If you really want to improve your gameplay, you have to fill the holes in your strategy and tactics repertoire. A program is usefull since it can help you find the holes you were unaware of.

Call me old fashioned, but why not analyze moves with your brain??? I wouldn't go as far as calling it cheating, but I personally would have much more respect for a "top player" who DOESN'T use a program, in any part of his/her game playing.

Just an opinion!
:-)

Well, the player in question is a bit stubborn, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the advantage in evaluating past moves with AI-aid.

I don't know what to think of using a 'passive' board to look at your moves... In other games (hex/twixt/go) it's accepted. But the lookahead is what's so hard with reversi, and using a viewer for you lookahead makes it a alot easier (and gives a huge advantage in the endgame). I'm not sure where I stand in this, but I would definately prefer a player who doesn't use a passive board.

Personally, I think that, while playing a game, evaluating past positions with a computer gives you a huge advantage. Being suggested a move always means asking "why", and often leads to a change of strategic objectives that often have impact in the endgame, much later. Often Zebra suggests a certain move several times during a game played on the board, and if players knew that would certainly have changed their point of view. Even looking only at past opponent's moves, IMHO, gives a lot of hints on how to play. When playing on IYT I discussed a lot if it can be considered "cheating" just evaluating with a -passive- board instead of pure brain thinking on the position!

I never played this variation, but I feel that it would be much too strategic. The presence of the edged some how perturbates strategy with tactic elements. Even reversi 10x10 has got IMHO a too long midgame due to the long time needed to reach edges and corners' perturbation and, hence, the endgame...

Oh they do. I thought I was inventing a new Reversi variation lol

Sounds like alot of fun to me! I believe Richards PBeM-server already has something like that.

What about a Reversi game that starts with the classical setup but then the board isn't limited. The board keeps expanding until 64 pieces are played or one player takes all of the other player's pieces. I think this would require a different strategy. What do you Reversi experts think about this?

I'd say this would be a very slippery slope. Let's say the game has evolved to move 24. Analysis until move 23 certainly gives additional insight into the position, but also you are only one click away from seeing the actual position and see what really would help you out. I wouldn't like it. Analysis after the game has been completed is more then fine of course.

In the start of the subject, usage of zebra to check for cheating has been mentioned. Someone playing zebra perfect for 100 games, perhaps this means something, but saying someone cheats because the beginning of the game is very zebra like is rather nonsense. Good players know lots of patterns and sometimes complete openings (sometimes: i.e. not klaashaas :-), so of course these would be played perfectly. Only solid way of finding cheaters online (IMNSHO) is talking about the game and commenting on past moves.

Ah, i see. Although, does the software tell you about these areas? Otherwise, it still wouldn't be helping you.

I don't think you understand what I mean, Kevin. Ofcourse, playing against a program for fun isn't cheating. The program uses its own algoritm, and is not using any external source (as you would expect from anyone/thing you play a game with!).

The point that I'm trying to make is that looking at a certain position with computer AI actually gives you a greater understanding of that position. If you use that advantage in an ongoing game, I consider that as unfair. Fact is that understanding of a position in, let's say, move 24 is still usefull at move 26, cause many aspects of that certain position at 24 are still there at move 26 (like parity areas, swindles, etc.).

Well do you consider it cheating to play games against a computer opponent (such as zebra) just for fun, and to improve your game? Because that is essentially what you are doing by analyzing previous positions. I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

No, they can't change previous moves, but in a game, the same patterns often keep on returning, and analysing previous moves can give an advantage. So if you miss something at move 22 and you find that out at move 24, it certainly helps you understand that current position better. Maybe it's not as bad as I picture it, but I'm really *beep* off by this.

I'de rather don't receive compliments in this rude form.

Thanks for your opinions!

i dont consider it cheating, as long as they dont plan present/future moves with it. but, i say if someone accuses you of cheating, and your not, then take it for what it is.... a compliment to your playing ability. :)

I think if the position has already passed in the game, i think figuring out what move would have been better is fine, because they can't change their previous moves (if that's what you mean).

