Thad, I mentioned it to Fencer when I first came to the site. He said it would be on his to do list, but he is quite busy, so it may be awhile. I've also let Dweebo and Richard (Pbem) know about it. My hope is that it will arrive sometime in the not to distant future. Probably, the easiest way to set it up would be to put in a remove stone(s) feature similar to the undo at Dweebo's, i.e. asking opponent if it was acceptable to remove stones at certain locations from the board. The opponent would then be able to make any needed corrections to the removed stones before accepting. And of course the stones would have to be counted individually, rather than in pairs. But, I'm not a programmer, so there may be easier ways to go about the set-up. Also, re: draws, we already have the offer draw feature here and at other sites, so at least I can offer it when the score is 10-10. Whether my opponent accepts or not... :~)

Why not continue the poof-pente game until someone scores a pente, ignoring the tally of cap'd stones. This would eliminate the draw possibility (although a circular board might be possible now).

Thad

I think draws are ok. Society seems so hooked on having a winner. Draws (here & there) are just fine. ;-)

Dmitri, interesting point that one of the things you like about Pente is the lack of draws. I never thought of that.

I think in waterdancer's variant (are we calling it poof-pente), 10-10 should be a draw.

The idea sounds interesting. I'd be interested in trying a few games. If anyone gets a cyberboard set up. please let me know.

Thad

Okay Dmitri,
Perhaps, then to play as Gary has suggested. For myself, I think that draws would be a rare phenomenon (I've never encountered one in play in over a year of games with an evenly matched opponent)and if I could only see a loss as an alternative, I'd be happy to have a draw option. Two variants? With or without draws maybe? I'd get a headache if I had to start analysing a position much beyond 10 stones captured I think, and would probably accept a draw for this reason alone. :~} Tom

I do not like the idea of any pente variant that involves possible draws. Draws are one of the most annoying aspects of a board game. Othello, chess, ando ther games have possible draws (checkers maybe? I do not know, I haven;t played in a long time). Pente's lack of draws is one appealing aspect of theg ame.

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

Yes, Gary- the draw would occur if the score was 8-8 and a capture is made which sacrifices 2 stones making the score 10-10. I suppose play could continue from that point until one player broke the tie; although it is interesting to think that a draw might be possible in pente. Also if play is required to continue it makes strategy even more complicated, because until now play has just been focused on how to reach 10 stones, now it would have to include what would happen after reaching ten stones as well. Could be interesting and certainly challenging. As far as points 2 and 3 go, I agree with your assessments on those points. Tom
P.S.- since 10-10 may or may not be an allowable resolution to the game, I will just say that white can play the game to 10-10 with best play by black. If it's not a draw, it is still the solution I'm seeking. If the puzzle had been originally stated as I had intended it, there would have been one or two fewer stones captured by black making the forced win in 7 moves the best outcome which black could achieve. This is the one Mark was the first one to send me a correct solution for. These puzzles are hard to make!

Waterdancer -

I think that your variant is a viable one, but it would probably take a while to catch on because it is so different. I think that you haven't gotten much response because May is about one of the worst months for people to be busy with finals, graduations, kids sports games, spring cleaning, you name it. It's just not a good month for board games.

I do apprecate you putting up the $100 to get people interested in the variant. I looked at it 2 nights ago for 1-1/2 hours and was close but just didn't have any more time to look at it. I eliminated most of the 'obvious-looking' moves for player 1 and was down to what I thought was 2 or 3 more reasonable possibilities for him.

I echo Dmitri King's question here. How is it possible to draw your variant? I can only think of one possible way:
A player 'poofs' a pair of his own stones while at the same time capturing a pair of his opponents stones (or some variation of that thereof) so that the stone capture count is 10-10.

