Hi All,

My name is Istvan Virag, i from Hungary. I am strong pro gomoku and renju player, these games similar deep tactics games, i think you know.

In small pente, and normal pente white player has absolutelly sure victory. I can show anyone if he want. Most strongest players on the world can win as white yet online game within 30 minutes. In offline game with more time to think more easy to control the game as white and win.

So, if we want an playable pente game for experts, we have to change opening rules!!!
Gary option may be good for some month or years, but will be temporary only. Because we will find strong 2th white move in not same line in K10. Same line not important, only the connection important in the 3th white move.

So, we need implement swap color option!!!
If we changed rules, we need to to create long term rules!!!
If somebody want learn rules, play small pente.
If somebody want play original pente, play pente.
If somebody is expert and want high level game, play pro-pente.

Oleg Stepanov has a good idea for equalizing well the game.
Here are rules:

Players are initially referred to as "tentative Ohs" and "tentative Eks".

Move#1
Ohs first move of the game is automatically made to the center K10.

Move#2.
tentative Eks has to make the second move into the central zone 3x3 (J-L, 9-11)

Move#3.
tentative Ohs has to make the third move into the central zone 5x5 (H-M, 8-12)
Move#4a. Tentative Eks may swap sides after the 3rd move.

If no swap was made after the 3rd move, no further opening rules are
applied.

If the swap was made:
Move#4b. Tentative Ohs (now Eks) makes an unrestricted move.
Move#5a. Now, Tentative Eks (now Ohs) may swap sides.
Move#5b. Ohs makes an unrestricted move and no more opening rules are applied.


These rules very good, because Renju International Federation thinking same to change renju opening rules to the Stepanov rules.
These rules not drop old theory, and not drop Gary's idea!!!

Cheers, Istvan Virag

Dmitri,

In response to:
Thad, you said that You think Gary and I think that you want to get rid of official pente. Where did you get that idea? Neither of us ever said anything along those lines.

My reply:
It’s true that you never said that directly, I think I implied it from an earlier post you made, mainly here:

That alone is insufficient-- for instance, if there is a game where player 1 has a forced win 100% of the time, would it make sense to simply play two game sets and ignore any attempts to give player 2 a chance? NO, it wouldn't, and by the same reasoning, the possibility of playing two game sets is no reason to neglect the restriction that gives player 2 more of a chance.


Specifically I thought you might feel that *I* was ‘ignoring attempts to give player 2 a chance’ and ‘neglecting the restriction’.

No big deal.

Thad

Gary said:
I beg to differ and I will state ONCE AGAIN. It is the long-term detrimental effect of having incorrect rules on a variant that is SO similar to the correct rules of the game yet strongly negatively impacts one sides chances to win that will SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the growth of the game in the long run.

My reply:
If I define Fun-pente as Pente without the move restriction, what is it about the rules that is incorrect? The rules are different, but that doesn’t make them incorrect. And they’re not incorrect because I’ve eliminated a rule. As an example, Go-Moku is Pente without the capture rule, and Go-Moku’s rules are certainly correct.


Gary said:
Thad, I can't understand something. You just played in Section B of the Dweebo's Stone Games (DSG) tourney. As a matter of fact, you played my son, Matthewb, in the final round and I am tournament director of that section. Of course ALL rated games at DSG MUST have the opening restriction. Did you NOT have FUN playing in that tourney WITH the opening restriction? I'm just curious.

Yeah, that tournament is alright. I think it’s lasted way too long, even if you deduct time for when the site is down. Plus I think I’ve reached the point where my game is as good as it is going to get without reading books, studying old games, etc. I play pente because I enjoy playing. I don’t want to invest the time and effort it takes doing things I wouldn’t enjoy doing in order to improve my game. I’ve played Dmitri a lot at IYT, sometimes it’s fun, but more often than not, I put a tremendous amount of effort into games against him and still come up short. I think I beat him as player 2 once or twice, and I know he’s said that one move I made against him was amongst the best he’s seen, so that’s cool. He’s said he thinks I could be an elite player if I put my mind to it, and he’s probably right. Maybe someday.

Thad

Pioneer54, you know I have grat respect for your opinions, as well as your debating tactics and your game playing abilities. That si why I was a little frustrated with your latest post to me. YOu copied and pasted a bunch of things I said, but you didn't really address them, you just said for each one, "You did not make the opint you are claiming to make." You do not really say WHY I didn't make my points, and I am pretty sure that I did make my points. It seems that you just rejected them without reason or explanation.

Walter, if the pente games are going too slowly, RESIGN! You have already lost, so if the games are annoying you so muhc, just quit. The only player out of the three who has made any decent moves is Pioneer54 (Although both of those games still look like sure wins for player 1).

Thad, you said that You think Gary and I think that you want to get rid of official pente. Where did you get that idea? Neither of us ever said anything alonge those lines.

Gary:

You said (in response to my prior post):
I'm almost certain that you KNOW that your statement is untrue so it isn't worth a real rebuttal but I'll do a small one just in case. If you had chess where a pawn could ONLY move one space forward instead of 1 or 2 on the first move and it ONLY captured one space forward instead of diagonally could be MUCH more easily explained than the real rules for chess. But you certainly wouldn't call that just 'chess' and the correct version of chess 'multi-move-pawn chess'. Anyway, I assume that you were just being funny there.

My reply:
My original statement IS true. You got it backwards. The version you describe is a variant of chess (and it’s valid) and could be called multi-move-pawn-chess. No change would be made to chess.


You said:
What I am trying to do is DEFINE what constitutes a valid variant such that programming time should be spent to create that variant. It is VERY obvious that NO site owner would create SOME of the variants that you have described above. A FEW of them are probably VERY good and viable! It is ALSO very obvious that we would be WAY of out line if we were to pass a law forbidding you to play those variants at all at any time.

Does that make sense? There is a BIG difference between a reasonable variant on a site and a reasonable variant that someone might play with their friends (like your MASH checkers variant that I found hilarious!).

My reply:
I think you’re getting off track here. Whether or not a game should be programmed for online play is contingent on one’s access to the proper hardware and software, knowledge of programming or access to someone with the knowledge, access to a domain, freetime for development, etc. You’ll never come up with a definition that takes all this into account. Plus there’s the change in technology to take in to account. That will change what games we can and cannot implement for online play.


You said (in response to my prior post):
I respectfully disagree. If a variant confuses beginning players such that they think that the variant is the actual rules for the mainstream game, then in my opinion, it is an invalid variant. It is the new and beginning players such as Harley that we are the most concerned about.

My reply:
The only way I can see that a variant would mislead players into thinking it was the ‘real thing’ is if it were misnamed as IYT has done with Pente & Pro Pente.


I said:
Why can't a variant 'negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win’?

You replied:
To be on a site, although IT CAN negatively impact one side's changes to win, it must be within reason or few players will play it.

My reply:
Oh, so a variant can 'negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win’. That’s not what you said earlier.

Also, if a variant ‘must be within reason or few players will play it’, it logically follows that if many players play it, it’s within reason.

Ok, well, by that logic, a lot of players play fun-pente, which makes it a reasonable, i.e. valid variant!

Now I know you’re going to say that a lot of players started playing “pente” at IYT, thinking it was the official game, and that’s likely to be true, but they continue to play the game because it’s a valid game. If it weren’t valid, players would quit playing it in droves.


You said:
Pente and Keryo Pente are actually 2 completely separate games. While the strategy has some similarities, the difference in positions and attacking is quite significant. One is not a variant of the other.

My reply:
Geez! If they’re completely different games, then they should have completely different names!! Wasn’t Keyro Pente derived from Pente? How can you say it’s not a variant?!! Furthermore, strategies have nothing to do with whether or not a game is a variant of another as you have inferred above.


You said:
I am stating that a variant should not be created that is SO similar to the original game such that beginners confuse it for the correct way to play the game AND that variant substantially and negatively affects the ability of one side to win.

My reply:
Ok, so don’t name your variant the name of the game it was derived from. No problem. But don’t make a variant that’s more one-sided in terms of who wins? Why not. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that.


You said:
My definition of an invalid variant ONLY applies to that which a reasonable site owner would spend programming time on.

My reply:
Well (1) your definition is weak because what you call reasonable and what I or Dmitri or Fencer or anyone else might call reasonable varies greatly. (2) You never said that your definition ONLY applied to certain things until now, because (3) your premise is flawed as I have said before, and now you are trying to change it to make it work.

By the way, if anyone does find a variant that fits your five criteria, will that mean that fun-pente is indeed a valid variant according to you? Or will it mean that there are two invalid variants being played online? In other words, if/when someone meets your challenge, will you admit that fun-pente is valid or will you simply state that since there’s already one invalid game out there, what the heck, there might as well be two.


