Talk:Draughts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
|
Strategy games To-do:
|
||
 |
Draughts is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance within WikiProject Board and table games. |
[edit] Canadian Checkers
I'm Canadian, and I've never heard of checkers played on a 12x12 grid with 30 pieces. In fact, I've got a checkers board beside me (in addition to Chess and Backgammon boards..I'm a board-game-aholic), and it's an 8x8 grid. Does anyone have any cites for this "Canadian checkers"? --72.141.60.5 00:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Draughts" vs "Checkers"
A Google search for "draughts game" turns up 2,060,000 results. A Google search for "checkers game" turns up 6,320,000 results.
Is there some reason why this article is biased towards the less popular British name? If Wikipedia's policy is to prioritize the oldest name over the most common name, then probably we should be using some even more ancient tongue.
- The general rule is to write articles in the appropriate style of English to the theme of an article (such as American English for US-centric subjects and British English for articles concerning more British themes. Where no particular leaning applies (such as in this case) the general rule is to not change the style the article was started in and to have redirects in the alternative. One might add tthe point that while checkers generally refers to the game in the article, it can refer to other unrelated games such as Chinese checkers. In contrast, Draughts is a specific term for the game and its vairantes in this article. Dainamo 10:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rules not complete
- it does not say how a king can capture
- it should say if capture is allowed backwards for non-kings
- it should say how to do multiple captures (not just say its possible)
I would change it myself, but I don't know them!
- I guess someone recently added these requests above, but there one more thing:
- there is no mention that the left down tile is dark. --Luxvero 14:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Variants not included
In some variants:
- Kings don't need to stop immediately after the last captured piece, but anywhere in the uninterrupted diagonal of vacant tiles next to the last captured piece.
- Capturing is NOT mandatory, you may choose not to capture by removing the piece that is about to make the jump; when you have 2 pieces in position to capture, only 1 must be removed, this does not counts has a move.
Usually only the second rule is included in the so called "Brazilian checkers" creating this unnamed variant, largely played by amateurs in Brazil.
[edit] What version was I playing?
I never played where jumping is mandatory, and I never played where kings can move like a bishop. Their only advantage was that they could move backwards and normal pieces couldn't.
I've played a version the same as English Draughts except that you started with two ranks of men (8 pieces) and you could jump your own men and kings. It made the game very different. In one version you could jump both your men and other men in a sequence and in the other version you couldn't. The people who played it called it checkers and didn't believe my rules (I play English Checkers/Draughts rules). I'm not sure what this version is called.
Interesting. When you jumped your own men, were you required to remove them from the board, like when you jumped the other men? Or do you leave your own men on the board, like "chinese checkers" ?
[edit] Simple beginner's question
The rules here (and everywhere else that I've looked) don't explicitly say what happens when a piece is on the side or edge of the board. When there is no opposite square, is the piece invulnerable to attack unless moved? MrZaius 199.8.170.224 17:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes. When a piece is on the side or edge, that piece is invulnerable to attack. However, it can be drawn out with a forced jump, or by blocking all the other pieces so that it is the only piece free to move.
[edit] merging "checkers" and "draughts"
I think the redirect to checkers is incorrect. Checkers is just one of the form of draughts. Andries 11:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Right now, the contents of the checkers and draughts entries are very much the same, and the intros for both entries claim that checkers and draughts are the same. If the games are the same, or if both are synonymous terms for a class of games, the entries should be consolidated, and one term should redirect to the other. If the games are different, or if one term refers to a class of games, while another is a specific type within that class, then they should be separate, with different content for each. How can this be resolved? My understanding is that American checkers is precisely the same game as English draughts, played under the same rules, but with different names. If this is the case, then having two separate entries for the game is like having separate entries for association football and soccer. Rohirok 02:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is not reasonable to maintain two separate entries for checkers and draughts, as both names are synonyms. I have seen it claimed in the checkers talk page that checkers is simply one variant of draughts, and so should have a separate page. This is simply not true. Checkers as most often played in the United States is identical to the English variant of draughts. The word "checkers" is also used in the United States as a general term that applies to other variations of the type, including International Checkers, also known as International Draughts. The fact that the checkers and draughts pages both contain virtually the same information also indicates general consensus that checkers and draughts are synonymous. Having two different articles leads the information added to one not being added to the other. Already this has started. The draughts page and the checkers page differ on who wrote the first checkers/draughts program.
