That happened last night. The site went down. You got me how come it was copied and posted so many times. I've deleted all of them but one.

Hey, that's an interesting idea! I like it. You're right, the different length time limits makes one play some games faster even if you have the same time remaining in them. Your idea would allow an average to be made, and yet it would allow for emergencies if you made the cut to enter the tournament as it wouldn't be the norm.
Yes, keeping track and adding it to one's profile would make for lots of programming. Hmm, oh well. We're paying members, time to hit the suggestion box, eh? Improving our experience will certainly help the bottom line eventually and it will increase word of mouth and sales too. The more options a tournament director has should make for better tournaments. I think after awhile that certain combinations would shake out and the better ways to hold them for various time limits would prevail.

I disagree. True, the object of a game is to win, but the reason to play a game is to have fun. Games have two main parts. The rules that they're played by and the conditions under which they are played. How the moves or plays in a game are made fall under the first part. When they are made falls under both. The time to make a move falls under the latter in most cases. Talking about changing the time to make a move in no way changes the game you're playing, it just changes the playing conditions. In light of this, I don't see what punches to roll with, nor do I see what rules it is that anybody here has said that they are changing. We were talking about different timing systems and limits, not changing game rules. Obviously making radical changes in the time of a game would make the game play so different that would almost seem like another game. Compare Chess on this site to 5 Minute Chess.

That's sounds like a good one. Easy to understand and work with too. My average idea would take awhile to get the feel for. The grace period and the total time are easy to adjust and see. I suppose in a side game the players could agree to put more time on the clock, or take it off too. I hadn't given it much thought since the timing system here is like the one IYT uses. I imagine there's probably lots of ways that have been tried or thought up. I'm all for giving the players in side games, or the tournament director in tournaments more options.

As for your sadness mrloupcity, I think it comes from misinterpretted intentions. Some people see the time limits as a restriction and others see them as an opportunity. Other time limit systems can change the balance and make for more or less problems depending on the individuals involved. It'd be nice if there was a speed rating or moves per day average for each player. Then a player or tournament director could also set a range if they desired, simular to the rating range to allow a particular speed of player enter a tournament. Instead of just fast tournaments, one could also set up a slower paced one too.

I'll stay out in the middle of the room. :)

Anyone else like this idea, or think it'd work?

Instead of a fixed time limit for each move, I'd like an average time limit per move. That way I could play a lot one day, and then skip a few days and not worry about it. The average could be figured by the time after my opponent enters his move until I enter mine. That'd be my average. His would be based on the time after I enter my move until he moves. Seems like it'd work. A 15 move per month game would be the same as a move per day. There could be a buffer time at the start of the game so a timeout wouldn't happen in the first couple of moves, and then it'd be enforced. It might take a wide spread of averages to get the feel of which times I'd like to play, but after awhile I'd know. Both systems could still be offered, and it might even be possible to combine them for a hybred of the two.

Would you mind deleting your last post? I'll delete this one right afterwards. Or perhaps you can just leave the first two sentences with the reference to the bed and the peskiness in it and get rid of the rest? That'll be good for me and I'll delete this post. Why he takes his vacations is his business . It also shows that you're spending time scrutinizing his profile, account, and tournaments. You're not ever going to join one of his, are you? So why care what he does, or ask publicly? The tone of your query doesn't sound like simple curiosity to me and since he has enabled anyone to write to him (or atleast he took me off his enemy list, did he take you off?) you could just write him a personal message and get the facts without me and the rest of us having to watch it get going again.

And that's why I forfeited my games in that tournament.

I would rather not have a time limit, but I've found that a good number of players need it to prod them into moving. When something comes up and you can't make it to the computer, I can understand. But some people have the "wait until the last minute every move" strategy and it's very annoying to play this type of player. It might be within the rules of play, but it's certainly not in the spirit of the game.

Instead of a fixed time limit for each move, I'd like an average time limit per move. That way I could play a lot one day, and then skip a few days and not worry about it. The average could be figured by the time after my opponent enters his move until I enter mine. That'd be my average. His would be based on the time after I enter my move until he moves. Seems like it'd work. A 15 move per month game would be the same as a move per day. There could be a buffer time at the start of the game so a timeout wouldn't happen in the first couple of moves, and then it'd be enforced. It might take a wide spread of averages to get the feel of which times I'd like to play, but after awhile I'd know. Both systems could still be offered, and it might even be possible to combine them for a hybred of the two.

