It happend in Denmark

Discussion and analysis about certain positions.

It happend in Denmark

Postby Ingo_Zachos on Wed May 17, 2006 9:33 am

There was one player at the Danish Open who finished last without a point.
Do you think he was a bad player?
Do you think he had no intuition?

You are wrong!

Here is a game he played at this event against the reknown John Morgan, of Wales, who recently won the Artur Jones Tournament ahead of Rawle Allicock, Dafydd Roberts, Danny Oliphant, Tony Boyle,Fred Buckby, Frank Bednall and many others ...

(1) Clauwaert,Steven - Morgan,John
Danish Open, Copenhagen, 06-05-2006

1.10-15 23-18 2.12-16 24-19 Not to be found in Fortman's "Basic Checkers", but not that bad as that fact indicates... 3.16x23 [ Of course, 3.15x24?? would be an "unforced error" as they call it in tennis, as it allows a double-take: 28x12 ] 3...26x10 4.7x23 [ Might be that 4.6x15 was btter, as it keeps more tension, but we would have missed a great game... And indeed, after 28-24 5.7-10 we would have a position, maybe slighly better for black according to King's Row, but I would prefer to call it a position with equal chances, as they say in chess, because "drawn" does not always tell the truth, as it could be hard against a stronger player to draw a "drawn" assed position. so I prefer "equal chances". ] 4...27x18 5.9-14 Played to gain influence on the center.
Not a bad strategy, but here black may also try other sound moves [ like 5.8-12 ; or 5.11-15. And I would rate alll this move as sound, as they lead to an equal game. In fact it is a matter of personal preference which move is “better”, I guess.... ] 5...18x9 6.5x14 22-17 [ Might be that a more fexible move like 6...31-27 was slighly better, but white is not in a waiting mood it seems.... ] 7.11-16!? [ Here I would prefer 7.6-10 keepng more tension and securing a mobile center, that, in my opinion, is a positional asset.
Like in chess a center can be weak if immobile.
But a sound, mobile center gives more freedom and more choice of plans, so it at least gives you what we call in chess "the initiative". ] 7...17x10 8.6x15 25-22 9.8-11 Now, after all these exchanges, there is not much tension in the center and I believe that it is equal with less fighting chances, but still far away from "drawn" or "drawable".... 21-17!? Another enterprising move, showing that White is looking for the full point, and is not playing conservative, but enterprising... [ 9...29-25 would have been the conservative way, and it might obvously be better, but checkers is not just a scientific affair!
It is a fighting game, so playing for a sound draw, sometimes only yields that draw... ] 10.16-19!? [ Here, 10.4-8 , developin on the long diagonal, would also be the conservative way, but black wants more tension this time... ] 10...17-14 Occuping the Dyke square as well. But now black offers a nice idea... 11.19-23?! This is surprising, as the piece on 23 is subject to many attacks, but it also creates tension and forces the opponent to a decision between two alternatives. 31-27?? And white cannnot resist the temptation to press the piece on 23 directly, but he missed a little detail that the reader is, most likely, able to spot.... [ 11...31-26 was the better way, and indeed after 12.15-19 29-25 13.4-8 the limited mobility of the invading forces on 19 and 23 give white the initiative, but not a secured win.
In chess, this would be assed as "white is better", which I think describes it better then "white strong".
Anyway, a stubborn defense is not bound to lose and it is a long way to convert this advantage, especially as most textbooks in checkers only give the assesment of the position, not revealing that the immobility of the pieces on 23 and 19 is the positional key theme that renders white the initiative and black the defensive part. ]




[img:6aec42caf8]http://fmjd.org/dias2/save/11478715684.png[/img:6aec42caf8]



Can you see why Steven had a great intuition?

And what would have been a much better move then the superficial 12. 15-19 he choose (and which lost)?

Could his bold concept of entering square 23 (Key midgame theme 3 in Richard Pask's commendable book "Key Themes"), prevail ?

It also shows that having an intact king's row is an asset that may help to find a combinative solution!