I've been accused of using Zebra and now I'm having a difference with that player. I'de like to know your opinions.

The point is that she used zebra to check on me. Now, can this be considered as using AI aid in a game? Ofcourse, only previous played moves have been evaluated by zebra. But it's not unlikely that previous moves/patterns still are there on the board! That's actually very likely. I think analysing previous moves in an ongoing game certainly gives an advantage. So, the question is: when a player analyses previous positions with zebra, can that be considered as a form of cheating? Opinions, please.

I've seen implements of blackhole reversi variants on other sites. Nowhere I've seen variant that i have been thinking: balck holes in every 4 corners of game board. I've not playtested this version, but I think it might work. Opinions?

I have formed a fellowship for all serious (new or well versed) reversi players..
It is called 'Rose's Reversi Raiders ' The goal is to create the best Reversi team here and to share reversi tips and tricks with fellows within the fellowship...

The first time I played blaickner must have been at least 6 or 7 years ago. Cheaters don't last that long. I'm convinced your wrong here, Arnie.

No reputation in otb play that you know of... I do. What is worth more: privacy or having to prove you don't cheat against all costs?

The facts of the situation is that blaickner seems to have a near perfect record, has no reputation in over the board play, seems reluctant to participate in any over the board competitions - which appear to be characteristics of players who DO cheat. Having analysed the midgame section of one game I played against blaickner, most of these moves were identical to a strong program, and were also made as a quick response to a move I made. I haven't yet had the time to analyse any other of her games. If blaickner has achieved this record without a program then she should really be on the European tournament circuit (I would also recommend it to any European based player here), which would give her the competition she seems to want. At the moment it would mean that she would have to travel quite a long way but that is the way things are at the moment - as I have to travel long distances for over the board competition. I have suggested Amsterdam at the end of the month - as this is an event I will be taking part in. As a lot of people will be there it will also give her the chance to meet other players in the flesh.

i can understand people resigning, but in general i prefer to play a game through.

I've not played blaickner but in my opinion I would not accuse someone of cheating unless you have solid proof. Some people are just that great at a game. And i'm sure if you gave those people the chance they could help to improve your game as well.

And Gary, yes people do use cheating materials for the games at Pogo. I knew someone who was a pro card player and she played one of the games there (i don't remember which one) they said they had only played once or twice and totally beat her and not by luck...i mean the game went on for like an hour or so. She said she had pro tactics but got beat anyways.

This is strictly my opinion but when someone has got me backed into a spot where all my moves are spent passing and I know there is no way i'm even going to get a move in the next 10 turns I usually resign. And if an opponent is in the same situation I don't take it against them to do the same. I guess its all up to you whether you would like to play out the game and see where it goes or learn from the experiance or if you think that you will not benefit from the game then resign. I know that I don't take offense to it when people resign and I usually write a message to the person i'm playing if I resign the game.

for me that depends on the game, and how the other sections are going. If there are still other games going, I may keep going, and also if I am playing a much better player, sometimes I like to play a few more moves out to see how they close a game out. In chess I used to resign, but I played on in one game and managed to force a draw.

there is no right answer, I don't mind either way if I am playing someone and beating them. It is upto them if they want to play a game out, or resign.

It is you choice and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

This is a general question to tournament players. When you know there is no chance to win do you play it out or resign? Is it good sportmanship to drag out the obvious or bow out.

The best way to tell if someone is as good as his her rating is to find evidence of results in an environment where cheating is not possible and where such a rating isn't flattering. An environment such as over the board play. On here I consider my rating to be a little flattering.

What evidence is there of blaickner's over the board standard when she does not appear on European rating list.

I asked Blaickner earlier about representing Austria in the World Championships for which I got no reply. With no Austrian national championships, she would clearly be eligible to participate in such an event.

As Blaickner has not played in any over the board tournament and she also shows reluctance to participate in any such competition.

