How about creating a variant in which a player wins when, and only when he/she connects 4 pieces in a row? Creating a line of five or more would not end the game.
Or the other way around: connecting 5 or more pieces would make you LOSE the game.

SunnY DaY: So I wish to know fellow players' opinions about changing the boardsize either to 7x5 (rows x columns) or 7x7, where only skill (and a bit of luck) determine the winner, not the size of the board.

Baah, I meant (columns x rows)

Hello, I'd like to make some suggestions about Line4 and its variants. Although I can't find any article on the internet about it, decent players (not only from BrainKing) agreed that 8x8 board is won by black (second player). Despite that game statistics prove otherwise, (more games won by white in line4) it still favors 2nd players. I was interested in this game's theory and came across John Tromp's web site, and got an idea.
BK players have already suggested enforcing 2 games to make it even. I have a different sollution. On mentioned website there's a table with solved variants:

height
11 =
10 = =
9 = = +
8 = = - +
7 = = + = +
6 = = - + - -
5 = = = = + + +
4 = = - = - - - -
..4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 width

Visit http://homepages.cwi.nl/~tromp/c4/c4.html for a better view.

I would like to suggest that in order to make this game more 'fair' to both players (especially at high gameplay levels) BrainKing should move to board size which (according to John Tromp) leads to a draw, provided both players play perfect.
I suppose players will agree with me, that having 5 or less columns would oversimplify the game, as might be with the number of rows.
So I wish to know fellow players' opinions about changing the boardsize either to 7x5 (rows x columns) or 7x7, where only skill (and a bit of luck) determine the winner, not the size of the board.

In 7x5 games would end faster (which is a plus, I think) whereas 7x7 would be a less change to 8x8.

Well, sounds interesting, but only line3 would be needed to secure a win...

My fellow, tenuki has just chipped in an idea: neutral discs could dissappear when they create a line of 4, making all discs above them fall down.

Another idea:

How about rhombus-shaped 10x10 board. Discs fall down diagonally (from either left or right side) and can block making part of the board unplayable and stick to other discs.

I've been thinking how to "refresh" line4 games here. I have searched the internet for some unusual variants of line4, and reported to Fencer as soon as I had found something interesting. Now, after holidays, I'm full of new ideas that I want to share with other players:

*** A mix of line4 and connect6. It combines line4's board, gravity and goal, and connect6's number of placed discs.
*** Same as above, but the goal is opposite (like in anti line4). The rule "do not put in the same column your opponent did in last move" is not applied.

I've been thinking about some additional features, because putting 2 discs a turn is much more challenging and tricky.
In order to balance chances there are two things that could be done:
*** A player, instead of putting his two discs, puts one disc of his color and is allowed to destroy any other (his or his opponent's) disc that is on the top of a particular column. Beacuse this feature enables 3-fold repetition, when the same situation occurs for the third time, the game is a draw.
Example: White starts by playing e1. Black plays c1 and destroys white's disc in e1. The c1 disc is the only one on the board now.
*** A player, instead of putting his two discs, puts one disc of his color, and is allowed to put two NEUTRAL discs (both in the same column) in a column of his choice. These neutral discs are just blockers, they don't belong to any player, and they cannot be used to create a line of 4 discs.

Of course those blockers should be limited by adding the tetris feature, and:
*** to 2 uses/player/game;
*** no more frequently than once in 5 moves.

Don't forget to name it "Flying Dutchman" :)

coan.net: I proposed starting low and limit the beatings in order to make the game longer. But if you say you are able to make multiple rolls in 1 game my suggestions are unnecessary.
Let's make this one clear: 3 games match would consist of 15 total dice rolls?

AbigailIIif I had 2 or 3 fives, I may not mention them until "5 fives".
Yea, but what if, the turn before you say 5 fives opponent catches you lying f.e "4 fours"?
Or he discoveres your plan and plays 5 fives before you?
As I said before, that's a matter of tactics.

A: 1 five
B: (anything)
A: 2 fives
B: (anything)
A: 3 fives
B: (anything)
A: 4 fives
B: (anything)
A: 5 fives

B says 5 fives after A's 4 fives and A loses :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzQ67pMmB8g&feature=channel_page
04:20 - 06:30

AbigailII: You are absolutely right.
But let's start from the very beginning. :)

1st paragraph: Because the game would end in 1-2 turns, and as you wrote before, become very uninteresting. So I add another rule, hmmm, I don't know how to put it in english, so here goes:
Current declaration: "2 ones"
possible responces: "2 twos", "2 threes", "2 fours", "2 fives", "2 sixes" and "3 ones"
No higher bids. Clear enough?

