For more information on that go to www.h4ns.net or check any problem book. Specifically, look for the "in & out" shot to see how you can take advantage of this rule.

How would this work? I don't get it.

But yeah. Checkers without the forced jump isn't checkers. I don't know WHAT you'd call it. Maybe "one-move diagonal chess," as without the forced jump checkers becomes akin to chess in that you can't force your opponent into anything like a shot, but rather if he is threatened he can retreat. Not to say moves can never be forced in chess or in whatever you'd call this guy's version of "checkers," but it's not the distinguishing characteristic of either the way it is in actual checkers.

I wouldn't exaggerate that much, Ed... you can still win 2 kings vs. 1 by the conventional method of forcing the king out of the DC. But winning 2 vs. 3 COULD be eternally postponed since a trade could not be forced.

Or maybe your problem is just that, officially, the rules of checkers include the fact that you have to take a jump... it's in fact the foundational rule of checkers. Or maybe it's just that you don't know how to play "real checkers," as you call it, and get peeved every time your opponent sets up a basic 2 for 1 shot and you have to take it.

No, my problem is that checkers without the jump is literally a non-profound game. All it is is pieces moving around diagonally, with no real threat to them unless you make the absolute dumbest of moves, whereas with the forced jump, you have to worry not only about squeezes and center control but about people getting in shots, including the brooklyn, longer stroke combinations, sacrifices that can force you into a devastated position, and other fascinating play that makes checkers the profound game it is. It's BECAUSE of the limitations placed on the rules of checkers that it's the world's most profound game. In checkers without the forced jump, what deep, complex combinations of moves can you make that ultimately result in such great wins as some of the shots, and what actual threats can you make against the opponent? Without the constant threat of shots and other devastating plays that need the forced jump, I can't picture checkers being a challenging or particularly deep game. This is exactly why most people *think* that chess is more profound than checkers: because they play the version with no forced jump and therefore declare it easier.

LOL! Checkers without the forced jump? That's a kid's game :P It's the version that has no actual strategy. The forced jump, because it is the basis for everything from shots to sacrifices and even lovely pieces of work like the brooklyn, is the very foundation of checkers as a strategic game that takes actual skill. Take that away, and all you have is an easier version of chess... instead of the game Poe once said is, while less complex, more profound, than chess.

Here specifically is Ray's game I mentioned in a below posting. As you can see the position does repeat 3 times which officially calls it a draw. But his opponent did not request IYT to make it a draw until Ray had already found the win! Should the draw have been allowed or should they have let Ray win at this point? After all, the draw wasn't offered at the point that it should have been asked for.

1. 9-14 24-20 2. 11-15 22-18 3. 15-22 25-18-9 4. 5-14 29-25 5. 8-11 25-22 6. 4-8 22-17 7. 11-15 30-25 8. 15-18 27-24 9. 18-27 32-23 10. 8-11 25-22 11. 11-15 24-19 12. 15-24 28-19 13. 7-11 19-16 14. 12-19 23-16-7 15. 2-11 31-27 16. 3-8 17-13 17. 14-18 22-15 18. 10-19 26-22 19. 8-12 22-18 20. 6-10 21-17 21. 10-15 20-16 22. 15-22 16-7 23. 22-25 7-2 24. 25-30 2-7 25. 12-16 7-11 26. 16-20 11-16 27. 19-24 27-23 28. 24-27 23-19 29. 27-31 19-15 30. 30-25 17-14 31. 25-22 15-11 32. 22-18 14-9 33. 18-14 9-5 34. 14-10 11-8 35. 20-24 8-3 36. 24-27 16-11 37. 10-6 3-7 38. 6-2 7-10 39. 2-6 10-7 40. 6-2 7-10 41. 2-6 10-7 42. 31-26 11-16 43. 26-23 16-11 44. 23-18 11-16 45. 27-31 16-19 46. 18-23 19-26 47. 31-22 7-2 48. 6-10 2-6 49. 10-7 6-9 50. 22-17 9-6 51. 1-10 then the game was declared a draw by IYT after Ray's opponent requested it.

