Photos from Beijing

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I am a bit curious - does anyone here agree with Derek statement ? If so - lets talk about this. If it's just exchange by humoristic posts - it is also OK. And I agree with Liam - some Derek comments and statements from time to time were provocative and he made them in order to raise people interest and push them to start duscussin and argue ... which is not bad at all !

The most complex game I ever saw and played - GO. I had 1st dan in Russia when I was at age 17-18 but I never worked seriously on this game. This is certainly "game from heaven" and neither 10x10 or chess can be compared with it !

Regards,

Alex

[MostFamousDane]

I am a bit curious - does anyone here agree with Derek statement ? If so - lets talk about this. If it's just exchange by humoristic posts - it is also OK. And I agree with Liam - some Derek comments and statements from time to time were provocative and he made them in order to raise people interest and push them to start duscussin and argue ... which is not bad at all !

The most complex game I ever saw and played - GO. I had 1st dan in Russia when I was at age 17-18 but I never worked seriously on this game. This is certainly "game from heaven" and neither 10x10 or chess can be compared with it !

Regards,

Alex

Hi Alex

There are two different types of complexity: profoundness (this is what we in Computer Science call decision complexity) and size (space complexity) and the classic board games typically have a trade-off between these two types of complexity - in my opinion we can rank the games likes this (in decreasing order ie most complex first):

Decision complexity:
Checkers, International Draughts, Chess, Go

Space complexity:
Go, Chess, International Draughts, Checkers

For space complexity we of course have an objective measurement while for decision complexity it is more or less completely subjective .

It seems to me that the flying king rule of International Draughts decreases the decision complexity while the larger board increases the space complexity.

Go is by far the most uninteresting game - most people will lose interest before finishing their first game. Checkers is for me the most interesting game because it is the most "efficient" game there exists in the sense that it needs very little space complexity and still be difficult enough that humans can't master it.

And by the way we have a Danish saying (poorly translated) "he who takes everything serious or everything for fun has understood both equally badly"

[tommyc]

Its the old "school kid "teachers pet" addage.....................suck up to those in higher office!!LOL

[william]

Hello once again

Having played 10x10 at a high expert level and 8x8 also at a reasonable level I can first of all say that one cannot compare both games.

Certainly anyone who goes over Oldbury's ( for example , but not only he exceeded in extraordinary beautiful endgame analysis ) endgame analysis , must admit that 8x8 holds treasures that takes one's breath literally away .

However to underestimate the intricaties of 10x10 endgame play is to take a blind man's point of view . Precisely , because the kings can 'roam' the , game holds beauties of it's own with subtulties abound and unlimited finesses . If anyone doubts this ; and they really should listen to Alex and myself ; I have an endgame book from 1800's by BOM a Dutch guy , there are 3x3's 4x4's etc etc I can publish a few for the doubting Thomas's ; just let me know ; but please respect Alex's viewpoint before doing so...

WILLIAM DOCHERTY

[MostFamousDane]

Here is oldburys article:

scan0027.jpg

scan0028.jpg

[john reade]

Liam, Sune, You misquote what I said. Have another look. John.

[liam stephens]

I agree with Alex when he says Oldbury was provocative on occasions, in order to get people interested and involved, but there is also a serious content.

It seems to me that in the 10 by 10 game, because of the larger board and no of pieces, there is much more scope for shots and strokes than in Checkers. Also I have noticed that there are formational aspects where smaller groups can hold larger groups (similar to Oldbury’s Parameter ideas). Also the grip or pincer movements seem much stronger in 10 x 10 due to the effects of the backward capture of the men.

However, due to the effects of the Long King and larger board there are no 1st 2nd or 3rd position, type endings, no Bowen’s Twins or Triplets, Mc Culloch’s Masterpiece or Fugitive Kings. The variety of endings occurring in checkers do not seem available in 10 x 10. It is also a weakness in the 10 x 10 game that 2 kings do not beat 1 and it usually requires 3 (or more) Kings to do so.

It may be, as Ingo and William say, that we should not compare games but accept each on its own merits.
But if we are to make a comparison then it is in the richness of the end-game (and the most efficient economy of means, mentioned by Sune) that checkers scores over the other varieties.

