Greetings:

For those of you who do not know me yet, my name is Scott Justice. I've been playing tournament Pente since I was an early teen back in the 80's. The game kind of died out before I hit my prime, but I enjoy it's resurgence online. Back in 1984 when I was sixteen I won the "U.S. Open Pente Tournament" with wins over my older brother Bill, Rollie Tesh and David Comberrel, and splits with Dan Allen and Peter Hudson. I state this just to give you an idea that I know a little about this game.

As mentioned already, Pente, even with the tournament rule, is a sure win for white (player 1). For this reason, I do not really enjoy playing marathon matches on PBEM anymore since P1 can easily defeat P2 with the time to thoroughly analyze the position. I still enjoy playing over-the-board where P2 can muddy the water enough to confuse P1.

If you want to play tournaments and keep ratings, then the game should be played with the tournament rule on a 19x19 board. If your a novice, I would strongly suggest playing the game with the tournament rule. It does not change the game, like keryo pente does, and is quite straight forward. It is beyond me why anyone who takes more than just a passing interest in the game would opt to play without the tournament rule. Do you enjoy playing tic-tac-toe tournaments and keeping a strong tic-tac-toe rating too?

I have no problem having the option to play with or without the rule on a 13x13 board. Although playing that way has no interest for me, I can see why casual gamers who are less competitive and out just for a good time might enjoy playing like minded folk in a small pente game. But, when it comes to playing 19x19, my vote is to play it with the rule.

Now, the bigger issue is how do we even the game out even more without losing the ease of play that makes the game appealing in the first place?

Scott

mmammel,

The proof for game with the restriction is likely harder than the proof for game without, but the same principals should apply.

And yes, we need to prove it for every possible move for player 2, and we only need to show that there is at least one 'correct' move for player 1 at each turn.

The solution to the problem you mention is to create a new game, let's call it pente-X. The only rule change is that player 2's first move must be N squares from center AND that he doesn't have to declare exactly where that position is until he chooses. Clearly, pente-X includes all the possible pente games in which player 2's first move is N moves from center. Thus, once we prove that pente-X can always be won by player 1, we will also prove that the same holds true for this subset of games of pente.

You wouldn’t have to do an exhaustive search if you could show that player 1 can always win AND keep the game within the N-size circle so that player 2’s first stone never affects play, no matter where outside the circle it was actually placed.

Again, this is still a difficult proof, but easier than proving the game always winnable by player 1 directly.

Thad

In a proof, we would probably count horizontal and vetical distance separately, so L3U4, for example, which fits on a 13x13 board, would be seven spaces from center.

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

Thad,

On the 13x13 board, the highest number of spaces away from the center in any direction is six.

It seems to me that doing that won't work and only changing each game against an opponent to a two-game match will work.

should not the S-B value in a one-game pente-tournaments be
fine-tuned according to the colour a player had in the single games ? ~*~

'

Aloha all,

I would like to reply to several previous posts here.

Pioneer54, outstanding post on Saturday. I myself just needed a little time away from all the discussion that, for me was getting pretty heated. I glad it’s all being resolved.

My thoughts on a proof, and in response to what Gary has said:
Gary, I believe you said something about you would gladly accept a challenge from anyone and prove that player 1 always wins in fun-pente. While I believe that you could certainly do that, it would not actually prove that player 1 always wins. It would certainly demonstrate that fact quite well, though. ;-)

The problem is that we need to show that a win by player 1 is assured in every possible game!

I have two thoughts on an actual proof.
If we could prove that a whole subset of games are won by player 1, then we could reduce the proof to only showing that the remaining games are won by player 1 also. For example, let’s say that we could prove that anytime player 2’s opening move is at least 7 spaces from the center, player 1 has certain victory. If we could prove that, then we could just play all the games where player 2’s first move is within 7 spaces of the center. Still a tough task, but much easier than the original problem!

We could prove that P1 always wins in another way. If we could come up with the right way of measuring the current position of the board, then all we would need to show is that P1 can always increase that measurement on his next turn. Of course, coming up with the right way to measure the board is just as difficult as the original proof!! I believe this ‘measuring of the board’ is how most artificial intelligence chess playing games work.

Gary, on the subject of your challenge:
(This is just food for thought)
Now that you have found a game that meets your criteria, what does that say about your original premise?

My two cents:
There are currently eight possible variants being discussed for inclusion here. They are all the combinations of: Pente or Keyro Pente
play on a 13x13 or 19x19 board
play with or without the opening restriction

I personally would like to see Pente on a 19x19 board without the restriction implemented. I think implementing all eight would be too much. I know implementing six has been suggested. I’m not sure if even that many is too many.

Two more cents:
I have seen several posts discussing how some players would like to see everyone play by the ‘correct’ rules. Wouldn’t in be better to say the official rules? I mean, with an online game, you pretty much have to play by the correct rules anyway, don’t you?

Thad

As could be inferred from Gary's post (since he used the pronoun "we") I fully support everything he laid out in the post, and I think everyone should be happy under that plan. Thanks for all who participated in the debate and I aplogize if I offended anyone, which was never my intent.

I would go along with the listing of games, as Gary has detailed.

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

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

-MM

Just some thoughts...

Dmitri,

Is this debating? And I quote "Why don't you spend less time with your idiotic posts and more time making less pathetic moves in your pente games? You are a joke!!! for all your talk, your challenge is worthless and your moves are pathetic. You are pathetic. You cannnot make a single point of argument."

Wow. Looks like I'm not the only one who's showing some true colors. Nice attacking, ur umm, debating I mean.

Gary,
qoute: "Dmitri King has little tolerance for arguments as opposed to debates."

Bull****. Case in point, the above statement that I quoted. But more to the point, many posts between him and Dufus at DSG. (however, I didn't disagree with any of dmitri's arguments / statements in that case. It's just a good example)

Also, I don't hate you man. I'm just a bit irritated at what I've read here. Am I not allowed to be? Just because I state my opinion doesn't mean I hate you. Please, quit personalizing everything...

One more great one:

ellieoop: "i have a short statement, these long ones are too tiresome. if you don't like playing it the way it is now, then don't play it, but leave the option for those that do."

Dmitri: "ellieoop, you are being stubborn and argumentative. Do you really think you are making a convincing point? How can anyone take you seriously when you ackowledge that you cannot even read through a thoughtful post on the matter, and you simply repeat your unconvincing statement over and over? "I am fully awar of my option to not play the game without the restriction. You do not need to inform me of this right, amazingly enough, I was NOT under the impression that I am being forced to play that way""

That is a sarcastic attack, NOT a paragraph formed for debate. And, in reading that I'd say that you Dmitri are the one who is being stubborn and argumentative.

Just making sure you see that I am not the only one that's argumentative at times... I say this because all the sudden you guys think that I hate you from what I've wrote here. I don't. I said what I said, and stick by it. And the fact is, I really didn't mean for either of you to take me so personally. Then, when you did, I took it personally as well. Things escalated from there.

One more thing:

Gary and Dmitri. I am sorry about resigning our games. I was in a real bad mood that night, and like you two, I personalized what I was reading on this site and made a hasty decision there (I tend to take things too personally sometimes, and I also tend to act before I think things through). Those were both interesting games. Of course, I had you both whipped. (that's a joke...trying to lighten the tension here). Anyways, it looks like Fencer has made a decision. I will not be commenting on the non-restricted games any longer. In fact, I will not be commenting here at all any longer.
Regards,
-Scott

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

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

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

-Mark

To all -

I was messing around looking at different games at Brain King a couple of nights ago and found something that astounded me. There it is right under EVERYONE's noses is EXACTLY what would ALMOST perfectly refute my challenge! I guess the challenge seemed so impossible (and I thought so too) that no one bothered to look too hard. But what's amazing about this is that I found it and I wasn't even looking for it!