I said:
A GAME (whether it’s a variant of another or not) may be valid or invalid depending of whether or not it’s winnable. Go-Moku played on a 4x4 grid would be invalid. There’s not enough room on the board to place five stones in a line and therefore, no way to win. Thus the game is invalid.

You replied:
That's a pretty narrow definition of a valid variant by most standards. If you said that, then I could say let's play Pente and here's the rules: 1. The first to get 2 in a row wins. -or- 2. The first to get 1 in a row wins.

My reply:
No, it’s a broad definition. Any game that is a spin-off of another game and winnable is a valid variant. Many variations that we could mention are valid according to the definition I’ve given because they’re spin-offs of another game and they’re winnable, but invalid if we apply your, now modified, five-part premise in which, lest we forget, we also need to consider it’s programmability by a reasonable site owner and it’s strategy in comparison to other relevant games.


You said:
But I will state my opinion about something else once again. That is that a variant IS INVALID if it is so substantially similar to the original game, meets all of the criteria that was outlined, it confuses beginning players into thinking that it is the correct version of the game, AND one side's chances of winning are strongly negatively impacted. It is the one-sidedness of a game that will NOT allow it to grow in the long run.

My reply:
As with my reference to a ‘reasonable’ programmer earlier in this post, who is to say what is ‘substantially similar’? What if I made a variation with a hole in the board in one place. If that hole were placed in the upper left corner of the board, where stones are rarely ever placed, then I think we’d all agree that my game would be ‘substantially similar’. Now, what if I moved the hole toward the center? Still substantially similar? What if I put it in the center? How about two holes? Or three? Nine? Twenty? My point here is that there’s no way to define ‘substantially similar’. The same thing applies to ‘strongly impacted’.


Note to all readers, I’ve tried to be complete, concise, & yet brief here. I tried to include only relevant text from earlier posts. Please read the earlier posts if you are unclear here. Also, I have tried not to take anything said earlier out of context or be misleading in any way. If I have, please understand that doing so was not my intention.

Gary, I haven’t addressed everything you said earlier. If you think I missed an important point, let me know.

Thad

Look at Walter whining again about how often Gayr is moving in his game. What a snivelign whining fool Walter is. I guess he doesn;t understand what a move limit means in a turn based game. I guess I shouldn't expect any more from him.

you said he argues way better than I do and earned tally opints??? How so? HE did not refute anything I said, all he did ws say "Well Dmitri, you say you have made your opint, but you haven't"

I don;t consider that to be insightful or effective debating! All he did was reject my arguments without any reason. Walter, you keep threatening to leave, as if anyone should care! good riddance!

New! Fencer 18. April 2003, 02:38:13
I've just decided to add an option for small pente and small keryo pente games to turn on/off the move restriction. It should be acceptable for everyone.
Otherwise, this arguing will never end.
--------------------------------------------
Well, he's probably wrong about the arguing, but I'm glad he's making the change! Yeehaw!

<Thad -

>> But Gary, Walter is not standing in your way. YOU are standing in HIS way. All we want is to have the chance to play fun-pente, but you are telling us that we can't!!! <

I beg to differ and I will state ONCE AGAIN. It is the long-term detremental effect of having incorrect rules on a variant that is SO similar to the correct rules of the game yet strongly negatively impacts one sides chances to win that will SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the growth of the game in the long run.

I WILL rephrase my previous wording. It is the GAME of Fun-pente that is standing in the way, NOT any specfic players in particular.

Thad, I can't understand something. You just played in Section B of the Dweebo's Stone Games (DSG) tourney. As a matter of fact, you played my son, Matthewb, in the final round and I am tournament director of that section. Of course ALL rated games at DSG MUST have the opening restriction. Did you NOT have FUN playing in that tourney WITH the opening restriction? I'm just curious.


Walter -

I can see that you are trying to get me to argue with you once again I won't get involved with that. I will state that I DID make the error ONE time of becoming EXTREMELY upset with you and it was a BIG mistake. I think that anyone can see that I have been more than cordial since that time. Especially considering that at night time, I'm debating against 3 people at once.

Here's how I have now been able to recognize when you are trying to get people to argue with you and not engage in a logical debate. It is when you pick on words like you did in your last post. For instance in your original post, you stated:
>> I personally don't want to be a part of your grand Pente universe, now or in the far flung future. <

I think that most people would construe this to mean that you don't want to be involved in long-term thinking. But then you followed up with:

>> Where did I say I didn't want to be a part of longterm thinking? I said I didn't want to be a part of your longterm scheme.

It is those types of 'I didn't say that, I said this' type of statements that are argumentative and don't accomplish anything.

I'm only stating this to let you know what inflames people sometimes. If you shared my views on the opening restriction topic, I'm sure that Thad and Pioneer54 would ALSO become quite upset at those types of tactics.

To all -

I know that it is hard for most people to accept and understand long-term thinking. Regardless of what you think of me, Dmitri King, or anyone else who chimes in on either side of this issue, it is not ONLY OUR goal, but the goal of MANY players that will attend the tournament in Oklahoma City on May 17th that the game grow substantially and rapidly in the future. Of course one of the topics of discussion will be changing the current opening restriction so that the sides are more even. There will be LITTLE or NO discussion about NOT having a restriction because it is already accepted that the game has a restriction. And it is WITH the restriction that FUTURE strategy guides, opening books, end-game books, databases, software, etc. will be written and/or created.

If you would like to be a part of the explosive growth potential of Pente and be involved in decisions surrounding future World Championships, rules, etc. then play at Brain King and play the game the way that it was intended to be played more than 20 years ago. If you choose to play at IYT, that is fine too, but we think that you will miss out on some future great opportunities in the game and a GREAT site to boot! Whomever this site loses as a result of the opening restriction will be made up for MANY times over in the future when players get REALLY EXCITED about the game from reading about it in strategy guides.

By the way, if you want an elementary strategy guide on Pente (I'm not sure about Keryo Pente), check out a great site at www.playpente.com. See what you think.


Gary

I've just decided to add an option for small pente and small keryo pente games to turn on/off the move restriction. It should be acceptable for everyone.
Otherwise, this arguing will never end.

<Thad -

My apologies. I have responded to so much and missed yours. Keep in mind that at night, it's been me against 3 of you. In the daytime, Dmitri King and Harley chime in about our side.

Your prior statement:
>> Ok, well it’s MY premise that one game is a variant of another if it’s rules can be explained more easily by describing the differences between it and the main game, than explaining explaining the rules of that game would be. For example, I can say that fun-pente (as I have called it in previous posts) is ‘official’ pente without the move restriction. I can say that much more easily than I can lay out all the rules for fun-pente. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a variant. Keyro13 is Keyro Pente played on a 13x13 board. That’s much easier to say than to state all the rules for Keyro13 directly. It’s a variant. <

I'm almost certain that you KNOW that your statement is untrue so it isn't worth a real rebuttle but I'll do a small one just in case. If you had chess where a pawn could ONLY move one space forward instead of 1 or 2 on the first move and it ONLY captured one space forward instead of diagonally could be MUCH more easily explained than the real rules for chess. But you certainly wouldn't call that just 'chess' and the correct version of chess 'multi-move-pawn chess'. Anyway, I assume that you were just being funny there.

Your prior statement:
>> Now, with my premise, there is no issue of games being valid or not. I mean, one could play just about anything they want. Pente-on-a-5x5 board? Go ahead. I’m not gonna play, but if you want to, be my guest! Pente-where-more-than-five-in-a-row-doesn’t-win, pente-with-unlimited-captures, pente-where-you-can’t-win-diagonally? All good! Have a blast. How about this one, checkers with shot glasses, when you make a jump, drink your opponent’s shot, when you make a king, add an olive (yes, I stole that from M*A*S*H). I LIKE that variant!! My point here is that I can make up any game I want and no one can tell me it is or isn’t a valid game. <

Thad, there seems to be two issues here:
1. What constitutes a game that ANYONE can play. That's ALMOST anything as long as it is winnable.
2. That which is a VIABLE game so that programming hours should be spent by a site owner to create that game.

I'm saying this because you are making two different arguments here. No one is stopping ANYONE from playing ANY kind of game that they want to.

What I am trying to do is DEFINE what constitutes a valid variant such that programming time should be spent to create that variant. It is VERY obvious that NO site owner would create SOME of the variants that you have described above. A FEW of them are probably VERY good and viable! It is ALSO very obvious that we would be WAY of out line if we were to pass a law forbidding you to play those variants at all at any time.