Have the rules been changed regarding Pawns entering more than one tournament, or allowing them to enter new ones if they've advanced past the first round or have been eliminated? I ask because I noticed one of my opponents who is a BrainPawn member is in two running tournaments as I write this. Though he only has eight games going at the moment, I remember Fencer telling me that a BrainPawn member could only be in one tournament at a time.

It's March 28th! I'm going to start the tournament in 15 minutes at 6 PM Pacific Standard Time.
Just incase any are thinking of getting in. Hope to see you there, and good luck.

This page isn't making much sense. I can only conclude that it's being edited. Would any of you send me a message and let me know what the deal is.
Who are Steve and Mad Monkey? Why should I join the tournament to support them? Or the other tournament to support Fencer? Were they kicked of the site? Why?
I went to both sign lists for the tournaments. It's pretty one sided as to how the sentiment is running, but I still don't know what all the hubbub is about. Obviously the powers that be aren't pleased and us riff raff are growing restless. Deleting posts arbitrarily only makes things worse.
Will I jeopardize my membership by joining one tournament, but not the other? Perhaps I made a mistake in rejoining after all. Is there a page on this site that has news of the events that lead up to all this? I know ol' "bumble" gets upset if tournaments aren't the main topic of discussion in the posts to this area. I've only been following this particular page as I have an interest in the two tournaments that I've created, but I can certainly go to other posting boards to get the information if someone will point me in the right direction.

Thank you,
Walter Montego

:) OK, I'll tell you. You're wrong! :)

What is it that you're wrong about?
I didn't find any posts by you on the front page here. Is it in someone else's post where they refer to you? Perhaps you've inadvertantly posted your query here when you meant to post it to another discussion board?

Just over a day left to enter one of the tournaments that are waiting. Dark Chess or Extinction Chess.

The better player usually wins, unlike regular Chess where the better player almost always wins.
It has luck. Even the lowest rated player can win against the top player.
It has bluff. Nothing like throwing a Rook out there when the other player can attack it with his Queen, but doesn't know if its guarded or not.
Since the boards are dark, the players can't analyze their opponent's position for days on end, or get a computer to help, or have kibitzers and friends help them any more than they can help themselves.
If you haven't played the game, it's kind of like Stratego and Battleship combined, with the movement of Chess.

I hadn't even heard of Dark Chess until a couple of years ago. I'd sure like a home version. It'd take two screens and a game console or computer to run it. I imagine such a set up could be used for other games too. Even more screens hooked up for other games. Just use two for Dark Chess. Does anyone know if such a machine is made or can be configured with current store bought stuff?

Does adding a prize help one's tournament have more people in it? The Dark Chess tournament that I'm going to start this weekend doesn't have a prize except for bragging rights. You guys have me wondering if it matters about the prizes or not. I like to play the games, prizes or no prizes. I suppose it wouldn't be too much of an expense to add money to my tournament, but I'm reluctant to do it for some reason. Perhaps I'll do it in the second tournament, if I run a second tournament that is.

As general statement about offering prizes I will say that I think on a game site like this one that games with some chance in them will probably cut down on the players that will use computers to help them play their games. Choosing a game that's not as well known, or hasn't been analyzed a lot is probably a better choice. I would avoid games like regular chess, five in line, Pente, checkers, and games simular to them that have perfect information in the play of them. Even my old Chess Master 5500 could play in a tournament given a few days for each move and hold its own against some of the best players in the world while on this old 486 66 MHz machine I use here. If you're going to choose those kind of games, I wouldn't offer a prize.
2¢

One week left for signing up in the 2004 First Quarter Opens.
March 28th.

