Talk:English draughts

US and Canada?

I added a Citation Needed to the claim that Draughts is known in the US and Canada simply as "draught". I have never heard the term before for the 22 odd years I've lived in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.116.194 (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As an American citizen of 20 years I've never heard it referred to as anything other than checkers. 24.184.80.24 (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I am from Canada and I agree. I will change it. Eiad77 (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is fucken bull-shit.

222.155.57.9 (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

History of the Game

there should be a history of da game yuh i wanna know who invented checkers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandtheftwalrus (talk • contribs) 08:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the sentence attributing the game to Abraham Lincoln as inspired by a batch of particularly unlikely cookies is vandalism and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.166.154 (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether they are more reliable than "Criswold," but here are two online, independent sources which claim, along with the rest of the internet as far as I can tell, that it started in 3000 B.C. Iraq (Babylonia) and got superimposed onto a chessboard in the 11th century A.D.: [1] [2] Research credit goes here. I'm removing the wiki legend about Abe and will defer to a more informed contributor to decide which sources to use. --Jesdisciple (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I posted the news article that the game had been solved by Chinook, but I haven't got the skill or experience to format it correctly. Can someone do this for me? NOTE: I'm pretty sure the last sentence in the article about the game being solved is wrong. "Not all positions that can arise from imperfect play have been analyzed." This makes no sense, as the only way to demonstrate that play is incorrect would be to analyze the resulting position to a final result. To prove the game is a draw with best play, you have to analyze all of the possible positions, unless I am missing something.

Yes, you are missing something. The statement is correct. Thank you for not changing what the article in Science said (directly or indirectly), even though you found it odd. The proof did not require a search through all possible positions, although it was misreported this way in a few newspaper articles and this incorrect statement was added and deleted several times. This might help: If I can move to A or B, and show that position A is a draw, then I can conclude that the original position is either a win or a draw for me. I don't have to evaluate position B, or positions which can only be reached through position B. The forward search only evaluated about 10^14 of the 10^21 positions. If they had to evaluate all 10^21 positions, they wouldn't be done yet. 10^21 is much, much greater than 10^14 (contradicting another curious error in an earlier version). 66.30.113.23 06:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging on the subject; unfortunately your example didn't help me. (I'm not the original poster.) If you can move to A or B, and you can show that A is a draw, why do you have enough information to eliminate the possibility that moving to B would be a loss? Seems like I can restate your assertion as follows. Suppose I take two boxes and fill each of them with either 1, 2, or 3 beans. Then I ask you to choose one of the two boxes to open. If you count 1 bean in the box, how can you conclude that the other box must contain either 1 bean or 2? How do you eliminate the possibility of 3? Petershank (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to give a more complete explanation. Let's say we are evaluating position P, in which Red has two possible moves, A and B. We prove by exhaustive search that A leads to a draw, given perfect play by both sides. Now let's look at B: Black has several possible responses, but the very first one we look at - call it C - also leads to a draw. That immediately tells us that Red can do no better than draw (and may actually lose) with B. It isn't necessary to evaluate Black's remaining options against B, because Red may as well play A every time. Therefore, position P is a provable draw. 155.104.37.17 (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Very illogical. But that might because you're using a principle to make your evaluation, s principle you forgot to state. Otherwise, your statement seems like a massive assumption. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here’s an analogy that might help. Imagine you are playing a card game where you have three cards on your left and three on your right. Your opponent also has three and three. You need to play one card to win the game. Your card has to be higher than the one card your opponent will play. If you play from your left, your opponent must also play from that side (his right). On your left, you have a King, Jack and a Five. On that side your opponent has a King, Nine and Three. Since you can see his cards, you know that you must play the King, obviously he will play his King and the game ends in a draw. Now you look at your cards on the right side. You have a Queen, Seven and Six. However you can’t see all your opponents cards on that side. You can only see one of the three but it is a Queen! Guess what … you know that since he can match your best card on that side, he will draw with you for certain … OR he might even have a higher card and win the game. You know you can’t win on that side so why would you play a card on that side. Obviously you play the King on the left side to avoid the only other possibility, a loss. So it doesn’t matter that you can’t see all the your opponents cards on your right side. If you play that side it can only be a draw or a loss. Don’t do it! Jagy2k (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I intend this article to give a detailed explanation of English draughts and remove the detailed explanation from draughts that should treat the whole groups of draughts, and not selectively digress on one variant that is not even the most popular form worldwide. Andries 12:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

done. Andries 08:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't English Draughts the actual game of draughts, and what's called international draughts here is a different subversion? That's what I've learnt, anyway. AkiShinji 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The New Scientist article is really bad. It is full of incorrect statements. Is it necessary to have it as a reference? 66.30.113.23 07:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Draw

