Ankhaw -

I found your game where you should have already won. Wow, I've never seen that before!

Here's what you need to do. Send a message to 'Fencer', the owner of the site and tell him what happened. It will be easiest for his reference if you give him your game I.D. of 174787.

He is usually fairly quick to respond and will take care of it for you.

By the way, who is Beuller?


Gary

Thad -

Hum, well obviously I'm not the only one that found your statements about the WPF insulting and your references to sporting events being the justification for draws in Poof Pente. So, Thad, could it be that you implied something that you had not intended? I don't think I'm too out of place in thinking what I did there.

As far as the hook, line, and sinker thing, well, yeah, I baited you pretty good. The intent of the original draws to communism and socialism post was two-fold. (1) To spur some light-hearted debate, hence the smiley face on the post. (2) To see if I could bait you into insulting me like you have done so eloquently in the past.

Call me arrogant, pompous, or what you will, but that's what I did and have already aknowledged such. At first you avoided the bait and I admit I was impressed that you did so because I didn't think you had it in you. But unfortunately for you that evaporated quickly in a series of insults on me in response to Walter and what appeared to be an attack on the WPF. I qoute:
(1) ** Gary, applies reasoning to his points in his arguments selectively, NOT in a consistent, logical manner. **
(2) ** Gary uses a lot of bad logic, but buries it in long posts so most people don't notice. **
(3) (Referring to a sarcastic comment from your wife) ** She said that if Gary doesn't want draws, then he'll be mad at you for leaving the debate where it is. Again, I said why? She said, 'Because it's a draw!' **
(4) The comments about the WPF. I know you said you meant nothing deragatory but after repeating yourself 3-4 times there, I find it hard to believe that NOTHING deragatory was intended.
(5) ** I meant no disrespect to you or anyone else involved with that organization other than Gary. **
(so you DID mean disrespect to me!)

I would have been glad to forward you the information about the WPF if you had not appeared to insult it. I didn't deem it worth the time to send the information to someone who thinks negatively of it. I also do not know why you suddenly started insulting me after I made the comparison of draws vs. communism. 4 of the 5 insults above came shortly after that initial draw debate post that I made before I had a chance to respond.

Now, the question is, why did I bait you? Because when you and Walter have had no further room to debate something, you start leveling insults at whom you are debating. It was to prove to others that you guys will time and again resort to such tactics and henceforth your points are mostly invalid. I let Walter get to me ONE time and I lashed out in a single post about 1-2 months ago and I admit that I was wrong for doing it and it won't happen again.

So PLEASE tell me WHY you decided to insult me BEFORE I even said anything about the hook, line, and sinker! Obviously it's more than that or the draws vs. Communism post. Perhaps it was our difference of opinion on the no-restriction Pente that has you so much in arms. If so, I think we can agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that. But if it's more than that, then enlighten me.


Gary

Hum, Walter, can you tell me where I stated that we would kick Thad out of anything? I simply stated that his thoughts on Pente are not likely to be listened to if he calls us a 'little group' and a 'bunch of guys'. There's a pretty obvious difference between someone being ignored and someone being kicked out of something.

Also, I believe (obviously I can't speak for him), that Mark prefers not to debate such things as draws and will usually just state facts about Pente and the such. I don't think he will express an opinion one way or another unless we specifically ask him, so him not stating his opinion doesn't indicate his viewpoint on any of this.

Mark, correct me if I'm wrong.

Your witness...

Thad -

I must admit that you are tricky when you are debating but after fairly EXTREME analysis on several of your messages here, I can clearly see a trend in your tactics to attempt to defend yourself that contains a major fallacy.

What you are doing is what could be possibly called 'The fallacy of non-implication'. I don't know if that is its real name, but it seems reasonable here. Perhaps Dmitri King who is more versed on debate techniques can elaborate on that.

What you are doing is that you don't make SPECFIC comparisons between things, but you very much IMPLY specific comparisons between things. When I say IMPLY, I mean that the comparisons are what MOST reasonable people would INFER are being made. THEN if someone attempts to debate the comparison with you because it is obviously an invalid one, you claim that the comparison was never made and that the person should re-read your post and then you attack the person for misunderstanding you. I have now seen this on several occassions in your posts.

Let me give an example.
Dmitri King talking in response to draws occurring in board games and sporting events:
** Why are so many people against the idea that some people are going to win and some people are going to lose? I don't asee how breaking a tie in any way cheapens anything. **

Your response:
** I read about a game once played by a bunch of kids in a youth soccer league. They played the regulation time to a tie. They played two sudden death overtimes to a tie. They had not one, not two, but three shootouts. Results every time...tie. Finally, whoever was in charge decided to flip a coin to decide the winner. They flipped it, but it landed in the grass on an angle and couldn't be called as a heads or tails...twice! Finally, they declared the game a tie. **

It should be extremely clear to most people if they read the discussion thread leading up to those comments that you are attempting to justify a draw in a board game that could easily be broken by comparing it to a sporting event that has gone on for a very long time and SHOULD be declared a draw, which as I said is an obvious apples to oranges comparison. Thad, perhaps that is NOT what you intended to do! But we can't read your mind. We can only INFER what reasonable people would normally infer. But if you did not imply such a thing, then perhaps a better reason for allowing draws in Poof Pente can be made, so that a good comparison CAN be made.

So when you say that I don't have my facts straight, perhaps it would be better if you clarified the facts better to begin with.

OK, now, you have attempted to nail me several times on the pente.net site. I have not responded to this because little defense is needed. All anyone has to do is to go play at the site and see why. The last time I checked a month ago, the ratings there are the # of a player's wins * 100 + the win pct., there are no time controls for the games, and there are no tournaments. It's quite invalid to compare that site to the Oklahoma City tournament. Would you not agree that any serious Pente entity, whether it be a site, organization, or whatever should have tournaments and/or organized events and a valid ranking or rating system? Even IYT uses 'Level 2' or 'Level 3' in some of their games for players who have advanced to the 2nd or 3rd round of a tournament so that they can play in those 'level' of tournaments in the future. I mean doesn't that make sense? How can pente.net hope to grow if it doesn't do such a thing? It is not my intent to be deragatory towards people if they play at the site by calling it a 'mom and pop site'. If that sounds insulting, then I will refrain from it and just call it a 'non-serious' or 'small' site because that is really what it is.

Also, playpente.com is an information only pente website that is run, as far as I know, solely by Greg Stange. In effect, it is no different than Mark Mammel's site, which is an excellent site that has information about all kinds of interesting things both game and math related and MANY excellent things that can be downloaded. These are not actual game-playing sites.


Your witness...


Gary


P.S. It is good to see that Waterdancer agrees that play should continue if the capture count is 10-10 instead of the game being declared a draw. If a draw can be easily broken, then it should be.

Thad -

You're really getting in deeper and deeper. Perhaps you should step back and cool down. Your blatant denial of falling into a trap is all the more reason that it is clear that you DID fall into a trap. Your comments:

** Now, about this World Pente Federation, is it really an organized entity? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? Does it have by-laws or certification of any kind? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? Do they have any connection to the legal rights holder of 'Pente'? Or just a bunch of guys who decided to form a little group? And finally, will there actually be significant representation by anyone from any part of the world outside North America? Or just a bunch of (American) guys who decided to form a little group? **

** Once again, I did not do what you claim I did. Reread my post. I NEVER SAID it was a just bunch of guys. I questioned if that was the case, but I also questioned if it was a bonified organization. **

By your first statement, you blatantly IMPLIED a MAJOR put down of an organization that you know NOTHING about. Any reasonable person would take your comments as deragatory toward this new organization. You can't find it on the web because it is a brand new organization that will have it's first meeting this coming Sunday. You called the group a 'bunch of guys' and a 'little group' on 3 different occassions in a single paragraph. How are we supposed to take the comment 'little group'? Then you said you didn't say it. Well, if you blatantly IMPLY it, then it's as good as said!

So you have now in effect leveled an insult at Mark Mammel, Peter Hewitt, Dmitri King, Tom Braunlich, Gary Gabrel, Greg Strange, Joe King, myself, and all others that will be a part of the new organization.

Based on these insults, I believe that you owe a MAJOR apology to the people who will be in this new organization. Otherwise, I would guess that many of us will be unwilling to listen to ANY input that you have regarding the game.


Gary

Walter -

Thanks a bunch for bringing up another game that has a move similar to the new Poof Pente variant that has been suggested. It is interesting that there is another game that has that kind of move. It's just so unusual and I had not seen it before. I should have known that you would be a GREAT source for MANY different variaties of games! Also, I wanted to say nice post and several good points made!

Back on the subject of draws, I think my intent was taken out of context.

When I said 'There should be no draws', I SHOULD have said is that 'There should be NO draws in board games and ONLY in sporting events if a REASONABLE amount of time has expired.' I realize that many will disagree with me on that point, but THAT is what I meant.