Just my luck to join the site as a paying member earlier in the month and then get trapped into this when it was just coming to a head.
Oh well. Hey, so far it's been unanimous for your tournament LindaJ. Perhaps I was too hasty in my assumption of how it goes here. When I was a nonpaying member, none of this affected me as the rules wouldn't let me join more than one tournament regardless of how many games I had going. So I didn't need to be all the interested or involved in the running of tournaments. Now that I'm able to create my own and want to attract players to join them, it's a whole different ballgame.
So of course as luck would have it, the first tournament I join after becoming a paying member is the "-", though it had a different name when I signed up for it. There's a name for drawing the wrong conclusions from too little of evidence. Ah, yes, I jumped to a conclusion. :(
Welper, I think I won't wait any more and will rejoin LinaJ's tournament shortly. Everyone has vouched for it so far, I am beginning to see the tournament that I was hoodwinked into joining was an anomaly and the exception to the rule.
Bernice, I have yet to see anyone take LongJohn's side in this, but then the post is only a few hours old. Which was the reason I was going to wait a few days in the first place. Most of the recent postings to this board have been by people that have had some communication here and amongst yourselves for awhile. All of my postings were in a different area over a year ago. Perhaps we should kick it for a few and see what else is said, eh? Thank you for your support. And hey, damned if you, damned if don't isn't a good place to find one's self in.

I have already dropped out of your tournament LindaJ. I suppose I might rejoin it. Let me see what happens first. I have until March 29th, right?
A day or two, maybe three should see what happens. Stirring things in this manner makes for unpredictable results. Though it did get a few things off my chest, it might come back to haunt me later. I feel I'm right in this and have said my peace. Looks like there's two more of us who agree with me on this. I'm feeling better about it now.

I did as I was told and now I have 14 backgammon losses. You know this really sucks. If it's that much trouble to remove me I think I'm going to quit this site again.
Don't give me that rating stuff. I didn't play the games. I didn't want in the tournament after it was changed without my being told or asked about it or given a chance to drop out of it. And now I have 14 losses without ever playing a game.
If that tournament is for real, then I guess I'm just another sucker who got caught in the fine print and minutiae of the legalese. So I'm saddled with 14 losses. OK, I think I will not ever play backgammon on this site and will drop out of the donation tournament before I'm stuck there too. Keep the five bucks. It was, after all, a donation.
As for naming names in these posts, I don't have problem with it. If someone I think needs my praise, I send it. And if I think someone needs ridicule or critism or both, I can't see why not to mention them. I can certainly send private messages too. I'll do what seems appropriate from my viewpoint.

And let me be clear about this, you are a chump LongJohn. If you're going to have a tournament under one set of rules and I join, fine.
But if you arbitrarily decide to change the rules without giving me a chance to accept it knowing full well that I might want out and can't do anything about it, you're a chump. To make such major changes without telling anyone is poor sportsmanship. Why couldn't you send a notice to all the current signed players that you've had a change or you couldn't afford the prize? Why couldn't you just delete the tournament and start a new one? Why did you start the tournament so fast after making those changes?
From what I read of the earlier posts it appears I should've paid a little more attention to the people that were questioning and critizing you and your motives.

Since I can't hold my breath for that long of a time and taking my ball home and not playing isn't much fun, I'll just go sulk in the corner and hope for the best.
A few questions for the rest. Am I and one other person the only ones that feel this way about this sorry situation? Or are you all OK with how this went down? Or will it just go away because it is just numbers on a screen and they don't mean nothing to nobody anyhow and in a few months it'll all be forgotten though not forgiven?

That said, may I also say that I think his tournament should be abolished and none of the games count. Or poll all the players that are currently in it and see which ones want to remain in a new one and then restart it.

I disagree with ImupChucKing. Just because the rules are the way they are now is no reason not to complain or to advocate changing them. Especially when certain people manipulate them in a way that's only fun for themselves and hurts other participants.
I feel that I was tricked into joining the "-" tournament and have been used for someone else's pleasure without anything in it for me or my permission. Since the rules won't allow Pawns to enter more than one tournament, they're screwed by these kind of actions.
The solutions are simple. Just give participants more say in what's happening and don't force them to stay in a tournament that they've been eliminated from. Any proposed change in the starting date or playing times of a tournament should immediately have a notice sent out to all signed up people that it's happening and they should be given a chance to stay or leave.
And like I said earlier, let the games one is playing count towards his limit, not the fact that some of them are tournament games or not.

