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.
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’.