The game that ALMOST PERFECTLY fits EVERY criteria in my challenge on THIS site is Reversi 6x6! It's not a PERFECT match to the challenge, but it's VERY close and if someone had brought it up, I would have said 'close enough'!

The only criteria that it is a LITTLE bit off on? There's NO rule change, it's only a board size change! It's the EXACT same game only on a smaller board! My criteria required that there be 1 (or maybe 2 or 3) rule changes that DRASTICALLY and negatively affect the chances of one side to win.

Why do I THINK that Reversi 6x6 is SO MUCH different then regular Reversi 8x8? The 6x6 game has been SOLVED!! It's right there on the Reversi discussion board! Player 2 wins by force 19-17 or 20-16 on the smaller board depending on the opening rules placement of the stones! But the 8x8 game (which is the standard rules game) is FAR from being solved and a couple of top players aren't even clear on WHO has an advantage!! This was from a discussion that was had a couple of months ago from two of the top players on this site in Reversi. Now THAT is a drastic and negative effect on the winning chances of one side by a game that contains the same name so that it could possibly confuse NEW players into wondering what the correct rules (in this case board size) for the game really is.

By 'solved' or 'by force' in this case it means that if player 1 plays the BEST and PERFECT moves on EVERY move, that there's no way that he could win if player 2 plays PERFECTLY. On the Reversi discussion board is the website with the proof to it. I found it to be a VERY interesting twist that it is player TWO that wins by force. In all other games, USUALLY player 1 has the advantage.

So NOW no one can say that I gave an IMPOSSIBLE challenge! :-)


Gary

To all -

Based on a lot of soul-searching this weekend, we have come to the conclusion that we have under-estimated the degree of passion that people have in wanting to play Pente and Keryo Pente without the restriction. This despite the strong advantage of one side and the potential confusion of BRAND NEW players to the game.

Pioneer54 has mentioned the fact that he thought that we might have 'ulterior motives' in our stance. Rest assured that he is CORRECT in that assessment. Our ulterior motives are that we are passionate in believing that new and beginning players learn the game correctly. It had nothing to do with us wanting to force-feed our views on everyone or somehow 'control' the game. We just feel strongly that beginning players are being dealt an injustice by learning it without the restriction. Where it appears that we have gone wrong is that those new and beginning players might STILL want to eventually play without the restriction.

We could probably prove easily that player 1 wins easily in Pente. In Keryo Pente, it may be a little harder to prove, mainly because there is more defensive options available for the defending side and we have studied the game FAR less, but with 6-12 months of concentrated experience and study, I'm confident that we could also prove the same in that game. But that is obviously a moot point to players who play 'for fun'.

Based on all of this, we have made a recommendation to Fencer that, if he is willing to do it, should satisfy everyone AND prevent any problems related to ratings as a result of the 'Restriction Option' on the smaller board.

Obviously, I cannot speak for Fencer, because we have only recommended it, but I want everyone to know what we have recommended to him:

1. Create two entirely NEW separate variants called 'No-restriction Pente' and 'No-restriction Keryo Pente'. These games would be played on a 13x13 board without the restriction and would be EXACTLY LIKE IYT's 13x13 games.

2. Do NOT put the option on Small Pente and Small Keryo Pente. Leave those game like they were changed to a few weeks back WITH the restriction. Fortunately, I DON'T think he has completed that just yet, although I could be wrong. The problem with the option is, like has been mentioned before, the ratings. There are also other problems like players 'cheating' by only playing as White without the restriction and possible LARGE amounts of confusion related to creating and entering tourneys for the game with a restriction option. I DO think that was a GOOD initial thought by Fencer because of all of the 'arguing' that he noticed on the boards here, and it would certainly placate BOTH sides of the issue in the short term. But I think there would be quite a few complaints in the long term relating to ratings, cheating, and tournament confusion.

So here would be the result of all of this:
Pente and Keryo Pente:
19x19 boards WITH restriction
Small Pente and Small Keryo Pente:
13x13 board WITH restriciton
No-restriction Pente and No-restriction Keryo Pente:
13x13 board WITHOUT restriction

I think that this will make EVERYONE happy for the following reasons:
1. It maintains the currently accepted rules of the game by the names of 'Pente' and 'Keryo Pente' so that beginners that are BRAND NEW to the games will not be confused what the correct way to play it is. (Very important to us!)
2. It makes it OBVIOUS what games to play if you prefer no restriction. And those games are what everyone is used to playing at IYT. (Very important to many of you, I think!)
3. It won't confuse the ratings by having restriction and no-restriction games mixed together.
4. It would allow players to create and play in tournaments on the Small Pente and Small Keryo pente variants without there being a confusion as to whether the restriction would be used or not.
5. It will prevent potential ratings cheaters who only play without the restriction as white on the Small Pente and Small Keryo Pente variants.

Obviously the last 3 are important to EVERYONE, I think! One final benefit is that it would probably take more players from IYT, and most people know my feelings about them! :-)

The only thing about all of this is that it will be additional work for Fencer to create the 2 NEW variants. I'm guessing that it won't be TOO much work since MOST of the programming code should already be in place and that could just be duplicated. I'm sure that he will let all of us know if this is OK for him.

For a VERY interesting REFUTE to my supposedly 'unassailable' challenge (like several people said it was), see my next Email. I refuted MYSELF and so could have everyone else!! (LOL, I guess it's better to refute YOURSELF than have others do it for you!)


Gary Barnes

Pioneer54 -

Nice post as usual. Yes, the long term plan is agressive, but possible if done correctly and with a large influx of sponsorship. The reason why Pente 'died' after 1984 shortly after Parker Brothers bought it is that they owned exclusive rights to it but put NO money into promoting it. There was nothing that anyone could do without buying the rights from them. We do NOT know why they decided NOT to promote it because it had great popularity in the early '80's. I can even remember seeing it in 2-3 different night-clubs that I frequented during my younger years. Obviously a single individual by the name of Gary Gabrel, who invented the game, was able to bring it to great popularity so it is VERY disappointing that a LARGE gaming company chose not to.

Everyone should see my next post because I think EVERYONE will like what they see.


Gary

i started a game of small pente, isn't there an option to not use the restricted move, and if so, are these games rated?
thx. ellie

Hmm... no posts here on Saturday, I guess everybody took the day off! I just got caught up on reading the messages for the first time since Thursday P.M. (or shortly after midnight).

I read Virag's note on the other board, and believe he said he could prove that player one wins in ALL versions without a restriction. If he can show this in some concise manner, it would definitely take away some enthusiasm for the 'fun-pente' idea. (Speaking on behalf of myself only, of course.) But it could still be enjoyed by others; for example, I think we all know that checkers is a proven draw without a blunder by one side or the other, yet it is still one of the world's most popular games!? However, not to cast Virag in a negative light, and I know he is a strong player from my iyt games with him, but Virag SAYING and Virag DOING are two separate items!

As to the discussion of 'invalid variants', there seems to be more "agreement to disagree" than anything else, so I don't want to go into detail on that, but I generally concur with what Thad has written on that topic. I also find it ironic that (by Gary's definition) the ORIGINAL verion of Pente is itself INVALID (!!!!!!!), which might suggest that all which followed is superfluous, and maybe we should just forget the entire genus altogether! (Just kidding!) That is not going to happen, of course, but I just wonder if those who would try to label something 'invalid' might have ulterior purposes for doing so.

Gary, I have reviewed your long-term plan for Pente, and I think it is highly admirable, but there are some curiosities I have about it. You projected a certain growth based on a model of about 20 years, but Pente has already had that much time to grow; instead, it peaked briefly, eclipsed and began to fade. Are you now saying that with the accessibility of internet games that it could take off again? I believe that this is possible, although I question the practical likelihood of it.

