Mistakes in draughts literature (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. Russian Russian draughts. Source: the book “Course of draughts endings; International and Russian draughts” 1989, author of the section of the book devoted to the endings of the game of Russian draughts – Master of sports V. R. Malamed, position published on page 103, No. 328, In this position, it is proposed to win for white. However, there is no gain. 1.ab8 cb6 2.ba7 ba5 3.ad4 ab4 [the book considers only 3…fg5?, after which White wins] 4.dh8 hg5 5.hg7 gf4 6.gh6 fg3 7.hf4 bc3 draw.
	Diagram 2. Malamed V. “Course of draughts endings” 1989, p. 82, No. 239 And here white cannot win. 1.gh6 bc3 [You can also use 1…dc5 2.hg7 ef6 3.ge5 bc3 4.ef6 cd4 5.fg7 cb2 6.ca3 de3 draw] 2.hg7 dc5 3.gh8 [3.gf8 cb4 4.fa3 cb2 with a draw] 3…cd4 4.cg5 ef6 5.gd8 de3 6.ha1 ef2 and Black reaches a draw
	Diagram 3. Malamed V. “The course of draughts endings” 1989, pp.54-55, No. 146 Fedorov M. “Encyclopedia of the endgame” 2010, volume 1, p. 72, d. 172 In this well-known position, 1.bd8 is offered, followed by a difficult win. But it’s much easier to win. 1.bc5 hf8 [nothing changes with black’s other answers] 2.c3b4 and white have no problems holding the third king. White can apply the same plan if Black’s queen is on the c1 field in the initial position.
	Diagram 4. Tsirik Z. “Checkers endgame” 1959, p. 63, d. 161 Malamed V. “The course of draughts endings” 1989, p. 86, No. 256 Fedorov M. “Encyclopedia of the endgame” 2010, p. 37, d. 82 1.hg5 ac3 2.cg1 [In the books, this move is regarded as a draw. In fact, this is the shortest path to victory. At 2.cf2, winning is more difficult.] 2…ab4 3.gh2 ce1 4.hg7 bc3 5.gh8 cd2 6.hg1 eh4 7.ge3X The author of clarifications and comments on the positions discussed above is D. Anurin.