John Baker: I like 6x6. Rod just showed me how it was played. I would recomend playing him if you want a good challenge

BrainKing04: I prefer 8x8, but I will play a game of 6x6 with you.

how about a game of 6x6 John?

BrainKing04: Will you play a game of 8x8 with me?

rod03801: good close game thanks rod

6x6 is good

BrainKing04: if you like 6x6 or anti, sure!

woudl anyone else care for a game?

BrainKing04: I consider myself to be a very good player. I am also a relatively fast player. Why don't you accept my invitations? You asked for a faster time limit, but you still won't accept my invitations. What does it take to play you?

John Baker: working at getting down to a "powerful few" seems to be the most useful strategy if you feel the need to separate all the strategies, however they must all be considered at the same time to be a good player

Personally, John Baker, the strategy you say you use is the most effective. I am not really an expert at regular reversi, however. Anti-reversi is my game.. but the strategy is of course similar.

When learning reversi, I used to try to always take as many as possible through the game.. and lost almost every time! lol. it's all about position, not numbers, through most of the game, in my opinion..

How about overall game strategies? Some players try to dominate throughout the game, making moves that capture as many as possible every time. Others go for the edge spaces and work at gaining edge territory. Still others, like me, work at getting down to a "powerful few" with which we can control the moves of the opponent. What do you use?

gborland: IMO, the best thing to do is find something that works well for you most of the time. Once you find that, go back and try to commit to memory what you did and what it accomplished, so that in future games you can accomplish the same thing by using similar, if not the same, moves.

Thanks for the replies. I can't decide if my best option is to just memorize the standard openings, or to play each opening out from first principles. :-)

gborland: I don't have any current examples of the other opening, which I called "weak and uncommon," and I don't feel like digging through my archived games. It's the one where you get two parallel lines of 3 pieces.

gborland: Because of the way we're allowed to start here on BrainKing, we can get some non-traditional openings. My game http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=994572 is a good example of one of those. I have no suggestions for how to proceed in those situations.
Here are two examples of games where I had both of the more common openings, and they were played out fairly well. In each, the moves become non-standard by about move 5 or 6 (or 9-12, depending on how you're counting).
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=992113&i=8
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=992205&i=8

gborland: From what I've picked up, there are two pretty common openings, and the only other possibility is weak and uncommon. I don't know how to explain them here, other than suggesting you look at my games. I wish we could insert images here. :-)

gborland: I need to learn more about Reversi openings. They are my weak point; my first five or six moves are normally pretty random. Any pointers?

I'd try Google

I need to learn more about Reversi openings. They are my weak point; my first five or six moves are normally pretty random. Any pointers?

Anyone have anything to say about reversi? Share a favorite strategy? Ask a question?

furbster: lmao Hey I never said I agreed with Filip! I desperately would love to see the auto pass as would tons of other folks. But No means no.. So we do with out.
Worse things in life eh! LOL

Rose: does suck tho, it'd be better with it ::runs::

Rose: Bummer. Thanks though. :-)

John Baker: Auto pass has been brought up numerous times over the past 3 years and so far Filip has stated he has non intention of creating the auto pass funtion for any games.. Sorry

I don't think players should have to acknowledge a pass move. It'd speed things up quite a bit if I could just make 8 (or however many) moves in a row without having to wait for my opponent to acknowledge the pass. Some players make 1 move per day, and there's nothing wrong with that, but you can imagine the frustration when it's a tournament game and everyone's waiting for one player to acknowledge the pass moves once a day. I'm not experiencing this right now, but it's happened quite a bit in the past.

Yes kinda expensive for most, but I am right there with ya, maybe a few showgirls too, and a cocktail waitress?

Czuch Chuckers: Good point. In fact, it'd be a little spendy, but there could be a touch screen laying flat on the table between the opponents. Even better, it could be flush with the tabletop and look really snazzy! I can see it now... green felt tabletop with black leather around the edges...bright othello screen in the center, black and white pieces on a green board...bright light coming from spotlights in the ceiling...and an announcer. Yes! An announcer! This just keeps getting better and better...

John Baker: I have never played a live topurney, but I would imagine these days they could play them on touch screen computers or even online but face to face in the same room.

Yeah, that's the way they're sold in stores. However, I would agree that it seems clumsy for live tournament purposes.

iytconvert: I've thought that too! I've seen a reversi board, and the pieces are double sided, different colour on each side, so I guess they do.

I have a question. Do people play like this in tournaments always flipping over their peices? I think it would be a tired affair after turning and turning and turning.

