GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 93.24
38% of Goal | 26 Days Left
Patrick Carroll wrote:
And if you get good enough, you'll someday be ready to tackle more advanced books, such as Lee's Guide to the Game of Draughts or Checkers (it's incredibly dry but covers all the lines of play; I bought a copy just to see what it was like).
just based on the title, I can tell that's a good book
I dunno; I heard the author doesn't know much about the game at all (yet)...
May I suggest people take a look at variants of checkers, if they find regular checkers? Even those who play checkers on tournament level, do 3-move randomized open, or the 11 man version where each side removes one of their checkers randomly off the board.
On my end, with my perpetual dabbling, I have rules that double the amount of checkers on the board to start (and account for the extra pieces), and now stumbled across another variant where the win conditions are changed to the elimination of Men (checkers) only and not just all the pieces, that should make for a more tactically interesting game. I would say also to check out Big Shot Checkers also, which looks to add its own to the mix.
... I've got to be honest, there's so much wrong with your post it's ridiculous.
The position you listed is impossible to reach from a beginning game because of forced jump rules.
Additionally, rules specifically state that if that position were reached, it would obviously be red's turn and red would lose (if you cannot move any pieces on your turn, you lose).
Checkers actually takes an immense volume of strategy. While it's less "technically" complex than chess, that's only relevant to computers. For human players, beating or drawing a master in checkers is harder if anything than it is in chess. In chess, you make a mistake, you can usually take it back with certain moves, unless it lands you in a checkmate. In checkers, if you make one mistake and your opponent knows how to counter it, you're doomed.
You utterly fail to even mention such basic plays as shots, breeches, exchanges and bridges, let alone advanced opening play, first/second/third position endgames, and Brooklyn shots. This shows me you haven't played a serious game of checkers in your life.
The 3-move style of play would be good for you if you're "good" at the game. Although, judging by the tone of your post, that's probably not the case, honestly. All hints imply your checkers knowledge is limited at best.
I've played thousands of checkers games online and offline, including two against the 3-move world champion, Alex Moiseyev, in 2003. I'm one of the few legit players currently rated over 2000 on yahoo. I know what I'm talking about here. And if you'd like to play me, by all means, contact me. I will show you just how involved checkers can get. Then maybe you'll be qualified to gauge its status as a "simple" game.
Not that we need any more thrashings of this review, but I once had a similar view of checkers, so I'll add my few cents.
As many of us did, I played this often as a child. It was extremely simple to learn, it was quick to setup and store - with those cheap, plastic red and black chips with the nifty grooves to easily stack them and the fold-up, black and red cardboard checkerboard where the black pieces would blend in with the black squares - and it was quick to play too. Somewhere with the disposable quality of the set and my disposable eight year old mind, the game nested itself in my mind for over a decade afterwards as a simple child's game.
Many years later, I got a new computer that came packaged with a checkers program. I had almost no interest in ever touching the program, with my memories from childhood pervading me, but boredom often makes the unlikely likely. One rainy day, I decided to take on the computer AI and stuck straight to the toughest difficulty; I lost soon after making my first move. Stubbornly, I tried again and again, only to lose each time. I soon started seeing strategies emerge that I didn't imagine the game capable of. Simply put, I soon learned that my preconceptions of checkers was unjustly formed from a time when I was simply a child playing a game with children.
It's similarly unjust to judge a game based on the failings of your opponents. I've had untimed games of chess where I won in less than five minutes, and it hardly led to unfair judgments of the game. If anything, why didn't you conclude that your ease in victory might be a result of the depth in which your opponents didn't grasp? There's simply no excusing a review written with little experience. It's one thing to evolve a review score over time, but to put a review to pen and paper (or keyboard and computer screen) without taking the time to fully explore what you're reviewing, particularly for a game with as much history as draughts, reeks of either laziness or dishonesty. It's especially not needed on this site, where checkers is criminally misjudged by preconceived notions similar to the ones in my eight year old mind and your adult one.
Jake's comments about checkers are contradictory. First he says:
The game requires little strategy...
There is hardly no strategy to study to make yourself better...
You can basically win against anyone as long as you know the rules and don't make foolish mistakes... (By "anyone" I guess he means beginners.)
Once you know the rules there is nothing more you do with the game...
But THEN he contradicts all of the above when he says:
I think if I played against someone that is actually good at checkers, I would find it a very logical and strategical game...
Once I find someone who forces me to think during the game, I will probably rate this game a 10...
Alas, the comments above tell me he is clueless about what checkers is all about. That's unfortunate, of course. By now I hope he's found a few strong players or possibly a strong computer opponent to play against. If so, after he loses every single game, he will then realize how much of a game of skill checkers really is.