I was just getting ready to type this reply and copy and paste a posting by LongJohn when I discovered that all of his recent posts are missing! I hope he's the one that deleted them, because if our moderator had done so I'm really upset. Censoring certain comments is bad enough, but to delete everything just because you have a problem with the person is not right as far as I believe. I've stayed silent in the ongoing chats about the prize tournaments and other discussion, but I did join his along with Linda's tournament. I'm not much of a fan of backgammon, though the game can be a lot of fun from time to time.
Since his posts are missing. (Regardless of why they're missing) I can no longer directly reply to them. I do recall that he said something about having to have 200 or players in them and also him saying that he would extend the starting time until he reached that goal. I can only assunme that he's liar! The tournament has started with just 64 of us. What gives? IS the prize still happening? What happened to your waiting, LongJohn?

In anycase, I would like to be removed from the tournament. I would like this done without penalizing me or anyone else. Since forfeiting all my games is an option, that's what I will do if that's what it takes. This isn't fair to the other sections though, and I'd like to just leave the tournament as if I'd never even signed up for it. Could this be arranged or made to happen? IF so, please make it happen, and thank you. If not, man that's stupid! But hey, I hope they enjoy their easy victory points off me as I will just let the games expire and that'll be the end of it.
I'm still curious about LongJong's missing posts in this section. Are they his doing, or the moderator do it?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I typed that last night and fell asleep at the key board. Since then there's been a few replies to what this tournament of LongJOhn is all about.
Our moderator says he didn't delete the posts. That leaves the creator of them (LongJohn)
Also, a few people have suggested to just forfeit the games involved and that'll take care of the games. I will do this if it's the only option. I really believe that this tournament and the way it's being conducted are bogus. As it has been pointed out, the creator is entitled to do as he pleases with the organizing of the tournament. All the same, had I'd known these changes in the tournament parameters and the ongoing debate about the tournament itself were going to happen, I would not have joined the tournament.
It seems very unfair to me that one is counted as a member of an ongoing tournament when one has been eliminated from the tournament. I wrote to Fencer about this a few months back and he didn't see much problem with it. This tournament should show the problem with it quite clearly. If I still had Pawn membership status and then forfeited or lost all my games, I'd not be ever to enter another tournament until the end off this one. This is a different problem than the one I wrote to Fencer about, and it's worse.
The problem I wrote him about concerned the fact that I had played all of my games and had the tournament won no matter the outcome of the remaining players games and I wasn't allowed to join another tournament because of the one tournament per Pawn rule. So I was stuck until the slowest two players finished their game. A week later they did. That doesn't seem fair to me, but that's how it is. That complaint is nothing compared to what this LongJohn's tournament will do to any nonpaying member. Fencer, I really believe the tournament rules should be changed to take this into consideration. As I suggested to you, limit a member's games to whatever level you like, not how many off them happen to be tournament games. Simular to IYT's handling of it. I'm sure there's other things that might be done too.
Now that I'm a paying member and have created a couple of tournaments myself, I would like anyone to enter if they'd like to. Unfortunately the "One Tournament per Pawn" rule prevents most Pawns from playing even if they have the game spaces available and they've lost a tournament. Winning a tournament or advancing to a second round shouldn't count against your total and could be considered a prize for playing well.
Just a little of my 2¢. Thank you.

Two weeks until they start. Reserve a spot now before they're all gone.
134 left. :)

http://www.brainking.com/game/Help?ht=8

Here's what is says if you go there:
What does "S-B" column at tournament tables mean?
S-B is an abbreviation for Sonneborn-Berger system. It is used to specify an order of players with the same number of points and is based on a theory that points earned with a stronger opponent are more valuable than with a weaker one. The S-B value is a total sum of points of opponents who lost the tournament game with the player and half points of opponents who drawn the tournament game with the player. Only if two or more players have the same number of "normal" and S-B points, they share the same final order.

There's a link to the S-B thingy somewhere on this site. It's not a clear forward explanation, but it does point you in the right direction.
What it does is count up all the points that your opponents scored in the games they played if you beat them yourself. If you lose to an opponent, you'll get no S-B points from him. Let's say you beat him, though. You get an S-B point for each win the he gets. I just won a tournament even though I didn't have the most S-B points. In the tournament we were playing two games each. Andreas beat me in both games, but I won every other game in the tournament. Seven of us were in the tournament. So I was 10 wins and 2 losses. Andreas scored 20 S-B points off of me. He lost three games and finished 9 wins and 3 losses. MenisfromVenis was 9 and 3 also. The S-B thingy gave Andreas second place, as he had the most S-B points between them. I had 46, Andreas 47, and Menis 37. So it seems to me the S-B thingy is flawed too, but I suppose it's better than leaving things tied unless the S-B is also tied, then I suppose you drop back and punt it as far as you can! :)