Does that make sense? There is a BIG difference between a reasonable variant on a site and a reasonable variant that someone might play with their friends (like your MASH checkers variant that I found hilarious!).

Your prior statement:
>> Furthermore, my premise doesn’t take into account anything about the original game. AND IT SHOULDN’T! Whether or not a variant has some kind of impact on the game it was derived from doesn’t validate or invalidate the variant! <

I respectfully disagree. If a variant confuses beginning players such that they think that the variant is the actual rules for the mainstream game, then in my opinion, it is an invalid variant. It is the new and beginning players such as Harley that we are the most concerned about.

Your prior statement:
>> Why can't a variant 'negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win’? <

Once again, you're confusing what is viable amongst players physically playing one another in person and what is viable for a site to spend programming time on.

To be on a site, although IT CAN negatively impact one side's changes to win, it must be within reason or few players will play it. See my opinion for the 5 different conditions that must be met to constitute an invalid variant. But my biggest issue is for variants with different rules that can EASILY be confused for the game with the correct rules like IYT did with Pente and Keryo Pente.

Your prior statement continuing from above:
>> And if it can’t how can you allow both Pente and Keyro Pente. Surely in one variation, player 1 has a bigger advantage than in the other and therefore must go. <

Pente and Keryo Pente are actually 2 completely separate games. While the strategy has some similarities, the difference in positions and attacking is quite significant. One is not a variant of the other.

This is just like GoMoku and Renju. That have the similarities of the 15x15 board and needing to get 5 in a row to win. But their similarities end there.

Your prior statement continued from above:
>> Or are you saying that we can create variations of pente so long as player 1’s advantage is no greater than it is with the current 'official' rules? Well, who said the current amount of advantage is the correct amount not to be exceeded anyway? <

I am not saying that at all. I am stating that a variant should not be created that is SO similar to the original game such that beginners confuse it for the correct way to play the game AND that variant substantially and negatively affects the ability of one side to win.

So in effect you could create a pente variant where you only have to get 3 in a row to win and call it 3-pente if you want. Although I would find it annoying, I wouldn't object much. The reason is that there is NO WAY that a beginner will confuse it with the actual game of Pente. Of course, there is no way a site owner would create such a game because the 1st player would always win in a few moves, so virtually no one would play it and it would be a waste of his programming time.

Your statement tonight:
>> Your definition of an invalid variant is garbage, junk, meaningless, without merit.
I will say that again so that it clear:
Your definition of an invalid variant is worthless.
A variant of a game is either that or it’s not. If it’s a spin-off of another game, it’s a variant, if it’s not a spin-off of another game, then it’s not a variant of that game. <

I'll ignore your comments about my definition of invalid variants. Here's why. For the 3rd time in 2 posts, you are confusing what is viable for 2 players to physically play in person and what a site owner will take programming time to put on their site. My definition of an invalid variant ONLY applies to that which a reasonable site owner would spend programming time on.
Your statement tonight:
>> A GAME (whether it’s a variant of another or not) may be valid or invalid depending of whether or not it’s winnable. Go-Moku played on a 4x4 grid would be invalid. There’s not enough room on the board to place five stones in a line and therefore, no way to win. Thus the game is invalid. <

That's a pretty narrow definition of a valid variant by most standards. If you said that, then I could say let's play Pente and here's the rules: 1. The first to get 2 in a row wins. -or- 2. The first to get 1 in a row wins.

I think that you should take some time and revise that statement so that it makes a little more sense. Also, once again you're confusing what a site owner would program and what players would play in person.

Your statement tonight:
>> But a variant can't be declared invalid just because of how it stacks up to another game. <

I completely agree with that statement. But I will state my opinion about something else once again. That is that a variant IS INVALID if it is so substantially similar to the original game, meets all of the criteria that was outlined, it confuses beginning players into thinking that it is the correct version of the game, AND one side's chances of winning are strongly negatively impacted. It is the one-sidedness of a game that will NOT allow it to grow in the long run.

Your statement tonight:
>> Fun-pente is a game and it’s a variant of pente. It’s valid, because it’s winable. The fact that one side enjoys an advantage is irrelevant.

I think I made the point that having a simple definition of a game being winnable is FAR to narrow of a definition of a valid variant, but ESPECIALLY for a valid variant that programming time would be spent on.

The fact that one side enjoys an advantage is VERY relavent. It if wasn't relavent, then we could 2-in-a-row Pente.


I think that addresses everything and I think I repeated myself in several instances here, but there seemed to be no other way to get the individual points across.


Gary

Where did I say I didn't want to be a part of longterm thinking? I said I didn't want to be a part of YOUR longterm scheme. I have very longterm plans. Playing Keryo Pente with you in charge isn't one of them. You realy need to step back, and look at what you think Pente can become. That posting of mine that got you to respond in anger is still the one of mine that sums up what I think is wrong with your plan. I believe the post just before it touches on it too. Ever since that time, the posts have had a personal attack to them. Too bad. As Thad just showed, you're interfering with me and I see no reason for it except that you want everyone to fall inline behind you.

Dmitri,

I get the feeling that you think I want to change the official rules or get rid of ‘official’ pente and only have fun-pente or something along those lines. That is not the case. I like both games. I do like fun-pente better, but that doesn’t mean I want to change the ‘official’ game. I just think there’s room for both (and other) variants. Also, I’m not saying that fun-pente is better. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I just want everyone to know where I stand. I see no harm in playing without the move restriction when that’s what you want to do.

Actually, I’d like to see a better version of pente in which the advantage is reduced even further. I don’t think swapping sides is the answer (name another game where that happens). And I don’t like Gary’s suggestion about further restricting player 1’s move from specific squares. To me, that mars the elegance (sorry to use that word again) of the game.

Restricting P1’s move #2 to anywhere but the horizontal, vertical, and diagonal axes might be good, although I have no idea if the advantage would be greater or lesser than it is now.

Thad

But Gary, Walter is not standing in your way. YOU are standing in HIS way. All we want is to have the chance to play fun-pente, but you are telling us that we can't!!!

Thad

Walter -

Good response and to the point! What's wrong with short-term gratification? Because it hurts in the long run! Never has a successful enterprise been run or a long-term goal been accomplished with short-term thinking.

If you don't want to be a part of long-term thinking, that's your choice. No one can force you to think that way. But you should NOT ridicule others for thinking long-term nor stand in their way because that is what creates long-term success in any endeavor.


Gary

Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Ain't that how it goes? I personally don't want to be a part of your grand Pente universe, now or in the far flung future. I just want to play a game with like minded individuals that couldn't care one way or the other about such things. And I don't want ot wait 20 years!

Gary,

Did you not read my post from last night? While I didn't flat out state it then, I will now:

Your definition of an invalid variant is garbage, junk, meaningless, without merit.

I will say that again so that it clear:

Your definition of an invalid variant is worthless.

A variant of a game is either that or it’s not. If it’s a spin-off of another game, it’s a variant, if it’s not a spin-off of another game, then it’s not a variant of that game. A GAME (whether it’s a variant of another or not) may be valid or invalid depending of whether or not it’s winnable. Go-Moku played on a 4x4 grid would be invalid. There’s not enough room on the board to place five stones in a line and therefore, no way to win. Thus the game is invalid. But a variant can’t be declared invalid just because of how it stacks up to another game.

Fun-pente is a game and it’s a variant of pente. It’s valid, because it’s winable. The fact that one side enjoys an advantage is irrelevant.

Thad

<Pioneer54 -

I have always heard that if a person is a dreamer and uses LONG-term thinking in order to accomplish those dreams that he will be shot down and/or ridiculed for being so stupid in the short term. My personal experiences in life have convinced me that that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have been ridiculed MANY times in life for being a LONG-term thinker and for spending untold hours on what many would consider to be unimportant activities.

Here are some of the things that I have done in the PAST that have caused me GREAT consternation in the SHORT-term but GREAT rewards in the LONG-term:
1. Work 65 hours a week for 4 consecutive years.
2. Spend 100's and 1000's of hours studying a board game.
3. Spend 100's of hours studying the methods of professional gamblers.

In the future: Spend 100's and maybe 1000's of hours studying the methods of winning commodity traders.

Now: Dream so BIG that I could envision Pente and Keryo Pente being as big as Chess.

I will not spout off about what I have accomplished in life as a result of the first 3 things because I would only sound like that I was tooting my own horn. I WILL say that there IS a reason that my I.D. at www.pente.org is 'Progambler'.

