How about Fourone or Flirpasloo?
Though a handicap system would probably not be the way to go.

You didn't get it Gary, it was a joke!! Read the last two words of Mark's note, in reverse.

To all -

HA HA HA!! Mark (mmammel) initially fooled me BIG time and I wrote him an Email asking about some of the particulars. But then right after I sent him the Email I realized just what Pioneer54 probably took less than a minute to realize. That is that 'slooF lirpA' in Mark's message is 'April Fools' spelled backwards. I had assumed that Mark had put his fingers on the wrong keys and accidently typed some nonsense.

He had me hook, line, and sinker and shaking my head for more than two hours! So I wanted to see how many others that 'we' could fool by perpectuating it.

I'm glad to see that Walter shares my viewpoint on this. I would be strongly against something like that. The unusual board size wouldn't bother me as long as the opening restriction was imposed on player 1. But the particulars of how the lesser player would be able to extend into the 'forbidden area' of the stronger player could be quite complicated to program and I think that Filip's time could be FAR better spent on improving the site in other ways. Also, there are MUCH better Pente variants that could be designed, regardless of the board size or the ability difference of the players.

Good one Mark!

One thing that I should say about Mark. He is an excellent Pente player and has his own website of which a large portion is dedicated to Pente. On the site, he has free downloads of a very good Pente-playing program, an opening book, a small database, and past Pente champions of various world-class tournaments as well as information about a few other games. I don't remember the name of his site, but you can go to a real-time Pente site at www.pente.org and there will be a link to it at the bottom-left of the home page. You could probably also message him here and he will give you the site address.

To ALL players - If you want to play some real-time Pente or Keryo Pente with ratings and the such with a lot of fun people, check out www.pente.org. Of course it will be on a 19x19 with the opening restriction. :-)


Gary

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

Fencer, those 13 boards are somewhat small. Any chance you could offer an enlargement in the settings? .... And, the purple and green colors are kind of gawdy. Could you set up other choices, perhaps a clear or tan background?

If 13x13 is small for you, why not to play standard 19x19 game? Colors will be adjustable, later.

Fencer -

I think that Pioneer54 is saying that the DISPLAY of the 13x13 boards is somewhat small. I think that he likes the PLAYING AREA of the 13x13 board, just that the DISPLAY of it is too small.

Can you clarify that Pioneer54?

Personally, the display of the boards is of little consequence to me. I keep then stored on my computer so that I can easily 'push the stones around'. But I could see how others that just 'eye' their moves might think that the viewing of the boards is small.


Gary

Gary,
if you are right, there is a possibility to change the board size. I think that the larger version is "big enough" until you use some very unusual screen resolution.

I switched to the larger setting. It looks lots better than the smaller one. The colors are kind of bright on my screen, but I can see the game well enough. IYT uses purple for Keryo Pente also, but theirs is muted a little and seems easier to view on my screen. On this site the Keryo Pente graphics almost have an over saturated appearance on my screen.

Gary,

Yes, I meant to infer that the display of the 13 board is tiny.

Pioneer54 -

See Fencer's latest reply. I completely forgot about it! You can set the DISPLAY of ALL Pente boards to be BIGGER like Walter is saying.

I just changed mine and it looks a LOT better! Just go to the 'settings' link at the bottom left. It should be self explanatory.

Fencer, is there any chance we can have the BIGGER Pente boards be the DEFAULT setting? Or would that interfere with WebTV users in some way. I think that MOST players would probably agree that the larger DISPLAY of the boards is better.


Thanks,
Gary


P.S. Pioneer54, if you want something BIGGER than the BIGGEST board, well that WOULD be a NEW request!

To all -

I just wanted to let everyone know that the correct opening restriction is now on the Small Keryo Pente game, in case you missed it on the main page.

If you are White and having problems making the move that you want on your 2nd move, see the rules for regular Keryo pente.


Gary

Does this mean it will always be in effect, or will the game creator have the option of disabling the move restriction if he choses to?

To all -

I just wanted to let everyone know that the correct opening restriction is now on the Small Pente game, in case you missed it on the main page.

If you are White and having problems making the move that you want on your 2nd move, see the rules for regular Pente.


Gary

It will always be in effect per the official rules of the game.

Thanks Filip (Fencer) for correcting that rule!


Gary

Since when is 13 X 13 the official rules? We haven't even finished any of our games yet. I take it you're one of the people that convinced him to make it that way? I still think it'd be nice to have the option of having the restriction or not, especially on non-official size boards. Perhaps you win every time without the move restriction when you're first to move, but someone could create a tournament that would exclude players of your caliber from playing in them as they've done to me in certain Dark Chess tournaments on this site. Oh well, atleast I can play it on It's Your Turn still, since I know they ignore everyone no matter how good the idea is. :)

does this mean that there won't be a choice for us that like small pente and keryo the way it is now? i play it that way at iyt, and would like to have the choice to play it here.

i do not like this restriction, i think we should have the option of playing it the way it is now. i also like the options at iyt, and i have won many pente and keryo as black. i may not be able to win with a high rated player, but i can't do that in a lot of games, but this is taking the fun out of the game for me and lots of my friends. fencer, please let us have an option to play pente and keryo the way it is now.

IYT's version of the game was incorrectly set up. Three is no reasno to continue the error at other sites just because IYT did so in the first place. You seem concerned about having to play here with the restriction, no doubt because you are used to playing without it. That is precisely the problem! People are now resistant to playing the game the proper way because of how thye learned it at IYT.

Without the restriction, a player can make a potential on his first two moves. The restriction breeds an entirely different set of opening moves, and people who learn to play without the restriction have great difficulty to playing with it. Playing with the restriction is mandatory for any serious pente play, and is crucial for any player hwo is attempting to become a good pente player. FOr those who are not serious pente players or do not have an interest in becoming a strong pente player, what difference does it make if they use the resdtriction? Thisi s what I don;t really understand. The serious players and serious play require the restriction, and non-serious players shouldn;t care, because they aren;t serious about it!

So either way, I am not clear on who is hurt by having the restriction.

Again, I'll give my chess example. If you elarned to play chess such that the king can move two spaces insteado f one, you would be in bad shape when playing chess correctrly. BUt, just because you have become accustomed to this rule doesn't mean it should not be corrected. Will there be an adjustment period? Sure! But why is that a bad thing?

ellieoop, please explain how the restriction takes the fun out of the game for you. I just don't understand that. You say you won several tournaments at IYT. Well, you won thses tournaments playing with incorrect rules! The only major site that acnkowledges the game of pente without the restriction is IYT. NO serious player plays without it, and no player who plays without it is considered aserious player. Please do not take this the wrong way, I do not mean to demean you in any way. I suspect that if you give the restriction a chance, you will excel there also, so why are you so opposed? As one hwo has won tournaments, you no doubt like a good challenge, and you probably enjoy improving your game and developing strong attacks and such. If so, don't you want to play against the top players?

Well, the top players use the restriction. It is just wrong to play without the restriction. A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that the game without the restriction is a good way for beginners to learn. This is not so! that RETARDS their development, it doesn't slowly bring it along as other beginner's "variants" may do.

Thre e have been and will continue to be pente tournament that have cash prizes. One will take place this May in Oklahome City. The restriction is a non0-issue, it is assumed to be in place because the restriction is a part of rules of pente.

I understand that you are accustomed to playing the variant without the restriction, but you aren't really giving any reasons to keep it around.

To all -

I would like to state why the opening restriction is necessary in Pente and Keryo Pente.

I know that MOST players are NOT top players and that they CAN win SOME of their games as player 2 in BOTH Pente and Keryo Pente. But, IN THE LONG RUN, that percentage will ALWAYS be less, even amongst novice players. I have already proven that to Walter and Dangerous Mind by using their own tournament stats at IYT. It could also easily be mathematically proven, but that shouldn't be necessary.