I do NOT think that ALL sporting events should have ALL ties broken with their CURRENT rules. Of course I agree that the kids soccer game that Thad brought up should end in a tie. I also think it would be poor practice to break all regular-season ties in hockey. But...TO ME what that points out is an inherent problem with the CURRENT BASIC rules of the game or sporting event.

The basic problem in hockey and soccer is that it is too difficult to score. In my opinion, in soccer the offsides rule should be eliminated and the game be played as 8 vs. 8. I'm sure I'll get some backlash for that, but having the average score for a team in MSL soccer at 2 goals/side/game is the MAIN reason that the sport is having difficulty becoming popular in the U.S. It is just simply TOO low scoring! And low scores result in difficulty in breaking ties in a correct manner.

In hockey, the problem could be resolved by simply increasing the size of the TEENY net. There's no reason to have such a small goal and allow the goalee to wear such bulky pads to stop the shots.

I DO agree BIG TIME with Thad about the METHOD in which ties are broken in some sports. They should be broken in the EXACT manner in which the game is played to begin with with the exception of the sudden death element so that games don't keep going and going. I despise shootouts in soccer and the method of placing the ball on the 25-yard line in college football. There's no comparison to the regular game. In overtime, kicking and special teams means little in college football and defense means nothing in soccer with shootouts.

NFL football ALMOST has it right, but not quite. They need to allow BOTH sides at least ONE possession of the ball, THEN it becomes sudden death. Also, they need to extend it to a second overtime. This is reasonable because the players have a week off between games unlike hockey and usually soccer. Basketball and baseball have it PERFECT!

Good question about my comparing communism to draws. In communism, the government controls most or all things and decides who does what as though everyone were equal. Socialism just does that to a lesser extent. It is my feeling that allowing draws to stand in games where they can be easily broken is the equivalent of calling people equal, just like communism does. They should be allowed to continue unfettered so that the better person comes out ahead (a majority of the time anyway).


Gary

You fell right into my trap Thad! I have to admit that I set you up BIG for that one and like you had accurately figured, I was disappointed that you didn't initially want to debate the point. Of course I knew it was just a matter of time before you couldn't resist.

You made these 2 EXTREME comparisons that affect MANY people and take MUCH time to playing just a FEW more moves (usually 1 to 5 moves) to break draws in Poof Pente that only affect 2 people:
1. A double overtime, 3 shootout, and 2 attempted coin flips kids soccer game.
2. A multiple-overtime regular season hockey match where the team may have to play exhausted the next night or two.

Wow, what an amazing apples to oranges comparison that needs no further comment! I rest my case!

You might want to consider doing a little research into what the World Pente Federation is all about, what it will encompass, and how it will promote the game before you start calling it a 'bunch of guys'. Once again, I rest my case!

And then comparing a mom & pop turn-based site to a once in 5 years real-time pente championship as well as lunar ecplises to infrequent draws in Poof Pente. Wow, how much further can I rest my case?!

No debate needed. You're doing a good job of refuting your OWN case. There's not much drawn in this debate because I've got you helping my case!


:-) Gary

Thad -

Well, we haven't had a good disagreement or debate for a while, so I have to start one. :-)

Draws should not occur. Yes they would be quite rare in Poof Pente, but the fact that they WOULD be rare is a good reason to not have them at all.

You say that society is hooked on having a winner. That is correct. It is because society does not operate properly and efficiently in a socialistic or communistic state. That has been proven beyond much doubt. People are not born nor are any entities created equally. Any government or organization that attempts to make them that way is ultimately doomed to fail.

Everyone is constantly in competition with everyone else for either the betterment of themselves or their city, state, country, team, school, company, etc. In life, there really are no draws! Either one person beats another, one company gets the contract, one country defeats another in war, one state or country gets the olympics, etc. There are short-term standoffs in certain situations, but rarely does that standoff last for long because the 'game' really isn't over if there has been a standoff, it has merely been postponed.

So if a draw can be easily eliminated without affecting the inherent rules of the game, then I think that it should be done.


Gary

Waterdancer -

** Probably, the easiest way to set it up would be to put in a remove stone(s) feature similar to the undo at Dweebo's, i.e. asking opponent if it was acceptable to remove stones at certain locations from the board. **

Oh no, I think that that would be much too confusing! Now somebody gets a 5 in a row and then it isn't realized that certain stones should be poofed. Or somebody misses that stones should be poofed in more than one direction. Not good.

I think that the stone removals whether they be captured or poofed should be able to be programmed reasonably easily. But like you said, the hard part will be making a program that plays it correctly with good strategy.

I have an alternative Poof Pente variant to ALL of this that would make things MUCH easier. Keep the same rules but do NOT allow Poof moves! In other words, playing into a Poof is like moving into check in Chess and it is simply an illegal move! This will make some intersections completely off limits to one or even BOTH players unless some other stones that are 'bracketing' the unallowed intersection are captured!

Potentially THAT could be a LOT easier to understand and program and for that reason, many more players will go for it! It's MUCH easier for people to understand disallowed moves like a move into check in chess than it is to understand 'poofed' moves. I think that this 'poofing' is what will confuse people. If there are other games where you can 'blow yourself up', i.e. poof yourself, without blowing up any of your opponent's pieces, I am not aware of them.


Gary

Waterdancer -

I think that your variant is a viable one, but it would probably take a while to catch on because it is so different. I think that you haven't gotten much response because May is about one of the worst months for people to be busy with finals, graduations, kids sports games, spring cleaning, you name it. It's just not a good month for board games.

I do apprecate you putting up the $100 to get people interested in the variant. I looked at it 2 nights ago for 1-1/2 hours and was close but just didn't have any more time to look at it. I eliminated most of the 'obvious-looking' moves for player 1 and was down to what I thought was 2 or 3 more reasonable possibilities for him.

I echo Dmitri King's question here. How is it possible to draw your variant? I can only think of one possible way:
A player 'poofs' a pair of his own stones while at the same time capturing a pair of his opponents stones (or some variation of that thereof) so that the stone capture count is 10-10.

I have a comment and a couple of questions though:
1. Draws should not be allowed. If the stone capture count is 10-10, then the game should continue until the tied capture count is broken or someone gets a 5 in a row.
2. As you have alluded to, it is possible to poof an odd # of ones own stones (Pairs poofed in 2 different directions that contain a single common stone would be 3 stones poofed). What happens if the stone capture count is 8-8, I poof 3 of my own stones while capturing 2 of my opponent's stones? Then it would be 11-10 in my opponent's favor. I would think that my opponent should win even though in theory, both sides have captured at least 10 stones (5 theoretical pairs).
3. I am assuming that we would always use a stone capture count and not a pair capture count. It could get too confusing if I poof 3 of my own stones so that the stone capture count is 9-8. So my opponent wouldn't win the game even though in logical theory, he now has 5 pairs. It's just that 2 of the 5 pairs contained a common stone.


Gary

CaoZ -

I understand fully what you are saying. IYT (www.itsyourturn.com) has FAR too many tournaments so that they are watered down and the results mean nothing and Dweebo's (www.pente.org) does not have enough of them so that it's easy to get impatient waiting for one.

Although my intent is to set them up and run them here about once every 3 months, we might find it better to run them every 2 months or every 4 months. The main thing is to get fairly large, reasonable time-control tourneys CONSISTENTLY going on this site, so that results can easily be reflected somewhere (perhaps like Mark Mammel's site) and that they really mean something.

As far as Dweebo's site, I believe that once he is able to set up some sort of automated system for the tourneys there, the # of tourneys will pick up. For the next Dweebo's tourney, I will strongly be recommending a Keryo Pente tourney. What's good is that he now has the opening restriction on Keryo Pente, so I think that EVERYONE will find it interesting. I have mentioned that on the site a time or two and there seems to be some good interest in it. So you can look for that in the next 2-3 months. We'd definitely want to have a top Keryo player like you there to show us how to play the game! :-)


Gary

CaoZ -

I understand fully what you are saying. IYT (www.itsyourturn.com) has FAR too many tournaments so that they are watered down and the results mean nothing and Dweebo's (www.pente.org) does not have enough of them so that it's easy to get impatient waiting for one.

Although my intent is to set them up and run them here about once every 3 months, we might find it better to run them every 2 months or every 4 months. The main thing is to get fairly large, reasonable time-control tourneys CONSISTENTLY going on this site, so that results can easily be reflected somewhere (perhaps like Mark Mammel's site) and that they really mean something.

As far as Dweebo's site, I believe that once he is able to set up some sort of automated system for the tourneys there, the # of tourneys will pick up. For the next Dweebo's tourney, I will strongly be recommending a Keryo Pente tourney. What's good is that he now has the opening restriction on Keryo Pente, so I think that EVERYONE will find it interesting. I have mentioned that on the site a time or two and there seems to be some good interest in it. So you can look for that in the next 2-3 months. We'd definitely want to have a top Keryo player like you there to show us how to play the game! :-)


Gary

To all -

I want to make all non-members aware of the situation here at Brain King. Since a player could potentially have 14 games going at once for the big Pente/Keryo Pente tournament and the max for a non-member is 20 games, in order to play in this tournament, you will need to be down to 6 current games in order to play in the tournament.


