Hmmm.... I imagine that you are quite a good regular Pente player. If you're right about you Pente players not studying Keryo all that much it might explain my success in it. It is true that in two player games without chance in them it can be shown that one player or the other has the advantage or a forced win except in the case where one player can always play to force a draw if the game rules have draws. You even used some of that argument about having the first dude placed in your other reply. And Keryo is spread out a little more as it's played. I think that Keryo might work a little differently because of the capture rule change from Pente that makes Keryo the game that it is. I only think this, I can't show or prove it. As you haven't either.
So why isn't there more study to Keryo? I think the game is better than regular Pente. I don't have the time or inclination to study it or master it and was hoping you enthusiasts would have done so already. Quite snobbish and provincial I think your attitude is towards IYT and other sites toward the game. Aside from the fact they have a --move restriction -19 X 19 board-- both colors --tournament game rules-- on their site just for players such as yourself. Why disparage IYT tournaments of playing everyone twice? Especially after you sing the virtues of it in your recent Pente tournament. I think that is a better method than arbitrarily assigning colors and using some method to weight the games. Yeah, yeah, to speed up the games. Right, and you think this site is faster? They better do something about the Vacation rule during tournaments or there's going to be a lot of problems. I do have issues with IYT. They are almost cavalier in their response to player questions and help. They've also gotten so concerned about making money that they're giving us players short shift in other ways too. Still I do like a lot of the things about their site. This BrianKing site is good too. It certainly gives us players more control and autonomy. They probably got a lot of their ideas from IYT and decided to start their own site and correct the problems they thought IYT has. They have better costumer service too. I wrote them a couple of times and they responded fast.
I don't see anything wrong with a 13 X 13 board for Keryo Pente. What makes you so upset? The only reason Pente is on a 19 X 19 board is it was borrowed from a Go board. Yes, the game plays differently on a smaller board. The sides come into play for one thing. I bet that doesn't happen at all in your Pente games on a 19 X 19 board. I used to play Pegity on a 15 X 15 board and it predates Pente by 20 years or so. (Pegity is Line 5 or Gomoku) I'm curious about the other rule changes that you guys are thinking up. To me Pente is flawed because it requires a rule retriction. I could imagine the uproar in chess playing circles if they proposed move restrictions! I have thought up a couple of variations of Pente that could be played. One of them would probably lesson the advantage of going first so much as to eliminate the need for the move restriction. The problem is it wouldn't be Pente any more. As Keryo isn't Pente either. I believe Keryo was made up in response to the very thing you pointed out.... "First to move"'s big advantage in Pente. From your posting you argue that it wasn't very successful in this regard. It also sounds like the move restriction in Pente hasn't been very successful either. Least ways not very much so in your tournament. To win the tournament you must win when going second. I imagine anytime someone of your playing ability wins going second in the finals of a tournament everyone else analyzes the game to find out what happened.

I just scrolled down to find your previous posting. It appears I've made a couple of mistakes about what I thought I read in the two newest postings. You are for two game matches in tournaments. You like the Sonne thingy for breaking ties in two game match tournaments also. As I'm not familiar with it, nor having seen it in use, I'll reserve my judgment on it until it comes up involving me. It might even be something I might want to use in the Building tournaments for breaking ties. Currently we use games won as the determining factor except for the championship. For that a tie breaking game is used. Since there isn't sides in Building (Though there is argument about who's advantage it is (Dealer versus Non-dealer) it is not a factor as both players take turns during a game being the dealer) Games won is determined by the final scores ratio win to loss. Winning the game still counts first.

Thank you for your replies and I hope some others weigh in on this. Pente and its variants are good games. Perhaps I should check out the Pente.org site, eh?

<Walter -

I want to answer some of your questions from a prior post.

>> I'm curious about the advantage or disadvantage of going first in Keryo Pente. This game seems a lot more fair than regular Pente. I think it might have something to do with the way the dudes are captured. <

See my last post on that. Without the opening restriction, it's more fair than Pente because the defending player has more defensive choices. But the difference in the advantage is VERY little once you study both games in depth.

You can think of it from a mathematical perspective. If one player has more stones on the board to start any game where he must get X n a row of them to win, then by proof he has to have an advantage almost regardless of the rules with one MAJOR exception. That is UNLESS he is forced to spread them apart more than his opponent! The captures do little to reduce this advantage, because if you are always the one placing that extra stone on the board at all times, you have a greater chance of being able to capture 2 (or 3) of your opponents stones before he does yours.

>> I am wondering how the wins and losses break down amongst the real good players depending on who starts first in Keryo Pente. <

Keryo Pente is not a mainstream game yet. Few top players have studied it so there is little imperical data on it, but let me relate the advantage enjoyed by player 1 in Pente even WITH the opening restriction to you. As you read this, keep in mind that the advantage for player 1 is only SLIGHTLY reduced in Keryo Pente vs. Pente. Here's some recent stats on Pente:

The 2001-02 World E-mail Pente championship just completed. This was played WITH the opening restriction. The top 4 finishers in the 8-player championship were myself, Istvan Virag, Alexander Nosovsky, and Scott Justice. Everyone played the other 7 players one game of each color so 14 games total. Amongst those top 4 finishers, player 1 won 11 out of 12 games! That's ELEVEN of TWELVE, 91.7%!! This is WITH the opening restriction!! If you included the 7 players who completed their matches, the percentage was over 75%!

