I think this is the first year a Pente variant has been included in the annual Mind Sports Olympics. Currently, the swap2 Pente is scheduled for early September. I hope we have a great turnout. Check the calendar of events at msoworld.com

Also the site www.playpente.com may help.

Thanks, Dweebo, you are awesome! Come and play all. Tom

I would say a combination of move 6.G6 surrendering the initiative and move 13.K9 allowing L10 to be played were the most costly mistakes for white. But I'm no expert...

No one sent in a correct solution to arrive at the 10-10 score in six moves in my puzzle(if someone did and I accidentally missed it, please let me know the approximate date and I'll check again), so here is the solution: 1.K12 K13 2.O10 K7 3.K6 N7 4.O7 N9 5.R11 Q12 or K16 6.O8. I think the solution(s) to win in 7 moves if black has one less stone captured should be obvious from here, so I'll leave them as an exercise for the reader.
Mark has modified his program to play poof pente and it plays VERY well, so soon anyone who wants to try it will be able to play against the computer. I am thinking about trying to get a poof pente discussion board set up somewhere, so that people can post strategy tips, puzzles, etc. I am also looking forward to the time when Mark has his AI modified so that we can try out different variants on the theme of poof pente (and others also) to see what seems to be the fairest game (Gary's suggestion of playing into poofs being forbidden, only P2 can make poofs,etc.) Tom

I asked Mark to check how frequently draws occur in renju for me and he said "Scanning results of renju (live) championships, I see about 1 in 10
ending in a draw." Just a little trivia for all of the opponents of draws out there. :~)

Mark's solution is actually better than mine, so I'll post it here as the best one I've seen (yet) to the puzzle. It enables the puzzle to have up to 3 stones captured by black, which mine does not. So here it is. 1. G10 forces ...1.L10 or else white plays 2.L10 and 3.L10 winning in three moves. 2.L10 ...2.L10. Here is where Mark's solution comes in: 3. N6! forces 3.K9. 4. J11 and black can't capture without losing, so ...4.M14 5. G9. My solution was the more direct, but costly 3. J11. Again, well done Mark!

Did anyone check out my example of the potential difference in the outcome of a game played with poofs as forbidden to play into vs. not? Any comments?

I got Mark (and hopefully others) interested in exploring the variant, Mark gets $200 from me ($100 prize + $100 to help support his work) and Mark says he'll be upgrading to "brain rook" here with the prize money. I say good deal. Tom

I think the subject heading covers it. Example is extreme, but it illustrates what could happen in a game where playing into a poof is disallowed. It ain't pretty... lol Tom

Can anyone refer me to a database of games of D-pente or to some opening set-ups which would offer good play? I've had a few ideas about analysis of the board and I'd like to look at some of those openings. Thanks, Tom

<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.

I agree Gary that captures programmed in would be easiest for the players. We used to play the game by the rules you are suggesting until a situation arose in which one player (read: me)wanted to sacrifice into the poof spot. In most cases the move doesn't make sense to do: in the simplest scenario the net result is: you are removing a piece from the board on your turn, giving your opponent two stones toward a win and your opponent can then make a 2_1 by playing where you have just sacrificed. Your suggestion is definitely easier to explain, but for myself, I prefer the game when the ability to sacrifice exists. Your suggestion does eliminate the draw option though. Two versions, perhaps? Tom

Yes, that should be correct. As long as you say and/or. Because it can be both. Now coming up with a progam to play the strategy is a different matter entirely. Good luck, Mark! Also, it could be played without the number of captures affecting the outcome, but I think that the tension involved with having the potential to lose by captures is a good thing to keep.

Thad, I mentioned it to Fencer when I first came to the site. He said it would be on his to do list, but he is quite busy, so it may be awhile. I've also let Dweebo and Richard (Pbem) know about it. My hope is that it will arrive sometime in the not to distant future. Probably, the easiest way to set it up would be to put in a remove stone(s) feature similar to the undo at Dweebo's, i.e. asking opponent if it was acceptable to remove stones at certain locations from the board. The opponent would then be able to make any needed corrections to the removed stones before accepting. And of course the stones would have to be counted individually, rather than in pairs. But, I'm not a programmer, so there may be easier ways to go about the set-up. Also, re: draws, we already have the offer draw feature here and at other sites, so at least I can offer it when the score is 10-10. Whether my opponent accepts or not... :~)

