that was a good one pipilo. Ok, I'll try to avoid repeating mself in the future. Ambiguous statements are probably the number one cause of repeated statements, so I'll also try to make sure my statemnents are not vague or ambiguous.

Ok. I agree to disagree and move on.

I should note, on a mostly unrelated point, that prior to this discussion, this message board had an average of about 4 or 5 posts per week. Seems to me that a debate would make the board MORE interesting than when it was rarely used, after all, how interesting can a board be when there are no posts for days on end?

BBW-- I am sorry if I misconstrued anything you said-- Internet posts often do get misconstrued, often through no fault of the writer or the reader of the post; it isj ust the nature of impersonal internet conversations.

You have, however, made yourself very clear on this point:

"AGAIN, here is the point of the whole thing: A player is limited to 1 tournament at a time. (THIS IS A GOOD RULE). The problem is the one player could be done with all his games in 2 weeks, and he may lose all his games and knows he will not move on. In MY OPINION he is done with that tournament and should be allowed to join a new tournament. (And not have to wait up to 6 months for other players playing in other games) Do you understand this point????????? (IF not, just say so - and quit trying to argue it - I'll try to explain it better, OK??) "

So, yes, I understand you COMPLETELY here. And here is my retort. Any non member who objects to this policy has a SIMPLE way of eliminating the prolbem. BUY A MEMBERSHIP. Problem solved! That si really the only point I was making. All the other tangential converstions stemmed from this one, about the possibility fo a lingering tournament.

I think the reason the conversation often gets steered in that direction (as it has several times over the last few months) is because someone always chips in with "Well, not everyone can afford a membership" when I state "Buy a membership" as a solution to the prolbme of only being able to enter one tournament and having to wait for it to be completely finished.

I disagree Harley. working a minimum wage job and having no savings is being "poor" to me. You may disagree, but last time I checked, a minimum wage job would put someone below the poverty line.

We don't have to get into a huge discussion.

If we are talking about those who CAN afford to pay, but Don't, then the vast minority who CANNOT afford to pay are NOT relevant to the discussion, BECAUSE ET DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THOSE WHO CAN PAY BUT DO NOT!

Furthermore, to exempt a small minority from a discussion is not in any way demeaning! By your logic, if Iwas talking about prisoners, and I said "Of course, those small minority who are innocent are IRRELEVANT" you would say that I am demeaning the innocent!

Well, clearly that is not the case, they just are not RELEVANT to the discussion.

As for your point A) Of course we cannot kow how many are truly in that position. But one of the great things about human beings is our ability to reeasn, so I am entitled to use my poewers of reason to try to approximate.

1) I think we coudl all agree that those who cannot afford ten dollars for 6 months are fairly destitute.

2) That being the case, I would estimate that very few of the 4800 brain pawns are in that position.

I think ti is a fair assumption that most brain pawns just choose not to afford it. I have heard people say "Well, I have 8000 dolalrs of college loans, etc. etc. etc." So what? Lots of people have loans, I know many of thme, and all of them easily waste ten dollars over a 6 month period.

If someone really doesn;t spend ten dolalrs in 6 months on any type of luxuries, then that person truly canot afford a memberaship. If there is someone who actually fits that description, I would love to hear from him. BUt until then, people who spend 30 dollars a month on cable TV DO NOT qualify as "not being able to afford a 2 dolalrs a month membership"

I think our societyhas lost its sanity. SOmewhere along thel ine, a sense of entitlement crept in, such that luxuries are now considered necessities.

I think anyone who is in need of shelter, food, clothing, or medical care should havethese needs addressed. I support the existence of government institutions to handle these needs.

BUt I think it is really warped that people who spend money on certain luxuries then claim to not be able to affird other luxuries.

Don't get me wrong, when I have been poor, I wasted al ot of money. I gained enjoyment from junk food, movies, and other luxuries. BUt that is just what they were-- luxuries. And if something else came up that I did not have the money for, it wasn't because I could not afford it, it was because UI had chosen to spend them oney on other things.

