And you'll get an invitation too.

Please try to get ANYTHING in checkers through in Fencer's mind, for you know Fencer hates Checkers. Any new variant, of course I appreciate for the International Checkers.

Good luck!

Two months have gone by since I posted about Jump Checkers and you about International Checkers. Neither game is avaiable here as of yet, but a slew of other games are. Obscure games I might add, plus some that were just made up and put into play right here because Fencer or someone else wanted to play them. I think Jump Checkers would be a great addition to the site. It'd certainly help its reputation as a player's and inventor's place to play. I don't know International Checkers, but you make it sound as if it is a widely played game, so I'm kind of puzzled why it isn't on here too.

Walter Montego: You should check out the http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=3 board.

Fencer has been asking for a couple of questions about the rules of international checkers.... which most likely means he is working on programming it. (not a guarentee - but why else would he be asking about the rules)

My suggestion - list the top 2 or 3 checker variants that you think would attract the most players - and post detailed rules about each of them here. Hopefully if Fencer is still in a programming mood, he will take up adding a few more checker variants. (and as he is programming 1 checker variant - it is usually easier to program other checker variants)

Walter Montego: International checkers is the standard checkers game played in the Netherlands and Russia.

coan.net: As for an easy variant to add, if Draughts ("International Checkers") is created, is Canadian checkers. It has the same rules as Draughts, except that's it's played on a 12x12 board (with 30 checkers).

Wikipedia has a handy table which lists the differences between the regional draughts/checkers variants, and has links to some "invented" variants.

Hi,

Whoever wants to play a quick game of Checkers, just send me an invite to play.

1 day/standard vacation are the settings I can handle ;)

coan.net: I posted how to play Jump Checkers right on this discussion board eleven posts back on December 8th, 2007
Checkers variants (8x8) (Walter Montego, 2007-12-09 01:42:49)
and some pointers on how to play right after that post. It's an obscure game that I'm sure would not make any lists as you suggest. It first needs to have a few people play it and see if they like it or not. I think just from that post one could program Jump Checkers for this site. IF Fencer has any questions about the play, I'll be happy to answer them.