Okay Dmitri,
Perhaps, then to play as Gary has suggested. For myself, I think that draws would be a rare phenomenon (I've never encountered one in play in over a year of games with an evenly matched opponent)and if I could only see a loss as an alternative, I'd be happy to have a draw option. Two variants? With or without draws maybe? I'd get a headache if I had to start analysing a position much beyond 10 stones captured I think, and would probably accept a draw for this reason alone. :~} Tom

Yes, Gary- the draw would occur if the score was 8-8 and a capture is made which sacrifices 2 stones making the score 10-10. I suppose play could continue from that point until one player broke the tie; although it is interesting to think that a draw might be possible in pente. Also if play is required to continue it makes strategy even more complicated, because until now play has just been focused on how to reach 10 stones, now it would have to include what would happen after reaching ten stones as well. Could be interesting and certainly challenging. As far as points 2 and 3 go, I agree with your assessments on those points. Tom
P.S.- since 10-10 may or may not be an allowable resolution to the game, I will just say that white can play the game to 10-10 with best play by black. If it's not a draw, it is still the solution I'm seeking. If the puzzle had been originally stated as I had intended it, there would have been one or two fewer stones captured by black making the forced win in 7 moves the best outcome which black could achieve. This is the one Mark was the first one to send me a correct solution for. These puzzles are hard to make!

Mark gave me the first correct solution to the puzzle as I had it stated, BUT! EGG ON MY FACE! I'm glad I was the one to discover that best play by black actually forces a DRAW in 6 moves as the best result for white. So Mark gets $100 for the puzzle and the first person (before June 13th)besides Mark to find the line where black can force a draw in six moves as the best result white can achieve will also get $100.

Thanks for the reply Thad. Here is how I'd address your points:
1."First of all, you?d have to come up with a scoring system that everyone agreed with. Good luck on that."
If the point system is based on analysis of games played without points and fine tuned as needed, why wouldn't most if not all players agree that it was an accurate representation? People wouldn't HAVE to play for points, but those who wanted to play in tournaments set up using points would know going in that that was how the tournament was set up, just as now players know that they will be playing using tournament rules. If a player objects to the way the tournament is run, s/he can always create his/her own.
2."Second, and more importantly, a win is a win. It doesn?t matter whether my opponent caps four of my pairs or none, as long as I get the five in a row (or five pairs). Also, if I resign a game, how would you score it? The only game I can think of that uses a points system to determine a champ is Div. I college football, and everyone agrees that?s a messed up system"
A win is still a win using the points system; however, using points you can evaluate the relative strenghts of the competitors more easily for the purpose of ratings and handicaps. Currently, if I thrash on a player, totally dominate the game as white it is exactly as you say, just a win. If that player barely manages to win against me as white, again a win is a win and we are now tied and have the same rank. So how do we determine who is the better player? Duplicate bridge uses points to determine winners. The point system used for college football is totally different from what I'm talking about here, so although everyone may agree that it is a totally messed up system it doesn't really affect the strength of my case one way or another. What if you resigned a game? Then,if you were playing for points you would get the number of points which you had accumulated in the game before resigning and your opponent would get his/hers. This would be incentive not to resign, because you would be playing a match, not just a game, and every point you could get might make a difference to the outcome.
3."Also, if Pente were played under a points system, we?d be less inclined to try out new lines."
This is probably true, for most players as I mentioned in my post- arguments against the system. However, my guess is that right now most players don't have much incentive to try out new lines(why risk a loss when you know how to win?), and therefore when they do most of them are following the trailblazers. If we make the game more attractive to new players (handicaping)we will have more potential trailblazers. Points might actually give incentive to explore new lines: can I find a better line where I win more quickly or capture more pairs in winning?
4."Also, if points were awarded for caps and length (shortness) of a game, would it be better to take an unnecessary cap. It would get me an extra pair (and thus more points), but make the game longer, and make me look like a weaker player."
I thought of this downside after posting, and here is how I'd resolve it. A player on the losing end of a game could prevent score padding by pointing out that the winner was trying to pad the score as soon as s/he noticed that that was occurring i.e.- you have an open three. Why didn't you make an open four this turn. The winner would be required to take the shortest line to a win once it was pointed out to him/her.

