@mezzoforte84 Tom Wiswell won this World Championship Match. The score Wiswell 2, Fraser 0, and 37 draws. A very close match. Professor Fraser try the "Switcher Opening" to try to catch up which has a lot of complicated lines for white. He almost achieved his goal but Tom Wiswell was up to the task. Thank you for your question. I hope all is well! George P.S. sorry i didn't answer sooner as i just spotted it.
You have a great rating. I'm glad you seen all the moves and the best responses. That is very impressive. I am a little busy right now to play you now but hopefully in the future. Maybe someone will read your comments and challenge you. Thank you! George from New York.
Subscribed. :) I can't believe he took the draw. He had a chance to get another king. I wouldn't do it. I mean, it is like quitting. I played Checkers recently, and i hate when people accept defeat. Never give up is my motto because you never know the final outcome of the match when it happens.
1. The game has not been solved. Threre is a prove that played in GAYP it is drawn by perfect play with both sides, but there is no database or single program that plays perfect with 24 pieces. 2. It depends on the position how deep u calculate. In chess and checkers. But in checkers, due to the shorter number of candidate moves the variant tree, if u know this term, is usually deeper, but not as broad as in chess. I have played checkers on 2300 level, and chess on 2200 level, so trust me.
Hello, you can check out the American Checker Federation web site. They have the tournaments on it. It nice that you are playing again. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Also, you can check out "The Checker Maven" by Bob Newell, they have a lot of info to help you catch up. George
Error at 2.37 seconds... The king should be keep moving up to attack the 2 white down the corner, but u moved the single red to be king. You played for a draw when red should win.
The comments made me laugh. Actually, there are also many variants. In China, Japan and Korea, there are the games of Go, GoMoku, Chinese Chess, Japanese Chess, Korean chess, etc. Checkers has been solved by computer analysis. So sad. That being said, it is a fun video to watch. (Show it to your grandparents)
has no practical relevence though. a computer took 18 years to analyse the best move for every possible circumstance in the game. A human *cannot* learn that. And it doesn't mean the computer knows how to win from the first turn. It means it has the best solution to every circumstance and for any set of those circumstances where the best solution is picked every time, then the game cannot be lost. It's not one strategy that always wins, which a human could memorise. THAT would have killed the game, but not this.
Chess is overrated hype & nonsense when it comes to complexity. State Space means how many ways the pieces can combine, in chess 32 pieces on a 64 square board 10^43 or 10^52 (Allis)... & those include illegal positions. Game Tree means ways to get to those state space positions by transpositions. You must keep in mind there's a difference between just mixing all the pieces up in a variety of ways randomly on a board that would never happen in chess from an initial opening position, or because of the piece values themselves would eliminate positions & combinations because they are nonsensical, the rules greatly affect the game. (e.g.) In any game trading bishop, knight, rook or queen for a pawn [which are of two different point values & strengths] between equally matched opponents wouldn't happen without a positional advantage or leading to mate. So zillions of positions in those huge state space & game tree numbers are eliminated & REDUCED GREATLY... because they're just not real & would not happen in any serious game. Those large numbers in chess are actually meaningless. The game tree "Shannon Number" 10^120 or 10^123 (Allis) associated with chess & ways to get to 10^52 [by transposition] state space numbers are ludicrous & actually impossible to get to in a real game... simply because in a real game the ridiculous positions would get taken advantage of from any reasonable player & finish the game off quickly. Those large numbers include positions where pawns can take queens, rooks, bishops & knights but don't & along with totally ludicrous set ups that just don't happen. If you blunder & drop any major piece for a pawn & in some cases a rook for bishop or knight the serious player would reduce & trade down & win, ALL STRONG PLAYERS KNOW THIS & A BASIC FACT OF CHESS. Any mismatched pieces & loss of greater valued pieces without positional reasoning & visible mate doesn't happen in serious games. Most intermediate to strong players that blunder major pieces for less valued pieces or a pawn without positional reason resign almost immediately. The real number of "reasonable & logical chess games" available from openings mathematically is 4,670,034... True maximum transpositional "state space" positions from openings is 140,100,034... The maximum number of reachable "game tree" positions from openings is 450,000,000 during the middle game, those include totally nonsensical & ridiculous positions... chess is solved for all 3-6 piece endings & most 7 piece endings. Those positional facts are online at chess.com & in Jonathan Schaeffer's paper he mentions chess is solved for endgames. In 8 x 8 checkers with 24 pieces state space is 10^20 {Quintillion}... 