You have taken issue with my approximatin the number of people who can and cannot afford an inxpensive membership. Why is one not alllowed to pproximate? Would you take issue with me if I said that "more than 99% of the people in this coutnry can afford to give away a nickle today?"

I don't think anyone would. Well, I seel ittle difference between that statement and my approximation about brain Pawns.

BBW-- you are citing coincidental factors as reasons. You presented every possible bad scenario that oculd happen to a player in a tournament. NOen of it has to do with Fencer, Brain King, or the site, but rather, a few rude people and a couple of slow players.

A person can sign up for a small tournament with a fast move limit.

Thisb rings me to another point. You and a few others seem to think ti is objectionable when a player who is slow holds up a tournament. I for one have little to complain about in this regard. A person is entitled to use the time given to him.

BUt, I was a bit surprised to see you chiming in about slow players, given that you play veyr slowly, taking a long time for each move, regardless of the game situation, which is in fact, holding up a tournament.

Anyhow, perhaps you weren't compaining about that act, but just opitning out that it may screw up a brain Pawn who cannot enter any more tournaments.

That was my whole point though-- a paying member need not worry about that.

You said a player might not be able to fins chatting partners in his one tournament? SO WHAT? he can enter 20 non tournamnet games and find chat partners. that portion of your argument is very weak because a player need not play tournament games to chat with opponents. In fact, if one was interested in chat, Why would he play tournamnets games instead of casual personal invite games?

<But please, Dmitri, dont say that people who truly cannot afford membership are irrelevant to ANY discussion. >>>>>

I am confused by your statement Harley. TTJazzberry and I were discussing ability to pay as a sidebar to one of our discussions. I do not believe EITHER of us said that thye are irrelevant to anything.

What we both probably said at some opitn is that the debate is not relevant to the other issues we were debating. If that was not ewhat was said, that was what was implied. I think I may have said that those who treuly cannot afford to pay make up a small percentage of those who are brain Pawns. That is not to say that they are irrelevant, just that they have little statiscital effect on the debate.

There is nothing demaaning about that. If there are 5 millionaires who play here, then those 5 peopel are also statistically insignificant (out of 4800 non paying memberas).

ANyway, my diatribe was actually EXEMPTING those people (who truly cannot afford) from my scorn. I am taking issue with those who CAN pay but don't, then complain. The only thing I said about those who truly cannot pay is that maybe time would be better spent doing something other than playing online games. Of course, if said person is disabled in some way, that might not be possible.

BUT this is all off on a tangent. The real issue is that most brain Pawns can afford to buy a membership, and for whatever reason, do not. I don't think it is because they are dissatisfied with the site, but rather, because they don't feel like getting sometihng for something when htey can get something for NOTHING instread.

And that is theuir choice! I do not object. One of my veyr best friends is a Brain Pawn. But, I guarantee you that never in a million years would he actually complain to Fencer that he isnl;t getting enough. He realizes (unlike some of the loufder brain Pawns) that he is not paying anything, and he is happy with what he has.

<"If they are, WHY? couldn't that time be spent working instead? There are jobs out there, people just don't want them."

Some people are disabled, or caring for elderly people and or children. There are many reasons a person may not be able to work.

P.S. I'm glad you now agree "there are indeedp eople in this country or maybe others who canot afford a membership" as it settles another disagreement we had earlier. >>>>>>>>

YEs. We agree, but probably not in terms of degree. I tihnk that the people we have discussed (those who truly cannot afford a membership) are veyr few and far between, so few that they are irrelevant to the discussion. Just to pull some numbers out of thin air-- suppose ten of the brain Pawns are in a financial situation such that a membership is unaffordable--that is suhc a low number that is has little to no impact on any of the relevant issues. NOw, is the number more or less than ten? Who knows.

Perhaps I am just a bit jaded from my years of experiencing seeing pewople who havea very warped sense of "not being able to aford something."