Perhaps I have not done a good enough job in attempting to explain our LONG-term thinking here. Perhaps I have offended some people with my 'challenge'. If so, I apologize because no offense was intended. I was only attempting to specifically define what an invalid variant was and to get someone to find a similar example. In my defense, I can only say that I made the challenge because I continue to be shot down when I attempt to logically demonstrate my long-term thinking that was presented to Fencer.

My long-term thinking includes future World Championships being held here at Brain King. I envision numerous 'candidates matches' like they have in Chess followed by the BIGGEST of ALL World Championships. I can even envision personally putting up a sizable chunk of money for this tournament. Of course, there would be many particulars to work out about that.

All I am saying is to PLEASE look FAR out on the horizon, FAR from this short-term errorneous application of the rules that is holding players back in no-restriction Pente and Keryo Pente. There are FAR greater things that can be done if we learn from our errors in the past.

I will respond to one more point that you made:
>> Try this: Suppose a group of users here got together and (without consulting you and maybe even deliberately excluding you) convinced Fencer to eliminate the restriction on the 19 boards. My guess is you would be pretty shocked! And rightly so! <

I don't believe that would be possible at THIS site. Fencer is an excellent site owner and businessman who obviously understands long-term thinking. That's probably why he has been so successful in building such a great site in short a short time frame. I bet he ALSO has spent 100's and 1000's of hours making this site what it has become. I would also guess that he has been ridiculed from people who question the amount of time that he must spend and his dedication to his business. Personally, I have nothing but admiration for someone like that.

I don't think it could have happened because there's LITTLE way that players could have banned together and pulled the wool over his eyes. After they made the suggestion to remove the restriction, he would fairly quickly find several sites that HAVE the restriction, ONE of which has ratings that simulate the U.S. Chess formula like he does here and conclude that it should not be done.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that these players WERE successful in getting the opening restriction removed in ALL variants of Pente and Keryo Pente. Would I be shocked? Most certainly! Would I be mad? Most certainly! But...if just ONE of those somebodies came along and made a STRONG and VALID long-term case that the game COULD become HUGE IF the restriction IS removed and that MANY masters would STILL want to play the game, THEN I would no longer be shocked or mad AT ALL! I would applaud the decision.


>> Why then, do you so utterly fail to appreciate and comprehend that there are many of us who simply believe that the restriction just is not necessary on the 13 board?

I guess because I can't understand why people cannot see the LONG-term thinking that I have presented time after time here. Let me give an example. For the sake of argument, let's say that there are currently 5,000 active and semi-active Pente and Keryo Pente players in the U.S. Based on that, there are maybe 15-20 of us who COULD play Keryo Pente good enough so that player 2 would win LESS THAN 5% of the time without restriction (it'd be 1% in Pente). By COULD, I mean given a bit of study of the game. I think that that is a fairly accurate estimate of the percentage of players who could accomplish that (less than 1/4th of 1% of all players)

Now let's think BIG and let's think LONG-term and say that in 20 years, there are 500 THOUSAND or even 5 MILLION Pente and Keryo Pente players. Now using the 5M example, there could possibly be 1,500 to 2,000 players that could effectively win as player 1 95%+ of the time without restriction. Now consider the NUMEROUS players who have CONTINUED to play WITHOUT the restriction because it was erroroneously allowed to be created at several different sites.

Our premise is that IF the erroroneous no-restriction variant had NOT been created, there would be AT LEAST double if not triple the percentage of master-level players NOW meaning maybe there would CURRENTLY be 20-50 of them instead of 10-20. BUT as the game grows, the multiplicative effect of that error manifests itself in a MUCH slower growth rate of the game, due to less creation of strategy guides and the such, so that instead of maybe initially growing at maybe 20-25% per year, it only grows 5-10% per year. So BESIDES the lower PERCENTAGE of masters, there is a lower POOL of players for those masters to come from.

THAT is the biggest problem that we have with the no-restriction games and why we are so passionate about getting things right the FIRST time so that the game can become HUGE in the future! If SOME players lose a LITTLE fun now, that will be MORE than made up for in the LONG run by the MANY MORE new players that are introduced to the game in the future as a result of publications about the game.


Gary

See Dmitri, he argues lots better than you and I combined. I agree with him about how he used your own argument to refute what you've argued about. Exactly why would it hurt someone from becoming a good player? If they can't adapt, then they probably won't become one.
That's 2 more points for Pioneer54 in the current tallying.

You keep slamming it into a wall with these guys it's going to start hurting. I'm fading away from this site. Even if I disagreed with your last post, and believe me I quite agree with it including your reference to some of my in poor taste posts even though you didn't name names, yours was well spoken and stated in clear language exactly what it is. I especially like your argument of putting the shoe on the other foot. Very good idea. They are so sure of the righteousness of their cause, the would dismiss out of hand such a notion as changing the rules to the other Pente!
I typed to Gary in one of our "Demostration" games that I was going to stop posting here. I will try hard to do so. I am down to six games on this site. It might take a couple weeks to clear them. Dark Chess being a longer game even with opponents that move regularly. Until then I might stop here from time to time.

<Pioneer54 -

You made a statement about something that I had already addressed. Since you have not made a post in a few days, I am assuming that you have not had time to read everything so I will bring it up again.

You write:
>> The game "Keryo13" sans restrictions is indeed a game, and is indeed a pente variant. You have chosen to refuse to recognize it as a variant, but you have not shown that it should not be here, other than offerings of a whimsical nature. <

We haven't recognized it as a variant because it does not meet what we would consider to be reasonable requirements for a variant. Let me explain. I have stated CLEARLY what constitutes an INVALID variant of any game on BOTH discussion boards and Dmitri King repeated my EXACT words in a later post. I will repeat them yet again. Below is a cut-and-paste of my 'challenge' from a prior post that PERFECTLY personifies what an invalid variant is.

The definition of an INVALID variant:
>>
1. The variant must have a name that contains the name of the regular version of the game.
2. Only one SINGLE rule is changed. (I'll even consider 2 or 3 rules based on the situation.)
3. NONE of the pieces, stones, men or whatever is used for moves and/or movement is changed from the mainstream game.
4. The method of winning the game must still be the same. (i.e. no anti-variants which are obviously substaintally different from the original games)
5. The change in the rule(s) DRASTICALLY affects the chances of one side or the other so that one side now wins a substaintal percentage of the time or the game now results in a large % of draws.


Does this seem like a REASONABLE definition of an INVALID variant to you? Pioneer54, does this NOT make sense to you? You are obviously an intelligent individual with logical reasoning skills. Does it somehow seem unfair to you? Does it NOT seem necessary to define invalid variants? If we did NOT define them, then like Dmitri King said, anyone could put ANYTHING on ANY game site. 3-in-a-row needed to win? 1 capture needed to win? 5x5 board? Sure, all valid variants. Don't you see, Pioneer54, that if we don't define what constitues an INVALID variant, then there's no telling what will show up on the sites. I'm trying to appeal to your since of logical reasoning here.

I am still waiting for someone to forward us a VARIANT of ANY game at ANY site that meets these requirements EXCEPT for Pente and Keryo Pente at IYT. If people CANNOT come up with a variant of ANY game that is so similar to it's original so that it misleads MANY new players into playing the ACTUAL game incorrectly, then I don't see how people can debate and/or argue in favor of no-restriction Pente or Keryo Pente.

PLEASE let me know what you would change about THAT definition of an invalid variant so that it would properly define what YOU could consider to be an INVALID variant.


Gary

Is this a joke, Gary? Should we laugh now or cry later? Are you really interested in the opinions of newcomers? If you are, then we are you so blatantly trying to jade their views before they even find out anything!!? Another example of you and Dmitri on a mad drive to have it your way!!

Well, NOT exactly!!

Dmitri writes: "The main point of contention seems to be that some (gary, myself, Harley, and others) believe that a variant has to be JUSTIFIED in order to exist on a gaming site. The opposing viewpoint, presented by Walter, Satan, Pioneer54, Ellieoop, and others is that a variant need not be justified beyond the generic "I want the variant so therefore it should be so."

Well sure, when you put it like that it sounds convincing, but this is a gross oversimplification, not to mention a terrible distortion. The game "Keryo13" sans restrictions is indeed a game, and is indeed a pente variant. You have chosen to refuse to recognize it as a variant, but you have not shown that it should not be here, other than offerings of a whimsical nature. (In fact, it WAS here for a short time, and as we all know it has been at IYT for several years, and will continue to be there.)

For example, I asked that you produce the analysis that assumes player 1 cannot be beaten in unrestricted keryo13 (assuming best play). Your response was really lame; you said no proof was needed, it stands on its own merit. Sorry, I'm not buying that, as it is tantamount to saying you can't prove it. You'll have to do better. Even if you could show what you purport to believe, I would not say that is cause to crusade for denying others the game (or variant) of their choice.