Greetinx from sunny Dortmund, Germany


P.S: One can learn more from a "novice" game like that then from a sterile, book-drawn game of two masters!
You can rent this space for advertising, if you like!
Ingo_Zachos
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Dortmund, Germany

Re: It happend in Denmark

Postby Alex_Moiseyev on Wed May 17, 2006 1:13 pm

Ingo,

nice joking article ! Thanks alot for sharing this with us. I decided to extend fun and add some my comments here. The meaning of all comments is serious and reflects my vision of situation and what I think about some moves. But the terminilogy is a bit humoristical but not sarcastical or offensive.

Soooooooo ....

A) 2. ... 24-19 This move avoids complications and cleanrs the board. 24-20, 21-17 is more usual and leads to very crazy positions, and 26-23 adopted by "enemies of complications"

B) 3. 16-23 ... Usually such obvious moves don't get any comments, but once you said something, it would better to add an exlamation mark "!" here.

C) 4. An alternative jump 6-15 has it own points and must be considered because amex square 26 for white is more critical and important, than amex square 6 for red. I disagree with Kingsrow verdict, and if white play 28-24 after 6-15, red best reply is immediate 8-12 attacking white weak flank (due to removal amex piece 26)

D) 5. 9-14 ... This is "pseudo fight for center" and in reality gives up on red advantage. Man on 14 after trade becomes an subject for attack. In my opinion the best move here for red would be 6-10.

E) 6. ... 22-17 Perhaps 32-27-23 trip (of course not 31-27 as Ingo mentioned. Man on 31 is necessary for some other things) would be more safer and bored, putting red on defensive mode.

F) 7. 11-16 ... WOW ! No comments, only emotions ! After this nasty move any draw here for red is a very delicate one.

G) 9. 8-11 ... Due to holes in red position, especially on the right flank, red position must be considered as extremely weak and critical. Ingo said - it is almost even, but this is just a matter of personal opinion :lol: All white need to do now - developing their pieces on their single corner and let red continue corrupt their position

H) 9. ... 21-17 I don't know what Ingo find enterprising with this move. Absolutely standard routine move, MUST in such kind of positions.

I) 10. 16-19 ... This or 4-8 don't resolve red problems.

J) 10. ... 17-14 Little bit earlier intervention in the red territory. 29-25 would be better choice, keeping a pressure on the red holes. If, for whatever reason :lol: white doesn't like 19-23, they can play 30-26 first, and then 17-14, 29-25-21, 22-17

K) 11. 19-23 ... Setting a trap, but perhaps loses and must be avoided.

L) 11. ... 31-27? Loses immediately ! Instead, 29-25 would work

M) 12. 15-19 ... Hmmm if he didn't see a shot, why he played 19-23 move before ? :idea:

Regards,

Alex
I am playing checkers, not chess.
User avatar
Alex_Moiseyev
 
Posts: 4082
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm

Re: It happend in Denmark

Postby Ingo_Zachos on Wed May 17, 2006 2:32 pm

Dear Alex,

yes it was a superficial but tempered review of the game.
And I am glad that a World Champion is willing to give commments on a novice game, and intend to aks for your advice on this forum more fequently in the future.

Nevertheless I still have my own opinions on some of your notes:

D) As I said, there r other moves, this means I would have choosen another one, either 5.6-10 as you mentioned or 5.8-12, but I wanted to emphasize that his choice is not necessarily a bad one IF he sticks to his plan and does not hesitate to carry it through.

E) I believe 6.-31-27 is good, altough unusual, just think twice: if white plays 27-23 it could follow up like this: 6.- 32-27 7. 8-12 27-23, 8. 4-8 and then maybe 11-16 etc. working on white's double corner, then a piece on 32 IS better placed then the man on 31!, so 31-27 with the same idea 27-23 seems a better, more flexible plan to me.


F)+ G) Yes, it is a move leaving holes in the red position, but is white able to profit from that ?
I doubt if he can do this even by proper and careful play, but NOT in the way white played here. Also plz note that there r holes in white's position as well!

