btw congratulations to DK and GB on OKC-fantastic!!!

thanks : ) it certainly fits most of the argruments and discussions i've been reading by everyone; if I may I'll use it in the future. Life would be so much easier if everyone had my opinion.

By the way Congrats to Gary Barnes and Dimitri King, again they demonstrated to be sportsman to the declared tie.

CaoZ

Thanks!.. going there now. :)

Try here http://www.playpente.com/2003_OKC.php

CaoZ

Who were the winners? Is there a place online where we can see the tourny results?

hmm.. Good eye Jim.. my exact quote was "Of course, we are all entirled to my opinion. I will continue to state my opinion and support it with examples, as I have done."

Of course this makes me look like a real jackass. I definitely did not mean to say that. I don;t remember if I was trying to say "of course I am entitled to my opinion" or "of course we are all entitled to our opinions," but I definitely did NOT mean to write "of course we are all entitled to my opinion."

"Of course, we are all entitled to 'my' opinion."
DK post 16 April, 2003

Mark's solution is actually better than mine, so I'll post it here as the best one I've seen (yet) to the puzzle. It enables the puzzle to have up to 3 stones captured by black, which mine does not. So here it is. 1. G10 forces ...1.L10 or else white plays 2.L10 and 3.L10 winning in three moves. 2.L10 ...2.L10. Here is where Mark's solution comes in: 3. N6! forces 3.K9. 4. J11 and black can't capture without losing, so ...4.M14 5. G9. My solution was the more direct, but costly 3. J11. Again, well done Mark!

Did anyone check out my example of the potential difference in the outcome of a game played with poofs as forbidden to play into vs. not? Any comments?

I don't seems to be able to convince you with this example. Since I have chosen not to go back to the move restriction discussion for more examples, I am left without 'ammo', so I will concede the point to you. I will even go so far as to no longer claim anything about the logic of Gary's statements. Hope that helps.

Thad

Thad, I had to GO WAY back to find this:

Here is what Gary said that you are taking issue with:

Gary said

"Draws should not occur. Yes they would be quite rare in Poof Pente, but the fact that they WOULD be rare is a good reason to not have them at all."

You are not reading the entire quote there - he prefaced it by saying "DRAWS SHOULD NOT OCCUR."

His point was not that draws should be eliminated BECAUSE they are rare, BUT that draws should not occur, PERIOD, and since they are already rare, they can be gotten rid of WITHOUT having a great impact on the game. Now, maybe you will reply that I am putting words in his mouth - but that is not so, because IN THE VERY SAME POST of his from which you are taking his statement out of context, he CLOSED HIS POST BY SAYING:

"So if a draw can be easily eliminated without affecting the inherent rules of the game, then I think that it should be done."

And there you have it. You distorted his arugment by taking a single sentence out of context, then you defeated the distorted argument (actually, you didn't, because your analogy to lunar eclipses was terribly weak).

So you committed a fallacy and then while in the process of carrying out your fallacious reasoning you committed another fallacy.

I would say it is you who is lacking the logic here.

Thad, I am NOT missing your point. I think much of what you have said is illogical, some of it ridiculously so.

I'll take another look and reread what Gary wrote because I think you are committing the straw man fallacy (I love all this talk about fallacies, fallacies are fun!).

Of course, the straw man fallacy is when a person distorts the other person's argument, thus creating a "straw man" or "dummy argument," then thoroughly defeats the dummy argument and acts as if the original argument has been defeated.

Dmitri,

In response to your post beginning "Thad, you ahve GOT to be joking. ":

I think you're still missing my point. Walter asked why I chose not to debate Gary and I gave him several reasons. One of the reasons is because Gary uses illogical statements like saying that draws should be removed BECAUSE they're rare. That statement is illogical. Now perhaps a different analogy would have been better, but the eclipse thing was what I thought of at the time. Maybe I should have said something like, having three queens of one color in chess rarely occurs so we should get rid of that. Or since gammons and backgammons in the game backgammon are rare, we should get rid of them too.

Do you see what I mean? The fact that these things are rare is no reason to remove them from their respective games. What Gary said contradicts that. What Gary said is illogical.

Now, If you'd like, I could give you (and Walter) more examples of illogical things Gary has said, but the best examples occurred during the move restriction discussion and I REALLY don't want to open that up again.

I hope I have made myself clear and that we can put this particular issue to rest. If not, I will concede the point and only list the other reasons as to why I chose not to debate Gary.

Thad

Thad -

Hum, well obviously I'm not the only one that found your statements about the WPF insulting and your references to sporting events being the justification for draws in Poof Pente. So, Thad, could it be that you implied something that you had not intended? I don't think I'm too out of place in thinking what I did there.

As far as the hook, line, and sinker thing, well, yeah, I baited you pretty good. The intent of the original draws to communism and socialism post was two-fold. (1) To spur some light-hearted debate, hence the smiley face on the post. (2) To see if I could bait you into insulting me like you have done so eloquently in the past.

Call me arrogant, pompous, or what you will, but that's what I did and have already aknowledged such. At first you avoided the bait and I admit I was impressed that you did so because I didn't think you had it in you. But unfortunately for you that evaporated quickly in a series of insults on me in response to Walter and what appeared to be an attack on the WPF. I qoute:
(1) ** Gary, applies reasoning to his points in his arguments selectively, NOT in a consistent, logical manner. **
(2) ** Gary uses a lot of bad logic, but buries it in long posts so most people don't notice. **
(3) (Referring to a sarcastic comment from your wife) ** She said that if Gary doesn't want draws, then he'll be mad at you for leaving the debate where it is. Again, I said why? She said, 'Because it's a draw!' **
(4) The comments about the WPF. I know you said you meant nothing deragatory but after repeating yourself 3-4 times there, I find it hard to believe that NOTHING deragatory was intended.
(5) ** I meant no disrespect to you or anyone else involved with that organization other than Gary. **
(so you DID mean disrespect to me!)