Dmitri writes: "I feel that Gary and I have given more than enough reasons for why this particular variant just should not exist on this gaming site (or any other for that matter)."

I really do not think you have, other than you just don't happen to like the idea. The notion that this game you so fervently wish to outlaw is somehow inhibiting masters from being produced (as Gary explicitly claimed) is rather absurd. You said yourself that the restriction is a "minor rule change". It is. Well, OK, if a player can't shift from the 13 board to the 19 board and quickly learn this MINOR RULE CHANGE, then how is that player ever going to master pente, tiddly-winks, or anything else??

Dmitri writes: "So, for pente or any game, the decision on whether to introduce a variant is a judgement call. SOME criteria MUST be used! If it were simply a matter of saying "well, this one was asked for so I'll do it" then every variant would be created, no matter how pointless it is, and we would be overrun with bad variants."

You've rambled on here, without making much of a point. No one is asking for endless amounts of variants. We are only asking for ONE variant, unrestricted Keryo13; more directly, we are asking that this game be reinstated. It isn't as though we came off the wall with some outlandish idea. THE GAME WAS HERE, until it got modified. Fencer should now rescind his arbitrary and capricious decision and reinstate the game.

Dmitri writes: "WHY was Gary ridculed and insulted for presenting a set of criteria to be used to evaluating whether a variant should be created?"

I am not saying that Gary was ridiculed nor should he have been, but any ridicule he brought upon himself, and he is rapidly losing credibility with his latest so-called 'challenge', which is farcical, and bordering on insane. He is in effect saying, "If you cannot do or demonstrate the nearly impossible, you must admit you are incorrect." But it doesn't matter, since his supposition was totally irrelevant.

You should reread your posts sometimes, Dmitri. You have really gotten brash and condescending! Using a phrase like "those 5 noisemakers", is a strong indication that you are a crazed zealot without regard to diverse opinions! In any case, I guess we have come somewhat farther than Gary's former assertion that there would be just a few "isolated complaints", and there may well be other unhappy folks we have yet to hear from.

If there is any shame, you've more than earned it on your own. You and Gary are top-notch players anyway, and you ordinarily wouldn't be even playing on the 13 boards, so why not just forget what is going on there? If you are really trying to promote pente, you would have better luck going door-to-door than your current methods. I hope you'll pardon this expression, but I think about all you have really managed to do it piss people off!

Lately, I have tried to bide my time and patiently read this board without comment, because I feel my position was made clear some time ago, and so further expounding would be unnecessary. And I will say that harsh commentary has not been limited to your posts; some of the things said by those I agree with in principle have been below board too, but you then seem to assume it is your duty to simply outshout them, whereby you must think that you have convinced everybody that you and Gary alone are absolutely correct and all else must be mistaken.

Is a supposed (or even proven) winning percentage really meaningful if enough players want or demand a particular game type? I've played over 500 games of keryo13 on IYT, winning better than 80% of them, including WINS and LOSSES FROM BOTH SIDES, and I don't recall too many games from either side that were easy to win. (Does this make me an expert? Judge for yourself, although I can assure you that Fencer did not consult me before making his decision to impose the 13 restriction.) Of course, some of the competition was subpar, but that is the whole point. No player will play perfectly all the time, and many players will not play perfectly ANY of the time.

Try this: Suppose a group of users here got together and (without consulting you and maybe even deliberately excluding you) convinced Fencer to eliminate the restriction on the 19 boards. My guess is you would be pretty shocked! And rightly so! Why then, do you so utterly fail to appreciate and comprehend that there are many of us who simply believe that the restriction just is not necessary on the 13 board?

To all novices and beginners at Pente and Keryo Pente -

We also welcome your comments on this issue. We would like to hear the side of people that are new to Pente and Keryo Pente for the first time at this site.

Before giving your opinions, we would only ask that you examine all of the issues that have been presented here, including the confusion that IYT has caused by creating games called Pente and Keryo Pente with incorrect rules and what REALLY constitutes a VALID variant for a game.


Thanks,
Gary

<Thad -

Once again, you have brought up interesting points of discussion and comparison, which is what we want. You have compared Pente/Keryo Pente to professional-level tennis and volleyball. This is an interesting comparison and is certainly reasonably valid.

Your statement:
>> I can site an example where player 1 has a strong advantage over player 2, yet this game is played at the professional level...tennis.
volleyball (also played professionally) is another example where one player (well, team in this case) has an advantage over the other, in this case, it is team 2 who has the advantage!

My response:
I will only do the comparison to tennis. I think you'll see why once you read this.

You are absolutely correct that the person serving in tennis has a large advantage at the prosessional ranks. I have never quite understood why they don't just play EVERY game in a set and match like they do in tiebreaker games when a set is tied 6-6. For everyone's information, in a tiebreaker tennis game, the result of the game is NOT influenced by who serves the first point, because after ONE point, the serve is switched and each player serves 2 points in a row before switching again and it continues switching like that until someone has won 7 points AND leads by 2 points. It is designed that way so that NEITHER player has EVER served more than ONE more point then his opponent in the game.

But that is NOT how they choose to do it, so I will address HOW they choose to do it. Although I can't quote any specific statistics, I can say that it is a REASONABLE estimate that the server at the highest ranks (top 10-15) in men's play probably wins about 75-80% of games. In my opinion that is TOO large and the rules should be changed a bit, but at the same time, I can say that it is OK because a set is not won until someone has won 6 or 7 games (or more in the case of final set matches in some tournaments where someone must win the final set by 2 games) and a MATCH is not won until 2 or 3 sets have been won.

Now contrast one side winning 75-80% of the time in individual games WITHIN sets WITHIN a SINGLE match to the advantage enjoyed by player 1 in Fun-pente. To give you an idea of how much larger the advantage is in one side for FunPente vs. tennis, we have to compare apples to apples. So since we're talking the top 10-15 players in men's tennis, we must take the top 10-15 Pente players in the world. This list would probably include the following in no specific order:
Russians:
1. Victor Barykin
2. Dmitri Krasnonosov
3. Igor Sinyov
4. Alexander Nosovsky
Americans:
1. Scott Justice
2. Tom Braunlich
3. Rollie Tesch
4. Bodo Koonz
5. Myself
6. Dmitri King
Others:
1. Istvan Virag of Hungary
2. Don Banks of Canada

There are MANY other noteables, but the above would be the ones that I can think of that would encompass the 'professional level' ranks of Pente if there were any money in the game.

Now if you took ALL of those players and put them together in a single Pente tournament WITHOUT any opening restriction, I would estimate that player 1 would win 98% of the time in the first tournament, 99.5% of the time in the second tournament, and 100% of the time after that!! I would even go so far as to say that the ONLY reason that ANY games would be lost as player 2 is because the players became so bored with the overwhelming advantage enjoyed by player 1 that they overlooked an obvious attack by the 2nd player. If you doubt this, just ask any one of those players and they will tell you the same thing.

Now consider one FURTHER thing. There is currently NO MONEY in Pente!! So there is NO incentive to better one's self other than the enjoyment of the game itself. So there are FAR fewer players then there COULD be in Pente because there is NO money in it!

Now imagine if the ALL OF A SUDDEN, there were REGULAR HUGE-money Pente tournaments like there are in tennis where the winner wins $500K+!!! Would you NOT doubt that there would ALL OF A SUDDEN be a HUGE # of top-level Chess, GoMoku, Renju, you-name-it game players that would start playing and studying Pente?

If something like that happened and continued consistently every year, there would quickly be 300-500 players that are as good as the top 10-15 are now. NOW, take the TOP 10 out of THOSE 300-500 players! At that point, even WITH the CURRENT restriction, player 1 would probably push past 95%+ within 1-2 years. WITHOUT it, player 1 would NEVER lose!

Does everyone understand the magnitude of the advantage that we are talking about here? We're not just talking a paltry advantage where player 1 wins 75-80% of the time amongst top players. What we're talking about is a FORCED win for player 1 just like has been proven in 24 moves in GoMoku! I will go on record as stating that player 1 wins by force in Pente without restriction in 22 or less moves! (Possibly as little as 19-20)

But also, does everyone understand that when we said that the game can be BIG, we mean REALLY big!! I LOVE this game and I want it to be HUGE!! Bigger than Chess, bigger than Renju, heck bigger than tennis!! Just IMAGINE it!! The local papers advertising local Pente clubs and every 100K+ population metropolitan area having a big tournament at least once/month. That's how big we are thinking!

