Congratulations to Rose, Clive and Ellieoop who are the joint winners of my first 6x6 reversi Tourney.

Sign up now for my new Reversi Challenge.

You were right, there was a dead record in the database. Please try to sign up again, it should work now.

Walter: What "cannot sign up" message does it show for you?

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.

Kevin - Interesting question, and since I like to test things - I just tried to make a tournament, and selected Line4 game at the top and bottom - and it only created 1 game.

So there is your answer! :-)

Yep, it does look like it works. I didn't try it, but i wonder what would happen if you selected say Line4 as the game for the tournament, and also checked the Line4 box at the bottom. Would it make 2? :-)

But he joined another fellowship and posted to the board within the last few days. Sorry to be jumping on the band wagon, but it really messed things up for everyone.

Kevin: Thanks for testing this new feature, looks like it works :-)

I have created my first Line4 and Variants tournament. 5 days per move, open to everyone. Sign ups will be until April 7th. Good luck everyone :-)

I have created some new tournaments for Three Checks, Extinction and Dark Chess. Please check them out and join up if you like. Also, message me with any ideas and problems you find, etc. Thanx.

If you can think of a way, Dmitri, I'd like to hear it! It IS unfair to everyone, I think they could have let the tournament creator know if there was an emergency requiring that many days off.
Maybe they were just messing with the calendar and not realised they'd set so many!!! LOL!
I have to say in the guys defence though, he WAS on a hell of a lot to begin with, and he's normally very nice and polite, I wouldn't have expected this from him. I'm sure there is good reason.

WHat the person in question did (enter a oturnament and immediately go on a 30 day vacation) is a blatant abuse of the vacation privelage. One should not sign up for a tournament if he kows he is about to go on a long vacation. But, maybe some emergency came up at the last moment? There could be a reasonable explanation. That said, I still think there should be a way around having everyone held up. There is a way, but I am not goign to suggest it just yet.

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.

Ok, but even then...probably about 90% of them are obvious as to what game it is. And even if that box a convenient thing to have (which it certainly would be), it would be simply that: a convenience. Not a necessity. But it doesn't really matter. I would assume Fencer will do something like that when he gets time. Just be patient :-)

Kevin, you are forgetting the hundred or so that are already in progress or have been completed. I am a studious player, I like to review games. So, I have to find the specific tournaments from among the entire list, not just the 32 that are in the sign up process.

I agree that a box like that would be a good feature, but right now there are 32 tournaments to sign up for: 30 of them make the game clear just from the name, and the other 2 you could probably guess. Or if not, it's one page to load to find out. When there are hundreds of tournaments to sign up for, absolutely, you shouldn't have to look through them all. But right now, it's not a big deal.

There is a simple way to do this that would make the most sense and appease everyone--An option box that says "Show the following types of tournaments: "

and the individual player would then select one or more types.

I wish to view only pente and Keryo pente tournaments. Regardless of whether the name of the tournament says it, why should I have to find them among a hundred or more tournaments?

True that most tournaments have the name in them, but there have been some that have not.

What I would like to see on the tournament page - after the name, have (gametype) - like it is shown in people profile.

For example:
- Hannelore's 1st Pente (Pente)
- Cat Lovers Unite (Spider Line4)

And if it is an "all" game, put "all" - or if it is just a select few (which I think Fencer is working on), maybe put "multiple games" or something.

But if something like this is done - then the person creating the tournament does not need to put the name of the game in the name if they do not want to! :-)

True, there are a lot of new tournaments. However, more or less all of them tell you what the game is right in the name, or have a generic name if they contain all games. Personally, i don't think there are enough tournaments to have a seperate list for each game, although i wouldn't be against having a list box at the top that allows you to select "All" or a specific game type, to show all tournaments or just tournaments that have a certain game in it.

I agree, there are so many tournaments now, it is cumbersome to go through to find the right games, it would be great to have them grouped into game types.

I find the page a bit cumbersome. Perhaps someone can help me view it more easily. IS there an option to view only tournaments of a certain type, such as "pente tournaments only" or "Keryo tournaments only?"

