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