I have a comment and a couple of questions though:
1. Draws should not be allowed. If the stone capture count is 10-10, then the game should continue until the tied capture count is broken or someone gets a 5 in a row.
2. As you have alluded to, it is possible to poof an odd # of ones own stones (Pairs poofed in 2 different directions that contain a single common stone would be 3 stones poofed). What happens if the stone capture count is 8-8, I poof 3 of my own stones while capturing 2 of my opponent's stones? Then it would be 11-10 in my opponent's favor. I would think that my opponent should win even though in theory, both sides have captured at least 10 stones (5 theoretical pairs).
3. I am assuming that we would always use a stone capture count and not a pair capture count. It could get too confusing if I poof 3 of my own stones so that the stone capture count is 9-8. So my opponent wouldn't win the game even though in logical theory, he now has 5 pairs. It's just that 2 of the 5 pairs contained a common stone.


Gary

maybe I haven't examined this variant enough, but how can a DRAW occur in pente!?

Mark gave me the first correct solution to the puzzle as I had it stated, BUT! EGG ON MY FACE! I'm glad I was the one to discover that best play by black actually forces a DRAW in 6 moves as the best result for white. So Mark gets $100 for the puzzle and the first person (before June 13th)besides Mark to find the line where black can force a draw in six moves as the best result white can achieve will also get $100.

CaoZ -

I understand fully what you are saying. IYT (www.itsyourturn.com) has FAR too many tournaments so that they are watered down and the results mean nothing and Dweebo's (www.pente.org) does not have enough of them so that it's easy to get impatient waiting for one.

Although my intent is to set them up and run them here about once every 3 months, we might find it better to run them every 2 months or every 4 months. The main thing is to get fairly large, reasonable time-control tourneys CONSISTENTLY going on this site, so that results can easily be reflected somewhere (perhaps like Mark Mammel's site) and that they really mean something.

As far as Dweebo's site, I believe that once he is able to set up some sort of automated system for the tourneys there, the # of tourneys will pick up. For the next Dweebo's tourney, I will strongly be recommending a Keryo Pente tourney. What's good is that he now has the opening restriction on Keryo Pente, so I think that EVERYONE will find it interesting. I have mentioned that on the site a time or two and there seems to be some good interest in it. So you can look for that in the next 2-3 months. We'd definitely want to have a top Keryo player like you there to show us how to play the game! :-)


Gary

CaoZ -

I understand fully what you are saying. IYT (www.itsyourturn.com) has FAR too many tournaments so that they are watered down and the results mean nothing and Dweebo's (www.pente.org) does not have enough of them so that it's easy to get impatient waiting for one.

Although my intent is to set them up and run them here about once every 3 months, we might find it better to run them every 2 months or every 4 months. The main thing is to get fairly large, reasonable time-control tourneys CONSISTENTLY going on this site, so that results can easily be reflected somewhere (perhaps like Mark Mammel's site) and that they really mean something.

As far as Dweebo's site, I believe that once he is able to set up some sort of automated system for the tourneys there, the # of tourneys will pick up. For the next Dweebo's tourney, I will strongly be recommending a Keryo Pente tourney. What's good is that he now has the opening restriction on Keryo Pente, so I think that EVERYONE will find it interesting. I have mentioned that on the site a time or two and there seems to be some good interest in it. So you can look for that in the next 2-3 months. We'd definitely want to have a top Keryo player like you there to show us how to play the game! :-)


Gary

Thanks Gary to initiate the first great match of pente/keyro, I hope by or of pente/keyro which the serious matches are organized periodically, not so followed as in IYT that end up Being satiated neither as distant as in Dweebós, I suggest a match every 3 months is a reasonable time, or until a match finishes not initiating the following one, Some suggestion? and thanks to include the Keyro, I am going to run the voice in several sites on this match in special. Gracias :) and sorry if i have a lack of ortography or a bad word aplicattion i speak spanish ;)

Thanks Gary to initiate the first great match of pente/keyro, I hope by or of pente/keyro which the serious matches are organized periodically, not so followed as in IYT that end up Being satiated neither as distant as in Dweebós, I suggest a match every 3 months is a reasonable time, or until a match finishes not initiating the following one, Some suggestion? and thanks to include the Keyro, I am going to run the voice in several sites on this match in special. Gracias :) and sorry if i have a lack of ortography or a bad word aplicattion i speak spanish ;)

To all -

I want to make all non-members aware of the situation here at Brain King. Since a player could potentially have 14 games going at once for the big Pente/Keryo Pente tournament and the max for a non-member is 20 games, in order to play in this tournament, you will need to be down to 6 current games in order to play in the tournament.


