Gary, the time limit was set incase of an emergency or something else pressing came up, not give you extra time to check all your resources for you to win the game or read and answer posts on these boards. Especially since you said you could win so easily it wouldn't amount to much of a game or take much effort on your part. You've been on for atleast a couple of hours now and you still haven't moved! We could've played a couple games by now since we both happened to be online at the same time. I'm going to bed now, so it'll have to wait for another day.

Oops, sorry all. The aluminum bat discussion did start with me (see the further in this discussion). At the time, the reference was relavant to the ongoing pente discussion. Didn't mean to get so far off track...won't do it again.

Thad

Satan, I think you should add "Censor" to your word list. Do we get to vote on who gets to be the moderator? Or what powers over the discussions he shall have?

Satan, I think you should add "Censor" to your word list. Do we get to vote on who gets to be the moderator? Or what powers over the discussions he shall have?

To all -

As moderator of the Pente and Keryo Pente boards, I must step in and state that everything needs to remain on topic. This was something that I volunteered to do and I am not picking on anyone in particular.

If the discussion continues to be about baseball and bats, that should properly be done on the General discussion board.


Thanks,
Gary

Thad, those are the reasons that they're not used in the Majors or I believe AAA or any of the other minor leagues. I'm not sure if any of the professional leagues affiliated with Major League Baseball use them. A wooden bat is a lot cheaper than an aluminum bat, but it has one big disadvantage. Especially over a season. They break. They had to address those issues in college baseball because them very things happened. Especially the homeruns. The aluminum bat manufacturers kept improving the bats for distance and homeruns went up a lot during the 1990's. I haven't heard if what they did to the aluminum bats has worked recently. The were going to impose some sort of way to restrict how fast a ball could come off the bat after being struck. Tests and measurements, facts and figures, then of course the contracts with the bat manufactureres. I believe some of the colleges cried foul because of all the money invested in the bats, so it was supposed to be phased in these last few years as they acquired the new bats to conform with the new rules.

Walter and Satan -

Calling me pompous or referring to me sarcastically as a 'mastermind' is still not helping your case.

Satan, I can hardly believe that you are the same person that I played 6 or 8 games of no-restriction Pente at IYT about a year ago, even though I stated then that I didn't like it. Within a short while, you picked up and started playing the correct version of the game and I played you some games of that too helping you out in anyway that I could.

You seemed so fun-loving and we were joking about funny words that we had made up in the past. What has made you so hateful towards me that you would stoop to calling me pompous?

We have only made this recommendation because it is MY feeling and the feeling of other players that the game will be POSITIVELY affected in the LONG run if we keep the restriction on it. If that has somehow reduced your fun, we are sorry. But we believe that MORE people will have MORE fun in the long run if the game explodes into the game that we think it can become, and that would include both sides having a reasonable chance to win at ALL levels.


Gary

Walter -

I'll be kind and state why I have moved more slowly than usual in our games, although it hardly seems necessary.

I have had to move more slowly than normal the last 1-2 weeks. I was out of town this last weekend, did my taxes the last couple of nights, and played a grueling 8-hour, 10-game match in the quarter-finals of the Pente tourney at www.pente.org. (You guessed it vs. Dmitri King. I'll get Virag in the next round. Ouch!)

I thought the time controls for our IYT games were 7 days. Although I generally move in 1-3 days, in tougher middle game positions, I might take 4-6 days because I like to look over it at least a couple of times before moving. Dangerous Mind is taking HIS time making his moves. We started the games with him at nearly the same time as you and I've moved almost as fast most of the time, yet we're only on move 5 vs. 8 or 10.

Did we not agree to a 7-day time-limit with team play? Also, I have not had to enlist Dmitri's help in our games. They were already too one-sided right off the bat to bother him with them. We have teamed up against Pioneer54 here like we agreed to do and may do so against Dangerous Mind. Like we agreed, you are welcome to enlist their help. I'll even go one further and say that you can enlist ANYONE's help that you want to and so can they. It just simply won't make any difference when playing player 2 without the restriction.

Anyway, why are you in such a hurry? Isn't this turn-based play? Take your time, store your games, and push the stones around. Otherwise, you're making less than optimum moves. Everything that's legal in Email play is legal in turn-based play, that is storing games, referring to opening books, databases of moves, strategy books, setting up the position and moving the pieces around, etc. The only things that aren't allowed are having software analyze the position and enlisting someone else's help unless agreed upon in advance. All of the allowed stuff is the fun part of turn-based play! The rules at IYT are even very specific about allowing such things.


Gary

Pompous is the only word that comes to mind.

Walter -

You're arguing again and not debating so there's not much to address there, although I'll be kind and state why I have moved more slowly than usual in our games.

I have had to move more slowly than normal the last 1-2 weeks. I was out of town this last weekend, did my taxes the last couple of nights, and played a grueling 8-hour, 10-game match in the quarter-finals of the Pente tourney at www.pente.org. (You guessed it vs. Dmitri King. I'll get Virag in the next round. Ouch!)

I thought the time controls for our IYT games were 7 days. Although I generally move in 1-3 days, in tougher middle game positions, I might take 4-6 days because I like to look over it at least a couple of times before moving. Dangerous Mind is taking HIS time making his moves. We started the games with him at nearly the same time as you and I've moved almost as fast most of the time, yet we're only on move 5 vs. 8 or 10.

Did we not agree to a 7-day time-limit with team play? Also, I have not had to enlist Dmitri's help in our games. They were already too one-sided right off the bat to bother him with them. We have teamed up against Pioneer54 here like we agreed to do and may do so against Dangerous Mind. Like we agreed, you are welcome to enlist their help. I'll even go one further and say that you can enlist ANYONE's help that you want to and so can they. It just simply won't make any difference when playing player 2 without the restriction.

Anyway, why are you in such a hurry? Isn't this turn-based play? Take your time, store your games, and push the stones around. Otherwise, you're making less than optimum moves. Everything that's legal in Email play is legal in turn-based play, that is storing games, referring to opening books, databases of moves, strategy books, setting up the position and moving the pieces around, etc. The only things that aren't allowed are having software analyze the position and enlisting someone else's help unless agreed upon in advance. All of the allowed stuff is the fun part of turn-based play! The rules at IYT are even very specific about allowing such things.

Fencer listens to everyone. We made a strong long-term case to him for keeping the restriction on Pente and Keryo Pente. That long-term case has been stated several times. Also, the fact that we showed 3 different sites that have the CORRECT rules for both games probably helped quite a bit.

You are perfectly welcome to state your case to him but he may want to know if it's good in the long term if he's not sure. Although he may put more weight in paying members, I cannot say that for sure, because he has always been responsive before and after I became a member.


Gary

Walter,

I thought the reasons were that (1) there would be too many homeruns and fans would grow bored, since you can hit a ball farther with an aluminum bat, and (2) that they were afraid too many pitchers would get injured from lightning fast come-backers. I like your point too.

Thad

I give.

Oh, could you move in our games? If you have the time to answer idiots like me on a posting board, you could surely find time to move in our games. A move a week, what a mastermind! Had I known you were going to do that under the conditions that we set forth, let alone enlist Dmitri's help, I would never have agreed to play you.

I give.

Oh, could you move in our games? If you have the time to answer idiots like me on a posting board, you could surely find time to move in our games. A move a week, what a mastermind! Had I known you were going to do that under the condition that we set forth, let alone enlist Dmitri help, I would never have agreed to play you.

No it isn't. You define the terms of the debate and then what are we supposed to do? Nope, I'm not going along with that. With them conditions it'd be almost impossible to come up with a counter example. (Risk, Short Monopoly, Black Hole Reversi, are three that come to mind though I doubt if you'll find them acceptable) So why should I bother?

The issue isn't dead, aside from the fact that you had a major hand in killing a game we like, that is. Especially Keryo Pente on a 13 X 13 board without the move restriction. Maybe Pente is as you say, but you haven't shown it in Keryo Pente on a 13 X 13 board. Even if you did, Satan's response to it is quite eloquent and covers most of the reasons that I like the game played that way.