Ok, you know that draw rule that says if you repeat the same position 3 times within a game, it's declared a draw? Well, my friend Raymond Faircloth had a game on itsyourturn lately where he had an easy winning position, but his opponent offered a draw. The game was on move 51 and he was up 3 kings to 2 men. His opponent offered a draw, he refused, and IYT declared the game a draw. The reason: that rule. On moves 37, 39, and 41 he allowed the same position to occur 3 times: red men on 1 and 27, red kings on 6 and 31; white men on 5 and 13, white kings on 7 and 11. Raymond eventually found the win and his opponent also made some dumb plays, but then the opponent emailed IYT requesting the game be called a draw because of the 3-position repetition, and they allowed it!

My question is this: if a game has a position repeated three times, it's declared a draw, right? But if the opponent does not request a draw upon the repetition (Ray won the game at his 51st move, 10 after the last repetition) but then offers the draw long after the repetition when the other player is winning, is the game still declared a draw?

Nah, there's an "er" in it.

I guess it must mean "brainier," then, or maybe "brainer" as in someone who brains. You never know... some people have hammers

That's what I stated... that I hadn't played live yet but am planning to when circumstances will allow. But when you're going to college classes, it's hard to keep up even with practice, let alone to travel somewhere you can't afford to, without a car, and still manage college. Especially if you have Crohn's disease and have been to the hospital four times since January, twice for surgery, and might have to go again anytime. So it might be a while before I can go. Believe me, I would love to just for the chance to prove those people wrong.

And by the way, your "seasoned grandmansters" for the most part didn't believe a word of what was posted. The only players to believe that horrific lie, if I'm not mistaken, were Post (see below, I shouldn't even have to comment in addition but he's hardly a grandmaster), Clint (he's admittedly good, but still human and therefore fallible) and some other people whose names are so obscure I can't even remember them. Here are some people who believe my side, on the other hand: Alex, Lindus, Wilma Wolverton, Jan Mortimer, Jim Loy, Richard Fortman, as well as many people who have played as many as 300 games online with me each (and therefore know a lot more about my playing style) such as Corey Modich and Francesco LaRocca. Ever noticed how the people who believed Post's lies have one thing in common: only one of them has even played a game with me online, and he only played two?

Oh, one more thing... I didn't even play checkers in 1995-6. I started in 1999 or maybe 2000.

I know who you mean, but it isn't me. My name's Anthony and I'm from New York. The guy you're thinking of has a name that starts with an R. I remember being surprised when I saw that name on the wall of honor, knowing that none of my family are strong checkers players. I think his name was Raul.

Then try scrolling down more, ustica. He did claim it, using as his source some guy named Post who accuses everyone who plays better than he does, and hasn't attended a live tournament, of using a program. And by this I mean EVERYONE. Even a woman named Kristen on zone who loses on published play for Old 14th.

I can't wait to play him live if that ever happens. I wonder if there would be any intimidation factor.

Heckert is well known to me. He was definitely not a program user, but yes, people did accuse him of that all the time too. Many other names like Olsen, Nash, Mortimer and even Moiseyev have gotten called online cheats by people (my only guess is they were jealous kids who play live and wish they did as well as those they accused would, like the ones I see on zone all the time). In many of these cases they were also accused before they got to be in a live tournament. If you ask me, they use it as a cheap ploy so that they can discourage people who are better than they are from going to tournaments, so they don't have to worry about competition that might get in their way as much.

I agree with Stardust here. There is no reason behind it. The point of playing checkers online is to enjoy it and have fun, as well as to develop ability. A person simply copying moves from a checkers engine and playing them on a board is doing neither.

Oh, and gooner (probably Post or some other bum like that who hounds people because he's jealous of them and has nothing better to do)... sorry pal, but two people claiming I use Nemesis (something I don't even have a copy of) doesn't make it true. In fact, I've been helping to run a community to drive people like that OUT of zone, and suggesting to MSN and other sites ways to stop them such as something that can detect checkers engines running in the background. If I were someone who did this, would I be trying to find ways to stop it? This is why I get annoyed by such accusations... because what you accuse me of is the very thing I've been taking time out of my busy schedule for THREE YEARS to PREVENT people from doing! But, as pretty much everyone but yourself and three other people knows, my integrity is unquestionable, and you haven't really convinced anybody to the contrary.