Gary

To all -

I want to make all non-members aware of the situation here at Brain King. Since a player could potentially have 14 games going at once for the big Pente/Keryo Pente tournament and the max for a non-member is 20 games, in order to play in this tournament, you will need to be down to 6 current games in order to play in the tournament.


Gary

To all -

Come join us for some serious fun in the Spring 2003 open Pente / Keryo Pente championship tournament.

I would like to make this a fairly large tournament (minimum 10 players for each game) that continues moving along without waiting for long time controls. (4 days/move)

I will be looking to start these once/quarter and to eventually run sectional tournaments as more players obtained established ratings in Pente and Keryo Pente.

See all the specifics at the tournament. June 7th is the last day to sign up.


Gary

To all -

Come join us for some serious fun in the Spring 2003 open Pente / Keryo Pente championship tournament.

I would like to make this a fairly large tournament (minimum 10 players for each game) that continues moving along without waiting for long time controls. (4 days/move)

I will be looking to start these once/quarter and to eventually run sectional tournaments as more players obtained established ratings in Pente and Keryo Pente.

See all the specifics at the tournament. June 7th is the last day to sign up.


Gary

To all -

I've thought about all of this some more and have decided on two things for the big Pente / Keryo Pente tournament:

1. I'm going to go ahead and put June 7th as the end of sign up. This is because I'm also going to advertise it some at www.pente.org and www.itsyourturn.com. I want players to have plenty of time to see the advertisement and if they are new to this site, have time to come here, create an I.D., and get comfortable with the site before playing in the tournament.

2. I'm going to change the time control from 3 to 4 days. This is because for a large tournament like this, there is a good chance that there will be one or more sections that will have 8 players in them which means that at least some players will have 14 games for this tournament going at once.

Also, I want to make all non-members aware of the situation here at Brain King. Since a player could potentially have 14 games going at once for this tournament and the max for a non-member is 20 games, in order to play in this tournament, you will need to be down to 6 current games in order to play in the tournament.


Gary

To all -

I've thought about all of this some more and have decided on two things for the big Pente / Keryo Pente tournament:

1. I'm going to go ahead and put June 7th as the end of sign up. This is because I'm also going to advertise it some at www.pente.org and www.itsyourturn.com. I want players to have plenty of time to see the advertisement and if they are new to this site, have time to come here, create an I.D., and get comfortable with the site before playing in the tournament.

2. I'm going to change the time control from 3 to 4 days. This is because for a large tournament like this, there is a good chance that there will be one or more sections that will have 8 players in them which means that at least some players will have 14 games for this tournament going at once.

Also, I want to make all non-members aware of the situation here at Brain King. Since a player could potentially have 14 games going at once for this tournament and the max for a non-member is 20 games, in order to play in this tournament, you will need to be down to 6 current games in order to play in the tournament.


Gary

To all -

I'm afraid that I messed up on the Pente/Keryo Pente tournament that I set up. Please forgive me because I usually check everything before setting up something big like this.

I appreciate Kevin's comment on the Pente discussion board and it alerted me to the fact that I set the tournament up wrong. It was my intent to set the tournament up for 2 games for each 2 players and I was almost sure that I looked right at that before creating the tournament. Unfortunately the default is 1 game for 2 players and I somehow interpreted that incorrectly to mean 2 games for each 2 players. I would never want to run a serious tournament with only 1 game between each 2 players. I have attempted to edit the tournament to change that and it won't let me change that option.

It seems as though I have NO choice but to delete the tournament and create a new one. Unfortunately 10 players have already signed up for the Pente one and 3 for the Keryo Pente one.

Sometime this evening, I'll delete this tournament and create a new one. I'll also post this message on all 3 message boards that I did before and send a personal message to each of the players that had signed up for this one informing them of what happened and to sign up for the new one. I'll also change the end of sign-up from May 31st to June 7th. Perhaps that will allow some players to finish up some games or tourneys as needed in order to enter the tournament.