Just how much pull do you have with Fencer? He's going to listen to you, is he? If that's the case, and it appears so in some ways, I fear for the long term viability of fun for me on this site. As a private letter sent to me(Not from Fencer) stated, "I'm thinking of giving up Pente." He wrote this not talking about the versions of Pente, but his perception of how you guys go about your business of being the Keepers of All That's Pure and Standard of Pente as Played on a 19 X 19 Board. I'm tending to argee with him.

I'm starting to wonder if your being rebuffed at IYT is why you're so down on them now? I never read the posting boards there(if they have them) so I wouldn't know if you tried without success to get them to change the way their Keryo Pente is played or not. I know they ignore most everyone, but it probably has a lot to do with how many people are members and that they're raking in the money now. Perhaps I'll give them some more time. After all, they have stated that they're going to be adding things in the near future.

Walter -

You stated to me at IYT that you like to get into long-winded discussions and/or arguements or something of the nature. The problem is, they are just that, arguments, instead of debates. Dmitri King has little tolerance for arguments as opposed to debates. Although I have a greater tolerance for arguments, I too have my breaking point. I made the mistake ONE time of being sucked into arguing with you and it won't happen again.

We WILL listen to people like Pioneer54, Thad, and Satan (to a smaller extent because he also gets into arguing) who give VALID reasons as to why the game is more 'fun' without the restriction. We may not agree with them, but their reasons ARE worth listening to because they are engaging in a reasonable and logical debate instead of arguing.

If you feel like you are not being listened to, it is because it looks like you are arguing with us instead of debating. For example, your previous reference to his parents and now calling him a nitwit or the keeper of all that's pure will simply not help your case.

If you want a good example of how to engage in a logical debate with your view point, refer to Thad's posts. He always attempts to specifically address each individual point in detail.

Also, I would refer you to my last post to try to find something similar to the situation that exists in Pente at IYT so that this discussion can be shut down once and for all.


Gary

May I direct everyone's attention to the Small Pente discussion post board. Satan has stepped into the middle of the running debate about the move restriction and board size without having been aware of the posts made here or at the Tournament Discussion place a month or two ago. Amazing how he sums up Dmitri!

Hear! Hear, Satan! Amazing, here on the Pente board I have found someone who has missed the whole discussion about the smaller board and the move restriction that we've been having about Keryo Pente, but he comes to the same conclusion about it talking about Pente as quite a few others and I have! Satan, back about a month or two ago a discussion got started on the merits of Keryo Pente being played on the 13 X 13 board in the Tournament Discussion board. The webmaster(Fencer) then created that game on this site. It originally had no move restriction. It now does. Anyways, if you'd like to see just what a nitwit Dmitri is, you can find the posts and various other people's replies starting there(you might have to go back a page or two now) and then move to the Small Keryo Pente discussion board to find the rest of them. I've had a running thing going with him that you'll find through out it. He seems to think his postings are eloquent to no end, but they're not. Aside from his stated objection to allowing it, he never really addresses anybody's liking for the Original Pente (Hey, I like that name for it!) except in some grandiose vision of it being detrimental to their developement as Pente players. I have since dubbed him "The Keeper of All That's Pure and Standard About Pente as Played on a 19 X 19 Board". When I point out things like this he ignores them and then tells me that I haven't said anything. So I have given into attacking him or atleast just pointing out the errors in his ways. I've recently slowed this down as it isn't doing much for me. So it's with great pleasure that recent posts on the Small Keryo Pente board and here by other players have been along the lines of how I argue and feel about the game. Especially good players like you who he might listen to. I liked the way you pointed out how some games between the two of you went.
I happen to like Keryo Pente more than Pente. I've only played Keryo Pente on a 13 X 13 board without the move restriction. Keryo Pente is a newer version of Pente than Pente with the move restriction(Pro Pente). Maybe when it's played on 19 X 19 board the first player still has an advantage, I don't know. I like the 13 X 13 version without the move restriction. Regardless of how big the first to move player's advantage is. As Dmitri might tell you or you'll read in the postings, I've even argued for a smaller board to see how a game would play(10 X 10 or 9 X 9). Anyway, these guys have always played Keryo Pente on the 19 X 19 with the move restriction. Then they have it within themselves to dictate to us people that like playing on the 13 X 13 game that we have to have the move restriction. A version they don't play and are against! Now those of us that like it can't play it here. Back to ol' It's Your Turn, I suppose.

Dmitri, we all know why you're singled out!

To all -

The below is a cut-and-paste of part of a message that I put on the Small Pente discussion board.

Here is what I would like to do to resolve this dilema once and for all. I would like to issue a challenge. Not a game challenge like we are doing with some other players, but a 'finding' challenge. Here is the challenge:

Find a VARIANT of ANY mainstream game at IYT or Brain King (I'll consider other sites also) OTHER THAN Pente or Keryo Pente that has the following conditions:
1. The variant must have a name that contains the name of the regular version of the game.
2. Only one SINGLE rule is changed. (I'll even consider 2 or 3 rules based on the situation.)
3. NONE of the pieces, stones, men or whatever is used for moves and/or movement is changed from the mainstream game.
4. The method of winning the game must still be the same. (i.e. no anti-variants which are obviously substaintally different from the original games)
5. The change in the rule(s) DRASTICALLY affects the chances of one side or the other so that one side now wins a substaintal percentage of the time or the game now results in a large % of draws.

In making these requirements, keep in mind that even in GoMoku without the restriction, player 1 has MUCH less of an advantage then in Pente without the restriction, so that cannot compare either.

If ANYONE can come up with ANY variant in ANY game at ANY of these sites that meets all of the above requirements, then I will personally recommend that Fencer create a variant called no-restriction 13x13 Pente and if necessary, I will enlist the help of Dmitri King to do so.

But if people CANNOT come up with a variant of ANY game that is so similar to it's original so that it misleads MANY new players into playing the ACTUAL game incorrectly, then this should be considered a dead issue and should not be brought up again.

The ball is now in everyone else's court. I look forward to hearing about such a variant.


Gary Barnes

Snutter (Satan) -

Since you are a fairly serious Pente player and a high-intermediate player, I am very surprised by your comments here. I am surprised because you were a low-intermediate player before you learned how to play the game correctly. You were losing frequently as player 1 WITHOUT the restriction. Why were you losing as player 1 without the restriction? Because you had not learned how to attack correctly. And why had you not learned to attack correctly despite your obvious talent? Because you had not played with the correct opening restriction!

I am also surprised that you did not discuss this with Dmitri King and I personally as I have ongoing games going with you personally at IYT and I'm sure you've had recently with Dmitri King. But regardless, you have chosen a public forum, so that is how the issue will get addressed.

I will address only one comment that you have made that I have not addressed before, that is the topic of the tourney rule or opening restriction as being optional in the instructions for the original Pente tube.

I will now state some information and make some quotes from the following books:
PENTE Strategy 1 copyright 1980 by Tom Braunlich and PENTE Games Inc.
PENTE Strategy 2 copyright 1982 by PENTE Games Inc.
PENTE Strategy copyright 1984 by Tom Braunlich

1. Pente was invented in 1978 by Gary Gabrel.
2. The first official World (U.S.) Championship tourney was held in 1979 and last in 1984.
3. The tournament rule (opening restriction) was created before the first tourney was played in 1979.
4. The tournament rule became a standard accepted rule for the game after 1982.
5. The rights to Pente were sold to Parker Brothers on January 1, 1984.

Parker Brothers chose to do nothing with Pente and destroyed the corporate sponsorship for the game, thereby destroying any future possibility of large national championships. Later on, they sold the rights to Decipher who also chose to do nothing with it.