I've made another puzzle with the variant. Mark's ? re: moving into a poof and whether or not it would be able to capture vulnerable pairs and my response to him were the inspiration for this one. I suspect it will be fairly obvious, so no prize, but kudos to the first correct solution. The puzzle is as follows:Black stones at E12,F10,H6 and 11,J8,12 and 14,K7,9 and 13, L6,8,11 and 12,M7,9 and 10, N8 and 12. White stones at:F11,g12,H7,8,9 and 10,J10,K10,11 and 12,L9 and 13,M11 and 15,N10 O7 and 9. Neither side has any captures. White to play to a forced win in 5 moves given best play by Black. I'll just attempt to put up the section of the board where stones are placed on this one; i.e between E and O and between 6 and 15. Good luck!
+ + + + + + + W + +
+ + + + B + + + + +
+ + + + + B W + + +
B + W + B W B + B +
+ W + B + W B W + +
+ B + W W W + B W +
+ + + W + B W B + W
+ + + W B + B + B +
+ + + W + B + B + W
+ + + B + + B + + +

It is true Mark, that pente without opening move restrictions would be a short and lopsided game (at least for the players who know the game); mainly my point was to emphasize that opening restrictions are unnecessary in order to make a fair game out of pente. I suspect that most of us would still play with the current tournament rules if points were used to get rid of white's edge. Some might want to play the game they were used to (without restrictions) and they could be the ones to analyse their games to determine the weighing factors to make theirs a fair game, while we would determine ours :~} The keryo masters would find theirs, etc. I'm not even certain that my variant needs an equalizer. Who knows? My other point is still valid, though, I think, which is that determining the points for whatever version one plays enables new and less experienced players to have a chance to learn the game from masters without the downside of feeling totally outmatched and not being able to see their improvement. I feel that this is important in building confidence in learning; constant frustration is not as conducive to a quick steep learning curve as is a consistently positive reinforcement as they can witness the handicap shrink match by match. After all, even if your team doesn't win, if you bet on them to beat the point spread and they do, you have some consolation. :~) Also, if someone like me, who started out playing pente without opening move restrictions wants to learn the game with restrictions, matches would be possible to set up using both, to facilitate the learning process; i.e.- when I was first learning,I could play a match of 3 or 4 games with you with you starting as white and playing tournament rules. If after observing your strategies as player 1 I still didn't feel like I could play it effectively, I could open without restriction on my turn- the difference would be factored into the score. The scoring allows things like this: if you beat me by 100 points in our first match, give me a handicap of 60 points. Next round if I only lose by 20 points I can see that I've improved by 20 points. Next match the handicap is 40 and I lose by 15 points. I've already improved by 45 points in just two matches! Wow, this is a fun game and you are a great teacher!

Did everyone stop reading/responding to posts after all of the arguing? I just realized I may be the only one putting posts here for a reason. Keep in touch if you read this. Tom

I've updated my puzzle, cleaning up a bit of mud which was in it and making it more challenging by backing it up a move or two. I'll be updating it as I find ways to make it go backward in ways that force the line to be played to get to the current position, so if you want in while it's not too hard I suggest you copy it now. Sorry, I couldn't ecrof the puzzle so it stands at 7 moves to win for white. I'm offering to send a $100 money order to the first person to send me an e-mail with the correct solution, or to send it to brainking in their name if they prefer. Sorry, I don't do paypal :~}. I'll publish my solution on or around my birthday, June 13th. If you've already started on it you should have a head start. I'm doing this to hopefully spark some interest in the variant. Tom

This would also answer the question of whether a pair handicap is to great for player 1 playing tournament rules. Chances are Dmitri is correct and it is. Still, I'd be curious to find out.

