****** "You tell us that we shouldn’t play fun-pente because it is detrimental to the game. Would you tell college baseball players not to use aluminum bats because it is detrimental to the game? After all, at the major league level, aluminum bats are not permitted. Many college players opt to use wooden bats to prepare themselves for pros, but many others do not, because they don’t feel that they will reach the pros. " ***********

OF course they should not use aluminum bats! I have never understood why aluminum bats are used.

I don't think I am out of line (Why was I singled out as "especially" being out of line!?).

Of course, we are all entirled to my opinion. I will continue to state my opinion and support it with examples, as I have done. Your post ignored almost everything I have said to this opint about the chess variants. I already stated quite clearly why the chess variants are a different issue, and I have named a number of different pente variants that I support. To imply that I am opposed to variants of any sort is incorrect.

I am guessing that the "variant" will be reinstated now that people are threatening to leave Brain King because of it. It is a pity, but the people who make the most noise usually get their way, regardless of how illogical their position may be.

So, I give up. I will state that I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to the reinstatement of the pente game without the restriction, but I will not debate the matter any more. No one has refuted anything I have said, yet people still argue. I don't want to cost Fencer Members, and if people are so bent out of shape that they are threatening to return to a site as bad as IYT, then I will relent because I do not wish to cause any negative consequences for Fencer. It is quite disappointing that any serious pente player would make the post that you did, and despite your claim otherwise, I haev to wonder how serious you are about it if you consider the "variant" without the restriction to have ANY value whatsoever.

If you don't think pente with the restriction is challenging enough as player 2, I'll play some tic tac toe with you, you cn be player 2. You will no doubt love the challenge of trying to win as player 2.

But I digress.

So, Fencer, my only request at this opint is that you give the "variant" without the move restriction a fitting name that leaves NO DOUBT that it is some phony form of pente that NO ONE who is interested in being a real pente player should play.

some suggestions: Phony pente, fake pente, or, better yet, pseudopente. That last one has a nice sound to it.

Oh, you are a felloew math major! That is good to hear, there are not enough of us out there.

I had the same thought when I read your sentence (that something cannot really be "slightly convoluted").

I see what you are saying, but in regard to your analogy about roller coasters and such, it is doubtful that one roller coaster could ever be detrimental to the development of other roller coasters.

Because English is my second favorite school subject, I feel compelled to point out that you might also be misapplying thew ord elegant. Of course, I am being a bit fussy here, and getting caught up in semantics is not worthwhile, but it seems that the application of the term "elegant" to the one form of pente and not the other may be a bit hasty. Something that is elegant could be intricate or simple, and to me, the game of pente is either elegant or not, regardless of wihch opening moves are used.

You say

******** " (1) I am not yet convinced that it is (although I will continue to listen to those who want to attempt to convince me that it is). In my case, I probably would have quit playing pente by now if I didn’t have fun-pente to play. It has allowed me to elevate my game and still enjoy playing at the same time. So, in my case, it has been beneficial! " **********

You may not be convinced, but, players who have not played with the restriction have no idea how to attack at the onset of ag ame WITH thee restriction. with the restriction, you need to make a split 3 or some attack that sacrifices some position. Without the trestriction, a player can make a potential and triangle and need never bother with split 3s and similar attacks. I ahve heard quite a few people say they are better as PLAYER 2 at pente than as plyer 1!!!!!!! WHy? because they learned to play without the restriction, and now they have no idea hwat do to as player 1.

You say playing without the restriction has ELEVATED your game? Inasmuch as I can possibly disdagree with your personal assessment, I will do so! I am NOT disparaging your pente play in any way. Rather, what I mean is, had you played SOLELY with the restriction, you would be better at pente than you are. YOu have had some very creative wins against me; one of the attacks you beat me with remains one of the most devastating attacks I have seen to this day. Based on that and a few other games, I tihnk you would be among the top players if your focus were not diverted by the "fun pente" variant.

Thad, you said,

*******" Here’s something else. I really dislike DSG’s database. I wish Dweebo would take it down. I can compete with even the top players using it. Does that make me a great player? No, it makes me a great looker-upper. Does it improve my pente skills? No. In fact, it probably makes them worse. Now, I need a crutch to win. Thanks to the DSG database, I have learned some good moves, but I have no idea WHY they are good moves. I will never learn to extend that move to another similar situation. My game will not get better than looking up moves allows it to be. There is no fun-pente database. Playing fun-pente forces me to think up winning lines on my own. That alone makes it worth playing over ‘official’ pente for me. " *********

I am sorry you feel that way. This has not been the case with me, I improved greatly by studying the database. For one thing, I have access to any of the 2000 games I have played on the various sites, so I can go over my games and find where I wnet wrong and improve on them. You say you learn good moves from the databse but not WHY thye are good moves. Why is that? When I study, I will fully explore an intersting looking move so that I DO discover why it is a good move. Sometimes the exact oppositte happens-- I'll realize, "hey, that move isnlt a good one at all, and now I am going to explore options AGAINST this move because I think it is flawed and that I can come up with a new defense for it"

I always tell people that when they review the database, they need to really examine moves, not just say, "Oh, Dmitri King or Gary Barnes won with this move, so I'll make it." That won't improve play, but fully exploring the possiblee follow-up moves WILL.