10^18 ARE REACHABLE FROM THE OPENINGS & CURRENT AMERICAN & BRITISH RULES. That was verified by Jonathan Schaeffer. The game tree number for checkers online is 10^31 {Nonillion} to reach those 10^18 state space numbers. In an email over 8 years ago when I asked Jonathan Schaeffer about game tree numbers he said "The game tree for checkers is unknown". Schaeffer "solved" the White Doctor opening & max depth was to 10^14 to determine that "If both sides play correctly it's a draw". He did not by no means solve the other 49-50 openings... that is in his online paper. He also clearly says "weakly solved" & emphasized the differences. Also the depth in general was to 10^12 & most below that. According to him "If you can calculate & solve 10^6 positions per second it would take 100,000 years to calculate & solve 10^18". Checkers still has incredible depth & potentiality of complex positional play & unexplored lines. The well known lines & ones reduced to memory are a very small part. Checker pieces are of equal value in opening position, which means any piece on the board has true potential to interact, threaten or trade for any other thru out a game, which makes the choices, positions & combinations more vast than chess from an over the board realistic perspective. Checkers does not have as many nonsensical positions because of individual piece value, which only increase as positions arise or becoming a king {Doubleton}.
Chinook program penetrates deep levels 10^11 & beyond better than humans... & yes chess programs have gotten even stronger with Stockfish & Alpha Zero in the last 7 years, but there are still people like Bulgarian master Ludmil Tsvetkov & another one with the "A.R.B system" that claim to beat Stockfish & the other lower ranked programs consistently with games online available for analysis... So far no one is stepping forward with any consistent claim of beating Chinook consistently or on real equal footing with it or even the Cake++ program which was based on Chinook. An interesting thing is Ed Trice the inventor of Gothic chess has a pdf paper online which is a variant of Capablanca's variant with a larger board & more pieces. One of the facts about board games like chess in general is that Trice specifically mentions, in the Gothic & Capablanca's variant games by strong players were much shorter & quicker than regular chess?!?! The larger board & extra pieces with more abilities/moves didn't really add "complexity" to the game... in fact he mentions that with more fairy pieces the other pieces lose their values & strengths. That was said also by GMs with Capablanca creating his chess variant. In other words the state space & game tree for these variants just calculating numbers would be larger theoretically than regular chess, but in practicality & actual play the game is more limited. With that same concept less pieces on a board & within a more confined space 32 squares for checkers, each piece holds greater weight & value along with a realistic potential of combinations. In chess many positions the pieces are limited in scope of what they can actually do, lots of positions especially in semi-open & closed positions they just block each other, so realistically those extremely deep & large trivial numbers are impossible to get to because of that as well & limits the real state space & game tree of an opening. Another interesting thing is in Polish checkers {International draughts} on 10 x 10 board with 20 pieces per side & flying kings, you can get crazy things like having 3 kings vs 1 king end game & it's a draw?!?! That shows that more pieces with complex maneuvers & board space really don't make the game more complex & can add strange limitations or quirks. In some cases & games unique piece moves & abilities are less of an ability but more of a handicap because of when & how you use them. Checkers being more simple in piece value & abilities can rise exponentially to higher levels of combinations, positions & interactions.
Chess hype from the public that just look at more pieces, space & ways to move don't really understand the true nature of the game or how the mathematics truly apply. Some people like different moving pieces & assume that means "complexity". I mean complexity with overall numbers of potentials for games, positional choices & mathematical depth. Chess is also hyped within the community because its an industry with products, tournaments, politics & grants for technology research etc. So they have to keep the "complexity" bullshit going because many careers & money rely on it.
