Gary,

Since it's still almost three weeks until your tourney starts, I don't think you need to extend the sign-ups until June 7th.

Is it possible to set up a tournament now so that each player plays one game of each color against his/her opponent? In the one I'm playing in now, I'm P1 against the player with the higher BKR and P2 against the player with the lower BKR. I think this gives me an unfair advantage.

Gary,
1) Your tourneys will be 2-game matches, ya? &
2) Will the player 1, move 2 restriction be in place? (Ha ha ha, just a joke here!! LOL!)

Thad

Thanks Gary,

I sent him a short note myself too. Perhaps our two two notes, plus the feedback on this discussion board will be enough to get Fencer to enact a change (hint, hint). ;-)

Thad

No problem Kevin. One thing I do NOT complain about is slow players (who actaully need the time). ;-)

The outcome of your game did not affect the section winners. Perhaps Fencer could fix it so that higher rounds can start immediately once all section champs are determined (rather than waiting until ALL games in a section are complete). That would speed things up just a touch.


Thad

Gary,

I would like to sign up for your tournament. I currently have zero games in progress. I am not a paid member (and I'm not ready to become one just yet). I can't sign up for yours because I am in Hannelore's tourney. The problem is, two players are playing very slowly and holding everything up. Suggestions?

Thad

Ok, now that Fencer has added Easy Pente, I'd love some challenges!! Please make them 2-game matches. ;-)

Thad

Tom,

Your points system is interesting, but would make things worse, rather than better.

First of all, you?d have to come up with a scoring system that everyone agreed with. Good luck on that.

Second, and more importantly, a win is a win. It doesn?t matter whether my opponent caps four of my pairs or none, as long as I get the five in a row (or five pairs). Also, if I resign a game, how would you score it? The only game I can think of that uses a points system to determine a champ is Div. I college football, and everyone agrees that?s a messed up system!!

Also, if Pente were played under a points system, we?d be less inclined to try out new lines.

Also, if points were awarded for caps and length (shortness) of a game, would it be better to take an unnecessary cap. It would get me an extra pair (and thus more points), but make the game longer, and make me look like a weaker player.

Thad

mmammel,

The proof for game with the restriction is likely harder than the proof for game without, but the same principals should apply.

And yes, we need to prove it for every possible move for player 2, and we only need to show that there is at least one 'correct' move for player 1 at each turn.

The solution to the problem you mention is to create a new game, let's call it pente-X. The only rule change is that player 2's first move must be N squares from center AND that he doesn't have to declare exactly where that position is until he chooses. Clearly, pente-X includes all the possible pente games in which player 2's first move is N moves from center. Thus, once we prove that pente-X can always be won by player 1, we will also prove that the same holds true for this subset of games of pente.

You wouldn’t have to do an exhaustive search if you could show that player 1 can always win AND keep the game within the N-size circle so that player 2’s first stone never affects play, no matter where outside the circle it was actually placed.

Again, this is still a difficult proof, but easier than proving the game always winnable by player 1 directly.

Thad

In a proof, we would probably count horizontal and vetical distance separately, so L3U4, for example, which fits on a 13x13 board, would be seven spaces from center.

It seems to me that doing that won't work and only changing each game against an opponent to a two-game match will work.

Aloha all,

I would like to reply to several previous posts here.

Pioneer54, outstanding post on Saturday. I myself just needed a little time away from all the discussion that, for me was getting pretty heated. I glad it’s all being resolved.

My thoughts on a proof, and in response to what Gary has said:
Gary, I believe you said something about you would gladly accept a challenge from anyone and prove that player 1 always wins in fun-pente. While I believe that you could certainly do that, it would not actually prove that player 1 always wins. It would certainly demonstrate that fact quite well, though. ;-)

The problem is that we need to show that a win by player 1 is assured in every possible game!

I have two thoughts on an actual proof.
If we could prove that a whole subset of games are won by player 1, then we could reduce the proof to only showing that the remaining games are won by player 1 also. For example, let’s say that we could prove that anytime player 2’s opening move is at least 7 spaces from the center, player 1 has certain victory. If we could prove that, then we could just play all the games where player 2’s first move is within 7 spaces of the center. Still a tough task, but much easier than the original problem!