You can go to any finished tournament and count the points. Take one of the players that came in last or second to last. They're easier to count than the winners. If a player only won one game, he'll have the S-B points of the number of wins of the person that he beat. I did this a couple of times, and now I mostly understand the S-B thingy even though I'm not much of a fan of it. Since it's unfair to not use it and it's unfair to use it, I suppose a decision has to be made about using it or not. I know one way to break a tie is to make the winner between two players have the lead. Had Andreas only lost two games, I would've be OK with him being the tournament champion since he took all of our games. If we had split our games or if I had taken them both and it made him the champion, I would be very displeased about it.

I put the upper limit at 141, so I doubt if it becomes a concern for my tournaments.
After your tournament started, did the machine pare it down to 12 players, or'd it continue on with the extra players?

Steve, I went to one of the tournaments I created. I saw the little box you mentioned about the prize offer. What happens when you check the box?

How do I supply the prize? Can I win it back, or modify the prize depending if I or someone else wins?
I've listed two tournaments. I shall see how it goes before trying more. Is there more to starting them than just creating them? Do I have to control things or players or make rulings during the play?

That doesn't make much sense to me. I just add that it's a prize tournament? Who pays for the prize? You? Me? I don't see any mechanism for it to happen in either case. Please explain. I have sent you an e-mail a few hours ago, so you can reply there if you'd rather. This forum seems like a good place too. Maybe others have my questions too.

I think you should have regularly scheduled tournaments. I just joined and that's what I've decided to do. I'm going to try Quarterly Open Tournaments. Perhaps I'll try Invitationals or Rated tournaments too. If the site does it though, it will be easy to follow them and they should have a good turn out if they're not scheduled to close together. On It's Your Turn, all they have are the site's scheduled tournaments. I think they're kind of deluted in certain ways as they never seem to have an end, nor do they do much to recognize the winners of them, aside from list their handles in a chart if one goes looking for it. Perhaps a prize for certain tournaments would also induce more people for them. I doubt if prizes matter much though and it might bring out the cheaters and dishonest people. A gold cup next to one's handle sound like a good thing.
I would like to add a prize to a tournament sometime. How do I do it?

Open tournaments in both games starting at the end of the month (March 2004). Hope to see you all there.

<Fencer--->
Walter: What "cannot sign up" message does it show for you? ///////
There was no message, just a repeating of the sign up page.

Fencer-->You were right, there was a dead record in the database. Please try to sign up again, it should work now.//////////
You have fixed it! I was able to join Dragon's Professional with out any problems.
Thank you very much for handling it and doing so on such short notice. This tournament says I need 10 slots available. Does that mean 10 or more, or 11 or more? I need to know so that when I finish some games I won't add more with rematches. I currently have 13 going.

I have 13 games going at the moment and am trying to join "Dark and Atomic Challenge (Dark Chess)". It is in the single game format and the note says to have at least 5 slots open. I have 7, but it won't let me sign up. "grenv" had a tournament posting a few weeks ago called "Dark Chess Challenge #2", that I had signed up for. As far as I can tell, he cancelled it and then posted the Dark and Atomic tournaments. The only thing I can think of is that cancelling the tournament left my name on the list somehow even though it is no longer visible on the tournament board. Any help or ideas for me? Thank you.

Perhaps giving the creator of the tournament control over the amount of vacation allowed to be used in one block before the tournament starts. Then you wouldn't have to enter a tournament if you knew the time wasn't long enough for you.
I can't believe that someone is allowed to go on vacation for 45 days in a tournament without getting permission. In a side game, it only effects two people. In a tournament it is very unfair to everyone involved. Plus there's always them poor sports that like to drag things out when they're in a losing position.