The database is a great tool for many reasons. I like ti for statistics purposes, I can see how I have fared against certain players. ALso, the database is useful in catching cheats, and we all know who I am referring to (at least anyone who has read the forums at Dweebo's knows).

To respond to Thad's post:

you say

****** "Here’s another reason I like fun-pente better. I like to play with other players who, like me, just like to play pente. There are scores of us who just want to sit down and have some fun." ********

I have heard this argument many times before. My answer is still the same. 1) for those who just want to sit down and have some fun, why is that not possible with the restriction? I really don't follow this line of reasoning. people can very easily sit down, relax, and have some fun playing the game with the restriction. Just because there is a restriction does NOT mean they have to study books, databases, openings, or become a pente grandmaster. All it means is they have a small restriction on their opening move.

I think a whole lot more is being made of this than it really is. A simple move restriction has been labeled as "the removal of fun from pente," "the removal of elegance from pente," and other similar things. It is just a minor move restriction, nothing more.

Thad, I appreciate your thoughtful input. But I must take issue with something you said.

********* "I like the concept of playing a simple game with so few rules. All the rules are basic & straightforward. None of them apply only to one player. There are no restrictions. It’s not convoluted in any way. In a word, I believe I would say one of the things I like best about fun-pente is that it’s elegant. It’s so simple to understand, yet it can be very complex and challenging.

‘Official’ pente is not that way. It has the move restriction. Yes, the game is more challenging, but the elegance of the rules is gone." ******

please don't get upset with me, but to me, this just seems like you are really stretching to give a reason here.

I can't see how the opening restriction can be considered anything but simple. The restriction IS basic and straightforward. How can you say the restriction is "convoluted?" I just don't agree with that, and I don't see how anyone who has played at least one game with the restriction would find it at all confusing. You say you like fun pente because it is elegant and that pente is not elegant. How is pente not elegant? A simple move restriction in NO way diminishes the elegance of the game; also, I have never known elegant to be synomous with simple.

Thad, thanks for your reply.

I will address your points indivdually.

*****"Gary & Dmitri, your analogy that it is like playing chess where one player has two rooks and the other has only one has little if any merit. No one would ever consider a game like that, where one player has an extra piece throughout the whole game and no compensating restriction (like piece placement for example), as a legitimate variant. " **********

I agree that no one would ever consider that chess variant, for the exact same reason you gave! THAT is my point exactly! Your suggestion is that we play pente (a game where one player DOES have one more piece on the board than the other player) WITHOUT a compensating restriction such as piece placement!

You just said that no one should consider such a variant, so I odn't understand why you are lobbying for such a condition to exist in pente.

******"Please explain this to me:
According to your arguments, changing the move 1 restriction (by eliminating it) produces and invalid variation of pente. But, changing the move restriction by increasing the restriction (I believe you call one example G-pente) is valid. Also, changing the size of the board still results in valid pente variations. We could also change the number of captures needed to win or the number of stones lined up to win and still have valid variations. We could even change the number of pentes required to win and still have valid variations. Why are all those other variations ok, but not this one?" **********

The opening restriction was a change to the official rules back around 1979 after EXPERIENCE and RESULTS showed player 1’s advantage to be too great without it.
That was almost two decades ago, and during that time, player 2 has enjoyed some success as a result. After all these years, player 1 may have figured out a good counter for all of player 2’s defenses, which is why some new ideas have been batted around.
This fact does not make the “variant” without the restriction any less invalid! It is still an invalid version of the game. G-Pente, with the added restriction is just ONE of the ideas being discussed, and nothing has been decided yet.

TIME and EXPERIENCED showed the restriction of the opening moves to be necessary, so only that same time and experience will show us if G-Pente is the way to go or not. There is also another possible solution to player 1s advantage that I find intriguing, and that is the swap opportunity after 3 moves. Still other ideas were batted around, such as allowing a player to deduct a capture from his own total instead of adding it to his opponent’s. These are all goals aimed at evening up the advantage player 1 has. What is the goal of REMOVING an existing rule that makes it HARDER for player 2 to win when it is already tough for player 2 to win? I really don’t understand why those supporting this position are doing so. All of them started at IYT with their incorrect version, and seem to want it to stay simply because they are used to it. That hasn’t been the only reason given but it has been the most frequently given reason.

If time and experience showed that the rules needed to be further adjusted, I would fully support the new adjustments and object to the old version. There is nothing wrong with expecting a game to evolve when evolution is called for.

Also, I thought I had been very clear about the different sized boards. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to any sized board other than the 19 by 19. I do NOT consider the small boards an acceptable variant, and they are ONLY in place because Fencer wanted the WebTV users to be able to play (they cannot load the 19 X 19 board).

Some have said that the smaller board may help reduce player’s 1s advantage. I stated unequivocally that this was not so, without any proof. Well, I don’t have proof, but I can say that I reviewed my 25 brain King games of Keryo pente, and, in NONE of these games would my win as player 1 have been impeded by a smaller board. But, in one of them, my win as player 1 would have been easier, and in FIVE of my wins as PLAYER 2, my win would NOT have been possible on a smaller board! So until someone can back up the statement that the smaller boards helps player 2, the evidence points to the contrary.