Gary, if you got thrashed at Pente by someone you had never heard of, had never played in an over the board tournament (and was reluctant to do so), had a near perfect record, and whose majority of moves matched that of a strong program (which has spotted moves top players miss) - wouldn't you be suspicious that your opponent was cheating?

And to answer Blaickner's question - by setting the time to one minute or less. A strong program (even at small depth) will produce good moves at speed without a user having to waste seconds thinking up one.

Smaughster, Blaickner, and all -

GREAT comments Smaughster! The best way to tell if someone is as good as his/her rating is to talk to him/her and find out what he/she knows about the game.

For instance, I could talk until I would bore you all to tears about opening strategy, end game strategy, keystone pairs, triangles, skews, elongated triangles, offensive pairs, etc. at Pente because that is my game and I am one of the best at it.

I also have played some real-time Chess at www.pogo.com. The cheating there is amazing!! I am decent at Chess, U.S. Chess B class over-the-board and a master in postal play so I have a good idea of 'just a few' concepts. :-)

At pogo.com, if I see a player rated over 2100 (about my Chess rating there), I simply ask them what they know about the Najdorf and Sicillin as well as some basic concepts of end game play, which anyone over about 1900 should easily be able to talk about. I'm amazed at how many people don't even know that the Najdorf and Sicillin are OPENINGS!

I'm always polite when asking my questions so the truly good players will sometimes go to great lengths to talk about them and an interesting conversation usually follows. But if they can't answer them, I ask them if they have played in real-time U.S. Chess tournaments. If they haven't or can't quickly come up with a reasonable answer, then I pretty much know they're cheating. If they're bold enough to continue talking, I'll ask them what software they're using. I actually have had TWO tell me!

My point is, Arnie, before accusing someone of something, get more information first instead of saying inflammatory remarks about him/her. If you have substaintial evidence to prove your theory, THEN people will listen to you and not think that you are whining.

One last thing here. I have also had a person accuse me of cheating because something like 15 of my 20 moves in a Pente game matched the best Pente playing software on it's highest level. My comment to that is: If I'm one of the best players and the software is some of the best software, then OF COURSE a high percentage of moves are going to be the same.

So my suggestion would be to ask Blaickner what she knows about the opening, middle, and end-game strategies of Othello/Reversi. If she knows little, you have a case. Otherwise I think that the accusations should stop.


Gary Barnes

hey smaughster!
i recall playing you, we had some great games at GT :)
and Arnie: please show me how someone could cheat on 1 min game! (for those of you who dont know the rules of it: its 1 min per player and game, not per move, so if you can't handle at least 50 different openings at least 10 moves deep the game is over before you really start)

blaickner

Arnie,

I played blaickner online several times after getting sorely beaten in Goldtoken and I can tell you she has a very solid grasp of this game. Checking out a cheater with wzebra does not tell all, the best methode is talking about strategy and checking whether the opponent knows human strategy and acts like it. Blaickner does.

I have looked at blaickner's previous moves by using WZebra in my most recent game against her and ALL but two of her moves they are identical to what WZebra (on maximum search). This along with record that seems to be too good to be true and the fact there has been no Austrian otb players causes me to be very suspicious. The thing is Gary Barnes, you went out to prove that you were not a cheat - and no doubt you obtained an over the board reputation where previously you had none. Gary, you also say that it sounds like blaickner is an excellent 1 and/or 5 minute player but even on realtime sites people do cheat. I am inviting blaickner to do the same by participating in one event on the European tournament circuit. If she really was committed to this, then I very much doubt that she would find distance no problem, or for that fact money as there are several companies offering rock bottom european air fares. Or what about blaickner hosting an event in Austria? But all blaickner seems to be posting is excuses, which doesn't really help her credibility.

I don't consider myself very strong player, typical club player if even that. Although my 8x8 rating is 2100ish and that puts me 4th in the rankings. To me this looks like there aren't many good players or they haven't played enough games to get their rating up to their level. I think we would need more established rankings and some more top players to make the BKR more comparable to real life. But most of the top players will probably avoid this site until the real rules are applied.