But like I said, in order to be that big, MANY top players must be interested in the game so that their passion can drive the game by creating strategy guides, opening books, end-game books, game databases, teaching software, and on and on.

If all of you could only read Tom Branlich's 1984 book 'Pente Strategy' you would SEE the passion in that man's writing about how GREAT the game really is and how BIG that it can become! Tom is a former 3-time world pente champion who was already a master in Chess before taking up Pente. Now image if there were 25-50 players JUST LIKE HIM!! The publications would be NUMEROUS and the interest would be HUGE! But I can promise that master-level players at ANY games will NOT write strategy guides if there is no further way to improve one's self because one side has too large of an advantage. And if we allow beginning players to CONTINUE to be confused as to what the correct rules are, then that will only FURTHER be detrimental to the game.


Gary Barnes

Thad, thanks for your reply and for addressing my points.

Although your had me think for a moment, I do think it is not exactly applicable. BUt more important, I want to adress what you said about evening up the advantage by playing two game sets.

That alone is insufficient-- for instance, if there is a game where player 1 has a forced win 100% of the time, would it make sense to simply play two game sets and ignore any attempts to give player 2 a chance? NO, it wouldn't, and by the same reasoning, the possibility of playing two game sets is no reason to neglect the restriction that gives player 2 more of a chance.

Harley,

As the novice here with the biggest voice (that’s a complement, not an insult) I am interested in your opinion as to whether or not it is ok to have a variant of ‘official’ pente in which the rules are changed (not broken, but changed) eliminating the move restriction, presenting it as a variant and not the ‘official’ version of course.

What I’m asking here is whether it’s ok or not for that variant to be here for people to play, NOT whether you yourself would or wouldn’t play it.

Thanks,
Thad

PS: I welcome any other novice’s opinions on this too.

Dmitri,

You said:
Since people can't seem to grasp this I will make it as SIMPLE as possible (since some of you have said you like the SIMPLICITY of "fun-pente")

DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT PLAYER 1 has an advantage in this game????????? Does anyone really doubt that having the extra stone gives player 1 a sizeable advantage?

Well, to have NO restriction for player 1 when player 1 has an OBVIOUS advantage (the extra stone) is just ASININE!
[end]


I don’t doubt that player has an advantage in fun-pente. It can be compensated for by playing a two game set.

Playing a game where one side has a distinct advantage is not asinine!

I can site an example where player 1 has a strong advantage over player 2, yet this game is played at the professional level...tennis. Volleyball (also played professionally) is another example where one player (well, team in this case) has an advantage over the other, in this case, it is team 2 who has the advantage!

Playing fun-pente is not asinine.

Thad

And to follow up on what Harley said, and also to reply to some earlier posts from the opposing side, I wish to present an argument that is slightly different from what I have said thus far.

The main point of contention seems to be that some (gary, myself, Harley, and others) believe that a variant has to be JUSTIFIED in order to exist on a gaming site. The opposing viewpoint, presented by Walter, Satan, Pioneer54, Ellieoop, and others is that a variant need not be justified beyond the generic "I want the variant so therefore it should be so."

I feel that Gary and I have given more than enough reasons for why this particular variant just should not exist on this gaming site (or any other for that matter).

But to further illustrate the point, suppose tomorrow lots of people started requesting LOTS of pente variants, and lots of othello variants, and lots of variants for all games. Do you think Fencer would indiscriminantly add every one of them? No, he would most likely examine the merits of each one, deciding to keep only the better ones. The site cannot support a limitless number of variants, and thus only those that deserve to exist should exist. In the future, we may see lots of pente variants, and then people will have lots of options.

So, for pente or any game, the decision on whether to introduce a variant is a judgement call. SOME criteria MUST be used! If it were simply a matter of saying "well, this one was asked for so I'll do it" then every variant would be created, no matter how pointless it is, and we would be overrun with bad variants.

Here is where I am going with this--

WHY was Gary ridculed and insulted for presenting a set of criteria to be used to evaluating whether a variant should be created? I would say his list of criteria was well thought out and could be well-applied to any game, not just pente. I think we would all agree that SOME criteria needs to exist in order for a game to be created. So, before blasting his, why not actually think about it first and see if his criteria has any flaws? I did not see any. But, instead of actually examining the details of his idea, some of you just outright blasted it and dismissed it with snide questions about who made him god or some crap like that. I have two words for that: CHILDISH AND PETTY.

That would be a great idea, considering the amount of duplicated posts. Gary, I see why you can't delete them, theres nothing WRONG with the posts, they're just copied from another board! And quite relevant to the discussion on each board. Its just that right now its the same discussion on both boards!

*blush* no need for thanks! I'd been reading this argument for weeks before finally posting, it seemed so obvious to me what you and Dmitri were trying to say and I couldn't decide if people were just being awkward about it or if they genuinely had a point themselves.
How many times has it been said that 'you can't please everyone'? This is certainly a good example of that.
I chimed in on the subject BECAUSE I'm a beginner at pente. Everyone is saying that you and Dmitri are trying to play God and take over the pente here and because you're Ace players you think you can rule the rules... so to speak!!
Well, I say NO. They are not trying to take over the site, they are trying to help people like me, who doesn't have a clue and wants to learn the CORRECT game. Most beginners probably wouldn't bother to read the long posts about this subject, Ellie being an example, so it has been left to those passionate about the game to argue it out. Thats why it looks like its 'only' Dmitri and Gary who want this restriction enforced, because they are the only two who can be bothered reading all the LONG posts!

Exactly Dmitri. Other sites have pente, WITH the restriction and nobody is shouting there saying they demand it without. Its the rules, IYT seems to have messed everything up, and if I'd have seen 'pente' or 'pro pente' here I'd have gone for pente because I didn't know how to play the game!!
Imagine then if I'd have entered a tournament WITH the restriction! I'd have been slaughtered!!
As I said before, rules are rules!!

Harley -

GOOD question! I have the ability to edit or delete any post as I see fit. Of course I would not do so without asking the player to first make the change or deletion unless there was extremely vulgar language or was inflammatory towards a specific group of people.

I hesitate to delete the duplicate posts. I have also had to make several duplicate ones. The reasons that I hesitate are that there are SOME people that are ONLY interested in one game or the other AND there are SOME posts that are ONLY specific to one game or the other.

I guess the format of the message boards is in question here. I believe that a suggestion was made at a previous time to combine ALL of the message boards for Pente and Keryo Pente into one discussion board. That is probably the best thing that could be done. Of course the question would THEN be, how would Fencer somehow 'merge' the previous posts into the new SINGLE discussion board. Perhaps that would not be necessary. Maybe he could just leave the current discussion boards out there and call them 'archived' or 'old' discussion boards, but allow no further posts to them. Then people could just refer to posts previously posted on the so-and-so board.

Harley, once again, we want to thank you VERY much for presenting the 'official' rules side of things as you did on the Small Keryo Pente discussion board. It is quite gratifying to see that there are players who are just now learning the game and want to learn to play it correctly to begin with. It is beginning players like you that we are the MOST concerned with that learn the game correctly in the first place.


Thanks again,
Gary

I think is was suggested before that the boards be merged. I would like to hear what Fencer ha to say about this. The total combined volume of the 4 pente boards is such that it owuld all be merged onto one board-- ESPECIALLY since the topic overlap is almost 100%.

Excellent points Harley. I want to clarify one thing because I don't want people to pounce on you over a small detail.

The point I want to clarify is a brief history of pente matters, in chronological order:

1) IYT adds pente to their site (sometime in 1998 I believe). In doing so, they used an incorrect board (13 X 13) and they did not have the opening move restriction, which shows they researched the matter poorly.

2) A full 2 years later around May of 2000, IYT FINALLY implements the game properly, with a 19 X 19 board and the restriction on the opening move. But since the other game was already called pente, they called this "Pro pente." This was the beginning of the confusion. TO new players, that made it appear as if "Pro-pente" was some difficult variant only for experts, and thus people started to play using the reules without the restriction.

That caused two things: they were hindered in their development of the correct way to play and people became confused about the opening rules.

3) Brain King comes into existence. Pioneer54 introduces the site to me, and I immediately love it. I see that it does not have pente.

4) Gary Barnes and I write to Fencer about pente, and within a week, he has the game ready to go with the corrrect board and rules.

5) Web TV users complain that they cannot play on the 19 by 19 board, so Fencer creates a 13 X 13 board to enable them to play.

6) I understood the reason for the small board, but I did not understand why the restriction was removed, after all, what did Web TV have to do with that?

7) Gary and I wrote lengthy and thorough explanations to Fencer for why the restriction was necessary even on the small board.