Now to the instructions for the game in the original tube. I too have an original Pente tube although I have lost the instructions. BUT...I do remember exactly what you are stating, that is that the instructions said that the tournament rule is optional. What happened is that those instructions were written when the tube was originally manufactured. I can't state an EXACT starting date for when the instructions in the tube were created, but it MUST have been after the tournament rule was created before the first tournament in 1979. Anyway, no one bothered to change the instructions after the tourney rule became the standard accepted rule after 1982. Why did this happen? I do not know. But my guess is that Gary Gabrel was looking for a buyer in 1983 and found one who eventually bought the rights to it on January 1, 1984 in Parker Brothers. I'm guessing that he wasn't too concerned about tweeking anything with the tubes that were being manufactured while he was looking for a buyer.

That is the only thing that I wish to address that you specifically referred to. Everything else I have already addressed and will not continue to repeat myself except one thing.

Fencer made a business decision that is based on long-term thinking. When someone thinks long-term, people who think short-term usually do not understand them.

The long-term thinking is this:
If there is a variant of a game that has ALMOST the EXACT same rules, has the EXACT same pieces, is called by ALMOST the EXACT same name, and requires the EXACT same conditions in order to win the game, but it is a variant that allows EITHER one side a SUBSTANTIAL advantage or produces a LARGE percentage of draws, then that variation is DETRIMENTAL to the game in the long run.

Why is that variation deterimental to the game in the long run? Because people will play it as though it is the ORIGINAL game with CORRECT rules and will therefore learn the game incorrectly.

Here is what I would like to do to resolve this dilema once and for all. I would like to issue a challenge. Not a game challenge like we are doing with some other players, but a 'finding' challenge. Here is the challenge:

Find a VARIANT of ANY mainstream game at IYT or Brain King (I'll consider other sites also) OTHER THAN Pente or Keryo Pente that has the following conditions:
1. The variant must have a name that contains the name of the regular version of the game.
2. Only one SINGLE rule is changed. (I'll even consider 2 or 3 rules based on the situation.)
3. NONE of the pieces, stones, men or whatever is used for moves and/or movement is changed from the mainstream game.
4. The method of winning the game must still be the same. (i.e. no anti-variants which are obviously substaintally different from the original games)
5. The change in the rule(s) DRASTICALLY affects the chances of one side or the other so that one side now wins a substaintal percentage of the time or the game now results in a large % of draws.

In making these requirements, keep in mind that even in GoMoku without the restriction, player 1 has MUCH less of an advantage then in Pente without the restriction, so that cannot compare either.

If ANYONE can come up with ANY variant in ANY game at ANY of these sites that meets all of the above requirements, then I will personally recommend that Fencer create a variant called no-restriction 13x13 Pente and if necessary, I will enlist the help of Dmitri King to do so.

But if people CANNOT come up with a variant of ANY game that is so similar to it's original so that it misleads MANY new players into playing the ACTUAL game incorrectly, then this should be considered a dead issue and should not be brought up again.

The ball is now in everyone else's court. I look forward to hearing about such a variant.


Gary Barnes

Aluminum bats are used because the cost over the season is less than using wood bats.
Baseball doesn't make money for colleges in the way football and basketball do.

you wrote:
"BUt I stand my my definition of "pseudopente," I think it is fitting. What do you suggest calling it? Don't say "pente" because htat is already in use by the real version of the game."

I own and origianl set, WITH the original rules. They do NOT state a restriction on the first move for the game of PENTE. That makes it the REAL version of the game.

I believe that tourney rule pente came later (especially in popularity of play), and therefore should have its own name! Pro Pente is fine by me.

-Satan

Of course my tic tac toe reference was ludicrous, it was intended to be so. Also, you asked me to dispense with the sarcasm-- you know me better than that! BUt, your statement that I become very sarcastic whenever someone disagrees is very wrong. If you read the long threead of posts, you will see that I clearly and eloquently wrote out well thought out replies addressing every aspect of each post.

Who said I am picking and choosing hwich variants to play and which not to play? I am simply stating my strong objection to ONE SINGLE variant. You, like theo thers, sound like a broken record repeating the same incorrect statement over and over.

Anyhow... Regarding our games at IYT. 1) I did not try very hard and 2) you had a LOT more experience than I did at the time. I think you KNOW number 2, so why do you bother bringing it up?

If I failed to address one of your points, I apologize, I never intentionally avoid people's points in a debate. I'll review it in the morning, I am tired and I need to go to sleep.

BUt I stand my my definition of "pseudopente," I think it is fitting. What do you suggest calling it? Don't say "pente" because htat is already in use by the real version of the game.

My last thought for the night:

DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT PLAYER 1 has an advantage inthis game?????????

Well, to have NO restriction for player 1 when player 1 has an OBVIOUS advantage (the extra stone) is just ASININE!

To me, saying that no restriction si necessary is the same as saying that having the extra stone is not an advantage. Well, that defies logic and reason.

Dmitri,

You're ridiculous. I find it laughable that most of the time someone disagress with you, you become VERY sarcastic.

Also, I did not realize that the chess variants had been addressed earlier. It seems there are posts that I missed. Sorry about re-hashing a point that was already made. I'm not saying that you oppose variants of any sort. But I do find it interesting that it's ok for you to pick and choose what variants of what games should be played, and why, but other people shouldn't.

And your dumb-ass tic tac toe remark is ludicrous. Regular pente offers a hell of a lot more complexity than tic tac toe.

If you remember correctly, you and I played 2 games of regular pente at IYT. I beat you with the greatest of ease as player one. Yet, conversely, you had a hell of a time winning as player one. And had I given that game a bit more thought, I may have came out victorious. If you rememeber correctly, Gary's analysis was that you only had a "slight" edge towards the end. But how can that be? Shouldn't you have had a TOTAL edge the whole game (you didnt!)? Why do you think that was? I'll tell you why. I'm a crafty regular pente player. And I'm not the only one. And for people like me, there IS exitement in trying to win a game you should lose. So please, dispense with the sarcasm (i.e. fake pente, etc).

One last thing. You didn't address my point either. In my ORIGINAL pente rule book, regular pente is listed, as well as tourney. Tom Braunlich wrote a book on REGULAR pente strategy that is still relevant today for beginners and intermediates. Therefor, there are / were official rules for this game. And it was addressed and played by one of the greatest players ever. AND, I bet back then, Tom Braunlich enjoyed playing regular pente. Why shouldn't I or anyone else?

Here's an idea. If you want a Pro pente only site, make one. Then you can make all the rules and stipulations you like / want and live in your own little world where everything comes up Dmitri King's way...Which seems to be the way that all of us MUST conform to as far as you're concerned.

-Satan

****** "You tell us that we shouldn’t play fun-pente because it is detrimental to the game. Would you tell college baseball players not to use aluminum bats because it is detrimental to the game? After all, at the major league level, aluminum bats are not permitted. Many college players opt to use wooden bats to prepare themselves for pros, but many others do not, because they don’t feel that they will reach the pros. " ***********

OF course they should not use aluminum bats! I have never understood why aluminum bats are used.

<In response to Dmitri’s posts:

> I think a whole lot more is being made of this than it really is. A simple move restriction has been labeled as "the removal of fun from pente," "the removal of elegance from pente," and other similar things. It is just a minor move restriction, nothing more.

If it’s really “nothing more” than a minor move restriction then why all the fuss about how a game without the move restriction is an invalid game. Why all the fuss about how it’s detrimental to the development of pente.

If it’s really just a minor move restriction, then let those of us who want to play without it do so and leave us alone.

> You say playing without the restriction has ELEVATED your game? Inasmuch as I can possibly disagree with your personal assessment, I will do so! I am NOT disparaging your pente play in any way. Rather, what I mean is, had you played SOLELY with the restriction, you would be better at pente than you are. You have had some very creative wins against me; one of the attacks you beat me with remains one of the most devastating attacks I have seen to this day. Based on that and a few other games, I think you would be among the top players if your focus were not diverted by the "fun pente" variant.