2nd paragraph: A matter of tactics. I believe, that at this stage of game, B should declare "2 ones".

3rd paragraph: I missed out one word. B: "LIAR!" B knows A hasn't played fives before, so PROBABLY/ALMOST SURELY he doesn't have any.
And again, A was given 2,2,4,4,6 hand
Would you play "6 fives" having no fives on your hand, hoping opponent has 4 fives? I don't think so.

AbigailII:Dice rolled by a player are visible only for that particular player.
Dice on the table are visible to both players.

And yes, there is one uncertainity there.

Dice on the table are 5 dice visible for both players.
After the accusation, dice on the table mean all 15 dice.

Typical game looks like this:
Player A rolled 2,2,4,4,6
Player B rolled 2,3,5,5,5
Dice on the table: 1,3,5,5,6
A: "1 two"
B: "1 three"
A: "1 four"
B; "1 five"
A: "1 six"
B: "2 threes" B avoided 2 ones and 2 twos and probably made a mistake, cause now A thinks B doesn't have 1, or 2 on his dice.
A: "2 fours"
B: "2 fives"
A: "2 sixes"
B: "3 threes" B plays safely, ensuring A that he is out of 1's and 2's
A: "3 fours"
B: "3 fives"
A: "3 sixes"
B: "4 twos" (B doesn't have any ones-1's on his dice, and there is only one "1" on the table - probability that A has 3 ones is small) A should call him a liar - B said "1 five", "2 fives" and "3 fives" so he is strong in fives, and now declared "4 twos" which he avoided in the past. But a sees 3 twos on the table, so if B has 2,5,5,X,X the game is lost. A should declare "4 fives" now, but A supposes B doesn't have any fives.
A: "4 threes"
B: "4 fives" (B is strong in fives - he has 3 fives, and there are 2 fives on the table, and maybe A has a five, so B is safe till "5 fives", or maybe "6-7 fives" if A has any fives.) This crossed A's plans to play "4 fours"
A: "4 sixes" B is almost sure that A is lying, because he doesn't suppose A has "3 sixes" among his five dice. Anyway, B decides to raise the bid to "5 fives"
B: "5 fives" A is feeling he's losing the game. B is playing fives, so A's strategy was bad. He has only two good options now: call B a liar, or play 6 fives.
A: "6 fives"
B: "LIAR!" B knows A hasn't played fives before, so he doesn't have any.

B wins the game.

Hey, I was watching old movies and thought of a new game. Remember "Pirates of the Carribean: dead man's chest"? There's a cut where Davy Jones, Bootstrap Bill and William Turner play a dice game. However it needs some modifications, since it's a multiplayer game. For everyone umfamiliar with the movie, here are the rules:
=> All players roll their dice (number of dice is negotiable, but let's say 4-6 dice)
=> Players see only their own set of dice (other dice are hidden under other player's cup)
=> One of the players declares a number of dice with same number of dots on it (like 7 two's, or 10 fives - meaning that, in his opinion, there are 10 dice on the entire table, that have five as a result) He can declare a true number of dice, but isn't obliged to do so.
=> Other players raise their bids / declare higher numbers, which means they declare higher number of dice with the same number ("10 fives" is followed by "11 fives"), or the same number of dice but higher number on those dice ("10 fives" is followed by "10 sixes")
=> Declarations must be consecutively higher (it is forbidden to declare "4 ones", or "10 fours", or "9 fives" if "10 fives" has been declared already)
=> Since (using the 5-dice per player variant and 3 players) there cannot be more than 15 dice of the same number, as the game goes on the probability that the other player made a false declaration is raising, a player, instead of his declaration, may accuse his opponent of cheating.
=> The accusation ends the game immediately and the dice are revealed. If the accusation was correct (opponent declared 11 ones, but there were only 9 ones on the table) the liar loses the game, and the accusing player wins. But if the accusation was incorrect (there were 11, or more ones on the table) the accusing player loses, and the accused player wins.

