any individual player has faces long odds of winning the tournament, but someone has to win it!

Hey everyone, you may have heard about the 5th Pente tournament at Dweebo's stone games at www.pente.org, but there is a new twist. To liven things up a bit, I am putting up a 50 dollar cash prize for the winner of this tournament.

there is little need for it in pente. the only time a draw should occur is when both players keep winning 1 game of a two game set, as can happen with two evenly matched players.

That said, taurec also makesa good point that it need not be used by those who do not like it. I would like to see it eliminated, but I won't care too much if it stays.

this game was over very early on, white never had a chance after move 4 or 5....

no. Go-moku with captures is what pente is. THe only other difference is htat 6 in a row or more wins in pente but does not win in go-moku.

Pente was invented in 1977 (approximately) by Gary Gabrel. THe game Go-Moku, which is similar to pente has ben around for a long time.

hmm.. Good eye Jim.. my exact quote was "Of course, we are all entirled to my opinion. I will continue to state my opinion and support it with examples, as I have done."

Of course this makes me look like a real jackass. I definitely did not mean to say that. I don;t remember if I was trying to say "of course I am entitled to my opinion" or "of course we are all entitled to our opinions," but I definitely did NOT mean to write "of course we are all entitled to my opinion."

Thad, I had to GO WAY back to find this:

Here is what Gary said that you are taking issue with:

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."

You are not reading the entire quote there - he prefaced it by saying "DRAWS SHOULD NOT OCCUR."

His point was not that draws should be eliminated BECAUSE they are rare, BUT that draws should not occur, PERIOD, and since they are already rare, they can be gotten rid of WITHOUT having a great impact on the game. Now, maybe you will reply that I am putting words in his mouth - but that is not so, because IN THE VERY SAME POST of his from which you are taking his statement out of context, he CLOSED HIS POST BY SAYING:

"So if a draw can be easily eliminated without affecting the inherent rules of the game, then I think that it should be done."

And there you have it. You distorted his arugment by taking a single sentence out of context, then you defeated the distorted argument (actually, you didn't, because your analogy to lunar eclipses was terribly weak).

So you committed a fallacy and then while in the process of carrying out your fallacious reasoning you committed another fallacy.

I would say it is you who is lacking the logic here.

Thad, I am NOT missing your point. I think much of what you have said is illogical, some of it ridiculously so.

I'll take another look and reread what Gary wrote because I think you are committing the straw man fallacy (I love all this talk about fallacies, fallacies are fun!).

Of course, the straw man fallacy is when a person distorts the other person's argument, thus creating a "straw man" or "dummy argument," then thoroughly defeats the dummy argument and acts as if the original argument has been defeated.

Thad, you ahve GOT to be joking. You said :

"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.
"

This is hilarious. YOUR statements are beyond illogical, there are no words do define the illogicalness of your statements (see, I just had to invent a word already!).

Gary was saying that since draws are infrequent IN POOF PENTE and easily avoidable, they should be eliminated altogether.

What does this have to do with Lunar eclipses? If you have taken a logic class you would know the fallacy of weak analogy. Pente and eclipses have NOTIHNG to do with one another!

What applies to a PENTE game need not apply to a stament about ECLIPSES!

by your logic, any eclipse that is captured 5 times would lose. But, that statement does nto make sense either, because PENTE HAS NOTIHNG TO DO WITH ECLIPSES!

Thad, you said "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."

WHat are you talking about? pente.net hasl ittle or nothing to offer for pente, that is why almost no top pentep layersp lay there. you say it is necessary to support that site? WHY? what does ito ffer that theo ther GOOD pente sites do not? NOTHING!

Walter, you asked if you cna join? Absolutely! espeically since we are really jonseing for someone to bring the 13 by 13 board, and if you don' do it , no one will! DARN!

As for what you said about Gayr's response to Thad-- I as well took Thad'c comments about the Pente federation to be VERY derogatory. If that is not hwat Thad intended, then maybe hen eeds to take fewer math classes and more English classes, because he is not saying what he is trying to say at all.

Thad, you said : "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. "

PLEASE. it was clear that you were strongly implying that it is "just a bunch of guys," HENCE YOUR REPEATING IT 4 TIMEs!!!!!!!!!