The fact that player 1 has an overwhelming advantage is only ONE of the MAIN reasons that the restriction is necessary, but NOT the MOST important one! The MOST important one is as follows:

It is the goal of MANY players for Pente to grow as large as other games like Chess. In order for a game to grow that large, MANY top MASTER-level players MUST become interested in it and promote it. Here is why that is the case:
1. Master-level players will write strategy books and guides.
2. Master-level players will create databases and software for the game.
3. Master-level players will teach other players how to improve their play.
4. MOSTLY Master-level players will promote the game, sometimes sponser tourneys, and attempt to find sponsers for national and world-championship level tournaments. (Lower-level players could do this, but getting sponsership would be FAR more difficult if you don't have an intimate grasp of strategy.)

It is THESE things that generate GREAT interest in a game! In order for ALL of these things to occur, MANY master-level players MUST play the game because MANY of these things take a HUGE amount of time and only a small percentage of even high-level players have that time. Right now in Pente, I would say that there are about 20-25 of them max. The reason that there aren't more is because high-level players keep dropping out. They keep dropping out because even in Pente WITH the restriction, player 1 has a fairly large advantage. That advantage is actually MUCH less than in KERYO pente WITHOUT the restriction, so it is a good example. The problem is, there is no more analysis and strategy that they can do to improve their chances to win as player 2. So it makes no sense for them to create strategy guides, openings books, software improvements, etc. because there is no 'strategy' for player 2 against a virtually perfect player 1. He would just be hoping to get lucky.

IN order for the above to occur, we need 100's of master-level players if not 1000's worldwide, like there are in Chess!! By master-level, I'm not referring to the elite of the elite, like full-time grand-masters in Chess. Master-level is all that is needed to accomplish what is needed to make the game become MUCH bigger and more popular.

So the point being that if we want Pente and Keryo Pente to become the EXTREMELY popular games that we think that they can become, BOTH sides MUST have a reasonable chance to win amongst ALL players, novices and masters alike.

I would also like to refer you to the regular (19x19) Pente and Keryo Pente discussion boards. On both of them, I go into GREAT detail about why NOT having the opening restriction actually HURTS the development of beginning and intermediate-level players. As a general rule, it reduces their ability to consider split-3's and pairs as attacking weapons. This occurs because player 1 frequently does not need these weapons when already starting with such a large advantage and player 2 is just hoping to 'mix up' the position enough so that player 1 gets confused.

The opening restriction was added less than 2 years after the game was invented more than 25 years ago. IYT just made a mistake when they created the game to begin with so we have intervened here to make sure that the long-term betterment of the game is not negatively impacted once again.

As far as considering it a variant. NOT having the opening restriction is NOT a variant, it is an actual error in the rules. I would compare this error to allowing White to start with 2 Rooks vs. Black's 1 Rook in Chess and not changing ANYTHING else but still calling it Chess. The advantage for player 1 in Pente WITHOUT the restriction would actually be MORE than that and in Keryo Pente, it would be comparable but probably still more. Sure, black will win a lot of games at the lower ranks, SOME games at the intermediate ranks, and VERY few at the high-intermediate ranks, but he will win virtually ZERO at the master-level ranks. If Chess were changed in this way, the top players would leave the game and only beginners and intermediates would play it, but they would stop trying to improve once they got to a certain level because there would be no point in continuing, so there would no longer be the HUGE sponsorship for the game that there is currently. THAT's a VERY good comparison as to what is happening in Pente and why Keryo Pente hasn't become more popular.

Dmitri King and I are currently playing a total of SIX games as player 1 ONLY on a 13x13 board without the restriction here and at IYT against Walter, Dangerous Mind, and Pioneer54 in order to demostrate that player 2 cannot win without it. We anticipate some follow-up games to further demonstrate the point. All of these players have won titles at IYT, one has won MANY titles, and they ALL have won 80-90%+ of their games there, so we know that this will be a good test.

One thing that I have found is that after playing Pente and Keryo Pente WITH the restriction and THEN going back to playing as player 1 without it like we are doing in the demostration above, it almost seems laughable how MANY different ways that we can CHOOSE to win, regardless of what player 2 does.

With all of this said, I would PLEASE encourage EVERYONE to play Pente and Keryo Pente WITH the restriction and correct rules instead of with the incorrect rules at IYT. It is still just as much fun, you won't care which side that you play, and you will learn some strategies for attacking as player 1 that you would have never imagined had you continued to play without the restriction. It is in trying these new positions and formations that will ALSO make the game fun, if not more so. You might even find that the stone patterns are prettier because they will be a little more spread out! :-)


Gary

you take the game a lot more serious than i do, i see no reason why it can't be a choice, and those that don't like it, don't have to play it. i couldn't even get thru your explanatons, i'm here to have fun, not win championships, and if i win or don't win a tourn. playing it either way, that's fine with me.

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.

ellieoop, it is frustrating to me that you ignored my entire post by dismissing it with blanket statements such as "You take the game more serious [sic] than I do"

If that is the case, then why are you so insistent on playing without the opening restriction? You are contradicting yourself. A short summary of your argument is this:

1) I am not a serious player and I play for fun only (why did you mention your tournament wins? but that is another matter).

2) Although I do not take it seriously and I play strictly for fun, I am insistent that I be able to play with an incorrect rule that allows me to make an illegal second move.

This doesn't make any sense, and you are not even attempting to justify your case!

Look at What Gary wrote. If I played chess just for fun, should I have the option of starting a match where one side only has one rook? No, of course not, the idea is laughable. Well, the notion of pente without the restriction is equally laughable, it just isn't as apparent to lesser caliber players. Again, that is NOT meant to be disrespectful to anyone, it is just an observation.

Ellieoop -

I realize that you are here to have fun and not to win championships. We DO need a LOT of players like you. There ARE already many players of ALL levels that ARE having a LOT of fun playing WITH the restriction.

We think that many MORE players in the long run will have FUN with the game if it becomes EXTREMELY popular like Chess. We think the game is so great that it COULD become that big. We are doing this so that MORE players will fun in the LONG run.

Can you explain to us what makes the game less fun when you are restricted as White on your second move? That is what Dmitri King and I are confused about. After all, there is no further restriction on either side. We want to understand why it becomes less fun for you.


Gary

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?

WHY should the option be left for you to play the game incorrectly? WHY? you are giving NOTIHNG to support your request!

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.

I don't understand why you think simply not playing the incorrect version should placate me or any other pente player.

This is akin to teaching people how do do math incorrectly and then saying "well, no one is forcing you to do it the wrong way, so butt out and let us have the option of continuing to do it the wrong way if we so choose. "

Well, that is a rather unconvincing argument.

Initially Fencer resisted the idea of changing the rule, because he thought That GAry and I and others simply didn;t like the variant. Of course, that is little reason to eliminate it, so he didn't. But after hearing carefully thought out reasons, he has decided to make the change. Now you are attempting to have the change reversed without even bothering to try to address the relevant issues. I find this frustrating, and I also am completely baffled as to why a casual player liek yourself cares so much about this.

i like the choices i have at iyt, it's not going to be a problem for me, if the option is not here, i'll either have to play it the way it is, or not play it.
thx. for your replies. ellie

Perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Why don't you try it out with the restriction for a bit and see how it goes. You might be surprised and find that you like it, maybe even more than the version you are accustomed to.

Ellieoop -

Thanks for your comments. So can we assume that it is the lack of choice as White on your 2nd move that bothers you?

