s3v3n: Great! I hope we get an update about what happened soon.

Brf: Seems to me that a site like that should run itself without much day-to-day maintenance once everything is set up. I realize that it might not work out that way, though. I wonder what was involved in keeping it going.

I would think about buying it if I could get all the code and everything if I thought I could make a little $$$ from the effort, but I would rather invest in a site that includes more games than just Pente.

Pente.org is shut down!!!

Wow. I just finished a 255 game match! Well, sort of. It looks like you can't play a match that's longer than 255 games. Our match just disappeared from the main page without any warning or message or anything after game #255. Open Pente (Thad vs. JackS)

Brf: Sorry, my Pente rating is 'only' 2104! ;-)

Brf: Have you ever tried Connect6? It doesn't suffer from the Player 1 advantage that Pente does. But some Pente fans won't like it because there's no capturing. I like it better than Pente.

tarcellius: Can I take your class? I'd LOVE to learn that stuff!! ;-)

Brf: I would if I could! I'm trying to earn a free bishop membership via Fencer's Bux.to scam... I mean offer. We'll see if I get there in time.

Fencer, every section's winner in this tournament is determined:
Brf's St. Patrick's Day Pente Tournament
Can you please start the next round. It is very frustrating to pawns (and everyone else too) to be stuck in a tournament that could be progressing, but is not.

There are only three days left to sign up for the team Pente tournament. I would like to see a few more teams join in. If you're an individual looking for a team, or a captain looking for one or two more players, post here. Good luck to all.

redfrog: Bring it, then let us worry about that.

pentejr: What I meant was that any game like this suffers the fate of having it's outcome unchangable under optimal play. Chess is the same way, except that the game is believed to always be a draw if both sides always make the best move.

Richard III: It's only a problem at the highest levels. Every strategy game (that doesn't employ and dice, concealed pieces, etc.) suffers the same fate.

rednaz23: Well, DSG is certainly no worse than it used to be! I don't go there much because I live in a different time zone than most players there. I think there was a slight revival in Pente (and most board games) when the internet became a household item. Perhaps interest in board games has waned again. Just my 2 cents.

redfrog: I meant team tourney, but if Plente o' Pente wants a bunch of losses, I say bring it. ;-)

redfrog: Next time it will be!!

Did everyone read the server news dated April 12th (or 13th depending on where you are)? It mentions that Black should go first in Pente. I'm not sure this is correct. Can anyone site an official source?

ClayNashvilleTn: That book, and the one or two others that have been written are all out of print. :-(

I heard a rumor that Fencer will be combining some of the boards, particularly game variants. I don't want to start a huge discussion here, but I would like to know how players feel about the various pente boards being combined. There are corrently four: Pente, Keryo Pente, Small Pente, & Small Keryo Pente. I realize that there are variations in the tactics, strategies, & player preferences in all of them, but the discussion here has been extremely light in the past few months, so I don't think there would be a problem with all four being combined into one.

In regular versions (Pente, Open Pente, & Small Pente) capturing 10 (or more) stones is a win. In Keryo Pente (& Small Keryo & Open Keryo) it takes 15 captured stones to win.

Satan's Annual Hellish Halloween PENTE Tournament

I'm in.

I think I have a better chance of winning the Powerball Lotto than I do of winning that tournament. ;-)

Thad

Sam,

Actually, IYT has markers six lines out on their 19 x 19 boards and only five lines from center on their 13 x 13 boards. Neither of these correspond to P1's move #2 restriction. Pente.net's markers are six and three lines from center on their boards and you can play with or without the restriction on either size board. BrainKing has no markers at all. I believe the way pente.net has their markers on the 19 x 19 board is the way they were originally done by inventor of Pente and by the various game board manufacturers through the years, but I'm not certain of that. Only DSG has the markers 3 lines out.

So now we've tripped over something interesting. Why are the markers traditionally placed where they are (and where exactly do they belong)? Anyone?

Thad

Sam, I do not have a bigger problem. I like to play without the opening move restriction (not necessarily against everyone or all the time). Playing this way has been discussed to death here and at other places and I am not going to get into that again. There is no reason I can't play this way. The only version of Pente here without the opening restriction is played on a board without a center marker (and K10 is not the center square either). It would be better if there were one, (along with the other markers on all the boards). Do you disagree with that?