Yes, possibly I would be a better player, but I would not have had as much fun playing because fun-pente is what I currently prefer. In fact, without that variant, I probably would have quit playing by now. That is why I say, in my case, that it helped me. It kept me interested in the game. Possibly it has hurt me as well, because, as you say, my style/strategy in ‘official’ pente would be better had I not learned fun-pente, but I’m not really as concerned about that as I am about enjoying my time playing the game.

More examples:
You tell us that we shouldn’t play fun-pente because it is detrimental to the game. Would you tell college baseball players not to use aluminum bats because it is detrimental to the game? After all, at the major league level, aluminum bats are not permitted. Many college players opt to use wooden bats to prepare themselves for pros, but many others do not, because they don’t feel that they will reach the pros.

Are you going to tell amateur golfers that they can’t use oversized clubs because they are detrimental to the professional game? I don’t think too many weekend duffers will care that their clubs don’t meet PGA specs.

And again I refer to my antichess example from a previous post. Are you going to tell me not to play antichess because it is detrimental to the game of chess? My chess skills have gone from above average to terrible, solely from playing antichess. I’ve gained antichess skills and the trade-off is worth it to me.

Thad

I don't think I am out of line (Why was I singled out as "especially" being out of line!?).

Of course, we are all entirled to my opinion. I will continue to state my opinion and support it with examples, as I have done. Your post ignored almost everything I have said to this opint about the chess variants. I already stated quite clearly why the chess variants are a different issue, and I have named a number of different pente variants that I support. To imply that I am opposed to variants of any sort is incorrect.

I am guessing that the "variant" will be reinstated now that people are threatening to leave Brain King because of it. It is a pity, but the people who make the most noise usually get their way, regardless of how illogical their position may be.

So, I give up. I will state that I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to the reinstatement of the pente game without the restriction, but I will not debate the matter any more. No one has refuted anything I have said, yet people still argue. I don't want to cost Fencer Members, and if people are so bent out of shape that they are threatening to return to a site as bad as IYT, then I will relent because I do not wish to cause any negative consequences for Fencer. It is quite disappointing that any serious pente player would make the post that you did, and despite your claim otherwise, I haev to wonder how serious you are about it if you consider the "variant" without the restriction to have ANY value whatsoever.

If you don't think pente with the restriction is challenging enough as player 2, I'll play some tic tac toe with you, you cn be player 2. You will no doubt love the challenge of trying to win as player 2.

But I digress.

So, Fencer, my only request at this opint is that you give the "variant" without the move restriction a fitting name that leaves NO DOUBT that it is some phony form of pente that NO ONE who is interested in being a real pente player should play.

some suggestions: Phony pente, fake pente, or, better yet, pseudopente. That last one has a nice sound to it.

Especially you Dmitri. In my original pente set, the rules state two ways of playing the game (well, actually more, but I'll stick with what we are talking about here). With the tourney rule and without it. It is not up to you nor Gary, nor anyone for that matter to decide how people should enjoy playing this game. If they choose tourney rule, fine. If not, that's also fine. The only exception to this would be in TOURNAMENT play, where the rules are defined before sign-up and actual play. But in regular play of any game, it is not up to you or Gary to make that decision for others on how a game should be played. It is up to the individual. We all have the freedom to choose which games we like to play. Since you like to use the chess example, I'll use one of my own: At IYT they have MANY chess variations (and I believe on this site as well). You once told me that you like to play some of these diferent variations because you find them fun and challenging in a different way. But, it's not traditional chess, and these chess variations are most CERTAINLY NOT found in the "official" chess rules. But you enjoy playing them any ways. And rightly so. They're games.

You and gary both know that I take tourney rule pente fairly seriously. Yet, I still enter a regular pente tourney every now and then. Why? Because, forced win for player 1 or not, I enjoy trying to win as player 2. What I'm trying to say is I ENJOY both games. I also believe that if you take away the players' choices of games here, you will most definitely be alienating many people. Some of these people might even have considered contributing to the site. But, since the game they want to play can not be found here, they'll go somewhere else (e.g. IYT). Who's going to make up for the possible money then lost by the site owner? You two? I doubt it.

-Scott aka Snutter aka Satan

Oh, you are a felloew math major! That is good to hear, there are not enough of us out there.

I had the same thought when I read your sentence (that something cannot really be "slightly convoluted").

I see what you are saying, but in regard to your analogy about roller coasters and such, it is doubtful that one roller coaster could ever be detrimental to the development of other roller coasters.

Because English is my second favorite school subject, I feel compelled to point out that you might also be misapplying thew ord elegant. Of course, I am being a bit fussy here, and getting caught up in semantics is not worthwhile, but it seems that the application of the term "elegant" to the one form of pente and not the other may be a bit hasty. Something that is elegant could be intricate or simple, and to me, the game of pente is either elegant or not, regardless of wihch opening moves are used.

Dmitri, this is in response to your post timestamped at 16. April 2003, 12:48:43:

Yes, I agree, the reasoning about fun-pente being more elegant than other versions is a minor point, but I included it because it is one reason that I like fun-pente better than 'official' pente. I was answering the question as to why players prefer this variation over others.

It's similar to why one might like one piece of art over another. Or one roller coaster over another. It mostly comes down to a matter of personal taste. A faster, higher, steeper roller coaster might not be preferred over another one, even though it’s “better”.

I am not disputing that ‘official’ pente is not simple or elegant, but fun-pente is simpler and it’s rules are more elegant and that is something about it that I (dare I say we) like.

I still stick with my statement that the move restriction rule is convoluted, albeit only slightly. Which now leaves me asking if something can really be slightly convoluted? ;-)
I’m a math major. Perhaps an English major out there can give me a better word!

Anyway, as you said, these are all minor points. I included them only in an effort to answer the question of WHY I liked fun-pente better.

Thad

You say

******** " (1) I am not yet convinced that it is (although I will continue to listen to those who want to attempt to convince me that it is). In my case, I probably would have quit playing pente by now if I didn’t have fun-pente to play. It has allowed me to elevate my game and still enjoy playing at the same time. So, in my case, it has been beneficial! " **********

You may not be convinced, but, players who have not played with the restriction have no idea how to attack at the onset of ag ame WITH thee restriction. with the restriction, you need to make a split 3 or some attack that sacrifices some position. Without the trestriction, a player can make a potential and triangle and need never bother with split 3s and similar attacks. I ahve heard quite a few people say they are better as PLAYER 2 at pente than as plyer 1!!!!!!! WHy? because they learned to play without the restriction, and now they have no idea hwat do to as player 1.

You say playing without the restriction has ELEVATED your game? Inasmuch as I can possibly disdagree with your personal assessment, I will do so! I am NOT disparaging your pente play in any way. Rather, what I mean is, had you played SOLELY with the restriction, you would be better at pente than you are. YOu have had some very creative wins against me; one of the attacks you beat me with remains one of the most devastating attacks I have seen to this day. Based on that and a few other games, I tihnk you would be among the top players if your focus were not diverted by the "fun pente" variant.

Thad, you said,

*******" Here’s something else. I really dislike DSG’s database. I wish Dweebo would take it down. I can compete with even the top players using it. Does that make me a great player? No, it makes me a great looker-upper. Does it improve my pente skills? No. In fact, it probably makes them worse. Now, I need a crutch to win. Thanks to the DSG database, I have learned some good moves, but I have no idea WHY they are good moves. I will never learn to extend that move to another similar situation. My game will not get better than looking up moves allows it to be. There is no fun-pente database. Playing fun-pente forces me to think up winning lines on my own. That alone makes it worth playing over ‘official’ pente for me. " *********

I am sorry you feel that way. This has not been the case with me, I improved greatly by studying the database. For one thing, I have access to any of the 2000 games I have played on the various sites, so I can go over my games and find where I wnet wrong and improve on them. You say you learn good moves from the databse but not WHY thye are good moves. Why is that? When I study, I will fully explore an intersting looking move so that I DO discover why it is a good move. Sometimes the exact oppositte happens-- I'll realize, "hey, that move isnlt a good one at all, and now I am going to explore options AGAINST this move because I think it is flawed and that I can come up with a new defense for it"

I always tell people that when they review the database, they need to really examine moves, not just say, "Oh, Dmitri King or Gary Barnes won with this move, so I'll make it." That won't improve play, but fully exploring the possiblee follow-up moves WILL.

