brownsugar51: I'll send you a checkers invite.

Purple: Two enormous talents. I'll check it out.

Congratulations to Nomad, who has just been announced as winner this of this tournament, with all sections completed. Congrats James!

Also congrats to Pat (gooner), who was a very close runner up. Great job Pat!

Well done, Immortals :o)

Yes, which is what makes George Miller a cut above (most of) the rest.

I was able to download it & it looks intact, pictures and all. I'll check it out. Thanks. :o)

I have the Reader but my computer is misbehaving. Wish there was some other way to see it.

Gothic, we do have a small tournament going now (The Immortals 3-Move Invitational), in which all players have agreed to play the Inferno opening. I agree that more of the same is desirable. Fencer did say that he plans on implementing some kind of 3-move alternative here, though I don't know the specifics or the time-table.

LOL How about this. Let's say we start a game and I make one move, then die of a heart attack before you move. Do I lose?

I would say so.

This is simply a reminder to those who are participating.

The tournament will start later this weekend & please remember that all participants have agreed to play each side of the following opening in all games, through all rounds:

9-13 22-18 10-14

This is known as THE INFERNO opening, a very difficult one which has only been recently approved by the ACF for the 3-Move Restriction Deck, after extensive testing via Mail-Play.

If there is any confusion remaining about which move or moves to make to begin your games (to ensure The Inferno is being played), please contact me or Nomad & we'll do our best to set you on the right track.

I wish you all great gaming & sportsmanship in the tournament. :o)

James is a champion both on the boards and off. I'm proud of you my friend.

I just checked my profile and I've lost so many games of checkers I doubt I could be of help to anyone lol. :o)

All checkers variants are included in this tournament. All are welcome. Sign up and have fun. Kick-off is January 7. :o)

This is shaping up to be a doozy folks. We have 13 entrants so far and the list is mounting. I urge you to jump aboard if you haven't already. This will be true championship checkers as its best. And a lot of fun to boot. TNP

This is an opportunity for everyone to participate and the best to rise to the top. Unrated players and Pawns welcome. Sign up ends December 28. Good luck all.

Yes it would. Sorry to hear about WCC.

gonna post a WCC link before you go?

damn wish i could test that. Gothic will you post link to your WCC? i've been meaning to look at that anyway. i've scanned info on Nemesis and Wyllie but haven't seen yours yet. thanks

looking like a win sure enough. don't see any tricks (lol) as it moves into familiar positions. might be some variations that are also wins? but this one the toughest you say?

4th Position a pain in the ass compared to the others. Will check this out.

I have joined the Checkers section. I encourage others to do the same.

It soon becomes so second nature you say "check-mate" at the end of every game. lol

I'd do it but you're too unbeatable. Wait, just looked at your games. My bad. You must be referring to your opponents. LOL

Happy Birthday Chief. A FINE day to turn 29! :o)

I should have been clearer. The Brandy I drink I always spell with a capital B. Now as for brandy....

I exceedingly quake and fear. Good luck to all. Where's my Brandy?

I tracked down my agent, who was already in the process of making contact with yours. Strange. I didn’t know Leslie was your agent. Oh uh, yes, the Prancing Prince. Never have I read finer, no-punch-pulling comments than yours on that dreadfully dreary Opening. But it was, of course, the Prancing PONY that I had in mind! So enticing is the Pony that members of the opposite sex can scarcely play it (or finish!) unless they are first bound in strait-jackets while a neutral (eunuch) referee makes the moves indicated, ignoring pleadings, threats and other language and behavior of a non-publishable nature. Though the outcome of the movie is certain there need not be any lack of a building…anticipation. The camera can zoom in to a close-up, for example, of a single drop of sweat rolling down the bridge of Player X’s nose, to hang poised at the tip for an awful, intensely exciting moment, only to Plop! onto the checker board while his eyebrows hunch and his eyes fix in fiery concentration on…the game before him. His opponent, meanwhile, dabs the perspiration from her neck with a handkerchief (not his!). “It’s hot in here,” she purrs. “Have you moved yet?” Certainly you are correct about my noted inability to resist temptation. I have never been tempted to do so. But, family history aside, it doesn’t mean I’m an easy target! By no means. Even Dinglehoff never gave in without a prolonged struggle, often muttering to himself out loud: “I can’t believe I’m doing this!” A truly noble character whose charm was outweighed only by his manly firmness. BTW, I think it horrendous that you’ve been asked to play such a role! My lord, in the nude?? As if you were that cheap. I have accordingly directed my Finance Minister to release the necessary funds. Looking forward to your analysis of the story you mention. Perhaps some of it can be incorporated into the Duckwalk Tease film project.