To remedy this, I have consolidated the checkers and draughts pages. The checkers page will contain a redirect to the draughts page, as draughts is the term of longer standing, and I suspect is also more widely used. Though I am American, and prefer the name "checkers," I have never heard of any non-American preferring it. "Draughts" seems to be the more international term, and in any case precedes the American term. The checkers page will retain the redirects to other usages of the word "checkers." In these edits, none of the information has been lost. It has simply been consolidated for the sake of consistency, and for the sake of keeping in one place all information to be added at a future date. Rohirok 04:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Pages linking to the old checkers article will now redirect automatically to draughts. Someone typing in a search for checkers will also get the draughts page automatically. The top of the draughts article contains a link to a checkers disambiguation page (consisting of the disambiguation info already present in the old checkers page), for those looking for alternative usages of the word checkers. The Talk:Draughts page now contains all discussion from the old checkers page and the current draughts page that is pertinent to the board game. Discussion pertinent to other usages of the word checkers is in the checkers disambiguation talk page. I hope that this reconfiguration of the once separate checkers and draughts articles will ease the acquisition and retention of information on the subject. I also hope that the choice of "draughts" over "checkers" as the title of the game's article does not draw too much ire from my North American peers. Despite my own natural affection for the dialect in which I was raised, I believe the choice of the UK name is more proper in titling an objective encyclopedia article for all English speakers, since it the older and more international name. Rohirok 03:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] mathematical questions
I suspect the number of possibilities for checkers (number of potential moves per turn and total possible board positions) has been calculated; does anyone have that info?
[edit] variants
Some stuff I pulled off the main page:
The way I've played checkers in France:
- board is 8x8
- kings move as far as they wish on diagonals. They, and the game itself, are called "Dames"
- Any piece may capture backwards, though only kings can move backwards without capture
- A capture may be multiple: if on landing after a capture, another is possible for that same piece, it may be played as part of the same turn. There is no limit to the number of sequential captures.
- a capture is not so much mandatory as punishable if missed. If a player does not capture in a move where it was possible, the piece that could have achieved this may be in turn seized from the board by the opponent, or "huffed" -- the French word is souffler, and players regularly say "Souffler, n'est pas jouer" to stress that they may take the opponent's piece and still make their own move. I do not believe this applies if several captures were possible and one of the possibilities is played, but a multiple capture must be played to its full extent.
-- Tarquin
Other defintions of Checkers, should be on sperate pages.
- They are variants of the same game; I don't see why they shouldn't be all in one article. Certainly, my rough notes above should be refactored; I haven't done this as I'm not sure I remember all the rules correctly. I'll go ask on the French 'pedia. -- Tarquin
[edit] images
The Wikipedia:Requested pictures page says this page needs 'photos of empty board and setup board'. I had the computer draw a setup board and uploaded it to [[Image::checkers.jpg]]. I'll be happy to have it draw boards in similar styles for other positions. Dominus 23:10 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
- great :-) but is there anything you could do with colours? Looking at that picture really hurts my eyes :( -- Tarquin
What colors should it be? Green and white? Red and black? -- Dominus
- Red and black do seem to be the most common -- V 23:38 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
The pieces are not very circular - very bumpy around the edges. It would look better with some anti-aliasing. --Zundark 23:31 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
Here's an alternative image, with anti-aliasing. The colours are probably wrong, but can easily be changed. --Zundark 21:17 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)
The images that have actually been added to the page are the worst of all - the Black pieces are almost invisible on my computer (except in Netscape 4, where they appear white for some reason). --Zundark 09:17 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
The board in cream & black is much easier on the eyes. -- Tarquin
- I've changed it now in accordance with the American Checker Federation colours as given on this page. (The diagram on the linked page is pretty garish, so I toned the colours down a bit, using the same board colours as in some of the Wikipedia chess diagrams.) I hope this is also easy on your eyes. --Zundark 17:05 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
[edit] Photo
I would still like to see a photo of a real game in this article. I'd take one myself, but I don't play. There are a few on Flickr, mostly of people obscuring a board, or with inappropriate licensing, or of boards improvised from household objects. I think this, however, could be a nice shot, with a couple of lighting/rotation adjustments — and it's CC-BY-2.0, which is acceptable at Commons. But is that a genuine game position? Is that reasonably representative equipment? I can't tell. —ptk✰fgs 09:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Same image with my suggested modifications. What do you folks think? —ptk✰fgs 10:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] splitting "draughts" from "English draughts"
Why does this page not have the international name as its title? Surely that would make more sense. -Tango
Probably. -- Tarquin
I think the article should be split, because currently it tries to be both an article about English draughts and also an article about draughts in general. Neither article should be called "checkers". --Zundark 13:16 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Also, we need an article about international draughts, which is probably more important than English draughts nowadays. --Zundark 13:55 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
- Yes, international draughts is more popular than english draughts world wide. It is not clear to which verion of draughts some remarks refer e.g. "solved in 2010". Andries 19:10, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] variants
just rewrote the borg and laska variant explanations to sound a bit smoother... I don't actually know anything about these, so I kept the facts as they were, and that means there are holes. the main ones are 1) what size board is used for borg, and 2) is laska spelled with a 'k' (as you might think from emanuel lasKer) or with a 'c' (as it says in the emanual lasker entry). takers? Eitch 03:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Must Jump Rule
The rule that says that you must jump if you can jump is not written correctly.