When i look at the page now, there are just dozens and doizens of tournaments, and I am looking for those two in particular, and they are hard to find among all the others.

Alos, is there a tournament winners page? If not, there should be, and it should be sorted by particular game.

Pioneer, I have a problem with that same player. That person apparently joined all kinds of tourneys and then put in all those vacation days. He/she has 45 days to make a move on the game that we have in a tourney, and has only made one move! It may be perfectly legal here, but EXTREMELY rude, in my opinion. I too like the vacation days, but what this person did is a little unreasonable.

the opportunity and learn from better players? I won't advance very far stuck at a lower rating. I thought brainlink was above typical chess snobbery.

Brain pawns play for free. They don't pay anything and get a lot for free. I think they're lucky to even get to join one tournament, IMO. If you would like to join more than one tournament, by all means, upgrade your membership :-)

Nah, you can't put limits on the holiday days!! We're given 30 days a year, and if someone uses them all in one go then thats their problem. There could be a good reason for it, illness, a hospital stay etc..
I know it affects others but it goes with the membership, and we might be glad of it one day. Of course a note to our opponents to explain why we'd used that much holiday time would be polite, but not a necessity.
I've not used any holiday days yet, and I can't forsee me using any this year. But if I had to use all 30 in one go it would be for a dire emergency!

I think that is one of the flaws on BrainKing (for BrainPawns that is). Even though you are done with your games in the tournament, you have to wait for all other users in the section to complete their games before you can join another tournament. (Something I pointed out awhile back)

... but then again, I guess it is a good flaw since that is one of the reasons I bought a membership because I did not want to wait for everyone else to finish.

But you bring up a point about the Vacations. I think vacations are a very good thing on this site, but 30 days is a long time! (esicially if that is "added" into the 2 days a week you get off) You could be gone for about 40 days strait without timing out!

Maybe there should be a limit - like you can not use more then 2 weeks in any giving month (or something like that)

I would like to enter another tmt., but I get a prompt saying that as a Brain Pawn I can only play in one. However, I am finished in that event (MainBrain #2, Atomic chess) and the only player with games remaining is on vacation for a month!? Is there any remedy for this? Why did a player who knew he would be away so long enter this tmt. anyhow?

I echo these thoughts. I apologize for posting in the wrong place, I was not yet familiar with the discussion boards, and we have moved the Keryo discussion ot the right place.

On a tournament note, I am pleased to note that the 2 game sets have been put in place for tournaments.

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

i just played it, thx.

I've restored the game.

Ellie you will need to ask Fencer, I have no idea, sorry, he should be able to restart the tourny game if it was a blooper.

mandy/Dream, why did i time out in my game with sunnyd? there were no moves made, and i played the other ones this morning, and there were no moves made in those, and nobody timed out.

Totally agree with dream; there is a Keryo Pente Discussion Board, where these missives will find a welcome home.

Can all these game specific comments be posted on the relevant boards please?
Its just that posts here about tournaments are getting lost in amongst all these other messages. :-)

and I'm just not understanding why it bugs
you so heavily - I felt lost on a big board
at the beginning period ~*~

Danoscheck--

"imho it's a way for beginners to get familiar
with basic structures and elements of tactics ~*~"

Are you serious? in what way is the 19X19 board inadequate for "beginners to get familiar
with basic structures and elements of tactics " ?????????

please, elaboprate on how the 13X13 board provides extra functionality for helping beginners. I am just not understanding this. IT IS THE SAME DAMN GAME, beginners are going to be able to grasp the opening s and such no better than on a 19X19 board!

I gave a reason ! *pout*

imho it's a way for beginners to get familiar
with basic structures and elements of tactics ~*~

Walter, I do not recall saying that the 13X13 gives anyone an advantage, I just said that there is no reason for it to be played that way. NONE! for all this talk, no one is giving ANY reason why it should be played on a 13X1`3 board when that is NOT the way it is intended! the different variants of the different games serve soem sort of PURPOSE. none is served with the 13X13 board. It was just an error by IYT, that if it had never been made, would not even be an issue right now! If IYT had mistakenly started the game on a 7 by 7 board, would you be championing its cause? NO, because it is poitnless, just like the 13X13 board.

