Game Fest 1994

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Game Fest 1994 / gamefeststgcomputerlimited1994.iso / files / gamecard / blitz / moveover.doc < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1992-04-28 | 45.1 KB | 872 lines

MOVE OVER - SHAREWARE EDITION ------------------------------- Here is the text to the first part of MOVE-OVER, an authorative text about the english version of game of draughts, or checkers to our american friends! Derek Oldbury is the games established guru - he has been UK champion since 1955, and recently won the World title from an american. Derek wrote this text some time ago, and used an unusual notation for describing the moves - you will find that modern players and computer programs use the traditional notation, where the squares of the board are numbered 1 to 32. In a way this is not too important - you will need to have a board to hand as you read this anyway, and it isn't too difficult to get used to Dereks notation. This first part is released as shareware - to get the rest of the book you will need to subscribe to Dereks ALPHA-BETA magazine - a disk based magazine for PC's, all about Draughts, Chess, Othello & other board games - and it will supply the rest of the book. ALPHA-BETA costs 15 pounds a year (USA $32), or 4 pounds (USA $10) for one issue. Derek also has THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF DRAUGHTS, a high quality, beautifully and professionally printed 6-volume encyclopedia on the game, for only 22 pounds. A smaller STUDENTS EDITION is also available, for only 9 pounds. Cheques/Enquiries to:- D.Oldbury, 4 Farm close, Kingkerswell, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 5BT Remember, Help shareware authors and CONTRIBUTE!!!! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M O V E O V E R OR H O W T O W I N A T D R A U G H T S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - By Derek Oldbury BOOK ONE INTRODUCTION What do you think this is? Every time you lose at draughts and ask what in blazes it is all about, not a soul tells you where you can go to find out - even though William Payne wrote the first English book 'Introduction to the Game of Draughts' in 1756. Since then the game has been 'introduced' many times over, but never explained. Ask your friend who plays to lend you a good guide to the game (is it 'You Too Can Win' or 'Never in a Huff'?). He will show you a book - and it looks like a 'bus time-table or perhaps a losing system of betting on horses. You point at the columns of symbols on page after page, and your friend says that these are the best moves to play, neatly tabulated to make happy reading. You ask, then, if all the best moves have been found, and your friend says No. So you ask him how you will know when the book tells the best move, or when there is really some other move that is better. Your friend says you won't know (until you've lost a few games, keeping to the book - that's experience), but that the author is a leading oracle on the game. You ask how many titles this genius has won and your friend says that actually none - but he often tells the Champions where they should have moved, so he must know a lot. You take one more look at the book, and you ask if there is no other way, perhaps a few general principles - strategy and all that? You are repaid by a blighting glance of scorn from your one-time friend. Principles! Don't you know that draughts is so deep, so profound, so - there are no principles; nobody has dared! What do you think it is - chess? He goes on, but you don't listen. Not even when he quotes the beautiful prose of Edgar Allen Poe which says that chess is kids' stuff compared to draughts; nor when he tells you that Lady Hamilton used to show Lord Nelson some good moves, 'twixt battles. You do not faint, even, when he divulges that Rameses III played with Cleopatra, while the slaves built the Pyramids around them, which is possibly not strictly true. You are thinking it would perhaps be droll if you could know the idea behind the game, the master scheme - for of course there must be one; anybody can see that. If you knew, then you could give back the beatings handed out to you by your clubmates. In your mind's eye you see them burying their books in rage while you explain that it is just a matter of applying the theory. But what theory? You could be Champion if you knew. If only you knew. CHAPTER ONE I'm not related to Einstein If you want to know about draughts it would not be best to begin at the beginning. If you ask me to tell you the best move to start off your game it is like saying 'Which is the best way to get there?' I reply 'Where?' and you come back with 'Oh, just anywhere!' We would not get very far that way. Even if I could say that this move is better than all others, come what may, rain or shine, I have not told you why; so you would have to take my word for it. Well, you do, and you are