Thad,

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

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

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.

Is this a joke, Gary? Should we laugh now or cry later? Are you really interested in the opinions of newcomers? If you are, then we are you so blatantly trying to jade their views before they even find out anything!!? Another example of you and Dmitri on a mad drive to have it your way!!

Well, NOT exactly!!

Dmitri writes: "The main point of contention seems to be that some (gary, myself, Harley, and others) believe that a variant has to be JUSTIFIED in order to exist on a gaming site. The opposing viewpoint, presented by Walter, Satan, Pioneer54, Ellieoop, and others is that a variant need not be justified beyond the generic "I want the variant so therefore it should be so."

Well sure, when you put it like that it sounds convincing, but this is a gross oversimplification, not to mention a terrible distortion. The game "Keryo13" sans restrictions is indeed a game, and is indeed a pente variant. You have chosen to refuse to recognize it as a variant, but you have not shown that it should not be here, other than offerings of a whimsical nature. (In fact, it WAS here for a short time, and as we all know it has been at IYT for several years, and will continue to be there.)

For example, I asked that you produce the analysis that assumes player 1 cannot be beaten in unrestricted keryo13 (assuming best play). Your response was really lame; you said no proof was needed, it stands on its own merit. Sorry, I'm not buying that, as it is tantamount to saying you can't prove it. You'll have to do better. Even if you could show what you purport to believe, I would not say that is cause to crusade for denying others the game (or variant) of their choice.

Dmitri writes: "I feel that Gary and I have given more than enough reasons for why this particular variant just should not exist on this gaming site (or any other for that matter)."

I really do not think you have, other than you just don't happen to like the idea. The notion that this game you so fervently wish to outlaw is somehow inhibiting masters from being produced (as Gary explicitly claimed) is rather absurd. You said yourself that the restriction is a "minor rule change". It is. Well, OK, if a player can't shift from the 13 board to the 19 board and quickly learn this MINOR RULE CHANGE, then how is that player ever going to master pente, tiddly-winks, or anything else??

Dmitri writes: "So, for pente or any game, the decision on whether to introduce a variant is a judgement call. SOME criteria MUST be used! If it were simply a matter of saying "well, this one was asked for so I'll do it" then every variant would be created, no matter how pointless it is, and we would be overrun with bad variants."

You've rambled on here, without making much of a point. No one is asking for endless amounts of variants. We are only asking for ONE variant, unrestricted Keryo13; more directly, we are asking that this game be reinstated. It isn't as though we came off the wall with some outlandish idea. THE GAME WAS HERE, until it got modified. Fencer should now rescind his arbitrary and capricious decision and reinstate the game.

Dmitri writes: "WHY was Gary ridculed and insulted for presenting a set of criteria to be used to evaluating whether a variant should be created?"

I am not saying that Gary was ridiculed nor should he have been, but any ridicule he brought upon himself, and he is rapidly losing credibility with his latest so-called 'challenge', which is farcical, and bordering on insane. He is in effect saying, "If you cannot do or demonstrate the nearly impossible, you must admit you are incorrect." But it doesn't matter, since his supposition was totally irrelevant.

You should reread your posts sometimes, Dmitri. You have really gotten brash and condescending! Using a phrase like "those 5 noisemakers", is a strong indication that you are a crazed zealot without regard to diverse opinions! In any case, I guess we have come somewhat farther than Gary's former assertion that there would be just a few "isolated complaints", and there may well be other unhappy folks we have yet to hear from.

If there is any shame, you've more than earned it on your own. You and Gary are top-notch players anyway, and you ordinarily wouldn't be even playing on the 13 boards, so why not just forget what is going on there? If you are really trying to promote pente, you would have better luck going door-to-door than your current methods. I hope you'll pardon this expression, but I think about all you have really managed to do it piss people off!

Lately, I have tried to bide my time and patiently read this board without comment, because I feel my position was made clear some time ago, and so further expounding would be unnecessary. And I will say that harsh commentary has not been limited to your posts; some of the things said by those I agree with in principle have been below board too, but you then seem to assume it is your duty to simply outshout them, whereby you must think that you have convinced everybody that you and Gary alone are absolutely correct and all else must be mistaken.

Is a supposed (or even proven) winning percentage really meaningful if enough players want or demand a particular game type? I've played over 500 games of keryo13 on IYT, winning better than 80% of them, including WINS and LOSSES FROM BOTH SIDES, and I don't recall too many games from either side that were easy to win. (Does this make me an expert? Judge for yourself, although I can assure you that Fencer did not consult me before making his decision to impose the 13 restriction.) Of course, some of the competition was subpar, but that is the whole point. No player will play perfectly all the time, and many players will not play perfectly ANY of the time.

Try this: Suppose a group of users here got together and (without consulting you and maybe even deliberately excluding you) convinced Fencer to eliminate the restriction on the 19 boards. My guess is you would be pretty shocked! And rightly so! Why then, do you so utterly fail to appreciate and comprehend that there are many of us who simply believe that the restriction just is not necessary on the 13 board?

