The games have reached the point where it starts to be worthwile to watch.
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1119548 This one is the standard or diagonal start. All moves available to Hrqls at this point (for move 3) are the same. It doesn't matter where he moves; my response will be the same. The next half dozen moves will probably follow standard published openings. I'll say something if we deviate.
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1119549 This one is the non-standard or straight start. I chose my starting move (move 3) simply because I find it easier to dominate by going diagonal, therefore I went straight, in hopes that Hrqls will take the diagonal and end up dominating (for now). ;-) I haven't had much luck finding published openings for this start, but the same concepts apply here as in the diagonal start.

all: argh! spectators :)
(Just kidding :))

1 diagonal start and 1 straight start is ok with me .. i dont think there is much of a difference though .. but maybe i am missing something as there is a tournament right now in which the participants have to start diagonal

(in 6x6 it doesnt make a difference after the first next move has been made, or it must be the only possible different move which is quite bad i think :))

btw sorry in advance for my slow playing .. new function at work (project leader, managment, instead of software engineer) .. takes quite some time .. and i somehow ended up joining far too many bg tournaments once again :)

but i will try my best to move as fast as possible and still be able to think my moves through :)

Luke Skywalker: Since this board doesn't get that much use otherwise, I'll make the comments here and I'll try to remember to reference move numbers and which game I'm speaking of.

John Baker: I'm also interested. but observers don't see the game comments, so could you please make them available (when the games are finished). And, in order to correlate the comments with the games, please always add the move number (the system adds the time, but it can't be correlated to moves later on).

John Baker: Thanks :-)

gborland: Here are the two games:
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1119548
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1119549

Hrqls: Yes, I suppose it doesn't matter much where the "few" are located. After using the strategy for a while you'll get a feel for where might be a good place to establish them in each game you play. Even when I play the same opponent over and over, I end up using different approaches each time, depending on how it shapes up.
Btw, let's make one game open standard (diagonal) and the other non-standard. It'll give those watching examples of each.

John Baker: on another site i have most of the sides .... and will soon have a corner .. i am not sure if i will though :)

does it make a difference which pieces are the powerful few ? are the center 4 the most powerful ? or doesnt it matter much ?

i remember playing a game on here where my opponent went only to the lower left corner giving me less and less options .. and win by a grand total :)

John Baker: Yes please. :-)

Hrqls: You're right, it's a lot easier in the second half. The first half is more about setting up for the second half. I try to keep a few internal pieces, while tempting my opponent to take the rest. Once they get a piece on a side, I'll "encourage" them to take the rest of it (except for the corners, of course). Although, every once in a while, I get a game where it's to my advantage to give them 1 or more corners. I'll do it if it means I get an entire side and the adjacent corner. Now I feel like I'm rambling. I'm looking forward to our games. I'll try to explain my moves as best I can.
Would anyone else in this board be interested in keeping track and following along?
John Baker

John Baker: sent 2 invitations
i use the tactic of limiting your opponents available moves in 6x6 .. and sometimes try to use it in the second half of 8x8 .. but i cant find a way to use it in the first half of 8x8

Hrqls: That was the phrase I used to describe the strategy which I find to work best for me. In a nutshell, it means allowing your opponent to dominate the board, while keeping your own pieces to a minimum. Once roughly 50% of the board is filled, you can severely limit your opponents options for moves because there are so few of your pieces to "convert" or "trap". The best example is a game in which my opponent has taken all the side spaces, but has left 4 empty spaces in a corner. If I can form a diagonal line with a piece in the space diagonal to the corner, and my opponent's only available moves are the two spaces adjacent to the corner, I will get the corner... And of course everything else will follow. If you look through my game history, I use this strategy in almost every game and it has done quite well for me. :-)
Invite me to a game for a firsthand lesson in it. I'll explain my moves as we go.
John Baker

what would be a "powerful few" ? anyone like to explain this in a bit more detail ?

in 6x6 i think its best (to a certain degree) to try to maintain the center 4 squares .. in 8x8 i am always in the dark in the first few moves of the game

I created a tournament for the game of Reversi 8x8, for the enthusiasts
of the version "Othello, i.e. with the first four moves played in
diagonal.
Example : 1.e4 d4 2.d5 e5
Limit of registration: October 18
If you are interested, register you at
http://brainking.com/fr/Tournaments?trg=11704&tri=63235&trnst=0

BrainKing04: Cool. I've played it a few times, but never really got into it. I guess I'll have to learn the ins and outs of it.

John Baker: I like 6x6. Rod just showed me how it was played. I would recomend playing him if you want a good challenge

BrainKing04: I prefer 8x8, but I will play a game of 6x6 with you.

how about a game of 6x6 John?

BrainKing04: Will you play a game of 8x8 with me?

rod03801: good close game thanks rod

6x6 is good

BrainKing04: if you like 6x6 or anti, sure!

woudl anyone else care for a game?

BrainKing04: I consider myself to be a very good player. I am also a relatively fast player. Why don't you accept my invitations? You asked for a faster time limit, but you still won't accept my invitations. What does it take to play you?