now on the second move of your game and still in good shape - but as the final move is the one which will count (and you know it) you are not very easy in your mind. Of course, you can ask me again to say what is the best move, and the one after that, and maybe I could play the whole game for you and you could go back to sleep. Let us try some other angle. Draughts is a duel, a battle of ideas. You win your game because your ideas are better, stronger, than of those of him whom you play. This does not mean that you have to be related to Einstein to be a draughts champion. If you have an imagination, know the truth when you see it, and can keep a straight face, then you are half-way there. Now, ideas about draughts and probably almost anything else come from knowledge, which you can get in two ways. By experience, or by thinking it out for yourself. Many players will tell you experience is the only teacher; and they will point with pride to the fact that they have put in some thirty or forty years, amassing draughts lore. By the time I was in my late 'teens I could usually take these experienced woodpushers and trim them down to size in about half and hour. Even now, it is the really original player, the one who has his own ideas about the game, who gives me the most trouble. When you go into a fight, of any sort, a main concern must be the battlefield, so to speak. It may be there are danger zones which you must shun, into which you must seek to impel the foe: these should be known. It may be there are key points which, seized, will control the whole sphere of action and will let the course of events be dictated - by you, or by the other player? If we take a look at the board we may get some ideas on this. You may think that looking only at an empty board will not tell you much about the game - beyond the bare fact that, as draughts is played on all squares of the same hue, all the moves and jumps are done in an oblique direction. DIAGRAM 1 +------------------------+ |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| +------------------------+ Look again, and note first that the squares are not all the same - those in the centre of the board are very unlike those around the perimeter. From the centre, it uses only a few moves to get to any square on the board; a few steps and you are at the scene. It is a long way from one side of the board to the other; by the time you get there it may be too late. Apart from speed, the central squares offer a wider scope: from them you can assail or uphold either flank, wherever there is the more profit. In some cases you will switch your attack, or defence, from this flank to that; and usually you will need to pass through the central squares. If these are in your control you can carry out your plan; while if they are ruled by the foe your communications are cut and your men may have to slink around the side-lines, lurking in the shadows until in the end, alone, they are made away with. Control of the centre can mean control of the board. If the outer squares are less desirable, then of these the squares in the very corners of the board will be even less so and in many cases they are really unsafe. A boxer will not be pinned on the ropes if he can help it - if he is held fast in a corner then he is in dire trouble. The four corners of a draughts board are not identical. Two of them consist of only one square with one exit from that square: these single corners will as a rule be good places to stay away from. The double corner squares protect each other, and with twin exits will be safe in contrast to the single corners. Now, all these remarks may give you the idea that by playing towards the centre all the time you can step out along the winning path; but go not so fast. That is the way to ruin. If you move all your men to the centre they will only get in the way of each other and give rise to a jam. A tightly packed group calls forth a pincer movement from the foe. Control is the essential; you occupy the centre by as many men as will gain control, but no more. You get control when your opponent is unable to move on to any of the centre squares and so is forced into the less favoured areas of the board. This is in fact your ultimate goal: to drive the enemy into the wilderness where he shall perish. Central control is a means to this end. We can stress this view of the board, by contrasting the action of a king to that of a man. A king surveys the board in all directions, and the power of a king may be felt near and far. Not so a man, which from the first sees a vista rapidly waning in size and scope; at each step the range narrows, the danger grows, and so often the short life is put out long ere there is any chance to be a king. This is why it is not wise to let a man that is well advanced come to be fixed on the side of the board; there it will be cut off from comrades and be of no use, perhaps for the rest of the