Reader TTS

I find it sickening to see the heretical proponents of so-called Freestyle Chess mafficking about the 100% (9/9) score by Magnus Carlsen in the recently concluded Grenke Open. Fanatical

adherents of the new heresy are ululating with gay abandon and celebrating the fact that Magnus has outperformed (in a ratings sense) the superhuman rating performances of the chess

Immortals, such as Bobby Fischer and Alexander Alekhine. Such misplaced jubilation overlooks the fact that Freestyle ratings cannot legitimately be compared with established chess ratings.

Freestyle chess consists almost entirely of tactics, since the random disposition of the pieces at the start of the game renders such strategic concepts as pawn structure virtually

irrelevant. One might as well compare rating performances in chess with exploits in Tiddlywinks, Marbles, Shatranj (the ancient ancestor of chess), Shogi (Japanese chess) Xiangqi (Chinese

chess) or Weichi, aka Go, the venerable oriental board game, where territory counts, rather than checkmate. table: courtesy of Mehmet Ismail (@drmehmetismail) (erratum: the position of

Alekhine and Gukesh should read in reversed order) Another honourable alternative is the game of Draughts, known as Checkers in many countries. I had the great pleasure of organising (with

my late friend Tony Buzan, the inventor of Mind Maps) the very first Human v Computer world championship (London 1992) in any thinking sport, when the Canadian program Chinook challenged the

greatest ever human exponent, Dr Marion Tinsley. A new book by Draughts Grandmaster Richard Pask tells you everything you need to know about the game, in painstaking and exhaustive detail.

I am sure that the ever helpful Richard Pask would be only too pleased to send Magnus Carlsen a complimentary copy, if the former world chess champion decided to learn a new Mind Sports

discipline and cease wasting his time with the heretical abomination that is Freestyle chess. “The mind is inured to caution, foresight and circumspection…” (Dr Samuel Johnson, from his

introduction to William Payne’s 1756_ Treatise on the Game of Draughts._) Draughts, like chess, is a game played by two opponents facing each other over a board of 64 squares, with Black,

unlike chess, moving first. The board is arranged with each set of pieces positioned solely on the dark squares on the first three ranks. It involves diagonal moves and mandatory captures,

by jumping over as many opposing pieces as possible. Draughts lovers would have us believe that a game similar to draughts may have been played in Egypt as far back as 1600 BC. Part of a

board and pieces were discovered in the tomb of Queen Hatshepsut, daughter of Thotmes I, who ruled Egypt for many years. There is evidence too, from Egyptian monumental paintings and

inscriptions, that the game was common at the time of the earlier pharaohs. In the Dialogues of Plato, Socrates tells Phaedrus that the famous Egyptian God Theuth “was the inventor of many

arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters.” Homer, in the _Odyssey,_ Book I, says “The bright

eyed goddess Athene… Found the insolent suitors, sitting on the hides of ox skin that they had taken and slaughtered themselves, playing at draughts.” Of course, the use of “draughts”, in

all such contexts may be the whim of a modern translator, but illustrations from ancient Greece (such as the famous Vatican Vase by Exekias) certainly show a board game, similar in

appearance to draughts. Naturally, this may equally well refer to ancient race-style games. Modern draughts may be said to have had its beginnings in Spain, with the publications of Antonio

Torquemada in 1547, Pedro Rodrigo Montero in 1590, Lorenzo Valls in 1597, and Juan Garcia Canlejas in 1610. In France, Pierre Mallet, Mathematician to the King, published a manual in 1688

entitled _Jeu des Dames_. The derivation is interesting, probably coming from early chess, where the Queen or Dame had exactly the same diagonal move as a draughts piece, except that in

draughts, unpromoted units cannot retreat. Confident of his ability and knowledge of the game, Monsieur Mallet challenged any Christian or Barbarian champion to play a match “for a dozen

pistoles.” (Antonio Torquemada, is, of course, not to be confused with Tomas de Torquemada, the first Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition.) The pioneer of draughts literature in

