Return to my Checkers pages
Go to my home page

Analyzing a New Variation

© Copyright 2002, Jim Loy
You may print this and show it to others. But, this article will eventually be part of a book that I am writing. So, please do not distribute it widely.

If you need help reading checkers notation, please print out the numbered board.

If you analyze a familiar variation, you probably get out the books and see what it published. And then you study that, and see if you can find some mistakes, some new moves. The computer helps with this process, quite a bit. Eventually, you find that you have worked up a collection of ideas, some good, some maybe good.

But, what if you are working on a variation that has no published play? This takes a lot more work. I find that I am not very good at that, without the help of my computer. Without the computer, my analysis is too superficial and narrow. I work up a few lines, and none of my opponents follow those lines. Some lines look good, and I find that they are bad. Other lines look bad, and I find that they are good. With the computer, and a whole lot of work, I think I can come up with mostly solid analysis which will help greatly in later games.

On the left is a position that looks familiar. It looks like an impossible kind of Switcher. It comes from some 11-man ballot games of mine, from Bob Podoff's 11-man ballot email tournament. At random, the pieces at 8 and 26 were taken off (the tournament director chose those at random), and then a two move opening was chosen at random: 9-13 21-17 [diagram]. Now this is a position never seen by the hand of man (a little joke there). As Red, I have to hurry up and make my first move. Is there a good move? Is there a win? Just how do we analyze this position?

First of all, I think we have to try several first moves, and study them for a few moves into the game. We do not want to study any of them in great detail yet, as we don't want to spend too much time on the inferior moves. Almost all of the possible moves look promising. In particular, 4-8, 5-9, 6-9, 11-15, 11-16, or 12-16 look good.

I want to try 11-15 first, as that is a typical Switcher move. Here is what the computer comes up without my help:

9-13 21-17 11-15 23-18 5-9 18-11 7-16 27-23(A) 4-8 32-27 16-19 24-15 10-26 30-23 12-16 17-14 9-18 OK?

The "OK?" is mine, as I don't want to trust the computer's evaluation just yet. The computer says Red has a small advantage. Studying this further, we find some likely alternative moves at (A):

A - 22-18 (24-19 16-23 27-18 1-5 25-21 4-8 OK?) 13-22 18-15 10-19 25-18 19-23 18-15 16-20 27-18 20-27 32-23 (31-24 4-8 24-19 2-7 28-24 7-10 29-25 1-5 32-27 10-14 27-23 OK?) 12-16 28-24 (29-25 3-7 28-24 16-20 31-27 4-8 24-19 7-10 draw?) 16-20 29-25 20-27 31-24 4-8 25-22 6-10 15-6 1-10 23-19 8-11 draw?

11-15 is starting to look like a draw. Of course some of the above analysis may be incorrect. I may have to study it further. Whether the analysis is correct or incorrect, 11-15 may be the best move. But I want to move on to other moves. How about 9-13 21-17 5-9 23-18 11-15? I've already looked at that, as it is just the above analysis with a different move order.

12-16 looks intriguing. This is what the computer came up with:

9-13 21-17 12-16 24-20 4-8 25-21 8-12 27-24(C) 10-15(A) 23-18 5-9 30-26 1-5 32-27 7-10 26-23 9-14 18-9 5-14 24-19 draw?

This looks pretty much like a draw, but a little study shows that 5-9 at (A) may be better than 10-15. Trying 5-9, the computer gives:

A - 5-9 30-26 11-15 (I wonder about 10-15, which may transpose into the above) 20-11 7-16 24-20(B) 16-19 23-16 12-19 draw?

When I run up the moves to note (B), the computer now ignores 24-20 and studies 32-27. I experiment, and get this analysis:

B - 32-27 16-20 23-18 3-7 18-11 7-16 26-23 9-14! (1-5 24-19 2-7 22-18 13-22 21-17 7-11 17-13 draw) 24-19 14-18 22-15 13-22 15-11 6-9 11-8 9-14 8-3 2-7 28-24! (3-8 14-18 23-14 10-17 21-14 16-32 8-3 7-11 3-8 11-16 8-11 20-24 11-27 32-23 OK?) 1-5 (2-6 8-3 10-15 19-10 6-15 3-7 16-19 draw) 3-8 14-17 21-14 10-17 19-15 16-19 23-16 12-28 27-23 7-11 15-10 11-15 10-6 20-24 (28-32 6-2 32-28 8-11 draw) 6-2 28-32 2-7 32-28 23-19 15-18 7-10 17-21 draw?

That looks somewhat promising. I want to look at White's 23-18 at note (C):

C - 23-18 6-9 28-24 10-15 32-28 7-10 30-26 9-14! (16-19 or 3-7 look fine) 18-9 5-14 26-23 1-5 24-19 15-24 28-19 5-9 27-24 2-6 31-27 11-15 20-11 15-18 22-15 13-22 24-20 12-16 19-12 10-26 RW.

So far, I like 11-15 or 12-16, and I'm leaning toward 12-16. But, I have other moves to look at.

Right away, 6-9 looks very strong. That surprises me. But the computer consistently gives a much higher value to most of the positions that come up. This makes me disregard all of the above analysis, as 6-9 was definitely better. Here is the computer's first guess:

9-13 21-17 6-9! 25-21 9-14 24-20 5-9 27-24(B) 11-15 30-26 7-11(A) 32-27 2-7 OK?