Thad, you quoted and then added your thoughts:

"Then you said: (you quoting Gary)
"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."

(you now) While I did, in fact mention those things, again, I NEVER compared them to pente.
"

this is utter nonsense. you made these statements as a justification for not eliminating draws from pente! If youa re going to make a terrible analogy, at least stand behind it without waffling about it and then claiming you were not talking about pente! This whole discussion is about pente!

Thad-- you said "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. "

Well, debate I shall. The top of draws came up while discussing PENTE. So unless your sports references were analogies to PENTE, WHY did you bring them up? it seems to me like you were using sports analogies to justify the ocurrence of draws in pente, on the basis that society is too hung up on declaring a winner.

This is what I have to say about your sports references. Thre is something in Logic called the fallacy of weak analogy.

but yours do not fall into that category, because they are too lousy to even qualify for that. They are a new category called "fallacy of appalingly inept analogies."

wihch is to say, your sports analogies have nothing to do with anything. We are trying to talk about draws in pente here and you are strayingf so far off topic that you would need a telescope to see the topic.

Thad, it's no big deal, i think I see what happened: in Walter Montego's post of 13. May 2003, 12:05:40


in his thurd paragraph I believe he made the comment that you mistakenly attributed to me. I haev done the same thing when reading many posts from different people, it is easy to mix up who said what for a partiicular quuote.

Thad, you said "I agree with Dmitri that draws in pente at IYT should not be permitted."

I said no such thing, not that I can recall. If I did, it was an egregious error, because I absolutely do not agree with tjhat statement. If I did say that it was probably a typo.

I see no reason not to be able to offer a draw. that si not the same as the game actually being in a drawn position. Maybe if my opponnet had a misclick of his mouse and his stone ended up in the wrong place I would offer him a draw instad of taking a win that I might not deserve. I may or may not do that, but the options should be there.

As for what you said about throwing a game so that a friend canadvance--- hogwash. People can do that now. There are doznes of ways to cheat at turn based games, we just assume that people will not use them becasue tre isnlt any reason to.

The same crappy argument cabout cheating was used by IYT to not have rated games. Just because sometihng can bve abused does not mean it should be abolished.

There are exceptions of course. I should not be allowed to own a nuclear missile, for example. BUt for someihtng like draw offers, the possibility of cheaing is not enouhg to eliminate them.

Thad, regarding your analogy to the kids who had three shootouts and then coin tosses. you said "Sometimes a game is a tie and it's just something we have to deal with. "

YEs, obviously after many hours of shootouts, sometimes a tie has to be called. But your analogy is extremely weak, because a game of pente does not require more than another few mmoves to break the tie. My opint is, a tie should only becalled when NECESSARY, after a simple means of breaking a tie has failed!

in thep ente game, you and Walter arew advocating that NO reasonable measures ne taken to decide a tie, when in fact, a tie could be decided WITHOUT an alteration in the game play (as opposed to a sporting event where thye go to a shootout of some sort, wihch isd vastly different from the actual game).

Walter:

"Why suddenly outlaw it for a game that isn't even played except by waterdancer? He made it up, let him play it his way."

outlawing is a strong word to use here. We are just tryin to figure out the best way to play this new variant, if at all. You say we should let Waterdancer play it his own way just because he made the game? Well, Waterdancer is here ASKING for input as to how his game could be made viable and interesting enough for pente players to want to play it. obviously he can do wjhatever he wants, but everyone else can do the asme and ignore the variant altogether. I do not think his intent is to just do whatever he wants, because he seems receptive to suggestions.

NOw, about draws in general. The opint of a board game is to WIN. It really irritates me that so many people choose to overlook or ignore this fact in part of in full. Even those who play for fun are still trying to make the necessary moves to WIN theg ame. Well, why have a draw possible if it doesn't have to be? I tihnk a game designed such there MUST be a winner is a well designed game! In some games there is no way to avoid a draw, but in pente thtree is. But your reasoning for allowing draws to occur seems to be "well, why not allow draws to occur?"