We could prove that P1 always wins in another way. If we could come up with the right way of measuring the current position of the board, then all we would need to show is that P1 can always increase that measurement on his next turn. Of course, coming up with the right way to measure the board is just as difficult as the original proof!! I believe this ‘measuring of the board’ is how most artificial intelligence chess playing games work.

Gary, on the subject of your challenge:
(This is just food for thought)
Now that you have found a game that meets your criteria, what does that say about your original premise?

My two cents:
There are currently eight possible variants being discussed for inclusion here. They are all the combinations of: Pente or Keyro Pente
play on a 13x13 or 19x19 board
play with or without the opening restriction

I personally would like to see Pente on a 19x19 board without the restriction implemented. I think implementing all eight would be too much. I know implementing six has been suggested. I’m not sure if even that many is too many.

Two more cents:
I have seen several posts discussing how some players would like to see everyone play by the ‘correct’ rules. Wouldn’t in be better to say the official rules? I mean, with an online game, you pretty much have to play by the correct rules anyway, don’t you?

Thad

Gary,

Why do you say I’m “pushing your luck BIG time!”. Because I made a post about the option on the 19x19 board and/or about the name of the game? That post was specifically in response to what Dmitri said. He posted his thoughts, and I posted mine in reply. Where’s the problem?

And don’t try to blame me, Walter, Pioneer54, or anyone else for the ratings problem. The ratings were fine until you (and whoever else) talked Fencer to change the rules of the game.

Thad

Gary said:
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.

My reply:
So what are you implying, Gary, that you are right because more sites have ‘your’ way than ‘mine’? Tell me this, how many websites are there that offer chess? How many offer pente? Does that make chess better?

Besides that, you counted wrong!!

There is another very good site for playing pente. You can play several variants of the game there including Fun-pente, ‘official’ pente, and my personal favorite, pente with unlimited caps. Over 750 players have completed games there. The site masters are friendly and they have been making nice improvements to the site. It’s still a beta site, and there are many more things they can (and plan to) add, but it’s still a good site as is.

I’m sure many of you reading this post know the site I am speaking of. Gary, I am not mentioning the name of the site because I don’t want you to go there and muck it all up with all your talk of how all those of us there, WHO JUST WANT TO PLAY GAMES AND HAVE A GOOD TIME, are detrimentally ruining the long-term viability of blah-buh-de-blah-blah...

To everyone else:
Please do NOT post the name of that site here. I REALLY don’t want them to go thru the torture we’ve all gone thru here.

Thad

Dmitri,

You are right, being able to play the game here without the restriction is my main concern.

You posted your opinion on whether the restriction should be placed on the 19x19 board and the name of the game. I disagree with your opinion and wanted to post my thoughts on the subject.

I’d like to be able to play unrestricted on the larger board. I don’t like games where the edge comes into play. But I suppose the compromise of having it on only the smaller board is ok. My only other concern is what happens if we no longer need the 13x13 board for WebTV users. I hope you’d let us play unrestricted on the big board then. But we can worry about that another day. ;-)

The name of the game isn’t really important to me, although I like Pente & Original Pente because they reflect the history of the development of the game. I think any further discussion on it would be splitting hairs, but you are welcome to have the last word if you have anything you would like to add.

Thad

In response to Dmitri’s previous post:

I would actually suggest that the option SHOULD be placed on the 19x19 board. Remember, the 13x13 board is ONLY here to accommodate the WebTV users.

As far as ratings go, I agree with Dmitri that it is a problem to use restricted and unrestricted games together in calculating a single ranking. I disagree with his suggestion of only allowing unrated games for the unrestricted variant. That’s not right. Creating a separate game on the site would work. How about calling it Original Pente, since that’s how the rules originally were. :-)

Thad

Dmitri,

In response to:
Thad, you said that You think Gary and I think that you want to get rid of official pente. Where did you get that idea? Neither of us ever said anything along those lines.

