<Wow, lots of good posts here. Let's see if I can address some. I think that continuing play from a 10-10 situation makes sense. If I could see in a situation (such as my puzzle as it was stated, not as I meant to state it) that I had no hope of winning beyond the 10-10 mark, if a draw feature was available, I would at that point offer it. If my opponent did not accept, I would either resign or continue play until as Gary has suggested the tie is broken or a 5 is made.

Dmitri- if you look at my post again about points, you will find that the loser of the game, i.e. the one who does not capture 5 pairs or make 5 in a row can never have a score which equals or exceeds the winner's score. His/her points are only tallied to the winner's score minus 1 point. Otherwise, it would indeed be ridiculous. However, I have encountered games where a position looked unbeatable in pente (open tessera with not enough captures through it to provide a win) but in fact proved vulnerable. It is these games where things which might seem meaningless, may actually not be that I feel like there should be more incentive to play them out than there currently is in the game. I didn't ever mean to suggest that points would determine the winner of a pente game, and I apologise if that was unclear. What I was trying to propose was a means (other than move restrictions) to make pente fairer and easier to determine relative abilities. Nor do I like it in a game (without points!?) when a player makes useless fours when a win is clear(sometimes I'm guilty of it though). Perhaps points could penalize this? Also, Dmitri, about your point on allowing captures to happen in poof pente while not allowing 5 in a row, this may seem inconsistent, but if we establish the rules to be as follows it is actually not: if a stone (X) is placed on the board which makes a five in a row, that does not immediately end the game in poof pente. First, all 8 directions must be examined to determine whether that X is vulnerable to capture by poofs. X is allowed to capture any pairs which are vulnerable. If it is determined that X is vulnerable to a poof in one or more directions X and the other stone(s) which create a poof are removed. It is now the opponents turn unless: a five in a row exists or one player has > or = 10 stones from captures and the the two player's scores from captures are unequal. Complex to explain, I know. If captures are not allowed, however, the advantage to creating poofs becomes too extreme.


Thad- it is eminently unclear at this point that player 1 has an advantage in pente with poofs (at least played with tournament rules openings). Until it is established that that is the case I'd be opposed to resolving ties as you have suggested.
Gary- comparing standard rules pente vs. poofs and although it is not a great analogy, it may illustrate why it is better to allow a play into a poof than not. If playing into a poof spot is an illegal move poofs become too dominant. No 5 can be made or captures taken from that spot as long as it is a poof. Therefore creating poof spots would become the dominant stategy, rather than simply another option for the player on defense. In standard rules, if you have a piece on the board which is hindering your line of play by making it vulnerable to attack, you may be able to find a line which will remove that stone from the board by forcing your opponent to capture it. Since a stone involved in making a space a poof is a similar hinderance, but a line may not exist (see example) which allows you to force your opponent to remove it for you, doesn't the possibility to sacrifice make sense in that situation? Example: White has stones at: G12,H6 and 12, J7 and 12, K8 and 12, L9,M11 and P10. Black at: F12,G5,K9,11, and 13, M9 and 12,N10,11 and 12, O10 and 11, P11.
+ + + + B + + + + +
B W W W W + B B + +
+ + + + B + W B B B
+ + + + + + + B B W
+ + + + B W B + + +
+ + + + W + + + + +
+ + + W + + + + + +
+ + W + + + + + + +
+ B + + + + + + + +
This board would clearly be a win for white in either pente or poof pente (when you can play into a poof), but if you cannot, white has no way to get rid of the stone at M11 and cannot capture by playing at M10, so the game becomes a win for Black! Whole games could probably be built like this around just one or two inadmissible playing spots.