And pointing out that one game was close to what a program would play doesn't "prove" anything. In fact, I can provide you with many games that prove I DO NOT use any form of engine to make moves for me. I do practice by playing against one, which has been the cause of much of my learning.

I should also add that if you were to post that game again, you would find that at least a few moves, when compared to Nemesis' choice, were unaccounted for - that is, there was no comment about them being similar. They were the ones that didn't match. Coincidence? I think not. Additionally, there is the simple fact that I can explain to you the reasoning behind every move I chose. A program user copies moves because the engine analyzes them as "best". I can tell you the reason behind a move I make. A cheat can not.

Simple as that. But if that's not enough... check out the fact that I'm a Christian and, furthermore, an Eagle Scout. My honor is something that is a part of my very identity as a human being and a person on my level of honor would never cheat to get anything. And don't even bring up that crap about a person "using a program only in some games and not in others." I find people who use programs in ANY games offensive and disgusting human beings, and have a very strong opinion that people like that will never get anywhere. And I find it is also most likely true that if a person were to bother using one, they wouldn't bother using it for some games and not others, or for only part of a game. That would just be pointless. Your hounding of me and flaming of every message board I go to gets ridiculous, and I'm tired of being harassed by liars. If you're ever going to post another accusation, post it after, whoever you are, I've played you live. I'll do you one better: play the exact line LIVE with me, whenever I get to play live that is, of the same game you claim I used a program to play. I'll play out the same win move by move and then explain to you why I made each move. No program user could do that.

I'd say some of the ones on the ladder are just humans at least as strong as I am, for the sheer fact that I've seen them lose games with mistakes no program would make. These include the maggot, jesse priest, jack kx, and whitey1939 in particular.

Would you like to play me? If you'll give me your IYT name, Purple, I'll issue a challenge to your name when I have one open, even if my ladder rank is above yours. That just doesn't mean much to me.

Oh, I don't design programs. I'm just a guy who's been playing checkers for about 3 years and has yet to attend a live tournament, although my future plans lie in that direction. You might've seen me on itsyourturn.com as Anthony Perez or on msn gamezone as _xz_Lloyd_zx_

My purpose is just to play games for fun. Checkers isn't ALWAYS about business. Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing the actual ability of WCC, but it's not the reason I asked about playing a game. I just like a challenge. Anyway, if you feel that way, you can accept the other end: just us as humans playing.

Oh, as for checker pieces instead of pawns... and numbers instead of chess notation... this seems to exist already. Just click next to (change) near the top right of the screen where it says "row-column" while you're playing a checkers game. It will give you the options you want.

In that case let's play a personal game, if you like. I'm looking for opponents anyway. And I would be willing to keep the games not private if you like. Or you can just use a downloadable version of WCC, although I'm sure it would be weaker than the full thing.

By the way, it would be nice to have 3-move games on this site. Does anyone else agree? If so, invite me to a game or something and declare a 3-move opening. Hopefully random and drawable. I don't mind playing the 12 newly approved ones since I've played those more than most other non-GAYP openings.

Yes, since I know Ed would be using the program he wouldn't be asking friends and others to view his games and suggest moves to him. This is the reason I keep games private: to prevent that.

I haven't played against WCC before. I was going strictly on results from postal games, mostly those from the ladder that used to be on Wyllie's site.

I have yet therefore to actually evaluate this more recent version of WCC. Would you like to invite me to play a few games with it, Ed?

I find nothing illegitimate about practicing with a computer to learn the game more strongly. Only with using one to make your moves for you in games.

As for Cake SS, it's ok. I'd rank it fourth among programs, behind WCC, Kingsrow (best free one) and Nemesis, the real best. My reason Cake isn't ranked top is its opening play has weaknesses, especially in the weaker 3-move openings and in some GAYP openings like the Souter, while Kingsrow really doesn't have many opening book weaknesses, and for the few it does contain, it never plays those lines. I've only beaten it in 3 drawable lines of play while I've beaten Cake SS on about 5.