Incidentally, as Gayr mentioned, the pente rules were OFFICIALLY changed VERY SOON after the game's inception to include the restriction, but nothing was ever mentioned regarding a smaller board.

Unlike Go or othello, a smaller board does NOT make the game go quicker, which is why Go and othello can be played on a smaller board.

as it appears in chinese and japanese mythology
- even treated with such a respect that it was
avoided entirely as aim ... the imagination of
perfection is stronger than any manifestation.

take eight time eight squares, voila - you have
the xianxi board the 'yellow river' not counted in.

played is it at the nine times TEN crosspoints.
the fortress three times three crosspoints ... :)

go/pente/keryo board contains four quarters
of nine times nine squares - again played on
the 'lines'- happens to be a running pattern in
asiatic games to CLOSELY avoid perfection ...

actually sense of the game, as a go-master said,
goal is not, to win but to snapshot a momentary
cosmic divergence of the tiniest possible kind.

real masters try to win by just ONE stone plus :)
~*~

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.

Would you be happier if IYT called their game Keryo13?

a protected name therefore a leading
'c' for 'children' is missing or 'b'
for beginner ?

I'm enjoyed trying it out, but at the latest
when I met CaoZ I knew it makes almost no
sense to be player 2, on such a small board, on
top without move restriction - my opening book
for C-Keryo basicly is the complete collection
of the games he lost at iyt. ;) not too many ...

regarding chess ... I bet the Chinese would
claim Xianxi as the only RIGHT one, as Shogi
would be worshipped equally in Japan ... :)

same roots - but continental drift to say so :P

not to mention that the original inventor India
almost lost it, because as 'Schaturanga' kind of
oracle and banned by religion for some centuries.
the persians saved it and deprived it from dice.

I don't know why D'mitri is growing annoyed with
the variations, as one also could declare all those
games obsolete, for being not the original 'Go' ...

I'd enjoy that we have
the choice and, made mine:
NO B-Keryo furthermore YAY ! ~*~ ;)

Walter. we are going back and forth here. I am NOT claiming that 13X13 is wrong "solely because I say so" as you claimed I said, but, and I will reiterate here, THE GAME WAS INVENTED ON A 19 X 19 BOARD. THAT is why 13 is wrong. changing it to 13 DOES NOT add anything to the game, it simply detracts from it. This is NOT the same thing as chess variants (I DO know they exist, I have played most of them). The chess variants ADD soemthing interesting; the example I gave was of playing chess with the SAME 32 PIECES on a LARGER board, which I REALIZE is NOT an actual variant! that is WHY I gave it as an example-- to show how STUPID the 13X13 game is. note that I SUPPORT REAL variants of pente, such as Keryo, D-pente, G pente, etcetera. But simply playing with the same ruels but on a tiny board does NOT qualify as a variant, in my opinion.

Please do not respond by telling me about othello. I realize othello variants have smaller andl arger boards. Othello is a different game than pente. There is not a valid comparison between the two.

Why have I not challenged you or dangerous mind to an IYT game? here are several reasons:

1) I detest IYT and I am trying to finish up my games there.
2) I see no point. With no restriction, I do not see player 2 winning any of the games, unless one of thep layers sucks, which none of us do. my only losses as P1 in keryo at IYT happened in my very first few games, and even then only to strong players.

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. :)

Walter, it is my understanding that at www.pente.org the opening restriction IS in place for Keryo pente, but I might be wrong about that. I can ask Dweebo about it.

You keep mentioning the 13X13 board. I wish you wouldn't. this is like playing chess on a 10X10 board with the standard 32 pieces. it just isn't done, and it is wrong. Being confined to such a small space is NOT supposed to be part of the game. You said that Gayr does not want to use the edge-- where are you getting this from? Gary and myself and any top player WOULD want to use the edge if need be, which is precisely why we are against this "phony" 13X13 board!

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.