England was William Payne, teacher of mathematics, who published his book in 1756. This _Treatise on the Game of Draughts_ contained 50 games, critical situations, situations for multiple

capture coups, and many fundamental endgame positions, including an analysis of what is known as “the first position, by which more games are won than any other ending”. The book revealed

that even two and a half centuries ago the experts of the day knew a great deal about draughts. More, indeed, than their counterparts did about chess. Another valuable contribution to the

literature of the game was made by the publication in 1800 of a work by Joshua Sturges, entitled _Guide to the Game of Draughts_, which contained a great deal of original analysis and

corrected faulty play in Payne’s book. Sturges’s Book went through many revised editions, and furnished a foundation for later analyses. Other publications in the next half-century worthy of

particular intention were James Sinclair’s _Game of Draughts_ (1832), William Hay’s _The Game of Draughts_ (1838) and John Drummonds’ _The Scottish Draughts Player_ (also 1838). However,

the most important contribution to the science of the game during that period was that of Andrew Anderson of Carluke, Scotland, one of the greatest draughts players that ever lived and one

of its most skilled analysts. His work, _Guide to the Game of Draughts _was published in 1848 and enlarged in 1852. Anderson‘s book offered a great deal of dependable analysis (it was rare

indeed that a flaw could be found in an Andersonian line of play). This book also provided a set of “Standard Rules of Play”, and naming of the basic openings. As an analyst, Anderson was

unrivalled, and as a player, he was the first man ever to be recognised as World Champion by his victory over James Wyllie in 1847 in a match for the title. He scored nine wins to six

losses, with 31 games drawn. There are different styles of play for draughts. Three styles of play are contested at world championship level. “Go-as-you-please“ (GAYP), also known as

freestyle ( not to be confused with Freestyle in chess) is the name given to the style in which each player has complete freedom as to his or her opening moves, from the very first move of

the game. Because so many opening variations are known to lead to a draw (should neither player be able to force a win, through lack of superiority in material or position, the game is

declared drawn), GAYP lacks popularity at the top echelons because many players would not want their opponents to be able to make an easy draw. “Eleven-Man-ballot“ is another way of spicing

up the game. Each player starts with 11 men (or pieces) instead of 12 (the missing piece is chosen by ballot and is the same for each player), so the traditional drawing variations may not

be employed in the opening. Of the three, this strikes me as the least satisfactory solution to avoiding draws. “Three-move-ballot” is the most popular and exciting form of the game and is

played in almost all championship tournaments and matches. A number of three move sequences (Black’s first move, White’s reply and Black’s second move) are written on cards and placed in a

bag. Immediately prior to an encounter, one of the sequences is chosen at random and the players then contest two games on the same day, using the balloted opening sequence, with each of

them playing black in turn. In the 1992 World Draughts Championship between Dr Marion Tinsley and the “Chinook” Computer, 142 different opening sequences were contained in the bag. “Chinook

has an excellent programmer in Dr Jonathan Schaeffer,” Dr Marion Tinsley said at his 1992 World Championship match against the Chinook computer program. “But mine is better — God.” Was Dr

Marion Tinsley the greatest mind sports practitioner of them all? Tinsley was born in Iron Town, Ohio in 1927. He is universally recognised as the premier draughts player in the history of

the game. Tinsley was a winner of a record seven US National Titles and was World Champion from 1955 to 1958, after which he retired to pursue his teaching career in mathematics, as a

professor at Florida State University. Returning to the game in 1970, his 12-year absence was no obstacle to winning the 1970 US National Title at Memphis, Tennessee. He became World

Champion once again in 1975, defeating E. Lowder, Don Lafferty and Paul Davis in World Title matches, retired again in 1991, and was declared World Champion Emeritus in 1992. Even at the age

of 65, his tremendous analytical abilities were undiminished. Tinsley is the only player ever in the centuries-long history of draughts to remain unbeaten in any match since he first won

the World Title. In 1992 Tinsley faced his greatest ever challenge — a 40 game contest against the Chinook computer program at the Park Lane Hotel, London, scene of the third Kasparov v