Gary

To all -

I want to make all non-members aware of the situation here at Brain King. Since a player could potentially have 14 games going at once for the big Pente/Keryo Pente tournament and the max for a non-member is 20 games, in order to play in this tournament, you will need to be down to 6 current games in order to play in the tournament.


Gary

To all -

Come join us for some serious fun in the Spring 2003 open Pente / Keryo Pente championship tournament.

I would like to make this a fairly large tournament (minimum 10 players for each game) that continues moving along without waiting for long time controls. (4 days/move)

I will be looking to start these once/quarter and to eventually run sectional tournaments as more players obtained established ratings in Pente and Keryo Pente.

See all the specifics at the tournament. June 7th is the last day to sign up.


Gary

To all -

Come join us for some serious fun in the Spring 2003 open Pente / Keryo Pente championship tournament.

I would like to make this a fairly large tournament (minimum 10 players for each game) that continues moving along without waiting for long time controls. (4 days/move)

I will be looking to start these once/quarter and to eventually run sectional tournaments as more players obtained established ratings in Pente and Keryo Pente.

See all the specifics at the tournament. June 7th is the last day to sign up.


Gary

To all -

I've thought about all of this some more and have decided on two things for the big Pente / Keryo Pente tournament:

1. I'm going to go ahead and put June 7th as the end of sign up. This is because I'm also going to advertise it some at www.pente.org and www.itsyourturn.com. I want players to have plenty of time to see the advertisement and if they are new to this site, have time to come here, create an I.D., and get comfortable with the site before playing in the tournament.

2. I'm going to change the time control from 3 to 4 days. This is because for a large tournament like this, there is a good chance that there will be one or more sections that will have 8 players in them which means that at least some players will have 14 games for this tournament going at once.

Also, I want to make all non-members aware of the situation here at Brain King. Since a player could potentially have 14 games going at once for this tournament and the max for a non-member is 20 games, in order to play in this tournament, you will need to be down to 6 current games in order to play in the tournament.


Gary

To all -

I've thought about all of this some more and have decided on two things for the big Pente / Keryo Pente tournament:

1. I'm going to go ahead and put June 7th as the end of sign up. This is because I'm also going to advertise it some at www.pente.org and www.itsyourturn.com. I want players to have plenty of time to see the advertisement and if they are new to this site, have time to come here, create an I.D., and get comfortable with the site before playing in the tournament.

2. I'm going to change the time control from 3 to 4 days. This is because for a large tournament like this, there is a good chance that there will be one or more sections that will have 8 players in them which means that at least some players will have 14 games for this tournament going at once.

Also, I want to make all non-members aware of the situation here at Brain King. Since a player could potentially have 14 games going at once for this tournament and the max for a non-member is 20 games, in order to play in this tournament, you will need to be down to 6 current games in order to play in the tournament.


Gary

To all -

I'm afraid that I messed up on the Pente/Keryo Pente tournament that I set up. Please forgive me because I usually check everything before setting up something big like this.

I appreciate Kevin's comment on the Pente discussion board and it alerted me to the fact that I set the tournament up wrong. It was my intent to set the tournament up for 2 games for each 2 players and I was almost sure that I looked right at that before creating the tournament. Unfortunately the default is 1 game for 2 players and I somehow interpreted that incorrectly to mean 2 games for each 2 players. I would never want to run a serious tournament with only 1 game between each 2 players. I have attempted to edit the tournament to change that and it won't let me change that option.

It seems as though I have NO choice but to delete the tournament and create a new one. Unfortunately 10 players have already signed up for the Pente one and 3 for the Keryo Pente one.

Sometime this evening, I'll delete this tournament and create a new one. I'll also post this message on all 3 message boards that I did before and send a personal message to each of the players that had signed up for this one informing them of what happened and to sign up for the new one. I'll also change the end of sign-up from May 31st to June 7th. Perhaps that will allow some players to finish up some games or tourneys as needed in order to enter the tournament.

I hope that this will not create problems in the Brain King system. In other words, I hope that once I delete the tournament, it will 'clear out' the fact that non-members had signed up for a tournament so that they can sign up for the new one. If you have problems signing up for the new tournament after having been allowed to sign up for the erroroneous one, please let me know about the situation and I will forward an explanation about it to Fencer.

I'm sorry about the problem and thanks, Kevin, for bringing it up.


Gary

To all -

I'm afraid that I messed up on the Pente/Keryo Pente tournament that I set up. Please forgive me because I usually check everything before setting up something big like this.

I appreciate Kevin's comment on the Pente discussion board and it alerted me to the fact that I set the tournament up wrong. It was my intent to set the tournament up for 2 games for each 2 players and I was almost sure that I looked right at that before creating the tournament. Unfortunately the default is 1 game for 2 players and I somehow interpreted that incorrectly to mean 2 games for each 2 players. I would never want to run a serious tournament with only 1 game between each 2 players. I have attempted to edit the tournament to change that and it won't let me change that option.

It seems as though I have NO choice but to delete the tournament and create a new one. Unfortunately 10 players have already signed up for the Pente one and 3 for the Keryo Pente one.

Sometime this evening, I'll delete this tournament and create a new one. I'll also post this message on all 3 message boards that I did before and send a personal message to each of the players that had signed up for this one informing them of what happened and to sign up for the new one. I'll also change the end of sign-up from May 31st to June 7th. Perhaps that will allow some players to finish up some games or tourneys as needed in order to enter the tournament.

I hope that this will not create problems in the Brain King system. In other words, I hope that once I delete the tournament, it will 'clear out' the fact that non-members had signed up for a tournament so that they can sign up for the new one. If you have problems signing up for the new tournament after having been allowed to sign up for the erroroneous one, please let me know about the situation and I will forward an explanation about it to Fencer.

I'm sorry about the problem and thanks, Kevin, for bringing it up.


Gary


P.S. This is a slightly edited message

Thad -

I had expected this type of thing to happen and it is unfortunate.

I very much disagree with limiting non-members to 1 tournament, especially with the vacation time. Although Kevin has now finished his games, you will be in round 2 of that tournament and still wouldn't be able to play in this tournament. Also, you can be locked out of new tournaments for 3-6 months or more, due to a couple of slow players, even though you would have the game slots available.

I'm going to do something that I've thought about for quite a while. Sometime today, I will send a note to Fencer and recommend that he REMOVE the 1 tournament restriction for non-members BUT to KEEP the 20-GAME restriction.

I realize that this is a business operation but I ALSO feel that a GAME restriction BY ITSELF limits the activity from non-members enough so that the processing power of the site is not bogged down. The TOURNAMENT restriction is not a good one. If non-members aren't able to enter tournaments, then they will just play non-tournament games and the site isn't really saving any 'processing' power. It will also be important to eliminate this restriction if we plan to hold future world championships here. So I will present it as a business case to him.

For those of you who disagree with me on this, please do not make negative comments about non-members and that they should shell out the bucks if they want to play in more than 1 tournament. That is their choice and it's not really the issue here. The issue is that the finish of tournaments can be delayed for a LONG time by just 1 or 2 slow moving players and/or a tournament with a long time control.

I don't want to start any heated debates between members and non-members. I think that all game sites need BOTH types of players and I feel that the non-members are actually excellent 'cheap advertising' for the site because they will frequently bring other players to the site that will become paying members. It's up to the site owner to determine how many games he wants to let them play so that the 'cost' of 'advertising' doesn't become too much.


Gary

Come join us for some serious fun in the Spring 2003 open Pente / Keryo Pente championship tournament.

I would like to make this a fairly large tournament (minimum 10 players for each game) that continues moving along without waiting for long time controls. (3 days/move)

I will be looking to start these once/quarter and to eventually run sectional tournaments as more players obtained established ratings in Pente and Keryo Pente.

See all the specifics at the tournament. May 31st is the last day to sign up.


Gary

Come join us for some serious fun in the Spring 2003 open Pente / Keryo Pente championship tournament.

I would like to make this a fairly large tournament (minimum 10 players for each game) that continues moving along without waiting for long time controls. (3 days/move)

I will be looking to start these once/quarter and to eventually run sectional tournaments as more players obtained established ratings in Pente and Keryo Pente.

See all the specifics at the tournament. May 31st is the last day to sign up.