My reply:
It’s true that you never said that directly, I think I implied it from an earlier post you made, mainly here:

That alone is insufficient-- for instance, if there is a game where player 1 has a forced win 100% of the time, would it make sense to simply play two game sets and ignore any attempts to give player 2 a chance? NO, it wouldn't, and by the same reasoning, the possibility of playing two game sets is no reason to neglect the restriction that gives player 2 more of a chance.


Specifically I thought you might feel that *I* was ‘ignoring attempts to give player 2 a chance’ and ‘neglecting the restriction’.

No big deal.

Thad

Gary said:
I beg to differ and I will state ONCE AGAIN. It is the long-term detrimental 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.

My reply:
If I define Fun-pente as Pente without the move restriction, what is it about the rules that is incorrect? The rules are different, but that doesn’t make them incorrect. And they’re not incorrect because I’ve eliminated a rule. As an example, Go-Moku is Pente without the capture rule, and Go-Moku’s rules are certainly correct.


Gary said:
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.

Yeah, that tournament is alright. I think it’s lasted way too long, even if you deduct time for when the site is down. Plus I think I’ve reached the point where my game is as good as it is going to get without reading books, studying old games, etc. I play pente because I enjoy playing. I don’t want to invest the time and effort it takes doing things I wouldn’t enjoy doing in order to improve my game. I’ve played Dmitri a lot at IYT, sometimes it’s fun, but more often than not, I put a tremendous amount of effort into games against him and still come up short. I think I beat him as player 2 once or twice, and I know he’s said that one move I made against him was amongst the best he’s seen, so that’s cool. He’s said he thinks I could be an elite player if I put my mind to it, and he’s probably right. Maybe someday.

Thad

Gary:

You said (in response to my prior post):
I'm almost certain that you KNOW that your statement is untrue so it isn't worth a real rebuttal 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.

My reply:
My original statement IS true. You got it backwards. The version you describe is a variant of chess (and it’s valid) and could be called multi-move-pawn-chess. No change would be made to chess.


You said:
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!).

My reply:
I think you’re getting off track here. Whether or not a game should be programmed for online play is contingent on one’s access to the proper hardware and software, knowledge of programming or access to someone with the knowledge, access to a domain, freetime for development, etc. You’ll never come up with a definition that takes all this into account. Plus there’s the change in technology to take in to account. That will change what games we can and cannot implement for online play.


You said (in response to my prior post):
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.

My reply:
The only way I can see that a variant would mislead players into thinking it was the ‘real thing’ is if it were misnamed as IYT has done with Pente & Pro Pente.


I said:
Why can't a variant 'negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win’?

You replied:
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.

My reply:
Oh, so a variant can 'negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win’. That’s not what you said earlier.

Also, if a variant ‘must be within reason or few players will play it’, it logically follows that if many players play it, it’s within reason.

Ok, well, by that logic, a lot of players play fun-pente, which makes it a reasonable, i.e. valid variant!

Now I know you’re going to say that a lot of players started playing “pente” at IYT, thinking it was the official game, and that’s likely to be true, but they continue to play the game because it’s a valid game. If it weren’t valid, players would quit playing it in droves.


You said:
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.

My reply:
Geez! If they’re completely different games, then they should have completely different names!! Wasn’t Keyro Pente derived from Pente? How can you say it’s not a variant?!! Furthermore, strategies have nothing to do with whether or not a game is a variant of another as you have inferred above.


You said:
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.

My reply:
Ok, so don’t name your variant the name of the game it was derived from. No problem. But don’t make a variant that’s more one-sided in terms of who wins? Why not. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that.


You said:
My definition of an invalid variant ONLY applies to that which a reasonable site owner would spend programming time on.

My reply:
Well (1) your definition is weak because what you call reasonable and what I or Dmitri or Fencer or anyone else might call reasonable varies greatly. (2) You never said that your definition ONLY applied to certain things until now, because (3) your premise is flawed as I have said before, and now you are trying to change it to make it work.

By the way, if anyone does find a variant that fits your five criteria, will that mean that fun-pente is indeed a valid variant according to you? Or will it mean that there are two invalid variants being played online? In other words, if/when someone meets your challenge, will you admit that fun-pente is valid or will you simply state that since there’s already one invalid game out there, what the heck, there might as well be two.