8) Fencer, hearing our explanation, agreed and implemented the restriction on the small boards as well.

9) then the argument began.

So, regarding what Harley said, she is 100% correct! -- Had IYT never created the game improperly, this would be a non-issue, just like the kid who never saw the ice cream truck.

I should add that at Dweebo's stone games at www.pente.org, the restriction is almost always if not always in place, and no one seems bothered by this. Dozens and dozens of people play pente there every day. PBeM, where the world championships are played, simply calls the game "pente" even though it has the restriction, just as Brain King does. There is no need to call it "Pro pente," it is understood by most pente players that the restriction is a part of the game, not a variant.

Gary, can something be done about all the posts that are here AND on the other board? I like to follow this discussion because I'm interested in the game, and I happen to enjoy reading what people think who know a lot more than me about it. BUT.. I'm reading the same posts on each board, sometimes branching off with different replies and I'm spending too long reading the same posts!

Woah! When did this discussion turn into an argument?!! Its been close before but this is getting out of hand.

Dmitri and Gary, if people threaten to leave this site just because of you two then I'm sure they wont be missed. Emotional blackmail is an ugly thing and un-called for. If people want to stamp their feet and say "if I cant play this game then I'm not playing at all" the best thing to do is walk away and let them have their tantrum in peace.

I had never played pente before I came here, and I can see where you're coming from with this 'variant' that people want so bad.

Question.. if it had never been at this site at all, would everyone be shouting so loud about it now?
What comes to mind is a child who has no thoughts of ice-cream at all, until they see the ice-cream van.. then its the end of the world if they cant have one.
So it goes with this game. If it had been put here WITH the restriction to begin with there would be no problem now. Nobody would ASK for it without the restriction. As it is, it has been changed to fall in with the OFFICIAL rules and this should be accepted. And it was changed because FENCER saw the logic in what Dmitri and Gary are saying, no other reason.

And Walter... cheap shot at Gary. Nobody is interested in how often he is moving in your game. Its a turn based site, as long as he moves within the time its a legal move. If you have a problem with that its between you two and should be addressed privately, not on here to try and make Gary look bad. Next time shorten the time for moves.

Since people can't seem to grasp this I will make it as SIMPLE as possible (since some of you have said you like the SIMPLICITY of "fun-pente")

DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT PLAYER 1 has an advantage in this game????????? Does anyone really doubt that having the extra stone gives player 1 a sizeable advantage?

Well, to have NO restriction for player 1 when player 1 has an OBVIOUS advantage (the extra stone) is just ASININE!

To me, saying that no restriction is necessary is the same as saying that having the extra stone is not an advantage. Well, that defies logic and reason!

I can't make it any simpler than that.

I keep hearing people say "Well, I have won as player 2 without the restriction." Sure, against a WEAK PLAYER, but not likely against an equally matched player! What does beating up on weak players prove? NOTHING!

For all those who are yammering on about liking the extra challenge of trying to win as player 2 WIOUT the restriction, I will again repeat myself:

I play at a 95%- 97% clip as player 1 WITh the restriction. That sounds like more than enough challenge for all you challenge seekers out there who usew that as a reason for having the variant without the restriction.

One more thought-- there really are only about 5 people making any noise about the restriction being added to the small boards. If this is ruining the fun for people,where are all these people saying "Hey, what happneed to the bvariant that I liked?" Well, weo don't heat them. SO, while those 5 noisemakers are claiming that Gary and I are trying to impose our will on everyone, we cuoud say the same right back at that small group.

I keep hearing that it is the NON-serious players who would be most affected by this change. This is a blatant contradiction. A Non-serious player would not take the game seriously enouhg to actually CARE about the opening rules.

Since people can't seem to grasp this I will make it as SIMPLE as possible (since some of you have said you like the SIMPLICITY of "fun-pente")

DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT PLAYER 1 has an advantage in this game????????? Does anyone really doubt that having the extra stone gives player 1 a sizeable advantage?

Well, to have NO restriction for player 1 when player 1 has an OBVIOUS advantage (the extra stone) is just ASININE!

To me, saying that no restriction is necessary is the same as saying that having the extra stone is not an advantage. Well, that defies logic and reason!

I can't make it any simpler than that.

I keep hearing people say "Well, I have won as player 2 without the restriction." Sure, against a WEAK PLAYER, but not likely against an equally matched player! What does beating up on weak players prove? NOTHING!

For all those who are yammering on about liking the extra challenge of trying to win as player 2 WIOUT the restriction, I will again repeat myself:

I play at a 95%- 97% clip as player 1 WITh the restriction. That sounds like more than enough challenge for all you challenge seekers out there who usew that as a reason for having the variant without the restriction.

One more thought-- there really are only about 5 people making any noise about the restriction being added to the small boards. If this is ruining the fun for people,where are all these people saying "Hey, what happneed to the bvariant that I liked?" Well, weo don't heat them. SO, while those 5 noisemakers are claiming that Gary and I are trying to impose our will on everyone, we cuoud say the same right back at that small group.

I keep hearing that it is the NON-serious players who would be most affected by this change. This is a blatant contradiction. A Non-serious player would not take the game seriously enouhg to actually CARE about the opening rules.

What is REALLY sad isthat Walter and maybe snutter have threatened to leave this site AND drive others away from this site JUST TO SPITE me and Gary. THAT is really sad, and it is unfortunate that they would hurt Fencer just becayse they can't do anything to me. Of course, the logical thing to do would be for them to try to out-debate me, but that clearly isn't going to happen.

This is pathetic on their part. IT is akin to one of them punching a guy's little sister in the afce to get back at the guy, because they are incapable of doing anything to the guy.

SAD. Very Sad.

Okay, first of all, this is NOT my site or Gary's site, it is FENCER's site. HE receives input from me and Gary just like he no doubt receives input from everyone else.

To say that Gary and I are ruining anything or driving people away is LUDICROUS. Pente is HERE on this site largely because of the actions of Gary and Myself. We then spread the word about pente being here and lots of pente players flocked from IYT to play pente here. DOes Fencer OWE us anything for that? Of course not!! BUt, he did lidten to our acse for adding the restriction to the small board and he thought we made a good case, so he made the decision to do so.

Ellieoop, I am growing frustrated more and more with your refusal to read the posts in this thread. I actually stated that I am giving up on trying to keep the "variant" off of BRain King because people are being petty about it and threatening to leave Brain King. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to this variant, and I will continue to try to dissuade people from playing it, but if people are going to leave the site AND tell others to leave the site, well, that is not good. My suggestion was to give the variant a different name like pseudopente or something similar. All of you noisemakers just want the variant, so what do you care what it is called? Can't you make that one small concession to appease those who are tihnking about this logically instead of with illogical emotions?

BUt no, apparently everyone missed tihs and started flaming me. Maybe they thought I was sarcastac, since snutter thinks that is the only thing I know how to do.

Those who have been whining about Gayr and I taking their choices away shouldn't care what the game is called, all they want to do it PLAT it, they have made that quite clear. So why not concded the opint about hwat it is called? then, the development of pente need not be inhibited, and everyone is happy.

But I suspect a LOGICAL resolution si not what any of you want, no, you want to argue and call people names and such.

ALso, none of you would actually be willing to concede that I am making a good point about anything, no matter how many good points I make.

then i take it, that you and Gary are the ones that are running these games, and my posts should go to you, and it also tells me that an option will not be put in place and it would be foolish for me to continue asking for it.

Walter, you say

"Anyways, if you'd like to see just what a nitwit Dmitri is, you can find the posts and various other people's replies starting there(you might have to go back a page or two now) and then move to the Small Keryo Pente discussion board to find the rest of them. I've had a running thing going with him that you'll find through out it. He seems to think his postings are eloquent to no end, but they're not. Aside from his stated objection to allowing it, he never really addresses anybody's liking for the Original Pente (Hey, I like that name for it!) except in some grandiose vision of it being detrimental to their developement as Pente players. I have since dubbed him "The Keeper of All That's Pure and Standard About Pente as Played on a 19 X 19 Board". When I point out things like this he ignores them and then tells me that I haven't said anything. So I have given into attacking him or atleast just pointing out the errors in his ways"


HA HA HA HA HA! You are very funny! You think you have pointed out errors in my ways? You have to be joking! Ask ANY debate coach in this country who has presented his case more clearly, thoroughly, and convincingly, and I think we all know who the answer will be. Your claim that I do not address what people say is ABSURD. Then you tell people to go check my posts to go see what a nitwit I am? HA! You are delusional! Anyone who checks my posts will see that I have adressed EVERY point made my my opponents MULTIPLE times!