I would have been glad to forward you the information about the WPF if you had not appeared to insult it. I didn't deem it worth the time to send the information to someone who thinks negatively of it. I also do not know why you suddenly started insulting me after I made the comparison of draws vs. communism. 4 of the 5 insults above came shortly after that initial draw debate post that I made before I had a chance to respond.

Now, the question is, why did I bait you? Because when you and Walter have had no further room to debate something, you start leveling insults at whom you are debating. It was to prove to others that you guys will time and again resort to such tactics and henceforth your points are mostly invalid. I let Walter get to me ONE time and I lashed out in a single post about 1-2 months ago and I admit that I was wrong for doing it and it won't happen again.

So PLEASE tell me WHY you decided to insult me BEFORE I even said anything about the hook, line, and sinker! Obviously it's more than that or the draws vs. Communism post. Perhaps it was our difference of opinion on the no-restriction Pente that has you so much in arms. If so, I think we can agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that. But if it's more than that, then enlighten me.


Gary

Thad, you ahve GOT to be joking. You said :

"I wanted to show how that was an example of Gary making very illogical statements. Claiming that we should do away with something (in this case draws in poof-pente) simply because the occur infrequently, just doesn't make sense.

The context of that was in reply to Walter. I was explaining why I didn't want to engage Gary in a debate. One of my reasons is because Gary makes a lot of illogical statements. I sited that as an example. Once again, here is what he said:
"...the fact that they WOULD be rare is a good reason to not have them at all."

Eliminating something just because it is rare is a dumb idea. To illustrate that point, I selected another example of something that is rare (lunar eclipses) and indicated that, according to Gary's logic, we should rid ourselves of them. Obviously, ridding ourselves of lunar eclipses is a ridiculous idea. But it demonstrates just how illogical Gary's statements often are.
"

This is hilarious. YOUR statements are beyond illogical, there are no words do define the illogicalness of your statements (see, I just had to invent a word already!).

Gary was saying that since draws are infrequent IN POOF PENTE and easily avoidable, they should be eliminated altogether.

What does this have to do with Lunar eclipses? If you have taken a logic class you would know the fallacy of weak analogy. Pente and eclipses have NOTIHNG to do with one another!

What applies to a PENTE game need not apply to a stament about ECLIPSES!

by your logic, any eclipse that is captured 5 times would lose. But, that statement does nto make sense either, because PENTE HAS NOTIHNG TO DO WITH ECLIPSES!

Hum, Walter, can you tell me where I stated that we would kick Thad out of anything? I simply stated that his thoughts on Pente are not likely to be listened to if he calls us a 'little group' and a 'bunch of guys'. There's a pretty obvious difference between someone being ignored and someone being kicked out of something.

Also, I believe (obviously I can't speak for him), that Mark prefers not to debate such things as draws and will usually just state facts about Pente and the such. I don't think he will express an opinion one way or another unless we specifically ask him, so him not stating his opinion doesn't indicate his viewpoint on any of this.

Mark, correct me if I'm wrong.

Your witness...

Dmitri,

About my mentioning lunar eclipses,

Gary said:
'Draws should not occur. Yes they would be quite rare in Poof Pente, but the fact that they WOULD be rare is a good reason to not have them at all.'

I wanted to show how that was an example of Gary making very illogical statements. Claiming that we should do away with something (in this case draws in poof-pente) simply because the occur infrequently, just doesn't make sense.

The context of that was in reply to Walter. I was explaining why I didn't want to engage Gary in a debate. One of my reasons is because Gary makes a lot of illogical statements. I sited that as an example. Once again, here is what he said:
"...the fact that they WOULD be rare is a good reason to not have them at all."

Eliminating something just because it is rare is a dumb idea. To illustrate that point, I selected another example of something that is rare (lunar eclipses) and indicated that, according to Gary's logic, we should rid ourselves of them. Obviously, ridding ourselves of lunar eclipses is a ridiculous idea. But it demonstrates just how illogical Gary's statements often are.

Thad

Dmitri,

About my questioning if WPF was 'just a bunch of guys'.

I meant no disrespect to you or anyone else involved with that organization other than Gary. At the time, He was the only person who I knew had anything to do with it. I apologize to you if you felt insulted by my comments there. That was never my intention. Gary has made mention time and time again about the WPF and it's goals and intentions. I felt that it was time for Gary to - I'm not quite sure how to phrase this - put up or shut up about WPF. I wanted Gary to get all fired up about showing me how WPF wasn't 'just a bunch of guys'. I wanted to paint him into a corner and FORCE him to show us that WPF really was something, or back down and admit it wasn't really anything at all.

To my surprise, he did neither. Instead He made a post with the subject, "Thad, got ya, hook, line, & sinker! :-)" in which he claimed I fell right into his trap and that he "set [me] up BIG for that one".

I still don't know what it is he 'set me up for'. But the bigger question is why would he do something like that?

Hats off to Mark for stepping up and answering my questions about WPF. Thanks again, & sorry, Mark, if you were offended by what I said or how I said it.

Why couldn't Gary have done that?

Thad

Dmitri,

I think I will try to reply to your posts one at a time rather than in one big post. Hopefully, that will be a little clearer for all.

With respect to my sports references,
I was NOT trying to use analogies to sports as a way to justify draws in pente. I was only trying to make the point, in response to what you wrote, that ties, at times, are a good thing. You had said, "Why are so many people against the idea that some people are going to win and some people are going to lose? I don't asee how breaking a tie in any way cheapens anything.", and I wanted to point out that there is no need to break EVERY tie, not EVERY game needs to have a winner and a loser. THAT was my point. I was NOT trying to draw or imply any conclusions about poof-pente.

Also, please don't accuse me of straying off topic by using sports analogies. When I posted them, I was replying to YOUR comments of:

"I suppose having the world series, NBA finals, or Super Bowl be declared a tie wuold be acceptable to you?"