How do BrainKing ratings (roughly) correspond to real-life playing strengths? How strong would be
(in BKR)
- a typical club player?
- the best player of a local club?
- a national champion?
- a world class player?

The previous posts seem to imply that a 2200+ BKR player would not need to be ashamed of him/herself in any level of a tournament. Is this correct?

thx Gary Barnes :))

in all fairness, the only time i've played Blaickner (on IYT) she accused me of using a program, so she gives as good as she gets.

Arnie -

I don't know who you think you are! Do you have specific verifiable evidence that Blaickner is cheating? If not, then get the hell off of the discussion board and quit being a sore loser and cry baby.

I don't play Othello/Reversi much and have just now aquired a strategy book for it and may eventually take the game up. But I am the 2-time defending World Email Pente champion and have experienced exactly what you are putting Blaickner through.

I too have run into butts like you who accuse me of using a program or cheating. As a matter of fact, I got so sick of it that I went down to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and proceeded to kick everyone's butt except DmitriKing whom I tied. This made us both U.S. over-the-board Pente champions. Now everyone can shut up about me using a program. But if I had not had the money to go to Oklahoma City, then people would still be saying the same thing.

The point is, you have NO idea what you're talking about. I don't know Blaickner at all, but she has been VERY good about answering questions and providing information on the board here. Also, it sounds like she is an excellent 1 and/or 5 minute player. If you don't think she is for real, then I would suggest you both find a real-time site where you can play 5 minute games and play a 10-game match. THEN maybe you'll believe that she is for real!


Gary Barnes

lol! cant you take a loss?
i spent 9 years on this game, over 20.000 rated games at igz, countless games when we had a teaching group as "Yo"-players there, rating over 2100 at VOG1, prefered games 1 and 5-min tourneys, ask top players like Göran, Sheepsheep, Tyrant or Marius2J if they know my name :)
since i am on a linux system now i can't play realtime games, there are no austrian championships, and i am far away of tramping to germany or holland to play in an OTB tourney, can hardly afford my internet access at the moment...

blaickner's record Wins 175 Draws 1 Losses 3.
Impressive record from a player whom I have never even heard of but then it is easy to win games by using WZebra, isn't it? I don't recall anyone from Austria ever appearing on the European Rating List in the fifteen or so years I have been playing over the board Othello, let alone any big name players. If Blaickner wants real competition - then why doesn't she join the tournament circuit?

Hi, maybe we should try another variations of Reversi. How about counting all the flips for each player ? The one with most flipped discs
through the whole game will be the winner. This way tactics and strategy will come closer.
What do u think ?
Ondraszek.

I totally agree with you, Gary. Reversi is infact the same game as othello. The "parallell" opening gives a huge disadvantage to the player who moves first (which is white here ).
Top players will never come to this site as long as the following isn't corrected:
1.) Fixed diagonal opening
2.) Black moves first
3.) A1 has to be the upper left corner (letters on the top, number on the sides)

The official championships are played over the board, not online; but it still would be fun to have some real competition in here :)

To all -

My opinion is the same as I have stated on the Small Pente and Small Keryo Pente discussion boards. The correct rules should be used for the 'main' name of the game, i.e. Reversi 6x6 or Reversi 8x8. If you want to NOT have the opening setup (just like not having an opening restriction in Pente), then separate variants called 'No setup Reversi 8x8' or 'No setup Reversi 6x6' should be created.

On the Pente boards, we HAVE the correct opening restriction on the 'main' name of the game, i.e. the CORRECT rules game is simply called Pente (or Small Pente for a smaller board for WebTV users). For the game without an opening restriction, we have recommended 'no-restriction Pente' as a variant. The same applies to Keryo Pente also.