I'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..........

Gary,

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

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?

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

Hi Walter,

Your messages are interesting and well constructed, and I agree with most of what you've written. However, we are all reasonable individuals here who can discuss and even disagree civilly, so let us try to limit the invective to a minimum, shall we? Nobody made Dmitri the 'Keeper' of the game rules or anything of that sort.

I've been conversing with Dmitri for better than a couple of years, and always have found him a brilliant thinker. The fact that he holds a rigid view of pente rules does not modify that attitude. We disagree with his assertion that the player 1 rule restriction should apply to the keryo13 board, and that is why we are conducting the trial games. But, Dmitri is welcome to advance his philosophies just as much as we are to argue contrarily. His typing is poor due to a wrist ailment, and his style may seem brash to those who don't know him that well, but when he makes a point he is simply doing that, and nothing more; I do not for one moment believe he intends to injure anyone's emotions.... You suggested that Dmitri has chimed down when the stronger players offered their views. Well, here is a hint: Dmitri IS one of the stronger players! He isn't to be taken lightly in any version, and we could all learn a great deal from him.

You wrote that games evolve, and that's very true indeed. I applaud your willingness to try out alternate size boards, although offhand I think the 9 and 10 boards are probably too small to produce much in the way of viable tactics. But please feel free to experiment with these ideas, and if they are found to be of interest then write about it here.

I don't favor allowing a tournament maker to choose the board size. It would be a lot of programming on the site's part for little return, and it could get out of control in a real hurry. The fact is though, you don't need any on-line program to test these ideas. You can play an opponent via private message on the site, or by e-mail. It wouldn't be as convenient, of course; you'd have to set up your own boards and record the moves, but (as you seem to like cliches) 'where there's a will, there's a way'. Perhaps you might also get some friends to try these versions over the board with you.

Pioneer54

Sounds interesting.... I am not really keen on the purple background, but willing to give it a try, and hopefully will only have to view it when entering moves!

I am also trying to limit my involvement at IYT, but have just three slots here, so perhaps we can begin a pair of games now and a pair later. The results will be worth some consideration, although even these games combined with those against Walter and D.Mind comprise a very small sample. I appreciate that you are trying to show that a very strong player 1 (unrestricted) cannot lose; however, most players entering the field will be of differing strengths and considerably less caliber.

There is certainly a need for the restriction on the 19 boards, but I am not altogether comfortable with its application to the smaller keryo board. Anyhow, we shall embark upon these trial games and see what occurs. I shall issue a one-game challenge each to you and to Dmitri on 7-day limit, with a duplicate set pending (subject to approval from both of you).

There has been quite a bit of discussion about which versions to offer, and what should be included in them. This is good, at least it is covering the intended topic!

Some of the better players have contended that the '13' variants should not be offered, or if they are it should be with the movement restriction of the first player's second turn. I disagree. Pente13 and Keryo13 (unrestricted) are very playable and enjoyable game concepts, even if they are not quite what the original inventor intended or lack the professional draw of the 19 board versions.

It has also been stated (by Dmitri, I believe) that playing the 13 versions without the move restrictions spoils players who might later become serious about the 19 versions. I disagree here also. Learning the professional movement restriction is not hard at all, and any player should find this an easy adaptation. The hard part is learning to play well!

I learned to play Pente about 20 years ago or so, (on the 19x19 board, of course). 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.

So, I gave away my board and set and forgot all about Pente until I started playing Keryo at IYT, as it seemed to be an improvement. (However, I wondered why they used a smaller board.)

I find the keryo13 version fascinating, and while the first player has some advantage, I do not believe it is insurmountable or anywhere near as great as in all the other Pente versions. I do not know what my won-lost stats are as to colors; I've lost from both sides, but only two players at IYT have won more Keryo titles than I have, so these stipulations should carry some weight. (In contrast, I also played some pente13, and it is enjoyable, but I believe the first player has a much more marked advantage.)

Another appealing aspect of keryo13 is the possibility of edge play, which I find makes many games quite interesting because it can cause fortunes to reverse quickly!

I have also tried Keryo(19) here, and it is an even better version, although I don't believe this would in any way undermine the charm of Keryo13.

A while back, somebody made the suggestion that a pente game (or series of versions thereof) could be played with the goal of making TWO separate fives-in-a-row. I think this would be an interesting idea to explore.

Some special rules would need to be implemented. Once a five line is established, those stones would be invulnerable, but only one of them could be used for the intersection of the second five line. It would be protracted compared to the regular versions, but would add the tactical aspect of allowing your opponent to get a five while you build or attack elsewhere.

It could be called "double pente" or something of that sort... While on the subject of nomenklature, "Small Pente" and "Small Keryo Pente" seem rather lengthy. How about instead "Pente13" and "Keryo13"?

I think a light shade of gray (similar to the sidebar) or tan (very light brown) would be good; something that isn't so striking to the eyesight.