******** “If you say it is because player 1 has an advantage, then all pente variations ever mentioned, including the pente you promote, would also be invalid because one player always has the edge. By that logic, we should invalidate tic-tac-toe! Checkers too, would probably have to go.” ************

Just because player had an advantage, doesn’t make a game invalid. What DOES make a game invalid is when a reasonable and time-tested rule is ignored such that player 1’s advantage is even greater than it needs to be. As for tic-tac-to, I really do not understand why you mentioned this at all. Are you saying tic-tac-to is a valid game? Some may argue with me, but I would DEFINITELY say that tic-tac-to is an invalid game.


********* “If you argue that it causes people to learn ‘true’ pente improperly, well, that doesn’t make the variation invalid.” **********

I respectfully disagree, and since you did not give an explanation or justification for your comment, I can’t really say too much else on the matter. I will say that when a rule is so simple and easy to implement and has no downside, it just seems wrong to ignore the rule and have people learning the game the wrong way.

********** “If you say it impedes the development of pente masters, well, that still doesn’t make the variation invalid. Most novices I know, most of whom will never become masters anyway, like the non-move-restricted pente.” ********

I would say that DOES present a pretty good reason for calling the game invalid. What is it about the non-restriction game that the novices like? I am really not clear on this. Do they play the version with the restriction and say, “Oh, this game is not fun?” I don’t understand this! The change is so minor I don’t see how it could possibly affect anyone’s enjoyment of the game. This would be akin to my saying “Oh, I cannot move my pawn three spaces forward in chess? Well, then chess is no longer fun, and I will not play until the variant (allowing me to move my pawn three spaces forward) is brought back.

***** “I, myself, like the non-move-restricted pente. I like it better than ‘true’ pente. I like to play two game matches with my opponent & I each starting one.” ******

OK, but I don’t understand why you cannot play two game matches with you and your opponent each starting one WITH the restriction. I am not clear on why you like an incorrect version of a game over the “true” version.

**** “My personal favorite variation that I’ve seen is non-move-restricted pente with unlimited captures allowed. I lost an interesting game recently in which my opponent would have lost with five pairs, but instead I did.” *****

Okay, but why can’t this version be played with the restriction? Player 1 still has the advantage of having the extra piece and having the initiative.

********** “My favorite variation of all is non-move-restricted pente with unlimited captures allowed for player 2. In other words, player 2 can win by making a pente OR by capturing 5 pairs, but player 1 can only win by getting a pente. Player 1 can certainly capture 5 (or more) pairs, but this doesn’t give him the win. In this variation, P1 has the advantage of going first, but P2 has his advantage too. I have never played this way, but other players agree that it seems like an interesting variation. It could also be played with the move restriction.

Are my variations invalid?” **********

I don’t like the variants you suggested, but they are not necessarily invalid. I hope everyone is clear on this, because I suspect some people are not. My objection to this pente variant is NOT based on my “not liking” the variant. There are lots of games that I don’t like but only this one has drawn my attention as being invalid.

I do not object to a variant of there is some JUSTIFICATION for it. The game with unlimited captures dramatically changes the strategy and play of the game. I don’t like it at all, but I am willing to give it a try and see how it goes! I do NOT like the variant where player 1 cannot win on captures, because I don’t like having two sides with such different rules. But, I am willing to give it a try!!!! My point is, none of your variants have been tried, which is why I cam willing to give them a try! The same goes for G-Pente, swap pente, the variant of pente where one can deduct a capture from his own, and double pente. I am willing to give them a try.

BUT, the “variant” without the restriction HAS BEEN TRIED and was SHOWN to be no good! That is a key difference that everyone is overlooking or ignoring.

"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"

Walter, the name change was the FOCAL POINT of my solution. You cannot just remove it and then say my colution si what everyone has been saying all along!

WHen a version of pente has the same name as pente, and people then see that is has less restrictions on the opening, they will ASSUME it to be the REAL version, and that the other game (the correct one) is the variant! That is BAD for the game of pente.

There seem to be two conflicting ideas here:

1) the promotion of the game of pente and
2) the enjoyment of the game by non0-serious players and beginners

But, they do NOT have to be conflicting! they can be COMPATIBLE!

WHy not give the game without the restriction a chance? After three months, you might find that you do not haveany interest in the other variant any more.

We HAVE givewn the existence of the no-restriction game a chance, and we have WITNESSED the problams it has caused-- specifically, the setback in development of players because of having to relearn the opening rules. ALso, it has caused confusion as to which is the "real version."

you say "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. "

1984 was a long time ago. Gary never said that company still owns the rights, and it doesn't.

you say "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. "

Walter, I mentioned yourgrammar ONLY because you stated that I was not being careful with my posting and that you were. That is the ONLY reason I mentioned it. My point is, everyone fails to be thorough at times, either with gramamr or in completely reading someone's post. But I try to adress each indivisual point of someone's argument.

You say you are glad you are not one of mystudents? Well, if you are a hihg school dropout, you obviously wouldn;t be in need of my classes, which are preparation for the SAT. BUt if you did need to prepare, you would be missing out by not being in my class, because I am probably one of the very best.

Walter, I disagree with your stance that pente has faded away. the game is fairly popular right now on the internet sites, so I do not consider it to have faded away. now, to address something specific:

you say "So that version has fallen from favor by the powers that be(read: you)."

Where are you getting this? NO serious player considers the game without the restriction to be a legitimate variant. Dozens and dozens of top players would attest to the fact that the ONLY way to play pente is WITH the restriction.

okay, as per your request of reading your messages more carefully, I took anohter look at your post. Granted, you did not say Luck was the orimary factor in bridge, but you did say it is a game involving luck.