I hope that this will not create problems in the Brain King system. In other words, I hope that once I delete the tournament, it will 'clear out' the fact that non-members had signed up for a tournament so that they can sign up for the new one. If you have problems signing up for the new tournament after having been allowed to sign up for the erroroneous one, please let me know about the situation and I will forward an explanation about it to Fencer.

I'm sorry about the problem and thanks, Kevin, for bringing it up.


Gary

Gary,

Since it's still almost three weeks until your tourney starts, I don't think you need to extend the sign-ups until June 7th.

No problem! But just so you know, you can change the date to sign up at any time you want, and even when that date passes, the tournament will not start until you start it! I assume it just will not let you start it before then, but i haven't tried, so i wouldn't know :-)

To all -

I'm afraid that I messed up on the Pente/Keryo Pente tournament that I set up. Please forgive me because I usually check everything before setting up something big like this.

I appreciate Kevin's comment on the Pente discussion board and it alerted me to the fact that I set the tournament up wrong. It was my intent to set the tournament up for 2 games for each 2 players and I was almost sure that I looked right at that before creating the tournament. Unfortunately the default is 1 game for 2 players and I somehow interpreted that incorrectly to mean 2 games for each 2 players. I would never want to run a serious tournament with only 1 game between each 2 players. I have attempted to edit the tournament to change that and it won't let me change that option.

It seems as though I have NO choice but to delete the tournament and create a new one. Unfortunately 10 players have already signed up for the Pente one and 3 for the Keryo Pente one.

Sometime this evening, I'll delete this tournament and create a new one. I'll also post this message on all 3 message boards that I did before and send a personal message to each of the players that had signed up for this one informing them of what happened and to sign up for the new one. I'll also change the end of sign-up from May 31st to June 7th. Perhaps that will allow some players to finish up some games or tourneys as needed in order to enter the tournament.

I hope that this will not create problems in the Brain King system. In other words, I hope that once I delete the tournament, it will 'clear out' the fact that non-members had signed up for a tournament so that they can sign up for the new one. If you have problems signing up for the new tournament after having been allowed to sign up for the erroroneous one, please let me know about the situation and I will forward an explanation about it to Fencer.

I'm sorry about the problem and thanks, Kevin, for bringing it up.


Gary


P.S. This is a slightly edited message

I have asked Fencer about the moving tournaments along when a winner has been decided already, and he said he was working on it, but would not implement it without heavy testing (which is understandable). The way Gary has set up the tournament, it is one game for two players. When he set it up, he could have made it 2...i'm not sure if he can change it now though.

Is it possible to set up a tournament now so that each player plays one game of each color against his/her opponent? In the one I'm playing in now, I'm P1 against the player with the higher BKR and P2 against the player with the lower BKR. I think this gives me an unfair advantage.

Gary,
1) Your tourneys will be 2-game matches, ya? &
2) Will the player 1, move 2 restriction be in place? (Ha ha ha, just a joke here!! LOL!)

Thad

Thanks Gary,

I sent him a short note myself too. Perhaps our two two notes, plus the feedback on this discussion board will be enough to get Fencer to enact a change (hint, hint). ;-)

Thad

My first response to Gary's message was "well, the non members should pay up!"

BUT _- he is exactly right when he says that is NOT the point at ALL! non members can play 20 games anway, so it should not matter what type opf games they play. I fully support the limitation to 20 games, but I agree that the limit of one tournament is bad. WOrse, if a player is ELIMINATED from a tournament, he STLL cannot enter another one unless the netire tournament is completed! That cuiold take eons!

so whether non members should pay up is a NON ISSUE in this case.

Thad -

I had expected this type of thing to happen and it is unfortunate.

I very much disagree with limiting non-members to 1 tournament, especially with the vacation time. Although Kevin has now finished his games, you will be in round 2 of that tournament and still wouldn't be able to play in this tournament. Also, you can be locked out of new tournaments for 3-6 months or more, due to a couple of slow players, even though you would have the game slots available.