I said:
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.

You replied:
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.

My reply:
No, it’s a broad definition. Any game that is a spin-off of another game and winnable is a valid variant. Many variations that we could mention are valid according to the definition I’ve given because they’re spin-offs of another game and they’re winnable, but invalid if we apply your, now modified, five-part premise in which, lest we forget, we also need to consider it’s programmability by a reasonable site owner and it’s strategy in comparison to other relevant games.


You said:
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.

My reply:
As with my reference to a ‘reasonable’ programmer earlier in this post, who is to say what is ‘substantially similar’? What if I made a variation with a hole in the board in one place. If that hole were placed in the upper left corner of the board, where stones are rarely ever placed, then I think we’d all agree that my game would be ‘substantially similar’. Now, what if I moved the hole toward the center? Still substantially similar? What if I put it in the center? How about two holes? Or three? Nine? Twenty? My point here is that there’s no way to define ‘substantially similar’. The same thing applies to ‘strongly impacted’.


Note to all readers, I’ve tried to be complete, concise, & yet brief here. I tried to include only relevant text from earlier posts. Please read the earlier posts if you are unclear here. Also, I have tried not to take anything said earlier out of context or be misleading in any way. If I have, please understand that doing so was not my intention.

Gary, I haven’t addressed everything you said earlier. If you think I missed an important point, let me know.

Thad

Dmitri,

I get the feeling that you think I want to change the official rules or get rid of ‘official’ pente and only have fun-pente or something along those lines. That is not the case. I like both games. I do like fun-pente better, but that doesn’t mean I want to change the ‘official’ game. I just think there’s room for both (and other) variants. Also, I’m not saying that fun-pente is better. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I just want everyone to know where I stand. I see no harm in playing without the move restriction when that’s what you want to do.

Actually, I’d like to see a better version of pente in which the advantage is reduced even further. I don’t think swapping sides is the answer (name another game where that happens). And I don’t like Gary’s suggestion about further restricting player 1’s move from specific squares. To me, that mars the elegance (sorry to use that word again) of the game.

Restricting P1’s move #2 to anywhere but the horizontal, vertical, and diagonal axes might be good, although I have no idea if the advantage would be greater or lesser than it is now.

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!!!

Thad

Gary,

Did you not read my post from last night? While I didn't flat out state it then, I will now:

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. 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. But a variant can’t be declared invalid just because of how it stacks up to another game.

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.

Thad

Harley,

As the novice here with the biggest voice (that’s a complement, not an insult) I am interested in your opinion as to whether or not it is ok to have a variant of ‘official’ pente in which the rules are changed (not broken, but changed) eliminating the move restriction, presenting it as a variant and not the ‘official’ version of course.

What I’m asking here is whether it’s ok or not for that variant to be here for people to play, NOT whether you yourself would or wouldn’t play it.

Thanks,
Thad

PS: I welcome any other novice’s opinions on this too.

Dmitri,

You said:
Since people can't seem to grasp this I will make it as SIMPLE as possible (since some of you have said you like the SIMPLICITY of "fun-pente")

DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT PLAYER 1 has an advantage in this game????????? Does anyone really doubt that having the extra stone gives player 1 a sizeable advantage?

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


I don’t doubt that player has an advantage in fun-pente. It can be compensated for by playing a two game set.

Playing a game where one side has a distinct advantage is not asinine!

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!

Playing fun-pente is not asinine.

Thad

Gary,

You said:
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.

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.

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.

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!


Also you said:
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.

Ok by whom? You? Me? Us? Them? God?

Why can’t a variant ‘negatively impact the ability of one side or the other to win’? 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. 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?

Thad

Gary,

With respect to your challenge:
I don’t think you have the right to declare the issue at hand dead just because no one comes up with a variation that meets the criteria you yourself selected.

Thad

Gary,

With respect to your challenge:
I don’t think you have the right to declare the issue at hand dead just because no one comes up with a variation that meets the criteria you yourself selected.

Thad

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

Thad

Walter,

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

Thad

<In response to Dmitri’s posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thad

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thad

Let’s clear something up at this point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are my variations invalid?

Thad