Anyway, since you're at both sites, try a couple of games of each. Better yet, try it on BOTH the 13x13 AND 19x19 boards here in addition to the 13x13 ones that you are probably playing at IYT.

You might find that on the 19x19 board here with the restriction, that the stone patterns will be REALLY cool looking compared to the smaller board and no restriction. Since there's more space and the stones must be a little more spread out to start with, I've seen BIG patterns that look like hammers, arrows, boxes, and even one or two that look like faces. See what you can come up with! The patterns are another thing that makes Pente and Keryo Pente so great.


Gary

i thank you both for responding, and i am playing it both ways, and i think i might have even won here playing large pente and keryo. i just really think there should be a choice, but that's only my opinion, and i'm sure i will be playing it all ways. thx. again

Pente will probably never be as popular as chess, nor, I dare say, even as popular as it once was. It's not as good as a game, nor as interesting. It's even more boring to watch than chess is! Playing them is different. I like to play them both. I know no one that plays Pente in any form. All of my friends can play chess, or atleast have heard of it. Though none of them play it. Not when there's cards to be dealt. If you guys haven't noticed, even chess is dying out in certain ways. Damn computers!
Are you right that there's only 20 masters of Pente? I find this number quite low. As easy as it is to learn Pente, you'd think there'd be lots of real good and master players around. That's one big plus in Pente's and Keryo Pente's side, easy to learn. Mastering them is a whole different thing all together. But it's just putting spots on a lined up board and there's not much excitement in that. A great intellectual challange, yes, but excitement or interest for the casual person, no. Atleast chess has different looking men and sudden movement in its favor.

I think it should be a choice as to having a move restriction or not. Your chess analogies are quite good, but you're comparing apples to oranges. No master of chess will take me serious at regular chess just because I'm one of the best players at a variant of it. So why should Pente be any different between us non-serious players and you champions irregardless of what rules we play by? You guys play and argue amongst yourselves about things that are of little concern to someone that just wants to play the game. You convinced Fencer and now we're stuck with it unless he adds or changes it again. Gary, how come you didn't get him to add the move restriction option that you told me about that the second player places the next three moves and the first player decides if he is going to be the first to move player or make the second player be the first to move player? That version is certainly more fair than the current move restriction standard game, and would be just as much fun. And it could get some play and you'd see if it'd work well or not. The ol' data base you keep plugging would get some data put into it. Why not have it on as well?

If the Official Rules Committee (whoever they happen to be) was to adopt it tomorrow, what would happen to all the players that want to play with the current move restriction? If you're right about Pente being no good even with the move restriction, why are you foisting it upon us? Now we have to play with your guys' imposed version on the 13 X 13 board that neither of you want to play on. Seems unfair and hypocritical to me. I agree with ellieoop, if you don't like the game, don't play the game. If you say the current way is flawed, why force us to play it. You guys seem to view it as an assault to the standard game and are intent on stopping anyone that tries to play a different version.
I am going to play some Keryo Pente on the 19 X 19 board and see how I like the game played that way. Even if I find it to be a better game than the Keryo Pente that I'm used to playing, I don't see why I should be prevented from playing a different way because you don't approve of it. Just imagine if a group of chess masters came to this site and convinced the owners that they shouldn't have any chess variants on it for all the reasons you've given about Pente and Fencer got rid of them. I'm sure there'd be an outpouring of complaints if that happened. I fail to see how this is any different than that. Just because you're the best player in the world at one version of a game doesn't mean I should be forced to play it.

(Note: most of the "you" 's in this posting are meant to be the all-encompassing second person, not to a specific individual except where explicit shown or stated.)

<Walter -
(This is the longest one you've probably ever seen and you should probably ready EVERY bit of it and digest it ALL this time!)

Even though others may have gotten in heated debates with you in the past about this topic, as a general rule I have tried to avoid any heated discussions because, well, as a whole you usually have seemed to be a very reasonable and intelligent individual. So I have respected your right to have an opinion that is different than my own and mentally agreed to myself to just disagree with you and not really discuss the matter directly with you.

But I am seeing numerous things that you are saying in your last post that you have no business saying because well frankly, you have NO WAY to know that what you are saying is true and they are really making me mad, as follows:

>> Pente will probably never be as popular as chess, nor, I dare say, even as popular as it once was. <

You can't make a blanket statement such as this. You know VERY little about the history of the game or it's future direction. There are MANY of us that believe otherwise. Chess is a complex game and EXTREMELY difficult to learn high-level strategy. Pente is MUCH easier to learn and is only SOMEWHAT difficult to learn high-level strategy. That is why it is so popular when it is shown to kids and people who wish to play a game for 'fun'. In my opinion, you have absolutely no business making such a statement.

>> It's not as good as a game, nor as interesting. <

Now Walter, you've known me to be pretty reasonable about this whole situation. But NOW you're really starting to MAKE ME MAD!! If it's NOT as good a game nor as interesting as Chess to you, then why the H___ do you play it? Also, why do you give a ___ about what the rules are??!! My gish, play a different game!!

>> I know no one that plays Pente in any form <

Now, you're REALLY making me mad!! What does this have to do with anything? The reason why Pente and Keryo Pente aren't as popular as Chess is the REASON THAT I STATED IN MY LONG POST BEFORE!! THEY ARE NOT PROMOTED BY TOP PLAYERS BECAUSE ONE SIDE HAS TOO BIG OF AN ADVANTAGE!! They are VERY interesting games if you study them and could be hugely popular. But if you sit there and whine about how uninteresting and NEVER do what it takes to make them popular, that is by evening up the sides and promoting them to top players and then to companies, OF COURSE they WON'T be popular!! You're acting as if the game is like tic-tac-toe or tiddly-winks or WORSE a 90% LUCK game like Battleship. Can you imagine trying to get corporate sponsorship for a world-championship Battlship tournament? No, because whoever won the tournament would just be LUCKY!! THINK about what knowledge you have about something before spouting off about it!

>> If you guys haven't noticed, even chess is dying out in certain ways. <

Where the hell did this come from?? Do you have a membership list of the U.S. Chess Federation or the World Fide Chess Association and can you quote specific figures? Chess is as POPULAR or MORE so NOW than it has EVER been BECAUSE of computerized opening books, BECAUSE of outstanding training software, BECAUSE of HUGE corporate sponsership. Have you NOT seen the recent 6-game match between World Champion Gary Kasparov and Deep Fritz? What about the one from 2-3 years ago against Deep Blue? The move-by move game-scores and results of BOTH matches as they were progressing were posted on the front page of The Kansas City Star, for goodness sake and both sides took home over $250K for their efforts in the most recent match. Where do you think that money came from? It SURE didn't come from OTHER Chess players! It came from corporate sponsers!! And who do you think got those sponsers? Well it sure the heck wasn't your average Joe chessplayer! It took a large effort from FIDE that has numerous masters and higher-level Chess players high up in it's ranks! Walter, unless you have specific hard figures to quote to back up a statement, don't make blanket statements that you can't back up. The fact is that computers have made Chess MORE popular!! After all, the match was played back LIVE on the internet also!! And no, I DON'T have any specific membership figures myself, but all I have to do is look around at those activities to KNOW that it is STILL immensely popular!

>> Are you right that there's only 20 masters of Pente? I find this number quite low. As easy as it is to learn Pente, you'd think there'd be lots of real good and master players around. <

Walter, once again you are completely showing your ignorance of Pente and you also seem to VERY frequently be taking things that are said FAR too literally. Also, you are using these statements that are taken out of context as reasoning for UPCOMING statements which is VERY maddening. Here is the exact quote of what I said:

"It is THESE things that generate GREAT interest in a game! In order for ALL of these things to occur, MANY master-level players MUST play the game because MANY of these things take a HUGE amount of time and only a small percentage of even high-level players have that time. Right now in Pente, I would say that there are about 20-25 of them max."