Section "Rules" states that no draw is possible, section "Computational complexity" states that a certain tournament opening is a draw. So which is true? 141.252.27.113 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the page Marion_Tinsley: "but Tinsley withdrew after only six games (all draws) for health reasons." Having no possible moves to do, is that a loss or a draw? 141.252.27.113 09:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rule #12 of Tournament Rules of American Checkers Foundation states that a draw is possible under certain conditions. Citing this would probably violate copyright. (IANAL) So then please see usacheckers.com. 141.252.27.113 09:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Flying kings

It's inclear wheather English draughts have flyong kings or not. Article abuot international draughts statrs that the rules are similar except in int draughts piecs can capture backvards. But in int draughts there is flying kings. So something is incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.63.128.150 (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

When I win it say I lose, don’t understand. Also thr mystery checker that suddenly appears. 72.85.163.241 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Rules for jump

It isn't clear whether a jump may only be performed forward, or if backward jumps are also possible. Gil_mo 06:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kings can jump in any direction, regular pieces only forward. Bubba73 (talk), 18:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I found and marked the contradiction with two templates: one for the contradiction within the same article English draughts § Move rules, and one for where the text contradicts article Draughts § Men. I assume what Bubba73 says is correct (seems logical), however, I'm not an expert of the rules (until recently, I didn't even know that in English draughts/American checkers, jumping is mandatory rather than optional), so I won't perform the actual correction.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Move question

I know the English hate any Americanization at Wikipedia, but seeing as the Dutch article calls this variant Checkers would a move be acceptable? At present "checkers" has no article and only exists as a redirect. I think there are many North Americans who are only vaguely aware it's also called "English draughts."--T. Anthony (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of "english draughts" ever in my life. Checkers, of course. but "checkers" isn't "American" if it's called "checkers" in Dutch, now is it? Sneakernets (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of moves and merges, I was thinking that this should be merged with Draughts. What's the difference? The term "draughts" is British English for the game anyway, so "English Draughts" seems a bit redundant. Plus, the content is nearly the same anyway. Does anyone else agree with this? Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The Draughts article has an unambiguous beginning: "Draughts is a group of abstract strategy board games between two players which involve .... The most popular forms are international draughts, played on a 10×10 board, followed by English draughts, also called American checkers that is played on an 8×8 board, but there are many other variants". It continues with the characteristics common to all variants, and then describes the variants. The English Draughts article is definitely robust enough to stand on its own as an encyclopedic description of this one (very popular) variant. Petershank (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We could compromise, and move it to "chequers", <grin> -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

numbering of the squares

This article needs to tell how the squares are numbered, and how moves are recorded. Bubba73 (talk), 18:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I found a contradiction

One sentence says "[A common misconception is] that the game ends in a draw when a player has no legal move but still pieces remaining (true in chess but not in draughts; see stalemate)", while another sentence says "A player wins by capturing all of the opposing player's pieces, or by leaving the opposing player with no legal moves.". So which is it? When a player has no legal moves, do they lose or is it a stalemate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.113.133 (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No contradiction there. The first quote states that it is not a draw, the second is more specific in that it states that it is a win for the opponent.210.1.215.46 (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkers and draughts: naming issue

Currently, checkers redirects to this page, I think that checkes should be the title and english draughts should be one of the names mentioned, inverse of how it is now. --Ipatrol (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? 82.35.233.76 (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know which name is more used in English speaking regions worldwide? I had never heard of checkers being called draughts until I looked it up on wiki. Perhaps it's only called checkers in the US, but it would be nice if someone could confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.233.227 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Draughts" gets 1,640,000 results on Google. "Checkers" gets 9,120,000. (DT29 (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

I think calling this article "American checkers" probably does make as much sense, maybe more, than calling it English draughts. Although I believe "English draughts" is the older term and we usually go for the initial name of an article.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If we are going with the older term, lets call it Alquerque. =) I agree with DT29. Try googling 'checkers "board game"' vs 'draughts "board game"', checkers is 10x more common. --Zojj tc 16:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this is wikipedia. We need to defer to what the 15 year old moderator thinks is best. Logic doesn't play a part in the decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.195.29 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this game is known as "draughts" only in the UK and a few Commonwealth countries including Australia and New Zealand; it is known as "checkers" in the USA, Canada and many other countries. It seems to be a bit of a stretch to claim that "English draughts" is the "International English" name for the game. Who decided upon this? Although I understand the concept of "International English," the referenced Wikipedia article gives no practical guidance as to what body, if any, has standardized the vocabulary of this putative language. I thus propose that it is much more reasonable for "International English" to be replaced with "British English" on the model of "American English" and "Canadian English" in the same sentence. I have made this edit for this reason. AlanSiegrist (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

This sentence makes no sense to me: "Most commonly, the board alternates between red and black opponent are captured by jumping over them." Can anybody detect what the subject and predicate are?