To adddressd what Bid Bad Wolf said, about one tournamnet not being enough todetermine if he likes the site:

If one tournamnet is not enouhg, then I would gather that means you would still have unanswered questions after playig in one tournamnet. I cannot imagine for thel ife of me what these questions might be, but, there are ober 200 paying members who would probably help out in answering any questions that a brain Pawn had (that were not answered by being able to play tewnety games and one tournament).

BBW. I have to beat a dead horase here. I agree with you, somewhat-- there are indeedp eople in this country or maybe others who canot afford a membership, BUT, I donlt think thosep eople are messing around on a site like Brain King!

If they are, WHY? couldn't that time be spent working instead? There are jobs out there, people just don't want them.

TTJazzberry, you said "BBW, you have a good suggestion about letting them opt out of the tournament if no chance of getting to the next round, after all they done that tournament for all intensive purposes. I am all for keeping the limit at 1 tournament as well, there has to be incentive to become a member."

I agre with this! And it seems that we obth agree that then on paying mmebers are already getting good service. so I am not sure what we are arguing about. Perhaps we just misunderstood each other.

As for the "cheapskates" and "freeloaders," I may not have made myself clear on this. Not all Pawns are cheapskates or freeloaders-- some are perfectly content with being a pawn and having limitations on their games and tournaments. This si fine with me-- they realize thay are not paying anything and soo they do not ask for more. Thep eople I cma calling cheapskates and freeloaders are those who are pawns, paying nothing, yet want more than what they are already getting. To me, that is the definition of a free loader. SOme will disagree, but I stand by that definition.

ok, it looks like we are on the same page now. I thought that TTJazzberry has disasgreed with me when I stated that brain pawns should not be complaining about being stuck entering only one tournament and thus not being able to enter another one.

I agree that brain Pawns are not complaining about much, but that one complaint has ben made quite a few times.

Obviously Fencer is oging to make his own decision, I just thought that people were asking a bit much, since thye already get good service (which the three of us apparently also agree on).

oops.. I messed up your nickname again-- I hear it in my head and then I type it out. I meant to write to Pipilo, but I wrote to pipolo instead.

Here is what pipilo said:

"TTJazz, I don't see why anyone wouldn't see what you meant. Seemed obvious to me! The more superlative service this site offers to nonmembers, the more members we can expect to get onboard. "

on its own, that statement would not be construed as meaning that the non members are not getting enough features (or "superlative service" as Pipilo put it).

But, Pipilo stated this in the ciontext of lending support to TTJazzberry's argumeent and in opposition to mine, which indicated to me that Pipilo thought that what the non members now receive is something short of what they should be getting.

Pipilo, if you do NOT feel that way, then why did you chime in the way you did? It certainly looked to me as if you were implying that, otherwise I am not sure why you clarified TTJazzberry's statement.

Again, if I am misunderstanding either one of you, I apologize. BUt if you obth think that the non members are getting enough services, then what are we arguing about?

<well pipolo, it seems we just disagree on this one. You tihnk the non members are not getting enough, and I think the are. WHat do you propose the non members get that they aren't already getting? And why do you think they would then become members, if they would be getting MOE than they are now? IF what they have now isn't enough to make them become members, why would they become members if you give them more?

Remember, we're not talking about making extra features for the MEMBERS, this discussion is about giving the NON members more.

NOw, if you were saying that giving MEMBERS more features would enticep eo0le to be come a member, I agree! If a person is NOT yet a member, it must be nbecause he isnlt satisfied with what the MEMBERS get! RIGHT??????? So how is adding features for the NON MEMBERS going to satisfy those concerns?

Please explain this to me.

TTJazzbberry-- You are out of your mind-- I should "swallow my pride" just because theo thers disagree with me, even though I was right? You live in a fantasy land. I don't care of 100 people tell me that 2+2 is 5, I will not "swallow my pride", I will continue to argue that iti s actually 4.