The reasons here is just as Kitti states. Players that are NEW to the game OR the site become confused as to what the correct rules should be. Reversi IS Othello and should be played by the same rules. To me, the colors don't matter because it's a lot easier for a site operator to keep from becoming confused, but several may disagree about that.

IMHO, the opening setup SHOULD be enforced on Reversi 6x6, 8x8, and 10x10. But as I found out by having people hand my head to me, NOT allowing players to play WITHOUT an opening restriction (or setup in this case) is NOT good. So I would suggest separate variants be created for playing without the opening setup. PLEASE know that I DO NOT want to take away anyone's fun here. That is why I am suggesting the separate variants.

Another BIG reason for this is so that LARGE championships can be played at this site in the future. To have large championships (we are wanting the WORLD championships here in Pente), the CORRECT rules must be enforced by a game that is appropriately named. In other words, some people would find it annoying to have Reversi (Othello) championships at a site where the correct rules for the game is in a game called 'Restriction reversi' or 'Setup reversi' or something similar.

IMO, having an OPTION on a single game is NOT good. It mixes the ratings together and can cause LARGE amounts of confusion when entering tournaments because MANY players will NOT be looking for it. Therefore, I believe that separate and appropriately named variants is best.


Gary

IMO it's nice to have two possible opening setups, which increases the number of alternatives. However, I find the way of deciding the opening setup slightly troubling. The problem is that in the first few moves the "correct" diagonal setup is chosen only if _both_ players agree, and _either_ of the players can force the "incorrect" parallel setup.

IMO it would be nicer to have this the other way around (so that either of the players can force the diagonal setup), but unfortunately the way in which the opening setup is "decided" is a natural consequence of the topology of the board, and cannot be changed in any natural way.

As an advocate of versatility I dislike the idea of changing reversi entirely into the normal othello with the fixed diagonal opening setup. IMO the best solution would be an option that when creating a new (instance of a) game or a tournament, the creator could specify whether to use a reversi-style setup with the diagonal/parallel decided by actual play, or create a game/tournament with the fixed diagonal opening setup.

Before coming to Brainking.com, I always thought that othello and reversi are exactly the same game. When I first came to this site I was really confused (and still am) about the set of rules Brainking uses. Since then i've been told several times that they actually are different games and have different rules on the opening game.

In othello the diagonal opening setup is fixed and black goes first. Some say that reversi is different and the rules used here are correct for reversi. I have not seen a official ruleset that would back this up. All of the rulebooks that i've seen explain the official othello rules. Some of them say "othello is also known as reversi" or the other way around. I really would like to see information that would end my confusion about this reversi/othello thing.

I think atleast part of the problem is that Othello is a registered trademark licensed to Mattel Inc. I've played reversi on quite a few sites and this is the only one that does not use the official othello rules. I don't know much about trademarks or licenses. Maybe just calling the game reversi instead of othello is enough to avoid licensing fees even if othello rules are used. I'm confused.

Gary, its player2 who has sure win in 6x6.

Hi Gary, sorry, I dont often read this board which is why I've only just got around to replying!!

My choice of playing 6x6 by the 'wrong' opening moves (side by side pieces rather than diagonal) is precisely because of the advantage white has. As ChessTiger pointed out, white will win evey time in optimal play.
I find that to play with the opening stones slightly different unbalances this advantage white has.
I will play either way, I never demand the opening stones go in this way, and its certainly no guarantee that I will win! But I do find its slightly more fair to the black player.