My modification:

=> To make the game suitable for 2 players I think that some dice should be visible for both players, so a player sees his own dice, the dice on the table, but doesn't see his opponent's dice

AbigailII:
I don't know scoring systems much, but it can be some glicko modification. (I play a lot of line4, and now my score changes vary from 4-25 when my opponent is 2000 or 1200 - my score is 2100)
My idea is still active. Pleas state your opinions.

I think that the score calculation should be slightly different. It's Glicko, isn't it?
The changes should appear in matches, for example 5 games match:

Now if you win such match, you gain, let's say 20 points.
But you all agree that winning 5-0 is more valuable than 3-2, isn't it?
Could the scoring system be modified, so that the winning player would gain score adequate to his result in the match, not as in single game?
Example:
I win 7-4 in a match. normally, Glicko calculate would my new score, so I'd get 20 points. (let's keep it simple) But since I've won 7-4, Glicko's result is multiplicated by 7/4, and therefore I recieve 7/4*20=35 points. On the other hand, my opponent loses 7/4*10 points, which means his/her score is down 17 points.

In case of winning 5-0 (5/0's absurd) we could use 5/1.

ChessVariant: Let them wait a few days more, Andy ;)

ChessVariant: Congratulations on those two games.
Innovative? I'd say something new, unseen. (yes, yes, you might say every rule change creates a "new" game) This time, I am fully aware that it's hard to find something both original and attractive in chess, so God bless you for your ideas that turned out to be big successes.
If you're that good in developing games, why don't you add ideas for games of other types, or maybe come up with a new "family" of games. Anyway, if you carry on providing us with chess variants, Fencer will be forced to rename this site into ChessKing. :)

ChessVariant: Believe me or not, I have nothing against adding new chess variants, even if they differ at bishop movement. It's just that, errrr, before adding a request for a game one should think twice before doing so. The game should be really innovating, bringing some serious 'freshness' to brainking. There's a trap, which you might one day fall into, that a game seems to be a perfect idea, at first lot of people attend it, but it ends up on the bottom of the mentioned list. So I'm not tring to keep your creativity down, my friend.
Fencer: I'm not a game creator. As you remember, (maybe you still have my e-mail) I told you once about line4 played with two pieces a turn. I know, from my own expieriences, (I played 200-300 real-time games of it) that it's unlike any other line game here. But it's just a suggestion. I've asked some line4 players, and some of them told me they'd be interested, and some didn't.

Hey!
I've got an idea. Let's stop adding anymore chess variants. Look at it from my point of view: Check out statistics/running games. Amongst the 10 least popular games, 9 of them are chess variants. The more variants we will add, the less popular they will be. No offense, Andy :)

Hey, nobody told me what's the procedure of bringing ideas written here to life.

I'm still interested in launching a new version of line 4.

joshi tm: Unfortunately, not. It's because wherever would you place your first piece, I'd win in 3 moves, like this: you E1, I - E8, D8. You C8, F8, Me E7, D7, and you cannot stop me from making a line of four.

Pedro Martínez: Pardon me. I meant five in line, not pente, since there is no capturing in connect6. Forgive me, but I'm not an expert on pente and don't distinguish one game of this type from another instantly.

coan.net: Nah guys you misunderstood me. I played connect6, and played my "2 per turn"
And I can tell you, the difference between pente and connect6 is nowhere near the difference between line4 and 2 per turn

wetware: No I did not. Why?

Hello folks!
I've recently seen an extraordinary variant of line4 that combined simplicity of rules and totally different strategy to win (I suppose).
1. It was played on 7x6 board (size is unimportant since every extra row or column brings significant changes to the four in a row strategy)
2. First (white) player begins the game by putting a piece on the board.
3. After white's first move, both players put two pieces a turn.
4. The object is to creat a straight line of 4 or more pieces.

Simple?

Before this question occurs, I give the answer.
Why first player begins with only ONE piece? It grants second player big advantage!

Because if white had TWO pieces on their first move, they would win in 3 moves:
Example:
White: C1, D1
Black: (must block on both sides) B1, E1 - if not white win after A1, B1, or E1, F1
White: C2, D2
Black: (whatever they do, they lose -> if they play C3, D3, white win by B2, E2, if they don't play at C3, or at D3, white win by C3, C4, or in second case D3, D4)

I hope it's not very confusing, and some players will understand me.
Please state your opinion whether you like my idea, or not.