Let me apoloigze for some of that in this discussion board. I'm not really sure how it got going, but hey one thing leads to another and the next thing you know ol' Jed's a millionaire. :)
Anyways, it appears that there's a Keryo Pente discussion board now and I've even posted a few things there already. I'm just learning my way around this site. Next time I post to this section, it will have something to do with tournaments.
Walter

Perhaps you're right after all Dmitri. My inexperience at these games is showing and my enthusiasm for them is making me think I know enough to kick in my two cents. That CaoZ guy is a good player. If you'll not play on IYT perhaps I can get him to play a few games. I too am going to drop from IYT, or I'm fairly sure that I am. Since I'm using this site to play Dark Chess and haven't become a paying member yet, I don't have the space for the Keryo Pente that they've recently added.
Please excuse the tone of my recent posts and I'll keep further replies about Keryo Pente to a minimum.
danoschek has an angle on it. I'm not too good with poetic talk and have a blunt way of talking, but he seems to sum it up quite well about the variations in his last post.
I am curious as to why you guys feel the smaller board offers the first player a bigger advantage than a large board. Is there an ideal size? Yeah, yeah, he invented it with 19 X 19 so why mess with it? Well he didn't event it with the move restriction, but obviously it's played that way now.

Dmitri

Why do you insist that it is wrong? Just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it something you don't like or approve of. It is just a different way to play it, is all. Maybe not the way you like, but it's still a valid game and I like it. Besides, it is the only way I've ever played the game. One of Gary's peeves about IYT was that it exposed newcomers (such as myself) to non-standard versions of games without showing or mentioning the fact that they were doing it. I am going to play it on a 19 X 19 board eventually, as I said in the previous post. If I have fun playing it that way or any other game for that matter that's the important thing. Sometimes it seems the fun is lost in all the worrying about rules and advantages and procedures. I am for making a game as good as it can be, but not everyone will want to play such a game. As Gary showed in his last reply about the proposed rules for Pente. The D version is easy to learn and seems quite fair, but let's suppose that the S is the fairest of all. The problem with both of them is the resistance to change even if it's obvious to all that change is needed. All the books will have to be thrown out and people with a vested interest in keeping things status quo will fight to keep it that way. Just from your reaction to the 13 X 13 board proves it to me. And you
are wrong about chess being played exclusively on an 8 X 8 board or with the "Standard" 32 men. This site alone has numerous variations of chess and you ought to check out the chess variants website. They have hundreds of versions and quite a few different boards.
I wonder how Keryo would play on a 9 X 9 board? See, did you think about it or'd you knee jerk react against such a thing?

By the way, if you're so good at Keryo Pente especially on a 13 X 13 board, why haven't you sent me a invitation to play on IYT? Getting tired of winning? I also have an opponent right now that would like to play you. He seems better than me and should give you a good game. His IYT handle is Dangerous Mind. Both of us look forward to playing you. So hold your nose from the stench of the 13 X 13 board and get on over there and show us a thing or two. :)

Gary

That D version sounds trippy and fair. Kind of like the problem of dividing up a cake into parts that everyone getting a piece agrees with. Yup, that would be the way to solve the problem of fairness quite well. The book on the openings would start over fresh and the strategy and fun at the start would also be new. Your G version sounds simular to what I thought up, though my idea wouldn't stop someone from placing them in a row with spaces between them. It'd be cool if all these versions were available at the sites for anyone to click and have their game played under the one they chose.

I went to the Pente.com site. I played one game of Keryo Pente. It was the first time I've ever played it with my opponent playing at the same time. He made a restricted move for his second move so I couldn't tell if he was forced to or not. I asked if he had to move there or chose to and he said he chose to. Next time I'll go first and find out. Cool site. I'll have to spend more time there the next time and check out some of the links too.

A version of Pente that I thought up a few months back would be best played on the 19 X 19 board. I call it Double Pente. To win you have to get two five in a rows on the board at the same time or one six or longer in a row or you have to bag 20 dudes. For Keryo I suppose it could be 30 dudes. I think it'd be a fun game. It would take more moves to play and would certainly lessen the first player's advantage a little.

You don't seem to like using the side of the board while playing Keryo Pente. I think the 13 X 13 makes for a good game because of the very fact that the side is part of the play especially against good players that make a game go more moves than the weaker players do. I do want to play a bunch of games of Keryo Pente on the 19 X 19 board to see how I feel about it. Still no word from the ol' IYT team, eh? :(
Perhaps I'll like it more or not or even the same. I suppose the 100 X 100 was a little extreme. 30 X 30 would probably completely eliminate the side from serious play. Especially if the first move is the center intersection.