Karpov world chess championship in 1986, which I had  organised, along with the late Stewart Reuben, the chess impresario. This historic draughts clash in 1992 was the first between a human

world champion and a computer program, and attracted more widespread media coverage than any other modern draughts contest. The human prevailed, in what was arguably the finest high-level

draughts match ever played, by the score of four wins to two with 33 draws. Thus I had the additional honour of organising (along with Tony Buzan) the very first world championship in any

mind sport, between a human and a computer. The match featured a dramatic finale, in which Tinsley gained a crushing victory in the last game. Chinook, the Canadian computer program, running

on a Silicon Graphics parallel series supercomputer, had been ordered by its human minder, Dr. Jonathan Schaeffer of the University of Alberta, Canada, to play remorselessly for a win in

game 39. Trailing by a full point against its human opponent, only two victories for Chinook in the last two games would enable it to win and make history, by becoming the first ever

computer world champion in any mental game. Spurning all chances to draw, Chinook hurled itself into the battle and on the 10th move it introduced an entirely new idea, designed to throw its

opponent off course. Dr Tinsley, defending one of the sharpest opening variations in draughts, known as The White Doctor, never made an error. He mercilessly refuted Chinook’s bold effort,

crowned two pieces as kings (the equivalent of promoting a pawn to a queen in chess) and forced the machine to resign. On the 34th move it was all over. Chinook’s position was a wreck. Dr.

Schaeffer resigned on behalf of his creation, conceding both the 39th game and the match. Game 40 did not need to be played. The score was 20½ to 18½, an unassailable lead for Dr. Tinsley.

Amazingly, the human used just half an hour’s thinking time for this historic game, while Chinook used an hour and a half, during the course of which it “saw” no less than 270 million

different draughts positions, but to no avail. When Jonathan Schaeffer extended his hand in resignation on behalf of Chinook, Dr. Tinsley rose to his feet, raised his fist in triumph over

his head and exclaimed to a thrilled audience: “Three cheers for human beings — and that includes Jonathan.“ The final game of the match had a packed hall enthralled as the advantage swung

from Chinook‘s side to the doctor. After the game was over, Dr. Tinsley said that this had been the most exciting match of his entire career. According to the many watching draughts experts,

the standard of play was possibly the highest ever seen in a draughts match. Prior to the match, there were some draughts enthusiasts who felt that the participation of computers in what

had, hitherto, been an almost exclusively human activity, was a retrograde step. But the massive publicity created for their game and the enormously exciting atmosphere at the Park Lane

Hotel, caused a large number of conversions. Dr Schaeffer, when asked why the apparently invincible machine had lost, said: “Certain holes still need to be plugged in its knowledge of

draughts openings. Once this has been done we would like to challenge Dr Tinsley again.“ Dr Tinsley responded: “I am game for a rematch, but not one of 40 games. It must be 20 or 30. Look

into my eyes — I am deeply tired. After game 14 this time I almost did not have the strength to go on.” Dr Tinsley, a devout Christian, said his faith had helped him. In fact, it had also

been the source of some worry to him: he had been visibly depressed by a vision of God appearing to him personally in a dream before the championship, in which the Almighty had said, “I love

Jonathan too.” By the autumn of 1994 Schaeffer’s team was ready for the rematch, having raised the power of the computer by many degrees so that it could now calculate 12 million moves

every minute, and had accumulated a database of 118 billion positions. Again Tinsley enthusiastically accepted the challenge, explaining that even at this phenomenal level the computer was

still not able to play truly artistic games. However, obviously ill and suffering from crippling abdominal pains, Tinsley heroically held his silicon opponent to six draws at the Science

Museum in Boston USA, before being ordered to stop for medical reasons. (He was later diagnosed as having advanced cancer of the pancreas and died in April 1995). Dr. Tinsley thus conceded

the World Title to Chinook, creating a landmark in the history of mind sports, the first ever Computer World Champion, in any such game. And now : why was the program called Chinook, naming

it seemingly after a US military helicopter? In fact, Chinook signifies “wind” or “mighty force” in the Ita’xluit language of Indigenous Americans, and from “Wind” we reach “Draught”. QED ‼️

DR MARION TINSLEY (WORLD CHAMPION) VS. ‘CHINOOK’ (SILICON GRAPHICS 4D/480 PARALLEL PROCESSOR) Silicon Graphics World Draughts Championship, London, 1992, game 39 BLACK PLAYS FIRST… For the

final two games the opening selected by ballot was the “White Doctor”, in which Black is compelled to sacrifice a piece from the outset. In compensation Black gets a “grip” with his two men

on a3 and c3 restraining the three White men on a5, b4 and c5. Despite this compensation experts believe that White’s extra man provides more of an advantage than Black’s positional grip.