The computer thinks that Red is fairly strong here. At (A), I try 4-8:

A - 4-8 24-19! (20-16 12-19 23-16 14-18 RW) 15-24 28-19 8-11 19-16 (32-27? RW) 12-19 23-16 11-15 16-11 7-16 20-11 15-19 32-27 1-6 27-23 19-24 22-18 13-22 26-17 24-28 18-15 10-26 17-1 26-30 draw.

Not quite as promising as 7-11, perhaps. We must study 28-24 at (B):

B - 28-24 3-8 24-19 (32-28 11-15 24-19 15-24 28-19 7-11 30-26 11-15 19-16 12-19 23-16 8-12 27-23 12-19 23-16 1-5 26-23 15-19 31-26 2-6 RW!) 11-15 32-28 15-24 28-19 7-11 30-26 11-15 (11-16? seems to draw) 19-16 (20-16 15-24 27-20 12-19 23-16 8-11 RW?) 12-19 23-16 8-12 27-23 12-19 23-16 1-5 26-23 15-19 31-26 19-24 16-11 24-27 23-19 10-15 17-10 15-24 10-7 24-28 7-3 RW?

This looks realy good for Red. And I suspect that 27-24 at (B) will looks similar under more thorough analysis. So I plan to move 6-9. I haven't solved this opening, and I didn't expect to. But my time is short, so I move on to studying other openings.

The tournament has begun, and all of my games in which I am Red in this opening have begun 9-13 21-17 6-9 25-21 9-14 24-20 5-9. All of my opponents have moved 28-24 (which I am fairly confident is a loss, from my analysis above), except Mr. Podoff, who moved 27-24. As Mr. Podoff is moving fastest of all my opponents, I study his game first:

9-13 21-17 6-9 25-21 9-14 24-20 5-9 27-24 11-15 24-19(A) 15-24 28-19 7-11! (4-8 may win) 30-26 11-15 (RW, Loy - Podoff) 32-28 15-24 28-19 4-8 19-16 12-19 23-16 8-11! (1-6 draws?) 16-7 2-11 26-23 11-15 (1-6 or 3-8 may also win) 31-27 (20-16 15-19 31-26 19-24 16-11 24-27 11-7 27-31 23-19 31-27 7-2 RW?) 15-18 22-6 1-16 RW (at first I thought this was a draw).

A - 30-26 7-11 (4-8 24-19! draws?) 24-19 15-24 28-19 = same as above

The opening is looking like a Red win. And so, in my games as White, I have decided to vary with 9-13 21-17 6-9 25-21 9-14 24-19, which probably transposes into the above loss by 5-9 30-26 11-15 27-24 7-11 24-20 15-24 28-19 = same, hoping that one of my opponents will get sloppy and allow a draw.

Caleb Carter is the next fastest opponent. And for him I worked up the following analysis:

9-13 21-17 6-9 25-21 9-14 24-20 5-9 28-24 3-8 24-19 11-15 30-26 (32-28 to same in my games with Sheehan and Miller) 15-24 32-28 7-11 (8-11 28-19 11-16 20-11 7-16 19-15 10-19 17-10 16-20 23-16 12-19 22-18 19-24 18-15 9-14 15-11 14-18 26-22 18-25 29-22 24-28 10-7 28-32 27-24 20-27 31-24 draw) 28-19 11-15 19-16 12-19 23-16 8-12 (8-11 draw?) 27-23 12-19 23-16 (RW, Loy - Miller) 1-5 26-23(A) 15-19 31-26 2-6 16-11 19-24 11-7 24-27 7-3 (7-2 RW?) 27-32 20-16 (3-8 4-11 29-25 32-27 20-16 27-18 16-7 18-23 26-19 14-18 22-15 13-29 RW) 32-28 29-25 28-24 16-11 24-27 23-19 14-18 22-15 13-31 11-7 27-24 7-2 24-28 25-22 28-24 RW.

A - Carter and Sheehan moved: 16-11 14-18 20-16(B) 18-25 29-22 9-14 (RW, Loy - Carter) 16-12 14-18 12-8 18-25 8-3 13-22 26-17 15-19 11-7 2-11 3-7 11-15 7-14 25-30 17-13 19-24 14-17 15-19 17-14 19-23 13-9 23-27 RW.

B - Sheehan moved: 31-27 18-25 29-22 15-18 22-6 13-31 27-24 9-13 (31-27 6-1 9-13 = same) 6-1 31-27 24-19 27-24 19-16 24-19 16-12 19-16 11-7 2-11 1-6 (12-8 loses) 16-19 (5-9 RW?) RW, Loy-Sheehan. My analysis continued like this: 6-10 19-23 10-14 (12-8 5-9 10-6 9-14 8-3 23-18 6-1 11-15 RW) 11-15 20-16 15-19 16-11 13-17 12-8 17-22 8-3 19-24 21-17 24-28 17-13 22-26 3-7 RW.

My losses with White were similar.

Some of the above analyses are probably incorrect, especially at the end of some of the lines, as I just let the computer run, and only checked the earlier positions, and the positions that looked interesting. But the earlier moves seem very solid, and are probably good examples of how a person should play by mail or email, especially with the help of a computer.

Return to my Checkers pages
Go to my home page