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

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

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

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

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

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