game, and the time and effort spent in advancing it will have been wasted. A chain of squares across the board forms an oblique line. Perhaps we can call such lines diagonals - after all, that is what they are. As you will soon see, there are seven diagonals. However, only one of them is quite straight from end to end; that is the diagonal which extends from single corner to single corner, thus: DIAGRAM 2 +------------------------+ |::: ::: ::: ::: ^ | | ::: ::: ::: ^ :::| |::: ::: ::: ^ ::: | | ::: ::: ^ ::: :::| |::: ::: ^ ::: ::: | | ::: ^ ::: ::: :::| |::: ^ ::: ::: ::: | | ^ ::: ::: ::: :::| +------------------------+ It may be as well to estimate the nature of a diagonal you intend to occupy or control. A diagonal may affect the power of a piece just as we find a square to do. The most obvious effect that the single corner diagonal has is that it cuts the board into halves, as it were. It divides your forces from those of the foe. Seen from this angle, at the start of a game only one of your twelve men is already in the enemy area; three are on neutral ground. In playing an attacking game these men will be brought into action with little delay, you may guess, and you will be right. The single corner diagonal is the line of defence (we can call it the D-line) that separates the two armies: to gain control of this line is to take the initiative; to cross it is to begin the attack. In the following set-up neither side takes any risks and control is shared. DIAGRAM 3 The D-line +------------------------+ |::: ::: b ::: b ::: ^ | | ::: ::: b ::: ^ :::| |::: ::: b ::: ^ ::: | | ::: b ::: ^ ::: :::| |::: ::: ^ ::: w ::: | | ::: ^ ::: w ::: :::| |::: ^ ::: w ::: ::: | | ^ ::: w ::: w ::: :::| +------------------------+ If the single corner diagonal is defensive in character, then a line which cuts across it and through the centre of the board must clearly be termed a line of attack: any activity along this line signifies aggression. This is the A-line. In Diagram 5, the Blacks occupy their own A-line and in that way control it. Whether they also control White's A-line will depend on the placing of the White men, which I do not show. Wherever they are, DIAGRAM 4 DIAGRAM 5 The A-line A-line control +------------------------+ +------------------------+ |::: ^ ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ^ ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ^ ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ^ ::: ::: :::| | ::: b ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ^ ::: ::: | |::: ::: b ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ^ ::: :::| | ::: ::: b ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ^ ::: | |::: ::: ::: b ::: | | ::: ::: ::: ^ :::| | ::: ::: b ::: b :::| +------------------------+ +------------------------+ one thing is plain - they cannot be on the like squares on White's side of the the board, as both armies cannot be attacking at the same time along their own A-line. In other words, the player who first engages in an A-line attack takes the lead. The opponent must reply in some other way. In both Diagrams 3 and 5, did you notice the extra man at the base? Though this man takes no active part in commanding the diagonal yet the added strength is desirable, for it is the base which the opponent will attack. If the base can be destroyed the whole structure may break up. It is here that we have the case for the squares at the outer edges of the board. A man on such a square is immune from direct 'capture' (the word often used by draughts players to denote a jump; yet the act of leaping over an enemy piece surely symbolizes 'over thy dead body' - but this is by the way). A man at the edge of the board is in a position to support other men which may form a chain of some power. A strong player will in this way transform into a weapon what might have been a defect. I clarify this point because it is one about which most tyros are hazy - and very few self-styled experts are able to enlighten them on it. The A and D diagonals are the major lines of attack and defence. You expand the power and scope of your men when you fill and control vital lines with them, so it is, of course, this you will try to do. The diagonal which runs this side of the A-line has by contrast much less import; for the greater part of its length points to the side of the board. It's best squares are those at the edges, which may be used to support more active pieces. The B-line (the name comes easily to it) is a diagonal with weaknesses, which a clever opponent will often make use of for his own ends. One of the more potent ways is for the foe to place a man on the square which intersects your D- and B-lines, dominating both and undermining your A-line also. Beware of danger at the spot marked X! Most of the C-line runs towards the centre and so it is stronger than the nearby B-line, and as also this part of the C-line intersects the attacking