Thanks again for your replies. I hope your research on the 3rd and 4th rounds of Keryo Pente tournaments on IYT is going well. Sounds like a lot of numbers to look up and shuffle through.

Hi Gary! Thank you for you replies and research.

A most interesting way to make your point, use my own playing stats! Hmm, I hadn't thought it was that much of a deal, but if them are the numbers you've pretty well convinced me. Especially since you've only used my tournament stats and not the side games where the games would be unequal as I go second in a lot more games in them because of running series with players as we usually play loser goes first in the next game. I'm not much for the bell curve, but I can think of it ratiowise. 89% is about 8 to 1, and 69% is about 2 to 1, so it's easy enough to see that. My Dark Chess record is 19 to 1 on IYT tournament and side games both. If I lose even one game it drops the percent a lot. Winning 10 in a row doesn't raise it at all sometimes. I guess that's because it's at the tip of the curve, eh? Whereas my Pente stats being lower a loss may not even affect a change.

I like the game on a 13 X 13 game, but you might be right about IYT ruining it for me and others. I had never even heard of Keryo Pente until I joined the site a year and a half ago. I've never had a problem with room. I can't even imagine a game filling up all the intersections and then having no more moves. Since we're all just using pretend boards on the internet, I'm surprised they haven't made an infinite board or say 100 X 100 if the players wanted too. That's one thing I really like about this site as compared to IYT, they give the players more options in setting up the games and the tournaments. I agree with you about having a standard board and rules for tournament play. I wonder why IYT doesn't seem to care about us any more? They should certainly listen to people and try to accommodate their desires if it'll improve the experience. Doing so would almost certainly help them make more money. I imagine they first started the 13 X 13 boards as a way to save computer memory and realizing that most players were casual players and wouldn't even notice the difference from the standard rules. If you and others have asked them to set up a Pro Keryo game and they've ignored you (Which I think is worse than being denied) then my liking of their site is dropping further.

I'm trying to think of a rule change for Pente that might help the player moving second to equalize his winning chances. Perhaps a second move restriction? Say, not to let the third move be placed next to the first or second move. You know, atleast one space apart from them (A King's move)? That would cut out 16 different moves for player 1. I wonder if it would make a difference though, or even tip the scales toward the guy moving second? I don't know Pente well enough to think it in my head, nor does anyone I know play the game so I can't test it out. What kind of ideas have the Pente organizations or yourself been thinking up? Is the move restriction for Keryo the same as it is for Pente? I'd like to try this version of it. Does the Pente.org have it? I bet they do. I'll check them out soon.

So you guys had problems with them too! Wiktor256 and I were in the finals of a Dark Chess tournament when they decided to show me the board in one of the games! If you know Dark Chess, the game is spoiled if that happens after the first move. Of course I captured his King two moves later. I wrote to them about the problem. They cancelled the game and put it to the first move again, where it stayed because it kept saying I had won the game. Both of us wrote to them to restart the game. After a few e-mails they finally wrote back saying that they couldn't fix it! I couldn't believe their answer. Why couldn't they just restart it or cancel the round? Oh well. Wiktor256 was so dissatified with their response he said he was going to give up on IYT. I wasn't happy either Of my 5 tournament wins, this one felt cheap just as danoschek has discribed in his posting. Definitely not a way to run a tournament or treat paying costumers. I have only one tournament left on their site and am considering not renewing my membership when the term runs out later this year.
Also I have written them about improving the posting of statistics and tournament winners and thing, but they can't be bothered with mcuh I guess. Just hints that they're working on it or that it won't be happening.