Keeping all of that in mind and that the advantage for player 1 is only slightly reduced for player 1 in Keryo Pente vs. Pente regardless of whether it's with or without the opening restriction, it's not even worth considering playing Keryo without the opening restriction if the players have done any significant studying of the game.

Based on this, there are some new rules in Pente that will eventually be coming through to further reduce the advantage enjoyed by player 1 even with the current opening restriction. (Don't worry, it won't replace the game with the current opening restriction. It would be a Pente variant.)

>> What is the "Sonneborn-Berger method"? Why break ties when you can just play a tie breaker game or two more? Or have both players advance as they do on It's Your Turn?

I want to dispell the notion that what they do at IYT is normal. MUCH of it is just plain wrong! That includes constantly ignoring player's requests for improvements, having the incorrect board size and rules for Pente and Keryo Pente to start with, and not having ratings so that they can have sectional tournaments. I also think that not attempting to break a tie is not very smart because the tourneys last MUCH longer than they need to.

The Sonneborn-Berger method simply adds up the total # of wins of all of your opponents that you defeated in the tourney. If you defeated someone twice, you multiply his wins by 2 for totalling up your opponent's wins. It's as simple as that. Excellent method for tiebreak. Its theory is that you get more credit for beating stronger players than you do lesser players that you might not be playing as hard against.

This method does not break all ties, just some of them. But some is better than none and it can do a lot to reduce the amount of time it takes to complete a tourney.


Gary

Walter -

I think you know what Dmitri King means and you're just nitpicking words there. When I played Pente without the tournament rule at IYT because that's all they had and all that I could find at the time, in 18 tournaments, I lost 8 games. ALL EIGHT of those were as player 2 and I was LUCKY in the MANY others. Why? Because there was almost no one in those tourneys that knew how to play the game correctly! That's because most of the former players from the '80's either didn't know about the site or refused to play it without the tournament rule, because they knew it was pointless.

It's the same way for Dmitri King in Keryo Pente at www.pente.org. Sure, he's 12-4 as player 2, but that's because few people understand how to play the game right.

But what if you took Dmitri King, Istvan Virag, Dmitri Krasnonosov, Alexander Nosovsky, Scott Justice, myself, and a few others and gave us a year to completely study and understand the differences between Pente and Keryo Pente. Then you put us into a Keryo Pente tournament together.

Would player 2 EVER win without the tournament rule? Not likely, but if he did, it would be 1 in 50 and we would all be bored tying with each other the other 49 out of 50 times. Give us 3 years to perfect our game, and it would be 1 in 1000 or probably NEVER!

Right now, I would probably wager on Dmitri King beating you 5 in a row without the tourney rule as player 1 in Keryo Pente at IYT, even though I think that he has studied the game very little. I could be wrong, you could win once, but that's because the game is different enough from Pente that he made an error large enough that you could win. That's not to say that you aren't a good player, it's that player 2 is at a fairly severe disadvantage in Keryo Pente also without the opening restriction, even though that disadvantage is not quite as large as in Pente.

The points are:
1. The more you study a game, the more one-sided it is to play it without an opening restriction.
2. Why not play the games WITH the opening restriction from the time that you learn the game so that you have a more equal chance from either side, regardless of your ability?

By the way, the 'things' that they call Pente and Keryo Pente at IYT are no such games. Those games were NEVER invented to be played on a 13x13 board and the tourney rule has been in existence on them ever since the game was less than 2 years old in 1979. IYT simply screwed up when they put the games on their site to begin with and so proceeded to confuse a generation of players. Brain King has gotten it right! As I have told many people, the IYT games should be called 'Beginners (Keryo) Pente' or 'Recreational (Keryo) Pente'. Pro Pente IS the real regular Pente and they don't even have the real regular Keryo Pente!


Gary Barnes

12-4 and you say you find it difficult to win? Hmm, I'm confused. If you're a member of It's Your Turn Dmitri King, I'll play you some games. You can go first in them if you'd like and we'll put your theory to test. :) If you win them all, I'll see your point, but even if I take a few of them I'll ask you some questions about how it goes while we play.

I have just opened 4 new Fast Tournaments. They are backgammon, nackgammon, backgammon race and crowded backgammon and are open to members Brain Knight and above. Games to start on the 18th!

Walter, the advantage of moving first is significant in keryo pente, in my opinion. The opening restrictions help level the field, but not by much. At Dweebo's stone games I am undefeated as player 1 (14-0) and I am 12-4 as player 2. I find it difficult to win as player 2, and I was never in danger of losing as player 1.