I'm going to do something that I've thought about for quite a while. Sometime today, I will send a note to Fencer and recommend that he REMOVE the 1 tournament restriction for non-members BUT to KEEP the 20-GAME restriction.

I realize that this is a business operation but I ALSO feel that a GAME restriction BY ITSELF limits the activity from non-members enough so that the processing power of the site is not bogged down. The TOURNAMENT restriction is not a good one. If non-members aren't able to enter tournaments, then they will just play non-tournament games and the site isn't really saving any 'processing' power. It will also be important to eliminate this restriction if we plan to hold future world championships here. So I will present it as a business case to him.

For those of you who disagree with me on this, please do not make negative comments about non-members and that they should shell out the bucks if they want to play in more than 1 tournament. That is their choice and it's not really the issue here. The issue is that the finish of tournaments can be delayed for a LONG time by just 1 or 2 slow moving players and/or a tournament with a long time control.

I don't want to start any heated debates between members and non-members. I think that all game sites need BOTH types of players and I feel that the non-members are actually excellent 'cheap advertising' for the site because they will frequently bring other players to the site that will become paying members. It's up to the site owner to determine how many games he wants to let them play so that the 'cost' of 'advertising' doesn't become too much.


Gary

No problem Kevin. One thing I do NOT complain about is slow players (who actaully need the time). ;-)

The outcome of your game did not affect the section winners. Perhaps Fencer could fix it so that higher rounds can start immediately once all section champs are determined (rather than waiting until ALL games in a section are complete). That would speed things up just a touch.


Thad

Sorry about that Thad...that would have been me (and not my opponent). I didn't know you were in a hurry to finish! Now you just have to get through round 2 ;-) Good luck!

Gary,

I would like to sign up for your tournament. I currently have zero games in progress. I am not a paid member (and I'm not ready to become one just yet). I can't sign up for yours because I am in Hannelore's tourney. The problem is, two players are playing very slowly and holding everything up. Suggestions?

Thad

I have a rare (for me ) concise post. I agree with everything Thad said.

Thanks for the reply Thad. Here is how I'd address your points:
1."First of all, you?d have to come up with a scoring system that everyone agreed with. Good luck on that."
If the point system is based on analysis of games played without points and fine tuned as needed, why wouldn't most if not all players agree that it was an accurate representation? People wouldn't HAVE to play for points, but those who wanted to play in tournaments set up using points would know going in that that was how the tournament was set up, just as now players know that they will be playing using tournament rules. If a player objects to the way the tournament is run, s/he can always create his/her own.
2."Second, and more importantly, a win is a win. It doesn?t matter whether my opponent caps four of my pairs or none, as long as I get the five in a row (or five pairs). Also, if I resign a game, how would you score it? The only game I can think of that uses a points system to determine a champ is Div. I college football, and everyone agrees that?s a messed up system"
A win is still a win using the points system; however, using points you can evaluate the relative strenghts of the competitors more easily for the purpose of ratings and handicaps. Currently, if I thrash on a player, totally dominate the game as white it is exactly as you say, just a win. If that player barely manages to win against me as white, again a win is a win and we are now tied and have the same rank. So how do we determine who is the better player? Duplicate bridge uses points to determine winners. The point system used for college football is totally different from what I'm talking about here, so although everyone may agree that it is a totally messed up system it doesn't really affect the strength of my case one way or another. What if you resigned a game? Then,if you were playing for points you would get the number of points which you had accumulated in the game before resigning and your opponent would get his/hers. This would be incentive not to resign, because you would be playing a match, not just a game, and every point you could get might make a difference to the outcome.
3."Also, if Pente were played under a points system, we?d be less inclined to try out new lines."
This is probably true, for most players as I mentioned in my post- arguments against the system. However, my guess is that right now most players don't have much incentive to try out new lines(why risk a loss when you know how to win?), and therefore when they do most of them are following the trailblazers. If we make the game more attractive to new players (handicaping)we will have more potential trailblazers. Points might actually give incentive to explore new lines: can I find a better line where I win more quickly or capture more pairs in winning?
4."Also, if points were awarded for caps and length (shortness) of a game, would it be better to take an unnecessary cap. It would get me an extra pair (and thus more points), but make the game longer, and make me look like a weaker player."
I thought of this downside after posting, and here is how I'd resolve it. A player on the losing end of a game could prevent score padding by pointing out that the winner was trying to pad the score as soon as s/he noticed that that was occurring i.e.- you have an open three. Why didn't you make an open four this turn. The winner would be required to take the shortest line to a win once it was pointed out to him/her.