How many people are really going to dedicate themselves to the game? The seemingly endless study of openings and subsequent strategies means that at some point the "game" becomes more of chore than a leisure. Human nature drives us to strive for perfection in everything we do, but unfortunately the more perfect we become, the less entertaining. I, for one, like pente and its versions, but I have no desire to become a 'pente master' in this regard, as it would simply require the sacrificing of too many other pleasurable endeavors. I'm sure that some segment of the populace will come along and fill that void, but I seriously doubt the actual numbers will be anything like the lofty goals you envision. But by all means, please try to accomplish it, if it is what you are really after in life. I genuinely relish the times when games have made big news in the world. The key, of course, is MONEY..... lots of money. Wherever it is found, you can be sure that hordes will follow.

Now, as for the application of the 13 restriction, and whether it is indeed inhibiting the production of stronger players, there has been a wide array of opinions on that. My opinion is well documented, and you strongly disagree, but I would only suggest that a prospective master may actually become better if he sees the various versions and can figure out for himself (or herself) why they do or do not work.... At any rate, I am happy to see that Fencer offered a choice, it isn't all you and Dmitri wanted, and it isn't all the rest of us wanted, but it is a reasonable compromise.

Thad -

It's obvious that you are talking about www.pente.net as the OTHER site that currently has no-restriction Pente.

I saw it about 2 years ago and created an I.D. But when I saw their 'ranking' system that consisted of multiplying a player's total wins by 100 and adding their winning percentage, the fact that they have NO time controls AT ALL, AND the fact that they have NO tournaments, I dismissed it as a small mom & pop operation that will stay the way it is.

Two things that I will say about their rating system:
1. Why bother adding the winning %? Effectively the main sort is by total # of wins. Obviously this breaks ties if 2 players have 538 wins each, but if one player has played 2000 games and the other 550 games at that point, they certainly shouldn't be near one another.
2. If they just want to use something simple like that, why not just take a players winning percentage, multiply THAT by 100 or 1000 and add a player's TOTAL wins. That would be JUST as easy and would show players that have BOTH a combination of playing lots of games BUT winning a high percentage of them. Why don't you make that suggestion to them? It would take the owner virtually NO time to implement such a change compared to the significant changes needed to handle the U.S. Chess rating system (a slight variation thereof) that is used here at Brain King.

I then checked on the site again about a year ago to see if any improvements had been made and it stated that the site was down 'indefintely' or something of the nature but expected to be back up in X # of months or something. I then checked back 2 or 3 times over the next 3-5 months and it continued to state the same thing.

Since that was the last time that I checked on the site, I think you can see why I would not COUNT it as a WORKING site. Any WORKING site should not be down for months at a time.

When I saw your message, I thought I would check it out once again to see if any improvements have been made. It appears that they have, but ONLY to have a couple of other 5-in-a-row games like Gomoku, other small things like viewing a players won-lost records, and to continue stating that their 'ranking' system needs to be improved, but not doing anything about it.

I'm sure that this site is 'fun' for it's core group of 750+ players and that the personal attention that you get from the owner is kind of cool. But until it expands to other games than just Pente, starts selling memberships and/or advertising, and starts having tournaments, it will remain a VERY small operation.

So if you want Pente to REMAIN small potatoes, continue frequenting sites like that where the rankings are effectively calculated by the # of wins that a players has and there are NO tourneys. But if you want to be where all of the FUTURE action WILL be, then you'll need to look elsewhere.

I WILL state that such a site is of little consequence as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure as far as MOST other serious players would be concerned, so you will NOT see us making any suggestions there.

I hope that removes any concerns that you have about that.


Gary

To all -

I would like to refer EVERYONE to Samwise's post. His 'wise' part in his I.D. speaks VOLUMNS about who he is and what he represents. I have spoken to him several times by Email and at www.pente.org. At no point did I ever try to sway his opinion one way or another about this topic. He came to that conclusion on his own. One thing that I will mention about him because there is NO way that ANYONE would guess it unless it was stated. He is only 16 years old!!

He is saying that he is ALSO tired of seeing the correct version of the game MUCKED up with all of these co-called variants such that the name and what rules should be used are so confusing to everyone.

Also, his knowledge about the history of Chess is astonishing and he brings up an OUTSTANDING point! That is why not create a Pente Federation like there is in Chess!

Well guess what everyone! It is being DONE! The first meeting of the NEW World Pente Federation will take place in Oklahoma City on May 17th of this year along with the tournament that will be held there.

Amongst the topics of discussion will be how best to promote the game in the future and changes to the current opening restriction so that players of all levels will become interested and STAY interested in the game because it will be challenging for a LIFETIME instead of dropping out when they have accomplished all that can be accomplished in the game.

It is from this meeting that discussion will ensue such that CURRENT official rules of Pente will be CHANGED for the FIRST time since the opening restriction was accepted as the correct way to play the game way back around 20 years ago.

So like I said, we are starting to look at the long-term now. It was not just a euphamism but a statement of fact.


Gary

Gary,

Why do you say I’m “pushing your luck BIG time!”. Because I made a post about the option on the 19x19 board and/or about the name of the game? That post was specifically in response to what Dmitri said. He posted his thoughts, and I posted mine in reply. Where’s the problem?

And don’t try to blame me, Walter, Pioneer54, or anyone else for the ratings problem. The ratings were fine until you (and whoever else) talked Fencer to change the rules of the game.

Thad

Gary said:
So you see there is actually TWO sites that do NOT have no-restriction Pente. ONLY IYT has it and you should feel VERY fortunate that Fencer has agreed to at least allow the OPTION on the smaller boards here.

My reply:
So what are you implying, Gary, that you are right because more sites have ‘your’ way than ‘mine’? Tell me this, how many websites are there that offer chess? How many offer pente? Does that make chess better?

Besides that, you counted wrong!!

There is another very good site for playing pente. You can play several variants of the game there including Fun-pente, ‘official’ pente, and my personal favorite, pente with unlimited caps. Over 750 players have completed games there. The site masters are friendly and they have been making nice improvements to the site. It’s still a beta site, and there are many more things they can (and plan to) add, but it’s still a good site as is.

I’m sure many of you reading this post know the site I am speaking of. Gary, I am not mentioning the name of the site because I don’t want you to go there and muck it all up with all your talk of how all those of us there, WHO JUST WANT TO PLAY GAMES AND HAVE A GOOD TIME, are detrimentally ruining the long-term viability of blah-buh-de-blah-blah...

To everyone else:
Please do NOT post the name of that site here. I REALLY don’t want them to go thru the torture we’ve all gone thru here.

Thad

Regarding The "name of Pente"
Let's start spliting some hairs!

You must remember that the real game "Pente" is played on a 19x19 board with opening move restriction. Its getting a bit out of hand with wanting to rename the game.... "Original Pente" "Pente" "Pro-Pente" "13x13 Pro-Pente" just so that the mistake by IYT can be made proper.

One example (with chess).... Bhavisya-Purâna- the original chess, shâhmât is for when it traveled to Persia, Échecs from the crusades in Persia, then Ajedrez for the Spanish who got it from crusades, Schachspiel for the germans who got it from the spanish and of course the last move in history for chess Ludus Scaccorum which is classical Latin...for the church. This way chess has been mapped out through history so that all
Players can be happy with its development.

One more thing (not off topic).... I think a great idea (also borrowed from chess) would be.

The game chess is played today according to the Laws of Chess (or Chess Code) as formulated by the World Chess Federation, officially the Federation Internationale des Échecs, or FIDE. The World Chess Federation controls world Chess events and is in charge of the revising and interpretation of the rules of the game.

Why not create a Pente federation so that rules can be upheld and variations properly controlled.

~Samwise

Dmitri,

You are right, being able to play the game here without the restriction is my main concern.