Obviously the case in question was not as clear cut as that, but that doesn't mean I should Lie and say that I think I was wrong. If I think I am right and everyone else wants to argue, so be it.

You also GROSSLY misstated what the entire discussion was about, but nothing much else that you say is accurate so that is no surprise.

BUt, let us stick to the topic of the one tournament issue. I'll restate my question one more time just to make sure we are on the same page:

If a person is NOT yet a member, it must mean that he is unhappy with what the MEMBERS have-- after all, if he is unhappy with what the brain pawns have, how wouldthat affect him if he were a brain knight? It wouldn't.

So, to say that the brain pwans are not members because the pawns do not have enough features, is just a silly argument!

If you gave the brain Pawns FIVE tournaments instead of one, how owuld that affect a paying member? it wouldn't. So why would this make someone more likely to be a paying member? HMM>. I guess it wouldn't!

TTJazzberry, you engage in name calling as much as anyone, so give it a rest.

NOw you are just making no sense at all. It seems that you AGREE with me, yet you are acting like you disagree.

Letm e help you try to make sense of this, I can see you are confused.

You just said that you did NOT sat that the brain Pawns do not get good service?

OK, fine! Then, if nothing is lacking, WE AGREE! That si what I ahve been saying all along! I have been saying that nothing is wrong with what the b rain pawns get now, and if they want more, they should pay.

It seems that we agree on this, yet you are arguing with me.

as for the relevance of who can afford to pay and who cannot, yes, the point is mostly irelevant, except that people use that BS excuse as a reason for wanting to get more features without paying for it. People have used the exact wording "Well, I cannot afford a membership" while asking for more features.

Maybe I should go to my next car service appointment anddemand a complete detailing of my car-- when they tell me I can have extra features, I'll say that I cnanot afford them!

Well, guess what they'll say! TOUGH! My not being able to afford extra services is not a reason for htem to just give me those services!

The same applies here. If someone truly cannot afford a membership, well, hey, life sucks sometimes, and you can;t always have everything you want. A gaming site is a pure luxury, and it just amazes me that cheapskate freeloaders want more than what they already get. YEah, that's right, I said cheapskate freeloaders, because that's what they are.

My argument about whether people can afford to pay ie IRRELEVANT? That is another asinine statement. Of course it is relevant!!!!!!!

If people do not like being limited to one tournamnet, they can simply PAY FOR A MEMBERSHIP!

BUt, instead, their stance seems to be this:

1) I like the site enough to want to be able to play MORE GAMES and/or MORE tournaments....

2) BUT, I don't want to buy a membership.

In other words, they like what they see and want more of it, but thye don't want to pay for it! Evne though msot of them can afford to but just choose not to! AND YOU SAY TIHS IS IRRELEVANT???

also, I must potn an innaccuracy in your last post, you said "Remember now, I said non-members should get good service and features, NOT the best, just good."

I remember what you said just fine. you said that non paying members should receive "THE BEST SERVICE POSSIBLE." (caps added by me for emphasis).

NOTE YOUR use of the word Best there. NOw you are changing it to "they should get GOOD service" (again, caps added by me).

Well, the service they get now is PLENTY GOOD! Yet you repeatedly ignore that obvious fact! thye get a loyt of features for ZERO dollars! So, they are already GETTING the good service you say they should get.

As for the weeks-old argument you are referring to, I thought that was a dead issue, but since you drredged it up, yeah, I called some people morons, because they were actling like morons. But I should not have said that THEY were morons, just that I thought their ARGUMENTS were moronic.

In my defense, I was being flamed by about twenty people at once, wihch makes it difficult to maintain composure.

Regarding memberships, which seem to have a significant effect on the number of tournamnets people can enter:

TTJazzberry, you disagree with me when I say that people can afford a membership, they just do nto want to.

I pose a question to you:

Of the brain pawns, of wihch there are 4800 (approximately), how many do you think really cannot afford a membership? Conversely, how many just choose to do something else with the money?