And

"remember the all star game lkast year in baseball?"

Thad

Thad, you said "If you really wanted to promote the game at all levels, you'd know that you need sites of all sizes and for all skill levels. Pente.net is not perfect, but what site is? So what if there are very few (if any) top players who play there. It's still a good place to play pente, especially for casual players, and it seems to me that if you wanted to promote pente (and not just pente for the best players), you'd have better things to say about their site."

WHat are you talking about? pente.net hasl ittle or nothing to offer for pente, that is why almost no top pentep layersp lay there. you say it is necessary to support that site? WHY? what does ito ffer that theo ther GOOD pente sites do not? NOTHING!

Walter, you asked if you cna join? Absolutely! espeically since we are really jonseing for someone to bring the 13 by 13 board, and if you don' do it , no one will! DARN!

As for what you said about Gayr's response to Thad-- I as well took Thad'c comments about the Pente federation to be VERY derogatory. If that is not hwat Thad intended, then maybe hen eeds to take fewer math classes and more English classes, because he is not saying what he is trying to say at all.

Thad, you said : "Once again, I did not do what you claim I did. Reread my post. I NEVER SAID it was a just bunch of guys. I questioned if that was the case, but I also questioned if it was a bonified organization. "

PLEASE. it was clear that you were strongly implying that it is "just a bunch of guys," HENCE YOUR REPEATING IT 4 TIMEs!!!!!!!!!

Thad, you quoted and then added your thoughts:

"Then you said: (you quoting Gary)
"And then comparing a mom & pop turn-based site to a once in 5 years real-time pente championship as well as lunar ecplises to infrequent draws in Poof Pente."

(you now) While I did, in fact mention those things, again, I NEVER compared them to pente.
"

this is utter nonsense. you made these statements as a justification for not eliminating draws from pente! If youa re going to make a terrible analogy, at least stand behind it without waffling about it and then claiming you were not talking about pente! This whole discussion is about pente!

Thad-- you said "Meaning that I wasn't going to discuss the matter with you. I will however, discuss it with Dmitri, Walter, or anyone else, just not with you. "

Well, debate I shall. The top of draws came up while discussing PENTE. So unless your sports references were analogies to PENTE, WHY did you bring them up? it seems to me like you were using sports analogies to justify the ocurrence of draws in pente, on the basis that society is too hung up on declaring a winner.

This is what I have to say about your sports references. Thre is something in Logic called the fallacy of weak analogy.

but yours do not fall into that category, because they are too lousy to even qualify for that. They are a new category called "fallacy of appalingly inept analogies."

wihch is to say, your sports analogies have nothing to do with anything. We are trying to talk about draws in pente here and you are strayingf so far off topic that you would need a telescope to see the topic.

Gary,

Why do you continue to paint pente.net in such a negative light? You claim to want to promote the game at all levels, but it seems to me that you only want to promote it for the elite players. You want your tournaments here to attract the elite players and perhaps someday be world championship tournaments. You promote DSG where many top players play. You promote the World Pente Federation, which appears to be compromised of only top players.

If you really wanted to promote the game at all levels, you'd know that you need sites of all sizes and for all skill levels. Pente.net is not perfect, but what site is? So what if there are very few (if any) top players who play there. It's still a good place to play pente, especially for casual players, and it seems to me that if you wanted to promote pente (and not just pente for the best players), you'd have better things to say about their site.

Thad

<Gary,

In response to your 'example':

In your example, you sited a reply I made to something Dmitri posted. This is the entire relevant part of Dmitri's post from which I made me reply, so you can't say I took his words out of context. Everything above and below that was on a different topic. You can CLEARLY see here that he was talking about sporting events and NOT talking about poof-pente AT ALL:

Dmitri Said:
>>you said "This whole culture of insisting on having a winner cheapens a lot of sporting contests. "

I disagree. I suppose having the world series, NBA finals, or Super Bowl be declared a tie wuold be acceptable to you?

Why are so many people against the idea that some people are going to win and some people are going to lose? I don't asee how breaking a tie in any way cheapens anything.

remember the all star game lkast year in baseball? It was declared a tiw and there was uproar, the fans felt cheated.

In my reply, I talked about a soccer game and the NHL. I NEVER MENTIONED OR IMPLIED ANYTHING ABOUT POOF-PENTE. In fact, the only time I even mentioned poof-pente in that entire (very long) post was in a quote from you. The point I was making there had nothing to do with poof-pente. I was showing an example of your poor logic.

Now, you can CLEARLY see that I was not trying to make any connection to poof-pente as you say I did in your example.

Once again, it is you who needs to get his facts straight.

Thad

I got Mark (and hopefully others) interested in exploring the variant, Mark gets $200 from me ($100 prize + $100 to help support his work) and Mark says he'll be upgrading to "brain rook" here with the prize money. I say good deal. Tom

You put your money where your mouth was and settled up. Right admirable of you. Congratulations on solving it Mark Mammel.

Such self-righteousness! If I was in that organization, I'd do what I could to get you out of it!

Just because Thad didn't see it as a new group, you got no business acting so high faluting about it. Perhaps after the meeting and the organizing and things are up and running, you'll have some firm ground to look down from and talk like that. All the same your very attitude and presumption of holding back or bestowing of favor upon those you deem worthy is a major turn off to most people. Isn't that called being pompous? I'm not the first to level that word in your direction. You are so zealous in your cause that you are hampering its developement. Least ways, that's how you I see it.

In the month since I've posted to this board you've become quite a bit more strident. Perhaps I should look through all the posts that I've missed. I remember that Thad would generally ignore me and was quite nice and pleasant towards you. What possibly could've happened in that short amount of time between the two of you? Seems to me you should cultivate people like him. Any group should be happy have him around. Your buds and you don't need nobody, right? Form your group and have at it. Kicking people out of it before the Federation is formed. Yeah, that's a real good outreach method. Shouldn't you atleast wait until officers are elected and a motion is put up to kick Thad out first?