I thought I had put up a post re: pente for points variant here but I'm not seeing it. Just as well- now after further thought I believe I can make a very effective case for it. I read one of Tom Braunlich's books many years ago and remember seeing it mentioned, but not paying too much attention at the time. Here are my thoughts: I agree with Virag that long rules changes are what are needed: Tournament rules lasted us 20 years. Gary has said that white still has a moderate advantage in tournament rules; no one knows the exact value of this advantage, but it is doubtless greater than the advantage for white in chess. Consider- most chess games between top players are draws! There are no draws in pente (except by agreement; show me a 19X19 board filled with stones without a win for either side and I'd say it's either a joke- neither player was trying to win or it's a GO game) so what is currently happening in pente tournaments is that top players of equal strength are trading wins depending on who is white a significant amount of the time. Obviously, for top players this is unacceptable in tournament play- hence the proposed rules changes. Although the rules changes proposed are interesting and no doubt fairly easy for top level players (swap options), to me they create a further striation between players. Look at it this way- in order for one player to place four stones on the board and offer to play from either side s/he must be fairly confident of being able to have close to a 50% chance from either position. I contend that most players of pente are not at the level where that is an easy thing for them to be confident of. Most over the board players won't have an opening book at hand yet, I suspect, so when they learn to play it will be with current tournament rules most likely. Eventually they may graduate to D pente, but it may not be an easy transition.
My proposal: reverse engineer a point system for pente games based on analysis of games played and fine tune it as needed. Here is what I think it might look like- 25 points per stone captured, 50 points per tessera or for a 3_1 or 1_3_1 game, winner gets some points based on the number of moves it takes to win: one possibility for this would be something like 30-x where x=# of moves. Loser's points are only counted up to winner's points -1. A match is played until the end of a game in which one or both player's scores exceed 1000 points. The above numbers are just for purpose of example. By looking at games already played in tournament rules, keryo, no restrictions pente and other variants values for these games could be determined based primarily on close games between top players. Why go through all this trouble? 1.It would quickly allow the relative value of player one's advantage to be numerically defined for each game so that it could be eliminated by factoring it into the score!! You read that right; if we can figure this out we can play pente evenly with no opening move restrictions! : If two players are of relatively equal strength in a game it should be the average value of the difference between the winner's score and the loser's score if an odd number of games are played. 2. It would allow players of different ability to play against each other by enabling a method of handicapping the stronger player. A very strong player could perhaps spot a beginner 5 or 6 hundred points and have an interesting match. 3. It would change as little as possible about the feeling of each game, since the scoring system would be based on games already played without it and how close they appear games would not suddenly have to evolve in new direction in order to nullify the player one (or two advantage). 4. It would make players fight games out to the bitter end from a losing position so that they could have a closer score. This would make games between top players more accessible to novices: if a top player sees a forced win in 5 moves and feels that his opponent will surely see it, he currently has no incentive to play the game out and may resign. A novice studying the game may well not see the win easily (unless the game has commentary attached). 5. A more effective rating system can be established for pente players. Example: if two top level players should come to this site and only play against each other in tournament rules swapping games trading games for 100 games there would be no way for the current rating system to distinguish between their abilities in the game. Let's say one player knows the lines so well that s/he never makes an error and always finds the quickest and surest route to victory. The second player obviously has a very good grasp of the game as well in order to trade games with the master, but in perhaps one tenth of the games s/he makes an unnecessary move or two which nonetheless do not affect the outcome of the game(win for white). If 1/10th of these tactical errors throw the game to black, then one could look at the rankings of these players for months without noticing the difference in skill level between them. With my proposal it would become apparent as soon as the weaker player made a tactical error in a match of 5 or so games whether or not the error was enough to throw the game: i.e. the stronger player can demonstrate that a forced win situation existed in 6 moves while it took the weaker player 8 moves to come to a win. It might not affect the ranking immediately, but the master would immediately know he was the stronger player. Sorry for extreme length of post, but now I've made my case. I don't object to other variants being tried and tested, but I feel this one has the most potential to turn pente and its variants into "the board player's duplicate bridge" i.e. an extremely popular game of mental skill where players of similar and/ordifferent abilities can compete against each other for fun and/or money. Of course the will be downsides to this idea; the amount of effort involved to find accurate evaluations and equations would probably be considerable to say the least. There might be less incentive to explore the outer reaches, once it becomes possible to play evenly without restrictions. My sense though, is that if it is feasible, even if it takes a few years to put into place, it would be worth the effort to improve the game, because the game would really be sooo much better if it could be evened up. Remember, finding an opening book where player 1 wins 50% of the games is not exactly an easy task either- I suspect that those lines have been explored by relatively few players, since it is to their advantage to play from a positional advantage :~) Only when we have many players playing those lines may we come to realize that they are not as even as they seemed given correct play. Then other positions have to be found, etc., etc. It could be a long journey just to find out that there are really only one or two positions which offer an equal chance. Sorry, I'll shut up now.

