Richard III:
Sorry for the slow response :0
but D-pente was suggested by Don Banks of Canada. Gary suggested G-pente (see where D and G come from :) G-pente simply increases the restriction on P1's second move -- that move may NOT be to N10, K7, G10, or K12. I like D-pente much better because it has much greater opening possibilities.
-Mark

Play in a live tournament in Baltimore!!

There will be a live round robin Pente tournament in Baltimore around the middle of May (the exact date is not yet set). So far we only have 7 people: dmitriking, up2ng, cicerolove, dweebo, mmammel, mike321, and kevin. We need some more people -- I am sure there are a LOT more people around on the East Coast. But the tourn is not limited to people from the East Coast -- Greg is coming all the way from Texas!

A live tournament is a fantastic opportunity to meet some of the top players and personalities face to face. So make a commitment to support the live Pente community and join us for fun over real boards.

Go to WPPF site (tourney section) to sign up (now):
http://www.playpente.com

See ya there!
Mark

Announcing the 2004 Pente Email Open World Championship. Top Pente and Renju players from around the world take part in a very competitive tournament. It will be using the opening variant D-Pente in which the first four moves are placed by one player, then the other player has the option of which color to play. This opening removes the advantage of moving first which exists even with the regular Pente tournament rule.
The tournament will be held on Richard's Play by EMail server, send me a message if you would like to play or if you have questions about how to use PBEM.
-Mark

You are right dano- the database is screwed up after we made some changes to accomodate the new variants, it seems to make errors in recognizing the boards after captures are made. Dweebo is working on it, Thanks.
Mark

Now available: test version of my program for Poof Pente!
at http://users.erols.com/msmammel/marksfiv.html
It will count a poof into a 10-10 capture count as a draw.
Just put the file into the same directory as the regular pente program (WPente.exe) and run PoofPente.exe
No help is available, see the posts for rules.
-Mark

Yes, congrats to Gary and Dmitri for playing so strongly against a tough field. And a huge thanks to pyloric valve (and others) for putting it together. It was great to meet all of you who were able to make it.

<Thad,

>Now, about this World Pente Federation, is it really an organized entity? Does it have by-laws or certification of any kind?
We have drawn up by-laws and will discuss them this weekend. We are applying to be a non-profit organization.

>Do they have any connection to the legal rights holder of 'Pente'?
We are working on that but it is proving to be difficult. It would be important to work with the company that owns the rights or to obtain the rights.

>And finally, will there actually be significant representation by anyone from any part of the world outside North America?
I definitely hope so, some focus will be on local tournaments in the US but we also want to be an official organization for international play (internet) with representation from various countries.
-Mark

Thanks Tom for the cool variant and puzzles. I was about ready to give up on the puzzle when I finally realized I was not looking enough "outside of the box" of regular Pente. (Its hard to teach an old dog...:) You definitely have to think differently in this variant, it will be interesting to try a game. I will be modifying my program to play this variant so we can try it, but it may not be easy...

I encourage everyone else to try these puzzles to stretch your brain.
-Mark

<>resolved by removing ALL affected pairs for both sides

OK, that sounds good I'll have to try the updated puzzle with that rule.

> if we can figure this out we can play pente evenly with no opening move restrictions!

That is true that you could assign points to the game so that players could receive a fair score in a game without opening restrictions, BUT it would be an uninteresting game! It would be too lopsided and too short of a game, I would rather see a longer battle.

-Mark

Just to clarify -- a stone placed into a capture point would NOT capture any vulnerable opponent pairs before it is "poofed", correct? (similar to not making a five...)

Thad,

yes, the pente-x idea is good. I was thinking that to make it easy you could prove a win on as small a board as possible and the win would still (effectively) be valid for any larger board -- assuming that p2 moving farther away would not be beneficial. Of course that assumption is not perfectly valid...

Generally it should be easier for p1 to win on larger boards because the attacking lines are not as restricted. A win on a small board with chosen moves for p1 will not necessarily show the fastest possible win. I will try some searches on small boards.

In order to prove that p1 wins in "fun" pente (no opening restriction) either on a 13x13 board or 19x19, possibly you could exclude moves N spaces away but it would be tough to prove that different far away moves have no effect on a winning line for one of them. You have to do an exhaustive search -- taking into account every possible move by p2. But you do not have to try every possible move by p1, you can plug in an opening book of good moves by p1 and see if they will lead to a win.

Thanks for these recent posts Gary, it good to see that you can understand and entertain everyone's thoughts. I agree with the initial idea that if someone wants to play Pente seriously, especially in tournaments, it is essential to learn and play with the opening restriction. But I also see no reason to ban anyone from playing the simpler game without the restriction if they'd like (or tic tac toe for that matter :).

I think we can do well with having some kind of option for the opening restriction. And maybe be prepared for other opening rules -- see my post on the Pente board about opening rules and the World Pente Federation.

-MM

Thanks Istvan for posting those new rules for the opening of Pente. I believe those rules are very effective in balancing the game for the two players. Although they may seem overcomplicated, the rules have been very carefully though out and each part is important. For instance, a simpler method which has been used for Gomoku is the pie-rule where the second player has the option to swap after the third stone is played. That simple pie rule is a disaster, guaranteeing a win for player 2. Don Banks has another variant which is a little simpler than Stepanov's and is also effective -- the first player places the first four stones, then the second player has the option of either color (it is important that the same player place all four stones as opposed to the simple pie rule in gomoku, where the players alternated).

Anyway, the thing Pente needs now is an organization to discuss and implement possible rule changes such as these -- and that will start to happen next month in Oklahoma City! We will start a World Pente Federation that will help run local live tournaments and possibly oversee some "official" internet live or turn-based tournaments.

It is difficult to establish the group as the official Pente organization until we can find out who has the rights to Pente and work with that company or obtain the rights ourselves. But in any case we will have a group that will help promote Pente.

-Mark

My Pente website is:
http://users.erols.com/msmammel/marksfiv.html
-Mark

Hi all,

I have conversed with Filip and we have agreed to implement a 13x19 board for Pente. This size board would have the advantage of allowing players of different levels to play each other with a sort of handicap -- only the less experienced player is allowed to extend along the 19 width while both are restricted to a height of 13. slooF lirpA.

DK, you are correct that the small disadvantage to white in having a 13x13 board is more than offset by not having the opening restriction. I was not arguing that the small board would compensate for no opening restriction -- the effect of the smaller board was just a side comment. I was arguing that despite the big advantage for white without the opening restriction, it is OK to have that game available to those who want to play it.

-MM

Dmitri makes a good point that learning to play pente without the openining restriction will leave you ill-prepared to compete in Pente WITH the opening restriction. The opening restriction is always used in serious competitions. But that is no reason to eliminate the small board without the restriction -- many people are NOT interested in serious competition and would rather play on the free board. It is good to have both available.

The size of the board is significant (besides being viewable on WebTV). A smaller board takes away some of the advantage of the first player -- white with the first move is expected to be on offense and the smaller board limits white's ability to produce a winning line. Often games do not extend beyond 13x13 but the limited size does become a factor in some games.

-Mark