Hmmm.... I imagine that you are quite a good regular Pente player. If you're right about you Pente players not studying Keryo all that much it might explain my success in it. It is true that in two player games without chance in them it can be shown that one player or the other has the advantage or a forced win except in the case where one player can always play to force a draw if the game rules have draws. You even used some of that argument about having the first dude placed in your other reply. And Keryo is spread out a little more as it's played. I think that Keryo might work a little differently because of the capture rule change from Pente that makes Keryo the game that it is. I only think this, I can't show or prove it. As you haven't either.
So why isn't there more study to Keryo? I think the game is better than regular Pente. I don't have the time or inclination to study it or master it and was hoping you enthusiasts would have done so already. Quite snobbish and provincial I think your attitude is towards IYT and other sites toward the game. Aside from the fact they have a --move restriction -19 X 19 board-- both colors --tournament game rules-- on their site just for players such as yourself. Why disparage IYT tournaments of playing everyone twice? Especially after you sing the virtues of it in your recent Pente tournament. I think that is a better method than arbitrarily assigning colors and using some method to weight the games. Yeah, yeah, to speed up the games. Right, and you think this site is faster? They better do something about the Vacation rule during tournaments or there's going to be a lot of problems. I do have issues with IYT. They are almost cavalier in their response to player questions and help. They've also gotten so concerned about making money that they're giving us players short shift in other ways too. Still I do like a lot of the things about their site. This BrianKing site is good too. It certainly gives us players more control and autonomy. They probably got a lot of their ideas from IYT and decided to start their own site and correct the problems they thought IYT has. They have better costumer service too. I wrote them a couple of times and they responded fast.
I don't see anything wrong with a 13 X 13 board for Keryo Pente. What makes you so upset? The only reason Pente is on a 19 X 19 board is it was borrowed from a Go board. Yes, the game plays differently on a smaller board. The sides come into play for one thing. I bet that doesn't happen at all in your Pente games on a 19 X 19 board. I used to play Pegity on a 15 X 15 board and it predates Pente by 20 years or so. (Pegity is Line 5 or Gomoku) I'm curious about the other rule changes that you guys are thinking up. To me Pente is flawed because it requires a rule retriction. I could imagine the uproar in chess playing circles if they proposed move restrictions! I have thought up a couple of variations of Pente that could be played. One of them would probably lesson the advantage of going first so much as to eliminate the need for the move restriction. The problem is it wouldn't be Pente any more. As Keryo isn't Pente either. I believe Keryo was made up in response to the very thing you pointed out.... "First to move"'s big advantage in Pente. From your posting you argue that it wasn't very successful in this regard. It also sounds like the move restriction in Pente hasn't been very successful either. Least ways not very much so in your tournament. To win the tournament you must win when going second. I imagine anytime someone of your playing ability wins going second in the finals of a tournament everyone else analyzes the game to find out what happened.

I just scrolled down to find your previous posting. It appears I've made a couple of mistakes about what I thought I read in the two newest postings. You are for two game matches in tournaments. You like the Sonne thingy for breaking ties in two game match tournaments also. As I'm not familiar with it, nor having seen it in use, I'll reserve my judgment on it until it comes up involving me. It might even be something I might want to use in the Building tournaments for breaking ties. Currently we use games won as the determining factor except for the championship. For that a tie breaking game is used. Since there isn't sides in Building (Though there is argument about who's advantage it is (Dealer versus Non-dealer) it is not a factor as both players take turns during a game being the dealer) Games won is determined by the final scores ratio win to loss. Winning the game still counts first.

Thank you for your replies and I hope some others weigh in on this. Pente and its variants are good games. Perhaps I should check out the Pente.org site, eh?

12-4 and you say you find it difficult to win? Hmm, I'm confused. If you're a member of It's Your Turn Dmitri King, I'll play you some games. You can go first in them if you'd like and we'll put your theory to test. :) If you win them all, I'll see your point, but even if I take a few of them I'll ask you some questions about how it goes while we play.

Is that how it works? The person offering the prize has to put up the prize fund? Hmm, I suppose that's fair. It'd certainly make the tournament maker want to win his own tournament!
When I finally do become a paying member on this site I'll probably make a couple of tournaments with a prize. Hopefully I'll win, but if not it should make for some good players and games just trying to win the prize.

How's 'bout one of you BrainRooks getting one going. I might win and then I could postpone having to pay to become a paying member. :) Even if I don't win, I'm sure it would attract good players and the games would be good games and lots of fun either way. I'll help spread the word if you get one going and we'll see if we can get lots of people involved.

Hi Gary. I'm curious about the advantage or disadvantage of going first in Keryo Pente. This game seems a lot more fair than regular Pente. I think it might have something to do with the way the dudes are captured. As you've said you're a top Pente player, I am wondering how the wins and losses break down amongst the real good players depending on who starts first in Keryo Pente.
I agree with the playing of two games, one of each color being a better method than arbitrarily asigning sides. What is the "Sonneborn-Berger method"? Why break ties when you can just play a tie breaker game or two more? Or have both players advance as they do on It's Your Turn?