How about randomly placed "wild" pieces? Those grey pieces could be randomly placed at the beginning of the game by the software (just a couple of them). Then, for the rest of the game, either player could use those pieces as their own. They'd never change status, always usable by either player. A grey located diagonal from the corner would definately add a significant aspect to the game. :-)

(just translanted the rules to dutch so i started to think about them :))


would it be a nice variation if a player would place 1 piece of a 3rd color .. (grey) which would turn all enclosed pieces into the other color. When the move is completed and the pieces have been turned, then the grey piece changes into the color of the player who made the move.

so it would act as both a white as well as a black piece .. turning the black pieces which it encloses with a white piece on the other side and turning the white pieces with a black piece on the other side as well

would it be nice when a player could decide to place a piece of the color of the opponent as well ?

both players are still their initial colors .. but they can play a piece in the other color in their turn.

so for example i am white .. and at my first real move (after the 4 pieces in the center are placed) i move with a black piece turning one of my own (white) pieces to black ... then its blacks turn .. and he (of course) moves with black as well .. to turn my last white piece around to black ... making the while board black ... and black would have won

of course this would be bad of me .. so i wont be playing with my opponents piece at the first real move ... but further in the game it might create some interesting situations ?

Wil: Yes that makes sense that a win for both sides cannot be gauranteed! Kitti is correct, it is black that has a gauranteed win formula, but both colors cannot have a gauranteed win, my bad, thanks!

<>Czuch Chuckers: I thought there was a 6x6 >program that gaurantees a win 100% of games, no >matter what color?
Kitti is right: such a program could not guarantee to win itself ;-)

Nope, player to move second (== black at BK) is guarenteed a win on perfect play. However, i haven't heard of program with such capability being publicly available. It took weeks on SGI workstation originally solve the game.

I thought there was a 6x6 program that gaurantees a win 100% of games, no matter what color?

Yes, there are some very strong othello programs. The Moor beat world champion in 1980 and since then programmes have been able to match human world championship level players. In 1997 program called Logistello did beat the current world champion Murakami 6-0 in six matches. Of course using such programs is considered cheating and it is prohibited in BK user agreement.

Surely it is quite hard to know if someone is using such program or if he/she is just a very good player. Personally, i don't even bother thinking about that. If someone chooces to use such tools, they're only fooling themselves. It doesn't take anything away from me as i'm not obsessed with ratings and stats. I still enjoy my games no matter whom i play against.

If you suspect someone is using such programs, try talking to them about the game. There might be something fishy if someone plays like a pro but cannot explain the moves. Also try playing them in 6x6 or 10x10 as programs for those are not quite as strong as the regular 8x8 ones. At least i'm not aware of such programs.

In my opinion, even if you think you have a strong case about someone being a cheat, it is not worth to go public with your accusations. It just causes bad feelings, flamewars and such. And the accusations could be false, it's not a easy task to prove someone cheats. If you think someone does cheat and you're bothered about it, just don't play against him/her anymore.

They probably are around, but i would most definatly not use one. I play to get better not to be the best by cheating

I didn't even KNOW there was such a thing. Do some players on here use them? Is that why it is so difficult to win a game? Or is it that I am too 'thick' :-)

I’ve got a question about „Othello“ programs... Are they really so strong as they are called? Do they don’t have a weakness?
I would say I was a experienced player few years ago (but perhaps not so good as most payers here at brainking :) ), but I mostly played against programs in private.
In chess the programs have big problems with positional play and game strategies like in the opening called King’s Gambit. They always say that black has an advantage, but it is not so easy to say.
Can’t it be so in “Othello“ too?

I can’t say that cheating (using programs) is okay or not. But it should be a fair not using these programs. But you can’t control it that everyone isn’t cheating. So a prohibition doesn’t make sense.

I would be happy about every answer.

PS: I’m sorry for my bad English…

thanks

6x6 has been solved. With optimal play player 2 is guaranteed a 19-17 win with parallel opening position and 20-16 with diagonal opening. More info at: http://www.feinst.demon.co.uk/Othello/6x6sol.html

I guess the bigger ones will not be solved ever.

are any of the reversi variants on here solved ?

i can understand 6x6 being solved .. but not sure

Hrqls: Most sites give the option to go both ways... Gives it more options to work with than play 100 games the same way...

*nod* it was also explained to me in the reversi-ep fellowship :)

thanks :)

sorry for moving a bit slower now .. i have a lot to think about in reversi ;)

Hrqls:

Before the game got the name "Othello" it was allowed; also, I think another rule was added with the change of name (about sharing the discs). So, this we play must be another variant.

in my reversi rules it says you have to start diagonally
XO OX
OX XO

but on here you can also start horizontally or vertically

XX OO XO OX
OO XX XO OX

is that allowed ?

The World Othello Championships are nearly upon us. So why not play Fantasy Othello - full details can be found here