I've played quite a few more reversi games than pente, so I can say a bit more about this! I dont study 'perfect play' or even my past games! I kind of 'wing it' when it comes to reversi.
But I like the choice, sometimes I go for the diagonal start just for the change. And half the time it obviously depends on where my opponent places their second stone. In other words I have no absolute preference really! How often do you get two 'optimal players' in one game? I'm certainly not a top player, but I do have a chance of winning against a top player if the stones are 'upset' at the start of the game by being side by side. What would be the point of playing a top player, with the diagonal opening, if you knew you were going to lose?!

to see how its done to play perfect at 6x6 have a look at :

www.maths.nott.ac.uk/personal/jff/othello/6x6sol.html

you might also be interested in the official rules which can be read at sites like:

http://www.ugateways.com/bof4.html

and many more othello-related links at

http://bluez2000.tripod.com/OthelloLinks.html

hope this helps you!

katharina blaickner =)

thanks for the explanation...i guess i misunderstood you. I have played reversi many different ways on lots of sites and in person. I know what you mean though about getting the correct variation of the rules..as Pente is on here it is not on other sites for example itsyourturn.com...when i came here and played pente it was totally different. On itsyourturn.com black ALWAYS has the advantage and it is really hard for white to win. I like how it is set up now. I understand what you mean. I really don't know what the offical rules are and you are right that one of the pros should speak up about it, probably to fencer so everyone can get on the same page.

Goofball -

This is not quite what I was after. I did not state that I was dissatisfied with the game due to opening rules because I know too little about it to be dissatisfied or satisfied one way or another.

Let me re-explain as follows:

Request:
That top players speak up about what the CORRECT opening rules for the game are. That way beginning players are aware that they are the official rules and they will learn strategy with the correct rules. It is learning the correct rules that allows FAR more players to compete equally with one another.

I would not request this myself because I do NOT know how OFFICIAL those rules are. I just want to make sure that IF they ARE official and have been decided upon by a large governing body of the game (such as FIDE in Chess) that they are put in place so that everyone in on the same page.

It is NOT my place to request or dictate that the OFFICIAL rules be followed in a game that I don't know much about. It is up to high-level players such as Blaickner and ChessTiger.

Explanation of 'forced win':
In Chess or Pente, when someone says that he wins by force in 3 moves, it means EXACTLY that. By FORCE means that it DOES NOT MATTER how the defense moves. With BEST defense, the offense wins in 3 moves. In Chess, it would be referred to as a 'Mate in 3'.

Further specifics:
I will refer you back to ChessTiger's post from 1/15/03 that stated the following:

"Just thought (in case it is not known) that you might like to know that the 6x6 version of reversi has been solved (assuming optimal play from the opponent.
This is the work Dr Joel Feinstein from University of Nottingham, and former British champion of othello. White wins 20-16 with the diagonal setup, and 19-17 with the horizontal/vertical setup. This is of course when both play optimally!"

What he is stating is amazing but not unprecendented. GoMoku has been proven as a forced win in 24 moves for player 1! THAT is JUST as amazing if not more so.

I will explain what this means in more detail. What Dr. Feinstein has proven is that it doesn't matter HOW black moves, if he plays the VERY BEST defense possible, the best he can do is LOSE 20-16 or 19-17 to white if white plays PERFECT lines. It may sound strange that ANYONE could play PERFECT lines, but as you advance up the ranks and study ANY game, you will quickly be able to see a LARGE portion of the BEST lines as you play games with your opponents, especially in simpler version of the game like the 6x6 version of Reversi.

So to quote your statement, it does NOT depend on how Black moves, white will ALWAYS win AT LEAST 19-17 or 20-16 (depending on the opening setup) on the 6x6 board, IF he plays PERFECTLY.

If this is not clear, try the following:
Play tic-tac-toe on a 9x9 board, but do not change the rules. Both sides must STILL get 3 in a row to win. Now have player 1 play his first move in the center. You will quickly see that he wins in 3 moves, no matter how player 2 moves and it is easy to see PERFECT moves for him. So that is referred to as a forced win in 3 moves by player 1.

Now try the slightly more diffult same thing but make the winner the first to get FOUR in a row. The first player wins by force in 7 moves. Although it's not easy to see PERFECT moves for player 1 at first glance, VERY simple patterns can be demonstrated and shown VERY easily to players of all skill levels.