@@asherasator I can't believe I read the whole thing lol but anyways *slow claps* I could be wrong but no really in Checkers the bigger the board, the more the possible moves and thus the more the difficult and complex it is.
If you can draw a master in checkers, you know that it is not like tic tac toe, as you have to calculate much deeper then in chess to secure a draw against a master.
This is not true... While checkers is definitely more complicated than tic tac toe, it has been solved, where chess has not (read: a computer playing checkers will always win/ draw, but a computer playing chess can be beaten [although at this point even grandmasters cannot beat the computer, but it is still theoretically possible]) Therefore you most definitely have to calculate "deeper" when playing chess, as even a computer cannot play it perfectly.
@mezzoforte84 Tom Wiswell won this World Championship Match. The score Wiswell 2, Fraser 0, and 37 draws. A very close match. Professor Fraser try the "Switcher Opening" to try to catch up which has a lot of complicated lines for white. He almost achieved his goal but Tom Wiswell was up to the task. Thank you for your question. I hope all is well! George P.S. sorry i didn't answer sooner as i just spotted it.
You have a great rating. I'm glad you seen all the moves and the best responses. That is very impressive. I am a little busy right now to play you now but hopefully in the future. Maybe someone will read your comments and challenge you. Thank you! George from New York.
Subscribed. :) I can't believe he took the draw. He had a chance to get another king. I wouldn't do it. I mean, it is like quitting. I played Checkers recently, and i hate when people accept defeat. Never give up is my motto because you never know the final outcome of the match when it happens.
Very nice video. Great instructional game. Particularly the end game.
why did i just watch this
LOL
Me too gang
1. The game has not been solved. Threre is a prove that played in GAYP it is drawn by perfect play with both sides, but there is no database or single program that plays perfect with 24 pieces.
2. It depends on the position how deep u calculate. In chess and checkers. But in checkers, due to the shorter number of candidate moves the variant tree, if u know this term, is usually deeper, but not as broad as in chess.
I have played checkers on 2300 level, and chess on 2200 level, so trust me.
It's interesting how checkers has historical games
what is the name of the set and how much it cost? where can i order?
How long did this match take in real time.
Hello, you can check out the American Checker Federation web site. They have the tournaments on it. It nice that you are playing again. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Also, you can check out "The Checker Maven" by Bob Newell, they have a lot of info to help you catch up. George
thanks champ
This is pretty awesome.
Back to the future!!!
@azcheckers Thank you very much! i appreciate your kind words.
full game report
How I get the full mach
Error at 2.37 seconds... The king should be keep moving up to attack the 2 white down the corner, but u moved the single red to be king.
You played for a draw when red should win.
False
How do you play competitive checkers??? Its like playing tic tac toe competitively...
nub
The comments made me laugh. Actually, there are also many variants. In China, Japan and Korea, there are the games of Go, GoMoku, Chinese Chess, Japanese Chess, Korean chess, etc.
Checkers has been solved by computer analysis. So sad. That being said, it is a fun video to watch. (Show it to your grandparents)
has no practical relevence though. a computer took 18 years to analyse the best move for every possible circumstance in the game. A human *cannot* learn that. And it doesn't mean the computer knows how to win from the first turn. It means it has the best solution to every circumstance and for any set of those circumstances where the best solution is picked every time, then the game cannot be lost. It's not one strategy that always wins, which a human could memorise. THAT would have killed the game, but not this.
www.researchgate.net/publication/308699208_Draughts_is_more_difficult_than_chess
In checkers are you forced to eat your other opponent if you have the opportunity?
Angel Camacho yes
did checkers game have grandmaster too..like chess
What an inspirational game, I am moved by the skill this took. #Checkersforlife
no skill to checkers
@@2q1cchess4 wrong
@@2q1cchess4 objectively wrong
why is this a draw?
Where did you get that board and those checkers?
moving too fast, broke the immersion
Um..why is he fighting himself?
Wau!
Wow, all that for a draw
imagination is greater than knowledge..just saying..