Thad

Well, see now, I did it again, it's not Small Pente, but Open Pente, which needs a center marker. And the reason that I posted here is that there is no Open Pente DB. ;-)

Thad

Ok, you are right, but it would still be nice to have the outer markers as well. The center spot is highlited in Pente at the start of the game. My real problem is in Small Pente, where it is not. I get confused by the different game variation names on different sites. I will make a post on that DB. ;-)

Thad

Suggestion for improvement:

Traditionally, there is a dot at the center of the pente board. A dot is also placed at a few other places on the board. Any way we could get those here? I like to place my first stone in the center and that would be much easier with a mark. ;-)

Thad

Oops, is that a dirty word?

Ok, I was mainly interested in other people's opinions. That's why I made my previous post. My main concern is that the button could be abused in a tournament to allow players to artificially manipulate the standings and advnace when one of them shouldn't. I've seen this happen at IYT. But since we have the S-B tiebreak points, I'm assuming that couldn't happen here and that, even if it did, that Fencer or the tournament creator would fix the situation. :-)

Thanks,
Thad

PS: I put duct tape over mine. ;-)

Does anyone out there share my feelings that there should not be an 'Offer Draw' button on any Pente game pages, since a draw is (virtually) impossible in Pente?

Fencer, would it be difficult to implement?

Of course a *tie* in a two-game match is quite possible (and often likely), but that's a different story. ;-)

Thad

Whichever...

P1 gets 2 points on a close game and P2 gets 1.

Ok. So you want to use this point system for use in scoring during tournaments. Not for anything else, correct? That might work. Perhaps a 'Offer 2-point loss' button (like an 'Offer Draw' button in chess) could be added to this site. That would help too.

But don't certain lines tend to lead to wins without the chance of P2 getting his 1 point, while others do not? For example, the wedge often ends 5-4 on pairs (at least when I play ;-) ), while the Boston opening usually does not, so even an expert P2 might not be able to get 1 point depending on which opening his opponent chooses. Is that fair? I'm not sure.

Thad

nosovs,

I like the idea of improving Pente, but I don't think any point system will work. How do you handle the situation when a player resigns? Or when a player 'knows' it's over and doesn't make all the available extensions or captures?

I think the only way to improve the rankings for Pente is to calculate two separate rankings, one for win/losses as player 1 and one for wins/losses as player 2. Of course, these scores could be combined in some way (added or averaged or whatever) to find one overall score, but I think this is the only way to create a score that acurately reflects a player's true ability.

Thad

<> By the way, who is Beuller?

Ferris Bueller
http://imdb.com/Title?0091042

I don't seems to be able to convince you with this example. Since I have chosen not to go back to the move restriction discussion for more examples, I am left without 'ammo', so I will concede the point to you. I will even go so far as to no longer claim anything about the logic of Gary's statements. Hope that helps.

Thad

Dmitri,

In response to your post beginning "Thad, you ahve GOT to be joking. ":

I think you're still missing my point. Walter asked why I chose not to debate Gary and I gave him several reasons. One of the reasons is because Gary uses illogical statements like saying that draws should be removed BECAUSE they're rare. That statement is illogical. Now perhaps a different analogy would have been better, but the eclipse thing was what I thought of at the time. Maybe I should have said something like, having three queens of one color in chess rarely occurs so we should get rid of that. Or since gammons and backgammons in the game backgammon are rare, we should get rid of them too.

Do you see what I mean? The fact that these things are rare is no reason to remove them from their respective games. What Gary said contradicts that. What Gary said is illogical.

Now, If you'd like, I could give you (and Walter) more examples of illogical things Gary has said, but the best examples occurred during the move restriction discussion and I REALLY don't want to open that up again.

I hope I have made myself clear and that we can put this particular issue to rest. If not, I will concede the point and only list the other reasons as to why I chose not to debate Gary.

Thad

Dmitri,

About my mentioning lunar eclipses,

Gary said:
'Draws should not occur. Yes they would be quite rare in Poof Pente, but the fact that they WOULD be rare is a good reason to not have them at all.'

I wanted to show how that was an example of Gary making very illogical statements. Claiming that we should do away with something (in this case draws in poof-pente) simply because the occur infrequently, just doesn't make sense.

The context of that was in reply to Walter. I was explaining why I didn't want to engage Gary in a debate. One of my reasons is because Gary makes a lot of illogical statements. I sited that as an example. Once again, here is what he said:
"...the fact that they WOULD be rare is a good reason to not have them at all."