John Baker: working at getting down to a "powerful few" seems to be the most useful strategy if you feel the need to separate all the strategies, however they must all be considered at the same time to be a good player

Personally, John Baker, the strategy you say you use is the most effective. I am not really an expert at regular reversi, however. Anti-reversi is my game.. but the strategy is of course similar.

When learning reversi, I used to try to always take as many as possible through the game.. and lost almost every time! lol. it's all about position, not numbers, through most of the game, in my opinion..

How about overall game strategies? Some players try to dominate throughout the game, making moves that capture as many as possible every time. Others go for the edge spaces and work at gaining edge territory. Still others, like me, work at getting down to a "powerful few" with which we can control the moves of the opponent. What do you use?

gborland: IMO, the best thing to do is find something that works well for you most of the time. Once you find that, go back and try to commit to memory what you did and what it accomplished, so that in future games you can accomplish the same thing by using similar, if not the same, moves.

Thanks for the replies. I can't decide if my best option is to just memorize the standard openings, or to play each opening out from first principles. :-)

gborland: I don't have any current examples of the other opening, which I called "weak and uncommon," and I don't feel like digging through my archived games. It's the one where you get two parallel lines of 3 pieces.

gborland: Because of the way we're allowed to start here on BrainKing, we can get some non-traditional openings. My game http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=994572 is a good example of one of those. I have no suggestions for how to proceed in those situations.
Here are two examples of games where I had both of the more common openings, and they were played out fairly well. In each, the moves become non-standard by about move 5 or 6 (or 9-12, depending on how you're counting).
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=992113&i=8
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=992205&i=8

gborland: From what I've picked up, there are two pretty common openings, and the only other possibility is weak and uncommon. I don't know how to explain them here, other than suggesting you look at my games. I wish we could insert images here. :-)

gborland: I need to learn more about Reversi openings. They are my weak point; my first five or six moves are normally pretty random. Any pointers?

I'd try Google

I need to learn more about Reversi openings. They are my weak point; my first five or six moves are normally pretty random. Any pointers?

Anyone have anything to say about reversi? Share a favorite strategy? Ask a question?

furbster: lmao Hey I never said I agreed with Filip! I desperately would love to see the auto pass as would tons of other folks. But No means no.. So we do with out.
Worse things in life eh! LOL

Rose: does suck tho, it'd be better with it ::runs::

Rose: Bummer. Thanks though. :-)

John Baker: Auto pass has been brought up numerous times over the past 3 years and so far Filip has stated he has non intention of creating the auto pass funtion for any games.. Sorry

I don't think players should have to acknowledge a pass move. It'd speed things up quite a bit if I could just make 8 (or however many) moves in a row without having to wait for my opponent to acknowledge the pass. Some players make 1 move per day, and there's nothing wrong with that, but you can imagine the frustration when it's a tournament game and everyone's waiting for one player to acknowledge the pass moves once a day. I'm not experiencing this right now, but it's happened quite a bit in the past.

Yes kinda expensive for most, but I am right there with ya, maybe a few showgirls too, and a cocktail waitress?

Czuch Chuckers: Good point. In fact, it'd be a little spendy, but there could be a touch screen laying flat on the table between the opponents. Even better, it could be flush with the tabletop and look really snazzy! I can see it now... green felt tabletop with black leather around the edges...bright othello screen in the center, black and white pieces on a green board...bright light coming from spotlights in the ceiling...and an announcer. Yes! An announcer! This just keeps getting better and better...

John Baker: I have never played a live topurney, but I would imagine these days they could play them on touch screen computers or even online but face to face in the same room.

Yeah, that's the way they're sold in stores. However, I would agree that it seems clumsy for live tournament purposes.

iytconvert: I've thought that too! I've seen a reversi board, and the pieces are double sided, different colour on each side, so I guess they do.

I have a question. Do people play like this in tournaments always flipping over their peices? I think it would be a tired affair after turning and turning and turning.

How about randomly placed "wild" pieces? Those grey pieces could be randomly placed at the beginning of the game by the software (just a couple of them). Then, for the rest of the game, either player could use those pieces as their own. They'd never change status, always usable by either player. A grey located diagonal from the corner would definately add a significant aspect to the game. :-)

(just translanted the rules to dutch so i started to think about them :))


would it be a nice variation if a player would place 1 piece of a 3rd color .. (grey) which would turn all enclosed pieces into the other color. When the move is completed and the pieces have been turned, then the grey piece changes into the color of the player who made the move.

so it would act as both a white as well as a black piece .. turning the black pieces which it encloses with a white piece on the other side and turning the white pieces with a black piece on the other side as well

would it be nice when a player could decide to place a piece of the color of the opponent as well ?

both players are still their initial colors .. but they can play a piece in the other color in their turn.

so for example i am white .. and at my first real move (after the 4 pieces in the center are placed) i move with a black piece turning one of my own (white) pieces to black ... then its blacks turn .. and he (of course) moves with black as well .. to turn my last white piece around to black ... making the while board black ... and black would have won

of course this would be bad of me .. so i wont be playing with my opponents piece at the first real move ... but further in the game it might create some interesting situations ?

Wil: Yes that makes sense that a win for both sides cannot be gauranteed! Kitti is correct, it is black that has a gauranteed win formula, but both colors cannot have a gauranteed win, my bad, thanks!