Come join us for some serious fun in the Spring 2003 open Pente / Keryo Pente championship tournament.

I would like to make this a fairly large tournament (minimum 10 players for each game) that continues moving along without waiting for long time controls. (3 days/move)

I will be looking to start these once/quarter and to eventually run sectional tournaments as more players obtained established ratings in Pente and Keryo Pente.

See all the specifics at the tournament. May 31st is the last day to sign up.


Gary

Come join us for some serious fun in the Spring 2003 open Pente / Keryo Pente championship tournament.

I would like to make this a fairly large tournament (minimum 10 players for each game) that continues moving along without waiting for long time controls. (3 days/move)

I will be looking to start these once/quarter and to eventually run sectional tournaments as more players obtained established ratings in Pente and Keryo Pente.

See all the specifics at the tournament. May 31st is the last day to sign up.


Gary

Ok, now that Fencer has added Easy Pente, I'd love some challenges!! Please make them 2-game matches. ;-)

Thad

Tom,

Your points system is interesting, but would make things worse, rather than better.

First of all, you?d have to come up with a scoring system that everyone agreed with. Good luck on that.

Second, and more importantly, a win is a win. It doesn?t matter whether my opponent caps four of my pairs or none, as long as I get the five in a row (or five pairs). Also, if I resign a game, how would you score it? The only game I can think of that uses a points system to determine a champ is Div. I college football, and everyone agrees that?s a messed up system!!

Also, if Pente were played under a points system, we?d be less inclined to try out new lines.

Also, if points were awarded for caps and length (shortness) of a game, would it be better to take an unnecessary cap. It would get me an extra pair (and thus more points), but make the game longer, and make me look like a weaker player.

Thad

I've made another puzzle with the variant. Mark's ? re: moving into a poof and whether or not it would be able to capture vulnerable pairs and my response to him were the inspiration for this one. I suspect it will be fairly obvious, so no prize, but kudos to the first correct solution. The puzzle is as follows:Black stones at E12,F10,H6 and 11,J8,12 and 14,K7,9 and 13, L6,8,11 and 12,M7,9 and 10, N8 and 12. White stones at:F11,g12,H7,8,9 and 10,J10,K10,11 and 12,L9 and 13,M11 and 15,N10 O7 and 9. Neither side has any captures. White to play to a forced win in 5 moves given best play by Black. I'll just attempt to put up the section of the board where stones are placed on this one; i.e between E and O and between 6 and 15. Good luck!
+ + + + + + + W + +
+ + + + B + + + + +
+ + + + + B W + + +
B + W + B W B + B +
+ W + B + W B W + +
+ B + W W W + B W +
+ + + W + B W B + W
+ + + W B + B + B +
+ + + W + B + B + W
+ + + B + + B + + +

It is true Mark, that pente without opening move restrictions would be a short and lopsided game (at least for the players who know the game); mainly my point was to emphasize that opening restrictions are unnecessary in order to make a fair game out of pente. I suspect that most of us would still play with the current tournament rules if points were used to get rid of white's edge. Some might want to play the game they were used to (without restrictions) and they could be the ones to analyse their games to determine the weighing factors to make theirs a fair game, while we would determine ours :~} The keryo masters would find theirs, etc. I'm not even certain that my variant needs an equalizer. Who knows? My other point is still valid, though, I think, which is that determining the points for whatever version one plays enables new and less experienced players to have a chance to learn the game from masters without the downside of feeling totally outmatched and not being able to see their improvement. I feel that this is important in building confidence in learning; constant frustration is not as conducive to a quick steep learning curve as is a consistently positive reinforcement as they can witness the handicap shrink match by match. After all, even if your team doesn't win, if you bet on them to beat the point spread and they do, you have some consolation. :~) Also, if someone like me, who started out playing pente without opening move restrictions wants to learn the game with restrictions, matches would be possible to set up using both, to facilitate the learning process; i.e.- when I was first learning,I could play a match of 3 or 4 games with you with you starting as white and playing tournament rules. If after observing your strategies as player 1 I still didn't feel like I could play it effectively, I could open without restriction on my turn- the difference would be factored into the score. The scoring allows things like this: if you beat me by 100 points in our first match, give me a handicap of 60 points. Next round if I only lose by 20 points I can see that I've improved by 20 points. Next match the handicap is 40 and I lose by 15 points. I've already improved by 45 points in just two matches! Wow, this is a fun game and you are a great teacher!

