Mistakes in draughts literature – 2 (Article from the website “Draughts for everyone”)

We are starting a series of publications devoted to errors in the assessment and analysis of positions found in the draughts literature.Currently, a lot of draughts literature has already been published, in which in total you can find literally everything about the game of draughts. However, it is no secret that in some checkers books there are errors in the assessment and analysis of specific positions that arise when playing draughts.
This is not surprising, it is almost impossible to play draughts accurately, therefore, both players and authors of draughts publications are mistaken. It is important for beginners and inexperienced draughts players to understand that when studying draughts literature, everything does not need to be considered the absolute truth, it is necessary to critically evaluate all the information encountered. This will not only help not to repeat the published errors in the evaluation and analysis of draughts positions, but will also serve as an excellent training for those who independently check and make sure that the printed versions are correct (or erroneous).
We offer interesting information on this topic, received from Dmitry Anurin, who has extensive experience playing Russian checkers and is well acquainted with draughts literature. The errors discovered by Dmitry in draughts publications are of great importance for the correct assessment of the positions under consideration. Below we publish some of them.
![]() |
Diagram 1.
Source Books: Malamed V. “Course of draughts endings” 1989, p. 16, No.4, Fedorov M. “Encyclopedia of the endgame” 2010, volume 1, p. 14, d. 12 The authors of the books suggest playing here 1.ah8 hb8 2.hg7 bh2 3.ga1 hb8 4.ac5 with a win. However, you can win faster: 1.ae3 hb8 [on 1…hg3 wins 2.ef2 x] 2.ec5 x. |
![]() |
Diagram 2.
Malamed V. “Course of draughts endings” 1989, p. 194, No. 727 The book says that in this position white wins, in fact it is not so – black can achieve a draw: 1.ef2 hg3 2.fh4 ef6 3.cd4 fe3! (The book analyzes only the continuation of 3…de5?) 4.df2 dc5 Black seeks a draw by alternately sacrificing two of his checkers: 5.fe3 cb4 6.ef4 bc3 7.fg5 fe5 8.gh6 cb2 9.hg7 ed4 10.gf8 dc3 11.hg5 bc1 12.gf6 c3b2 13.f6g7 ba1 and black cuts off two white primes. Draw. |
![]() |
Diagram 3.
Litvinovich V. “The course of draughts openings” 1985, p.145 The party of Pavlov Yu is considered here. — Shchegolev V. 1.cd4 fg5 2.bc3 gf6 3.gf4 hg7 4.cb2 de5 5.fd6 ce5 6.ab4 gf4 7.eg5 hf4 8.bc5 gh6? Next, white played 9.fg3 with an equal position, passing by the winning stroke 9.cb4! ea5 10.fg3 (White can also win with a move 10.dc3 bd4 11.cg7 x) 10…bd4 11.gg7 with a win. |
![]() |
Diagram 4.
Khatskevich G. “25 lessons of the draughts game” 1979, p. 68, d. 126 Litvinovich V. “School of positional play” 1984, p. 137, 457 An important position from the middle of the game, the result of the fight depends on its correct assessment. It is believed that white wins here, but black can still defend himself. 1.ed2 de7 2.gf2 ab6 3.ab2 fe5 (Only 3…ba7 are considered in the books?) |
![]() |
Diagram 5.
White can’t win, let’s look at the options: 4.FG3 GF6 5.EF4 FG5 6.HD4 CC1 7.GH4 CG5 8.HF6 DC5 with a draw 6…cd4 7.de3 db2 8.ac1 ed4 9.ec5 bd4 and White cannot achieve a win, for example 10.gh6 ef6 11.cd2 dc3 12.de3 cd2 13.ec1 ab6 14.cb2 bc5 15.ba3 cd4 16.fg3 de5 17.gh4 ef4 draw The author of clarifications and comments on the positions discussed above is D. Anurin. |