Gary

Kathyr -

See the 'FAQ' link on the bottom left side of the home page. It has answers to many questions. In a nutshell, there is a link provided to delete a game below your game board but only during the first 2 moves of a game. After that, you would just have to let the game timeout, resign, or offer a draw and hope that your opponent accepts. I'm sure that you could NOT delete a tournament game. If it's a multi-game match, I don't know how that would work. Here is a cut-and-paste about deleting games from the FAQ section:

"You can delete a started game until both players made two moves only. It means that after the player who has not started the game (black player) performs his/her second move, nobody can delete this game anymore. The main purpose of this feature is to allow players to get rid of a game where the opponent did not start to play at all without waiting for a timeout.
If your game can be deleted, i.e. it fulfills the previous conditions, a link "Delete game" will be added to the bottom of the game page, just nearby "Offer draw | Resign" links.
A deleted game is not counted for anything. Statistics of both players (number of won, drawn and lost games) will stay unchanged and the game will not be calculated for the players' BKR."


Gary

Thanks for taking the time to make a great post, Scott.

As everyone probably knows by now, many of us will be meeting next month at the tournament in Oklahoma City as the first meeting of the new World Pente Federation.

We will discuss EASY ways to even the game out for both sides and how to effectively promote the game in the future so that it can come back to it's early '80's popularity and continue increasing strongly in the future.

My favorite choice to even the game up, yet keep it simple is with D-pente rules. It includes a swap option after 4 stones have been placed on the board and is virtually as easy to understand as the current opening restriction. This was proposed by Don Banks of Canada about 2 years ago. See some other messages on these boards about the specific rules for the opening in D-pente.


Gary


P.S. Scott, you and Virag are going DOWN in the Dweebo's Stone Games tourney! :-)

To all -

I was messing around looking at different games at Brain King a couple of nights ago and found something that astounded me. There it is right under EVERYONE's noses is EXACTLY what would ALMOST perfectly refute my challenge! I guess the challenge seemed so impossible (and I thought so too) that no one bothered to look too hard. But what's amazing about this is that I found it and I wasn't even looking for it!

The game that ALMOST PERFECTLY fits EVERY criteria in my challenge on THIS site is Reversi 6x6! It's not a PERFECT match to the challenge, but it's VERY close and if someone had brought it up, I would have said 'close enough'!

The only criteria that it is a LITTLE bit off on? There's NO rule change, it's only a board size change! It's the EXACT same game only on a smaller board! My criteria required that there be 1 (or maybe 2 or 3) rule changes that DRASTICALLY and negatively affect the chances of one side to win.

Why do I THINK that Reversi 6x6 is SO MUCH different then regular Reversi 8x8? The 6x6 game has been SOLVED!! It's right there on the Reversi discussion board! Player 2 wins by force 19-17 or 20-16 on the smaller board depending on the opening rules placement of the stones! But the 8x8 game (which is the standard rules game) is FAR from being solved and a couple of top players aren't even clear on WHO has an advantage!! This was from a discussion that was had a couple of months ago from two of the top players on this site in Reversi. Now THAT is a drastic and negative effect on the winning chances of one side by a game that contains the same name so that it could possibly confuse NEW players into wondering what the correct rules (in this case board size) for the game really is.

By 'solved' or 'by force' in this case it means that if player 1 plays the BEST and PERFECT moves on EVERY move, that there's no way that he could win if player 2 plays PERFECTLY. On the Reversi discussion board is the website with the proof to it. I found it to be a VERY interesting twist that it is player TWO that wins by force. In all other games, USUALLY player 1 has the advantage.

So NOW no one can say that I gave an IMPOSSIBLE challenge! :-)


Gary

To all -

Based on a lot of soul-searching this weekend, we have come to the conclusion that we have under-estimated the degree of passion that people have in wanting to play Pente and Keryo Pente without the restriction. This despite the strong advantage of one side and the potential confusion of BRAND NEW players to the game.

Pioneer54 has mentioned the fact that he thought that we might have 'ulterior motives' in our stance. Rest assured that he is CORRECT in that assessment. Our ulterior motives are that we are passionate in believing that new and beginning players learn the game correctly. It had nothing to do with us wanting to force-feed our views on everyone or somehow 'control' the game. We just feel strongly that beginning players are being dealt an injustice by learning it without the restriction. Where it appears that we have gone wrong is that those new and beginning players might STILL want to eventually play without the restriction.

We could probably prove easily that player 1 wins easily in Pente. In Keryo Pente, it may be a little harder to prove, mainly because there is more defensive options available for the defending side and we have studied the game FAR less, but with 6-12 months of concentrated experience and study, I'm confident that we could also prove the same in that game. But that is obviously a moot point to players who play 'for fun'.

Based on all of this, we have made a recommendation to Fencer that, if he is willing to do it, should satisfy everyone AND prevent any problems related to ratings as a result of the 'Restriction Option' on the smaller board.

Obviously, I cannot speak for Fencer, because we have only recommended it, but I want everyone to know what we have recommended to him:

1. Create two entirely NEW separate variants called 'No-restriction Pente' and 'No-restriction Keryo Pente'. These games would be played on a 13x13 board without the restriction and would be EXACTLY LIKE IYT's 13x13 games.

2. Do NOT put the option on Small Pente and Small Keryo Pente. Leave those game like they were changed to a few weeks back WITH the restriction. Fortunately, I DON'T think he has completed that just yet, although I could be wrong. The problem with the option is, like has been mentioned before, the ratings. There are also other problems like players 'cheating' by only playing as White without the restriction and possible LARGE amounts of confusion related to creating and entering tourneys for the game with a restriction option. I DO think that was a GOOD initial thought by Fencer because of all of the 'arguing' that he noticed on the boards here, and it would certainly placate BOTH sides of the issue in the short term. But I think there would be quite a few complaints in the long term relating to ratings, cheating, and tournament confusion.

So here would be the result of all of this:
Pente and Keryo Pente:
19x19 boards WITH restriction
Small Pente and Small Keryo Pente:
13x13 board WITH restriciton
No-restriction Pente and No-restriction Keryo Pente:
13x13 board WITHOUT restriction

I think that this will make EVERYONE happy for the following reasons:
1. It maintains the currently accepted rules of the game by the names of 'Pente' and 'Keryo Pente' so that beginners that are BRAND NEW to the games will not be confused what the correct way to play it is. (Very important to us!)
2. It makes it OBVIOUS what games to play if you prefer no restriction. And those games are what everyone is used to playing at IYT. (Very important to many of you, I think!)
3. It won't confuse the ratings by having restriction and no-restriction games mixed together.
4. It would allow players to create and play in tournaments on the Small Pente and Small Keryo pente variants without there being a confusion as to whether the restriction would be used or not.
5. It will prevent potential ratings cheaters who only play without the restriction as white on the Small Pente and Small Keryo Pente variants.

Obviously the last 3 are important to EVERYONE, I think! One final benefit is that it would probably take more players from IYT, and most people know my feelings about them! :-)

The only thing about all of this is that it will be additional work for Fencer to create the 2 NEW variants. I'm guessing that it won't be TOO much work since MOST of the programming code should already be in place and that could just be duplicated. I'm sure that he will let all of us know if this is OK for him.

For a VERY interesting REFUTE to my supposedly 'unassailable' challenge (like several people said it was), see my next Email. I refuted MYSELF and so could have everyone else!! (LOL, I guess it's better to refute YOURSELF than have others do it for you!)


Gary Barnes

Pioneer54 -

Nice post as usual. Yes, the long term plan is agressive, but possible if done correctly and with a large influx of sponsorship. The reason why Pente 'died' after 1984 shortly after Parker Brothers bought it is that they owned exclusive rights to it but put NO money into promoting it. There was nothing that anyone could do without buying the rights from them. We do NOT know why they decided NOT to promote it because it had great popularity in the early '80's. I can even remember seeing it in 2-3 different night-clubs that I frequented during my younger years. Obviously a single individual by the name of Gary Gabrel, who invented the game, was able to bring it to great popularity so it is VERY disappointing that a LARGE gaming company chose not to.

Everyone should see my next post because I think EVERYONE will like what they see.


Gary

Thad -

It's obvious that you are talking about www.pente.net as the OTHER site that currently has no-restriction Pente.

I saw it about 2 years ago and created an I.D. But when I saw their 'ranking' system that consisted of multiplying a player's total wins by 100 and adding their winning percentage, the fact that they have NO time controls AT ALL, AND the fact that they have NO tournaments, I dismissed it as a small mom & pop operation that will stay the way it is.

Two things that I will say about their rating system:
1. Why bother adding the winning %? Effectively the main sort is by total # of wins. Obviously this breaks ties if 2 players have 538 wins each, but if one player has played 2000 games and the other 550 games at that point, they certainly shouldn't be near one another.
2. If they just want to use something simple like that, why not just take a players winning percentage, multiply THAT by 100 or 1000 and add a player's TOTAL wins. That would be JUST as easy and would show players that have BOTH a combination of playing lots of games BUT winning a high percentage of them. Why don't you make that suggestion to them? It would take the owner virtually NO time to implement such a change compared to the significant changes needed to handle the U.S. Chess rating system (a slight variation thereof) that is used here at Brain King.