Here I disagree. It involves no more luck than baseball or football or other games that are almost entirely based on skill. Sure, sometimes a lucky bounce on a bunt attempt is needed, but more often than not, it is the bunter's skill that will determine the succcess or failure of the bunt.

Is it lack of skill that causes a wide receiver to come up .5 inches short of the first doen marker? Maybe, because he could have run a better route, but also he was just a bit unlucky.

But, baseball and football are still considered games of skill that luck has hardly anything to do with. The net effect of luck is usually negligible.

In bridge, is it luck that determines whether a finesse succeeds? SOmetimes it is, but often it is skill. The net effect of brisge is negligible. The cards that are dealt are a non afctor, becasue competitive bridghe is played in some sort of suplicate form where everyone plays the same hands.

I am not sure why we were talking about bridge, but that is my take on bridge. I don't exactly remember how it fit into our pente discussion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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!

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.

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.

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, 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.

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, 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.

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?

Walter, you say you are not debating with me any more and then you take several cheap shots at me in your post. The fact is, I HAVE studied the ramifications of what I am talking about, and you don't appear to have done so yourself. And you have the gall to say that you would have to drop DOWN to my level? Did you READ your childish missive that you wrote a few days back? I made them mistake of thinking you had shut up since then because you finally realized you were making no sense and acting childish. Unfortunately I was wrong.

You say I change my tune when someone I respect chimes in. Wrong. I change my tune when someone says something INTELLIGENT. try it sometime! You might be surprised by how quickly I side with you if you acutally start making sense.

Now you have this wild idea of allowing the players to decide to board size? Are you nuts? Can you name ANY other game of any kind where the players can just pick the board or field size at their whim????

ALso, you are way off target with your claims about my take on variants. I SUPPORT Keryo pente and I like the game a lot. You are pretty dense if you haven't picked up on that. I support real "variants," just not the garbage you propose.

Also, if you READ before speaking, you will see that I have accepted the 13 X 13 board since it is needed for WebTV, but that I have shifted my focus to maintaining the restriction. Whatever size the board, there is no need to eliminate the restriction.

And, I stand by my calling you arrogant, you show that with every post as you imply or directly state that you are holier than I.

Oh, and let me know if you want the information on the OKC tournament so that you can show up with your 13 X13 boards. ha ha ha.

I see. Web TV sounds like an inferior product. I often hear about problems that are specific to Web TV. Alas.

Kevin, thep roblme is, a 13 by 13 board for pente does NOTm ake the game completely different-- it affects many games not at all, and some games it will affect dramatically. This is not how a good variant should work!

And yes, I think I haev stated, verbatim, about ah alf a dozen times that the 13 X 13 board is acceoptable for web TV users, but only for that reason. None oftheo ther reasonns have merit, and there is NO reason why the web TV users should play without the restriction!

And, although I acknolwedge that the 13 X 13 is neeeded for web TV users, that doesn't make me less fruistrated with its existence.

Again, the 13 X 13 board was cerated in error by IYT, and that is the ionlt reason anyone even knows of it. If it never had been created erroneously by IYT, and someone suggested it now (for a reason OTHER than web TV users), everyone would say "Huh?? NOw why would you want to do that? what wiould be the point?"

Well, just because people became familiar with an erroneous board doesn't mean we should continue to play with it so that those players ahve a board they are familiar with an d recognize.

But of course, we neeed it because of the Web TV users.

What is up with Web TV that it cannot support a normal game board?

Kevin, I thought I gave several reasons already for why the 13 X 13 board is no good for pente. I don't wish to repeat myself. As you mentioned, few games will be affected, BUT those that ARE affected will be affected dramatically, in a way that was NOT intended! How much mroe reason do you need? So far, no one has provided ANY reason FOR the 13 X 13 board! You seem to think the fact that pente was intended for play on a large board is a trivial detail... it isn't! it is an important part of the game. Also, you say beginning playewrs would not be affected by the edge of the board at all.

1) how are you arriving at that conclusion?
2) if so, THEN WHY BOTHER?

3) Kevin, you are belaboring a DEAD ISSUE here, the 13 X 13 board has already been acknowledged to be necessary because of the WEB TV users. That said, there is NO other reson for the 13 X 13 board, and you certainly have NOt presented any. you have said there is nothing wrong with it, despite the repeated explanations of exactly what is wrong with it. By your logic, there is nothing "wrong" with a 12X12, 14X14, 15X15. AND SO ON. we would have a dozen "variants" all with different sized boards, for no discernible reason.

At this opint the debate has shifted to why the restriction was lifted for the small boards. Web TV users do not require that extra change, so I don't see the need for it. A.lso, maybe the 13X 13 game could be called "webTV pente" or beter yet, "WebTV 5inLine." Then the game currently called "5inLine" can be given itsp roper title of "Go-Moku"

I must disagree. The opening sequences are key to pente. One who has played several hundred games or more without the opening restriction will NOT know ANY openings WITH the restriction. This is NOT an easy adaptation to make, except maybe for those who are gifted when it comes to board games. Pioneer is the first I have heard who has said the transition is easy, I have heard many complain that the transition was difficult, and that they wished they had not learned to play incorrectly (without the restriction).

pioneer54 does have more Keryo pente experience than I do. But, some opints remain true:

The game was not intended to be played on a 13X13 board. the edges do come into play, but that is more of a nuisance than anything else, for both players, I would say.

