Well, I think it's time to put my thoughts here on all of this. I side with all those players who like being able to play without move restrictions. Gary & Dmitri, your analogy that it is like playing chess where one player has two rooks and the other has only one has little if any merit. No one would ever consider a game like that, where one player has an extra piece throughout the whole game and no compensating restriction (like piece placement for example), as a legitimate variant.

Please explain this to me:
According to your arguments, changing the move 1 restriction (by eliminating it) produces and invalid variation of pente. But, changing the move restriction by increasing the restriction (I believe you call one example G-pente) is valid. Also, changing the size of the board still results in valid pente variations. We could also change the number of captures needed to win or the number of stones lined up to win and still have valid variations. We could even change the number of pentes required to win and still have valid variations. Why are all those other variations ok, but not this one?

If you say it is because player 1 has an advantage, then all pente variations ever mentioned, including the pente you promote, would also be invalid because one player always has the edge. By that logic, we should invalidate tic-tac-toe! Checkers too, would probably have to go.

If you argue that it causes people to learn ‘true’ pente improperly, well, that doesn’t make the variation invalid.

If you say it impedes the development of pente masters, well, that still doesn’t make the variation invalid. Most novices I know, most of whom will never become masters anyway, like the non-move-restricted pente.

I, myself, like the non-move-restricted pente. I like it better than ‘true’ pente. I like to play two game matches with my opponent & I each starting one.

My personal favorite variation that I’ve seen is non-move-restricted pente with unlimited captures allowed. I lost an interesting game recently in which my opponent would have lost with five pairs, but instead I did.

My favorite variation of all is non-move-restricted pente with unlimited captures allowed for player 2. In other words, player 2 can win by making a pente OR by capturing 5 pairs, but player 1 can only win by getting a pente. Player 1 can certainly capture 5 (or more) pairs, but this doesn’t give him the win. In this variation, P1 has the advantage of going first, but P2 has his advantage too. I have never played this way, but other players agree that it seems like an interesting variation. It could also be played with the move restriction.

Are my variations invalid?

Thad