I then checked on the site again about a year ago to see if any improvements had been made and it stated that the site was down 'indefintely' or something of the nature but expected to be back up in X # of months or something. I then checked back 2 or 3 times over the next 3-5 months and it continued to state the same thing.

Since that was the last time that I checked on the site, I think you can see why I would not COUNT it as a WORKING site. Any WORKING site should not be down for months at a time.

When I saw your message, I thought I would check it out once again to see if any improvements have been made. It appears that they have, but ONLY to have a couple of other 5-in-a-row games like Gomoku, other small things like viewing a players won-lost records, and to continue stating that their 'ranking' system needs to be improved, but not doing anything about it.

I'm sure that this site is 'fun' for it's core group of 750+ players and that the personal attention that you get from the owner is kind of cool. But until it expands to other games than just Pente, starts selling memberships and/or advertising, and starts having tournaments, it will remain a VERY small operation.

So if you want Pente to REMAIN small potatoes, continue frequenting sites like that where the rankings are effectively calculated by the # of wins that a players has and there are NO tourneys. But if you want to be where all of the FUTURE action WILL be, then you'll need to look elsewhere.

I WILL state that such a site is of little consequence as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure as far as MOST other serious players would be concerned, so you will NOT see us making any suggestions there.

I hope that removes any concerns that you have about that.


Gary

To all -

I would like to refer EVERYONE to Samwise's post. His 'wise' part in his I.D. speaks VOLUMNS about who he is and what he represents. I have spoken to him several times by Email and at www.pente.org. At no point did I ever try to sway his opinion one way or another about this topic. He came to that conclusion on his own. One thing that I will mention about him because there is NO way that ANYONE would guess it unless it was stated. He is only 16 years old!!

He is saying that he is ALSO tired of seeing the correct version of the game MUCKED up with all of these co-called variants such that the name and what rules should be used are so confusing to everyone.

Also, his knowledge about the history of Chess is astonishing and he brings up an OUTSTANDING point! That is why not create a Pente Federation like there is in Chess!

Well guess what everyone! It is being DONE! The first meeting of the NEW World Pente Federation will take place in Oklahoma City on May 17th of this year along with the tournament that will be held there.

Amongst the topics of discussion will be how best to promote the game in the future and changes to the current opening restriction so that players of all levels will become interested and STAY interested in the game because it will be challenging for a LIFETIME instead of dropping out when they have accomplished all that can be accomplished in the game.

It is from this meeting that discussion will ensue such that CURRENT official rules of Pente will be CHANGED for the FIRST time since the opening restriction was accepted as the correct way to play the game way back around 20 years ago.

So like I said, we are starting to look at the long-term now. It was not just a euphamism but a statement of fact.


Gary

Thad -

You're pushing your luck BIG time! Fencer has agreed to make the restriction optional on Small Pente and Small Keryo Pente. I agree that the ratings will now be invalid for that game. After all, I could just play EVERY game as player 1 WITHOUT the restriction and NEVER lose (unless I fell asleep) and eventually get some astronomical rating. To prove the point, I think I was something like 400+ and 0 in tournament no-restriction Pente games at IYT as player 1. Am I proud of that? Not at all. I was playing starting with a forced win every time.

But it is you, Walter, and Pioneer54 that have effectively created this invalid ratings situation by barking so loudly. So I guess I have little sympathy for the situation. After all, it's Fun-Pente, right? If it's Fun-pente, then why would you CARE about ratings?!

My suggestion is for Fencer to do EXACTLY what he stated that he would do. It gives us what WE want and it gives YOU what you want. And it is the least effort for him to placate the MOST people. That suggestion is to make the restriction OPTIONAL on ONLY Small Pente AND Small Keryo Pente EXACTLY like they have it at IYT. Pioneer54 has even made the point that the restriction SHOULD be lifted SPECFICIALLY on a 13x13 board in Keryo Pente because the advantage of player 1 is less than on the 19x19 board. (I don't agree with it, but that is his case and Fencer is offering to remove the restriction on the smaller board.)

I do NOT think Fencer should make any special provisions for the ratings. Just mix ALL the no-restriction and restriction games together all in one bucket! Once again, I will state that it is FUN-pente, so the fact that the ratings won't mean much should not bother MOST FUN-pente players. And most serious players won't even choose to bother with such a game.

That is the easiest way for Fencer to go. BUT...I am being generous in my response here. My TRUE feeling is that un-restricted games of Small Pente should NOT be rated AT ALL! That is EXACTLY like it was up until a few months ago at Dweebo's Stone Games (DSG). Now as far as I know, the no-restriction game is not even ALLOWED at DSG. Also you will NOT find the no-restriction games, even in non-tournament play, at www.gamerz.net where the world championships are held.

So you see there is actually TWO sites that do NOT have no-restriction Pente. ONLY IYT has it and you should feel VERY fortunate that Fencer has agreed to at least allow the OPTION on the smaller boards here.


Gary

Instead of engaging in any further debate on this issue, I would like to refer everyone to ANOTHER top player who has FAR greater knowledge of MANY games than I do. To see his message, go to the Pente disucssion board. (Note: NOT Small Pente and NOT Keryo Pente, but just Pente)

On it is a post of one of the top Renju, Gomoku, and Pente players in the world. He knows what he is talking about. His name is Istvan Virag and he is from Hungary. He won the most recently completed real-time Pente tournament at www.pente.org after trouncing me in the semi-finals and beating Dmitri King in the finals. He was also runner up to me (by tiebreak only!) in the recently completed 2001-02 World E-mail pente championship held at www.gamerz.net.

I think that you will see that Virag has MUCH experience in games that are FAR larger then Pente, namely Renju and Gomoku, but that are VERY similar in CONCEPT to Pente. By that I mean, the object is to get 5-in-a-row and they are played on a square board (15x15 I believe). These two games only have moderate interest in the U.S. but have a substantial following in Europe and Asia.

In the memo he states beyond a shadow of a doubt that player 1 wins every time. He then specifically states that long-term thinking must be used when making rules changes.

I think you'll like part of what you see because he is NOT saying that the no-restriction game is bad, only that LONG-term thinking must be used to create NEW rules and that player 1 easily wins by force without the restriction. See what you think.

One last thing. He is ONE of the TWO players who successfully PROVED that player 1 wins by force in 24 moves in GoMoku without an opening restriction.


Gary

Instead of engaging in any further debate on this issue, I would like to refer everyone to ANOTHER top player who has FAR greater knowledge of MANY games than I do. To see his message, go to the Pente disucssion board. (Note: NOT Small Pente and NOT Keryo Pente, but just Pente)

On it is a post of one of the top Renju, Gomoku, and Pente players in the world. He knows what he is talking about. His name is Istvan Virag and he is from Hungary. He won the most recently completed real-time Pente tournament at www.pente.org after trouncing me in the semi-finals and beating Dmitri King in the finals. He was also runner up to me (by tiebreak only!) in the recently completed 2001-02 World E-mail pente championship held at www.gamerz.net.

I think that you will see that Virag has MUCH experience in games that are FAR larger then Pente, namely Renju and Gomoku, but that are VERY similar in CONCEPT to Pente. By that I mean, the object is to get 5-in-a-row and they are played on a square board (15x15 I believe). These two games only have moderate interest in the U.S. but have a substantial following in Europe and Asia.

In the memo he states beyond a shadow of a doubt that player 1 wins every time. He then specifically states that long-term thinking must be used when making rules changes.

I think you'll like part of what you see because he is NOT saying that the no-restriction game is bad, only that LONG-term thinking must be used to create NEW rules and that player 1 easily wins by force without the restriction. See what you think.

One last thing. He is ONE of the TWO players who successfully PROVED that player 1 wins by force in 24 moves in GoMoku without an opening restriction.


Gary

<Thad -

>> But Gary, Walter is not standing in your way. YOU are standing in HIS way. All we want is to have the chance to play fun-pente, but you are telling us that we can't!!! <

I beg to differ and I will state ONCE AGAIN. It is the long-term detremental effect of having incorrect rules on a variant that is SO similar to the correct rules of the game yet strongly negatively impacts one sides chances to win that will SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the growth of the game in the long run.

I WILL rephrase my previous wording. It is the GAME of Fun-pente that is standing in the way, NOT any specfic players in particular.

Thad, I can't understand something. You just played in Section B of the Dweebo's Stone Games (DSG) tourney. As a matter of fact, you played my son, Matthewb, in the final round and I am tournament director of that section. Of course ALL rated games at DSG MUST have the opening restriction. Did you NOT have FUN playing in that tourney WITH the opening restriction? I'm just curious.


Walter -

I can see that you are trying to get me to argue with you once again I won't get involved with that. I will state that I DID make the error ONE time of becoming EXTREMELY upset with you and it was a BIG mistake. I think that anyone can see that I have been more than cordial since that time. Especially considering that at night time, I'm debating against 3 people at once.