Eliminating something just because it is rare is a dumb idea. To illustrate that point, I selected another example of something that is rare (lunar eclipses) and indicated that, according to Gary's logic, we should rid ourselves of them. Obviously, ridding ourselves of lunar eclipses is a ridiculous idea. But it demonstrates just how illogical Gary's statements often are.

Thad

Dmitri,

About my questioning if WPF was 'just a bunch of guys'.

I meant no disrespect to you or anyone else involved with that organization other than Gary. At the time, He was the only person who I knew had anything to do with it. I apologize to you if you felt insulted by my comments there. That was never my intention. Gary has made mention time and time again about the WPF and it's goals and intentions. I felt that it was time for Gary to - I'm not quite sure how to phrase this - put up or shut up about WPF. I wanted Gary to get all fired up about showing me how WPF wasn't 'just a bunch of guys'. I wanted to paint him into a corner and FORCE him to show us that WPF really was something, or back down and admit it wasn't really anything at all.

To my surprise, he did neither. Instead He made a post with the subject, "Thad, got ya, hook, line, & sinker! :-)" in which he claimed I fell right into his trap and that he "set [me] up BIG for that one".

I still don't know what it is he 'set me up for'. But the bigger question is why would he do something like that?

Hats off to Mark for stepping up and answering my questions about WPF. Thanks again, & sorry, Mark, if you were offended by what I said or how I said it.

Why couldn't Gary have done that?

Thad

Dmitri,

I think I will try to reply to your posts one at a time rather than in one big post. Hopefully, that will be a little clearer for all.

With respect to my sports references,
I was NOT trying to use analogies to sports as a way to justify draws in pente. I was only trying to make the point, in response to what you wrote, that ties, at times, are a good thing. You had said, "Why are so many people against the idea that some people are going to win and some people are going to lose? I don't asee how breaking a tie in any way cheapens anything.", and I wanted to point out that there is no need to break EVERY tie, not EVERY game needs to have a winner and a loser. THAT was my point. I was NOT trying to draw or imply any conclusions about poof-pente.

Also, please don't accuse me of straying off topic by using sports analogies. When I posted them, I was replying to YOUR comments of:

"I suppose having the world series, NBA finals, or Super Bowl be declared a tie wuold be acceptable to you?"

And

"remember the all star game lkast year in baseball?"

Thad

Gary,

Why do you continue to paint pente.net in such a negative light? You claim to want to promote the game at all levels, but it seems to me that you only want to promote it for the elite players. You want your tournaments here to attract the elite players and perhaps someday be world championship tournaments. You promote DSG where many top players play. You promote the World Pente Federation, which appears to be compromised of only top players.

If you really wanted to promote the game at all levels, you'd know that you need sites of all sizes and for all skill levels. Pente.net is not perfect, but what site is? So what if there are very few (if any) top players who play there. It's still a good place to play pente, especially for casual players, and it seems to me that if you wanted to promote pente (and not just pente for the best players), you'd have better things to say about their site.

Thad

<Gary,

In response to your 'example':

In your example, you sited a reply I made to something Dmitri posted. This is the entire relevant part of Dmitri's post from which I made me reply, so you can't say I took his words out of context. Everything above and below that was on a different topic. You can CLEARLY see here that he was talking about sporting events and NOT talking about poof-pente AT ALL:

Dmitri Said:
>>you said "This whole culture of insisting on having a winner cheapens a lot of sporting contests. "

I disagree. I suppose having the world series, NBA finals, or Super Bowl be declared a tie wuold be acceptable to you?

Why are so many people against the idea that some people are going to win and some people are going to lose? I don't asee how breaking a tie in any way cheapens anything.

remember the all star game lkast year in baseball? It was declared a tiw and there was uproar, the fans felt cheated.

In my reply, I talked about a soccer game and the NHL. I NEVER MENTIONED OR IMPLIED ANYTHING ABOUT POOF-PENTE. In fact, the only time I even mentioned poof-pente in that entire (very long) post was in a quote from you. The point I was making there had nothing to do with poof-pente. I was showing an example of your poor logic.

Now, you can CLEARLY see that I was not trying to make any connection to poof-pente as you say I did in your example.

Once again, it is you who needs to get his facts straight.