By these statements, can you NOT see that I was using the term "master-level" as a GENERAL term? There is NO EXACT definition of a Pente 'master' like there is in Chess. To some people, there could be 200 masters, to others, there might only be 2 or 3. The fact is that up to 1-2 years ago, the game HAD started to spike up in popularity because several HIGH-level Russian, Hungarian, and Canadian players had started to play the game. Many of these players had master-level backgrounds in Chess, Gomoku, and Renju. The top Hungarian player by the name of Istvan Virag actually solved the game of Gomoku as a forced win in 24 moves for player 1 and tied me for the Email world championship, although I won on tiebreak. A top Russian player named Dmitri Krasnonosov came on to IYT 2-1/2 years ago and broke my string of 17 consecutive IYT Pro Pente titles. And THEN he proceded to make me loop like a COMPLETE pauper by beating me in 6 CONSECUTIVE TOURNIES!! I was mortified! Another top Russian player named Oleg Stepanov wrote an excellent opening database. Another top Russian player named Victor Barykin wrote a VERY good Pente-playing program. So far, it is the only one that has been able to shake a stick at Mark Mammel's excellent program. But what has happened now is that TWO of the top Russian players have quit playing the game as well as several other top players who have quit playing in the past year so the game has started to pull back in popularity because there's no new strategy guides and no one to promote it. Why? Because there's nothing left to solve! There's NO way to get any better at the game!

>> I think it should be a choice as to having a move restriction or not. Your chess analogies are quite good, but you're comparing apples to oranges. No master of chess will take me serious at regular chess just because I'm one of the best players at a variant of it. <

Now, you've got me so mad that smoke is coming out of my ears. HOW MANY TIMES TO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT NOT HAVING THE OPENING RESTRICTION IN PENTE IS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT A VARIANT. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES!! CAN YOU NOT READ?? READ AND SOAK IN MY ENTIRE POST, NOT JUST THE PARTS THAT SUIT YOU!! PLAYING THE GAME WITHOUT THE RESTRICTION IS LIKE PLAYING CHESS WITH ONE SIDE MISSING A ROOK!! IT IS NOT A VARIANT, IT IS JUST STUPIDNESS AND THERE IS NO POINT!! If you want a 13x13 game or 9x9 game, although some top players aren't fond of it, I don't have a problem with it and it can be called a variant, just like 10x10 Reversi or whatever like that. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A VARIANT WITH A DIFFERENT BOARD SIZE OR DIFFERENCE PIECE MOVEMENT OR DIFFERENT RULES FOR WINNING OR WHATEVER THEN ACTUALLY REMOVING ONE OF THE PIECES OR RULES SO THAT ONE SIDE HAS AN OVERWHELMING ADVANTAGE!! I will not state that again, so quit using the argument that it is SOMEHOW a variant. It damned well is NOT!!

>> If you're right about Pente being no good even with the move restriction, why are you foisting it upon us? Now we have to play with your guys' imposed version on the 13 X 13 board that neither of you want to play on. Seems unfair and hypocritical to me. I agree with ellieoop, if you don't like the game, don't play the game. If you say the current way is flawed, why force us to play it. <

I actually had to get up and walk around when I read this I was so friggin mad. I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE THE CAPS LOCK ON NOW. ARE YOU CHOOSING TO IGNORE ALL OF MY PAST POSTS? HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY THAT WE ARE WORKING ON DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WILL IMPROVE THE OPENING RESTRICTION AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN REGULAR PENTE? I NEVER SAID IT WAS NO GOOD WITH THE CURRENT RESTRICTION NOR DID I PERSONALLY SAY THAT THE 13X13 BOARD IS BAD. SOME OTHERS DON'T LIKE THE SMALLER BOARD, BUT AS LONG AS IT HAS THE RESTRICTION, IT IS FINE WITH ME. I ONLY SAID THAT IT WAS NO GOOD WITHOUT THE RESTRICTION. I STATED THAT PLAYER 1 STILL WINS A HIGH PERCENTAGE AT THE VERY TOP RANKS IN PENTE WITH THE RESTRICTION, BUT NOT THAT IT WAS NO GOOD. THE RESTRICTION JUST NEEDS TO BE TWEEKED A BIT. DON'T YOU REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION ABOUT G-PENTE AND D-PENTE?

BUT IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE US THAT PENTE IS NO GOOD WITH THE RESTRICTION, THEN WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU WANT TO PLAY IT WITHOUT THE RESTRICTION?? BY YOUR LOGIC THERE, IT SHOULDN'T BE WORTH PLAYING THE GAME AT ALL. AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU SHOULD THINK THAT IT IS A LUDICROUS GAME TO PLAY. AND BY THE WAY, I WILL PLAY SOME 13X13 PENTE WITH THE RESTRICTION. I AM SOMEWHAT CURIOUS TO SEE IF THE SIDES OF THE BOARD AFFECT ANY OF THE MAINLINE VARIATIONS. WALTER, I AM MUCH MORE OPEN-MINDED THEN YOU THINK!! JUST NOT ABOUT THE LACK OF A RULE THAT CAUSES ONE SIDE TO BE AT SUCH A DISADVANTAGE.

AND I'M SO SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING THE SAME OLD ARGUMENT THAT IF I DON'T LIKE THE GAME, DON'T PLAY THE GAME. WELL IF YOU DON'T LIKE REASONABLE RULES OF A GAME, THEN YOU DON'T PLAY THE GAME!! I'LL USE A SIMILAR ANALOGY THAT DMITRI KING DID. IF YOU AND SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE HAD GOTTEN TOGETHER AND DECIDED THAT 2 + 2 = 5 AND YOU WERE DOING WHATEVER YOU COULD TO CONVINCE OTHER PEOPLE THAT YOUR WAY WAS CORRECT INSTEAD OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN TAUGHT IN SCHOOL, THEN I WOULD WANT TO INTERVENE AND ASSIST IN HELPING YOU MAKE IT CORRECT. BUT THEN YOU WOULD TELL ME TO BUTT OUT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT 2 + 2 = 5 AND THAT YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO AROUND PROMOTING THAT INCORRECT STATEMENT. THAT IS A GOOD COMPARISON AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE! WE WILL NO LONGER SIT IDLELY BY AND ALLOW THE GAME TO BE PLAYED WITHOUT IT'S MOST IMPORTANT RULE. THE BOARD SIZE IS SMALL POTATOES COMPARED TO THE RESTRICTION. I'D RATHER PLAY ON A 9X9 BOARD WITH A RESTRICTION THAN ON A 19X19 ONE WITHOUT IT.

>> Just imagine if a group of chess masters came to this site and convinced the owners that they shouldn't have any chess variants on it for all the reasons you've given about Pente and Fencer got rid of them. I'm sure there'd be an outpouring of complaints if that happened. I fail to see how this is any different than that. Just because you're the best player in the world at one version of a game doesn't mean I should be forced to play it.

This is hardly worth responding to but I'll continue to reiterate some points that I've made above. There is NO comparison to removing the opening restriction in Pente and removing a completely different variant in Chess. I would be amazed if you cannot see that now. I would ALSO be hopping mad if some Chess masters came in and took a TRUE variant away. But I would be JUST as mad if they put a Chess game on here, removed the Rook or Queen from one side, and still called it Chess or Small Chess. It could only serve to hurt the development of the players in the game.

Walter, unless you can somehow CONVINCE EVERYONE at this site including owners, employees, top players, intermediates players , novice players , and beginning players that Pente and Keryo Pente could aquire large sponsership in the future WITHOUT ANY KIND of an opening restriction, then I would suggest that you refrain from attempting to promote a game that has incorrect rules. It is not a variant and will continue making the game languish in mediocrity for the foreseeable future!!