My dear Lobogal:

Your analysis of the Duckwalk Tease is astute and my omission duly noted, however there is a point you fail to consider, all the more surprising given the perceptive player you are. BTW, Lord Dinglehoff is actually my great-great-great-great uncle on my mother’s side before the family got irrevocably tangled up with a bunch of nasty Scotsmen, and his alcoholism (family diary) stemmed not originally from his infamous Duckwalk Stumble but rather his inability to lose while intoxicated or win sober. Scotch on the Rocks and Brandy were ever keys to success but having promised his beloved (future third) mistress that he would curtail his habit if she would only exhibit the Duckwalk Tease for him in private audience, he never thereafter was able to regain his composure on the checkered playground. A tragic story particularly as her Duckstrut became markedly less captivating (less inspired?) in the ensuing years whilst no other mistress could do it justice at all. He is described by most contemporaries as a lugubriously morbid man, others as a waste of God-given talent.

I have studied this line of play and see that, possibly due to a misprint of the original, 9-13 should have been followed by 24-20 rather than the deceptively “hot” 32-28, which concludes then in a draw only if Black misplays terribly with 8-12. 24-20, on the other hand, sets the game aright while revealing its truly luck-warm nature with a 14-17 28-24 etc. follow-up. Both get kings but neither triumph as play bogs down along the G-line (consult Oldbury’s diagonals of attack & defense). Even the rank novice will notice the insipid play here, too much skirting about the edges of the neglected battlefield. Better to take the plunge in a daring frontal assault (e.g. 6-10!) and skewer the Duck. Of course it needn’t be said that 33-29 is out of the question since modern board modifications have rendered that formerly dramatic alternative passé if not obsolete.

Notwithstanding the above, I was pleasantly surprised to learn one important piece of knowledge which had long eluded me, leaving a kind of vacuum in my innermost being. Having forgotten the name of Dinglehoff’s illustrious opponent, it always escaped me why I and others in my clan have long preferred J. Daniels over J. Beam. Now I know. Again, for interested enthusiasts it might be appropriate here to discuss the closely-related yet truly “hot” Prancing Pony variation. But I will resist the temptation.

NP. Trust me I don't have this memorized. lol. These are Fortman's notes which can be found at the English Draughts Association website.

http://home.clara.net/davey/

OPENING 10-14. 22-18, 7-10

10-14, 22-18, 7-10 (A), 25-22 (B), 11-16 (C), 18-15 (D), 10-19, 24-15, 14-18 (E), 23-14, 9-25, 29-22, 3-7 (F), 22-18, 7-10, 27-24, 10-19, 24-15, 16-19, 21-17(G

.A) One of the newer openings introduced into the official ACF ballot in 1970, but the White attacks are somewhat stilted. The late Prof. W.R. Fraser, of Montreal, Canada used this twice in free-style play vs. Tom Wiswell, in their 1960 title match. Since he was 'scorched' twice with it, he entitled it "Eraser's Inferno", but it is hardly that hot!...

B) The only move to secure new play, as 24-20, 24-19 or 26-22 transpose into openings shown later in this book.

C) One of the key moves to sustain the soundness of this opening. The natural 3-7 follow-up (as in Opening #45 ) does not work in this case after White's *29-25, and all replies have been shown to lose in 'Master-Play'..

D) This middle exchange opens the position to some extent, and has been played by Marion Tinsley on occasion. There are two additional major choices:

1) 24-20, *16-19 ( in contrast to #2 in this note, this is forced, and 8-11 loses, with White one move ahead, after 27-24, 10-15, 24-19 etc; see ACFB #159, page 60.) 23-16, 12-19, 27-23 ( as 18-15 is an ancient Robertson Guide Bristol; 11-16, 24-20, 16-19, 23-16, 12-19,22-18, 10-14, 18-15, 7-10, 25-22, but still capable of producing new play.) 8-12, 23-16, 14-23 ( it is now best to Play a piece short for a time, as 12-19 allows the powerful 18-15, with a possible win. See analysis by Jim Keene and Ed Ebert in "Master Checkers"Vol.5, #3, p.22) 26-19, 4-8 ( this delay is easier then the immediate 10-15, 19-10, 12-19, as both the 10-7 pitch or 30-26 give White excellent chances.) 32-27 ( or 22-18, 9-14, 18-9, 5-14, 29-25, 2-7, 25-22, 10-15, 19-10, 12-19, 22-17, 6-15, 17-10, 7-14, 32-27, 8-11, 30-26, 14-18, 27-23, 18-27, 31-24, 1-6, 21-17, 6-10, 17-13, 10-14, 13-9, 14-17, 9-6, 3-8, 6-2 then 15-18, 24-15, 18-22 to a draw. Don Lafferty vs. E.T. Rolader.) 2-7, 30-26, (or 22-18, 8-11, *19-15, 10-19, 27-24, 3-8, 24-15, 12-19, 30-26, 9-13, 29-25, 6-9, 31-27 and 7-10 etc. Draws; Keith Todd v. John Caldwell, 1970 mail game. But if White tries to hold on to the piece with 31-26 at first instead of 22-18, then 8-11, 27-23, 9-13, 29-25, 6-9, 22-18, 3-8, 25-22, 10-14, 30-25, 1-6, 19-15, 12-19, 23-16, 14-30, 16-12,11-18, 12-3 and 7-10 etc; and he is repentant—Red Wins. Don Lafferty vs. Ron Johnson, in the 1973 Lakeside Ty.) 8-11, 29-25, (and again. White must be cautious, as 27-23, 9-13, 29-25, 5-9 etc; goes into a Red win from a Bristol, as in Stiles v. Gould; noted by E.F. Hunt, in Ryans"New Checkergram',' 12/34, p. 181.) 9-13, then the necessary return with 19-15, 10-19, 22-18, 6-9, 25-22, 1-6, 27-24, 3-8, 24-15, 12-19, and 22-17, etc. Drawn. K. Todd v. JD Williams, 1975 I-D mail ty.

2) 29-25 ( perhaps the natural development, which featured in the Fraser- Wiswell games.) now the cramp with *8-11 must be allowed, if White desires to use it. The 16-19 'dyke' loses a piece here, as there is insufficient backing; also 16-20 is bad after the 18-15 exchange, and lastly, 3-7, 24-20 is shown to win in M.P. page 184, Var.F.,.After 8-11, continue: 18-15 ( against the 24-20 pin, Red has just enough time to consolidate and save this entire opening with 10-15, 27-24, 6-10, 24-19, 15-24, 28-19, then *3-8 draws, as mentioned many years ago by Marion Tinsley in an interesting article published in "E.C.B.".page 1825, 4/52.Cont: 32-28, 9-13, 18-9, 5-14, now 28-24 is a mistake after 11-15! 20-11 and 1-6, but 22-18 instead, then both 1-5 or 1-6 will draw. See the 1976 Nat. Ty. games; Fuller v. Langdon.) 11-18, 22-15, 10-19, 24-15, *3-7 (Eraser's 9-13 vs. Wiswell is too great a handicap after either 15-10 or the 23-18 exchange.) 26-22,( or a Welsh cook with the 23-19 exchange, used in mail play by G. Davies and Wm. Edwards. Cont; 16-23, 26-19, 4-8..We prefer this over the immediate 14-17 x which allows 28-24; Todd v. Edwards..After 4-8, then 27-24— as 28-24 can now be met with the 6-10 exchange, and about even—now the 14-17 x is satisfactory, and 32-27, 5-9, 31-26, 9-13, 26-23, 6-10, 15-6, 1-10, 23-14, 10-17, 27-23, 8-11, 24-20, 7-10, 25-21, 17-22, 23-18, 2-6, 18-14 etc. and 13-17 drew. Fortman v. Edwards, in the 8th US-GB mail match.) 9-13, 31-26, *l6-19-prepared to play a piece short, which White is unable to retain- 23-16, 12-19, 27-23, *19-24, 28-19, 4-8, 32-27, ( or 21-17, 14-21, 32-27, 7-11, 23-18, 2-7, 27-24, 5-9, 24-20, 7-10, 19-16, 10-19, 16-7, 6-10, 7-3, 8-12, 3-7, 10-14 etc. Drawn M. Tinsley vs. E. Langdon; 1975 Lakeside Ty.) 7-11, 19-11, (also 22-18, 13-17, 18-9, 5-14, 19-16, 11-18, 16-12, and 11-16 etc; the Fraser analysis in "Art of Checkers"; later by M. Banks v. R. Bailey, 1974 Nat. Ty.) then 11-20 etc. draws after 22-18 and 6-10. Rex v. Romphf, in the world mail title play-offs; later by Childers v. Vestal in the 1978 I-D mail ty..... This entire 29-25 variation is limited to very few White attacks of substance, and after the two key moves are known ( the 3-8 in the 24-20 line, and the 16-19 exchange, followed with the 19-24 pitch in the 18-15 variation.) the defence has little to fear in the way of cooks.,..

E) Generally favoured, and no doubt best, although the 16-19 exchange may also be sound, as played by Rev.Vestal vs. the writer, in the ACF 200 club mail ty. As White's best attack against it goes into a variation of Opening #50-B ( 10-14, 23-19, 7-10 ) it will be shown there.

