The Barred 11-16 23-19

With the coming of 3-move restriction checkers, in the early 1930's, those openings, or possible ways to begin the game, that were deemed unfit for play, became "Barred Openings."
Several of these remained clouded with doubt, as to whether or not they would draw, or lose. They are extremely difficult to analyze, and arrive at a definitive conclusion.
In match and even in National Tournament play, in the 1920's, Barred Openings were used, for tie breakers. When players tied, they had to play the barred openings to settle the issue. Those game and analysis of them, resulted in some being thrown out, and others being adopted into the 3-move deck, for approval. Among those rejected were 12-16 23-19 forcing an immediate weak exchange, for white, and 11-16 23-19 doing the same.
To jump back 27-18, (in either) results in the same positions, and it has been proven to lose, with the play in Kear's Encyclopedia.
In games between Waterhouse-Bell and Jolley-Bell, in the 6th American Tourney, (1924) the player played 11-16 23-19 and jumped back 26-19, (since 27-18 was considered extremely doubtful) with unclear results as to the merits of line. Kear's subsequently published play on the 26-19 jump, including those games, and much more analysis.
Over 40 years later, World champion, Walter Hellman, ("The best I ever played"-Derek Oldbury and Marion Tinsley) analyzed the 26-19 jump as a joint project with Herbert Richter, in 1967, with the play being shown in "Midwest Checkers", Feb. and April issue, 1980. showing how to beat 26-19. Thus the opening remained barred. Brian Hinkle, many times Missouri champion, has spent his checker career analyzing these barred openings with the best players in the world. This from 1980, or so, to present day. Players like Marion Tinsley, Eugene Frazier, Elbert Lowder etc. Brain made 2 trips to Tinsley's home, where they developed many line of theory on virtually every barred opening. 24 of them.
As a result, a couple of these were approved for mail play only, in 1972, by the ACF, and after being hammered by the mail players, approved for the 3-move deck in 1980.
In 1988 6 more were approved for mail play, and all 6 are still being used, and considered sound. In 1994 and 1995, Brian and I began exchanging a lot play on these, and my correction of another Walter Hellman line, led tot approval of 9-13, 22-18, 10-14 being approved for mail play, in 1996. The ACF membership was asked to vote on this, and 3 others, and overwhelmingly approved them for mail play. In 1997 they are being used.

In the meantime, Dennis Cayton, formed his "Barred Opening" mail play ladder, which is shown in the Acf Bulletin, where 20-30 Acf members play nothing but the Barred Openings. After hundreds and hundreds of games, plus analysis from many players, Cayton published a "Compilation" of the barred openings, featuring all the latest games, and theory on how to play them .
11-16, 23-19, is one them. Based on a request from Brian Hinkle, to "Chinook", the famed computer, Chinook offered a correction Hellman's play, and suggested the opening would draw. This led to much analysis, and players agreed the opening was sound and it too was approved for mail play, based on the "Chinook" move.
The original Chinook line was faulty, and corrected by the mail players who continued to play the opening, despite the fact that there were several move orders that had not been tried, or analyzed, by the strong side.
With a busy 1997, I found time to look at these moves, and decided I might beat the "Chinook" move, Despite the fact the opening is currently in use in the prestigious Inter-District Ty. (Id's-the winner of which is American champion. Yours truly won this 1996.) and the "World Ty", where the winner can challenge for the world's mail play title. My findings were finalized in late June-1997.