The existence of Keryo on a 13 by 13 board is a rsult of IYT's ewrror when putting the game on their site.

Player 1 has as advantage on the 19 by 19 board and on the 13 by 13 board. The opening restriction is essential, and it should be in place REGARDLESS of the size of the board.

I hate the 13 by 13 board, but I recognize that It is needed for web TV users. But, there is no reason not to have the restriction.

GOing back to what Pioneer54 said " It was a novelty among my friends and me for quite some time, but it wore off when we discovered that the first player usually wins, barring serious error. "

Well, I (and Gary Barnes alogn with me) maintain that without the restriction, it takes a serious error for player 1 to lose in Keryo pente. Gary and I ahve thousands of pente games experience, but not nearly asm uhc Keryo pente experience. Nonetheless, now that we do have some experience under our belts, we are willing to back up this claim. We are already engaged in playing several games as P1 (without the restriction) againast Walter Montago and Dangerous Mind, and we are probably willing to accept more such challneges (I would have to check with Gary). BEtween the two of us, we believe we can avoid the "serious error" mentioned and therefore always win as P1 (wiothout the trestriction).

Sam makes a good opint. Why are the players who have little pente experience so unwilling to trust that the players with LOTS of experience might actually know what they are talking about?

Kevin, you just summed up why I am so against the 13 X 13 board. As you said, most of the games are the same. Well,why bother then? That doesn't really qualify it as a variant. And the few games that are affected, well, that is a few too many! none of the games should be restricted by the board edge, that is not what the game is about.

BUT.. and I want to make this clear-- the 13 X 13 board DOES serve a purpose-- as Fencer has said (and I have agreed with), the web TV users need the 13 by 13 board to play.

But they do NOT need the restriction removed, so why do it? Why make an unneeded change on top of changing the board such that the web TV users can play?

Again, the overwhelming reason seems to be "why not."

Well, answering "why not" to a question of "why" hardly qualifies as an answer!

If the 13 X 13 game existed with the restriction, everyone would be happy. The web TV users could play, and no one would be learning the game with the wrong opening moves. IF the web TV users then got a different internet access set up and wanted to move on to the real pente game on the 19 X 19 board, they could, without the frustration of realizing that their moves that they have been making are no longer allowed.

Also, that would maintain the integrity of all the games with "pente" in their names, which I think is important.

Kevin, I'll tell you why not. Because the existence of the game you mention was due to an error by IYT as a result of their not realizing the right way to set up the game. What you are saying amounts to this: "People are used to playing it the wrong way, so we should not correct the error."

To me, I just don't think that is a good idea.

Yes, webTV users need the 13 X 13 board. But why not rectify the error IYT made by at least keeping the restriction on the 13 X 13 board?

Incidentally== non serious players are affected also, because even non serious players like to play the game with the correct rules. I have encountered non-serious players at DSG who were frustrated to have learned the game with the wrong rules as a result of what IYT did. So, it is not just the serious players who were affected.

Thanks Erika! Indeed, when people have been backed into a corner and have NO coutner to an argument whatsoever, they will usually find a typo and point it out as if that invalidates everything that a person wrote.

If Einstein showed these people his theory of relativity but one of the words had two capital LEtters, they would call his theory invalid. It is really sad. WHat is even more sad is that oftne those who criticize the typing of others fail to realize that their post, while possibly typed properly, is devoid of coherent or cogent arguments.

Criticizing someone's typing after he has made a solid argument si akin to lsitening to someone's argument and then saying "well, you're nose is ugly so you are wrong."

Obviously some posts are so error-ridden that meaning is lost.

But, in the post Walter referred to, there are manby a hald dozen insignificant errors, usually with an extra cap because I hold the shift key too long.

Sam makes a good point. The name "pente" should be removed from the 13 X 13 variants. ALso, Kevin--

"not everyone is as serious about pente as some are", said by you, is NOT a counter to any of the points that have been made. Numerous people have repeated that same remark, and it means little. We all know that players in any game will have different degrees of seriousness. THat fact does not address the issue at all, it dodges it completely.

I could say "You don't like Golf being played with a tennis ball? Then don't watch and don't play it, no one is forcing you. Some of us do not take it as seriously." ok, but as a Golf enthusiast, you would still be upset about this absurd change, and you would not be placated by my statement that no one making you play or that not everyone takes it seriously.

Wouldn't you agree? Well, it is the same with the pente variant.

Why Walter? If I proofread what I wrote, and corrected every tiny typing error, then you would actually have to address my points instead of childishly criticizing something insignificant like my typing skills. Why would you want that?


This is interesting. Just to humor you, I reread my post-- There are no spelling errros, and maybe four or five careless capitalization errors. So what exactly is the problem? Are you having trouble understanding what I was saying because I incorrectly capitalized the FIrst two letters of a word somewhere? Please try to stay on topic, it really shows that you have no basis for your argument if all you can do it point out a couple of petty errors in my typing. I claim to be an expert pente player, but you'l notice I make no such claim about my typing skills. I have painful wrists from using the computer too much, so I am happy just to type the message at all without too much discomfort.