F) We prefer this as the more restrictive way, although 5-9 seems sound also, then 22-18, 3-7 ( or 9-13 first then 27-24; instead of 26-22- Langdon v. Tinsley, 1975 Lakeside; after 27-24, #3-7, 26-22, *8-11, 15-8, 4-11, 30-26, 6-10, 32-27, 16-20, 26-23, 1-5, 24-19, 2-6, 31-26, 6-9, 19-16 etc. Drawn. R. Chamberlain v. R. Romphf, in the world mail title play-offs.) 27-24, 9-13, 26-22, 8-11,5-8, 4-11, now White has the strong 24-20; instead of 30-26; a Vestal-Rex 1978 I-D mail game, to an eventual draw....

.G) Cont: 2-7.( not 5-9, 17-13, 1-5, than 15-10 etc; to a White win- Williams vs. Rex, 1975 I-D mail ty.) 31-27, 12-16, 17-13 ( White has nothing with 27-23 after 8-12. 16-20, 27-24, 20-27, 32-16, 8-11, 15-8, 4-20, 30-25, (if 26-23, 6-9 etc. draws. Rex v. Looser, 1978 I-D mail ty.) 6-10, 25-21, 10-14, 18-9, 5-14, 26-23, 7-11, 13-9, 11-15 and 23-19 etc. Drawn. Lloyd Hills vs. R. Fortman, 1977 6th vs. 7th Dist. mail match, and excellently played by the many-times Nebraska state champion

Supplementary play; 10-14, 22-18, 7-10, 25-22, 11-16, 29-25, 8-11, 18-15, 11-18, 22-15, 10-19, 24-15, 3-7, 26-22, 9-13, 31-26, 7-10(passing up the key *l6-19-see above.) 15-11, 10-15, 27-24, 5-9, 23-19, 16-23, 26-10, 6-15, & 24-19 etc. White Wins. E. Lowder vs. E. Bruch, 1979 Lakeside Ty....

Corrections

Trunk at note F .5-9 ( instead of 3-7) is no doubt best.

Trunk @ 15th move 7-10 as given loses ;instead 5-9 still draws

Trunk note G instead of 31-27 to draw, White has Tinsley`s 32-27* to winfor White, over the Editor in practice.See the 1980 ID mail booklet.

Note D var 2 . Instead of the 14-17 exchange Red has two good alternatives in 14-18 ( Fortman v M Long in mail play) or 7-10! As in Childers v m Long also in mail play.

Note F @ 3rd move. M Tinsley mentioned to the Editor that the 8-11 exchange ( instead of 3-7 ) is also sound after 26-23 and 6-10.

Note F @ 13th move.Instead of 30-26, White also has 24-20, as played in the 1980 Id mail ty

Actually I find the pawns and chess kings to be a refreshing change. Although I do often find myself at the end saying "Check Mate" rather than "GG".

Point taken (Gulp). No more booze and wild women. But what about after the tournament? lol. Win or lose I'll need consolation.

Did someone mention a tournament? When? Where? Am I in it?

Derek Oldbury still has the perfect formula for those who want to become unbeatable at this complex game and it is to be highly recommended to the unstable and weak of heart. I quote: "Do not play. Then you can't lose."

The fool-proof plan when playing top-notch opponent is to resign after 3 moves with this message: "No point in continuing here. I see you've got me in 33 moves. Masterful job." This works with chess too.

I've gone over this game a couple of times and agree it is fascinating, with some incredible play along the way. One of the most brilliant middle games manuevers to me was White's sacrificing a man on move 33 (and thus being down a man to Chinook!!! - nearly always fatal) in order to position a man on 10. White got his man back 7 moves later (move 40) and terrific play followed but, as Chief said, 30-26 did the trick on move 50 and from there Black suffered a slow & agonizing death. If, that is, computers suffer like us humans do in similar circumstances. LOL Thanks Chief!!!

Let us hope so. He's a terrific guy and a superior player.

It's an honor and a privilege.

Oh I missed that, sorry. I'm convinced you know more about the game than I do. lol. The Cheetah and Shark are in much worse shape than the Inferno. Probably should be regulated to the Black Hole but perhaps not quite yet. The Skunk?

The Inferno is considered a draw.

I'll second that! Having played Innovative now a number of times, I'll vouch that he is as good on the boards as he sounds in these posts. Better.

You don't have to tear a purse apart to make a weapon out of it. So I've discovered on a number of occasions! Oh...uh...yes...prison minister I am. Usurper KM at your service! I'm also the in-house doctor and mechanic. I give both check-ups and tune-ups (after the counseling session, of course). I'll make a round and come your way as soon as I can escape the tigresses in Cell Block X. :o|