11-16 23-19
The original Chinook line.
11-16
23-19
16-23
26-19*
8-11
27-23*
11-15-A
22-18*
15-22
25-18
9-13
29-25*
13-17
21-14
10-17
18-15!-B
5-9-C
24-20*
4-8
28-24*-D
9-13
31-26*-DD
6-9
32-28*
17-21
25-22-E
1-5-F-Var-1
22-18*
9-14
18-9
5-14
15-11-G
8-15
19-10
14-17
24-19-H
7-14
19-15
3-8!
28-24
2-7
15-10
7-11
23-18
14-23
26-19
17-22
10-6
22-25
6-2
25-29
2-6
29-25
6-10
25-22
10-14
13-17
19-15*
11-18
14-23
22-26
24-19
26-31
23-18
31-27
19-15
27-24
15-10
8-11
10-6
12-16
6-2
24-19
2-7
19-15
18-23
17-22
7-3
22-26
3-8
26-31
8-12
15-19
12-8
19-26
8-15.
Drawn-I
A. In the February issue of "Midwest Checkers", Walter Hellman showed play on 4-8 here, to draw.
B. Making history. This is "Chinook's" idea. Hellman had shown only 31-26. This led to opening being adopted for mail play, and all of the sudden, hundreds of games being contested on it.
C. Chinook's original way.
D. This "lineup" (24-20 and 28-24) prepares the necessary landing if this opening is to draw. It paves the way for 15-10 and or 15-11, later, necessary to draw against the constant threat of 7-11.
DD. 32-28? is starred in Cayton's compilation, being suggested by Bert Vanderpool, as better than 31-26. 32-28? at this point, loses. Both have to be played but in the proper order. If 32-28?, the deadly: 7-11*, (shown in the compilation-Note-J) 31-27, 11-8, 23-14, 3-7*, 27-23, 17-21*, 25-22, 1-5*, 22-18, 13-17, 30-26!, 21-25*, 19-16, 12-19, 23-16, as shown by play I sent Hinkle. 6-9? was given to a draw, overlooking the fine 8-12*!, 16-11, 7-16, 20-11, 25-30, 26-23, 17-21, 11-8, (23-19 now or later, no better) 21-25, 8-3, (or 8-4) 25-29, 3-8, 29-25, 23-19,( 8-11, 25-21) 30-26 and White cannot protect the pieces. RW It is this 7-11 that ends drawing chances.
E. "THE LANDING." In this writers opinion, the soundness of this opening depends on reaching this position, against Red's best play.
F. Red now has good play with 7-11 also, shown in Var-1.
G. 15-10 is actually easier, but the mechanics of this line are so good, it has to be seen. On 15-10, 14-17, 19-15*, 7-14, 24-19*, 3-7, 15-10, 7-11, 10-7*, 11-15, 19-10, 2-11, 23-18*, 14-23, 26-19, 17-22, 10-6, 22-25, 6-2, 25-29, 2-7, ( 2-6 draws also) 29-25, 7-16, 25-22, 28-24, 22-18, 16-11, 8-15, 19-10, 18-15, 10-6, 13-17, 6-1, 17-22, 1-6, 22-25, 6-9, 25-29, 9-14, 29-25, and 14-17 is just in time. Drawn. I has shown this drawing the August 1996 issue of the ACF Bulletin, having analyzed both 15-11 and 15-10. The play was sent to Hinkle for publication in Cayton's compilation.
H. All lines in this opening result in bridge endings, or man-down lines, against Red's best play. From here, the moves speak for themselves.
I. Splendid play. As good as it gets. All this analysis is by your author, although it appears in Cayton's compilation as Brian Hinkle's play-by misunderstanding.

Variation-1. 7-11, 15-10, 11-15, 20-16*, 8-11, 16-7, 2-11, 24-20*, 15-24, 28-19, 11-15, 19-16, 12-19, 23-16, 9-14, 26-23, 14-17, 23-18, 17-26, 18-11, 26-31, 11-7, 31-27, 7-2, 13-17.
Here, we must pause and decide how to play this bridge ending. Red can crown 2 kings, at most, and may crown the piece on 17, or trade it off, and crown the piece off 21. To trade it off would change "the move". as direct exchanges are what changes the move. Otherwise, you move (into a different system) I move (into a different system) etc.-nothing has changed.
In the meantime, white must decide on coming out 2-7 or 2-6, crowning the piece off 16, or burying it 16-12 and crowning the piece off 20. then decide-"what is their time to do."
Also, "who has the move?" Does it matter?
Unlike artificial intelligence, (computers) humans have to be armed with knowledge, and instinct, as thinking in millions of positions a second is not possible, as it is with computers. However, with computers, since brute force is their main ally, they will, in all probability, score a win, if one exists. Their problem is they may not do so in the shortest possible way, and may "waste" moves, and have to "regroup" for a new attack. If the computer has the defense here, (white) then not a move can be wasted, as almost certain defeat will result. That is the importance of databases, and hash tables, and pre-armed knowledge. Otherwise they are forced to go on rather deep searches, to keep the draw, assuming their is one, in sight.
*
I have always felt, these deep searches are most unnecessary, if only what we know about this game were available to computers. We have hundreds of books, zillions of positions, all analyzed, and incorporated into published play.
As for this particular bridge-"we have been here before." To compare with those in published play, obviously the force must be the same, (number of pieces) and "the move must be the same." Here, it is white's turn to play. If a like bridge is found in published play, "with Red to play, "the move is different" and it is not the same. In all probability it will play different, and in so many cases, it will change the result.


The lower left diagram came from the opening 11-15, 24-20, 15-19, originally. After a mighty battle, and the dust had cleared the bridge position was played and published, in the last century. Now we have it from 11-16 23-19-in 1997.