If you want to do something useful, then try coming up with a reasonable TRUE variant like having to get 6-in-a-row or TWO 5-in-a-rows (like someone suggested and called Double Pente earlier) to win the game. Maybe even playing the game on a 7x9 board. But in order to convince people like Fencer to implement something like that, you will need to be ready to PROVE that there is not a great chance of a draw and that both sides have a reasonably even chance of winning.


Gary

<Walter -

You asked the following question:

>> how come you didn't get him to add the move restriction option that you told me about that the second player places the next three moves and the first player decides if he is going to be the first to move player or make the second player be the first to move player? That version is certainly more fair than the current move restriction standard game, and would be just as much fun. And it could get some play and you'd see if it'd work well or not. The ol' data base you keep plugging would get some data put into it. Why not have it on as well?

Well, Walter, this is an EXCELLENT question! I have tried to be reasonable in the # of requests that I make of Fencer. I know that he ALWAYS has a lot on his plate.

That is next on my list of requests that I make and I DO THINK that IT IS the answer to taking Pente to the HUGELY popular ranks that we can think it can be.

But I also know that it will be an almost completely new piece of programming for Brain King. I know of no other game here or at IYT that has a swap rule.

There are several things that we have on request with Fencer. #1 was to put the opening restriction on Small Pente and Small Keryo Pente. We also have a couple of others that will attempt to reduce the possible abuse of ratings as follows:
1. Show a percentage of games played as White on the ratings page. He said he would do this, so perhaps within the next 2-3 releases.
2. Drop players off of a ratings page if they have not played a rated game in that particular game within the last 3 months. He put this on his 'to do' list, so I would not expect to see it for a while, but it is not greatly important at this point.

What we are attempting to do is make this into a site where the ratings can possibly be used for seedings in future World Championships. And THOSE World Championships could be held HERE!! That is as opposed to the Email server at www.gamerz.net which is very cryptic and hard to use.

In other words, we have been so impressed by what Fencer has done in such a short time frame that we're trying to get all of our ducks in a row so that MANY games on the site can become IMMENSELY popular.

I anticipate that within the next 2 months that we will request that both the variant that you described above, Dpente, and the one with my own simple rule change to further restrict player 1's 2nd move, Gpente. Even though Dpente should completely eliminate ANY advantage for either side and should be VERY fun to play, it may take a lot longer to catch on, because with the swap rule, it would be a MUCH bigger adjustment for most players than Gpente will be, which will probably still be found to have at least a moderate advantage for one side or the other.


Gary

Walter, attempts to reason with you have failed. You and Ellieoop keep repeating that "we have no business removing your CHOICE from you."

LISTEN TO ME, BECAUSE I AM ALSO TIRED OF REPEATING MYSELF.

NO ONE IS OBJECTING to your having "choices." If you want to choose from among LEGITIMATE PENTE VARIANTS, I have no objection. But the game you and ellieoop want, without the restriction, IS NOT A VARIANT.

LET ME REP{EAT THAT. IT IS NOT A VARUANT. IT IS JUST AN INCORRECT VERSION OF THE GAME.

WHy can't you get that through your head? In a game, some rules are fixed and some are not. Well, that just happens to be a fixed rule!! That's the end of it!

You and ellieoop have Given NOTHING to support having the game without the restriction. NOTIHNG!!!

let me repeat that, you have given NOTING!!!!!!!!!!!

all you keep saying is that you want choice, but you have made NO EFFORT to justify having THAT PARTICULAR CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!

Why can't you see that????

Please, think about it! One could justify the existence of ANY variant, no matter how bad or illogical, by using yourargument of "I want choices." Well, that doesn't make sense. Ablanket statement that could be used to support ANY awful variant or version of a game is NOT a legitimate argument!

That you repeatedly ignore almost every individual poitn that Gayr and I make is very fristrasting, because we are puting a lot of time and effort into this discusssion, and you clrearly aren't!

You said Gary;s analogy was apples to oranges (theo ne about removing a rook)-- That's a load of crap! Iti s a perfect analogy, and I could use your weak argument to support the existence of that game! I could say "well, if you don't like it, don;t play it, but dont; remove my choice."

This is ASININE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just don't klnow what to say or do anymore, you are not even trying to uderstand anything we are saying.

The matter boils down to this very simple set of facts:

1) Serious pente players always use the restriction, and

2) non-serious players ACNKOWLEDGE that they do not care one way or the other!!

So, who is served by the "variant" without the restriction? NO one!!!!

By the way, I want to show you how terible your analogy is regarding chess variants.

IF a terrible chess variant was created, and people objected to it, would you then say "OH I SEE HOW IT IS YOU WANT TO REMOVE ALL THE CHESS VARIANTS?"

NO, of course not, the person is only trying to remove the one BAD variant. Well, it is the same way with pente.

I support Pente, keyro pente, G-pente, S-pente, D-pente, K-pente, and the ideea of double pente. These are elegitimate variants. The only one I have a prblem with is the no restriction "varuiant" which you cor ellieoop cannot even give ONE reasonable defense for!!!!!

I am SICK AND TRED of hearing about how people's FUN is being deprived of them because the restriction was added to the 13 X 13 boards (actually, veyr few, maybe only one or two people have actuallysaid that, but its being repeated so many times has had the same effect as if a large number had made it).

To say that the game iwth the restriction is any less fun is just without merit, there is notihng to substantiate that claim.

<Thanks to you and your other champion friends and keepers of all that's pure and standard of Pente as played on a 19 X 19 board. Why do you and Dmitri think that what you say about Pente should be taken as gospel? Yeah, you're good players. So what? If you don't see what's happened to Pente in it's 25 year history, why are you asking me if I have? It was a fad briefly and has faded away. The internet has done more to give it a new lease on life than any of these ideas of yours have done to promote it. By design or not it's a good thing IYT made the 13 X 13 board and used the original move rules too. Had they gone and made it as you guys would have it from the start I believe a lot less people would play it, nor would there be much discussion here about it or it's future. You're too close to it. Lots of trees, where is that forest? So what if I think chess is a better game? Why should that stop me from playing any game that's not chess? You don't like playing without the move restriction, so that gives you the right to make it so I can't play without it? And you're mad? Perhaps you should have been more engaging in the earlier posts and you could have anticipated some of mine and other's reaction to what you've done. Oh well. You've won this game too.

As for games involving luck. There's plenty of big tournaments involving them. Of games most people play or have heard of. Backgammon, Cribbage, Bridge to name three. Thousands of people play them regularly and daily. So there's a Pente tournament and 20 or 30 of might show up. It's news in Missouri, but I doubt if I'll find any mention of it in the Los Angeles Times. Perhaps the fact that there isn't a sponsor should clue you in to the problem. They don't see any future in it, nor do they want to put their money into it even if there's none to be made from it. I wonder why? Like I said earlier, it's too bad I'm not rich, I'd sponsor some Pente tournaments. Not enough so you'd get a professional player living off his winnings, but enough so that it might make the paper from time to time when the tour hit town. Like Bridge and Cribbage do.

You are quite mistaken in your belief that luck is not a good selling point. When there's no luck involved, the better player wins almost every time unless the game can be played perfectly then one player or the other always wins. In a game with luck, this isn't true. It usually is, but not every time. People can root for the underdog and know he might win. Hence the popularity of Poker and the almost complete obscurity of Pente. Chess is about the only game of pure skill that has such a big following. It's history among games is quite unique in a lot of ways. Even the design of the board and men is a history lesson.