This post directed toiwards the masses, not just Mark.

Regarding the smaller board taking away some of the advantage of first player. So far, it seems this statement (made by several people) is being assumed without proof. EIther player has the possibility of being constrained by the smaller board.

I am willing to state, without proof, that the reduction in player's 1's advantage is negligible. Until someone proves otherwise, I say the burden of proof is on them to do so.

ALso, what iuf it does reducep layer 1's advantage? SO what? Does that mean it is a good idea even if it is not really Logical? No! it doesn't! THere are FAR better ways to limit player 1's advantage.

ALso, using the smaller board to LIMIT player's 1s advantage but then NOT USING the restriction is JUST ASININE! I cannot think of anything more asinine than that!!!

If we are goign to entertain this notion that the 13 X 13 board has MERIT because it reduces player 1's advantage, that reduction in advantage is MORE THAN offset by remonving the restristion!

Think about a chess game. PLayer 1 has an advantage. I bet that a rule prohibiting white from checkmating black with a pawn would redice player 1's advantage! but does that mean it should be done? NO, because it doesn't make sense! I think that is analgous to the pente situation.

a closing thought-- Pente was invented by Gary Gabrel in 1977. He chose to have the game played on a 19 X 19 bosrd. Why does anyone think he did that? Probably becasue it all but guaranteed that no one would run out of space! In other words, running out of Room is NOT supposed to be part of the game! If he wanted people to run out of room, he would have used a 13 X13 board!

My guess is that he intended the board to be "infinite" in the sense that moves could extend as far outward as need be. Due to the nature of the game, this would work

Thank you for your cortous reply. I will abide by your request and debate this with you no more. We both know where we stand and we have both heard each other's views. Consider it a dead issue between the two of us.

Of course if you wish to discuss any other pente related matter in the future, I am always hally to do so.

-Dmitri

Walter--- You told me to go away until I have soemthign nice to sya? Are you JOKING??? You wee outright nasty in your last post. You did not agree with what I wrote, so you launched into an all-out personal attack against me! What is that all about? You disagree with a statement so you verbally asube the person who made the statement? Of course I reacted angrily, what would you expect after that uncalled for nasty reply you made?

You seemed to justify your nasty post by pointing out that you thought I made a blanket statement about the game without a restriction being detrimental to the game of pente. That is not even a blanket statement! It is simply a declaration about a SPECIFIC concept that is backed up by knowledge AND personal experience!

WHen people play pente at Dweebo's stone games at www.pente.org, the most popular site for real time pente play (where MANY players play pente), the game from IYT without hte restriction casuses confusion. This is personal experience. Do you have any experience to back up your claims?

You have the audacity to say I am not diaplsying knowledge and experience!?????????????

Are you ILLITERATE?

EVERY point in my post was BACKED up by either knowledge or experience or BOTH! I wish you would read my post before replying to it!

If you remove your nasty and uncalled for post, I will remove my earlier one, but I will point out that I was polite and respectful in my post to blaze, whereas you were asusive and way out of liine in yours. NOthing I wrote warranted the personal attack you unleashed.

Fencer-- good point about the WEB TV board. I did not realize that they cannot use the large board. But may I make a suggestion? Why not kep the restriction on the small board? The restriction is an integral part of the game and is an official rule of the game. The game could be played on the 13X13 board while still maintaining the restriction, and then all users would be able ot play and everyone would be playing with the correct rules.

Note-- This message edited by myself at 12:33 PM EST 3/28/03

Wow walter, you are just plain Nasty in that post. That was a sad display of arrogance on your part. Once again, you ignored almost all of the valid points in my post. Root againt me all you want, it will make the fact that I keep on winning all the better. Why don't you actually learn some skills and BEAT me at the game if you want to see me lose so badly?

It is an acknowledged FACT that the game without the restriction is an incorrect version of the game. The Pente federation OFFICIALLY changed the rule back in 1981 (approximately), and there is just no reason to play without it.

You claim that I made a blanket statement when I said "The new variant is detrimental" and you criticize me for not saying "I think." OF COURSE IT IS WHAT I THINK!!!!!!!!! That goes without saying! Who else's THOUGHTS do you think I am posting when I post???? MINE of course! One of the techniques of good writing is NOT to append "I think" to every statement of opinion. It isn't necessary.
So tell me, if I don't like something, I am not allowed to even speak up and say so, because "negative" posts make me a wacko, as I am implying from your post? That is absurd. I presented a bunch of good reasons to back up my case. Saying "no one is forcing you to play them" or "Not everyone is as serious as you are" does not really address the issues. One could use those replies to anything at any time.

Your request for a 9X9 boards just shows how clueless you are and that you know nothing about the game.

Fencer made an excellent point-- that the 13X13 board is neeeded for web TV users. I had not thought about that. Of course, web TV users should be included, and I would not wish otherwise, so a 13X13 game should exist. But why a 9X9 board? Do you understand how the game of pente works? Apparently you do not.

But hey, go ahead and raise some money to spite me at the OKC tournament! I really wish I knew how exactly your raising any money would decrease my chances of winning. THe most likely impediments to my winning the tournament are already going to be there, namely, top players such as Gary Barnes and Tom Braunlich and Mark Mammel. I would LOVE to see you try to bring 13X13 boards to the OKC tournament, I PROMISE YOU YOU WOULD GET LAUGHED AT!!! Go ahead, talk to ANY of the peoplpe who are involved in the tournament, ANY ONE OF THEM, and talk about a 13X13 board, you will get laughed at! I guarantee it!