[william]

Sorry liam

I disagree totally that endgame in checkers outmatches 10x10 .

You seem to be in doubt so tonight i will publish some gem 10x10 endings ; and believe me when i say that frequent endgame themes in 10x10 arise and must be known

I will publish 10x10 later ; for now ... lets meditate...

WILLIAM

[william]

OOPS

Small mistake ;

I found the book ; it is by a russian ( the book is in russian too ) and from what i can guess or make out the guy seems to be called MOZER.

From what i ''guess'' he has ALSO!! classed endgames into " CHcTeMa " ( systems) etc etc I am sure that Alex can elaborate on this fine book as my russian is somewhat limited

But the book seems to be a sort of cross between goulds problems and a classic Boland book , thus proving that endgame play CAN AND IS VERY IMPORTANT in 10x10

[liam stephens]

Thank you William.

I look forward to that.

[william]

ok this is very easy one to start with just to show that Bridge complications do exist in 10x10.You should solve this in less than 1 minute from diagram

[william]

sorry unless otherwise stated white plays to win

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Liam, it is hard to discuss such serious subject on this forum. Number of ending positions (basic) in Anglo-American Checkers is avbsolutely miserable if we compare it with the same number in 10x10. This number is between 50 and 200 in Draughts and most of them are covered in "Border Classic".

Number of ending positions in 10x10 is several thousand. Ending Encyclopedia in 10x10 by L. Vitoshkin has 6,000 positions - 6 voumes. each about 200 pages.

Ending srategy in 10x10 is also much richer and includes various numbers of maneures, methods and tricks. All this "ending strategy" mostly is not available in Draughts.

I agree that those two games shall not be compared, because they are at diifferent levels and this comparison will insult many. However if we compare them - 10x10 will dominate in all aspects of game: tactics, strategy, endings, publish play, cross aboard skills etc.

II am sorry to say, but this is quite obvious fact for anyone who had a chance to play competively and seriouslyy both games.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

I am sure that Alex can elaborate on this fine book as my russian is somewhat limited

William, you probably have Russian edition of this book, but Mozer - Netherland author !

This book has only around 1,000 positions. Ending Encyclopedia today includes 6,000 positions. Those are positions where number of white pieces not exceed 4, and number of black pieces not exceed 7.

Anyway - I lost an interest to this dispute. The answer is not only obvious to me - I never thought this is a subject for any serious conversation.

Recently I finished 2nd in ther FMJD Composition World Championship, Miniatures, got silver medal, diploma, $200 and classification points. There were 356 poositions in contest from 50 authors, 10 countries.

Positions with solutions are here: http://fmjd.org/downloads/PWCP_II_diagrams.pdf

Final standings are here: http://fmjd.org/news.php?nid=419

If you are lover and expert of 10x10 - I hope you enjoy them.

Regards,

Alex

[MostFamousDane]

Liam, it is hard to discuss such serious subject on this forum. Number of ending positions (basic) in Anglo-American Checkers is avbsolutely miserable if we compare it with the same number in 10x10. This number is between 50 and 200 in Draughts and most of them are covered in "Border Classic".

Number of ending positions in 10x10 is several thousand. Ending Encyclopedia in 10x10 by L. Vitoshkin has 6,000 positions - 6 voumes. each about 200 pages.

Between 50 and 200 well that might be true of very basic ending positions - that is exactly the point - the end game positions in checkers are not basic they are very complex that is why there exists at least 3 books with more than 1000 end game positions. Your statements are completely and obviously false as someone who is world champions should be well aware of.

Ending srategy in 10x10 is also much richer and includes various numbers of maneures, methods and tricks. All this "ending strategy" mostly is not available in Draughts.

Fine lets compare then - post here what you think is the most complex 10 x 10 endgame 2 men vs 2 men and see how it holds up against a long first position.

I agree that those two games shall not be compared, because they are at diifferent levels and this comparison will insult many. However if we compare them - 10x10 will dominate in all aspects of game: tactics, strategy, endings, publish play, cross aboard skills etc.

II am sorry to say, but this is quite obvious fact for anyone who had a chance to play competively and seriouslyy both games.

Well if your "argumentation" consists only of asserting obvious falsehoods then of course the comparison will insult many