You posted your opinion on whether the restriction should be placed on the 19x19 board and the name of the game. I disagree with your opinion and wanted to post my thoughts on the subject.

I’d like to be able to play unrestricted on the larger board. I don’t like games where the edge comes into play. But I suppose the compromise of having it on only the smaller board is ok. My only other concern is what happens if we no longer need the 13x13 board for WebTV users. I hope you’d let us play unrestricted on the big board then. But we can worry about that another day. ;-)

The name of the game isn’t really important to me, although I like Pente & Original Pente because they reflect the history of the development of the game. I think any further discussion on it would be splitting hairs, but you are welcome to have the last word if you have anything you would like to add.

Thad

Thad -

You're pushing your luck BIG time! Fencer has agreed to make the restriction optional on Small Pente and Small Keryo Pente. I agree that the ratings will now be invalid for that game. After all, I could just play EVERY game as player 1 WITHOUT the restriction and NEVER lose (unless I fell asleep) and eventually get some astronomical rating. To prove the point, I think I was something like 400+ and 0 in tournament no-restriction Pente games at IYT as player 1. Am I proud of that? Not at all. I was playing starting with a forced win every time.

But it is you, Walter, and Pioneer54 that have effectively created this invalid ratings situation by barking so loudly. So I guess I have little sympathy for the situation. After all, it's Fun-Pente, right? If it's Fun-pente, then why would you CARE about ratings?!

My suggestion is for Fencer to do EXACTLY what he stated that he would do. It gives us what WE want and it gives YOU what you want. And it is the least effort for him to placate the MOST people. That suggestion is to make the restriction OPTIONAL on ONLY Small Pente AND Small Keryo Pente EXACTLY like they have it at IYT. Pioneer54 has even made the point that the restriction SHOULD be lifted SPECFICIALLY on a 13x13 board in Keryo Pente because the advantage of player 1 is less than on the 19x19 board. (I don't agree with it, but that is his case and Fencer is offering to remove the restriction on the smaller board.)

I do NOT think Fencer should make any special provisions for the ratings. Just mix ALL the no-restriction and restriction games together all in one bucket! Once again, I will state that it is FUN-pente, so the fact that the ratings won't mean much should not bother MOST FUN-pente players. And most serious players won't even choose to bother with such a game.

That is the easiest way for Fencer to go. BUT...I am being generous in my response here. My TRUE feeling is that un-restricted games of Small Pente should NOT be rated AT ALL! That is EXACTLY like it was up until a few months ago at Dweebo's Stone Games (DSG). Now as far as I know, the no-restriction game is not even ALLOWED at DSG. Also you will NOT find the no-restriction games, even in non-tournament play, at www.gamerz.net where the world championships are held.

So you see there is actually TWO sites that do NOT have no-restriction Pente. ONLY IYT has it and you should feel VERY fortunate that Fencer has agreed to at least allow the OPTION on the smaller boards here.


Gary

Instead of engaging in any further debate on this issue, I would like to refer everyone to ANOTHER top player who has FAR greater knowledge of MANY games than I do. To see his message, go to the Pente disucssion board. (Note: NOT Small Pente and NOT Keryo Pente, but just Pente)

On it is a post of one of the top Renju, Gomoku, and Pente players in the world. He knows what he is talking about. His name is Istvan Virag and he is from Hungary. He won the most recently completed real-time Pente tournament at www.pente.org after trouncing me in the semi-finals and beating Dmitri King in the finals. He was also runner up to me (by tiebreak only!) in the recently completed 2001-02 World E-mail pente championship held at www.gamerz.net.

I think that you will see that Virag has MUCH experience in games that are FAR larger then Pente, namely Renju and Gomoku, but that are VERY similar in CONCEPT to Pente. By that I mean, the object is to get 5-in-a-row and they are played on a square board (15x15 I believe). These two games only have moderate interest in the U.S. but have a substantial following in Europe and Asia.

In the memo he states beyond a shadow of a doubt that player 1 wins every time. He then specifically states that long-term thinking must be used when making rules changes.

I think you'll like part of what you see because he is NOT saying that the no-restriction game is bad, only that LONG-term thinking must be used to create NEW rules and that player 1 easily wins by force without the restriction. See what you think.

One last thing. He is ONE of the TWO players who successfully PROVED that player 1 wins by force in 24 moves in GoMoku without an opening restriction.


Gary

Instead of engaging in any further debate on this issue, I would like to refer everyone to ANOTHER top player who has FAR greater knowledge of MANY games than I do. To see his message, go to the Pente disucssion board. (Note: NOT Small Pente and NOT Keryo Pente, but just Pente)

On it is a post of one of the top Renju, Gomoku, and Pente players in the world. He knows what he is talking about. His name is Istvan Virag and he is from Hungary. He won the most recently completed real-time Pente tournament at www.pente.org after trouncing me in the semi-finals and beating Dmitri King in the finals. He was also runner up to me (by tiebreak only!) in the recently completed 2001-02 World E-mail pente championship held at www.gamerz.net.

I think that you will see that Virag has MUCH experience in games that are FAR larger then Pente, namely Renju and Gomoku, but that are VERY similar in CONCEPT to Pente. By that I mean, the object is to get 5-in-a-row and they are played on a square board (15x15 I believe). These two games only have moderate interest in the U.S. but have a substantial following in Europe and Asia.

In the memo he states beyond a shadow of a doubt that player 1 wins every time. He then specifically states that long-term thinking must be used when making rules changes.

I think you'll like part of what you see because he is NOT saying that the no-restriction game is bad, only that LONG-term thinking must be used to create NEW rules and that player 1 easily wins by force without the restriction. See what you think.

One last thing. He is ONE of the TWO players who successfully PROVED that player 1 wins by force in 24 moves in GoMoku without an opening restriction.


Gary

Thad, your primary concern was being able to PLAY the game without therestiction. Can't you just be satisfied with that? Gary and I really want the betterment of pente to be taken into consideration, and having the game WITHOUT the restriction called "Original pente" MISLEADS people into thinking that it is the PREFERRED or PROPER way to play.

WHat is wrong with calling it like it is, "No Restriction Pente?" It is accurate and effective, and is also not suggestive of which is the correct way to play. Wouldn't that appease everyone?

NOW that you are getting the restriction removed on the small board, why do you need it removed on the large board? I think a fair compromise is to have it only on the small board.

In response to Dmitri’s previous post:

I would actually suggest that the option SHOULD be placed on the 19x19 board. Remember, the 13x13 board is ONLY here to accommodate the WebTV users.

As far as ratings go, I agree with Dmitri that it is a problem to use restricted and unrestricted games together in calculating a single ranking. I disagree with his suggestion of only allowing unrated games for the unrestricted variant. That’s not right. Creating a separate game on the site would work. How about calling it Original Pente, since that’s how the rules originally were. :-)

Thad

Fencer, I understand your decision and I respect it. I hope that solution will placate as many people as possible. I will still try to urge players to learn to play the gamne the correct way, but if thye do not wish to, they still have the option of p[laying without the restriction, so they should have nothing to complain about.

I have a few thoughts though that I hope you will take into consideration--

1) I hope this option to turn off the opening restriction STAYS with the 13 X 13 board and does NOT get added to the 19 by 19 board. As it is, the 13 X 13 board is not an official pente board, so I am more able to accept the restriction being lifted as long as it stays on that board.

2) As far as the ratings go-- I think it is a problem for the ratings to have small pente players all rated together if some are using the restriction and some are not. Players who play without the restriction have no business being rated with those who DO use therestriction.

This may be too minor of a problem to deal with, but if I may, I would like to make a few suggestions for you to consider.

suggestion 1) Allow only unrated games if the restriction is turned off. Tihs is actyually how Dweebo used to have his site run at Dweebo's stone games-- players at his site oculd play unrated games and thus turn off the ratings, which keeps the ratings fair to those who DO use the restriction. It really is unfair to those who play with the restriction to be rated with those who do not use it.