The bad news for you is that calling me a nitwit and saying I have not addressed the issues does NOT make it so, especially since any intelligent person can see that your statements are way off the mark.

Satan said "One last thing. You didn't address my point either. In my ORIGINAL pente rule book, regular pente is listed, as well as tourney. Tom Braunlich wrote a book on REGULAR pente strategy that is still relevant today for beginners and intermediates. Therefor, there are / were official rules for this game. And it was addressed and played by one of the greatest players ever. AND, I bet back then, Tom Braunlich enjoyed playing regular pente. Why shouldn't I or anyone else? "

Satan, in response to this I will refer to What Gayr wrote:

"I will now state some information and make some quotes from the following books:
PENTE Strategy 1 copyright 1980 by Tom Braunlich and PENTE Games Inc.
PENTE Strategy 2 copyright 1982 by PENTE Games Inc.
PENTE Strategy copyright 1984 by Tom Braunlich

1. Pente was invented in 1978 by Gary Gabrel.
2. The first official World (U.S.) Championship tourney was held in 1979 and last in 1984.
3. The tournament rule (opening restriction) was created before the first tourney was played in 1979.
4. The tournament rule became a standard accepted rule for the game after 1982.
5. The rights to Pente were sold to Parker Brothers on January 1, 1984.

Parker Brothers chose to do nothing with Pente and destroyed the corporate sponsorship for the game, thereby destroying any future possibility of large national championships. Later on, they sold the rights to Decipher who also chose to do nothing with it.

Now to the instructions for the game in the original tube. I too have an original Pente tube although I have lost the instructions. BUT...I do remember exactly what you are stating, that is that the instructions said that the tournament rule is optional. What happened is that those instructions were written when the tube was originally manufactured. I can't state an EXACT starting date for when the instructions in the tube were created, but it MUST have been after the tournament rule was created before the first tournament in 1979. Anyway, no one bothered to change the instructions after the tourney rule became the standard accepted rule after 1982. Why did this happen? I do not know. But my guess is that Gary Gabrel was looking for a buyer in 1983 and found one who eventually bought the rights to it on January 1, 1984 in Parker Brothers. I'm guessing that he wasn't too concerned about tweeking anything with the tubes that were being manufactured while he was looking for a buyer."

I would like to point out that Thad, Gary and I were having a friendly, pleasant discussion until certain people made inflammatory posts that were very likely intended to start a needless flame war. I am referring mostly to Walter Montago (notihng new there), and to a lesser extent, Satan.

Thad and I show each other respect, and thus it stays pleasant. Whne others jump in and act nasty, then nasty replies will follow.

ellieoop, you ask for answers to questiosn that were already answered. By your own admission, you don't feel like reading the responses. Well, if I took the time to write well-thought out and lengthy explanations, then you can take the time to read them. I don't know why you think I or anyone else should waste time repeating ourselves for your benefit. I would estimate that your questions have bene answered three or four times EACH by Gary and myself.

is there any reason why we can't have the option, and without having to hear all these long winded explanations, and then those that want to play it can. i played crowded backgammon, i don't if that's a legal game, i don't like it, and i probably won't play it anymore, but i didn't ask fencer to take the game off, if you don't like pente or keryo without restrictions, don't play it, but i really like that game, and don't tell me to go to iyt to play it, just play the games you like and give me the same option to play the ones i like. i don't understand why you care so much, unless this has become your site, and then i suppose i couldn't ask you to do anything. i would like fencer to answer this, and maybe because i'm 68 yrs. old, i guess i don't have the patience for these long answers.
thx ellie

Gary,

You said:
It is OUR premise that if a VARIANT of a game has ALL and ONLY all of those conditions, then it is an invalid variant because it hurts the mainstream game in the LONG-run.

Ok, well it’s MY premise that one game is a variant of another if it’s rules can be explained more easily by describing the differences between it and the main game, than explaining explaining the rules of that game would be. For example, I can say that fun-pente (as I have called it in previous posts) is ‘official’ pente without the move restriction. I can say that much more easily than I can lay out all the rules for fun-pente. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a variant. Keyro13 is Keyro Pente played on a 13x13 board. That’s much easier to say than to state all the rules for Keyro13 directly. It’s a variant.

Now, with my premise, there is no issue of games being valid or not. I mean, one could play just about anything they want. Pente-on-a-5x5 board? Go ahead. I’m not gonna play, but if you want to, be my guest! Pente-where-more-than-five-in-a-row-doesn’t-win, pente-with-unlimited-captures, pente-where-you-can’t-win-diagonally? All good! Have a blast. How about this one, checkers with shot glasses, when you make a jump, drink your opponent’s shot, when you make a king, add an olive (yes, I stole that from M*A*S*H). I LIKE that variant!! My point here is that I can make up any game I want and no one can tell me it is or isn’t a valid game.

Furthermore, my premise doesn’t take into account anything about the original game. AND IT SHOULDN’T! Whether or not a variant has some kind of impact on the game it was derived from doesn’t validate or invalidate the variant!


Also you said:
Any other variant that doesn't negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win in Pente or Keryo Pente is OK.

Ok by whom? You? Me? Us? Them? God?

Why can’t a variant ‘negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win’? And if it can’t how can you allow both Pente and Keyro Pente. Surely in one variation, player 1 has a bigger advantage than in the other and therefore must go. Or are you saying that we can create variations of pente so long as player 1’s advantage is no greater than it is with the current ‘official’ rules? Well, who said the current amount of advantage is the correct amount not to be exceeded anyway?

Thad

Walter, have you noticed how polite and friendly I am in debating with pioneer54 and Thad? That is becasuse they actually DEBATE the issues and address what is said.

You just PROVOKE nasty arguments with petty insults and inaccurate blanket statements.
You have no desire to keep this a civil friendly debate-- I OBVIOUSLY Do, as seen by my responses to Thad and pioneer54, but then you come in and just throw gasoline on everything and light a match.

I don't regret anythign I said to you in response because you have provoked it all with your unpleasant attitude. You got exactly what you wanted, a pointless argument and name calling, because you don't actually have antything intelligent to say about the issues. I suspect you don't have anything intelligent to say about much of anything, because your intellectual abilities are very much in doubt to me at this time. Unlike Satan, Thad, or pioneer54, you don't even attempt to counter a point made by either myself or Gary; I can only assume that this is because you are not capable.

You can call me a nitwit all you want, but what does that make you, since I have thoroughly trounced you in any debate we have had, and since your pente ability is so clearly about 8 levels below mine? I suppose coming from you, "nitwit" is a compliment, so why am I upset?

And then you have the gall to call Gary a censor??? What did he censor? NOTIHNG!

You show your foolishness with every post! This is a PENTE discussion board, not one about aluminum bats. The reason Fencer made moderators is SPECIFICALLY to remove off topic posts. So go ahead and complain to Fencer that his moderator is "threatening" to remove irrelevant posts! You are already the source of ridicule for talking about bringing 13 X 13 boards to Oklahoma City, so why not give yourself more reason to be ridiculed?

Walter, you are acting like a pathetic mindless fool. It is sad that you cannot say anything intelligent of your own, but rather just applaud Satan's mindless post.

You have some gall to say that I do not address people's posts. READ MY POSTS!!!!! That is all I do! Take a look at my resposnes to Thad! I copied and quoted (with astericks for utmost clarity) his

All you can do is sling insults and talk about my mother.

You have NEVER tried to address any of the points listed, you just make grand generic statements.

And no, I DO NOT KNOW WHY I WAS SINGLED OUT! THAT IS WHY I ASKED!!!!!!! What is WRONG with you!???
Why don't you spend less time with your idiotic posts and more time making less pathetic moves in your pente games? You are a joke!!! for all your talk, your challenge is worthless and your moves are pathetic. You are pathetic. You cannnot make a single point of argument. But you have succeeded in really getting under my skin, so congratulations!

OK everyone. I have heard a lot of BS about the no restriction variant.

Some of the BS has gone like this: "I like the extra challenge of playing as player 2 without the restriction."

THIS IS A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!!!!!!!

I win something like 95% percent of my games as player 1 WITH the restriction, maybe closer to 96% or 97%.

IS THIS NOT ENOUGH OF A CHALLENGE FOR ALL OF YOU????

You want a challenge, play me as player 2 WITH the restriction, and you'll damn well get a challenge!

So for everyone who keeps saying they like the additional challenge of playing WITHOUT the restriction, I say that is a load of crap. I CHALLLENGE you to beat me as player 2 WITH the restriction. If you cannot beat me WITH restrictions on opening moves, then why wold you need an ADDITIONAL challenge of adding posible moves for me?