A-line it can be termed an important diagonal. I need hardly say that the square at which the A- and C-lines meet and cross is of great value in formational play, both in attack and in counter-attack. It is a key square, and now you know why. DIAGRAM 6 DIAGRAM 7 The weak B-line The C-Line +------------------------+ +------------------------+ |::: ::: ^ ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ^ ::: | | ::: ^ ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ^ ::: :::| |::: ^ ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ^ ::: ::: | | ^ ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: ^ ::: ::: :::| |::: ^ ::: ::: ::: | |::: ^ ::: ::: ::: | | ::: x ::: ::: :::| | ^ ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ^ ::: ::: | |::: ^ ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ^ ::: :::| | ::: ^ ::: ::: :::| +------------------------+ +------------------------+ The lines E and F are for the most part defensive, supporting as they do activity along the D-line. This is their main utility. DIAGRAM 8 DIAGRAM 9 The E-line The F-line +------------------------+ +------------------------+ |::: ::: ::: ^ ::: | |::: ::: ^ ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: ^ :::| | ::: ::: ^ ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: ^ | |::: ::: ::: ^ ::: | | ::: ::: ::: ^ :::| | ::: ::: ::: ^ :::| |::: ::: ::: ^ ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: ^ | | ::: ::: ^ ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: ^ :::| |::: ::: ^ ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ^ ::: | | ::: ^ ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ^ ::: :::| +------------------------+ +------------------------+ If you look at Diagram 3, you will see that both sides occupy their E-lines, and this is a typical set-up. Ending our alphabetical trip along the diagonals, we arrive at G: DIAGRAM 10 +------------------------+ |::: ^ ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ^ ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ^ ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ^ ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ^ ::: | | ::: ::: ::: ^ :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: ^ | | ::: ::: ::: ^ :::| +------------------------+ The fact that the G-line has almost all the features of the A-line tempts one to regard it as a line of attack, until we realise that what is our G-line is also the opponent's A-line. Any attacks along this line may be expected to stem from the opposite side of the board rather than from our side. However, if we first set up a strong formation along our A-line then an attack along the G-line can be effectual, thus: DIAGRAM 11 +------------------------+ |::: ^ ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ^ ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ^ ::: ::: | | ::: b ::: ^ ::: :::| |::: ::: b ::: ^ ::: | | ::: ::: b ::: b :::| |::: ::: ::: b ::: b | | ::: ::: b ::: b :::| +------------------------+ Here, Black advances two men along the G-diagonal, with the powerful support of the formation shown before, at Diagram 5. This is about the best way to conduct a G-line attack. In general, an advance early in the game along the G-line serves only to forestall enemy activity and is a defensive measure. In Diagram 12 below, Black has thrown away the natural advantages of having the right to move first and so make the first threat, and here plays for safe defence. DIAGRAM 12 +------------------------+ |::: w ::: w ::: w ::: w | | w ::: w ::: w ::: w :::| |::: w ::: w ::: ::: w | | ::: ::: w ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: b ::: | | b ::: b ::: b ::: b :::| |::: b ::: b ::: b ::: | | b ::: b ::: b ::: b :::| +------------------------+ Around the early nineteenth century, most of the leading Masters thought that starting off a game in such a way as this would give Black a weak formation. Most of the moderns consider it a good method of opening. This may seem just another case of the light of present-day knowledge illumin- ating the dark ages. Not so. The truth is that the old-timers held a view of the word 'weak' not at all like that of the modern players. To them, a weak opening was one which promised few chances of getting a win, though it might be safe enough merely to get a draw - weakness denoted lack of opport- unity rather than danger - the nineteenth-century players thought the proper aim in playing draughts was to win the game. Nowadays, the view is that the player should first and foremost play to avoid defeat, that is to say, play for a drawn result. Of course, if an opportunity to win should appear (and it IS by chance) then go for it, but keep the draw in sight at all times. To the modernist then, an opening is not weak if it is safe for a draw, even though it may offer virtually no chances to win. My money is on the old-timers in this. I play the game to win. I make the chances. I win