I like the international 10x10 rules better than this one
I have much interest in checkers
Back to the future playing in the background.
wow you are good!
Mudaliyar Game..
Babalo kondlo vs bernito
tell me please how can i participate in checkers tournament ?
Yacking stops @ 0:35
"Like it was played in front of you" Lol definitely not they moved was faster for forced moves and thought much more for key moments in the game...
Really.. a draw.. anyways nice video
the game would have continued as the same move over and over. look at the board frozen.
HE CHEATED
I hate checkers why am j watching 🤣
what you love?
Wow 1 v none
Should have cut with the king first
Is there really a king there or is that a reference to chess?
There is some mistake -) 2:31
I agree. It should not have been a draw.
What was the mistake?
Christian Gonzales he should've taken the two pieces
is this seriously a thing? checkers? play chess
www.researchgate.net/publication/308699208_Draughts_is_more_difficult_than_chess
Chess is overrated hype & nonsense when it comes to complexity. State Space means how many ways the pieces can combine, in chess 32 pieces on a 64 square board 10^43 or 10^52 (Allis)... & those include illegal positions. Game Tree means ways to get to those state space positions by transpositions.
You must keep in mind there's a difference between just mixing all the pieces up in a variety of ways randomly on a board that would never happen in chess from an initial opening position, or because of the piece values themselves would eliminate positions & combinations because they are nonsensical, the rules greatly affect the game. (e.g.) In any game trading bishop, knight, rook or queen for a pawn [which are of two different point values & strengths] between equally matched opponents wouldn't happen without a positional advantage or leading to mate. So zillions of positions in those huge state space & game tree numbers are eliminated & REDUCED GREATLY... because they're just not real & would not happen in any serious game.
Those large numbers in chess are actually meaningless. The game tree "Shannon Number" 10^120 or 10^123 (Allis) associated with chess & ways to get to 10^52 [by transposition] state space numbers are ludicrous & actually impossible to get to in a real game... simply because in a real game the ridiculous positions would get taken advantage of from any reasonable player & finish the game off quickly. Those large numbers include positions where pawns can take queens, rooks, bishops & knights but don't & along with totally ludicrous set ups that just don't happen. If you blunder & drop any major piece for a pawn & in some cases a rook for bishop or knight the serious player would reduce & trade down & win, ALL STRONG PLAYERS KNOW THIS & A BASIC FACT OF CHESS. Any mismatched pieces & loss of greater valued pieces without positional reasoning & visible mate doesn't happen in serious games. Most intermediate to strong players that blunder major pieces for less valued pieces or a pawn without positional reason resign almost immediately.
The real number of "reasonable & logical chess games" available from openings mathematically is 4,670,034... True maximum transpositional "state space" positions from openings is 140,100,034... The maximum number of reachable "game tree" positions from openings is 450,000,000 during the middle game, those include totally nonsensical & ridiculous positions... chess is solved for all 3-6 piece endings & most 7 piece endings. Those positional facts are online at chess.com & in Jonathan Schaeffer's paper he mentions chess is solved for endgames.
In 8 x 8 checkers with 24 pieces state space is 10^20 {Quintillion}... 10^18 ARE REACHABLE FROM THE OPENINGS & CURRENT AMERICAN & BRITISH RULES. That was verified by Jonathan Schaeffer. The game tree number for checkers online is 10^31 {Nonillion} to reach those 10^18 state space numbers. In an email over 8 years ago when I asked Jonathan Schaeffer about game tree numbers he said "The game tree for checkers is unknown".
Schaeffer "solved" the White Doctor opening & max depth was to 10^14 to determine that "If both sides play correctly it's a draw". He did not by no means solve the other 49-50 openings... that is in his online paper. He also clearly says "weakly solved" & emphasized the differences. Also the depth in general was to 10^12 & most below that. According to him "If you can calculate & solve 10^6 positions per second it would take 100,000 years to calculate & solve 10^18".