You mention Mark Mammel in your list of Federation founders. He seemd quite cordial to Thad just now when answering things in his post. Perhaps it is you that should step back and cool down? As for the others in your list, why don't you direct them over here and let 'em speak for themselves about kicking Thad out or even who's going to be determining who can be a member or not? Can I join?

Gary, as you once pointed out how I debate, I'm pointing out one you've done often. Lots and lots of posting after someone puts up a disagreeable post directed towards you.
Yeah, I have long posts too, but not in this manner or pattern.

I think the subject heading covers it. Example is extreme, but it illustrates what could happen in a game where playing into a poof is disallowed. It ain't pretty... lol Tom

Thad -

I must admit that you are tricky when you are debating but after fairly EXTREME analysis on several of your messages here, I can clearly see a trend in your tactics to attempt to defend yourself that contains a major fallacy.

What you are doing is what could be possibly called 'The fallacy of non-implication'. I don't know if that is its real name, but it seems reasonable here. Perhaps Dmitri King who is more versed on debate techniques can elaborate on that.

What you are doing is that you don't make SPECFIC comparisons between things, but you very much IMPLY specific comparisons between things. When I say IMPLY, I mean that the comparisons are what MOST reasonable people would INFER are being made. THEN if someone attempts to debate the comparison with you because it is obviously an invalid one, you claim that the comparison was never made and that the person should re-read your post and then you attack the person for misunderstanding you. I have now seen this on several occassions in your posts.

Let me give an example.
Dmitri King talking in response to draws occurring in board games and sporting events:
** Why are so many people against the idea that some people are going to win and some people are going to lose? I don't asee how breaking a tie in any way cheapens anything. **

Your response:
** I read about a game once played by a bunch of kids in a youth soccer league. They played the regulation time to a tie. They played two sudden death overtimes to a tie. They had not one, not two, but three shootouts. Results every time...tie. Finally, whoever was in charge decided to flip a coin to decide the winner. They flipped it, but it landed in the grass on an angle and couldn't be called as a heads or tails...twice! Finally, they declared the game a tie. **

It should be extremely clear to most people if they read the discussion thread leading up to those comments that you are attempting to justify a draw in a board game that could easily be broken by comparing it to a sporting event that has gone on for a very long time and SHOULD be declared a draw, which as I said is an obvious apples to oranges comparison. Thad, perhaps that is NOT what you intended to do! But we can't read your mind. We can only INFER what reasonable people would normally infer. But if you did not imply such a thing, then perhaps a better reason for allowing draws in Poof Pente can be made, so that a good comparison CAN be made.

So when you say that I don't have my facts straight, perhaps it would be better if you clarified the facts better to begin with.

OK, now, you have attempted to nail me several times on the pente.net site. I have not responded to this because little defense is needed. All anyone has to do is to go play at the site and see why. The last time I checked a month ago, the ratings there are the # of a player's wins * 100 + the win pct., there are no time controls for the games, and there are no tournaments. It's quite invalid to compare that site to the Oklahoma City tournament. Would you not agree that any serious Pente entity, whether it be a site, organization, or whatever should have tournaments and/or organized events and a valid ranking or rating system? Even IYT uses 'Level 2' or 'Level 3' in some of their games for players who have advanced to the 2nd or 3rd round of a tournament so that they can play in those 'level' of tournaments in the future. I mean doesn't that make sense? How can pente.net hope to grow if it doesn't do such a thing? It is not my intent to be deragatory towards people if they play at the site by calling it a 'mom and pop site'. If that sounds insulting, then I will refrain from it and just call it a 'non-serious' or 'small' site because that is really what it is.

Also, playpente.com is an information only pente website that is run, as far as I know, solely by Greg Stange. In effect, it is no different than Mark Mammel's site, which is an excellent site that has information about all kinds of interesting things both game and math related and MANY excellent things that can be downloaded. These are not actual game-playing sites.


Your witness...


Gary


P.S. It is good to see that Waterdancer agrees that play should continue if the capture count is 10-10 instead of the game being declared a draw. If a draw can be easily broken, then it should be.

Thad -

You're really getting in deeper and deeper. Perhaps you should step back and cool down. Your blatant denial of falling into a trap is all the more reason that it is clear that you DID fall into a trap. Your comments:

** Now, about this World Pente Federation, is it really an organized entity? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? Does it have by-laws or certification of any kind? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? Do they have any connection to the legal rights holder of 'Pente'? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? And finally, will there actually be significant representation by anyone from any part of the world outside North America? Or just a bunch of (American) guys who decided to form a little group? **

** Once again, I did not do what you claim I did. Reread my post. I NEVER SAID it was a just bunch of guys. I questioned if that was the case, but I also questioned if it was a bonified organization. **

By your first statement, you blatantly IMPLIED a MAJOR put down of an organization that you know NOTHING about. Any reasonable person would take your comments as deragatory toward this new organization. You can't find it on the web because it is a brand new organization that will have it's first meeting this coming Sunday. You called the group a 'bunch of guys' and a 'little group' on 3 different occassions in a single paragraph. How are we supposed to take the comment 'little group'? Then you said you didn't say it. Well, if you blatantly IMPLY it, then it's as good as said!

So you have now in effect leveled an insult at Mark Mammel, Peter Hewitt, Dmitri King, Tom Braunlich, Gary Gabrel, Greg Strange, Joe King, myself, and all others that will be a part of the new organization.

Based on these insults, I believe that you owe a MAJOR apology to the people who will be in this new organization. Otherwise, I would guess that many of us will be unwilling to listen to ANY input that you have regarding the game.


Gary

Mark,

Thanks for the info. That's all good to hear.

Thad

<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

Gary,

Get your facts straight! I did not, have not, and will not fall into any trap you set for me here on this discussion board.