The database is a great tool for many reasons. I like ti for statistics purposes, I can see how I have fared against certain players. ALso, the database is useful in catching cheats, and we all know who I am referring to (at least anyone who has read the forums at Dweebo's knows).

To respond to Thad's post:

you say

****** "Here’s another reason I like fun-pente better. I like to play with other players who, like me, just like to play pente. There are scores of us who just want to sit down and have some fun." ********

I have heard this argument many times before. My answer is still the same. 1) for those who just want to sit down and have some fun, why is that not possible with the restriction? I really don't follow this line of reasoning. people can very easily sit down, relax, and have some fun playing the game with the restriction. Just because there is a restriction does NOT mean they have to study books, databases, openings, or become a pente grandmaster. All it means is they have a small restriction on their opening move.

I think a whole lot more is being made of this than it really is. A simple move restriction has been labeled as "the removal of fun from pente," "the removal of elegance from pente," and other similar things. It is just a minor move restriction, nothing more.

Thad, I appreciate your thoughtful input. But I must take issue with something you said.

********* "I like the concept of playing a simple game with so few rules. All the rules are basic & straightforward. None of them apply only to one player. There are no restrictions. It’s not convoluted in any way. In a word, I believe I would say one of the things I like best about fun-pente is that it’s elegant. It’s so simple to understand, yet it can be very complex and challenging.

‘Official’ pente is not that way. It has the move restriction. Yes, the game is more challenging, but the elegance of the rules is gone." ******

please don't get upset with me, but to me, this just seems like you are really stretching to give a reason here.

I can't see how the opening restriction can be considered anything but simple. The restriction IS basic and straightforward. How can you say the restriction is "convoluted?" I just don't agree with that, and I don't see how anyone who has played at least one game with the restriction would find it at all confusing. You say you like fun pente because it is elegant and that pente is not elegant. How is pente not elegant? A simple move restriction in NO way diminishes the elegance of the game; also, I have never known elegant to be synomous with simple.

Let’s clear something up at this point.

People keep calling non-move-restricted pente an invalid game. I’d like a clear, concise definition of what makes a game invalid.

(From here forward, I’m going to refer to non-move-restricted pente as fun-pente, for short)

Next, the question has arisen as to WHY we want fun-pente; why we can’t just play ‘official’ pente. I can’t speak for everyone, but..

I like the concept of playing a simple game with so few rules. All the rules are basic & straightforward. None of them apply only to one player. There are no restrictions. It’s not convoluted in any way. In a word, I believe I would say one of the things I like best about fun-pente is that it’s elegant. It’s so simple to understand, yet it can be very complex and challenging.

‘Official’ pente is not that way. It has the move restriction. Yes, the game is more challenging, but the elegance of the rules is gone.

Here’s another reason I like fun-pente better. I like to play with other players who, like me, just like to play pente. There are scores of us who just want to sit down and have some fun. Yes, we want to get better. Yes, we want to improve our game. But we don’t want to read books, study charts, memorize databases, etc. in order to do it. There is nothing wrong with studying the game, in fact, I find myself doing more and more of that, because, I am starting to feel that my game has gotten about as good as it is going to just from playing. Does this mean that, as I continue to get better and better, that I will like fun-pente less and less and ‘official’ pente more and more? Possibly. Does it mean that I will ever think that anyone should avoid fun-pente? Absolutely not!!

Here’s something else. I really dislike DSG’s database. I wish Dweebo would take it down. I can compete with even the top players using it. Does that make me a great player? No, it makes me a great looker-upper. Does it improve my pente skills? No. In fact, it probably makes them worse. Now, I need a crutch to win. Thanks to the DSG database, I have learned some good moves, but I have no idea WHY they are good moves. I will never learn to extend that move to another similar situation. My game will not get better than looking up moves allows it to be. There is no fun-pente database. Playing fun-pente forces me to think up winning lines on my own. That alone makes it worth playing over ‘official’ pente for me.

The bottom line is that I like to play fun-pente because it’s, well, fun. It is more fun than ‘official’ pente to me. No one has given me a reason as to why I shouldn’t play it. Gary, you can tell me until you are blue in the face that it is detrimental to the development of ‘official’ pente, but...
(1) I am not yet convinced that it is (although I will continue to listen to those who want to attempt to convince me that it is). In my case, I probably would have quit playing pente by now if I didn’t have fun-pente to play. It has allowed me to elevate my game and still enjoy playing at the same time. So, in my case, it has been beneficial!

(2) Even if it is, so what. Not to be rude, but, aside from the small minority who are striving to make pente the next chess, who cares? Antichess certainly is detrimental to my chess game. I can’t even ‘see’ a chess board anymore. When I look and try to think what move I’d make, all I see are antichess lines and strategy. (For those you you reading this who are unfamiliar with antichess, the basic idea is to lose all your pieces. Check and checkmate don’t count and if you have a capture available you have to take it. Otherwise it’s the same as regular chess, but the strategies are completely different.) But no one is going to tell me antichess is invalid and that I shouldn’t play it because it’s detrimental to the development of chess!

And finally, in response to harley’s previous post, I am not trying to skirt the rules. I fully understand that ‘official’ pente includes the rule about player 1’s second move, but, I like playing without the restriction better. I’m sure others feel exactly as I do on this point. And besides (I hope I don’t get a lot of flack for saying this) what God came down and said, ”These are the official rules, which must be followed by all players at all times and must never be deviated from!”? Dmitri has indicated that there is consideration for modifying the ‘official’ rules to further reduce the advantage player 1 currently has. Gary has created a variation with alternate move restrictions. Others have too. Clearly there is nothing wrong with changing the rules to a game to create a variation.

Thad

PS: I didn’t learn to play the game at IYT.

I'm a total novice player and from what I can tell here its ONLY 'its your turn' pente players that have played this game without the restriction.

I would say that as a beginner, I NEED (not want or would like to or maybe should...) to learn the CORRECT rules of the game if I ever wanted to play on a 'real' board with people who have NOT played at IYT.

How embarassed would I be if I started a game of this with friends without knowing the right rules??? Saying 'Oh yes, I can play this game'!! I'd be laughed out of the room!

I dont care how IYT have had players learning the game, I'm just glad I didn't 'learn' there and then come here only to have to 're-learn' the correct rules of the game.

Thats my humble NOVICE opinion. Rules are rules, why does everyone have trouble seeing that?

Thad, thanks for your reply.

I will address your points indivdually.

*****"Gary & Dmitri, your analogy that it is like playing chess where one player has two rooks and the other has only one has little if any merit. No one would ever consider a game like that, where one player has an extra piece throughout the whole game and no compensating restriction (like piece placement for example), as a legitimate variant. " **********

I agree that no one would ever consider that chess variant, for the exact same reason you gave! THAT is my point exactly! Your suggestion is that we play pente (a game where one player DOES have one more piece on the board than the other player) WITHOUT a compensating restriction such as piece placement!

You just said that no one should consider such a variant, so I odn't understand why you are lobbying for such a condition to exist in pente.

******"Please explain this to me:
According to your arguments, changing the move 1 restriction (by eliminating it) produces and invalid variation of pente. But, changing the move restriction by increasing the restriction (I believe you call one example G-pente) is valid. Also, changing the size of the board still results in valid pente variations. We could also change the number of captures needed to win or the number of stones lined up to win and still have valid variations. We could even change the number of pentes required to win and still have valid variations. Why are all those other variations ok, but not this one?" **********

The opening restriction was a change to the official rules back around 1979 after EXPERIENCE and RESULTS showed player 1’s advantage to be too great without it.
That was almost two decades ago, and during that time, player 2 has enjoyed some success as a result. After all these years, player 1 may have figured out a good counter for all of player 2’s defenses, which is why some new ideas have been batted around.
This fact does not make the “variant” without the restriction any less invalid! It is still an invalid version of the game. G-Pente, with the added restriction is just ONE of the ideas being discussed, and nothing has been decided yet.