Here's how I have now been able to recognize when you are trying to get people to argue with you and not engage in a logical debate. It is when you pick on words like you did in your last post. For instance in your original post, you stated:
>> I personally don't want to be a part of your grand Pente universe, now or in the far flung future. <

I think that most people would construe this to mean that you don't want to be involved in long-term thinking. But then you followed up with:

>> Where did I say I didn't want to be a part of longterm thinking? I said I didn't want to be a part of your longterm scheme.

It is those types of 'I didn't say that, I said this' type of statements that are argumentative and don't accomplish anything.

I'm only stating this to let you know what inflames people sometimes. If you shared my views on the opening restriction topic, I'm sure that Thad and Pioneer54 would ALSO become quite upset at those types of tactics.

To all -

I know that it is hard for most people to accept and understand long-term thinking. Regardless of what you think of me, Dmitri King, or anyone else who chimes in on either side of this issue, it is not ONLY OUR goal, but the goal of MANY players that will attend the tournament in Oklahoma City on May 17th that the game grow substantially and rapidly in the future. Of course one of the topics of discussion will be changing the current opening restriction so that the sides are more even. There will be LITTLE or NO discussion about NOT having a restriction because it is already accepted that the game has a restriction. And it is WITH the restriction that FUTURE strategy guides, opening books, end-game books, databases, software, etc. will be written and/or created.

If you would like to be a part of the explosive growth potential of Pente and be involved in decisions surrounding future World Championships, rules, etc. then play at Brain King and play the game the way that it was intended to be played more than 20 years ago. If you choose to play at IYT, that is fine too, but we think that you will miss out on some future great opportunities in the game and a GREAT site to boot! Whomever this site loses as a result of the opening restriction will be made up for MANY times over in the future when players get REALLY EXCITED about the game from reading about it in strategy guides.

By the way, if you want an elementary strategy guide on Pente (I'm not sure about Keryo Pente), check out a great site at www.playpente.com. See what you think.


Gary

<Thad -

My apologies. I have responded to so much and missed yours. Keep in mind that at night, it's been me against 3 of you. In the daytime, Dmitri King and Harley chime in about our side.

Your prior statement:
>> Ok, well it’s MY premise that one game is a variant of another if it’s rules can be explained more easily by describing the differences between it and the main game, than explaining explaining the rules of that game would be. For example, I can say that fun-pente (as I have called it in previous posts) is ‘official’ pente without the move restriction. I can say that much more easily than I can lay out all the rules for fun-pente. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a variant. Keyro13 is Keyro Pente played on a 13x13 board. That’s much easier to say than to state all the rules for Keyro13 directly. It’s a variant. <

I'm almost certain that you KNOW that your statement is untrue so it isn't worth a real rebuttle but I'll do a small one just in case. If you had chess where a pawn could ONLY move one space forward instead of 1 or 2 on the first move and it ONLY captured one space forward instead of diagonally could be MUCH more easily explained than the real rules for chess. But you certainly wouldn't call that just 'chess' and the correct version of chess 'multi-move-pawn chess'. Anyway, I assume that you were just being funny there.

Your prior statement:
>> Now, with my premise, there is no issue of games being valid or not. I mean, one could play just about anything they want. Pente-on-a-5x5 board? Go ahead. I’m not gonna play, but if you want to, be my guest! Pente-where-more-than-five-in-a-row-doesn’t-win, pente-with-unlimited-captures, pente-where-you-can’t-win-diagonally? All good! Have a blast. How about this one, checkers with shot glasses, when you make a jump, drink your opponent’s shot, when you make a king, add an olive (yes, I stole that from M*A*S*H). I LIKE that variant!! My point here is that I can make up any game I want and no one can tell me it is or isn’t a valid game. <

Thad, there seems to be two issues here:
1. What constitutes a game that ANYONE can play. That's ALMOST anything as long as it is winnable.
2. That which is a VIABLE game so that programming hours should be spent by a site owner to create that game.

I'm saying this because you are making two different arguments here. No one is stopping ANYONE from playing ANY kind of game that they want to.

What I am trying to do is DEFINE what constitutes a valid variant such that programming time should be spent to create that variant. It is VERY obvious that NO site owner would create SOME of the variants that you have described above. A FEW of them are probably VERY good and viable! It is ALSO very obvious that we would be WAY of out line if we were to pass a law forbidding you to play those variants at all at any time.

Does that make sense? There is a BIG difference between a reasonable variant on a site and a reasonable variant that someone might play with their friends (like your MASH checkers variant that I found hilarious!).

Your prior statement:
>> Furthermore, my premise doesn’t take into account anything about the original game. AND IT SHOULDN’T! Whether or not a variant has some kind of impact on the game it was derived from doesn’t validate or invalidate the variant! <

I respectfully disagree. If a variant confuses beginning players such that they think that the variant is the actual rules for the mainstream game, then in my opinion, it is an invalid variant. It is the new and beginning players such as Harley that we are the most concerned about.

Your prior statement:
>> Why can't a variant 'negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win’? <

Once again, you're confusing what is viable amongst players physically playing one another in person and what is viable for a site to spend programming time on.

To be on a site, although IT CAN negatively impact one side's changes to win, it must be within reason or few players will play it. See my opinion for the 5 different conditions that must be met to constitute an invalid variant. But my biggest issue is for variants with different rules that can EASILY be confused for the game with the correct rules like IYT did with Pente and Keryo Pente.

Your prior statement continuing from above:
>> And if it can’t how can you allow both Pente and Keyro Pente. Surely in one variation, player 1 has a bigger advantage than in the other and therefore must go. <

Pente and Keryo Pente are actually 2 completely separate games. While the strategy has some similarities, the difference in positions and attacking is quite significant. One is not a variant of the other.

This is just like GoMoku and Renju. That have the similarities of the 15x15 board and needing to get 5 in a row to win. But their similarities end there.

Your prior statement continued from above:
>> Or are you saying that we can create variations of pente so long as player 1’s advantage is no greater than it is with the current 'official' rules? Well, who said the current amount of advantage is the correct amount not to be exceeded anyway? <

I am not saying that at all. I am stating that a variant should not be created that is SO similar to the original game such that beginners confuse it for the correct way to play the game AND that variant substantially and negatively affects the ability of one side to win.

So in effect you could create a pente variant where you only have to get 3 in a row to win and call it 3-pente if you want. Although I would find it annoying, I wouldn't object much. The reason is that there is NO WAY that a beginner will confuse it with the actual game of Pente. Of course, there is no way a site owner would create such a game because the 1st player would always win in a few moves, so virtually no one would play it and it would be a waste of his programming time.

Your statement tonight:
>> Your definition of an invalid variant is garbage, junk, meaningless, without merit.
I will say that again so that it clear:
Your definition of an invalid variant is worthless.
A variant of a game is either that or it’s not. If it’s a spin-off of another game, it’s a variant, if it’s not a spin-off of another game, then it’s not a variant of that game. <

I'll ignore your comments about my definition of invalid variants. Here's why. For the 3rd time in 2 posts, you are confusing what is viable for 2 players to physically play in person and what a site owner will take programming time to put on their site. My definition of an invalid variant ONLY applies to that which a reasonable site owner would spend programming time on.
Your statement tonight:
>> A GAME (whether it’s a variant of another or not) may be valid or invalid depending of whether or not it’s winnable. Go-Moku played on a 4x4 grid would be invalid. There’s not enough room on the board to place five stones in a line and therefore, no way to win. Thus the game is invalid. <

That's a pretty narrow definition of a valid variant by most standards. If you said that, then I could say let's play Pente and here's the rules: 1. The first to get 2 in a row wins. -or- 2. The first to get 1 in a row wins.

I think that you should take some time and revise that statement so that it makes a little more sense. Also, once again you're confusing what a site owner would program and what players would play in person.

Your statement tonight:
>> But a variant can't be declared invalid just because of how it stacks up to another game. <

I completely agree with that statement. But I will state my opinion about something else once again. That is that a variant IS INVALID if it is so substantially similar to the original game, meets all of the criteria that was outlined, it confuses beginning players into thinking that it is the correct version of the game, AND one side's chances of winning are strongly negatively impacted. It is the one-sidedness of a game that will NOT allow it to grow in the long run.

Your statement tonight:
>> Fun-pente is a game and it’s a variant of pente. It’s valid, because it’s winable. The fact that one side enjoys an advantage is irrelevant.

I think I made the point that having a simple definition of a game being winnable is FAR to narrow of a definition of a valid variant, but ESPECIALLY for a valid variant that programming time would be spent on.

The fact that one side enjoys an advantage is VERY relavent. It if wasn't relavent, then we could 2-in-a-row Pente.


I think that addresses everything and I think I repeated myself in several instances here, but there seemed to be no other way to get the individual points across.