When a game can so easily be made to NOT have draws, why have them at all? How does it is any way make the game better?

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.

As for pente for opints. I think this is just an outright terrible idea. Soemone who has allowed his opponent to make a 5 in a row could win by extending a bunhc of meaningless 3s before resigning to his opponent's double 3 threat. I cannot comprehend how that scenario would make sense to anyone. that's like saying "if you chekcmate your opponent but he has more pieces that you do, he wins."

The entire basis of the game of pente is supposed to make 5 in a row or make 5 captures (hence the name pente). Creating a situation where the player who accomplished this task LOSES is just asinine to me.

ONe final thought on the draw situation for waterdancer's variant. I would like to propose that there is no draw at all. When a piece is placed, if it is poofed, it CANNOT make any acptured that it would make if it stayed on the board. if a PENTE does not cunt when a piece is poofed, why should a capture? this is blatantly inconsistent! so if I make a winning capture, but MY piece gets poofed for mjy opponent's winning capture, he wins and I lose. So now I am not even sure what the fuss is all about.

I do not like the idea of any pente variant that involves possible draws. Draws are one of the most annoying aspects of a board game. Othello, chess, ando ther games have possible draws (checkers maybe? I do not know, I haven;t played in a long time). Pente's lack of draws is one appealing aspect of theg ame.

maybe I haven't examined this variant enough, but how can a DRAW occur in pente!?

My first response to Gary's message was "well, the non members should pay up!"

BUT _- he is exactly right when he says that is NOT the point at ALL! non members can play 20 games anway, so it should not matter what type opf games they play. I fully support the limitation to 20 games, but I agree that the limit of one tournament is bad. WOrse, if a player is ELIMINATED from a tournament, he STLL cannot enter another one unless the netire tournament is completed! That cuiold take eons!

so whether non members should pay up is a NON ISSUE in this case.

I have a rare (for me ) concise post. I agree with everything Thad said.

I have to diasgree on this one. a pair handicap is (in my opinion) far to much of a handicap to overcome.

I remember playing this variant at DSG once (obviously we could not play it exactly because the system was not set up for it).

The idea is interesting, and it might be worth trying. My only cioncern is that it is very similar to standard pente and it may cause confusion about what the normal rules are. But I am interested in hearing hwat others have to say about it.

As could be inferred from Gary's post (since he used the pronoun "we") I fully support everything he laid out in the post, and I think everyone should be happy under that plan. Thanks for all who participated in the debate and I aplogize if I offended anyone, which was never my intent.

Thad, your primary concern was being able to PLAY the game without therestiction. Can't you just be satisfied with that? Gary and I really want the betterment of pente to be taken into consideration, and having the game WITHOUT the restriction called "Original pente" MISLEADS people into thinking that it is the PREFERRED or PROPER way to play.

WHat is wrong with calling it like it is, "No Restriction Pente?" It is accurate and effective, and is also not suggestive of which is the correct way to play. Wouldn't that appease everyone?

NOW that you are getting the restriction removed on the small board, why do you need it removed on the large board? I think a fair compromise is to have it only on the small board.

Fencer, I understand your decision and I respect it. I hope that solution will placate as many people as possible. I will still try to urge players to learn to play the gamne the correct way, but if thye do not wish to, they still have the option of p[laying without the restriction, so they should have nothing to complain about.

I have a few thoughts though that I hope you will take into consideration--

1) I hope this option to turn off the opening restriction STAYS with the 13 X 13 board and does NOT get added to the 19 by 19 board. As it is, the 13 X 13 board is not an official pente board, so I am more able to accept the restriction being lifted as long as it stays on that board.

2) As far as the ratings go-- I think it is a problem for the ratings to have small pente players all rated together if some are using the restriction and some are not. Players who play without the restriction have no business being rated with those who DO use therestriction.

This may be too minor of a problem to deal with, but if I may, I would like to make a few suggestions for you to consider.

suggestion 1) Allow only unrated games if the restriction is turned off. Tihs is actyually how Dweebo used to have his site run at Dweebo's stone games-- players at his site oculd play unrated games and thus turn off the ratings, which keeps the ratings fair to those who DO use the restriction. It really is unfair to those who play with the restriction to be rated with those who do not use it.