Suggestion 2) Actually create a separate variant with a separate name-- then there will be one game called "small pente" that HAS the restriction, and a new variant could be created called "No restriction Pente" which does NOT have the restriction. This owuld give players clear choices about hwich game to play, and everyone would be rated fairly and on equal footing.

Hi All,

My name is Istvan Virag, i from Hungary. I am strong pro gomoku and renju player, these games similar deep tactics games, i think you know.

In small pente, and normal pente white player has absolutelly sure victory. I can show anyone if he want. Most strongest players on the world can win as white yet online game within 30 minutes. In offline game with more time to think more easy to control the game as white and win.

So, if we want an playable pente game for experts, we have to change opening rules!!!
Gary option may be good for some month or years, but will be temporary only. Because we will find strong 2th white move in not same line in K10. Same line not important, only the connection important in the 3th white move.

So, we need implement swap color option!!!
If we changed rules, we need to to create long term rules!!!
If somebody want learn rules, play small pente.
If somebody want play original pente, play pente.
If somebody is expert and want high level game, play pro-pente.

Oleg Stepanov has a good idea for equalizing well the game.
Here are rules:

Players are initially referred to as "tentative Ohs" and "tentative Eks".

Move#1
Ohs first move of the game is automatically made to the center K10.

Move#2.
tentative Eks has to make the second move into the central zone 3x3 (J-L, 9-11)

Move#3.
tentative Ohs has to make the third move into the central zone 5x5 (H-M, 8-12)
Move#4a. Tentative Eks may swap sides after the 3rd move.

If no swap was made after the 3rd move, no further opening rules are
applied.

If the swap was made:
Move#4b. Tentative Ohs (now Eks) makes an unrestricted move.
Move#5a. Now, Tentative Eks (now Ohs) may swap sides.
Move#5b. Ohs makes an unrestricted move and no more opening rules are applied.


These rules very good, because Renju International Federation thinking same to change renju opening rules to the Stepanov rules.
These rules not drop old theory, and not drop Gary's idea!!!

Cheers, Istvan Virag

Dmitri,

In response to:
Thad, you said that You think Gary and I think that you want to get rid of official pente. Where did you get that idea? Neither of us ever said anything along those lines.

My reply:
It’s true that you never said that directly, I think I implied it from an earlier post you made, mainly here:

That alone is insufficient-- for instance, if there is a game where player 1 has a forced win 100% of the time, would it make sense to simply play two game sets and ignore any attempts to give player 2 a chance? NO, it wouldn't, and by the same reasoning, the possibility of playing two game sets is no reason to neglect the restriction that gives player 2 more of a chance.


Specifically I thought you might feel that *I* was ‘ignoring attempts to give player 2 a chance’ and ‘neglecting the restriction’.

No big deal.

Thad

Gary said:
I beg to differ and I will state ONCE AGAIN. It is the long-term detrimental effect of having incorrect rules on a variant that is SO similar to the correct rules of the game yet strongly negatively impacts one sides chances to win that will SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the growth of the game in the long run.

My reply:
If I define Fun-pente as Pente without the move restriction, what is it about the rules that is incorrect? The rules are different, but that doesn’t make them incorrect. And they’re not incorrect because I’ve eliminated a rule. As an example, Go-Moku is Pente without the capture rule, and Go-Moku’s rules are certainly correct.


Gary said:
Thad, I can't understand something. You just played in Section B of the Dweebo's Stone Games (DSG) tourney. As a matter of fact, you played my son, Matthewb, in the final round and I am tournament director of that section. Of course ALL rated games at DSG MUST have the opening restriction. Did you NOT have FUN playing in that tourney WITH the opening restriction? I'm just curious.

Yeah, that tournament is alright. I think it’s lasted way too long, even if you deduct time for when the site is down. Plus I think I’ve reached the point where my game is as good as it is going to get without reading books, studying old games, etc. I play pente because I enjoy playing. I don’t want to invest the time and effort it takes doing things I wouldn’t enjoy doing in order to improve my game. I’ve played Dmitri a lot at IYT, sometimes it’s fun, but more often than not, I put a tremendous amount of effort into games against him and still come up short. I think I beat him as player 2 once or twice, and I know he’s said that one move I made against him was amongst the best he’s seen, so that’s cool. He’s said he thinks I could be an elite player if I put my mind to it, and he’s probably right. Maybe someday.

Thad

Pioneer54, you know I have grat respect for your opinions, as well as your debating tactics and your game playing abilities. That si why I was a little frustrated with your latest post to me. YOu copied and pasted a bunch of things I said, but you didn't really address them, you just said for each one, "You did not make the opint you are claiming to make." You do not really say WHY I didn't make my points, and I am pretty sure that I did make my points. It seems that you just rejected them without reason or explanation.

Walter, if the pente games are going too slowly, RESIGN! You have already lost, so if the games are annoying you so muhc, just quit. The only player out of the three who has made any decent moves is Pioneer54 (Although both of those games still look like sure wins for player 1).

Thad, you said that You think Gary and I think that you want to get rid of official pente. Where did you get that idea? Neither of us ever said anything alonge those lines.

Gary:

You said (in response to my prior post):
I'm almost certain that you KNOW that your statement is untrue so it isn't worth a real rebuttal but I'll do a small one just in case. If you had chess where a pawn could ONLY move one space forward instead of 1 or 2 on the first move and it ONLY captured one space forward instead of diagonally could be MUCH more easily explained than the real rules for chess. But you certainly wouldn't call that just 'chess' and the correct version of chess 'multi-move-pawn chess'. Anyway, I assume that you were just being funny there.

My reply:
My original statement IS true. You got it backwards. The version you describe is a variant of chess (and it’s valid) and could be called multi-move-pawn-chess. No change would be made to chess.


You said:
What I am trying to do is DEFINE what constitutes a valid variant such that programming time should be spent to create that variant. It is VERY obvious that NO site owner would create SOME of the variants that you have described above. A FEW of them are probably VERY good and viable! It is ALSO very obvious that we would be WAY of out line if we were to pass a law forbidding you to play those variants at all at any time.

Does that make sense? There is a BIG difference between a reasonable variant on a site and a reasonable variant that someone might play with their friends (like your MASH checkers variant that I found hilarious!).

My reply:
I think you’re getting off track here. Whether or not a game should be programmed for online play is contingent on one’s access to the proper hardware and software, knowledge of programming or access to someone with the knowledge, access to a domain, freetime for development, etc. You’ll never come up with a definition that takes all this into account. Plus there’s the change in technology to take in to account. That will change what games we can and cannot implement for online play.


You said (in response to my prior post):
I respectfully disagree. If a variant confuses beginning players such that they think that the variant is the actual rules for the mainstream game, then in my opinion, it is an invalid variant. It is the new and beginning players such as Harley that we are the most concerned about.

My reply:
The only way I can see that a variant would mislead players into thinking it was the ‘real thing’ is if it were misnamed as IYT has done with Pente & Pro Pente.


I said:
Why can't a variant 'negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win’?

You replied:
To be on a site, although IT CAN negatively impact one side's changes to win, it must be within reason or few players will play it.

My reply:
Oh, so a variant can 'negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win’. That’s not what you said earlier.

Also, if a variant ‘must be within reason or few players will play it’, it logically follows that if many players play it, it’s within reason.

Ok, well, by that logic, a lot of players play fun-pente, which makes it a reasonable, i.e. valid variant!

Now I know you’re going to say that a lot of players started playing “pente” at IYT, thinking it was the official game, and that’s likely to be true, but they continue to play the game because it’s a valid game. If it weren’t valid, players would quit playing it in droves.