Thad

Mark,

Thanks for the info. That's all good to hear.

Thad

Gary,

Get your facts straight! I did not, have not, and will not fall into any trap you set for me here on this discussion board.

You said:
"Thad -
"Well, we haven't had a good disagreement or debate for a while, so I have to start one. :-) "

To which I replied:
"About draws...sorry Gary, I'm not going there."

Meaning that I wasn't going to discuss the matter with you. I will however, discuss it with Dmitri, Walter, or anyone else, just not with you.

To which Walter said:
"Thad, why not go there? Gary even invited you to."

And I told Walter the exact reasons why. Anyone can read them in my earlier post. Let's add another - Gary makes up his own 'facts'.

You said:
"You made these 2 EXTREME comparisons that affect MANY people and take MUCH time to playing just a FEW more moves (usually 1 to 5 moves) to break draws in Poof Pente that only affect 2 people "

In fact, I did no such thing. Dmitri questioned why so many people against the idea that some people are going to win and some people are going to lose? He said he didn't see how breaking a tie in any way cheapens anything.

Then I mentioned two situations, a soccer game, and the NHL. NEVER did I compare either to poof-pente.

Then you said:
"And then comparing a mom & pop turn-based site to a once in 5 years real-time pente championship as well as lunar ecplises to infrequent draws in Poof Pente."

While I did, in fact mention those things, again, I NEVER compared them to pente.

Then you said:
"You might want to consider doing a little research into what the World Pente Federation is all about, what it will encompass, and how it will promote the game before you start calling it a 'bunch of guys'."

Once again, I did not do what you claim I did. Reread my post. I NEVER SAID it was a just bunch of guys. I questioned if that was the case, but I also questioned if it was a bonified organization.

By the way, I entered 'World Pente Federation' into Google, AltaVista, Yahoo!, & Lycos. Know how many references to the World Pente Federation they came up with? ZERO!!

So you see, you did not get me 'hook, line, and sinker'. All you did was get egg all over your face for quoting me incorrectly, not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES!

Debate that!

I still don't think draws by agreement should be allowed in tournament play in Pente, since they don't occur in the game. ;-)

Dmitri,

Looks like I misquoted you. Sorry. I could have sworn you said something along those lines, but I can't find it now. Possibly I was looking at what someone else wrote and thought it was from you. I was replying to several earlier posts at once, guess I got a little confused.

Thad

<Dmitri & Walter,

The problem with the All-Star game wasn't that it ended in a tie. The problem is that the idiot we have for a baseball commissioner changed the rules in the middle of the game!!

You can't do that!!!

I think they should make the All Star game, and the All-Star game only, end after 11 innings if it's a tie. That way, managers can plan appropriately to use all their players without significant risk of injury or overuse, etc. Yes, it would be a tie, but it's an exhibition game anyway. The point is to see some top quality play by some top quality players, not who wins or loses that game. BUT, we'd need to know the game was going to be played that way from the start.

I agree with Walter that 'This whole culture of insisting on having a winner cheapens a lot of sporting contests.' College football's tiebreaker, to use Gary's words, is 'detrimental to the long term development of the game'. The scores & player's statistics are artificially inflated and as Walter said, games are 'played with some other version of football after regulation time to determine a winner'.

In response to Dmitri who said:
>>Why are so many people against the idea that some people are going to win and some people are going to lose? I don't asee how breaking a tie in any way cheapens anything.

I read about a game once played by a bunch of kids in a youth soccer league. They played the regulation time to a tie. They played two sudden death overtimes to a tie. They had not one, not two, but three shootouts. Results every time...tie. Finally, whoever was in charge decided to flip a coin to decide the winner. They flipped it, but it landed in the grass on an angle and couldn't be called as a heads or tails...twice! Finally, they declared the game a tie. Now how do you those kids who would have been on the losing team would have felt if they had lost after regulation, two overtimes, three shootouts and a coin toss only to lose after that??? The game was a freakin' tie!! Let it be one! Sometimes a game is a tie and it's just something we have to deal with.

I think hockey has got it right, although they have tweaked their rules in the past few years and are starting to mess up a good thing. They play a short overtime period during the regular season. If that ends in a tie, so does the game. In the playoffs, they play full length periods until someone scores. I watched a five overtime period game once. It was phenomenal. I had to become a hockey fan before I appreciated the beauty of playoff hockey and long, long games, but it's a great system. But, if they played all the regular season games out this way, it wouldn't work, because whoever played either team next would get an exhausted opponent and have an unfair advantage. So the ties are needed.