Suggestion 2) Actually create a separate variant with a separate name-- then there will be one game called "small pente" that HAS the restriction, and a new variant could be created called "No restriction Pente" which does NOT have the restriction. This owuld give players clear choices about hwich game to play, and everyone would be rated fairly and on equal footing.

Pioneer54, you know I have grat respect for your opinions, as well as your debating tactics and your game playing abilities. That si why I was a little frustrated with your latest post to me. YOu copied and pasted a bunch of things I said, but you didn't really address them, you just said for each one, "You did not make the opint you are claiming to make." You do not really say WHY I didn't make my points, and I am pretty sure that I did make my points. It seems that you just rejected them without reason or explanation.

Walter, if the pente games are going too slowly, RESIGN! You have already lost, so if the games are annoying you so muhc, just quit. The only player out of the three who has made any decent moves is Pioneer54 (Although both of those games still look like sure wins for player 1).

Thad, you said that You think Gary and I think that you want to get rid of official pente. Where did you get that idea? Neither of us ever said anything alonge those lines.

Look at Walter whining again about how often Gayr is moving in his game. What a snivelign whining fool Walter is. I guess he doesn;t understand what a move limit means in a turn based game. I guess I shouldn't expect any more from him.

you said he argues way better than I do and earned tally opints??? How so? HE did not refute anything I said, all he did ws say "Well Dmitri, you say you have made your opint, but you haven't"

I don;t consider that to be insightful or effective debating! All he did was reject my arguments without any reason. Walter, you keep threatening to leave, as if anyone should care! good riddance!

Thad, thanks for your reply and for addressing my points.

Although your had me think for a moment, I do think it is not exactly applicable. BUt more important, I want to adress what you said about evening up the advantage by playing two game sets.

That alone is insufficient-- for instance, if there is a game where player 1 has a forced win 100% of the time, would it make sense to simply play two game sets and ignore any attempts to give player 2 a chance? NO, it wouldn't, and by the same reasoning, the possibility of playing two game sets is no reason to neglect the restriction that gives player 2 more of a chance.

And to follow up on what Harley said, and also to reply to some earlier posts from the opposing side, I wish to present an argument that is slightly different from what I have said thus far.

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

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

But to further illustrate the point, suppose tomorrow lots of people started requesting LOTS of pente variants, and lots of othello variants, and lots of variants for all games. Do you think Fencer would indiscriminantly add every one of them? No, he would most likely examine the merits of each one, deciding to keep only the better ones. The site cannot support a limitless number of variants, and thus only those that deserve to exist should exist. In the future, we may see lots of pente variants, and then people will have lots of options.

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

Here is where I am going with this--

WHY was Gary ridculed and insulted for presenting a set of criteria to be used to evaluating whether a variant should be created? I would say his list of criteria was well thought out and could be well-applied to any game, not just pente. I think we would all agree that SOME criteria needs to exist in order for a game to be created. So, before blasting his, why not actually think about it first and see if his criteria has any flaws? I did not see any. But, instead of actually examining the details of his idea, some of you just outright blasted it and dismissed it with snide questions about who made him god or some crap like that. I have two words for that: CHILDISH AND PETTY.

I think is was suggested before that the boards be merged. I would like to hear what Fencer ha to say about this. The total combined volume of the 4 pente boards is such that it owuld all be merged onto one board-- ESPECIALLY since the topic overlap is almost 100%.

Excellent points Harley. I want to clarify one thing because I don't want people to pounce on you over a small detail.

The point I want to clarify is a brief history of pente matters, in chronological order:

1) IYT adds pente to their site (sometime in 1998 I believe). In doing so, they used an incorrect board (13 X 13) and they did not have the opening move restriction, which shows they researched the matter poorly.

2) A full 2 years later around May of 2000, IYT FINALLY implements the game properly, with a 19 X 19 board and the restriction on the opening move. But since the other game was already called pente, they called this "Pro pente." This was the beginning of the confusion. TO new players, that made it appear as if "Pro-pente" was some difficult variant only for experts, and thus people started to play using the reules without the restriction.