You said:
"Thad -
"Well, we haven't had a good disagreement or debate for a while, so I have to start one. :-) "

To which I replied:
"About draws...sorry Gary, I'm not going there."

Meaning that I wasn't going to discuss the matter with you. I will however, discuss it with Dmitri, Walter, or anyone else, just not with you.

To which Walter said:
"Thad, why not go there? Gary even invited you to."

And I told Walter the exact reasons why. Anyone can read them in my earlier post. Let's add another - Gary makes up his own 'facts'.

You said:
"You made these 2 EXTREME comparisons that affect MANY people and take MUCH time to playing just a FEW more moves (usually 1 to 5 moves) to break draws in Poof Pente that only affect 2 people "

In fact, I did no such thing. Dmitri questioned why so many people against the idea that some people are going to win and some people are going to lose? He said he didn't see how breaking a tie in any way cheapens anything.

Then I mentioned two situations, a soccer game, and the NHL. NEVER did I compare either to poof-pente.

Then you said:
"And then comparing a mom & pop turn-based site to a once in 5 years real-time pente championship as well as lunar ecplises to infrequent draws in Poof Pente."

While I did, in fact mention those things, again, I NEVER compared them to pente.

Then you said:
"You might want to consider doing a little research into what the World Pente Federation is all about, what it will encompass, and how it will promote the game before you start calling it a 'bunch of guys'."

Once again, I did not do what you claim I did. Reread my post. I NEVER SAID it was a just bunch of guys. I questioned if that was the case, but I also questioned if it was a bonified organization.

By the way, I entered 'World Pente Federation' into Google, AltaVista, Yahoo!, & Lycos. Know how many references to the World Pente Federation they came up with? ZERO!!

So you see, you did not get me 'hook, line, and sinker'. All you did was get egg all over your face for quoting me incorrectly, not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES!

Debate that!

Can anyone refer me to a database of games of D-pente or to some opening set-ups which would offer good play? I've had a few ideas about analysis of the board and I'd like to look at some of those openings. Thanks, Tom

<Wow, lots of good posts here. Let's see if I can address some. I think that continuing play from a 10-10 situation makes sense. If I could see in a situation (such as my puzzle as it was stated, not as I meant to state it) that I had no hope of winning beyond the 10-10 mark, if a draw feature was available, I would at that point offer it. If my opponent did not accept, I would either resign or continue play until as Gary has suggested the tie is broken or a 5 is made.

Dmitri- if you look at my post again about points, you will find that the loser of the game, i.e. the one who does not capture 5 pairs or make 5 in a row can never have a score which equals or exceeds the winner's score. His/her points are only tallied to the winner's score minus 1 point. Otherwise, it would indeed be ridiculous. However, I have encountered games where a position looked unbeatable in pente (open tessera with not enough captures through it to provide a win) but in fact proved vulnerable. It is these games where things which might seem meaningless, may actually not be that I feel like there should be more incentive to play them out than there currently is in the game. I didn't ever mean to suggest that points would determine the winner of a pente game, and I apologise if that was unclear. What I was trying to propose was a means (other than move restrictions) to make pente fairer and easier to determine relative abilities. Nor do I like it in a game (without points!?) when a player makes useless fours when a win is clear(sometimes I'm guilty of it though). Perhaps points could penalize this? Also, Dmitri, about your point on allowing captures to happen in poof pente while not allowing 5 in a row, this may seem inconsistent, but if we establish the rules to be as follows it is actually not: if a stone (X) is placed on the board which makes a five in a row, that does not immediately end the game in poof pente. First, all 8 directions must be examined to determine whether that X is vulnerable to capture by poofs. X is allowed to capture any pairs which are vulnerable. If it is determined that X is vulnerable to a poof in one or more directions X and the other stone(s) which create a poof are removed. It is now the opponents turn unless: a five in a row exists or one player has > or = 10 stones from captures and the the two player's scores from captures are unequal. Complex to explain, I know. If captures are not allowed, however, the advantage to creating poofs becomes too extreme.


Thad- it is eminently unclear at this point that player 1 has an advantage in pente with poofs (at least played with tournament rules openings). Until it is established that that is the case I'd be opposed to resolving ties as you have suggested.
Gary- comparing standard rules pente vs. poofs and although it is not a great analogy, it may illustrate why it is better to allow a play into a poof than not. If playing into a poof spot is an illegal move poofs become too dominant. No 5 can be made or captures taken from that spot as long as it is a poof. Therefore creating poof spots would become the dominant stategy, rather than simply another option for the player on defense. In standard rules, if you have a piece on the board which is hindering your line of play by making it vulnerable to attack, you may be able to find a line which will remove that stone from the board by forcing your opponent to capture it. Since a stone involved in making a space a poof is a similar hinderance, but a line may not exist (see example) which allows you to force your opponent to remove it for you, doesn't the possibility to sacrifice make sense in that situation? Example: White has stones at: G12,H6 and 12, J7 and 12, K8 and 12, L9,M11 and P10. Black at: F12,G5,K9,11, and 13, M9 and 12,N10,11 and 12, O10 and 11, P11.
+ + + + B + + + + +
B W W W W + B B + +
+ + + + B + W B B B
+ + + + + + + B B W
+ + + + B W B + + +
+ + + + W + + + + +
+ + + W + + + + + +
+ + W + + + + + + +
+ B + + + + + + + +
This board would clearly be a win for white in either pente or poof pente (when you can play into a poof), but if you cannot, white has no way to get rid of the stone at M11 and cannot capture by playing at M10, so the game becomes a win for Black! Whole games could probably be built like this around just one or two inadmissible playing spots.

Walter -

Thanks a bunch for bringing up another game that has a move similar to the new Poof Pente variant that has been suggested. It is interesting that there is another game that has that kind of move. It's just so unusual and I had not seen it before. I should have known that you would be a GREAT source for MANY different variaties of games! Also, I wanted to say nice post and several good points made!