The above 3 examples tell the story. On our Endgames-Calculating the move page, I show how to do that, counting the pieces in YOUR SYSTEM-WHEN IT IS YOUR TURN TO PLAY, and if number is odd, you have the move and if even you "have not" the move. The importance of this is to determine which of the above, or how many, have the move, the same as our game.
A count of the pieces in the white system, in our game, reveals white "has " the move. The same as the lower left and center diagram. The lower right diagram reveals the opposite. Red has the move. Notice the result of it, a win. Having the move does not mean you always win. Arguably, just as many positions can be shown where being "without the move" is necessary to win or draw, depending on terms of the problems. Her having the move, wins for red, and being without it-white can draw. the "pictures" even provide clues on how to play it. the lower left diagram, has brought the king out 2-7 and buried the piece on 16 to 12, and brought the piece off 20, with intentions of crowing it on 4.
From the lower left diagram, go 7-11*, 15-18, 11-7*, 18-22, 20-16 forms center diagram.
Now our game. After Red's 13-17 we continue 16-12, 17-22, 2-7, 27-23, 20-16* forming the lower center diagram. Red has "not the move" to win this, but some "swindle wins" to play for, with 3 continuations.
1. 22-26, 16-11 26-31, 11-8, 31-26, 8-4, 26-22, 7-2, 22-17, 2-6, 17-13, 4-8, 23-18, 6-2** ( 8-11?, 21-25!, 30-21, 13-17 wins) 13-9, 8-11, 18-22, 11-8*, ( 11-16?, 22-17 wins. Instead of 11-8*, J. MacFarlane, in "Draughts World", Vol-5, Jan. 1895, suggested 11-7? 9-14, 2-6, and showed 22-18 or 22-17 to draw. But 22-17*, 6-2, 17-13, 2-6, 14-9, 7-2, now MacFarlane played 9-5 to a draw. In 'The Yorkshire Observer Budget" , Oct. 14, 1913 issue, F. Dunne showed going back 9-14* would win.) 22-17, 2-7, 17-13, 7-11, 13-17, 11-7, 17-22, 7-2, 22-18, 8-11. Drawn. White has manipulated the original king from 2 to 7, back to 2, to 6, and back to 7! to pick up the necessary "tempos."

2. 23-19, (once published to win., corrected by Ben Boland) 7-2*, ( R. Jenkins, Pittsburgh Dispatch, Nov. 15, 1894, played 7-11? and stated: "Many variations might be given, but only ordinary care is needed now to complete the win." 7-11?, 22-26, 30-23, 19-26, 11-15, ( 11-7 loses also) 26-22, 16-11, 21-25, 11-8, 25-30, 8-4, 30-26, 4-8, 26-23, 15-11, 22-17, 11-7, 17-13, 8-11, 13-9, 7-2, 23-18 wins. Jenkins) 22-26-2A-2B, 30-23, 19-26, 16-11*-2C 26-22, 2-6, 21-25, 11-8, 25-30, 8-4, 30-25, 4-8, 22-18, 6-9, 25-21, 8-11, 21-17, 10-6, 1-10, 9-6. Drawn.

2A19-15, 2-6, 15-18, 6-2, 18-14, 2-7, 14-9, 7-2, 22-25, 16-11, 25-29, 11-8, 29-25, 8-4, 25-22, 4-8. Draw. (Same as No.1)

2B 22-25, 16-11, 19-16, 2-7, 25-29, 11-8, 29-25, 8-4, 25-22, 4-8, 22-17, 8-11, 16-19, 7-2, 19-23, 11-8, 17-13, 8-11, 23-18, 11-8, 13-9, 8-11, 18-22, 11-8. Drawn.

2C White cannot waste moves. If 2-6, 26-23, 16-11, 23-19, 6-2, 19-16 Wins.

With the move different, (you can purposely play our position into the lower right diagram, and find when you get there-whose turn to play is different) in right diagram cont: 23-27, ( H. T. Smith, Chelesa, Eng. London People, May 5, 1918, played 23-18, 11-16 and called it a win-overlooking the 10-6 pitch to draw. Then he found the correct 17-13*, 2-6, 23-18, 11-16, ( 11-7, 18-14 or 21-25) 18-15. Red Wins)11-15, ( 2-7, 17-13*, 11-16, 27-23*, 7-11, 23-18* RW) 17-13*, 15-18, ( 15-11, 13-9) 13-9, 18-22, 27-24*, ( 27-23 allows a draw) 22-17, 9-13 (keeping the king off 13 which would cause a long solution) 17-14, 24-20*, 14-18, 13-9, 18-22, ( 18-15, 20-16) 22-17, 9-13, 17-14, 16-11. RW.
Thus we have drawn the opening, with Chinook's 18-15 move and 5-9 attack.
As mentioned above, that "lineup" with 24-20- and 28-24 was the saving grace, to prepare 15-10 or 15-11 at the proper time, and prevent 7-11 from overwhelming the position.
Understanding that, I set out to see if I could prevent that lineup, and or punish it. The logical way would therefore be to attack 18-15 with 4-8-immediately-leaving the option of going 6-9! next, thinking that the piece on 5-left there-would leave the double corner stronger.
It turned out to be exactly right. The history making 18-15, leaves only a technical ending that may draw.
The following play has been developed, by me, since the beginning of 1997, with most of the final touches in June of 1997, having showed this to Brian Hinkle and Dennis Cayton, sometime ago. The most recent June-97 findings have also been shown them, for publication in Cayton's forthcoming new edition of his "Compilation."

Click here for the complete understanding of 18-15, and HOW TO DRAW THIS OPENING!

HOMEPAGE