My friends will stop by and ask what I'm playing on the computer. If I say Pente, I get blank looks. If I say Chess, they know what I'm playing. Go ahead, blame it on my ignorant friends if that's what you think. I've been playing games in this neighborhood for over 40 years and that's how it is. I have to search out places to play other games.
Chess is dying in a certain way. Computers will eventually play it better than people do. It's already happened to Checkers and it's going to happen to Chess. I was happy to see Kasparov play and win a game. Oh, by the way, who won the match?

Perhaps the guy that beat you 6 times in a row was using a computer? Or he just plays better than you? That's a big problem with this internet game playing. That's one reason I like Dark Chess. No kibitzers and no computer players. Just because a game doesn't have perfect information in it doesn't mean it's not a hard or challenging game to play well. Bridge is hard game to master. Dark Chess, though new, is looking like such a game too. Obvisiously there's skill in it or I'd not have such a record at it. Even Backgammon has skill, though it definitely has a lot of luck in it. The amount of luck determines how one should play the game if he wants to be successful at it. Being able to play without perfect information requires a type of judgment that Chess and Pente do not have in them. It forces one to make assumptions and take chances at times during the game. That never happens in a well played game of Chess or Pente. It's all on the board staring you in the face. In theory, it shouldn't matter who your opponent is as long as you make the best move each time. Especially games that have perfect information like Chess or Pente or Checkers. Since I have to assume every opponent can use aids or cheat at their leisure, I can't see why you get so worked up over what version of the game two of us might be playing. The games don't count in the official standings of anything and I just want to have some fun. And you don't have to play the game if you don't like how the game is played. It bears repeating since you just don't seem to get that and keep whipping out these Chess analogies about missing Rooks and now have helped eliminate one form of a game that many people enjoy and didn't ask you if they wanted to play better or serious or become leading players and champions of. Chess starts with a supposedly equally matched sides, as does Pente. Going first creates inequalties in both games. Obviously to you it's very pronounced in Pente toward the player moving first. Lots of people can't see that, or if aware of it don't care. They just want to play with simple rules and switch sides and play another game when the one they're playing is done.

Just how much study of our games are you doing? I'm easy pickings for a champion like yourself. You're on everyday and you can't make a move in our game? Especially a game that you are using to prove a point? I was hoping that one of the others in your demostration might win a game, but now it doesn't matter since Fencer has gone and made your change anyway.

I can too say this!
>> Pente will probably never be as popular as chess, nor, I dare say, even as popular as it once was. Do you deny that this is true? Sure I can't predict the future, but the past is there for all to see. Based on that and how things seem to be going, I might be pretty close to the short term future too. Say out to about 100,000 years?

I read all your posts in the places the I've replied. I even try to understnd where you and others are coming from when you type the things that you do. Not like it appears you or especially Dmitri have done towards ellieoops' earlier post or Kevin's. I may not be the best communicator of my ideas and ideals, but I don't say things I know to be false.

Chess is more popular now than ever? You are wrong about that. Maybe in shear numbers of players(U.S. population growth), but not in overall awareness or interest in the general population is that true. I have to assume that you're under thirty years old to say that. Or your memory is slipping. Bobby Fischer's match with Boris Spassky was lots bigger newswise than the Deep Blue deal is or has been. FIDE, now there's a top notch, well run organization to emulate if I ever saw one! Right. You would be better off trying the ACBL as an organization to copy. Their game is fading away, but they are taking steps to keep it going for the while and even reverse the trend. Most games need younger players coming into the game to keep steady or expand. Bridge is graying daily. Why don't you and the other players of Pente form a syndicate and buy the rights from Milton Bradley? I bet it wouldn't cost too much. Under a million bucks for sure.

You didn't think much of my theory that in the early 1980's a major part of Pente's decline was caused be video games, CD's, music videos and computers. It sounds a lot more plausable than anything else I've heard. Chess weathered the storm in part because computer programmers used it to demostrate computer programming and because it really is a good game. Though it has perfect information, the number of different moves is still beyond any reckoning and it gives each game played a sense of novelty to it. I've only played a few hundred games of Pente and Keryo Pente, but there's a lot of sameness to a lot of the games. Yes it is just appearance as I've learned from playing that a slight difference of position is completely different game, but compare the first five moves in Pente to Chess's first five moves. Still, Pente has a lot of novelty for me and there are times that I'm very surprised in how a game goes. I also like patterns made while playing. I've commented on it to some of my opponents, but I've not received much response in that area. You were the first person I seen made mention of it.

The someone that suggested the game with two five in a rows or one six in a row or longer or bag twice as many dudes was me. I came up with the idea awhile back and tried to interest IYT and have mentioned it to a couple of my opponents on IYT to see what kind of response it'd get. I believe this version would be best on the 19 X 19 board and a move restriction wouldn't be nescessary, but couldn't hurt it either. Since none of my friends play Pente, I have no way to easily play such a game. As with the 10 X 10 board. When I joined this site and found the message boards I posted it again. I believe the first time was on the tournament board before we moved things over to this section of postings.

So I say things I apparently have very little knowledge or way of proving. You do the same thing. What's the difference? You can have the soapbox when I step off of it.

And back to this post's main point. I used to have a choice as to what version of Keryo Pente to play, now I don't. You get to play the version you like on both size boards now. I'm joining this site as a paying member, but I think I will stay on at IYT too. If only to play Keryo Pente on the 13 X 13 board without the move restriction. It'll be my luck though and they'll suddenly see your way and change it there too.

You just refuse to see it or understand for your own personal agenda and reasons. I have given reasons, you disagree with them. Fine, but you don't have to come down on me or others like the King of the Mountain Hall and slay all us valley people to have your say. We like to play the other version, variant, nuance, or whatever you insist it is or isn't. It's a game with its own rules. Let me reiterate this one more time. If you don't like it, don't play it. Why stop me from playing it? I doesn't matter if you approve of it or not. I still want to play it. That's reason enough, let alone other reasons I've given.

Dmitri, you really should read your posts as you accuse me of the things you say in them. All of those things are things you do towards me. You talk in such absolutionist terms, ALL, NEVER, and a complete disdain for what I say. I spent a lot of time typing these postings. Unlike you it appears. I try to put some care into what I say so it won't be misconstrued, and yet I don't mind dishing something out to people that I think have it coming to them. Like you Dmitri! This really is a waste of my time and I think I just might completely curtail playing games on these sites. There's much better things I could be doing than sitting here typing to some nitwit whose only thing to do is tell me how stupid I am because I disagree. I bet you make your Mom right proud don't you Dmitri?

Yep, the Money Order is in the envelope and I was going to post it first thing out of the house today. I even checked the postage and affixed 80¢ worth of stamps to it so that it'd make the trip to the Czech Republic. I think I'll hold onto it for awhile now and rethink my decision. Perhaps Fencer can help me decide what I should do. You guys convinced him to change the game. Perhaps those of us that like the other way to play can get it brought back. The programming is still there, right? If you do bring it back Fencer, I'd make all the options possible from the same Pente page. Otherwise we'll be swimming in Pente links. If you're not going to bring it back, I would like to know why. Private message or public post is fine by me. I might join your site or not irregardless of what you decide. After all, Dark Chess is game I play on your site. Though I wouldn't mind having the other Keryo game here to play so I could leave IYT and not pay for both of them.

Gary, you've been quite courteous in your demeanor towards my flights of fantasy on various subjects about Pente and other things. Our last two postings are directed mostly towards each other and have taken a sharper turn. All the same, I respect most of what you say inspite some of the way you rebutted me in your anger. Got under your skin a bit did I? Hopefully some of that will clear a little with my last long post, though I did throw some more gasoline on the fire in places.