That caused two things: they were hindered in their development of the correct way to play and people became confused about the opening rules.

3) Brain King comes into existence. Pioneer54 introduces the site to me, and I immediately love it. I see that it does not have pente.

4) Gary Barnes and I write to Fencer about pente, and within a week, he has the game ready to go with the corrrect board and rules.

5) Web TV users complain that they cannot play on the 19 by 19 board, so Fencer creates a 13 X 13 board to enable them to play.

6) I understood the reason for the small board, but I did not understand why the restriction was removed, after all, what did Web TV have to do with that?

7) Gary and I wrote lengthy and thorough explanations to Fencer for why the restriction was necessary even on the small board.

8) Fencer, hearing our explanation, agreed and implemented the restriction on the small boards as well.

9) then the argument began.

So, regarding what Harley said, she is 100% correct! -- Had IYT never created the game improperly, this would be a non-issue, just like the kid who never saw the ice cream truck.

I should add that at Dweebo's stone games at www.pente.org, the restriction is almost always if not always in place, and no one seems bothered by this. Dozens and dozens of people play pente there every day. PBeM, where the world championships are played, simply calls the game "pente" even though it has the restriction, just as Brain King does. There is no need to call it "Pro pente," it is understood by most pente players that the restriction is a part of the game, not a variant.

Since people can't seem to grasp this I will make it as SIMPLE as possible (since some of you have said you like the SIMPLICITY of "fun-pente")

DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT PLAYER 1 has an advantage in this game????????? Does anyone really doubt that having the extra stone gives player 1 a sizeable advantage?

Well, to have NO restriction for player 1 when player 1 has an OBVIOUS advantage (the extra stone) is just ASININE!

To me, saying that no restriction is necessary is the same as saying that having the extra stone is not an advantage. Well, that defies logic and reason!

I can't make it any simpler than that.

I keep hearing people say "Well, I have won as player 2 without the restriction." Sure, against a WEAK PLAYER, but not likely against an equally matched player! What does beating up on weak players prove? NOTHING!

For all those who are yammering on about liking the extra challenge of trying to win as player 2 WIOUT the restriction, I will again repeat myself:

I play at a 95%- 97% clip as player 1 WITh the restriction. That sounds like more than enough challenge for all you challenge seekers out there who usew that as a reason for having the variant without the restriction.

One more thought-- there really are only about 5 people making any noise about the restriction being added to the small boards. If this is ruining the fun for people,where are all these people saying "Hey, what happneed to the bvariant that I liked?" Well, weo don't heat them. SO, while those 5 noisemakers are claiming that Gary and I are trying to impose our will on everyone, we cuoud say the same right back at that small group.

I keep hearing that it is the NON-serious players who would be most affected by this change. This is a blatant contradiction. A Non-serious player would not take the game seriously enouhg to actually CARE about the opening rules.

Since people can't seem to grasp this I will make it as SIMPLE as possible (since some of you have said you like the SIMPLICITY of "fun-pente")

DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT PLAYER 1 has an advantage in this game????????? Does anyone really doubt that having the extra stone gives player 1 a sizeable advantage?

Well, to have NO restriction for player 1 when player 1 has an OBVIOUS advantage (the extra stone) is just ASININE!

To me, saying that no restriction is necessary is the same as saying that having the extra stone is not an advantage. Well, that defies logic and reason!

I can't make it any simpler than that.

I keep hearing people say "Well, I have won as player 2 without the restriction." Sure, against a WEAK PLAYER, but not likely against an equally matched player! What does beating up on weak players prove? NOTHING!

For all those who are yammering on about liking the extra challenge of trying to win as player 2 WIOUT the restriction, I will again repeat myself:

I play at a 95%- 97% clip as player 1 WITh the restriction. That sounds like more than enough challenge for all you challenge seekers out there who usew that as a reason for having the variant without the restriction.

One more thought-- there really are only about 5 people making any noise about the restriction being added to the small boards. If this is ruining the fun for people,where are all these people saying "Hey, what happneed to the bvariant that I liked?" Well, weo don't heat them. SO, while those 5 noisemakers are claiming that Gary and I are trying to impose our will on everyone, we cuoud say the same right back at that small group.

