Killer (technisch)

[Kosmos]

http://dammen.hetnoorden.org/partijhist ... ie=7925650

Paalaap kwam met een geweldig skelet.



Ik had de muis al boven schijf 22 hangen... Totdat ik zag dat die zet verhinderd was en ik maar besloot met 18-23 en 23-28 de winst te forceren...

[wellnesswrotter]

van de mindsportsarena geplukt:

Draughts, barring some 10.000 of over 2.500.000 three against one positions, one needs four kings to capture a lone king. With four kings the capture is so easy that it suggests overkill. On the left a position where three kings do the job, but it is the exception, not the rule. On the right one of many positions to indeed capture the reluctant sucker.
In comparison with the other games, the situation Draughts is embarrassing.
One way to remedy the problem is to make king's subject to the demotion rule as in 'KillerDraughts': if the king is obliged to stop on the square immediately behind the last piece captured, then two kings in a tric-trac corner are sufficient to capture a lone king!
However small this change may be, and however good, it will affect a large part of the existing theory and that may prove too much to swallow for the draughts community at large. Few may be waiting for a slightly different rerun of basically the same game, despite the smaller margin of draws it provides.

www.mindsports.nl

[Jaap van Galen]

van de mindsportsarena geplukt:

Draughts, barring some 10.000 of over 2.500.000 three against one positions, one needs four kings to capture a lone king. With four kings the capture is so easy that it suggests overkill. On the left a position where three kings do the job, but it is the exception, not the rule. On the right one of many positions to indeed capture the reluctant sucker.
In comparison with the other games, the situation Draughts is embarrassing.
One way to remedy the problem is to make king's subject to the demotion rule as in 'KillerDraughts': if the king is obliged to stop on the square immediately behind the last piece captured, then two kings in a tric-trac corner are sufficient to capture a lone king!
However small this change may be, and however good, it will affect a large part of the existing theory and that may prove too much to swallow for the draughts community at large. Few may be waiting for a slightly different rerun of basically the same game, despite the smaller margin of draws it provides.

www.mindsports.nl

Van dezelfde site:

At the age of six I had mastered Fox & Geese. My geese were invincible and I was far from reluctant to prove it. In sheer desperation my father taught me to play Draughts. It was my entrance to the world of abstract games.
Now I must betray it and explain why a good game has become a bad sport.

I'm sorry to say that this is not, as many would have it, a matter of opinion. For those who would like to dismiss these findings as ridiculous: if by some twist of fate Dameo had been the dominant draughts form for the last century, you would have naturally accepted that as a child. You might even have become a professional player. If someone had come up with 10x10 Draughts as it is played now, you might well have ridiculed - and this time maybe rightly so - the very game you're defending now. So don't kid yourself.

[Kosmos]

van de mindsportsarena geplukt:

Draughts, barring some 10.000 of over 2.500.000 three against one positions, one needs four kings to capture a lone king. With four kings the capture is so easy that it suggests overkill. On the left a position where three kings do the job, but it is the exception, not the rule. On the right one of many positions to indeed capture the reluctant sucker.
In comparison with the other games, the situation Draughts is embarrassing.
One way to remedy the problem is to make king's subject to the demotion rule as in 'KillerDraughts': if the king is obliged to stop on the square immediately behind the last piece captured, then two kings in a tric-trac corner are sufficient to capture a lone king!
However small this change may be, and however good, it will affect a large part of the existing theory and that may prove too much to swallow for the draughts community at large. Few may be waiting for a slightly different rerun of basically the same game, despite the smaller margin of draws it provides.

www.mindsports.nl

Van dezelfde site:

At the age of six I had mastered Fox & Geese. My geese were invincible and I was far from reluctant to prove it. In sheer desperation my father taught me to play Draughts. It was my entrance to the world of abstract games.
Now I must betray it and explain why a good game has become a bad sport.

I'm sorry to say that this is not, as many would have it, a matter of opinion. For those who would like to dismiss these findings as ridiculous: if by some twist of fate Dameo had been the dominant draughts form for the last century, you would have naturally accepted that as a child. You might even have become a professional player. If someone had come up with 10x10 Draughts as it is played now, you might well have ridiculed - and this time maybe rightly so - the very game you're defending now. So don't kid yourself.

Christian Freeling formuleert het geniaal: Prikkelend en helder. Christian heeft mijn ogen (heel lang geleden al weer) geopend: Dat 3 om 1 niet wint is OBJECTIEF vast te stellen als tekortkomingen door simpelweg ons spel te vergelijken met andere damvarianten.
Dan blijkt dat Canadees dammen en ons dammen het zwakste eindspel hebben. Alle andere spelsoorten hebben een scherper eindspel.
Drie dammen die niet van 1 dam winnen is -ik blijf het herhalen- een ernstige flaw (tekortkoming) in ons spel.

Wat wilde je eigenlijk zeggen met jouw citaat, Johan Teake?



Quizvraag: waarom wint wit niet? (w.a.z.)

[wellnesswrotter]

vond het gewoon een mooie alinea

[Kosmos]

Bart Visser op zijn weblog: http://fietsennaarafrika.blogspot.com/

In de vierde ronde tegen Reinout Sloot kreeg ik bijna een volledige Maginot-linie op het bord. Sloot (wit) offerde hier een schijf, waarop ik met wit remise aanbood. Reinout vroeg nog welke zet ik zou spelen, waarop ik antwoordde dat er een plakker zou volgen met weliswaar schijfverlies en uiteindelijk een één om drie eindspel, maar ruimschoots binnen de remise-grenzen. Tijdens het zomertournooi in Nijmegen maakte ondergetekende voor het eerst in zijn leven kennis met "killer-dammen" en raakte ervan overtuigd dat met deze spelvariant een mogelijke oplossing is gevonden voor het grote aantal remises dat vooral op het hoogste niveau dammen tot een bijna saaie aangelegenheid maakt. De laatste match Georgiev-Schwarzman vond ik echt een dieptepunt in de strijd om het wk-dammen. Remise schuiven(hakken,hakken) en nog nipt doorbreken met een schlemielig dammetje en verder niks komt regelmatig voor en niet alleen op het hoogste niveau.Tegen Reinoot had ik nog behoorlijk aan de bak gemoeten in het Killer-spel. Nu kon ik in een eerder stadium rustig wat terrein nadeel accepteren, in de wetenschap dat je van goeden huize moet komen om in een in materieel opzicht gelijke stand te winnen. Killer dammen dus!