<>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

Did everyone stop reading/responding to posts after all of the arguing? I just realized I may be the only one putting posts here for a reason. Keep in touch if you read this. Tom

I've updated my puzzle, cleaning up a bit of mud which was in it and making it more challenging by backing it up a move or two. I'll be updating it as I find ways to make it go backward in ways that force the line to be played to get to the current position, so if you want in while it's not too hard I suggest you copy it now. Sorry, I couldn't ecrof the puzzle so it stands at 7 moves to win for white. I'm offering to send a $100 money order to the first person to send me an e-mail with the correct solution, or to send it to brainking in their name if they prefer. Sorry, I don't do paypal :~}. I'll publish my solution on or around my birthday, June 13th. If you've already started on it you should have a head start. I'm doing this to hopefully spark some interest in the variant. Tom

This would also answer the question of whether a pair handicap is to great for player 1 playing tournament rules. Chances are Dmitri is correct and it is. Still, I'd be curious to find out.

I thought I had put up a post re: pente for points variant here but I'm not seeing it. Just as well- now after further thought I believe I can make a very effective case for it. I read one of Tom Braunlich's books many years ago and remember seeing it mentioned, but not paying too much attention at the time. Here are my thoughts: I agree with Virag that long rules changes are what are needed: Tournament rules lasted us 20 years. Gary has said that white still has a moderate advantage in tournament rules; no one knows the exact value of this advantage, but it is doubtless greater than the advantage for white in chess. Consider- most chess games between top players are draws! There are no draws in pente (except by agreement; show me a 19X19 board filled with stones without a win for either side and I'd say it's either a joke- neither player was trying to win or it's a GO game) so what is currently happening in pente tournaments is that top players of equal strength are trading wins depending on who is white a significant amount of the time. Obviously, for top players this is unacceptable in tournament play- hence the proposed rules changes. Although the rules changes proposed are interesting and no doubt fairly easy for top level players (swap options), to me they create a further striation between players. Look at it this way- in order for one player to place four stones on the board and offer to play from either side s/he must be fairly confident of being able to have close to a 50% chance from either position. I contend that most players of pente are not at the level where that is an easy thing for them to be confident of. Most over the board players won't have an opening book at hand yet, I suspect, so when they learn to play it will be with current tournament rules most likely. Eventually they may graduate to D pente, but it may not be an easy transition.
My proposal: reverse engineer a point system for pente games based on analysis of games played and fine tune it as needed. Here is what I think it might look like- 25 points per stone captured, 50 points per tessera or for a 3_1 or 1_3_1 game, winner gets some points based on the number of moves it takes to win: one possibility for this would be something like 30-x where x=# of moves. Loser's points are only counted up to winner's points -1. A match is played until the end of a game in which one or both player's scores exceed 1000 points. The above numbers are just for purpose of example. By looking at games already played in tournament rules, keryo, no restrictions pente and other variants values for these games could be determined based primarily on close games between top players. Why go through all this trouble? 1.It would quickly allow the relative value of player one's advantage to be numerically defined for each game so that it could be eliminated by factoring it into the score!! You read that right; if we can figure this out we can play pente evenly with no opening move restrictions! : If two players are of relatively equal strength in a game it should be the average value of the difference between the winner's score and the loser's score if an odd number of games are played. 2. It would allow players of different ability to play against each other by enabling a method of handicapping the stronger player. A very strong player could perhaps spot a beginner 5 or 6 hundred points and have an interesting match. 3. It would change as little as possible about the feeling of each game, since the scoring system would be based on games already played without it and how close they appear games would not suddenly have to evolve in new direction in order to nullify the player one (or two advantage). 