You said:
Pente and Keryo Pente are actually 2 completely separate games. While the strategy has some similarities, the difference in positions and attacking is quite significant. One is not a variant of the other.

My reply:
Geez! If they’re completely different games, then they should have completely different names!! Wasn’t Keyro Pente derived from Pente? How can you say it’s not a variant?!! Furthermore, strategies have nothing to do with whether or not a game is a variant of another as you have inferred above.


You said:
I am stating that a variant should not be created that is SO similar to the original game such that beginners confuse it for the correct way to play the game AND that variant substantially and negatively affects the ability of one side to win.

My reply:
Ok, so don’t name your variant the name of the game it was derived from. No problem. But don’t make a variant that’s more one-sided in terms of who wins? Why not. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that.


You said:
My definition of an invalid variant ONLY applies to that which a reasonable site owner would spend programming time on.

My reply:
Well (1) your definition is weak because what you call reasonable and what I or Dmitri or Fencer or anyone else might call reasonable varies greatly. (2) You never said that your definition ONLY applied to certain things until now, because (3) your premise is flawed as I have said before, and now you are trying to change it to make it work.

By the way, if anyone does find a variant that fits your five criteria, will that mean that fun-pente is indeed a valid variant according to you? Or will it mean that there are two invalid variants being played online? In other words, if/when someone meets your challenge, will you admit that fun-pente is valid or will you simply state that since there’s already one invalid game out there, what the heck, there might as well be two.


I said:
A GAME (whether it’s a variant of another or not) may be valid or invalid depending of whether or not it’s winnable. Go-Moku played on a 4x4 grid would be invalid. There’s not enough room on the board to place five stones in a line and therefore, no way to win. Thus the game is invalid.

You replied:
That's a pretty narrow definition of a valid variant by most standards. If you said that, then I could say let's play Pente and here's the rules: 1. The first to get 2 in a row wins. -or- 2. The first to get 1 in a row wins.

My reply:
No, it’s a broad definition. Any game that is a spin-off of another game and winnable is a valid variant. Many variations that we could mention are valid according to the definition I’ve given because they’re spin-offs of another game and they’re winnable, but invalid if we apply your, now modified, five-part premise in which, lest we forget, we also need to consider it’s programmability by a reasonable site owner and it’s strategy in comparison to other relevant games.


You said:
But I will state my opinion about something else once again. That is that a variant IS INVALID if it is so substantially similar to the original game, meets all of the criteria that was outlined, it confuses beginning players into thinking that it is the correct version of the game, AND one side's chances of winning are strongly negatively impacted. It is the one-sidedness of a game that will NOT allow it to grow in the long run.

My reply:
As with my reference to a ‘reasonable’ programmer earlier in this post, who is to say what is ‘substantially similar’? What if I made a variation with a hole in the board in one place. If that hole were placed in the upper left corner of the board, where stones are rarely ever placed, then I think we’d all agree that my game would be ‘substantially similar’. Now, what if I moved the hole toward the center? Still substantially similar? What if I put it in the center? How about two holes? Or three? Nine? Twenty? My point here is that there’s no way to define ‘substantially similar’. The same thing applies to ‘strongly impacted’.


Note to all readers, I’ve tried to be complete, concise, & yet brief here. I tried to include only relevant text from earlier posts. Please read the earlier posts if you are unclear here. Also, I have tried not to take anything said earlier out of context or be misleading in any way. If I have, please understand that doing so was not my intention.

Gary, I haven’t addressed everything you said earlier. If you think I missed an important point, let me know.

Thad

Look at Walter whining again about how often Gayr is moving in his game. What a snivelign whining fool Walter is. I guess he doesn;t understand what a move limit means in a turn based game. I guess I shouldn't expect any more from him.

you said he argues way better than I do and earned tally opints??? How so? HE did not refute anything I said, all he did ws say "Well Dmitri, you say you have made your opint, but you haven't"

I don;t consider that to be insightful or effective debating! All he did was reject my arguments without any reason. Walter, you keep threatening to leave, as if anyone should care! good riddance!

New! Fencer 18. April 2003, 02:38:13
I've just decided to add an option for small pente and small keryo pente games to turn on/off the move restriction. It should be acceptable for everyone.
Otherwise, this arguing will never end.
--------------------------------------------
Well, he's probably wrong about the arguing, but I'm glad he's making the change! Yeehaw!

<Thad -

>> But Gary, Walter is not standing in your way. YOU are standing in HIS way. All we want is to have the chance to play fun-pente, but you are telling us that we can't!!! <

I beg to differ and I will state ONCE AGAIN. It is the long-term detremental effect of having incorrect rules on a variant that is SO similar to the correct rules of the game yet strongly negatively impacts one sides chances to win that will SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the growth of the game in the long run.

I WILL rephrase my previous wording. It is the GAME of Fun-pente that is standing in the way, NOT any specfic players in particular.

Thad, I can't understand something. You just played in Section B of the Dweebo's Stone Games (DSG) tourney. As a matter of fact, you played my son, Matthewb, in the final round and I am tournament director of that section. Of course ALL rated games at DSG MUST have the opening restriction. Did you NOT have FUN playing in that tourney WITH the opening restriction? I'm just curious.


Walter -

I can see that you are trying to get me to argue with you once again I won't get involved with that. I will state that I DID make the error ONE time of becoming EXTREMELY upset with you and it was a BIG mistake. I think that anyone can see that I have been more than cordial since that time. Especially considering that at night time, I'm debating against 3 people at once.

Here's how I have now been able to recognize when you are trying to get people to argue with you and not engage in a logical debate. It is when you pick on words like you did in your last post. For instance in your original post, you stated:
>> I personally don't want to be a part of your grand Pente universe, now or in the far flung future. <

I think that most people would construe this to mean that you don't want to be involved in long-term thinking. But then you followed up with:

>> Where did I say I didn't want to be a part of longterm thinking? I said I didn't want to be a part of your longterm scheme.

It is those types of 'I didn't say that, I said this' type of statements that are argumentative and don't accomplish anything.

I'm only stating this to let you know what inflames people sometimes. If you shared my views on the opening restriction topic, I'm sure that Thad and Pioneer54 would ALSO become quite upset at those types of tactics.

To all -

I know that it is hard for most people to accept and understand long-term thinking. Regardless of what you think of me, Dmitri King, or anyone else who chimes in on either side of this issue, it is not ONLY OUR goal, but the goal of MANY players that will attend the tournament in Oklahoma City on May 17th that the game grow substantially and rapidly in the future. Of course one of the topics of discussion will be changing the current opening restriction so that the sides are more even. There will be LITTLE or NO discussion about NOT having a restriction because it is already accepted that the game has a restriction. And it is WITH the restriction that FUTURE strategy guides, opening books, end-game books, databases, software, etc. will be written and/or created.

If you would like to be a part of the explosive growth potential of Pente and be involved in decisions surrounding future World Championships, rules, etc. then play at Brain King and play the game the way that it was intended to be played more than 20 years ago. If you choose to play at IYT, that is fine too, but we think that you will miss out on some future great opportunities in the game and a GREAT site to boot! Whomever this site loses as a result of the opening restriction will be made up for MANY times over in the future when players get REALLY EXCITED about the game from reading about it in strategy guides.

By the way, if you want an elementary strategy guide on Pente (I'm not sure about Keryo Pente), check out a great site at www.playpente.com. See what you think.


Gary

I've just decided to add an option for small pente and small keryo pente games to turn on/off the move restriction. It should be acceptable for everyone.
Otherwise, this arguing will never end.

<Thad -

My apologies. I have responded to so much and missed yours. Keep in mind that at night, it's been me against 3 of you. In the daytime, Dmitri King and Harley chime in about our side.