TIME and EXPERIENCED showed the restriction of the opening moves to be necessary, so only that same time and experience will show us if G-Pente is the way to go or not. There is also another possible solution to player 1s advantage that I find intriguing, and that is the swap opportunity after 3 moves. Still other ideas were batted around, such as allowing a player to deduct a capture from his own total instead of adding it to his opponent’s. These are all goals aimed at evening up the advantage player 1 has. What is the goal of REMOVING an existing rule that makes it HARDER for player 2 to win when it is already tough for player 2 to win? I really don’t understand why those supporting this position are doing so. All of them started at IYT with their incorrect version, and seem to want it to stay simply because they are used to it. That hasn’t been the only reason given but it has been the most frequently given reason.

If time and experience showed that the rules needed to be further adjusted, I would fully support the new adjustments and object to the old version. There is nothing wrong with expecting a game to evolve when evolution is called for.

Also, I thought I had been very clear about the different sized boards. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to any sized board other than the 19 by 19. I do NOT consider the small boards an acceptable variant, and they are ONLY in place because Fencer wanted the WebTV users to be able to play (they cannot load the 19 X 19 board).

Some have said that the smaller board may help reduce player’s 1s advantage. I stated unequivocally that this was not so, without any proof. Well, I don’t have proof, but I can say that I reviewed my 25 brain King games of Keryo pente, and, in NONE of these games would my win as player 1 have been impeded by a smaller board. But, in one of them, my win as player 1 would have been easier, and in FIVE of my wins as PLAYER 2, my win would NOT have been possible on a smaller board! So until someone can back up the statement that the smaller boards helps player 2, the evidence points to the contrary.




******** “If you say it is because player 1 has an advantage, then all pente variations ever mentioned, including the pente you promote, would also be invalid because one player always has the edge. By that logic, we should invalidate tic-tac-toe! Checkers too, would probably have to go.” ************

Just because player had an advantage, doesn’t make a game invalid. What DOES make a game invalid is when a reasonable and time-tested rule is ignored such that player 1’s advantage is even greater than it needs to be. As for tic-tac-to, I really do not understand why you mentioned this at all. Are you saying tic-tac-to is a valid game? Some may argue with me, but I would DEFINITELY say that tic-tac-to is an invalid game.


********* “If you argue that it causes people to learn ‘true’ pente improperly, well, that doesn’t make the variation invalid.” **********

I respectfully disagree, and since you did not give an explanation or justification for your comment, I can’t really say too much else on the matter. I will say that when a rule is so simple and easy to implement and has no downside, it just seems wrong to ignore the rule and have people learning the game the wrong way.

********** “If you say it impedes the development of pente masters, well, that still doesn’t make the variation invalid. Most novices I know, most of whom will never become masters anyway, like the non-move-restricted pente.” ********

I would say that DOES present a pretty good reason for calling the game invalid. What is it about the non-restriction game that the novices like? I am really not clear on this. Do they play the version with the restriction and say, “Oh, this game is not fun?” I don’t understand this! The change is so minor I don’t see how it could possibly affect anyone’s enjoyment of the game. This would be akin to my saying “Oh, I cannot move my pawn three spaces forward in chess? Well, then chess is no longer fun, and I will not play until the variant (allowing me to move my pawn three spaces forward) is brought back.

***** “I, myself, like the non-move-restricted pente. I like it better than ‘true’ pente. I like to play two game matches with my opponent & I each starting one.” ******

OK, but I don’t understand why you cannot play two game matches with you and your opponent each starting one WITH the restriction. I am not clear on why you like an incorrect version of a game over the “true” version.

**** “My personal favorite variation that I’ve seen is non-move-restricted pente with unlimited captures allowed. I lost an interesting game recently in which my opponent would have lost with five pairs, but instead I did.” *****

Okay, but why can’t this version be played with the restriction? Player 1 still has the advantage of having the extra piece and having the initiative.

********** “My favorite variation of all is non-move-restricted pente with unlimited captures allowed for player 2. In other words, player 2 can win by making a pente OR by capturing 5 pairs, but player 1 can only win by getting a pente. Player 1 can certainly capture 5 (or more) pairs, but this doesn’t give him the win. In this variation, P1 has the advantage of going first, but P2 has his advantage too. I have never played this way, but other players agree that it seems like an interesting variation. It could also be played with the move restriction.

Are my variations invalid?” **********

I don’t like the variants you suggested, but they are not necessarily invalid. I hope everyone is clear on this, because I suspect some people are not. My objection to this pente variant is NOT based on my “not liking” the variant. There are lots of games that I don’t like but only this one has drawn my attention as being invalid.

I do not object to a variant of there is some JUSTIFICATION for it. The game with unlimited captures dramatically changes the strategy and play of the game. I don’t like it at all, but I am willing to give it a try and see how it goes! I do NOT like the variant where player 1 cannot win on captures, because I don’t like having two sides with such different rules. But, I am willing to give it a try!!!! My point is, none of your variants have been tried, which is why I cam willing to give them a try! The same goes for G-Pente, swap pente, the variant of pente where one can deduct a capture from his own, and double pente. I am willing to give them a try.

BUT, the “variant” without the restriction HAS BEEN TRIED and was SHOWN to be no good! That is a key difference that everyone is overlooking or ignoring.

Hear! Hear, Thad! I argee with you in your last post and could not have said it better.

Well, I think it's time to put my thoughts here on all of this. I side with all those players who like being able to play without move restrictions. Gary & Dmitri, your analogy that it is like playing chess where one player has two rooks and the other has only one has little if any merit. No one would ever consider a game like that, where one player has an extra piece throughout the whole game and no compensating restriction (like piece placement for example), as a legitimate variant.

Please explain this to me:
According to your arguments, changing the move 1 restriction (by eliminating it) produces and invalid variation of pente. But, changing the move restriction by increasing the restriction (I believe you call one example G-pente) is valid. Also, changing the size of the board still results in valid pente variations. We could also change the number of captures needed to win or the number of stones lined up to win and still have valid variations. We could even change the number of pentes required to win and still have valid variations. Why are all those other variations ok, but not this one?

If you say it is because player 1 has an advantage, then all pente variations ever mentioned, including the pente you promote, would also be invalid because one player always has the edge. By that logic, we should invalidate tic-tac-toe! Checkers too, would probably have to go.

If you argue that it causes people to learn ‘true’ pente improperly, well, that doesn’t make the variation invalid.

If you say it impedes the development of pente masters, well, that still doesn’t make the variation invalid. Most novices I know, most of whom will never become masters anyway, like the non-move-restricted pente.

I, myself, like the non-move-restricted pente. I like it better than ‘true’ pente. I like to play two game matches with my opponent & I each starting one.

My personal favorite variation that I’ve seen is non-move-restricted pente with unlimited captures allowed. I lost an interesting game recently in which my opponent would have lost with five pairs, but instead I did.

My favorite variation of all is non-move-restricted pente with unlimited captures allowed for player 2. In other words, player 2 can win by making a pente OR by capturing 5 pairs, but player 1 can only win by getting a pente. Player 1 can certainly capture 5 (or more) pairs, but this doesn’t give him the win. In this variation, P1 has the advantage of going first, but P2 has his advantage too. I have never played this way, but other players agree that it seems like an interesting variation. It could also be played with the move restriction.

Are my variations invalid?

Thad

To all -

I was asked by Ringtone at IYT for something that should have been obvious from the beginning of all of this discussion.