I'm not sure who wrote the above, but I was never taught that you had to jump. However, if you opted not to jump, your opponent could huff your piece off the board instead. Steve block 16:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
The huff was abolished from tournament play long ago, and is probably not worth including as no official tournament or significant website plays with the rule.
Also, to clarify for those who don't know this already, "checkers" refers specifically to the 8x8 English/American draughts game commonly used for the most significant GAYP and 3-move tournaments, in which jumps are required and there are no flying kings. No other game of the sort has "checkers" in its name except for anti-checkers, informally called "suicide checkers" or "suiy" by online players.
By the way, there is a page for a list of chess openings. There are probably far more named openings in checkers than there are in chess. Why not make a page about checkers openings, possibly listing them? We could include all the 3-move openings or simply the major GAYP openings and the "barred" or recently "unbarred" openings.
- Anthony P, checkers enthusiast
[edit] Proposed article at draughts after removing the redirect to checkers
- "Draughts is a collection of board games that all the have rule that moves are made diagonally and that the pieces of the opponent can be captured by jumping over them.
-
- Some variants include checkers, international draughts"
Andries 12:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Game infobox
The chess article has a neat infobox on the right showing some quick information about the game of chess. I think this would be a useful thing for the draughts page. Does anybody have any objections to this?
--GilHamilton June 29, 2005 00:13 (UTC)
I've added an infobox to the page. I've filled it as best as I can from what experience I've had of English Draughts but I'm pretty sure it's correct. Smoore 500 10:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed stuff -- actually moved to English draughts
Lots of (for me) interesting stuff on English checkers has been removed (by Andries). In a way I can understand this, because this page probably should serve all variants of checkers and not contain overly much specific information on a single variant. However, in a way this is also sad because a lot of interesting things were sent into Wikivana with this edit. How could this be solved? Separate pages for different variants??
- yes, I did not remove the information but moved it to English draughts. Andries 20:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I just now stumbled on that article. I'm mostly interested in computers playing checkers. Strange place to bury it. For checkers variants with obstacles in the board, what makes for best play? For instance, on a 9x9 board, place an obstacle in the center of the board. Obstacles can't be moved, occupied, or captured, and can be represented by coins (or Euros). What's the best move for any given board?
[edit] Pronunciation
Am I correct that "draughts" is pronounced as though spelled "drafts"? Possibly the article should say something about that; American readers are likely to want to pronounce it "drawts". --Trovatore 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- As no one has responded and I'm reasonably sure this is correct, I've gone ahead and added the pronunciation note. Someone please let me know if I have this wrong. --Trovatore 00:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's correct. —Blotwell 09:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Samuel's program
Shouldn't the small section on Samuel's program be in the English variant page? In fact, there is more mention of Samuel's program there. Perhaps it would also deserve an entry of its own?
[edit] Checkers and Computers
Surely there is someone out there who can add an article on checkers being played by computers, and which computers hold the top ranks in checkers championships? Surely checkers has been extensively analyzed, or even over-analyzed by now? Who has a theoretical win for checkers played on variously sized boards? At least 30 years ago, I used to play checkers for money, and preferred playing on 9x9 boards because odd-sized boards always admitted to a win by one player or another. Of course, that was back when there weren't any computers around to upstage my efforts.
[edit] Computer draughts (more)
From the article:
- In the period of 1952-1962 Arthur Samuels (IBM) wrote, for draughts, the first game-playing program. It was much weaker than is generally believed and had no chance against top human players.
On which I comment:
- The first sentence is badly written whatever it means to say. But if it means that it was the first implementation of an AI for a board game, this is inconsistent with the claim at Noughts and Crosses (also claiming the first AI in 1952).
- It's pointless to compare it with "what is generally believed", since as an encyclopædia reader I've never heard of the thing before and have no preconceptions from "general belief" about how weak it was. So just tell me directly whether it played well.
- An AI in the 1950s couldn't beat top human players? Is this a surprise? If that's the best upper bound you can give I would consider it impressively strong for the amount of computation available. —Blotwell 09:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History?
How about the history of the game? Where it came from, where the names "checkers" and "draughts" came from, etc? --Awiseman 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Capturing scenario
Could these two sentences be clarified: "Notice that captured pieces are removed from the board only after capturing is finished. Thus sometimes the captured but not yet removed piece obliges a king to stop after capturing at a given field where he in turn will be captured by the adversary." I would like to see an example of this situation, as I don't fully understand it. nadav 05:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