I keep hearing that it is the NON-serious players who would be most affected by this change. This is a blatant contradiction. A Non-serious player would not take the game seriously enouhg to actually CARE about the opening rules.

What is REALLY sad isthat Walter and maybe snutter have threatened to leave this site AND drive others away from this site JUST TO SPITE me and Gary. THAT is really sad, and it is unfortunate that they would hurt Fencer just becayse they can't do anything to me. Of course, the logical thing to do would be for them to try to out-debate me, but that clearly isn't going to happen.

This is pathetic on their part. IT is akin to one of them punching a guy's little sister in the afce to get back at the guy, because they are incapable of doing anything to the guy.

SAD. Very Sad.

Okay, first of all, this is NOT my site or Gary's site, it is FENCER's site. HE receives input from me and Gary just like he no doubt receives input from everyone else.

To say that Gary and I are ruining anything or driving people away is LUDICROUS. Pente is HERE on this site largely because of the actions of Gary and Myself. We then spread the word about pente being here and lots of pente players flocked from IYT to play pente here. DOes Fencer OWE us anything for that? Of course not!! BUt, he did lidten to our acse for adding the restriction to the small board and he thought we made a good case, so he made the decision to do so.

Ellieoop, I am growing frustrated more and more with your refusal to read the posts in this thread. I actually stated that I am giving up on trying to keep the "variant" off of BRain King because people are being petty about it and threatening to leave Brain King. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to this variant, and I will continue to try to dissuade people from playing it, but if people are going to leave the site AND tell others to leave the site, well, that is not good. My suggestion was to give the variant a different name like pseudopente or something similar. All of you noisemakers just want the variant, so what do you care what it is called? Can't you make that one small concession to appease those who are tihnking about this logically instead of with illogical emotions?

BUt no, apparently everyone missed tihs and started flaming me. Maybe they thought I was sarcastac, since snutter thinks that is the only thing I know how to do.

Those who have been whining about Gayr and I taking their choices away shouldn't care what the game is called, all they want to do it PLAT it, they have made that quite clear. So why not concded the opint about hwat it is called? then, the development of pente need not be inhibited, and everyone is happy.

But I suspect a LOGICAL resolution si not what any of you want, no, you want to argue and call people names and such.

ALso, none of you would actually be willing to concede that I am making a good point about anything, no matter how many good points I make.

Walter, you say

"Anyways, if you'd like to see just what a nitwit Dmitri is, you can find the posts and various other people's replies starting there(you might have to go back a page or two now) and then move to the Small Keryo Pente discussion board to find the rest of them. I've had a running thing going with him that you'll find through out it. He seems to think his postings are eloquent to no end, but they're not. Aside from his stated objection to allowing it, he never really addresses anybody's liking for the Original Pente (Hey, I like that name for it!) except in some grandiose vision of it being detrimental to their developement as Pente players. I have since dubbed him "The Keeper of All That's Pure and Standard About Pente as Played on a 19 X 19 Board". When I point out things like this he ignores them and then tells me that I haven't said anything. So I have given into attacking him or atleast just pointing out the errors in his ways"


HA HA HA HA HA! You are very funny! You think you have pointed out errors in my ways? You have to be joking! Ask ANY debate coach in this country who has presented his case more clearly, thoroughly, and convincingly, and I think we all know who the answer will be. Your claim that I do not address what people say is ABSURD. Then you tell people to go check my posts to go see what a nitwit I am? HA! You are delusional! Anyone who checks my posts will see that I have adressed EVERY point made my my opponents MULTIPLE times!

The bad news for you is that calling me a nitwit and saying I have not addressed the issues does NOT make it so, especially since any intelligent person can see that your statements are way off the mark.