Good question Mark- It is open to interpretation and could go either way, but my sense is that it makes it a fairer game to allow it to capture. The way that I tend to look at it when in doubt is that the stone lands in the spot, creates a volatile situation which must be resolved by removing ALL affected pairs for both sides and then the game continues from the new position. So, for instance if one played into a spot which was a poof in two directions and would capture two pairs of the opponent's stones and create a five in a row the net result is: the five exists for a brief moment, but not long enough to win (it must still exist when it is the opponents turn to move), you capture two pairs while losing 3 stones (one in each direction in which a poof is formed + the one you placed to make the 5). It is now the opponent's turn. Any luck with my puzzle?

Just a thought- I wonder if that would be the consensus among expert players or not? Also what about a pair handicap without opening restrictions on player 1?

I've not seen the possibility discussed, but I was thinking that to even the board for the experts a pair or two handicap while playing tournament rules might be enough to do it- as Gary has mentioned in tournament rules white must generally sacrifice a pair to get to a winning line, and I've noticed that the game reaches a certain point of tension when one player has three captures. Perhaps a way to explore this option would be to analyse games between top players to see what percentage of white's wins were made when black had 4,3,2,1 and 0 captures and then see how the lines might be affected by giving black 1 or 2 pairs to begin.

I've posted my favorite on the pente discussion board as well as a puzzle problem which illustrates how different it is from current pente while still having only a slight change in the rules- Gary and other top players, I'd love to see this game explored at your level of play; it seems to me to be almost pente+ when I have played it(a deeper and richer game) but I haven't had the chance to explore its depths with players of your calibre.

Thanks for the response Dmitri.Yes it is indeed quite similar to standard pente. The way it originated was that our instructions with the pente board were unclear on the situation, and we thought we were playing pente according to the rules! It does take a bit to switch gears from standard to this variant (which I call pente with poofs) or vice versa,but it is quite possible. Just in case anyone thinks that the actual games or strategies are anything like standard pente I've made up a puzzle problem which I call David vs. Goliath which should amply show how different the two games end up being. Obviously, this exact pattern would never occur in a real game, but the puzzle shows some of the potential within the variant. Black has pieces at:H8,J12,K8,9,and 10,L7,M7 and 10,N10,O6 and 9, P5 and 9, and Q10. White has pieces at G9,H13,K11,14,and 15,L10,P11,R3. White has 6 of black's stones from captures and black has 4 white. White to play to win in 7 moves with best play by black. I'll send a money order for $100 to the first person to send me an email with a correct solution, or to brainking in their name if they prefer. I'll be interested to see how easy/difficult others find it to solve this. Here's more or less what the board looks like:
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + W + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + W + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + W + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + B + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + W + + + + W + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + B W B B + + B + + +
+ + + + + + W + + B + + + B B + + + +
+ + + + + + + B + B + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + B B + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + B + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + B + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + W + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
If the stone and +'s don't look aligned try changing your browser's font settings to a fixed font like courier new (thanks Mark) Good Luck! Send solutions to watsu13@yahoo.com

I've posted this one at Yahoo's club pente and also let Dweebo and Fencer know about it and have shown it to Gary also- still no luck in playing it on the web yet- the difference between pro pente and this one is that a player can in effect create a pre-emptive capture at a given point by placing stones on either side of that point and an adjacent point occupied by an opponent's stone, so in the example X_OX in standard rules O can play at _, but with this rule if O wants to play in that space s/he sacrifices a pair of stones (or possibly more if a stone placed in that spot forms pairs which are captured in several different directions) to the opponent and it then becomes the opponent's move. This can occasionally be a worthwhile sacrifice. A win in this version is 10 stones or 5 in a row. A five must exist at the beginning of the opponent's turn in order to count as a win, so a fifth stone placed into a capture point does not count as a win, as it leaves the board (or never quite lands) before it becomes the opponent's turn. This variant gives the player who is on the defensive more options on defense. For example:
_X
X_XXX
_O
in the figure above O must play into a capture in standard rules, but has the option of playing above the top X in this version. However, in the example
X_XXX
_O
_X
the player O must still play into a capture. It is a very fun variant and I hope to be able to play it online soon!