DRAUGHTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11825, 30 November 1901, Page 4 (Supplement)

DRAUGHTS.

SOLUTION OF PROBLEM No. 1133. Position :-BHck men on 2. 6, 11. 27, kings on 3, 9. 26: White men on 13, 20, 25, 28: Kings on 4. 17, 19. 29. Black to play and win. 25-23 2— 7 6-14 31-27. 24-19 19-15 19=25 11-2 29-25 24-19 15-12 8-4 11-16 9- 5 27-31 2?— 14— 20—11 2— 9 38—34 19—15 4— SB. v^tns. PROBLEM No. 1135. (By WILLIAM VEAL. From the Liverpool ■Weekly Mercury.) WHITE.

BLACK. Black to play find draw. GAME No. 473.— Dyke." Played cross-board between Messrs. Phil in Kemp, 4th Dragoon Guards, and James W. Watkius, The Queen's Kegiment, Murree Hills, India. Black, Watkms; White, Kemp. 11—15 26—17 9—14 23—24 a 25—16 22-17 4- 8 24—20 -6—50 6- 2 15-19 29-25 15—13 £4-19 15-11 24-15 B—ll 20-16 7-11 2- 6 10-19 17-14 2- 7 17— 11-15 25—16 11—15 50-25 11—15 6— U— l9 25—22 19—23 32—28 15—19 8-12 - 7 °52-19 J 2>Pl? 10-15 22—18 3-10 27—24 c 30-25 6-10 9—14 22—17 23-25 53— Drawn. 13— Q 5_ g 24 6 ''_'>'" 6-22 27-24 I—lo "o_~6 (a) The only move; 17—13 apneas to be fatal, tims: — 17—13 9—6 6— 9 23-24 18-2.5 26—30 IC—l7 17-22 20-31 9o_o? 13- 6-2 32-27 13-9 B. win*. 14—17 7—lo 22-2.'. 18—22 21—14 2-5 9—15 9-18 s;— 10—14 21—25 25—29 * 25—24 might draw. '.Id The exchange by IS—ls, etc., would lose, (e) Certainly best; 25-22 look* "OK " but !? it ? 25—22 32—27 24—20 21—17 ?— 5 18-25 25-30 26-22 -2—lß 15—13 27-9 27-24 17-15 17-54 14-% 10—15 30—25 7—ll 33—25 13—22 Black wins. (d) 13-9, 18-22, 14-18. 11-56, B. wins. Notes by Messrs. Kemp and Walking Draughts World.

THE TWO-MOVE RESTRICTION. It is somewhat unfortunate that the'discussion on tins subject i.-> entirely overlooking tile object in view. The restriction waa first introduced to prevent undue delay m me Scottish and English national championship tournaments. The trials, however, have tunica out a failure, ana instead ut shortening have actually prolonged these tournaments. One would naturally have thought that as the ' two-move" restriction has" been tried and found wanting it should have oeen dropped, ami more euitablo restrictions adopted; instead of which we Unci it still fried by the premier associations of England. litis latter fact is entirely due to the efforts of a small coterie of players who have shown an extraordinary infatuation for the restriction. Unable to claim for it (its first supposed merit) that it expedites our national tournaments, they now assert that it compels more original lines ol play than any other system, and'consequently encourages the player who depends chiefly on his own foresight to the disadvantage of those players who rely on their memory. If these players had taken the trouble to study the current literature of the game they would have seen how erroneous then conclusions are. In the FemeJordan match, for example, played between two of our greatest exponents, nearly 40 per cent, of the games played are repeats of published play, and yet this match was played on the '" two-move" restriction, with the additional restriction of the popular 25—19 and 22—17 replies being debarred against the 11—15 opening. To find a similar glaring case we have to go bach nearly 20 years, to the ■yVyllie-liarker fiasco. No restriction, without altering the present form of the game, can enforce originality. That lies with players themselves, and our experience inclines us to the opinion that in an important contest no player will risk criminal play unless he has previously sounded its denth. A very true and ant aphorism has recently been made by Mr. 11. N. PiH-hary in comparing chess and draughts: "That cbp?s is what you see: draughts what you know," and this neat remark ,'hows why the " two-move'' restriction for many years to come will fail to give satisfaction.—Manchester Weekly Times.

Mr. Bi chard Jordan, champion of the world, has commenced a tour among- the draughts clubs of Scotland. Mr. A. J. lleffner, ex-champion of America, is favourably impressed with the idea of his possibly meeting Mr. Richard Jordan in a set match at Edinburgh.