Back on the subject of draws, I think my intent was taken out of context.

When I said 'There should be no draws', I SHOULD have said is that 'There should be NO draws in board games and ONLY in sporting events if a REASONABLE amount of time has expired.' I realize that many will disagree with me on that point, but THAT is what I meant.

I do NOT think that ALL sporting events should have ALL ties broken with their CURRENT rules. Of course I agree that the kids soccer game that Thad brought up should end in a tie. I also think it would be poor practice to break all regular-season ties in hockey. But...TO ME what that points out is an inherent problem with the CURRENT BASIC rules of the game or sporting event.

The basic problem in hockey and soccer is that it is too difficult to score. In my opinion, in soccer the offsides rule should be eliminated and the game be played as 8 vs. 8. I'm sure I'll get some backlash for that, but having the average score for a team in MSL soccer at 2 goals/side/game is the MAIN reason that the sport is having difficulty becoming popular in the U.S. It is just simply TOO low scoring! And low scores result in difficulty in breaking ties in a correct manner.

In hockey, the problem could be resolved by simply increasing the size of the TEENY net. There's no reason to have such a small goal and allow the goalee to wear such bulky pads to stop the shots.

I DO agree BIG TIME with Thad about the METHOD in which ties are broken in some sports. They should be broken in the EXACT manner in which the game is played to begin with with the exception of the sudden death element so that games don't keep going and going. I despise shootouts in soccer and the method of placing the ball on the 25-yard line in college football. There's no comparison to the regular game. In overtime, kicking and special teams means little in college football and defense means nothing in soccer with shootouts.

NFL football ALMOST has it right, but not quite. They need to allow BOTH sides at least ONE possession of the ball, THEN it becomes sudden death. Also, they need to extend it to a second overtime. This is reasonable because the players have a week off between games unlike hockey and usually soccer. Basketball and baseball have it PERFECT!

Good question about my comparing communism to draws. In communism, the government controls most or all things and decides who does what as though everyone were equal. Socialism just does that to a lesser extent. It is my feeling that allowing draws to stand in games where they can be easily broken is the equivalent of calling people equal, just like communism does. They should be allowed to continue unfettered so that the better person comes out ahead (a majority of the time anyway).


Gary

You fell right into my trap Thad! I have to admit that I set you up BIG for that one and like you had accurately figured, I was disappointed that you didn't initially want to debate the point. Of course I knew it was just a matter of time before you couldn't resist.

You made these 2 EXTREME comparisons that affect MANY people and take MUCH time to playing just a FEW more moves (usually 1 to 5 moves) to break draws in Poof Pente that only affect 2 people:
1. A double overtime, 3 shootout, and 2 attempted coin flips kids soccer game.
2. A multiple-overtime regular season hockey match where the team may have to play exhausted the next night or two.

Wow, what an amazing apples to oranges comparison that needs no further comment! I rest my case!

You might want to consider doing a little research into what the World Pente Federation is all about, what it will encompass, and how it will promote the game before you start calling it a 'bunch of guys'. Once again, I rest my case!

And then comparing a mom & pop turn-based site to a once in 5 years real-time pente championship as well as lunar ecplises to infrequent draws in Poof Pente. Wow, how much further can I rest my case?!

No debate needed. You're doing a good job of refuting your OWN case. There's not much drawn in this debate because I've got you helping my case!


:-) Gary

Thad, it's no big deal, i think I see what happened: in Walter Montego's post of 13. May 2003, 12:05:40


in his thurd paragraph I believe he made the comment that you mistakenly attributed to me. I haev done the same thing when reading many posts from different people, it is easy to mix up who said what for a partiicular quuote.

I still don't think draws by agreement should be allowed in tournament play in Pente, since they don't occur in the game. ;-)

Dmitri,

Looks like I misquoted you. Sorry. I could have sworn you said something along those lines, but I can't find it now. Possibly I was looking at what someone else wrote and thought it was from you. I was replying to several earlier posts at once, guess I got a little confused.

Thad

Thad, you said "I agree with Dmitri that draws in pente at IYT should not be permitted."

I said no such thing, not that I can recall. If I did, it was an egregious error, because I absolutely do not agree with tjhat statement. If I did say that it was probably a typo.

I see no reason not to be able to offer a draw. that si not the same as the game actually being in a drawn position. Maybe if my opponnet had a misclick of his mouse and his stone ended up in the wrong place I would offer him a draw instad of taking a win that I might not deserve. I may or may not do that, but the options should be there.

As for what you said about throwing a game so that a friend canadvance--- hogwash. People can do that now. There are doznes of ways to cheat at turn based games, we just assume that people will not use them becasue tre isnlt any reason to.

The same crappy argument cabout cheating was used by IYT to not have rated games. Just because sometihng can bve abused does not mean it should be abolished.

There are exceptions of course. I should not be allowed to own a nuclear missile, for example. BUt for someihtng like draw offers, the possibility of cheaing is not enouhg to eliminate them.

Thad, regarding your analogy to the kids who had three shootouts and then coin tosses. you said "Sometimes a game is a tie and it's just something we have to deal with. "

YEs, obviously after many hours of shootouts, sometimes a tie has to be called. But your analogy is extremely weak, because a game of pente does not require more than another few mmoves to break the tie. My opint is, a tie should only becalled when NECESSARY, after a simple means of breaking a tie has failed!

in thep ente game, you and Walter arew advocating that NO reasonable measures ne taken to decide a tie, when in fact, a tie could be decided WITHOUT an alteration in the game play (as opposed to a sporting event where thye go to a shootout of some sort, wihch isd vastly different from the actual game).

<Dmitri & Walter,

The problem with the All-Star game wasn't that it ended in a tie. The problem is that the idiot we have for a baseball commissioner changed the rules in the middle of the game!!