Satan said "One last thing. You didn't address my point either. In my ORIGINAL pente rule book, regular pente is listed, as well as tourney. Tom Braunlich wrote a book on REGULAR pente strategy that is still relevant today for beginners and intermediates. Therefor, there are / were official rules for this game. And it was addressed and played by one of the greatest players ever. AND, I bet back then, Tom Braunlich enjoyed playing regular pente. Why shouldn't I or anyone else? "

Satan, in response to this I will refer to What Gayr wrote:

"I will now state some information and make some quotes from the following books:
PENTE Strategy 1 copyright 1980 by Tom Braunlich and PENTE Games Inc.
PENTE Strategy 2 copyright 1982 by PENTE Games Inc.
PENTE Strategy copyright 1984 by Tom Braunlich

1. Pente was invented in 1978 by Gary Gabrel.
2. The first official World (U.S.) Championship tourney was held in 1979 and last in 1984.
3. The tournament rule (opening restriction) was created before the first tourney was played in 1979.
4. The tournament rule became a standard accepted rule for the game after 1982.
5. The rights to Pente were sold to Parker Brothers on January 1, 1984.

Parker Brothers chose to do nothing with Pente and destroyed the corporate sponsorship for the game, thereby destroying any future possibility of large national championships. Later on, they sold the rights to Decipher who also chose to do nothing with it.

Now to the instructions for the game in the original tube. I too have an original Pente tube although I have lost the instructions. BUT...I do remember exactly what you are stating, that is that the instructions said that the tournament rule is optional. What happened is that those instructions were written when the tube was originally manufactured. I can't state an EXACT starting date for when the instructions in the tube were created, but it MUST have been after the tournament rule was created before the first tournament in 1979. Anyway, no one bothered to change the instructions after the tourney rule became the standard accepted rule after 1982. Why did this happen? I do not know. But my guess is that Gary Gabrel was looking for a buyer in 1983 and found one who eventually bought the rights to it on January 1, 1984 in Parker Brothers. I'm guessing that he wasn't too concerned about tweeking anything with the tubes that were being manufactured while he was looking for a buyer."

I would like to point out that Thad, Gary and I were having a friendly, pleasant discussion until certain people made inflammatory posts that were very likely intended to start a needless flame war. I am referring mostly to Walter Montago (notihng new there), and to a lesser extent, Satan.

Thad and I show each other respect, and thus it stays pleasant. Whne others jump in and act nasty, then nasty replies will follow.

ellieoop, you ask for answers to questiosn that were already answered. By your own admission, you don't feel like reading the responses. Well, if I took the time to write well-thought out and lengthy explanations, then you can take the time to read them. I don't know why you think I or anyone else should waste time repeating ourselves for your benefit. I would estimate that your questions have bene answered three or four times EACH by Gary and myself.

Walter, have you noticed how polite and friendly I am in debating with pioneer54 and Thad? That is becasuse they actually DEBATE the issues and address what is said.

You just PROVOKE nasty arguments with petty insults and inaccurate blanket statements.
You have no desire to keep this a civil friendly debate-- I OBVIOUSLY Do, as seen by my responses to Thad and pioneer54, but then you come in and just throw gasoline on everything and light a match.

I don't regret anythign I said to you in response because you have provoked it all with your unpleasant attitude. You got exactly what you wanted, a pointless argument and name calling, because you don't actually have antything intelligent to say about the issues. I suspect you don't have anything intelligent to say about much of anything, because your intellectual abilities are very much in doubt to me at this time. Unlike Satan, Thad, or pioneer54, you don't even attempt to counter a point made by either myself or Gary; I can only assume that this is because you are not capable.

You can call me a nitwit all you want, but what does that make you, since I have thoroughly trounced you in any debate we have had, and since your pente ability is so clearly about 8 levels below mine? I suppose coming from you, "nitwit" is a compliment, so why am I upset?

And then you have the gall to call Gary a censor??? What did he censor? NOTIHNG!

You show your foolishness with every post! This is a PENTE discussion board, not one about aluminum bats. The reason Fencer made moderators is SPECIFICALLY to remove off topic posts. So go ahead and complain to Fencer that his moderator is "threatening" to remove irrelevant posts! You are already the source of ridicule for talking about bringing 13 X 13 boards to Oklahoma City, so why not give yourself more reason to be ridiculed?

Walter, you are acting like a pathetic mindless fool. It is sad that you cannot say anything intelligent of your own, but rather just applaud Satan's mindless post.