This opening could not provide a more fitting conclusion to the match. It is one of the most difficult and sharp openings in the pack and ensured a most exciting session. Since Dr. Tinsley

would retain his title if the match was tied, it was necessary for Chinook to win both games if it was to capture the World Championship. Chinook lost trying to win a drawn position – a

familiar route to defeat for many experts. 1 E3-F4 F6-E5 2 A3-B4 This opening is very powerful for White. 2… B6-A5 3 B4-C5 This sacrifice is essential. All other moves lose. It taakes some

time before Black regains the piece. Less proficient players in the audience might now thin Chinook was winning. 3… D6XB4 4 F4XD6 E7XC5 5 B2-A3 G7-F6 6 F2-E3 H8-G7 Dr. Tinsley beat Asa Long

with this line in the 1981 World Championship, which Dr. Tinsley won 3-0 with 34 draws. 7 C3-D4 F8-E7 8 D4XB6 A7XC5 9 A1-B2 F6-E5 10 B2-C3 10… E4-D4 Chinook tries a new move because the

published moves are particularly well known to Dr. Tinsley. Returning the piece in this way does rather simplify a very complex game. 11 C3XE5 E7-F6 12 E3-D4 C5XE3 13. A3XC5 F6XD4 14 D2XF4

C7-D6 15 C5-E7 D8XF6 16 G3-H4 A5-B4 17 E1-F2 D4-C3 18 F2-E3 B8-C7 19 E3-D4 19… C7-B6 Forced. 19… c7-d6 loses to 20 d4-c5 while 19… b4-a3 loses to the following pretty combination: 20 d4-c5!

c3-b2 21 g1-f2 b2-a1/K 22 f2-e3 Ka1-b2 23 c1-d2 Kb2-c1 24 f4-g5 h6xf4 25 e3xe7 Kc1xe3 26 e7-d8/K, trapping the White piece on the square c7. Black is still in a strong position because of

the bunched up White pieces on the squares h6, g7 and f6 and because of the basic defensive structure called a “bridge” consisting of the Black pieces on g1 and c1. 20 F4-E5 B4-A3 21 E5-D6

C3-B2 22 D6-C7 B2-A1/K 23 C7-B8/K KA1-B2 24 G1-F2! 24… KB2-C3 25 F2-E3 KC3XE5 26 E3-F4 KE5XG3 27 H2XF4 F6-E5 28 F4XD6 G7-F6 29 D6-E7 B6-A5 30 KB8-C7 F6-E5 31 KC7-D6 E5-F4 32 KD6-E5 F4-G3 33

E7-D8/K G3-F2 34 KD8-C7 F2-G1/K BLACK WINS White can never move Kg1-f2 because of the two for one by h4-g5, nor can White play a5-b4 because Ke5-d4 traps the man on b4, which can be captured

three moves later by the other kingg. The king on c7 can therefore arrive on c3 unhindered, holding the two men on a3 and a5. Black will be playing with three pieces against two on the rest

of the board – an easy win. Read more about Draughts in: _Complete Checkers: Insights_ _ by Draughts Grandmaster Richard Pask, Avi Gobbler Press_ RAY’S 206TH BOOK, “  CHESS IN THE YEAR OF

THE KING  ”, WRITTEN IN COLLABORATION WITH ADAM BLACK, AND HIS 207TH, “  NAPOLEON AND GOETHE: THE TOUCHSTONE OF GENIUS  ” (WHICH DISCUSSES THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH CHESS) CAN BE ORDERED FROM

BOTH AMAZON AND BLACKWELLS. HIS 208TH, THE WORLD RECORD FOR CHESS BOOKS, WRITTEN JOINTLY WITH CHESS PLAYING ARTIST BARRY MARTIN,  CHESS THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS _, _ IS NOW_ _ALSO AVAILABLE

FROM AMAZON.  A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than

ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._