Checkers still has incredible depth & potentiality of complex positional play & unexplored lines. The well known lines & ones reduced to memory are a very small part. Checker pieces are of equal value in opening position, which means any piece on the board has true potential to interact, threaten or trade for any other thru out a game, which makes the choices, positions & combinations more vast than chess from an over the board realistic perspective. Checkers does not have as many nonsensical positions because of individual piece value, which only increase as positions arise or becoming a king {Doubleton}.
Chinook program penetrates deep levels 10^11 & beyond better than humans... & yes chess programs have gotten even stronger with Stockfish & Alpha Zero in the last 7 years, but there are still people like Bulgarian master Ludmil Tsvetkov & another one with the "A.R.B system" that claim to beat Stockfish & the other lower ranked programs consistently with games online available for analysis... So far no one is stepping forward with any consistent claim of beating Chinook consistently or on real equal footing with it or even the Cake++ program which was based on Chinook.
An interesting thing is Ed Trice the inventor of Gothic chess has a pdf paper online which is a variant of Capablanca's variant with a larger board & more pieces. One of the facts about board games like chess in general is that Trice specifically mentions, in the Gothic & Capablanca's variant games by strong players were much shorter & quicker than regular chess?!?! The larger board & extra pieces with more abilities/moves didn't really add "complexity" to the game... in fact he mentions that with more fairy pieces the other pieces lose their values & strengths. That was said also by GMs with Capablanca creating his chess variant. In other words the state space & game tree for these variants just calculating numbers would be larger theoretically than regular chess, but in practicality & actual play the game is more limited.
With that same concept less pieces on a board & within a more confined space 32 squares for checkers, each piece holds greater weight & value along with a realistic potential of combinations. In chess many positions the pieces are limited in scope of what they can actually do, lots of positions especially in semi-open & closed positions they just block each other, so realistically those extremely deep & large trivial numbers are impossible to get to because of that as well & limits the real state space & game tree of an opening.
Another interesting thing is in Polish checkers {International draughts} on 10 x 10 board with 20 pieces per side & flying kings, you can get crazy things like having 3 kings vs 1 king end game & it's a draw?!?! That shows that more pieces with complex maneuvers & board space really don't make the game more complex & can add strange limitations or quirks. In some cases & games unique piece moves & abilities are less of an ability but more of a handicap because of when & how you use them. Checkers being more simple in piece value & abilities can rise exponentially to higher levels of combinations, positions & interactions.
Chess hype from the public that just look at more pieces, space & ways to move don't really understand the true nature of the game or how the mathematics truly apply. Some people like different moving pieces & assume that means "complexity". I mean complexity with overall numbers of potentials for games, positional choices & mathematical depth. Chess is also hyped within the community because its an industry with products, tournaments, politics & grants for technology research etc. So they have to keep the "complexity" bullshit going because many careers & money rely on it.
@@asherasator you just wrote a full essay to a 5 year old comment which never got a response, good job
@@asherasator I can't believe I read the whole thing lol but anyways *slow claps* I could be wrong but no really in Checkers the bigger the board, the more the possible moves and thus the more the difficult and complex it is.
2:19 White played wrong
No
im better loseer lol
I could easily win this world championship
boy
Go Bums! :)
MALUCO, A DAMA COME DUAS VOADOR!
I don't want to hate on checkers too much, but a world championship checkers match like this looks so pathetic.
Easy games with the most easy moves, red was the first to move!
My Checkers Match Is Better. :P
If you can draw a master in checkers, you know that it is not like tic tac toe, as you have to calculate much deeper then in chess to secure a draw against a master.
Simpletons chess.
Far from it! Checkers is a complex game, Marion Tinsley was a Genius
www.researchgate.net/publication/308699208_Draughts_is_more_difficult_than_chess
This is not true... While checkers is definitely more complicated than tic tac toe, it has been solved, where chess has not (read: a computer playing checkers will always win/ draw, but a computer playing chess can be beaten [although at this point even grandmasters cannot beat the computer, but it is still theoretically possible]) Therefore you most definitely have to calculate "deeper" when playing chess, as even a computer cannot play it perfectly.
www.researchgate.net/publication/308699208_Draughts_is_more_difficult_than_chess