You can't do that!!!

I think they should make the All Star game, and the All-Star game only, end after 11 innings if it's a tie. That way, managers can plan appropriately to use all their players without significant risk of injury or overuse, etc. Yes, it would be a tie, but it's an exhibition game anyway. The point is to see some top quality play by some top quality players, not who wins or loses that game. BUT, we'd need to know the game was going to be played that way from the start.

I agree with Walter that 'This whole culture of insisting on having a winner cheapens a lot of sporting contests.' College football's tiebreaker, to use Gary's words, is 'detrimental to the long term development of the game'. The scores & player's statistics are artificially inflated and as Walter said, games are 'played with some other version of football after regulation time to determine a winner'.

In response to Dmitri who said:
>>Why are so many people against the idea that some people are going to win and some people are going to lose? I don't asee how breaking a tie in any way cheapens anything.

I read about a game once played by a bunch of kids in a youth soccer league. They played the regulation time to a tie. They played two sudden death overtimes to a tie. They had not one, not two, but three shootouts. Results every time...tie. Finally, whoever was in charge decided to flip a coin to decide the winner. They flipped it, but it landed in the grass on an angle and couldn't be called as a heads or tails...twice! Finally, they declared the game a tie. Now how do you those kids who would have been on the losing team would have felt if they had lost after regulation, two overtimes, three shootouts and a coin toss only to lose after that??? The game was a freakin' tie!! Let it be one! Sometimes a game is a tie and it's just something we have to deal with.

I think hockey has got it right, although they have tweaked their rules in the past few years and are starting to mess up a good thing. They play a short overtime period during the regular season. If that ends in a tie, so does the game. In the playoffs, they play full length periods until someone scores. I watched a five overtime period game once. It was phenomenal. I had to become a hockey fan before I appreciated the beauty of playoff hockey and long, long games, but it's a great system. But, if they played all the regular season games out this way, it wouldn't work, because whoever played either team next would get an exhausted opponent and have an unfair advantage. So the ties are needed.

I agree with Dmitri that draws in pente at IYT should not be permitted. Since you can't play to a draw, you shouldn't be able to agree to one. I haven't looked to see if we can do that here. Can we? I can see an instance where you might want to agree to a draw so that a friend can win a tournament section or tie for top honors or something when he otherwise wouldn't. While it's nice to do for a buddy, it hurts the other player who really deserved the top spot and shouldn't be permitted.

Walter,
I didn't choose to engage Gary for three reasons:
From what he said, it seemed like he just wanted to get into it with me for the sake of having an argument/debate/call it what you want and I don't play that game. I have better things to do than argue just for the sake of arguing. Perhaps that's not what he intended, but that's how I interpreted what he said.

2. Gary, applies reasoning to his points in his arguments selectively, NOT in a consistent, logical manner. For example, in one post, he wrote that no respectable pente site allows the unrestricted opening moves. In the same sentence, he promoted the upcoming OKC tournament and that the opening restriction would be used there and that the mighty World Pente Federation would be having it's first meeting there. I replied by posting about pente.net, which allows several variants of pente. Gary's reply was that pente.net doesn't count because it's a mom & pop website.

What a crock!! If pente.net is mom & pop, then what does that say about the OKC tournament and the site associated with it, playpente.com? The tournament is limited to twenty-five people max!! Measure it by daily visits, bandwidth, whatever you want. I'll bet pente.net's use FAR exceeds playpente.com's, yet the site he mentioned counts and the one I mentioned didn't!

In another post he said that any game currently being played on IYT and here was valid. Further, challenged everyone to find a game that met a list of criteria, claiming that any game which did, was invalid. I told him that his premise (and challenge) ITSELF was invalid. Let's say we did find a game played here which fit his list of criteria, what would that prove? According to his premise, it would prove that the game was invalid, but he had already said that all games played here are valid. A game can't be both valid and invalid!! Therefore, HIS PREMISE WAS INVALID. I tried to tell him that several times, but he didn't get it.

3) Gary uses a lot of bad logic, but buries it in long posts so most people don't notice. Here's an example:
Gary said, 'Draws should not occur. Yes they would be quite rare in Poof Pente, but the fact that they WOULD be rare is a good reason to not have them at all.'

So if draws are rare, we should get rid of them altogether? Where's the logic in that? I'll tell you where, nowhere. Why should we get rid of something just because it's rarely occurs? Lunar eclipses are rare (there's one this week, it's the first in three years), I guess we should move the Earth so they don't occur anymore, 'cause Gary says, 'the fact that they [are] rare is a good reason to not have them at all.'

Obviously moving the Earth to avoid eclipses is ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than Gary's statement, and that's my point here.

Now, about this World Pente Federation, is it really an organized entity? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? Does it have by-laws or certification of any kind? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? Do they have any connection to the legal rights holder of 'Pente'? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? And finally, will there actually be significant representation by anyone from any part of the world outside North America? Or just a bunch of (American) guys who decided to form a little group?

A final note: I showed my wife the thread about draws and my & Gary's comments and how I declined to get into it with him. She responded that Gary wouldn't like that. I said why? She said that if Gary doesn't want draws, then he'll be mad at you for leaving the debate where it is. Again, I said why? She said, 'Because it's a draw!' LMAO!!! ROTFMLAO!!!!!

Thad

Pioneer54-
With all my respect I believe that there is nothing to demonstrate, the player yet who throws first without the movement restriction has nonsingle overwhelming advantage if not that is impossible to win to him unless it commits an error.

My decicion to retire to me of IYT was because during long time it asks for the version of 19x19 with restricion of movement to IYT, that reason why I see I was not the only that did it since reason why Gary also did it, I do not have anything against boards of 13x13 in fact have interesting varieties in the game, but agree with Gary with opening restriction.

At the moment I take to two years organizing matches of Keyro in real board, at national level in my country becuse since before it was the only way to play Keyro in 19x19 w opening restriction.