H) look at your remark J)-> you said it yourself:
it is maybe too early to start to square 14 directly, so it is an agressive move, aiming for a direct attack.

I) still, after 10. 4-8 white would not be better. Where r the holes in red's camp that white will attack? Would you plz tell me?
It is true, however, that 10.16-19 is a commitment and could have lead to a white initaitive, but I pointed this out myself!

J) Now you seem to acknowledge that 10.-17-14 might be premature, and you give another, more careful plan.
But again, this plan begins with 9.-21-17, so you should critizise it there as well.

K) Yes, I pointed that out, but it was this bold move that nearly scored, and it shows that enterprising moves may be rewarded more often then you think. Look at the games of Elbert Lowder, Ken Grover or the early Willy Ryan. They played like that, and often scored with it!
There is dynamic play in checkers!!

L) Yes, but I think your proposal 11.- 29-25 is feeble, as black plays simply 12. 4-8 and now 12. -31-26 runs into 13. 23-27! Another time this desperado piece (that's how they call it in chess, and I think it is an apt name for it) is not doomed, but decides the day.
I do think that my proposal 11.-31-26 is the best if you try to go for "something", as now black is obliged to play 12. 15-19, and his pieces on 23 and 19 need protection. Note! Not just one piece on 23 is weak, but a chain of two immobile pieces are weak now, as they do not have the dynamic opportunity of being used as sacrifiable pieces ("desperado").
It seems like white was shocked by 11. 19-23 and could not analyze the position properly. That surprise factor (clocks were used in that tournament), is not a factor that should be underestimated in practical play.
I believe Lowder and King, and yes, Alex Moiseyev sometimes present similar "surprises" to their opponents.
I remember a game you posted on the BBS where you won against Bill McClintock, if I am right, after he had the initiative for a long time, but in the end YOU found the shot, as your opponent was surprised.
So: dynamic play is not dead, and this game could have been a nice example of it.

M) Good question, and may be the point of the whole game.

I believe two scenarios are likely:

1. Black had dynamic play in mind when he played 11.19-23, but he hesitated to play 23-26 now, fearing that his "stronger" opponent had "someting in the sleeve"

2. He really did not knew that it was a commitment and had no concrete dynamic approach in mind.

I believe, that number 1. is more likely.
And my advice is:
Stick to your plans, cause changing the plan in the middle of its execution is a dangerous thing!
And if you do a lot of hard calculating work in your position and you believe in miracles, you sometimes may perform them!


Greetinx from Dortmund in the evening,

Ingo Zachos
You can rent this space for advertising, if you like!
Ingo_Zachos
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Dortmund, Germany

Re: It happend in Denmark

Postby Alex_Moiseyev on Wed May 17, 2006 5:17 pm

Ingo_Zachos wrote:D) ... his choice is not necessarily a bad one IF he sticks to his plan

I am OK with this, if you tell me - what was his plan ? If his plan was fighting for center, he should play 6-10 with following 1-6 and all white pieces on the single corner (left side) have to go to the corner now !
Ingo_Zachos wrote:E) I believe 6.-31-27 is good ... so 31-27 with the same idea 27-23 seems a better, more flexible plan to me.

I wish you are right :lol: , and they are the same. Unfortunaely, if you start 31-27-23 to attack 22-18, red can meet this with 3-7 & 6-10, and now without man on 31 you can't play 22-18 due to trade 14-17
Ingo_Zachos wrote:F)+ G) Yes, it is a move leaving holes in the red position, but is white able to profit from that ? ... Also plz note that there r holes in white's position as well!

Nope. White has an important man on 28, which means - red pieces don't have a good place to go. Instead, white can comfortably go to the red double corner and eventually - pitch, if necessary. Be aware of one more important fact: due to extra trades (on 14 and then on 15), red has an extra tempos and his pieces are overdevelopped. Red runs out of moves first ! The factor of waiting moves are crucial here.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:H) look at your remark J)-> you said it yourself:
it is maybe too early to start to square 14 directly.