You say you have lost respect for me? Darn. I cannot say the same about you. I have NEVER respected you, as you have not yet made a logical or coherent argument.

What's this garbage about my "close-minded blinders-on " way of arguing? I presented MANY LOGICAL AND COHERENT POINTS to support my claim. No, close-minded is the blind support given to a new variant without any justiication whatsoever. The only legitimate reason is the one Fencer gave about Web TV users.

Gwetting back to the matter of the recreational or "non-serious" players. Maybe I am missing something here, but what is preventing these users from enjoying the existing variants of pente and Keryo pente, the ones with the correct move restrictions? Where are all the players saying, "Oh, this game is just no fun! I cannot move my second stone 2 spaces away! this has totally destroyed my enjoyment!"

I just don't hear a lot of that.

Also, even "non-serious" players that I have met DO still enjoy improving their game, learning different attacks, etcetera.

kevin, this is a good point. But, I can give a reason for why it should be on both boards-- The posts are about both games, and people might not visit both boards. If someone visits one board and not hte other, he will miss what I consider an important post.

I think this is an important issue. I recognize that I am a more serious gamer than most, but that fact does not automatically nullify my argument. I think the matter is important enough to be on both boards, especially since the pente board had the grand total of ONE post until now (so I doubt that these posts are taking up valuable space on the pente board).

Blaze, I was in no way disrespectful to anyone. As for my quoting you-- I apologize for referring to you as "someone" I did not mean any disrespect, I just could not remember who said it or on which board I read it. I did not mean to say that you claimed the game would be more fun, because you are right, you did not say that. So, for that I apologize. You did, however, say that it sounds like fun, and what I SHOULD have said was that you did not elaborate. You say elaboration is not required? I disagree. I could say that pente on a 20 X 20 board would be fun, but that isn't saying anything, because I am not in any way elaborating on why the game would be any different from the original. You conveniently ignored EVERY valid point in my post, and instead you directed various personal attacks against me in a harsh and unpleasant tone. Now I will do soemthing you did NOT do. I will actually respond to your individual points, even though you ignored all of mine.

You say, "Unlike you, I don't consider games that I personally don't happen to enjoy to be a disappointment, as I am fully aware that other people may enjoy those games. That's what this site is about. It's about doing what we enjoy doing, playing games. "

Blaze, did you READ my post? Where did I say "I do not enjoy the smaller games, so therefore they are a mistake"???? NOWHERE!, because that is not what I said! I clearly explained why the variants add nothing; but rather, detract from the game! But instead of examining my points, and maybe even considering them, you outright rejected them by attacking my "serious" approach to board games! That is a terrible debating tactic. You continue by stating that the majority are not dedicated or committed to the game like I am.

Well, there I agree with you-- BUT WHY do you say that as if it INVALIDATES my argument? If anything, it strengthens my argument! As it is, people who know little abouth the game are arguing despite not really knowing what they are talking about!

So, forgive me for speaking from a position of knowledge and experience!

Then you say "Whilst I respect the fact that you take your games very seriously, I would in turn ask you to respect the fact that many of us are here for fun only, and are not as dedicated or ambitious as yourself. "

Blaze, again you are making a blanket statement that had nothing to with the specifics of my post! I raised valid points and this is the best you can do to respond, is to WRONGLY state that I am not RESPECTING people? I AGAIN ask you how I am not respecting people????

The fact is, Pente is a game I like very much. The new versions are detrimental to the game. You imply that the majority of pente players would disagree with me. I can tell you FLAT OUT that you are WRONG on that one. I have spoken with almost EVERY regular pente player about this matter before Brain King existed, and I can assure you that the MAJORITY of them agree with me 100%.

I ask that you actually examine whatI wrote in my post, because there are some legitimate points there-- you didn't say anything about my contrasting the game with GO and Reversi, or about the illegal moves. I don't understand how allowing illegal moves actually constitutes a viable variant of a game.

Now, Blaze, I really wish you would not accuse me of disrespecting people, because that is just a false claim. I am all in favor of FUN and interesting pente variants, but the new ones do not qualify as either by any reasonable criteria.

By the way--- I do NOT enjoy battleboats, it is probably my least favorite game. But, do you see me posting about my opposition to battleboats? NO! so your implication that I am railing against the new pente variants solely because I do not enjoy them is just wrong.

Please re-examine my post and consider what I wrote, I think you will find it has merit. If you are still not convinced, I wwould like you to RESPECT my right to have an opinion on the matter, as well as my right to express that opinion with RATIONAL reasons to support it. And I wish you would reconsider before calling someone disrespectful when in fact there was no such disrespect shown.

Blaze, I was in no way disrespectful to anyone. As for my quoting you-- I apologize for referring to you as "someone" I did not mean any disrespect, I just could not remember who said it or on which board I read it. I did not mean to say that you claimed the game would be more fun, because you are right, you did not say that. So, for that I apologize. You did, however, say that it sounds like fun, and what I SHOULD have said was that you did not elaborate. You say elaboration is not required? I disagree. I could say that pente on a 20 X 20 board would be fun, but that isn't saying anything, because I am not in any way elaborating on why the game would be any different from the original. You conveniently ignored EVERY valid point in my post, and instead you directed various personal attacks against me in a harsh and unpleasant tone. Now I will do soemthing you did NOT do. I will actually respond to your individual points, even though you ignored all of mine.