Remember, we're talking about twenty dolars here. Someone who goes to the movies twice in 6 months can obviously afford a membership, but like many people, he has decided that movies are more important than a brain King membership.

I am curious about your response to this question. If you don't want to count the inactive brain Pawns, don't. Just take a numbetr at random, say 1000 brain Pawns. How many of those 1000 do you think cannot afford a membership?

Here is a second question-- why do you think the current benefits extended to non-paying members are INSUFFICIENT for their being able to decide whether to become a paying member?

You indicated that people take the site for a "test drive" wihch I agree with-- but what I do not understand is why you think they do not have enough available to them to figure if they want to be a member or not.

One final note--if you do not agrreee with qwhat I say, and youtell me so, I do not consuider that "name calling." If you think my argument is asinine, please tell me so, I am a big boy and I can handle it. I don't go whining about "name calling" when someone uses a word like ridiculous or asinine. Those are just two words used to describe an illogical or nonsensical argument.

TTJazzberry-- apparently you have difficult with reading comprehension. I called ONE of your comments "asinine," yet you spoke as if I called ALL your stetements asinine.

If you take it as such an insult to have your comment referred to as asinine, then don't make asinine comments.

The fact is, you said "Remember, we were all non paying members at some point" as if it actually means anytihng, whne it clearly does not mean anything!

That wasn't even the statement I called asinine though (although I should have). No, theasinine statement of yours was that the non paying members should be given "the best service possible." You derided my understanding of business, yet you failed to explain why anyone would PAY for a membership if they are given everything for free.

Please enlighten me.

BY the way, the reason I did not call you a "moron" is I do not wish to engage in childish name calling. Calling someone names is a weak debating tactic. On theo ther hand, there is nothing wrong with taking issue with a particular STATEMENT that someone makes, wihch is what I did-- I attacked the STATEMENTS, not the PERSON.

My debating tactics are to opitn out how asburd some of the ocmments people make are, and then I defend my position with facts and logical arguments. It is a pity you feel the need to attakc this method of debating, although it does not surprise me, as the trend on this board is for people to utter mindless drivel asuch as "Remember, we were non-paying members once!" as if they have any meaning.

TTJazzberry, I find your statements objectionable. First of all, I have made it very clear why I am down on non paying members, haven't you read anything I have written? They are paying nothing yet thye want their inconveniences alleviated or eliminated.

You are correct, BIg Bad wolf was discussing this, but it is the NON PAYING members who actually complain about it, since they are the ones affected.

Your statement that "we were all non paying members once" is just ridiculous. SO WHAT???????

WHat does that have to do with ANYTIHNG? For starters, I was a non paying member for about three days, at which time I paid for a membership, so I am not sure what your point is there. Additionally, when I was a non paying member, I did not write to Fencer or make posts on the message boards saying "Hey, I am not paying you anything, but I have a problem with X y and Z that I would like you to resolve."

Now, on to your next comment:

"From a business standpoint its smart to give non paying members the best service possible to entice them into becoming paying members."

I can only hope you are joking here, because this statement is asinine. If you give the NON PAYING members the BEST SERVICE POSSIBLE, then they would be getting better service than the PAYING members! WHY would you give those who pay NOTIHNG the BEST service possible? Maybe you can explain to me, FROM A BUSINESS standpoint (since you used that term) WHY anyone who is already getting the "best service possible" would consider paying for a membership?

I think the best way to entice people to get a membership is to give them a taste, but not the entire meal.

Non paying members get PLENTY. thye can play 20 games. they can enter a tournament. they can participate on the message boards.

What exactly is the problem? That isn't enough value for the cost of NOTHING that they are paying? Why should they get anything more? Why would that make them become PAYING members?????

The whole POINT of becoming a paying member is that you DON'T have to deal with these issues! If the existence of these "problems" are not enough to entice someone to pay up, WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE PAY UP AFTER being GIVEN what the paying members all had to PAY to receive?

The people who aren't paying for memberships but are asking for more features are CHEAP. It has not been my experience that a cheapskate stops being a cheapskate when you give him more than you are already giving him.