Gary

Walter -

Good response and to the point! What's wrong with short-term gratification? Because it hurts in the long run! Never has a successful enterprise been run or a long-term goal been accomplished with short-term thinking.

If you don't want to be a part of long-term thinking, that's your choice. No one can force you to think that way. But you should NOT ridicule others for thinking long-term nor stand in their way because that is what creates long-term success in any endeavor.


Gary

<Pioneer54 -

I have always heard that if a person is a dreamer and uses LONG-term thinking in order to accomplish those dreams that he will be shot down and/or ridiculed for being so stupid in the short term. My personal experiences in life have convinced me that that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have been ridiculed MANY times in life for being a LONG-term thinker and for spending untold hours on what many would consider to be unimportant activities.

Here are some of the things that I have done in the PAST that have caused me GREAT consternation in the SHORT-term but GREAT rewards in the LONG-term:
1. Work 65 hours a week for 4 consecutive years.
2. Spend 100's and 1000's of hours studying a board game.
3. Spend 100's of hours studying the methods of professional gamblers.

In the future: Spend 100's and maybe 1000's of hours studying the methods of winning commodity traders.

Now: Dream so BIG that I could envision Pente and Keryo Pente being as big as Chess.

I will not spout off about what I have accomplished in life as a result of the first 3 things because I would only sound like that I was tooting my own horn. I WILL say that there IS a reason that my I.D. at www.pente.org is 'Progambler'.

Perhaps I have not done a good enough job in attempting to explain our LONG-term thinking here. Perhaps I have offended some people with my 'challenge'. If so, I apologize because no offense was intended. I was only attempting to specifically define what an invalid variant was and to get someone to find a similar example. In my defense, I can only say that I made the challenge because I continue to be shot down when I attempt to logically demonstrate my long-term thinking that was presented to Fencer.

My long-term thinking includes future World Championships being held here at Brain King. I envision numerous 'candidates matches' like they have in Chess followed by the BIGGEST of ALL World Championships. I can even envision personally putting up a sizable chunk of money for this tournament. Of course, there would be many particulars to work out about that.

All I am saying is to PLEASE look FAR out on the horizon, FAR from this short-term errorneous application of the rules that is holding players back in no-restriction Pente and Keryo Pente. There are FAR greater things that can be done if we learn from our errors in the past.

I will respond to one more point that you made:
>> Try this: Suppose a group of users here got together and (without consulting you and maybe even deliberately excluding you) convinced Fencer to eliminate the restriction on the 19 boards. My guess is you would be pretty shocked! And rightly so! <

I don't believe that would be possible at THIS site. Fencer is an excellent site owner and businessman who obviously understands long-term thinking. That's probably why he has been so successful in building such a great site in short a short time frame. I bet he ALSO has spent 100's and 1000's of hours making this site what it has become. I would also guess that he has been ridiculed from people who question the amount of time that he must spend and his dedication to his business. Personally, I have nothing but admiration for someone like that.

I don't think it could have happened because there's LITTLE way that players could have banned together and pulled the wool over his eyes. After they made the suggestion to remove the restriction, he would fairly quickly find several sites that HAVE the restriction, ONE of which has ratings that simulate the U.S. Chess formula like he does here and conclude that it should not be done.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that these players WERE successful in getting the opening restriction removed in ALL variants of Pente and Keryo Pente. Would I be shocked? Most certainly! Would I be mad? Most certainly! But...if just ONE of those somebodies came along and made a STRONG and VALID long-term case that the game COULD become HUGE IF the restriction IS removed and that MANY masters would STILL want to play the game, THEN I would no longer be shocked or mad AT ALL! I would applaud the decision.


>> Why then, do you so utterly fail to appreciate and comprehend that there are many of us who simply believe that the restriction just is not necessary on the 13 board?

I guess because I can't understand why people cannot see the LONG-term thinking that I have presented time after time here. Let me give an example. For the sake of argument, let's say that there are currently 5,000 active and semi-active Pente and Keryo Pente players in the U.S. Based on that, there are maybe 15-20 of us who COULD play Keryo Pente good enough so that player 2 would win LESS THAN 5% of the time without restriction (it'd be 1% in Pente). By COULD, I mean given a bit of study of the game. I think that that is a fairly accurate estimate of the percentage of players who could accomplish that (less than 1/4th of 1% of all players)

Now let's think BIG and let's think LONG-term and say that in 20 years, there are 500 THOUSAND or even 5 MILLION Pente and Keryo Pente players. Now using the 5M example, there could possibly be 1,500 to 2,000 players that could effectively win as player 1 95%+ of the time without restriction. Now consider the NUMEROUS players who have CONTINUED to play WITHOUT the restriction because it was erroroneously allowed to be created at several different sites.

Our premise is that IF the erroroneous no-restriction variant had NOT been created, there would be AT LEAST double if not triple the percentage of master-level players NOW meaning maybe there would CURRENTLY be 20-50 of them instead of 10-20. BUT as the game grows, the multiplicative effect of that error manifests itself in a MUCH slower growth rate of the game, due to less creation of strategy guides and the such, so that instead of maybe initially growing at maybe 20-25% per year, it only grows 5-10% per year. So BESIDES the lower PERCENTAGE of masters, there is a lower POOL of players for those masters to come from.

THAT is the biggest problem that we have with the no-restriction games and why we are so passionate about getting things right the FIRST time so that the game can become HUGE in the future! If SOME players lose a LITTLE fun now, that will be MORE than made up for in the LONG run by the MANY MORE new players that are introduced to the game in the future as a result of publications about the game.


Gary

<Pioneer54 -

You made a statement about something that I had already addressed. Since you have not made a post in a few days, I am assuming that you have not had time to read everything so I will bring it up again.

You write:
>> The game "Keryo13" sans restrictions is indeed a game, and is indeed a pente variant. You have chosen to refuse to recognize it as a variant, but you have not shown that it should not be here, other than offerings of a whimsical nature. <

We haven't recognized it as a variant because it does not meet what we would consider to be reasonable requirements for a variant. Let me explain. I have stated CLEARLY what constitutes an INVALID variant of any game on BOTH discussion boards and Dmitri King repeated my EXACT words in a later post. I will repeat them yet again. Below is a cut-and-paste of my 'challenge' from a prior post that PERFECTLY personifies what an invalid variant is.

The definition of an INVALID variant:
>>
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.


Does this seem like a REASONABLE definition of an INVALID variant to you? Pioneer54, does this NOT make sense to you? You are obviously an intelligent individual with logical reasoning skills. Does it somehow seem unfair to you? Does it NOT seem necessary to define invalid variants? If we did NOT define them, then like Dmitri King said, anyone could put ANYTHING on ANY game site. 3-in-a-row needed to win? 1 capture needed to win? 5x5 board? Sure, all valid variants. Don't you see, Pioneer54, that if we don't define what constitues an INVALID variant, then there's no telling what will show up on the sites. I'm trying to appeal to your since of logical reasoning here.

I am still waiting for someone to forward us a VARIANT of ANY game at ANY site that meets these requirements EXCEPT for Pente and Keryo Pente at IYT. 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 I don't see how people can debate and/or argue in favor of no-restriction Pente or Keryo Pente.

PLEASE let me know what you would change about THAT definition of an invalid variant so that it would properly define what YOU could consider to be an INVALID variant.


Gary

To all novices and beginners at Pente and Keryo Pente -

We also welcome your comments on this issue. We would like to hear the side of people that are new to Pente and Keryo Pente for the first time at this site.

Before giving your opinions, we would only ask that you examine all of the issues that have been presented here, including the confusion that IYT has caused by creating games called Pente and Keryo Pente with incorrect rules and what REALLY constitutes a VALID variant for a game.


Thanks,
Gary

<Thad -

Once again, you have brought up interesting points of discussion and comparison, which is what we want. You have compared Pente/Keryo Pente to professional-level tennis and volleyball. This is an interesting comparison and is certainly reasonably valid.

Your statement:
>> I can site an example where player 1 has a strong advantage over player 2, yet this game is played at the professional level...tennis.
volleyball (also played professionally) is another example where one player (well, team in this case) has an advantage over the other, in this case, it is team 2 who has the advantage!

My response:
I will only do the comparison to tennis. I think you'll see why once you read this.

You are absolutely correct that the person serving in tennis has a large advantage at the prosessional ranks. I have never quite understood why they don't just play EVERY game in a set and match like they do in tiebreaker games when a set is tied 6-6. For everyone's information, in a tiebreaker tennis game, the result of the game is NOT influenced by who serves the first point, because after ONE point, the serve is switched and each player serves 2 points in a row before switching again and it continues switching like that until someone has won 7 points AND leads by 2 points. It is designed that way so that NEITHER player has EVER served more than ONE more point then his opponent in the game.