You say, "Unlike you, I don't consider games that I personally don't happen to enjoy to be a disappointment, as I am fully aware that other people may enjoy those games. That's what this site is about. It's about doing what we enjoy doing, playing games. "

Blaze, did you READ my post? Where did I say "I do not enjoy the smaller games, so therefore they are a mistake"???? NOWHERE!, because that is not what I said! I clearly explained why the variants add nothing; but rather, detract from the game! But instead of examining my points, and maybe even considering them, you outright rejected them by attacking my "serious" approach to board games! That is a terrible debating tactic. You continue by stating that the majority are not dedicated or committed to the game like I am.

Well, there I agree with you-- BUT WHY do you say that as if it INVALIDATES my argument? If anything, it strengthens my argument! As it is, people who know little abouth the game are arguing despite not really knowing what they are talking about!

So, forgive me for speaking from a position of knowledge and experience!

Then you say "Whilst I respect the fact that you take your games very seriously, I would in turn ask you to respect the fact that many of us are here for fun only, and are not as dedicated or ambitious as yourself. "

Blaze, again you are making a blanket statement that had nothing to with the specifics of my post! I raised valid points and this is the best you can do to respond, is to WRONGLY state that I am not RESPECTING people? I AGAIN ask you how I am not respecting people????

The fact is, Pente is a game I like very much. The new versions are detrimental to the game. You imply that the majority of pente players would disagree with me. I can tell you FLAT OUT that you are WRONG on that one. I have spoken with almost EVERY regular pente player about this matter before Brain King existed, and I can assure you that the MAJORITY of them agree with me 100%.

I ask that you actually examine whatI wrote in my post, because there are some legitimate points there-- you didn't say anything about my contrasting the game with GO and Reversi, or about the illegal moves. I don't understand how allowing illegal moves actually constitutes a viable variant of a game.

Now, Blaze, I really wish you would not accuse me of disrespecting people, because that is just a false claim. I am all in favor of FUN and interesting pente variants, but the new ones do not qualify as either by any reasonable criteria.

By the way--- I do NOT enjoy battleboats, it is probably my least favorite game. But, do you see me posting about my opposition to battleboats? NO! so your implication that I am railing against the new pente variants solely because I do not enjoy them is just wrong.

Please re-examine my post and consider what I wrote, I think you will find it has merit. If you are still not convinced, I wwould like you to RESPECT my right to have an opinion on the matter, as well as my right to express that opinion with RATIONAL reasons to support it. And I wish you would reconsider before calling someone disrespectful when in fact there was no such disrespect shown.

THANK YOU. This is an EXCELLENT suggestion for a pente variant, it adds to the game but in no way will it be confused with the real version.

Hello all. I would like to express my disappointment in the new games "small pente" and "small Keryo pente." I am going to try not to make too big of an issue out of this, because previous discussion on the matter was not very productive.

I will address some points:

1) I saw someone post that "the small pente variants should be fun." The person did not elaborate, and I cannot figure out HOW exactly the games will be more fun than the existing versions.

For starters-- Some of you might be confusing pente with Reversi or Go, two games in which the play origniates from the center and radiates ourtward, until it reaches the edges of the board, almsot filling the board.

Pente DOES NOT DO THIS. Pente does not come anywhere NEAR filling the board, so I don't see any reason for a different sized board!

In reversi and GO, the different sized board makes for a shorter or longer game. THIS IS JUST NOT THE CASE in pente. So again, why the different sized board? I don't see any reason.

No, the only real difference between "small" pente and pente is the lack of the opening restriction in the "small" variants. I believe this to be detrimental to the game of pente. There is little reason for ANYONE to become effective at playing pente WITHOUT the opening restriction! NONE!

Some of you may be thinking that "small" pente will be good for beginners because it is simpler and easier to understand without the restriction.

To this I say:

1) The opening restriction in pente is NOT difficult to understand, and
2) "small" pente, without the restriction, IN NO WAY PREPARES PLAYERS to play real pente WITH the restriction. Players who play "small" pente without the restriction WILL GET THRASHED when they start playing real pente; thus, playing "small" pente will actually retard the growth of a pente player. To further this point: In May, a real time tournament will be held in Oklahoma City. Myself and several other top players will be there, and there will be cash prizes. The games will, of course, be played with the restriction. If someone who showed up to play had become familiar with the "small" pente variant, he would be in bad shape, because he would essentially be accustomed to playing with rules that allow illegal moves. This would be akin to allowing pawns to advance 1 or 2 spaces in chess at ANY point in the game. That is just wrong, and allowing a player to learn the game under that incorrect rule would inhibit that player's growth as a chess player. Playing pente without the restriction is equally wrong.

In summary, I would jsut like to make it crystal clear that I am thrilled with Brain King and what Filip has done in such a short time. I am here at this site to stay, and I am pleased with how receptive Filip is to new ideas.

But, with all due respect, I must say I think the creation of these new pente variants is a serious error. Just because a variant CAN be created doesn't mean it SHOULD be created. We should strive to avoid the reckless creation of variants that add little or nothing to a game while possible or likely detracting from the game.