Obviously my last statement is oging to elicit responses of "some people can't afford a membership."

Save it, because we all know that's a load of crap. The non paying members choose to spend their money on other things that they obviously deem more important, yet they want to have similar benefits to those of us who have deicded that a membership is what we would rather spend our money on.

"I believe this is really unfair to the unpaid players who play there games regularly -"

how can anything possible be unfair to the unpaid members? They aren't PAYING anything. That they get anything at all sounds very fair to me.

Again, if the tournamnet limitations are that much of a problem for a non-paying member, there is a simple solution.......

Yet, for whatever reason, non-paying members are under some delusion that all their inconviences should be alleviated.

For anyone interested in a fast tournament, I have created a 1 day Halma 10 by 10 tournament, maximum 6 players, which means the tournament will probably only be one round. Who likes those long drawn out tournaments anyway?

I see. I asked because I am in a tournament created by Patty, and it doesn't look like she will be able to start the next round any time soon.

WHen the first round of a tournament is complete, whne does the second round begin? Does the tournament creator have to do anything?

Running a website costs mney. Making a site run faster and better cosst money.

Tep roblem right now? Too many free riders!! There are too many people who play close to 20 games and are not paying members.

This slows the site down and then the paying members suffer.

HOwling Wolf, please don't takew this the wrong way, but, you are not PAYING anything, so I don't think you have much to complain about.

Granted, people are ALLOWED to play up to 20 games for free, so it isn't really their fault.

so, i think Fencer should lower the amount of games people can play for free. If that upsets soem of them and they leave, oh well, that is an income loss of ZER since thye re not paying anything!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

Walter--

1) Gary's attitude towards IYT (which I fully share) is completely justified.

2) IYT's versions of pente are WRONG. PERIOD.

3) Pente was invented by Gary gabrel in 1977 (approximately) on a 19X19 board, and it is supposed to be played on a 19X19 board. PERIOD.

4) Your comment about pente being flawed because it has a rule restriction doesn't make sense. So what? That alone doesn't make it flawed, but NOT having the restriction DOES make it flawed.

you then say:

"As Keryo isn't Pente either. I believe Keryo was made up in response to the very thing you pointed out.... "First to move"'s big advantage in Pente"

Yes, Keryo pente is not pente-- It's KERYO PENTE! Just like extinction chess is not chess, it's extinction chess! does that make chess any less of a game? No!

You don't see anything wrong with playing on a 13X13 board? Players would run out of room! Keryo pente is a longer game than pente, because of the increased number of captures possible, and pente often goes towards or to the edge of the board.

Why has there been less study for Keryo-pente? Who knows? Pente has just been more popular. For one,m there is a database containing thousands and thousands of pente games, at www.pente.org, thanks to the great efforts of Dweebo (creator of Dweebo's stone games, which is where pente.org will take you).

One more note on IYT-- they have BLACK moving first. THat is just wrong, and it created confusion when players discuss a game or a position, because unlike chess, where everyone knows white moves first, when soemone says "I was black and foudn myself in this position...." no one is exactly sure what that means.

Getting back to my Keryo pente record at pente.org-- I think you missed the point entirely. You don't see a difference between 100% and 75%? THat is a big difference! I am willing to go on that site and guarantee a win as player 1 against almost anyone, but I would not make the same guarantee as player 2, because it is definitely tougher to win. My 12-4 record does not negate that fact.

you said the restriction for pente has not been successful. I disagree. Player 1 still wins more often, but so what? In almost all ga,es, player 1 probably wins more often.
in closing-- to respond to your last remark-- yes, by all means check out pente.org, it's a great site!

Walter, the advantage of moving first is significant in keryo pente, in my opinion. The opening restrictions help level the field, but not by much. At Dweebo's stone games I am undefeated as player 1 (14-0) and I am 12-4 as player 2. I find it difficult to win as player 2, and I was never in danger of losing as player 1.