When finally I saw that its a site like brainkingto play Keyro with movement restriction and in both boards 19x19 and 13x13, and when seeing that fencer is a person involved with the players that this is the place.

I believe that it is the moment for taking advantage of the advantages of this site, that a player like Gary B. organise a match like which this organizing and is moment for having healthy diversion.

Registering to the match Spring 2003 open Pente/Keryo Pente championship and lets have a fun.


Regards
CaoZ

Walter:

"Why suddenly outlaw it for a game that isn't even played except by waterdancer? He made it up, let him play it his way."

outlawing is a strong word to use here. We are just tryin to figure out the best way to play this new variant, if at all. You say we should let Waterdancer play it his own way just because he made the game? Well, Waterdancer is here ASKING for input as to how his game could be made viable and interesting enough for pente players to want to play it. obviously he can do wjhatever he wants, but everyone else can do the asme and ignore the variant altogether. I do not think his intent is to just do whatever he wants, because he seems receptive to suggestions.

NOw, about draws in general. The opint of a board game is to WIN. It really irritates me that so many people choose to overlook or ignore this fact in part of in full. Even those who play for fun are still trying to make the necessary moves to WIN theg ame. Well, why have a draw possible if it doesn't have to be? I tihnk a game designed such there MUST be a winner is a well designed game! In some games there is no way to avoid a draw, but in pente thtree is. But your reasoning for allowing draws to occur seems to be "well, why not allow draws to occur?"

When a game can so easily be made to NOT have draws, why have them at all? How does it is any way make the game better?

you said "This whole culture of insisting on having a winner cheapens a lot of sporting contests. "

I disagree. I suppose having the world series, NBA finals, or Super Bowl be declared a tie wuold be acceptable to you?

Why are so many people against the idea that some people are going to win and some people are going to lose? I don't asee how breaking a tie in any way cheapens anything.

remember the all star game lkast year in baseball? It was declared a tiw and there was uproar, the fans felt cheated.

As for pente for opints. I think this is just an outright terrible idea. Soemone who has allowed his opponent to make a 5 in a row could win by extending a bunhc of meaningless 3s before resigning to his opponent's double 3 threat. I cannot comprehend how that scenario would make sense to anyone. that's like saying "if you chekcmate your opponent but he has more pieces that you do, he wins."

The entire basis of the game of pente is supposed to make 5 in a row or make 5 captures (hence the name pente). Creating a situation where the player who accomplished this task LOSES is just asinine to me.

ONe final thought on the draw situation for waterdancer's variant. I would like to propose that there is no draw at all. When a piece is placed, if it is poofed, it CANNOT make any acptured that it would make if it stayed on the board. if a PENTE does not cunt when a piece is poofed, why should a capture? this is blatantly inconsistent! so if I make a winning capture, but MY piece gets poofed for mjy opponent's winning capture, he wins and I lose. So now I am not even sure what the fuss is all about.

Gary-An example of poofing one's own pieces.
In Ultima you are allowed to suicide a piece if your opponent has him immobilized. An efective plan at times when trying to attack the Immobilizer or open up a line to pass the Immobilizer. It counts as your turn, but not as a move as a stalemate in Ultima is a win for the player that moves last. It was my search to play this game that led to me finding IYT in the first place! They still don't have it, nor does any one else except the chess variant's robot. Now I can actually point to it as an example in a posting. It appears it'll be last posting, since I completed my last game on this site yesterday.

I see nothing wrong with draws. The frequency of them or how they were earned is something I can have problems with. They way that Pente is played, a draw can't happen in play. So why are the players allowed to agree to a draw? A result that can't happen in the play, should not be allowed to happen. The Poof version has a draw possiblity. Apparently it has never happened in the play of the game and is just an example in a composed problem. Why suddenly outlaw it for a game that isn't even played except by waterdancer? He made it up, let him play it his way. Just having the possibilty of a draw might induce the player who thinks he has the winning position to force a different result, whereas the his opponent has something to play for beside an outright loss.

What does communism have to do with draws? I am against the enforced equality of socialism, but if two or more sides duke it out and it ends up tied that's the way it should be. This whole culture of insisting on having a winner cheapens a lot of sporting contests. Especially in the manner that they break the ties. Soccer is the best example of this. Looks like college football has fallen into the trap too. Games that used to end in a tie are now played with some other version of football after regulation time to determine a winner.

Thad, why not go there? Gary even invited you to. Kind of like how you bowed out about the aluminum bats, eh? Your idea of allowing the player to move second to have a win in a draw position sounds like a way to help with his disadvantage of going second.

It'd be an easy thing to curtail the number of draws in chess. Just make a stalemate a win for the player to move last. The only way to have draws (aside from agreement) would be perpetual check and repetitive position. Neither of which happen much. The stalemate or threat of it happens in a lot of games. This minor change in the rules would greatly affect the play of game though. Seems like this was debated 30 or 40 years ago, and was rejected by the chess powers. Chess has stayed the same for a long time. They complained about the number of draws increasing then and haven't as yet come up with an way to change it. They have held matches where draws don't count and the game is replayed. But that's not a practical solution in a round robin or Swiss formatted tournament.

Hmmm, you got me thinking. Why not devise a version of Pente that will make draws possible and about as likely as they are in Reversi? That should level the playing field, or will it? I like the heading on some of the earlier posts in this section "Thoughts for rules changes to improve pente. Making pente with no opening move restriction a fair game.Pente for points (not exactly like the original variant)". I've got to hand it to you guys that you really are trying to come up with something that'll work.

Dmitri- A draw is possible in Checkers. If both players have one King each and one of them is in a double corner, he cannot be forced out of there and it'll be a draw.

Time for work.

About draws...sorry Gary, I'm not going there.

What about making a 10-10 outcome be a win for P2, since (I presume) P1 has the first move advantage. I've seen this done for variants of other games.

Thad