Your prior statement:
>> Ok, well it’s MY premise that one game is a variant of another if it’s rules can be explained more easily by describing the differences between it and the main game, than explaining explaining the rules of that game would be. For example, I can say that fun-pente (as I have called it in previous posts) is ‘official’ pente without the move restriction. I can say that much more easily than I can lay out all the rules for fun-pente. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a variant. Keyro13 is Keyro Pente played on a 13x13 board. That’s much easier to say than to state all the rules for Keyro13 directly. It’s a variant. <

I'm almost certain that you KNOW that your statement is untrue so it isn't worth a real rebuttle but I'll do a small one just in case. If you had chess where a pawn could ONLY move one space forward instead of 1 or 2 on the first move and it ONLY captured one space forward instead of diagonally could be MUCH more easily explained than the real rules for chess. But you certainly wouldn't call that just 'chess' and the correct version of chess 'multi-move-pawn chess'. Anyway, I assume that you were just being funny there.

Your prior statement:
>> Now, with my premise, there is no issue of games being valid or not. I mean, one could play just about anything they want. Pente-on-a-5x5 board? Go ahead. I’m not gonna play, but if you want to, be my guest! Pente-where-more-than-five-in-a-row-doesn’t-win, pente-with-unlimited-captures, pente-where-you-can’t-win-diagonally? All good! Have a blast. How about this one, checkers with shot glasses, when you make a jump, drink your opponent’s shot, when you make a king, add an olive (yes, I stole that from M*A*S*H). I LIKE that variant!! My point here is that I can make up any game I want and no one can tell me it is or isn’t a valid game. <

Thad, there seems to be two issues here:
1. What constitutes a game that ANYONE can play. That's ALMOST anything as long as it is winnable.
2. That which is a VIABLE game so that programming hours should be spent by a site owner to create that game.

I'm saying this because you are making two different arguments here. No one is stopping ANYONE from playing ANY kind of game that they want to.

What I am trying to do is DEFINE what constitutes a valid variant such that programming time should be spent to create that variant. It is VERY obvious that NO site owner would create SOME of the variants that you have described above. A FEW of them are probably VERY good and viable! It is ALSO very obvious that we would be WAY of out line if we were to pass a law forbidding you to play those variants at all at any time.

Does that make sense? There is a BIG difference between a reasonable variant on a site and a reasonable variant that someone might play with their friends (like your MASH checkers variant that I found hilarious!).

Your prior statement:
>> Furthermore, my premise doesn’t take into account anything about the original game. AND IT SHOULDN’T! Whether or not a variant has some kind of impact on the game it was derived from doesn’t validate or invalidate the variant! <

I respectfully disagree. If a variant confuses beginning players such that they think that the variant is the actual rules for the mainstream game, then in my opinion, it is an invalid variant. It is the new and beginning players such as Harley that we are the most concerned about.

Your prior statement:
>> Why can't a variant 'negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win’? <

Once again, you're confusing what is viable amongst players physically playing one another in person and what is viable for a site to spend programming time on.

To be on a site, although IT CAN negatively impact one side's changes to win, it must be within reason or few players will play it. See my opinion for the 5 different conditions that must be met to constitute an invalid variant. But my biggest issue is for variants with different rules that can EASILY be confused for the game with the correct rules like IYT did with Pente and Keryo Pente.

Your prior statement continuing from above:
>> And if it can’t how can you allow both Pente and Keyro Pente. Surely in one variation, player 1 has a bigger advantage than in the other and therefore must go. <

Pente and Keryo Pente are actually 2 completely separate games. While the strategy has some similarities, the difference in positions and attacking is quite significant. One is not a variant of the other.

This is just like GoMoku and Renju. That have the similarities of the 15x15 board and needing to get 5 in a row to win. But their similarities end there.

Your prior statement continued from above:
>> Or are you saying that we can create variations of pente so long as player 1’s advantage is no greater than it is with the current 'official' rules? Well, who said the current amount of advantage is the correct amount not to be exceeded anyway? <

I am not saying that at all. I am stating that a variant should not be created that is SO similar to the original game such that beginners confuse it for the correct way to play the game AND that variant substantially and negatively affects the ability of one side to win.

So in effect you could create a pente variant where you only have to get 3 in a row to win and call it 3-pente if you want. Although I would find it annoying, I wouldn't object much. The reason is that there is NO WAY that a beginner will confuse it with the actual game of Pente. Of course, there is no way a site owner would create such a game because the 1st player would always win in a few moves, so virtually no one would play it and it would be a waste of his programming time.

Your statement tonight:
>> Your definition of an invalid variant is garbage, junk, meaningless, without merit.
I will say that again so that it clear:
Your definition of an invalid variant is worthless.
A variant of a game is either that or it’s not. If it’s a spin-off of another game, it’s a variant, if it’s not a spin-off of another game, then it’s not a variant of that game. <

I'll ignore your comments about my definition of invalid variants. Here's why. For the 3rd time in 2 posts, you are confusing what is viable for 2 players to physically play in person and what a site owner will take programming time to put on their site. My definition of an invalid variant ONLY applies to that which a reasonable site owner would spend programming time on.
Your statement tonight:
>> A GAME (whether it’s a variant of another or not) may be valid or invalid depending of whether or not it’s winnable. Go-Moku played on a 4x4 grid would be invalid. There’s not enough room on the board to place five stones in a line and therefore, no way to win. Thus the game is invalid. <

That's a pretty narrow definition of a valid variant by most standards. If you said that, then I could say let's play Pente and here's the rules: 1. The first to get 2 in a row wins. -or- 2. The first to get 1 in a row wins.

I think that you should take some time and revise that statement so that it makes a little more sense. Also, once again you're confusing what a site owner would program and what players would play in person.

Your statement tonight:
>> But a variant can't be declared invalid just because of how it stacks up to another game. <

I completely agree with that statement. But I will state my opinion about something else once again. That is that a variant IS INVALID if it is so substantially similar to the original game, meets all of the criteria that was outlined, it confuses beginning players into thinking that it is the correct version of the game, AND one side's chances of winning are strongly negatively impacted. It is the one-sidedness of a game that will NOT allow it to grow in the long run.

Your statement tonight:
>> Fun-pente is a game and it’s a variant of pente. It’s valid, because it’s winable. The fact that one side enjoys an advantage is irrelevant.

I think I made the point that having a simple definition of a game being winnable is FAR to narrow of a definition of a valid variant, but ESPECIALLY for a valid variant that programming time would be spent on.

The fact that one side enjoys an advantage is VERY relavent. It if wasn't relavent, then we could 2-in-a-row Pente.


I think that addresses everything and I think I repeated myself in several instances here, but there seemed to be no other way to get the individual points across.


Gary

Where did I say I didn't want to be a part of longterm thinking? I said I didn't want to be a part of YOUR longterm scheme. I have very longterm plans. Playing Keryo Pente with you in charge isn't one of them. You realy need to step back, and look at what you think Pente can become. That posting of mine that got you to respond in anger is still the one of mine that sums up what I think is wrong with your plan. I believe the post just before it touches on it too. Ever since that time, the posts have had a personal attack to them. Too bad. As Thad just showed, you're interfering with me and I see no reason for it except that you want everyone to fall inline behind you.

Dmitri,

I get the feeling that you think I want to change the official rules or get rid of ‘official’ pente and only have fun-pente or something along those lines. That is not the case. I like both games. I do like fun-pente better, but that doesn’t mean I want to change the ‘official’ game. I just think there’s room for both (and other) variants. Also, I’m not saying that fun-pente is better. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I just want everyone to know where I stand. I see no harm in playing without the move restriction when that’s what you want to do.

Actually, I’d like to see a better version of pente in which the advantage is reduced even further. I don’t think swapping sides is the answer (name another game where that happens). And I don’t like Gary’s suggestion about further restricting player 1’s move from specific squares. To me, that mars the elegance (sorry to use that word again) of the game.