all the games I can, and I do not wait for chances to win. I make the chances. Maybe that is why I am Champion. However, I have the perfect system for anybody who wants to become unbeatable at the game, and it is this. Do not play. Then you can't lose. If we now sum up our survey of the squares and diagonals, we must come to see very clearly that as the squares often determine the value of the pieces, so the action of the pieces as a whole may determine the character and strength of the diagonals - a diagonal is strong because it allows the build-up of telling formational patterns. It might be useful to state generally that, early in the game, when we have available numbers of men to form chains of attack or defence, then the diagonals are of paramount importance. Late in the game, when forces are dwindling to a few scattered units, then the individual squares come into their own. To master these features of the board is a basic 'must' in pursuing a grasp of the mysteries of the game. You can hardly overdo this, you cannot know your board too well. Whatever plans you may conceive, however grand the scale, if they do not take into account the contours of the field of battle then they will not work out. The successful boxer knows how to use the ring. You must know how to use the board. Here is a composite picture of the seven diagonals, seen from the point of view of each player. Study this well. DIAGRAM 13 DIAGRAM 14 As he sees it +------------------------+ +------------------------+ 8 |:::AG :::BF :::CE ::: D | |:::AG :::BF :::CE ::: D | 1 7 | A :::BG :::CF :::DE :::| | G :::AF :::BE :::CD :::| 2 6 |:::AB :::CG :::DF ::: E | |:::FG :::AE :::BD ::: C | 3 5 | B :::AC :::DG :::EF :::| | F :::EG :::AD :::BC :::| 4 4 |:::BC :::AD :::EG ::: F | |:::EF :::DG :::AC ::: B | 5 3 | C :::BD :::AE :::FG :::| | E :::DF :::CG :::AB :::| 6 2 |:::CD :::BE :::AF ::: G | |:::DE :::CF :::BG ::: A | 7 1 | D :::CE :::BF :::AG :::| | D :::CE :::BF :::AG :::| 8 +------------------------+ +------------------------+ As you see it CHAPTER TWO My girl friend has 'it' It would be a good idea now to get to know the power of the pieces. If I show you how to carry out some simple ideas, and you learn to execute them quickly and easily, that will be as good a way as any. You will benefit from this type of practice, just as an athlete performs exercises to develop strength and a smooth action. One of the vital concepts of the game is that you do not always make a move because you wish to, but at times because you have to; it is your turn and you must move somewhere. If it is your turn and you cannot, then you have lost the game. That is what decides your fate, nothing else. Consider the positions in Diagrams 15 and 16. In both cases the telling factor is, whose turn it is to move. In all other respects the positions are equal. Each player will advance his king towards the centre until it confronts the opposing king, thus checking it's progress. At that instant the king whose turn it is will be forced to yield ground and make way for the advancing enemy. DIAGRAM 15 DIAGRAM 16 +------------------------+ +------------------------+ |::: B ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: B | | ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: W :::| | W ::: ::: ::: :::| +------------------------+ +------------------------+ In the first example, the king must retreat to the double corner for safety; in the second example there is no escape and the king is pressed back to the edge of the board and there held fast. In both cases the king is put to flight because, and only because, the move is against him. When a player is able to check the action of an opposing king or man in this way he is said to have 'the move'. This is meant in much the same way as you might say your girl friend has 'it', meaning that she has sex-appeal. That is not everything but it contributes. Let us see another example. Observe Diagram 17. DIAGRAM 17 DIAGRAM 18 White - to play White - to play +------------------------+ +------------------------+ |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: w ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: B ::: | | ::: ::: B ::: W :::| | ::: ::: ::: W :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: w ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: b ::: ::: :::| |::: b ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| +------------------------+ +------------------------+ Black Black It is White's turn and he is lost. It is clearly of no use to move the king and so the man must advance down the board, along the G-line, only to be met by the opposing Black man. In trying to push his way through, White permits Black to offer a choice of exchanges (Diagram 18). Whichever jump White chooses, 'the move' is against him and he is soon driven to the danger zones of the board. Some persons hold the notion that if one player does not have 'the move' then the