4. It would make players fight games out to the bitter end from a losing position so that they could have a closer score. This would make games between top players more accessible to novices: if a top player sees a forced win in 5 moves and feels that his opponent will surely see it, he currently has no incentive to play the game out and may resign. A novice studying the game may well not see the win easily (unless the game has commentary attached). 5. A more effective rating system can be established for pente players. Example: if two top level players should come to this site and only play against each other in tournament rules swapping games trading games for 100 games there would be no way for the current rating system to distinguish between their abilities in the game. Let's say one player knows the lines so well that s/he never makes an error and always finds the quickest and surest route to victory. The second player obviously has a very good grasp of the game as well in order to trade games with the master, but in perhaps one tenth of the games s/he makes an unnecessary move or two which nonetheless do not affect the outcome of the game(win for white). If 1/10th of these tactical errors throw the game to black, then one could look at the rankings of these players for months without noticing the difference in skill level between them. With my proposal it would become apparent as soon as the weaker player made a tactical error in a match of 5 or so games whether or not the error was enough to throw the game: i.e. the stronger player can demonstrate that a forced win situation existed in 6 moves while it took the weaker player 8 moves to come to a win. It might not affect the ranking immediately, but the master would immediately know he was the stronger player. Sorry for extreme length of post, but now I've made my case. I don't object to other variants being tried and tested, but I feel this one has the most potential to turn pente and its variants into "the board player's duplicate bridge" i.e. an extremely popular game of mental skill where players of similar and/ordifferent abilities can compete against each other for fun and/or money. Of course the will be downsides to this idea; the amount of effort involved to find accurate evaluations and equations would probably be considerable to say the least. There might be less incentive to explore the outer reaches, once it becomes possible to play evenly without restrictions. My sense though, is that if it is feasible, even if it takes a few years to put into place, it would be worth the effort to improve the game, because the game would really be sooo much better if it could be evened up. Remember, finding an opening book where player 1 wins 50% of the games is not exactly an easy task either- I suspect that those lines have been explored by relatively few players, since it is to their advantage to play from a positional advantage :~) Only when we have many players playing those lines may we come to realize that they are not as even as they seemed given correct play. Then other positions have to be found, etc., etc. It could be a long journey just to find out that there are really only one or two positions which offer an equal chance. Sorry, I'll shut up now.

Good question Mark- It is open to interpretation and could go either way, but my sense is that it makes it a fairer game to allow it to capture. The way that I tend to look at it when in doubt is that the stone lands in the spot, creates a volatile situation which must be resolved by removing ALL affected pairs for both sides and then the game continues from the new position. So, for instance if one played into a spot which was a poof in two directions and would capture two pairs of the opponent's stones and create a five in a row the net result is: the five exists for a brief moment, but not long enough to win (it must still exist when it is the opponents turn to move), you capture two pairs while losing 3 stones (one in each direction in which a poof is formed + the one you placed to make the 5). It is now the opponent's turn. Any luck with my puzzle?

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...)

Just a thought- I wonder if that would be the consensus among expert players or not? Also what about a pair handicap without opening restrictions on player 1?

I have to diasgree on this one. a pair handicap is (in my opinion) far to much of a handicap to overcome.

I've not seen the possibility discussed, but I was thinking that to even the board for the experts a pair or two handicap while playing tournament rules might be enough to do it- as Gary has mentioned in tournament rules white must generally sacrifice a pair to get to a winning line, and I've noticed that the game reaches a certain point of tension when one player has three captures. Perhaps a way to explore this option would be to analyse games between top players to see what percentage of white's wins were made when black had 4,3,2,1 and 0 captures and then see how the lines might be affected by giving black 1 or 2 pairs to begin.