wtf where di d i went wrong

@Goodinchessnewindrau Players who are not familiar with antidraughts, tend to neglect the dynamics of game. Antidraughts is to be played like standard draughts since the very first move: a player MUST not sacrifice own draughtsmen (otherwise called "[simple] checkers") if that sacrifice does not lead to forced to continuation where a player can inititiate FORCED and UNAVOIDABLE sequence which leads to win. However, there are two squares where you can afford to make sacrifices and still have better position: on 10x10 board these are "damned" squares 36 and 45 where respective black draughtsman is subjected to tactical opportunities or zugzwang (from black perspective, these damned squares are 6 and 15). The same principle is valid with regards to winning material by executing a shot: if you can gain an extra draughtsman by delivering a shot and your draughtsmen is unlikely to be trapped on "damned" squares, execute a shot, because it is easier to give away two draughtsmen or even more than to give away one draughtsman which will have to move towards very predictable squares and reach crowning square.
Yet, there are many positions where both players should agree on a draw, because any give away move or forced move would lead to forced win for the opponent. One of the most common draws is where one player has a king on square 1 or 45, but other player has a king on square 6 or 50, because each of players should make repetitious moves between indicated squares for avoiding a loss.
As well, you should be aware that some theoretical research was made on antidraughts, and it was proven that in majority of cases one draughtsman is losing against twenty draughtsmen! Under international rules, one of the typical techniques is to push the lonely draughtsman of opponent back by preliminary attack, followed by sacrifice of one draughtsman or more. I believe you should try to put that kind of position on the board and see the line which is proposed by Scan.