other player has it; that is to say, 'the move' is a thing present at all times during a game. This is not so, for 'the move' is no more than the effect of confining enemy manoeuvres in the specific manner which I have described. In any fluid situation, wherein both sides have free action, 'the move' does not exist for either player. The mistaken idea of the omnipres- ence, so to speak, of 'the move', led early writers on the game to publish curious systems of computing - by which the player would be able to tell at all times whether Black or White held 'the move'. Some of these efforts remind one of the ancient alchemists' formula for the elexir of life (take three goblins and stir well) and are about as fertile. Most of these miscon- ceptions came about through confusing 'the move' with something else - which we shall examine in detail later on. Meanwhile, some more simple positions: DIAGRAM 19 DIAGRAM 20 +------------------------+ +------------------------+ |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: | | B ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: B ::: W ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: B ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: B ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: W :::| +------------------------+ +------------------------+ From Diagram 19, Black begins by driving the White king to the double corner. This is done by making a 'waiting' move with the free king and then using the power of 'the move' to push the White king along. When this has been done the free king is then brought to the scene of action. By this time you will have the position shown on Diagram 20 and it will be White to play, where he has no choice but to allow Black to enter the double corner and thus drive him out - on the very scientific maxim that no two objects may occupy the same point in space. The rest is easy. If two free kings can dispose of one king, then three versus two should simply be a matter of exchanging one for one, so reducing the situation to that we have just seen - and so it is. DIAGRAM 21 +------------------------+ |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: W ::: B ::: ::: | | ::: ::: B ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: B ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: W ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| +------------------------+ Black to play and win To do this, from Diagram 21, Black must bring about either of the positions shown below: DIAGRAM 22 DIAGRAM 23 White - to play White - to play +------------------------+ +------------------------+ |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: W ::: ::: ::: | | W ::: ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: B ::: ::: ::: | | ::: B ::: ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: B ::: ::: | |::: ::: B ::: ::: | | ::: ::: B ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | |::: ::: ::: B ::: W | | ::: ::: ::: W :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| +------------------------+ +------------------------+ Black to win Black to win In each of these, White will be compelled - at his next move - to permit the exchange Black seeks. Now I have given you only brief explanations to the various examples treated in this chapter, and for two reasons. Firstly, the more you can work out for yourself the quicker progress you will make and surer grasp you will develop; secondly, in playing over these positions with only the general idea to guide you, you will learn to make series of moves to fit into a pre-conceived scheme. At the moment, it is only a scheme which someone else has outlined to you, but later on you will design your own. You will no longer consider things in a disconnected sort of way, but as a general maps out a campaign. I end this chapter with a position which illustrates again some of the points touched upon so far in our discussion. You might use it to test yourself, to see if all is clear to you. If the solution eludes you then it might be as well to re-read a bit rather than plunge onwards and risk confusion. That is up to you. DIAGRAM 24 Study by Oldbury White - to play +------------------------+ |::: ::: ::: ::: W | | w ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: B ::: | | b ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: ::: | | ::: ::: ::: :::| +------------------------+ Black - to win CHAPTER THREE But - can it use it's legs? 