Restricting P1’s move #2 to anywhere but the horizontal, vertical, and diagonal axes might be good, although I have no idea if the advantage would be greater or lesser than it is now.

Thad

But Gary, Walter is not standing in your way. YOU are standing in HIS way. All we want is to have the chance to play fun-pente, but you are telling us that we can't!!!

Thad

Walter -

Good response and to the point! What's wrong with short-term gratification? Because it hurts in the long run! Never has a successful enterprise been run or a long-term goal been accomplished with short-term thinking.

If you don't want to be a part of long-term thinking, that's your choice. No one can force you to think that way. But you should NOT ridicule others for thinking long-term nor stand in their way because that is what creates long-term success in any endeavor.


Gary

Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Ain't that how it goes? I personally don't want to be a part of your grand Pente universe, now or in the far flung future. I just want to play a game with like minded individuals that couldn't care one way or the other about such things. And I don't want ot wait 20 years!

Gary,

Did you not read my post from last night? While I didn't flat out state it then, I will now:

Your definition of an invalid variant is garbage, junk, meaningless, without merit.

I will say that again so that it clear:

Your definition of an invalid variant is worthless.

A variant of a game is either that or it’s not. If it’s a spin-off of another game, it’s a variant, if it’s not a spin-off of another game, then it’s not a variant of that game. A GAME (whether it’s a variant of another or not) may be valid or invalid depending of whether or not it’s winnable. Go-Moku played on a 4x4 grid would be invalid. There’s not enough room on the board to place five stones in a line and therefore, no way to win. Thus the game is invalid. But a variant can’t be declared invalid just because of how it stacks up to another game.

Fun-pente is a game and it’s a variant of pente. It’s valid, because it’s winable. The fact that one side enjoys an advantage is irrelevant.

Thad

<Pioneer54 -

I have always heard that if a person is a dreamer and uses LONG-term thinking in order to accomplish those dreams that he will be shot down and/or ridiculed for being so stupid in the short term. My personal experiences in life have convinced me that that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have been ridiculed MANY times in life for being a LONG-term thinker and for spending untold hours on what many would consider to be unimportant activities.

Here are some of the things that I have done in the PAST that have caused me GREAT consternation in the SHORT-term but GREAT rewards in the LONG-term:
1. Work 65 hours a week for 4 consecutive years.
2. Spend 100's and 1000's of hours studying a board game.
3. Spend 100's of hours studying the methods of professional gamblers.

In the future: Spend 100's and maybe 1000's of hours studying the methods of winning commodity traders.

Now: Dream so BIG that I could envision Pente and Keryo Pente being as big as Chess.

I will not spout off about what I have accomplished in life as a result of the first 3 things because I would only sound like that I was tooting my own horn. I WILL say that there IS a reason that my I.D. at www.pente.org is 'Progambler'.

Perhaps I have not done a good enough job in attempting to explain our LONG-term thinking here. Perhaps I have offended some people with my 'challenge'. If so, I apologize because no offense was intended. I was only attempting to specifically define what an invalid variant was and to get someone to find a similar example. In my defense, I can only say that I made the challenge because I continue to be shot down when I attempt to logically demonstrate my long-term thinking that was presented to Fencer.

My long-term thinking includes future World Championships being held here at Brain King. I envision numerous 'candidates matches' like they have in Chess followed by the BIGGEST of ALL World Championships. I can even envision personally putting up a sizable chunk of money for this tournament. Of course, there would be many particulars to work out about that.

All I am saying is to PLEASE look FAR out on the horizon, FAR from this short-term errorneous application of the rules that is holding players back in no-restriction Pente and Keryo Pente. There are FAR greater things that can be done if we learn from our errors in the past.

I will respond to one more point that you made:
>> Try this: Suppose a group of users here got together and (without consulting you and maybe even deliberately excluding you) convinced Fencer to eliminate the restriction on the 19 boards. My guess is you would be pretty shocked! And rightly so! <

I don't believe that would be possible at THIS site. Fencer is an excellent site owner and businessman who obviously understands long-term thinking. That's probably why he has been so successful in building such a great site in short a short time frame. I bet he ALSO has spent 100's and 1000's of hours making this site what it has become. I would also guess that he has been ridiculed from people who question the amount of time that he must spend and his dedication to his business. Personally, I have nothing but admiration for someone like that.

I don't think it could have happened because there's LITTLE way that players could have banned together and pulled the wool over his eyes. After they made the suggestion to remove the restriction, he would fairly quickly find several sites that HAVE the restriction, ONE of which has ratings that simulate the U.S. Chess formula like he does here and conclude that it should not be done.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that these players WERE successful in getting the opening restriction removed in ALL variants of Pente and Keryo Pente. Would I be shocked? Most certainly! Would I be mad? Most certainly! But...if just ONE of those somebodies came along and made a STRONG and VALID long-term case that the game COULD become HUGE IF the restriction IS removed and that MANY masters would STILL want to play the game, THEN I would no longer be shocked or mad AT ALL! I would applaud the decision.


>> Why then, do you so utterly fail to appreciate and comprehend that there are many of us who simply believe that the restriction just is not necessary on the 13 board?

I guess because I can't understand why people cannot see the LONG-term thinking that I have presented time after time here. Let me give an example. For the sake of argument, let's say that there are currently 5,000 active and semi-active Pente and Keryo Pente players in the U.S. Based on that, there are maybe 15-20 of us who COULD play Keryo Pente good enough so that player 2 would win LESS THAN 5% of the time without restriction (it'd be 1% in Pente). By COULD, I mean given a bit of study of the game. I think that that is a fairly accurate estimate of the percentage of players who could accomplish that (less than 1/4th of 1% of all players)

Now let's think BIG and let's think LONG-term and say that in 20 years, there are 500 THOUSAND or even 5 MILLION Pente and Keryo Pente players. Now using the 5M example, there could possibly be 1,500 to 2,000 players that could effectively win as player 1 95%+ of the time without restriction. Now consider the NUMEROUS players who have CONTINUED to play WITHOUT the restriction because it was erroroneously allowed to be created at several different sites.

Our premise is that IF the erroroneous no-restriction variant had NOT been created, there would be AT LEAST double if not triple the percentage of master-level players NOW meaning maybe there would CURRENTLY be 20-50 of them instead of 10-20. BUT as the game grows, the multiplicative effect of that error manifests itself in a MUCH slower growth rate of the game, due to less creation of strategy guides and the such, so that instead of maybe initially growing at maybe 20-25% per year, it only grows 5-10% per year. So BESIDES the lower PERCENTAGE of masters, there is a lower POOL of players for those masters to come from.

THAT is the biggest problem that we have with the no-restriction games and why we are so passionate about getting things right the FIRST time so that the game can become HUGE in the future! If SOME players lose a LITTLE fun now, that will be MORE than made up for in the LONG run by the MANY MORE new players that are introduced to the game in the future as a result of publications about the game.


Gary

See Dmitri, he argues lots better than you and I combined. I agree with him about how he used your own argument to refute what you've argued about. Exactly why would it hurt someone from becoming a good player? If they can't adapt, then they probably won't become one.
That's 2 more points for Pioneer54 in the current tallying.

You keep slamming it into a wall with these guys it's going to start hurting. I'm fading away from this site. Even if I disagreed with your last post, and believe me I quite agree with it including your reference to some of my in poor taste posts even though you didn't name names, yours was well spoken and stated in clear language exactly what it is. I especially like your argument of putting the shoe on the other foot. Very good idea. They are so sure of the righteousness of their cause, the would dismiss out of hand such a notion as changing the rules to the other Pente!
I typed to Gary in one of our "Demostration" games that I was going to stop posting here. I will try hard to do so. I am down to six games on this site. It might take a couple weeks to clear them. Dark Chess being a longer game even with opponents that move regularly. Until then I might stop here from time to time.