The same applies to MANY games of skill, albeit on a MUCH more complex level. It's just FAR more difficult to see. But high-level players and mathematicians will sometimes come up with a proof for a game sooner or later like they have done in 6x6 Reversi. What this means is that if you played a 6x6 Reversi playing computer that made PERFECT moves as white and you played black, you would lose 100% of the time, even if you were the BEST Reversi player in the world!

So I hope that clears that up. So what I am asking players such as Blaickner and ChessTiger, is the following:
Is it player 1 or player 2 that wins by force 19-17 or 20-16 in 6x6 Reversi?

I am asking this because I am a 'student' of other games of skill, especially Pente, and am ALWAYS interested in the PROOF of any game.


Thank you,
Gary Barnes

Hi Gary, I do know what you are talking about and understand completely. I do not know the basis or where the rules came from for these versions of reversi. You may want to put this request into the feature request board to give a heads up to Fencer about this. He may have a solution that will make all dissatisfied players happy with the rules of this game.

As far as your question if it is player 1 or 2 that wins by force it totally depends on the moves of the game. I've found with reveri games that have the same rules of the othello board game that sometimes you are still forced to pass and this can sometimes allow the other person to win. The best example i have is like checkers...if say black has one or two pieces left and they are stuck then the games ends in a forefit by black. It is the same thing with the forced move in reversi. It all depends on what moves are played. But as far as changing the beginning rules, you should relay this to Fencer and see what he can do :) :)

Hi all -

I am not a good Reversi (Othello) player, but I AM a VERY good Pente player. In Pente, there has been a HUGE discussion, sometimes VERY heated, about the opening rules (actually a restriction) on the 4 discussion boards there.

It is the opinion of MOST experienced and/or top Pente players in THAT game that the opening rules SHOULD be set up correctly like the official rules to the game. Otherwise beginners that learn the game incorrectly will be at a SEVERE disadvantage when they play someone with the correct opening rules in tournament play.

Based on what I am reading here from top players like Blaickner and by reading the rules in the version of Othello that I have at my home, the diagonal opening setup SHOULD be set and fixed.

It is my personal opinion that it is UNFAIR to beginning players to learn the game incorrectly because they will be resistant to learning it correctly in the future and will learn incorrect attacking strategies.

Interestingly, Harley, who is a beginning Pente player and who has sided with experienced players in Pente because of the official rules of the game, prefers starting with no opening setup in Reversi.

I believe if a couple of you top Reversi players will state MUCH more loudly that the diagonal opening setup is the OFFICIAL rules for the game, then she and perhaps MOST other players including beginners will agree that the diagonal opening setup should be fixed.

THEN if both experienced and beginning players MOSTLY agree that the official rules are the best way to go, then I'm confident that Fencer will make that change.

One suggestion that I might make for everyone's discussion here, whether you be a top player or a beginner. That is to refer to the sides as 'player 1' (the one who makes the first move)or 'player 2' (the one moving 2nd). It is clear by reading the posts here that in serious competition, black always goes first. But on this site, white always goes first in ALL games. I can see why a site owner would do this to prevent his own confusion. Since I have not played the game very much but am VERY experienced in games like Chess and Pente where white always goes first in serious competition, I became confused by several posts that referred to black or white.

I was ESPECIALLY interested to hear that one side wins 19-17 or 20-16 BY FORCE with optimal play by both sides in 6x6 Reversi. Very good piece of work there! But I am confused, it was stated that WHITE wins 20-16 or 19-17. Is that player 1 or player 2? Since black usually starts in Reversi in serious competition, I initially took that to mean that player 2 wins by force. But I am surprised that it would be the 2nd player since after all, he goes 2nd! So maybe it is player 1. Can you please clarify if it is the player to move first (player 1) or it is player 2 that wins in the 6x6 game by force?

One last thing that I want to reiterate here. I think that it would be a GREAT dis-service to beginning players to NOT have the correct opening rules to the game.



Thanks,
Gary Barnes

Hi.
I'm new to this site, but i have played the game before.
If you wish to compete, then send me an invite.
Thanx