Walter, you don't know what you are talking about!! Here is what you said:

" By design or not it's a good thing IYT made the 13 X 13 board and used the original move rules too. Had they gone and made it as you guys would have it from the start I believe a lot less people would play it, nor would there be much discussion here about it or it's future. "

This is nonsense!!!! On what are you basing this? NOTHING! You just made it up! Had IYT implemented the correct rules AND the correct sized board in the first place, The same people would be playing the game as are playing it now. How can I say this? SIMPLE-- you imply that people would not have played it because of a lack of a 13 X 13 board. Well, no one wuold have had any REASON to think that way, since the 13 X 13 board would have never existed! As for the restriction, the same can be said. So I would appreciate if you would not just make things up to suit your weak arguments.

You referred to bridge as a game of luck. I wish I could assume you were joking, but sadly, you did not apepar to be.

Also, you say "The games don't count in the official standings of anything and I just want to have some fun. And you don't have to play the game if you don't like how the game is played. It bears repeating since you just don't seem to get that ..."

Walter, you are STILL FAILING TO EXPLAIN why playing with the restriction limits your fun in any way! that you REPETAEDLY fail to address this shows that you don't even really believe your own drivel!

You say that your statement bears repeating because we don't get it??

YOU DON'T GET IT! your statement is INVALID!!!!! DID YOU READ ANYING GARY AND I WROTE? You have the gall to question our study and research when you don't even pay attention to our points of argument? We SPECIFICALLY rejected each of your claims with SOLID arguments, and all you do is dismiss them by repeating a blanket statement!!!!!!!!! Why do you think that is a good way of making your point?

Let me furhter illustrate, since you are deliberately missing our point.

I don't like LOTS of games. I do not like battleboats, any form of checkers, connect 4, risk, and many others. BUT, DO YOU HEAR ME OBJECTING TO THOSE GAMES????????????????


NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So your implication that we are objecting to the pante "variant" simply because we do not like it IS AN INVALID IMPLICATON ON YOUR PART!!!!!!!!!!

It also shows that you are not actually addressing our individual points, because we EXPLAINED VERY CLEARLY why our opposition to the variant goes FAR BEYOND our just not liking it!

you say "Lots of people can't see that, or if aware of it don't care. They just want to play with simple rules and switch sides and play another game when the one they're playing is done. "

Do you THINK before you write this stuff?

I already told you -- If people don't care, as you stated, then why do they CARE what ruiles there are? You are blatantly contradicting yourself!!!!

ALso, there is NOTHING complicated about the restriction. Your claim that people want to play with simple rules in INVALID, because you are basing it on a fasle premise (the false premise being that the restriction is complicated).

Walter, who told you that Milton Bradley owns the rights to pente?

AAARGH! IT's hopeless! You say "You just refuse to see it or understand for your own personal agenda and reasons. I have given reasons, you disagree with them. Fine, but you don't have to come down on me or others like the King of the Mountain Hall and slay all us valley people to have your say. We like to play the other version, variant, nuance, or whatever you insist it is or isn't. It's a game with its own rules. Let me reiterate this one more time. If you don't like it, don't play it. Why stop me from playing it? I doesn't matter if you approve of it or not. I still want to play it. That's reason enough, let alone other reasons I've given."

you still tihnk you have given reason for your stance! You haven't! Walter, please try to understand why you have not done so! The argument you are making coule be used to justify ANYTIHNG. There is nothing that is actually relevant to the issue at hand, it is a generic argument that could be universally applied; thus, if your logic was applied, it would apply to anything and everything, and then nothing would ever have to be actually justified.

Also, you mentioned that Gary hasn't moved in one day in the games. Ummm.. IT IS A TURN BASED GAME! Partof that is being allowed to take time to finsd the right moves! Had you and Dangerous Mind done so, you might not be getting crushed in all four games! I had expected a better effort from the two of you.

Walter, how dare you bring my mother and father into this? Would you like me to have them post here, because they are immensely proud of me!
I am a candidate for a prestigious scholarship in the state of MD that is awarded to students with a 4.0 GPA and exceptional academic accomplishments. I teach SAT prep classes and I am DAMN good at it. I am one of the best players in the country at the game of pente. I am fit and health conscious and a respectable racquetball player. SO, YOU BETTER BELIEVE THEY ARE PROUD OF ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My fiancee and all of my friends are proud of me too. How dare you imply that my parents are anything but proud of me? You have never even met my parents! You have some gall to even make that statement; it really shows now inept you are at staying on the issue. I put LOTS OF time into my posts, I have presented clearly thought out arguments with SPECIFIC reasons for everything I say!

You don't know hwy Fencer made the change? HE SAID SO IN HIS MESSAGE ABOUT THE CHANGE! he said "due to the analysis if serious pente players I am making this change."

By the way, since you said you put so muhc time into your posts, I feel compelled to opint out a few things. I may not be good at typing, but I am an excellent grammarian. So, with your putting so much time into your posts, you nevertheless managed to include a non-existent word (irregardless), and you began a sentence with "hopefully..." instead of "I hope..."

I neevr opitn out petty errors such as these unless someone criticizes how carefully I preapre my posst while simultaneously touting his supposed thorough writing.

As for your calling me a nitwit, well, that is just senseless. I have won 40 tournamnets and I am one of the top players of a mentally stimulating board game.

If I called you stupid, I was wrong, we all know that and I am willing to acknowledge that. I should have said that your argument was weak, of that your line of reasoning was stupid, but NOT that YOU were stupid.

But, why do you then call me a nitwit? Two wrongs make a right now?

You say I have uter disdain for what you say? Walter, I CAREFULLY and THOROUGHLY refuted every poitn you made! YOU are the one who is showing disdain for anything that Gary or I said. You do not address anything we say, you reely on repetitive blanket statements to dismiss our points.

OK Walter, you are not interested in debating, i can see that. Debating involves addressing specifis statement by theo ther party or parties, and you have repeatedly failed to do so.

So I have a simple question to the people who CLAIM that Gary and I and Brain King are reducing their fun by having the restriction:

The question is: HOW, SPECIFICALLY, are we reducing your fun? Please SUPPORT your claim more than just "Because it just IS."

Second: If you are not a serious player who doesn't care about what the opening rules are, THEN HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY CARE ABOUT WHAT THE OPENING RULES ARE???

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a blatant contradiction! Follow the lines of the argument:

1) I don't care what the rules are
2) I care what the rules are

ALso, please note that the following justification is also invalid:

1) The game with the restriction is less fun because
2) the restriction makes it complicated and I like things to be simple.


This is invalid because the presmise (number 2) is FALSE. The restriction is NOT complicated, it is very simple. What possible misinterpretation cuold there be of a rule that is clear as day?

The restriction is less compicated than turning on the computer and logging onto the internet, so I fail to understand the supposed complexity of this restriction.


NOW, my solution!!!!!!!!!

Keep the 4 versions the way they are now, so that web TV users AND other users can play the CORRECT version of pente.

THEN, reinstate the small boards WITHOUT the restriction, for those who wish to lpay the INCORRECT variant, BUT---- BUT------- CHANGE the name of this version to something that does not remotely resemble "pente," because it is not pente.

suggestions include: five stones, stones, 5inLine or capture, and I am sure there are many other possibilities.

To facilitate this change, the current game "5inLine" should be changed to "go-Moku" wihch it basically is, but with a few adjustments that could be easily made.

It's beyond me why the opening move restriction is such a problem. Personally i would have been much happier to learn the game closer to the exact rules, over at IYT. Back when i began at IYT, i was on webtv, and couldn't play the pro-(correct) version.. so became used to a game that really wasn't even pente (or keryo.) I'm glad to be learning the correct versions now. If i want to play the other version, which no longer interests me, i could play at IYT. I know that's not a viable solution for most, it's simply how i consider things.