'This book defines what the game is - and tells it straight.' Thus spake Julius D'Orio of his own 'Mysteries of Dama'. Not a bad idea. If a scientist (not related to Einstein) were to tell it straight he might expound along these lines: Draughts, being a compound of board, pieces, and moves, may be reduced to the simple elements of space, force, and time. The game is played in these elements, and gains or losses made in space, force, or time are the sole means of deciding the game. He would go on to define gains and losses in each of the three elements so that we may identify them and also measure their degree. We could then examine any position and make an accurate assessment, somewhat after this style: Space: Advantage to Black 33% Force: : : White 16% Time: : : Black 5% Balance of power to Black 22% If you are playing the Blacks in such a position and it is your turn, then clearly all you have to do is to find a move to keep the balance of power still at 22 per cent in your favour. It will be a matter of simple adding and subtracting, and you will wait for your opponent to make some move that will increase your ratio of power. No doubt our scientist friend will also inform us of the exact degree at which a position goes 'over the top' and becomes a win, say at 66 per cent. Now it would be very nice if we could add up points in this way and arrive at the truth of a situation, but we can't - at least, it would not be the whole truth. You observe a racehorse in the paddock, before the big race; you note the fine limbs, the powerful quarters, and you resolve to trust this handsome fellow with some of your hard-earned cash - it has all the 'points'. Yet the question is not, has it an honest face - but, can it use it's legs. Alas, you find it cannot, and you discover certain truths of which you were not previously aware (you utter some of them, perhaps). One of these truths is that an object in motion may shed qualities which in repose it seemed to possess. There is, if you like, an 'X' factor which may not show until after the event, when it is too late. In draughts, this is because at times the moves have meaning only as part of a series; taken as isolated moves they have no scientific basis, but their power as an integrated design sweeps aside all other considerations. There is in the game artistic truth besides scientific truth. We must seek both. For instance, at the very start of a game the forces are equal and scientific truth says, therefore, that a properly played game should end in a draw. However, artistic truth tells us it should end in a win, for that player who has the greater creative ability. If a player cannot accept both these propositions then he will find it difficult to develop his skill to any extent. I think we may take it as read that an advantage in space or in force will not be hard to assess, at least in a loose sort of way to begin with - it will simply be a matter of counting squares and pieces. The concept of time, in draughts, is less easy to grasp straightaway, as it has many facets. To have the initiative is an advantage in time. To have 'the move' is also an advantage in time. Consider Diagram 25. DIAGRAM 25 Black - to play +------------------------+ |::: ::: b ::: b ::: b | | b ::: ::: b ::: :::| |::: ::: b ::: b ::: | | b ::: w ::: b ::: b :::| |::: w ::: w ::: b ::: w | | ::: w ::: w ::: :::| |::: ::: w ::: ::: w | | w ::: w ::: w ::: :::| +------------------------+ White wins As the two armies are in identical patterns there is absolute equality in space and in force. Yet if you will play out the position you will see that Black is lost, and in a very few moves, as White has only to play along his F-line to block up the foe altogether. This is an example of 'the move' in what may be termed a pure sense. In examples from Chapter Two, having 'the move' led to gains in other elements, by compelling the enemy to retreat to inferior regions (gain in space) which in turn led to final extinction (gain in force). Here, a win is realized by 'the move' alone - the respective Black and White armies are still equal in every other way at the end. There is another important aspect of time. Every move made by a man brings it that much nearer a desirable goal, that of being promoted to the rank of king. A man attains this state and so develops greater power and scope. Our position may be said to be fully developed when all our men have reached the king-row. In these terms, then, the degree of development we have made can be estimated simply by the distance at which our men are from the king-row. At the start of a game your twelve men stand at the three horizontal lines (ranks) furthest from the king-row. There are eight such ranks, and the eighth rank is the king-row. If you wish to assess the 'time value' of your position and translate it into a number for easy reference, this can be done. Simply count 1 for each of your men on the rearmost rank or base-line; count 2 for each man on the second rank, 3 for each on the third - and so on until you have counted all your men. Thus, before a game begins, your 'time count' is 24, as it is also for your opponent who makes a separate count of his own men. Each move takes a man to a higher rank until it arrives at the eighth, where it is crowned; the time value of a king will be 8. If we compare a time-count taken of our own pieces with a count of the opponent's, the higher