I agree with Dmitri that draws in pente at IYT should not be permitted. Since you can't play to a draw, you shouldn't be able to agree to one. I haven't looked to see if we can do that here. Can we? I can see an instance where you might want to agree to a draw so that a friend can win a tournament section or tie for top honors or something when he otherwise wouldn't. While it's nice to do for a buddy, it hurts the other player who really deserved the top spot and shouldn't be permitted.

Walter,
I didn't choose to engage Gary for three reasons:
From what he said, it seemed like he just wanted to get into it with me for the sake of having an argument/debate/call it what you want and I don't play that game. I have better things to do than argue just for the sake of arguing. Perhaps that's not what he intended, but that's how I interpreted what he said.

2. Gary, applies reasoning to his points in his arguments selectively, NOT in a consistent, logical manner. For example, in one post, he wrote that no respectable pente site allows the unrestricted opening moves. In the same sentence, he promoted the upcoming OKC tournament and that the opening restriction would be used there and that the mighty World Pente Federation would be having it's first meeting there. I replied by posting about pente.net, which allows several variants of pente. Gary's reply was that pente.net doesn't count because it's a mom & pop website.

What a crock!! If pente.net is mom & pop, then what does that say about the OKC tournament and the site associated with it, playpente.com? The tournament is limited to twenty-five people max!! Measure it by daily visits, bandwidth, whatever you want. I'll bet pente.net's use FAR exceeds playpente.com's, yet the site he mentioned counts and the one I mentioned didn't!

In another post he said that any game currently being played on IYT and here was valid. Further, challenged everyone to find a game that met a list of criteria, claiming that any game which did, was invalid. I told him that his premise (and challenge) ITSELF was invalid. Let's say we did find a game played here which fit his list of criteria, what would that prove? According to his premise, it would prove that the game was invalid, but he had already said that all games played here are valid. A game can't be both valid and invalid!! Therefore, HIS PREMISE WAS INVALID. I tried to tell him that several times, but he didn't get it.

3) Gary uses a lot of bad logic, but buries it in long posts so most people don't notice. Here's an example:
Gary said, 'Draws should not occur. Yes they would be quite rare in Poof Pente, but the fact that they WOULD be rare is a good reason to not have them at all.'

So if draws are rare, we should get rid of them altogether? Where's the logic in that? I'll tell you where, nowhere. Why should we get rid of something just because it's rarely occurs? Lunar eclipses are rare (there's one this week, it's the first in three years), I guess we should move the Earth so they don't occur anymore, 'cause Gary says, 'the fact that they [are] rare is a good reason to not have them at all.'

Obviously moving the Earth to avoid eclipses is ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than Gary's statement, and that's my point here.

Now, about this World Pente Federation, is it really an organized entity? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? Does it have by-laws or certification of any kind? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? Do they have any connection to the legal rights holder of 'Pente'? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? And finally, will there actually be significant representation by anyone from any part of the world outside North America? Or just a bunch of (American) guys who decided to form a little group?

A final note: I showed my wife the thread about draws and my & Gary's comments and how I declined to get into it with him. She responded that Gary wouldn't like that. I said why? She said that if Gary doesn't want draws, then he'll be mad at you for leaving the debate where it is. Again, I said why? She said, 'Because it's a draw!' LMAO!!! ROTFMLAO!!!!!

Thad

About draws...sorry Gary, I'm not going there.

What about making a 10-10 outcome be a win for P2, since (I presume) P1 has the first move advantage. I've seen this done for variants of other games.

Thad

Shouldn't be too hard to program, since all the potential caps are either made by the newest stone, or involve that stone. Correct?

Why not continue the poof-pente game until someone scores a pente, ignoring the tally of cap'd stones. This would eliminate the draw possibility (although a circular board might be possible now).

Thad

I think draws are ok. Society seems so hooked on having a winner. Draws (here & there) are just fine. ;-)

Dmitri, interesting point that one of the things you like about Pente is the lack of draws. I never thought of that.

I think in waterdancer's variant (are we calling it poof-pente), 10-10 should be a draw.

The idea sounds interesting. I'd be interested in trying a few games. If anyone gets a cyberboard set up. please let me know.

Thad