You have some gall to say that I do not address people's posts. READ MY POSTS!!!!! That is all I do! Take a look at my resposnes to Thad! I copied and quoted (with astericks for utmost clarity) his

All you can do is sling insults and talk about my mother.

You have NEVER tried to address any of the points listed, you just make grand generic statements.

And no, I DO NOT KNOW WHY I WAS SINGLED OUT! THAT IS WHY I ASKED!!!!!!! What is WRONG with you!???
Why don't you spend less time with your idiotic posts and more time making less pathetic moves in your pente games? You are a joke!!! for all your talk, your challenge is worthless and your moves are pathetic. You are pathetic. You cannnot make a single point of argument. But you have succeeded in really getting under my skin, so congratulations!

OK everyone. I have heard a lot of BS about the no restriction variant.

Some of the BS has gone like this: "I like the extra challenge of playing as player 2 without the restriction."

THIS IS A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!!!!!!!

I win something like 95% percent of my games as player 1 WITH the restriction, maybe closer to 96% or 97%.

IS THIS NOT ENOUGH OF A CHALLENGE FOR ALL OF YOU????

You want a challenge, play me as player 2 WITH the restriction, and you'll damn well get a challenge!

So for everyone who keeps saying they like the additional challenge of playing WITHOUT the restriction, I say that is a load of crap. I CHALLLENGE you to beat me as player 2 WITH the restriction. If you cannot beat me WITH restrictions on opening moves, then why wold you need an ADDITIONAL challenge of adding posible moves for me?

Gary makes a good point. NOT EVERY VARIANT of pente is a LEGITIMATE one! Everyone seems to think that just calling something a variant makes it so. Well, if that were the case, there would be thousands of variants of each game, with no rhyme or reason. There should be a good reason to have a variant, other than "It is fun". One could say "It is fun" about ANY variant, no matter how bad it is.

Walter, you have no idea what turn-based correspondence games are all about, do you? They are about taking the time needed to make a good move.
Maybe if you weren't in such a rush to make moves you would have made better moves.

But I think you are instigitaing a flame war here just for the sake of doing so. You are not trying to debate the issues, you are just being nasty and insulting and provoking nasty responses. It is very petty of you that your best debating tactic is to continually threaten to leave Brain King or threaten to not send Fencer your sealed envelope with your check.

you said

"Perhaps I'll give them [IYT] some more time. After all, they have stated that they're going to be adding things in the near future."

HA ha ha. You are funny. IYT has been saying that for months, even years, without results! Compare that to Fencer who has done one new thing after another with his site.

Walter, you are acting like a fool. Satan Summed me up because he and I have had many hours of communication with each other at IYT and DSG (as friends), not because he has some marverlous insight into my thinking or my ideas.

I don't agree with what he says, and I thought his tone was a bit unpleasant, but I know that he isn't just trying to ignite a flame war, wihch is what you seem to be doing.

Of course my tic tac toe reference was ludicrous, it was intended to be so. Also, you asked me to dispense with the sarcasm-- you know me better than that! BUt, your statement that I become very sarcastic whenever someone disagrees is very wrong. If you read the long threead of posts, you will see that I clearly and eloquently wrote out well thought out replies addressing every aspect of each post.

Who said I am picking and choosing hwich variants to play and which not to play? I am simply stating my strong objection to ONE SINGLE variant. You, like theo thers, sound like a broken record repeating the same incorrect statement over and over.

Anyhow... Regarding our games at IYT. 1) I did not try very hard and 2) you had a LOT more experience than I did at the time. I think you KNOW number 2, so why do you bother bringing it up?

If I failed to address one of your points, I apologize, I never intentionally avoid people's points in a debate. I'll review it in the morning, I am tired and I need to go to sleep.

BUt I stand my my definition of "pseudopente," I think it is fitting. What do you suggest calling it? Don't say "pente" because htat is already in use by the real version of the game.

My last thought for the night:

DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT PLAYER 1 has an advantage inthis game?????????

Well, to have NO restriction for player 1 when player 1 has an OBVIOUS advantage (the extra stone) is just ASININE!

To me, saying that no restriction si necessary is the same as saying that having the extra stone is not an advantage. Well, that defies logic and reason.