Walter -

Thanks for the thoughts and good questions on further rule changes in Pente. Three changes have been proposed. They are called D-pente, G-pente, and S-pente. The games actually exist on www.gamerz.net but no tourneys have been run with them, as far as I know. I think we're just kind of waiting for all of the openings to be exhausted with the current rules, which we are close to doing now.

The letters before the name of Pente is the first letter of the first or last name of the people who proposed them. D-pente was proposed by Don Banks of Canada and S-pente was proposed by Oleg Stepanov of Russia, both top players. G-pente was proposed by yours truly.

Here's the rules for D-pente:
1. Player 1's (white) first move is to center.
2. Player 2 now makes 3 consecutive moves while alternating colors. (black-white-black) There is no restriction on the placement.
3. Player 1 (white) now must decide whether to keep the white stones or swap sides and play the black stones.

Regardless of what the original player 1 (OP1) chooses to do, it is white's move. So if OP1 chooses to swap, he is now black and it is his opponent's move. If he did not swap, then he is white and it is his move. The strategy for OP2 is to make the position as EVEN as possible after making the 3 consecutive moves, which makes the opening full of possibilities and much more interesting.

This is a very good variation that virtually guarantees that neither side will get much of an advantage if the players are reasonably skilled. The only problem is that some players will not like to swap sides and it is a little tricky programatically. But it is easy enough that most people would understand it.

I will briefly mention S-pente. This is a complicated swapping version that I have not taken the time to understand even though I've looked for a while at the rules. It involves possible swapping on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th move so that there can be 0 thru 3 swaps in a game. I don't think there's much chance that very many players will like this because it is too difficult to understand.

Of course my favorite is G-pente since I proposed it! It is EXACTLY like Pente with the current opening restriction except that there is only ONE further restriction on player 1's 2nd move, that is:
Player 1's 2nd move must be at least 3 intersections from his opening move AND it can NOT be in a straight line horizontally or vertically from his opening move either 3 or 4 intersections away. In other words using the coordinates here at Brain King, white can also NOT move to F10, G10, N10, O10, K6, K7, K13, and K14 on his 2nd move.

The reason for this is that virtually ALL of player 1's advantage in Pente with the current restriction is as a result of player 1 making a 'straight line' move from his opening move. It is my opinion that this will even things up for the foreseeable future.

BUT...that said, even with G-pente, it IS possible in 5-10 years (or perhaps less) that one side or the other will be analyzed by top players to have a substantial advantage once again. If that happens, there would probably be no choice but to go to a swap variation.

In proposing G-pente, I have only done a moderate amount of analysis on it and could not come up with anything conclusive for either side, which is what I wanted. I also haven't heard any other strong opinion one way or another on it from top players, although it hasn't been discussed much.

If you want to see the 3 games in program form, Mark Mammel has some software that you can download and that plays all 3 of them on his site. You can find a link to his site at Dweebo's Stone Games at www.pente.org. There is a place on the left side of the main menu for links.

A couple of last things. I think you were confused by what Dmitri King meant by running out of room on a 13x13 board. We would NEVER attempt to imply that the board would fill completely up with stones, even on a 13x13 board. That simply wouldn't happen if the players were trying to win. What he meant is that on a 13x13 board, you would hit the edge of the board quite frequently, ESPECIALLY in Keryo-Pente. You wouldn't notice it so much playing lesser players, but since you're a good player, if you consistently played other good players, you'd notice it quite frequently.

In Pente with the current opening restriction on a 19x19 board, on a rare occassion, say 1 in 25-50 games amongst top players, the edge of the board will be a factor. In Keryo Pente, I would say that the edge of the board would be a factor in 1 in 10-15 games in the same situation. This is after having played several games of it at www.pente.org.

As far as the 100x100 or infintiy board thing, I'm not sure why anyone would want that and it would be potentially VERY problematic to display on someone's screen. But from a purist mathematical perspective, I can understand what you are alluding to there.



Gary

Vacation times, even during tournaments, are essential! This is one of the worst features at IYT, that they don't allow vacations for tournaments. Hence, the large number of 'forfeits'.

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.