I didn't say "too earlier", I said - "a bit earlier" :lol: Nothing is "too" for white in this position.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:after 10. 4-8 white would not be better. Where r the holes in red's camp that white will attack? Would you plz tell me?

Double corner. White goes to the squares 5/9/13 and pitch.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:It is true, however, that 10.16-19 is a commitment and could have lead to a white initaitive, but I pointed this out myself!

Yes, you did !
Ingo_Zachos wrote:J) Now you seem to acknowledge that 10.-17-14 might be premature

No, 17-14 is OK as well as 29-25 - they both are part of one plan. order of moves is not absoultely critical for white.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... but it was this bold move that nearly scored

Scored win for white. If you make this move, you have to calculate everything ahead to avoid losses. So, we can call this move as "extravagant", but not "entertain". You have to respect your opponent and game, and do not wait for mistakes.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... and it shows that enterprising moves may be rewarded more often

Probably ... one win, 3 losses. Still more wins then in case of 4 draws :P
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... Look at the games of Elbert Lowder

Not only look, I also played with him match in 40 games. Most of his moves were "entertain", but the final score was 12-0-17, and I was in lost only in one game. Elbert Lowder concept is wrong and this was well proved in his matches against Dr. Tinsley and myself.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... Ken Grover or the early Willy Ryan. They played like that, and often scored with it !

Neither Grover nor Ryan won a World Championship. I think I play checkers better then Ryan and Grover. Not just because I've got title, but because of style.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:There is dynamic play in checkers!!
No objections !
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... I think your proposal 11.- 29-25 is feeble, as black plays simply 12. 4-8 and now 12. -31-26

Ingo, forget about 31-26 ! It is not my intention. After 4-8 at this point I would play (still!) 22-17 to prevent red trade 15-18. Then, if I can develop 28-24-20, this would be a complete win, but even without this I just let things here (around man on 23) as it is and ... still go to double corner. Waiting moves. All you can do - collect your ducks in center and continue ruin your position.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... It seems like white was shocked by 11. 19-23 and could not analyze the position properly. That surprise factor ...

You might be right. Not much surprises for me. Just another bad move.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... I believe Lowder and King, and yes, Alex Moiseyev sometimes present similar "surprises" to their opponents.

Surprises - yes, similar - no !
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... I remember a game you posted on the BBS where you won against Bill McClintock, if I am right, after he had the initiative for a long time, but in the end YOU found the shot, as your opponent was surprised.

I remember this game and shot. But I didn't make a losing move or seriously weakening my position. This is a big difference.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... So: dynamic play is not dead, and this game could have been a nice example of it.

Not a good example - making an obviosly weak move hoping for opponent mistake. Dynamic play for me means - move a right piece into right direction ! :lol:
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... M) Good question, and may be the point of the whole game.

This may clarify some things which we discussed before !
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... 1. Black had dynamic play in mind

"Dynamic" - you mean "bad", correct ?
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... when he played 11.19-23, but he hesitated to play 23-26 now, fearing that his "stronger" opponent had "someting in the sleeve"

I took out my hat before your imagination !
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... He really did not knew that it was a commitment and had no concrete dynamic approach in mind.

More likely and realistical scenario.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... Stick to your plans

But be ready and feel free and comfortable to change them any time !
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... cause changing the plan in the middle of its execution is a dangerous thing!

Why ? If plan is wrong (and you find it after few moves), it's never later to turn around. Be flexable and ready for anything ! Don't be excited with opponent mistake, and don't be disappointed if he/she makes a right move.
Ingo_Zachos wrote:... And if you do a lot of hard calculating work in your position and you believe in miracles, you sometimes may perform them!

Agree. This is exactly what I said - be ready for anything, open and flexable. Checkers is a drawn game, let your opponent lose it ! (Tom Wiswell quote)

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev
I am playing checkers, not chess.
User avatar
Alex_Moiseyev
 
Posts: 4082
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:03 pm


Return to Positions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

class=