The new move restrictions on the smaller boards has hardly been instated.. it seems like we're judging before giving it an adequate chance. That's just my 2 cents worth.

I'm going with Walter (and ellie and Kevin) on this one. Gary & Dmitri, I like both of you guys, but I think you've pretty much gone berzerk, and I must say I'm a bit peeved you pulled this cloak and dagger act on us without even waiting until our trial games were concluded. But it is done, and I don't want to argue about that; I'll just say I think Fencer's decision was hastily and arbitrarily made. I would also like to know where this supposed "analysis" is that proves it would be virtually impossible for player 2 to win at keryo 13 without that restriction. Or, did Fencer just conjure up this phrase from thin air? I have a lot of games at IYT that would prove otherwise (including some against VERY STRONG keryo13 players).

Gary, you have stated before that you would really like to get pente players from IYT to come here. I believe your intent, but in reality I also believe you have done a fantastic job of accomplishing just the opposite. Telling others how they MUST HAVE IT, despite knowing they have had and can have it how they please elsewhere, isn't going to be very persuasive.

I concur with Walter's assertion that the explosion of internet games has done much more for the rebirth of pente than anything else ever could have. Pente's heyday has come and gone among the general population, whether we like this or not. Perhaps it should have been play-tested and better designed in the origin, and who knows? I think pente is a fascinating genus, but that is just one voice, and I'm not really even a serious pente player, it is kind of a sideline game for me. I'm just a player who mainly enjoys chess variants, but am smitten with just about any type of board game that is mentally challenging, rather than those based on dumb luck.

Keryo13: I hate the restriction because I like the challenge of playing second and letting the first player move close in, then seeing if I can find a win. I am now convinced that aspect is just about totally lost on Gary & dmitri, but..........

No Cloak and dagger act was pulled. We have been railing against the no-restriction variant since the moment it was created here, it just happened that Fencer's decision came at a tiem that made it appear as if we pulled a cloak and dagger act.

It is indisputable that player 1 has a sizable advantage! I don't understand how anyone can state otherwise. You ask where the proof is, but I don't see it as needing to be proved, it is a afct that stands on its own merit. To not have some sort of adjustment in a game where the player who goes first has such a big advantage just doesn't make sense to me.

Consider Rush sabotage, of which we were obth avid players. I see no advantage ofr either side in that game, espeically since there are the two strips through the volcanos. Thus, no restriction is necessary. In pente, the game is very short and having an extra stone is a big edge, I just see that as an undeniable fact.

I don't think Gary and I have done the oppositte (of our intent to bring pente players here from IYT). I could give you a LONG list of players who play pente here who used to play it at IYT.

You object to our telling others how they must have it. This is a distortion of our argument (a slight distortion anyway). All we are doing is speaking out against a bad variant that has no justification for existing. There are lots of pente variants that Gary and I support, we just don't support THIS ONE PARTICULAR variant. To me, that isn't telling people how what they MUST do, but rather, telling people what ONE thing they must NOT do. I think the difference is significant.

Again, I'll use Gary's chess example. No one is telling people they MUST play chess exactly the way the original game is played, because there are dozens of viable variants; but, we DO FORBID certain variants that have no justification, such as playing where one side only has one rook while the other side has two.

IYT made a mistake when they set up pente. What gave them the right to choose what rules to use? I don't understand this at all. Just because their error continued to go unchecked, doesn't mean it should go unchecked permanently.

Tony, perhaps you can coach Walter on how to make a post that is not total nonsense? In one short post, you managedto do what Walter failed to do in his pages and pages of posts. You actually made a point that is relevant to the game that merits a response!

BY this, I mean:

Keryo13: I hate the restriction because I like the challenge of playing second and letting the first player move close in, then seeing if I can find a win."

here is who I will respond: It sounds like you just acknowledged that it is more difficult to find the win as P2 without the restriction, because you said you like that chappenge of allowing him to get his pieces clsoe together.

so, it sounds like you are agreeing with us, that allowing player 1 to have his initial pieces close together is more of an advantage than forcing him to spread out his first two pieces.

If I am misinterpreting you, please let me know.

That said, I don't think player 2 NEEDS an extra challenge. It is Already challenging for player 2 to win WITH the restriction!

If it is not challenging for you to win as P2 with the restriction, then you are not playing veyr good players. I do realize that you took both games from me many moons ago at IYT, but those were my first 2 keryo games ever (or maybe my 4rd and 4th, I might have played POD first).

Now, I think I give anyone a good challenge in first seat with the restriction.

So, if it is the challnge that you seek as reason for wanting the restriction removed, I am taking the position that the challenge you seek is present WIT the restriction.

I did not refer to Bridge as a game of luck. I said it is a game that has luck involved in it. A lot smaller than the amount of luck in Backgammon or Cribbage, but there's still some luck involved. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully as you criticize my reasoning and debating skills. You might be right about my ascertain that IYT did right with the game. If they never had put it on, then no one would be playing it. Isn't that what I said? You still attacked it. I notice you didn't argue with the fading away of Pente that I made up. And just how is it that you argue that Pente without the move restriction isn't variant of Pente? The original game was played that way! Surely that qualifies as a variant?! So that version has fallen from favor by the powers that be(read: you). It is still a variant, not something else. The current version was made up out of it.
I never mentioned your father, either. I was right, your mom is proud of you. And look who's nitpicking over my use of grammar. Least ways I do pretty good for a high school drop out Mr. Test Giver. I'm glad I'm not one of your students.

I'm glad you're healthy, you have me there. Perhaps I've been fooling myself and my actions on this board have just been a justification to myself to stay up late and not be able to get my lazy self up and over to the gym to work out nor ride my bicycle to work. Geez, I missed work today just so I could reply to your posts. Yep, I'm beginning to see the error in my ways and am getting soft in head and body because of it.

None other than Gary himself told me that Milton Bradley bought the rights to Pente in 1984. Why don't you ask him? Maybe he has it wrong and I shouldn't use him for information, but I've had no reason to doubt him. Perhaps the next time you attack me for saying something like Milton Bradley has the rights or anything else that I make up, it would help your side of the argument to bring the facts with you and directly refute it.

So what if you are one the best players of Pente in the country, world, universe? An achievement to be sure, but there's more to it that. You sure don't carry yourself like a champion. I am the best Building player in the world, though not the current champion. I appear to be one of the best Dark Chess players, though I think the game can be played better than I play it and I think this of Building too. The world is not black and white as you seem to draw it. Lots of grey areas.

Your proposed solution is what others and myself have said all long. Except for changing the name of the game that is. Each version could have it's own name, you act like that's a major deal. I would lump them under a Pente banner and then list the versions there. It'd be easy to find. Kind of like what Fencer did with these post boards when he put them under the Line4 and variant heading. People are way ahead of you here.

Let's play some games on the side Dmitri. Sure you'll win all the games, but atleast these rants of yours and mine can be between us and save the rest of the people from having to read it. Entertaining as they might be. Nah, perhaps we already have the right forum, never mind.

Got to go, perhaps more later though I'm getting doubtful about it.

I wasn't going to comment on this argument at all, because I'm a total beginner at any kind of pente, and not even good at it!!!

BUT... cloak and dagger??? Am I the only one who reads these boards? Its been explained in L.O.N.G and very detailed posts why the restriction is necessary. Even I can see this!! And I can see why its better too. As a beginner I'm glad to play the correct way, and I'm glad I never played at IYT, its difficult to forget everything you've learned about a a game and play by new (and correct) rules.

Condensed, I believe thats what the main argument is, the restriction is part of the official rules, therefore should be in place.
Sounds good to me, I like to play by the rules :o)