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

Thad, thanks for your reply.

I will address your points indivdually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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