The horse raced past the barn fell? 74.94.21.101 (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Kings

Under "four common misconceptions" it says that Kings act the same as other pieces but can move forwards and backwards. This means either that (1) this is not true, and there is something else unusual about a King, or (2) this is true, but many players grant additional abnormalities to the King. Either way, please rephrase this point so there is no confusion, and if there is an additional pointer about what Kings can do, please point it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilyle (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

History

Should we add a history section? It would seem appropriate. Lord Seth (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we really do need a history of this wonderful game. --96.233.89.84 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious content

An uncrowned piece can only jump diagonally forwards, but a king can also jump diagonally backwards but only one space. What does it mean by a king can only jump only one space? A jump must be two diagonal spaces each time.--Mikespedia (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory jumps

The section paragraph on "huffing" notes "In this variation jumping is not mandatory". This implies that jumping is mandatory in the normal rules, but this is not mentioned in the rules. My understanding of the rules is that a player must make a jump move if any jump moves are possible on their turn (but they can choose which jump move to make). The closest I can see to this is "When multiple-option jumping moves are available, whether with the one piece in different directions or multiple pieces that can make various jumping moves, the player may choose which piece to jump with and which jumping option or sequence of jumps to make." but this seems to leave open the possibility of a player not making a jump move at all. Could someone with a proper understanding of the rules either amend the page to make it clearer, or correct me here. BruceMcAdam (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I had the same issue with the article, and I'm also under the impression that the standard rule is that jumping is mandatory, though I should note that when I initially learned to play I didn't play with that rule, and I know a number of people who are under the impression that I made up the "jumping is mandatory" rule to screw with them. 24.184.80.24 (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't played checkers in at least 20 years, and was surprised when today I'm playing against my computer, and it won't let me choose not to jump. The game simply waits on my turn indefinitely, and any other move I wish to make results in a "You MUST Jump" dialog box. Until today, I have never heard of jumping being mandatory. Sadly, this option isn't in the game's menu, and huffing as described in § Rule variations doesn't quite describe the option of not jumping. Perhaps more detail in the article should be given to this situation.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I grew up in the 1950s. In Michigan, USA. Never heard of draughts. Didn't learn that some people believed it was a rule that you had to jump until I'd been playing for some number of years. I note that I'm not alone in this and yet the article completely ignores this FACT. Really, really poor editing, imho. It is a fact that many people (Americans? American children??) play without mandatory jumps. I know this to be true, but I don't know whether it is a regional or national or international custom. I read the article, but I don't believe I saw what the penalty is if a (mandatory) jump is missed. This should be stated. Obviously, (since I've played in games where it happened), it is possible for both players to fail to realize that a jump should have, but was not, made. It may be several moves later when one player realizes this. Then what? It may not be possible to 'run the game back' to that move (if not recorded, and if memories aren't in agreement), and my understanding is that the player not taking a mandatory jump automatically loses, but I've also played games where the only consequence is the move becomes mandatory when it is pointed out, no matter how long it has been possible. I should also mention that I've played games where the rules varied in the following ways: a) mandatory jump is a single jump, additional jumps (with that piece0 are optional, b) king can only single-jump. c) only kings can multi-jump, d) men can jump backward after the first (forward) jump of a multi jump move. I think it is notable that the number of possible moves increases significantly IF there is no mandatory jumping.40.142.183.146 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Wolrd Checker Draughts Federation rule book 1.16 All capturing moves are compulsory. It's pretty clear you have to choose one of your possible jumps. You can not choose to not jump at all. If you just play a friendly game with whoever, it obviously does not matter which rules you follow, or what you do when someone not jumps. In any tournament setting, not jumping is just an illegal move and you get a stike. Your move then is undone and you must jump. In case of a second illegal move you lose the game. That's 1.25 in the ruelbook. I mean it's the same with chess really. -Koppapa (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Draw vs. Win

There's indeed a contradiction in the article. A win is when opponent has "no legal moves", a draw is when an opponent is "unable to move". Is there a difference? See also the English Draughts Association | Rules, there are more specific conditions for a draw. Gil_mo (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Name of the Game