number will tell us which side, Black or White, is nearer complete development (100 per cent kings), and by how many moves. We will try this out, from Diagram 26: DIAGRAM 26 DIAGRAM 27 British Championship, 1952 White (Crabbe) White +------------------------+ +------------------------+ |::: ::: ::: w ::: w | |::: ::: ::: w ::: w | | ::: ::: ::: w :::| | ::: ::: ::: w :::| |::: w ::: ::: ::: | |::: w ::: ::: ::: | | ::: w ::: w ::: :::| | ::: ::: w ::: :::| |::: ::: ::: w ::: | |::: b ::: ::: ::: | | b ::: ::: ::: b :::| | ::: b ::: ::: b :::| |::: ::: b ::: b ::: b | |::: ::: ::: b ::: b | | b ::: ::: b ::: :::| | ::: ::: ::: :::| +------------------------+ +------------------------+ Black (Oldbury) to play Black Even without a count, a glance shows us that Black has made very little progress and all his men are confined to the three lowest ranks. He has 2 men on the first rank, 3 on the second and 2 on the third: time-count = 14. White is very much further advanced; with 2 men on his first rank, 1 on his second, 1 on his third, 2 on his fourth and 1 on his fifth: a total of 20. White then is 6 moves ahead in his development. As he also appears to dominate the centre, and the forces are equal, a superficial analysis may conclude that Black is in a bad way. The game went on, and after my next four moves (which to the spectators, I may add, seemed feeble and pointless) the position became that of Diagram 27. If we make a time-count we discover quite easily, but to our surprise, that Black now has 2 men on the second rank, 2 on the third and 1 on the fourth - total 14 - against which White now has 2 men on his first rank, 1 on his second, 1 on his third and 1 on his fourth - a count of only 11 in all! Black now leads by 3 moves in contrast to trailing by 6 moves. Over a short span of four moves Black in some way has managed to 'gain' 9 moves in development. Has White been moving backwards? Well, if you examine very closely these two positions you will see how the change came about. It will be best if you find out this for yourself, though I shall be going into this in more detail later on. Meanwhile it is interesting to observe that the manoeuvre which led from Diagram 26 to Diagram 27 also revealed the truth of the situation - the unguarded man White has in the centre, which is now isolated and subject to attack. Black soon brought pressure against this weakness and went on to win the game, when White failed to find an adequate defence. It is natural to ask now whether positional superiority and advanced development go hand in hand. At this stage I would simply ask you to note as a general, but not specific, guide: in the latter part of a game to be ahead in development is an advantage in time; early in the game, to be ahead in development is a disadvantage in time. This is so, because at the end-game we aim towards well-defined object- ives, for instance, possibly to promote a man to king and then to place it on a vital square - the opponent has in view a similar plan and being ahead in development may mean getting in first. Conversely. in the opening one of our main concerns is to gain freedom of action for our forces- and on a board which at that moment contains more occupied squares than vacant squares. We have at our command a limited number of moves in so crowded an area, and if we develop too rapidly there is a distinct danger of using up all our resources - at best we will be embarrassed for a satisfactory move; at worst we may even be blocked up , as in Diagram 25. Without being too precise, it should help the student if he realizes that with, say, 10 men each side still on the board, being 4 moves ahead in development would be enough to lose the game, unless offset by considerable gains in space. With 11 men a side such over-development would be fatal regardless of any gains in space. In the diagram below, Black faces a dilemma: DIAGRAM 28 White +------------------------+ |::: w ::: w ::: w ::: w | | w ::: w ::: w ::: w :::| |::: ::: ::: w ::: w | | w ::: ::: ::: :::| |::: b ::: b ::: ::: | | ::: ::: b ::: b :::| |::: ::: b ::: b ::: b | | b ::: b ::: b ::: b :::| +------------------------+ Black - to play Black has the unenviable choice of inferiority in any one of the three elements. In time, if he permits the exchange which White seeks (Black is already 2 moves ahead and this would make it 4 - try it); in force, if he advances the man threatened, (White could soon cut it off); or in space, if he covers up the threat (his single corner would then become very cramped). We shall not discuss here the best way for Black to meet these problems, as I have made my point - which is, that from the very first moves of a game the issues of space, force, and time will confront you and demand to be solved. Your success across the board will depend upon how you face the challenge of the elements. END OF THE SHAREWARE VERSION - FOR THE REST SUBSCRIBE TO ALPHA_BETA!