That is, where is there a site where the 'official' rules of Pente and Keryo Pente can be found. If anyone is still interested, there are at least 3 sites where the official rules are located. They are as follows:

www.pente.org - Dweebo's Stone Games where real-time Pente and Keryo Pente are played with ratings and real-time tournaments. Go to the bottom left of the home page and click on the FAQ link. (I am a tournament director there.)

www.gamerz.net - Richard's play by Email server where many Email world championships are played for MANY different games. Toward the bottom of the home page, there is a link to the rules for both Pente and Keryo Pente.

users.erols.com/msmammel/marksfiv.html - Mark Mammel's Pente site with MANY good links including one for the proof of the forced win in 24 moves in Gomoku for player 1. Towards the bottom of the home page is a link where you can download his program. In his program's help file, you will see the official rules for Pente, D-pente, G-pente, and S-pente. It's also GREAT for storing your games.


In restrospect, I should have posted this 3-4 days ago, but I didn't think of it then. Many thanks to Ringtone for requesting the official rules and making me think a little more about it.


Gary Barnes

To all -

I was asked by Ringtone at IYT for something that should have been obvious from the beginning of all of this discussion.

That is, where is there a site where the 'official' rules of Pente and Keryo Pente can be found. If anyone is still interested, there are at least 3 sites where the official rules are located. They are as follows:

www.pente.org - Dweebo's Stone Games where real-time Pente and Keryo Pente are played with ratings and real-time tournaments. Go to the bottom left of the home page and click on the FAQ link. (I am a tournament director there.)

www.gamerz.net - Richard's play by Email server where many Email world championships are played for MANY different games. Toward the bottom of the home page, there is a link to the rules for both Pente and Keryo Pente.

users.erols.com/msmammel/marksfiv.html - Mark Mammel's Pente site with MANY good links including one for the proof of the forced win in 24 moves in Gomoku for player 1. Towards the bottom of the home page is a link where you can download his program. In his program's help file, you will see the official rules for Pente, D-pente, G-pente, and S-pente. It's also GREAT for storing your games.


In restrospect, I should have posted this 3-4 days ago, but I didn't think of it then. Many thanks to Ringtone for requesting the official rules and making me think a little more about it.


Gary Barnes

To all -

Without addressing anyone's specific comments here, I would like to make a couple of more general statements that MAY pertain to some things in the discussion, but may not, but all of which will pertain to Pente and Keryo Pente.

1. I would like to refer everyone to my original post. I know that most of you have probably read it by now, but I want to reiterate that the case IN FAVOR of the restriction is a LONG-term one. That is that the game CAN become as popular as a mainstream game like Chess, but ONLY if 100's and 1000's of master-level players play it so that strategy guides and large databases of moves are created and that the game is promoted to large companies.

2. Unfortunately, there was a small mis-communication between us and Fencer when we stated the LONG-term case for having the opening restriction on both board sizes so that the game can get the sponsorship that it needs. When doing so, we stated something like it would be 'very difficult' or 'extremely difficult' for player 2 to win without the restriction. We did not SPECIFICALLY state 'virtually impossible'. I do NOT fault Fencer for this ONE BIT!! He has MANY things to look after and things to do and in many languages 'very difficult' and 'virtually impossible' could be interpreted in an identical fashion. Unfortunately, I think that that choice of words has given many of you the impression that we are somehow trying to 'pull the wool over your eyes'. We will see if he will consider changing that wording to 'very difficult' on the main page.

3. I'm afraid that I misinformed Walter at an IYT game that Pente/Keryo Pente was bought by Milton Bradley in the mid-80's. It was actually bought by Parker Brothers. I frequently get these two gaming companies confused. I apologize for any confusion that I caused there.

4. Parker Brothers no longer owns the rights to Pente/Keryo Pente. We (at least myself) are not EXACTLY clear on who owns it. We know that the rights were sold to a company named Decipher sometime in the '90's and that they have since sold ALL or PART of the rights, but that is what I'm not clear on.

5. As everyone should be aware of by now, Dmitri King and I are currently playing 6 games as player 1 against Pioneer54, Walter, and Dangerous Mind, 4 at IYT and 2 here, without the opening restriction. All 3 of these players have won titles at IYT and Pioneer54 has won NUMEROUS titles, so we think this will be a good test. We are doing this to prove that player 2 cannot win without the restriction. In 2 of the games that are around move 7-8, we now have overwhelming advantages. In the other 4, they are still pretty much in the opening stages. (Moves 3-5) One of the players has stated that they will have to 'change' or 'adjust' their strategy as player 2 in order to beat us. We have replied that it will make no difference what strategy they use because they cannot win as player 2. Also one of the players has stated that they aren't comfortable with 'throwing out bait' meaning that they aren't comfortable making pairs or split-3's when attacking because they might be captured. This is unfortunate because these things are VERY necessary to PROVE that player 1 has an overwhelming advantage and to further the development of the player. This occurs to MANY players who play without the restriction for an extended period of time. It has become so common that I can almost immediately tell if someone was introduced to Pente or Keryo Pente correctly or without the restriction. Invariably if they have played it incorrectly, they will try to avoid a pair or split-3 at almost any cost. This is what is hurting the game.

6. It is our objective to win the six 'demonstration' games in #5 and then play whomever wants to or whatever # of games of more games is necessary (within reason) to prove that player 2 cannot win without the restriction. If by chance we do lose ONE game, we will be able to point to the EXACT move where we made a grave error.

7. Once again, I want to state that playing without the restriction is NOT a variant, it is the incorrect rules for the game. Playing on a different sized board can be considered a variant and most of are fine with that, especially since it is needed for the Web-TV users. Personally, I am looking forward to playing some games on the smaller boards with the restriction.

8. I will not apologize for any post that I have made here about this particular topic as I feel that everything that I said is justified. But I WOULD like to apologize to anyone at IYT or anyone else who feels like I have promoted this site in an incorrect manner in some way by bringing up IYT's problems. I am not attempting to offend anyone by such tactics, but to only promote what I think to be a GREAT site! I just thought that by bringing up IYT's problems, that it would allow people to see how much better this site is than IYT. I may have been mistaken in bringing up all of their problems, so I will avoid such tactics in the future.


It is my hope that we can all get past these differences and get back to enjoying the great games of Pente and Keryo Pente and what is best for the LONG-term betterment of the game.


Gary Barnes


Note: I will be on vacation this weekend so I will not be checking the message board during that time.

"Your proposed solution is what others and myself have said all long. Except for changing the name of the game that is. Each version could have it's own name, you act like that's a major deal. I would lump them under a Pente banner and then list the versions there. It'd be easy to find. Kind of like what Fencer did with these post boards when he put them under the Line4 and variant heading. People are way ahead of you here"

Walter, the name change was the FOCAL POINT of my solution. You cannot just remove it and then say my colution si what everyone has been saying all along!

WHen a version of pente has the same name as pente, and people then see that is has less restrictions on the opening, they will ASSUME it to be the REAL version, and that the other game (the correct one) is the variant! That is BAD for the game of pente.

There seem to be two conflicting ideas here:

1) the promotion of the game of pente and
2) the enjoyment of the game by non0-serious players and beginners

But, they do NOT have to be conflicting! they can be COMPATIBLE!

WHy not give the game without the restriction a chance? After three months, you might find that you do not haveany interest in the other variant any more.

We HAVE givewn the existence of the no-restriction game a chance, and we have WITNESSED the problams it has caused-- specifically, the setback in development of players because of having to relearn the opening rules. ALso, it has caused confusion as to which is the "real version."

you say "None other than Gary himself told me that Milton Bradley bought the rights to Pente in 1984. Why don't you ask him? Maybe he has it wrong and I shouldn't use him for information, but I've had no reason to doubt him. Perhaps the next time you attack me for saying something like Milton Bradley has the rights or anything else that I make up, it would help your side of the argument to bring the facts with you and directly refute it. "

1984 was a long time ago. Gary never said that company still owns the rights, and it doesn't.

you say "And look who's nitpicking over my use of grammar. Least ways I do pretty good for a high school drop out Mr. Test Giver. I'm glad I'm not one of your students. "

Walter, I mentioned yourgrammar ONLY because you stated that I was not being careful with my posting and that you were. That is the ONLY reason I mentioned it. My point is, everyone fails to be thorough at times, either with gramamr or in completely reading someone's post. But I try to adress each indivisual point of someone's argument.