But that is NOT how they choose to do it, so I will address HOW they choose to do it. Although I can't quote any specific statistics, I can say that it is a REASONABLE estimate that the server at the highest ranks (top 10-15) in men's play probably wins about 75-80% of games. In my opinion that is TOO large and the rules should be changed a bit, but at the same time, I can say that it is OK because a set is not won until someone has won 6 or 7 games (or more in the case of final set matches in some tournaments where someone must win the final set by 2 games) and a MATCH is not won until 2 or 3 sets have been won.

Now contrast one side winning 75-80% of the time in individual games WITHIN sets WITHIN a SINGLE match to the advantage enjoyed by player 1 in Fun-pente. To give you an idea of how much larger the advantage is in one side for FunPente vs. tennis, we have to compare apples to apples. So since we're talking the top 10-15 players in men's tennis, we must take the top 10-15 Pente players in the world. This list would probably include the following in no specific order:
Russians:
1. Victor Barykin
2. Dmitri Krasnonosov
3. Igor Sinyov
4. Alexander Nosovsky
Americans:
1. Scott Justice
2. Tom Braunlich
3. Rollie Tesch
4. Bodo Koonz
5. Myself
6. Dmitri King
Others:
1. Istvan Virag of Hungary
2. Don Banks of Canada

There are MANY other noteables, but the above would be the ones that I can think of that would encompass the 'professional level' ranks of Pente if there were any money in the game.

Now if you took ALL of those players and put them together in a single Pente tournament WITHOUT any opening restriction, I would estimate that player 1 would win 98% of the time in the first tournament, 99.5% of the time in the second tournament, and 100% of the time after that!! I would even go so far as to say that the ONLY reason that ANY games would be lost as player 2 is because the players became so bored with the overwhelming advantage enjoyed by player 1 that they overlooked an obvious attack by the 2nd player. If you doubt this, just ask any one of those players and they will tell you the same thing.

Now consider one FURTHER thing. There is currently NO MONEY in Pente!! So there is NO incentive to better one's self other than the enjoyment of the game itself. So there are FAR fewer players then there COULD be in Pente because there is NO money in it!

Now imagine if the ALL OF A SUDDEN, there were REGULAR HUGE-money Pente tournaments like there are in tennis where the winner wins $500K+!!! Would you NOT doubt that there would ALL OF A SUDDEN be a HUGE # of top-level Chess, GoMoku, Renju, you-name-it game players that would start playing and studying Pente?

If something like that happened and continued consistently every year, there would quickly be 300-500 players that are as good as the top 10-15 are now. NOW, take the TOP 10 out of THOSE 300-500 players! At that point, even WITH the CURRENT restriction, player 1 would probably push past 95%+ within 1-2 years. WITHOUT it, player 1 would NEVER lose!

Does everyone understand the magnitude of the advantage that we are talking about here? We're not just talking a paltry advantage where player 1 wins 75-80% of the time amongst top players. What we're talking about is a FORCED win for player 1 just like has been proven in 24 moves in GoMoku! I will go on record as stating that player 1 wins by force in Pente without restriction in 22 or less moves! (Possibly as little as 19-20)

But also, does everyone understand that when we said that the game can be BIG, we mean REALLY big!! I LOVE this game and I want it to be HUGE!! Bigger than Chess, bigger than Renju, heck bigger than tennis!! Just IMAGINE it!! The local papers advertising local Pente clubs and every 100K+ population metropolitan area having a big tournament at least once/month. That's how big we are thinking!

But like I said, in order to be that big, MANY top players must be interested in the game so that their passion can drive the game by creating strategy guides, opening books, end-game books, game databases, teaching software, and on and on.

If all of you could only read Tom Branlich's 1984 book 'Pente Strategy' you would SEE the passion in that man's writing about how GREAT the game really is and how BIG that it can become! Tom is a former 3-time world pente champion who was already a master in Chess before taking up Pente. Now image if there were 25-50 players JUST LIKE HIM!! The publications would be NUMEROUS and the interest would be HUGE! But I can promise that master-level players at ANY games will NOT write strategy guides if there is no further way to improve one's self because one side has too large of an advantage. And if we allow beginning players to CONTINUE to be confused as to what the correct rules are, then that will only FURTHER be detrimental to the game.


Gary Barnes

Harley -

GOOD question! I have the ability to edit or delete any post as I see fit. Of course I would not do so without asking the player to first make the change or deletion unless there was extremely vulgar language or was inflammatory towards a specific group of people.

I hesitate to delete the duplicate posts. I have also had to make several duplicate ones. The reasons that I hesitate are that there are SOME people that are ONLY interested in one game or the other AND there are SOME posts that are ONLY specific to one game or the other.

I guess the format of the message boards is in question here. I believe that a suggestion was made at a previous time to combine ALL of the message boards for Pente and Keryo Pente into one discussion board. That is probably the best thing that could be done. Of course the question would THEN be, how would Fencer somehow 'merge' the previous posts into the new SINGLE discussion board. Perhaps that would not be necessary. Maybe he could just leave the current discussion boards out there and call them 'archived' or 'old' discussion boards, but allow no further posts to them. Then people could just refer to posts previously posted on the so-and-so board.

Harley, once again, we want to thank you VERY much for presenting the 'official' rules side of things as you did on the Small Keryo Pente discussion board. It is quite gratifying to see that there are players who are just now learning the game and want to learn to play it correctly to begin with. It is beginning players like you that we are the MOST concerned with that learn the game correctly in the first place.


Thanks again,
Gary

Thad -

Here is why I have issued that challenge and why I think that I have a right to make that declaration. It is OUR premise that if a VARIANT of a game has ALL and ONLY all of those conditions, then it is an invalid variant because it hurts the mainstream game in the LONG-run. (Notice I say LONG-run)

So if anyone can find ANY mainstream game where a variant exists that is SO similar to the original game yet has such a negative impact on the ability of one side to win, then we will admit that a game can become popular even though it has what we would consider to be a 'detrimental' variant. If not, I don't see how a case can be made otherwise.

Any other variant that doesn't negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win in Pente or Keryo Pente is OK (and doesn't allow for many draws). Board size change within reason? No problem. No win on captures? No problem. Win on only ONE capture? BIG problem! One side or the other would EASILY be found to have a WINNING advantage. Win on 6 instead of 5 captures? No problem. Must get 2 Pente's to win? No problem (and pretty cool!). 5x5 board? BIG problem! Game is virtually always drawn.

Can you see the point here? The issue is that no-restriction Pente is NOT a variant, it is a LONG-term detrimental application of the incorrect rules of the game because one side has been proven to have a winning advantage.

The fact that player 1 ALSO has an advantage in Pente WITH the restriction does NOT make the version WITHOUT restriction valid. It only make it MORE INVALID.

There will be a meeting of the World Pente Federation at the tournament in Oklahoma City on May 17th. In that meeting, we will discuss possibilities for new opening restrictions for the game. The swap variation may turn out to be the best one.

I will let everyone know what comes out of that.


Gary

Thad -

Here is why I have issued that challenge and why I think that I have a right to make that declaration. It is OUR premise that if a VARIANT of a game has ALL and ONLY all of those conditions, then it is an invalid variant because it hurts the mainstream game in the LONG-run. (Notice I say LONG-run)

So if anyone can find ANY mainstream game where a variant exists that is SO similar to the original game yet has such a negative impact on the ability of one side to win, then we will admit that a game can become popular even though it has what we would consider to be a 'detrimental' variant. If not, I don't see how a case can be made otherwise.

Any other variant that doesn't negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win in Pente or Keryo Pente is OK (and doesn't allow for many draws). Board size change within reason? No problem. No win on captures? No problem. Win on only ONE capture? BIG problem! One side or the other would EASILY be found to have a WINNING advantage. Win on 6 instead of 5 captures? No problem. Must get 2 Pente's to win? No problem (and pretty cool!). 5x5 board? BIG problem! Game is virtually always drawn.

Can you see the point here? The issue is that no-restriction Pente is NOT a variant, it is a LONG-term detrimental application of the incorrect rules of the game because one side has been proven to have a winning advantage.

The fact that player 1 ALSO has an advantage in Pente WITH the restriction does NOT make the version WITHOUT restriction valid. It only make it MORE INVALID.

There will be a meeting of the World Pente Federation at the tournament in Oklahoma City on May 17th. In that meeting, we will discuss possibilities for new opening restrictions for the game. The swap variation may turn out to be the best one.

I will let everyone know what comes out of that.


Gary

Walter -

I think you're trying to start another argument by putting words in my mouth so I won't bite. I must admit that you are VERY good at getting people to argue with you.

We never specifically stated that the time limit was for an emergency. And besides, it is my right to take my time and to use all my legal resources to make as close as I can to the perfect move every time. That is the way that I play the game and I'd be VERY surprised if you didn't know that going in. And of course it is your right to not play me anymore.

There are several players take would take longer than I. If you're going to play a SERIOUS turn-based game, you take your time!


Gary

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

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

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 -

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

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