I don't mean to be picky, but I know the game as "checkers," a name not given in the opening list of names.211.225.30.91 (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_draughts&action=historysubmit&diff=434309343&oldid=434307821 but i guess that could be reverted and some references be added. -Koppapa (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still open to renaming this article "American checkers" or "Straight checkers" myself.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)--T. Anthony (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The lede says it is "more commonly known as checkers", so wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME apply? 99.146.121.1 (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The change to "more commonly known as..." is fairly recent and was not justified - ie where is it more commonly known as? Certainly not where I come from 122.106.177.130 (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, going by google results, it seems to be true. A search for "checkers" excluding the sports team and the names of several companies, one still gets about 100 million results, while the word "draughts", even without "English" added, gives about 3 million. The 6 sources the article has all use the name Checkers. Only one of the external links uses the other name. I, personally, never heard the draughts name before coming here. 99.146.121.1 (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm English, and I know the game as "draughts" - I've never heard it described as "English draughts" ever. I think renaming this article to simply Checkers (not "American Checkers") would be perfectly acceptable, most, if not all, British English speakers are aware of this name. LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be merged with Draughts then? -DePiep (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As a qualifier my earlier comment, I wasn't aware of the huge variety of other forms of draughts at the time. It looks like the different forms are sufficiently different to merit their own articles, so I guess one of the two "technical" names (English draughts or American checkers) is required here. This case seems similar to how we have the Football article addressing all codes of football, and then separate pages for association football and American football etc. LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

it should come together in Checkers (disambiguation), and Draughts (disambiguation) and from there split correctly, but it looks like there is confusion there too. -DePiep (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

interesting side note : http://web.archive.org/web/20040310101421/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draughts <-earliest checkers/draughts article on wikipedia. 184.17.202.167 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory jumping standard?

I was researching the mandatory jumping rule and have come to inconclusive results. Base on my research mandatory jumping can be enforced but is not "standard". Ehow's checkers rules do not suggest that jumping is forced. However [3] suggests that it is. I went to Optime software's checkers rules and by default forced jumping is disabled. Optime Software is a major app making software developer and has repeatedly made top ten apps which leads me to believe that standard rules do not enforce jumping. This there a link for "official tournament" rules? Valoem ^talk 18:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no "suggesting", there is *fact*. Why would you consult how a particular software program behaves on a rules question? Why wouldn't you consult an official source such as The American Checker Federation official rules? Here is rules quotation from that source (ACF, click "Classroom", click "Tournament Rules"):

All capturing moves are compulsory, whether offered actively or passively. If there are two or more ways to jump, a player may select any one that they wish, not necessarily that which gains the most pieces. Once started, a multiple jump must be carried through to completion. A man can only be jumped once during a multiple jumping sequence.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Some software games don't enfore that rule to give the user more options. -Koppapa (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As with most games, there are local variations and there are "official" rules. The official rules are clear: jumping is mandatory. Although I don't have a cite, my sense is that non-mandatory jumping is a common variant. If this can be verified by citing a credible source, then it would be appropriate to mention this common variant.

BTW, Ehow in not a credible source. Neither is joe-random-software package. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:§ Mandatory jumps due to relevancy) I haven't played checkers in at least 20 years, and was surprised when today I'm playing against my computer, and it won't let me choose not to jump. The game simply waits on my turn indefinitely, and any other move I wish to make results in a "You MUST Jump" dialog box. Until today, I have never heard of jumping being mandatory. Sadly, this option isn't in the game's menu, and huffing as described in § Rule variations doesn't quite describe the option of not jumping. Perhaps more detail in the article should be given to this situation.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete information in Move rules section

If a piece becomes a king from jumping the opponents pieces then it has an available backwards jump after it becomes a king, is it supposed to continue jumping after it becomes a king in the same turn? Blackbombchu (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The text is there, under "Kings" sec (not Move rules sec) ("If a player's piece jumps into the kings' row, the current move terminates".) So I've make the "Kings" sec a subsec of the Move rules sec. (Does that seem ok?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes since it says it somewhere in the article. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this a duplicate article to "Draughts"?

Draughts? If not, how is it different? If so, should they be combined and one redirected to the other?

Seems ... redundant?

50.53.112.10 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah it is a duplicate. -Koppapa (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Meaning of Double-corner

The section on 'Notation' uses the term 'double-corner', but as far as I can see this is the only use of the term in the article, and it's meaning is not explained. I noticed this because I saw the term 'double corner' somewhere else, also unexplained, and Googled it to find out what it means. It is presumably one of those things which 'everyone knows' but no-one ever bothers to explain, which appear to be common in articles about games.2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:6434:5525:133D:1514 (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

[Added] I now see that the online Merriam-Webster gives a definition: "one of the two diagonally opposed corners of a checkerboard that have a light square flanked by two dark playing squares". If this is correct, someone might add it into the article. It also ought to be stated whether there is any definite rule on the position of the 'double corner', as there is in chess.2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:6434:5525:133D:1514 (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)