You say you are glad you are not one of mystudents? Well, if you are a hihg school dropout, you obviously wouldn;t be in need of my classes, which are preparation for the SAT. BUt if you did need to prepare, you would be missing out by not being in my class, because I am probably one of the very best.

Walter, I disagree with your stance that pente has faded away. the game is fairly popular right now on the internet sites, so I do not consider it to have faded away. now, to address something specific:

you say "So that version has fallen from favor by the powers that be(read: you)."

Where are you getting this? NO serious player considers the game without the restriction to be a legitimate variant. Dozens and dozens of top players would attest to the fact that the ONLY way to play pente is WITH the restriction.

okay, as per your request of reading your messages more carefully, I took anohter look at your post. Granted, you did not say Luck was the orimary factor in bridge, but you did say it is a game involving luck.

Here I disagree. It involves no more luck than baseball or football or other games that are almost entirely based on skill. Sure, sometimes a lucky bounce on a bunt attempt is needed, but more often than not, it is the bunter's skill that will determine the succcess or failure of the bunt.

Is it lack of skill that causes a wide receiver to come up .5 inches short of the first doen marker? Maybe, because he could have run a better route, but also he was just a bit unlucky.

But, baseball and football are still considered games of skill that luck has hardly anything to do with. The net effect of luck is usually negligible.

In bridge, is it luck that determines whether a finesse succeeds? SOmetimes it is, but often it is skill. The net effect of brisge is negligible. The cards that are dealt are a non afctor, becasue competitive bridghe is played in some sort of suplicate form where everyone plays the same hands.

I am not sure why we were talking about bridge, but that is my take on bridge. I don't exactly remember how it fit into our pente discussion.

I wasn't going to comment on this argument at all, because I'm a total beginner at any kind of pente, and not even good at it!!!

BUT... cloak and dagger??? Am I the only one who reads these boards? Its been explained in L.O.N.G and very detailed posts why the restriction is necessary. Even I can see this!! And I can see why its better too. As a beginner I'm glad to play the correct way, and I'm glad I never played at IYT, its difficult to forget everything you've learned about a a game and play by new (and correct) rules.

Condensed, I believe thats what the main argument is, the restriction is part of the official rules, therefore should be in place.
Sounds good to me, I like to play by the rules :o)

I did not refer to Bridge as a game of luck. I said it is a game that has luck involved in it. A lot smaller than the amount of luck in Backgammon or Cribbage, but there's still some luck involved. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully as you criticize my reasoning and debating skills. You might be right about my ascertain that IYT did right with the game. If they never had put it on, then no one would be playing it. Isn't that what I said? You still attacked it. I notice you didn't argue with the fading away of Pente that I made up. And just how is it that you argue that Pente without the move restriction isn't variant of Pente? The original game was played that way! Surely that qualifies as a variant?! So that version has fallen from favor by the powers that be(read: you). It is still a variant, not something else. The current version was made up out of it.
I never mentioned your father, either. I was right, your mom is proud of you. And look who's nitpicking over my use of grammar. Least ways I do pretty good for a high school drop out Mr. Test Giver. I'm glad I'm not one of your students.

I'm glad you're healthy, you have me there. Perhaps I've been fooling myself and my actions on this board have just been a justification to myself to stay up late and not be able to get my lazy self up and over to the gym to work out nor ride my bicycle to work. Geez, I missed work today just so I could reply to your posts. Yep, I'm beginning to see the error in my ways and am getting soft in head and body because of it.

None other than Gary himself told me that Milton Bradley bought the rights to Pente in 1984. Why don't you ask him? Maybe he has it wrong and I shouldn't use him for information, but I've had no reason to doubt him. Perhaps the next time you attack me for saying something like Milton Bradley has the rights or anything else that I make up, it would help your side of the argument to bring the facts with you and directly refute it.

So what if you are one the best players of Pente in the country, world, universe? An achievement to be sure, but there's more to it that. You sure don't carry yourself like a champion. I am the best Building player in the world, though not the current champion. I appear to be one of the best Dark Chess players, though I think the game can be played better than I play it and I think this of Building too. The world is not black and white as you seem to draw it. Lots of grey areas.

Your proposed solution is what others and myself have said all long. Except for changing the name of the game that is. Each version could have it's own name, you act like that's a major deal. I would lump them under a Pente banner and then list the versions there. It'd be easy to find. Kind of like what Fencer did with these post boards when he put them under the Line4 and variant heading. People are way ahead of you here.

Let's play some games on the side Dmitri. Sure you'll win all the games, but atleast these rants of yours and mine can be between us and save the rest of the people from having to read it. Entertaining as they might be. Nah, perhaps we already have the right forum, never mind.

Got to go, perhaps more later though I'm getting doubtful about it.

Tony, perhaps you can coach Walter on how to make a post that is not total nonsense? In one short post, you managedto do what Walter failed to do in his pages and pages of posts. You actually made a point that is relevant to the game that merits a response!

BY this, I mean:

Keryo13: I hate the restriction because I like the challenge of playing second and letting the first player move close in, then seeing if I can find a win."

here is who I will respond: It sounds like you just acknowledged that it is more difficult to find the win as P2 without the restriction, because you said you like that chappenge of allowing him to get his pieces clsoe together.

so, it sounds like you are agreeing with us, that allowing player 1 to have his initial pieces close together is more of an advantage than forcing him to spread out his first two pieces.

If I am misinterpreting you, please let me know.

That said, I don't think player 2 NEEDS an extra challenge. It is Already challenging for player 2 to win WITH the restriction!

If it is not challenging for you to win as P2 with the restriction, then you are not playing veyr good players. I do realize that you took both games from me many moons ago at IYT, but those were my first 2 keryo games ever (or maybe my 4rd and 4th, I might have played POD first).

Now, I think I give anyone a good challenge in first seat with the restriction.

So, if it is the challnge that you seek as reason for wanting the restriction removed, I am taking the position that the challenge you seek is present WIT the restriction.

No Cloak and dagger act was pulled. We have been railing against the no-restriction variant since the moment it was created here, it just happened that Fencer's decision came at a tiem that made it appear as if we pulled a cloak and dagger act.

It is indisputable that player 1 has a sizable advantage! I don't understand how anyone can state otherwise. You ask where the proof is, but I don't see it as needing to be proved, it is a afct that stands on its own merit. To not have some sort of adjustment in a game where the player who goes first has such a big advantage just doesn't make sense to me.

Consider Rush sabotage, of which we were obth avid players. I see no advantage ofr either side in that game, espeically since there are the two strips through the volcanos. Thus, no restriction is necessary. In pente, the game is very short and having an extra stone is a big edge, I just see that as an undeniable fact.

I don't think Gary and I have done the oppositte (of our intent to bring pente players here from IYT). I could give you a LONG list of players who play pente here who used to play it at IYT.

You object to our telling others how they must have it. This is a distortion of our argument (a slight distortion anyway). All we are doing is speaking out against a bad variant that has no justification for existing. There are lots of pente variants that Gary and I support, we just don't support THIS ONE PARTICULAR variant. To me, that isn't telling people how what they MUST do, but rather, telling people what ONE thing they must NOT do. I think the difference is significant.

Again, I'll use Gary's chess example. No one is telling people they MUST play chess exactly the way the original game is played, because there are dozens of viable variants; but, we DO FORBID certain variants that have no justification, such as playing where one side only has one rook while the other side has two.

IYT made a mistake when they set up pente. What gave them the right to choose what rules to use? I don't understand this at all. Just because their error continued to go unchecked, doesn't mean it should go unchecked permanently.