Is that how it works? The person offering the prize has to put up the prize fund? Hmm, I suppose that's fair. It'd certainly make the tournament maker want to win his own tournament!
When I finally do become a paying member on this site I'll probably make a couple of tournaments with a prize. Hopefully I'll win, but if not it should make for some good players and games just trying to win the prize.

Guess you will have to find a rook who feels like spending their money for the prize :-)

How's 'bout one of you BrainRooks getting one going. I might win and then I could postpone having to pay to become a paying member. :) Even if I don't win, I'm sure it would attract good players and the games would be good games and lots of fun either way. I'll help spread the word if you get one going and we'll see if we can get lots of people involved.

Hi Gary. I'm curious about the advantage or disadvantage of going first in Keryo Pente. This game seems a lot more fair than regular Pente. I think it might have something to do with the way the dudes are captured. As you've said you're a top Pente player, I am wondering how the wins and losses break down amongst the real good players depending on who starts first in Keryo Pente.
I agree with the playing of two games, one of each color being a better method than arbitrarily asigning sides. What is the "Sonneborn-Berger method"? Why break ties when you can just play a tie breaker game or two more? Or have both players advance as they do on It's Your Turn?

Thank you

Rabbits2 ... you have to have the minimum membership level of Rook to start your own tournament .. have a look at the Paid Membership page :0)

Can a person who is only a Brain Pawn start a Tournament?

Hi Gary :-)

As you have probably read, many people seem to agree with you that 2-games against each opponent would be better. Fencer said he would implement that later (don't think he gave a timeline).

And just to clear up the Five in Line, it was originally 20x20, but now all new games started are on the 15x15 board - only games started before this change are 20x20.

To all -

My name is Gary Barnes. I am the director of one of one of the sections of a large real-time Pente tournament at Dweebo's Stone Games at www.pente.org. Dmitri King and I are both top Pente players and were instrumental in forwarding the correct rules for Pente and Keryo Pente to Filip (Fencer) so that he could get those games set up on his great site. When we did this, it took him less than a week to have the games on the site, which impressed us.

I'd like to make a few comments about the advantage enjoyed by one side in several board games as it relates to the need for everyone to play everyone else in one game of each color in tournaments here at Brainking.

In Pente, even with the correct and current opening restriction on white (player 1), white still has a moderate advantage amongst intermediate-level players. This advantage is increased as the skill of the players increase. It is increased even further in turn-based play, because players can study the positions for long periods of time, if they wish. In E-mail World Pente championships, it is not uncommon for player 1 to win 75-80% of games. Fortunately, we have the opening restriction or player 1 would probably win 98+% of games in top-level turn-based competition. This brings up the game of 5-in-a-line on BrainKing here.

A top Gomoku (5-in-a-line here) player by the name of Istvan Virag along with one other person successfully solved the game of Gomoku as a forced win in 24 moves by white (player 1) on the recognized standard of a 15x15 board. That is because there is no opening restriction for white like there is in Pente.

What this means is that if black plays PERFECTLY, then he can last no more than 24 moves if white plays perfectly and will always lose. While perfect play is unlikely in any game, the fact that a win by force can be accomplished in only 24 moves indicates the overwhelming advantage enjoyed by White in Gomoku (5-in-a-line), even amongst intermediate-level players. This advantage would be even greater on the larger 20x20 board that has been used frequently here at Brainking.

Because of these things and the fact that in many games, one side owns either a small or substantial advantage to start the game, I have just recently sent off an E-mail to Filip suggesting that players play 2-games, one of each color, against all opponents in tournaments.

With that said, I think that the Sonneborn-Berger method for breaking ties is EXCELLENT, but ONLY if everyone gets to play one game of each color against all of their opponents. Otherwise, I would agree that it makes things MORE unfair for a strong player who happens to unluckily get the disadvantageous side against another strong player.

rod03801.. there isn't really much to do, choose a game (or all games), do your settings and then on the day & time you selected press the buttons to start the tourney!!
Then if it gets to a second round press the button to start that (I guess, mine haven't reached round 2 yet!!).
Easy Peasy!!

I'm wondering if someone could tell me exactly what your responsibilities are when you start your own tourney... i was thinking of trying it, but I'd like to know first.
Thanks
:-)

How about putting WINNER in red alongside the tournament and, say, FINALS in red? then we can gloat a bit.
Also, how avbout telling us all when someone has won a tournament (again, might boost your Brain Knight + membership).

Having the tournaments a 2 game match (one of each color) would be a great improvment (for most of the games) - possible have it the choice of whoever makes the tournament.

Heck - I have recently joined 3 spider stack4 tournaments where I play the same higher ranked player. In all 3 games, I'm stuck with the color black (which usually has a disadvantage) - so unless I get lucky - all three of those tournaments will be out of my reach... :-(

But it is planned - so that will be good! :-)

sundance: I will fix it.
rabbitoid: Yes, it is planned. Later.

Fencer: to resolve the problem of unfairness due to color, why not make tournament games 2-game matches, instead of simple games? this way nothing else needs to be changed.
or maybe permit the tournament organizer to pick the game format as well as the timespan?

Fencer: Why is "Spider Line4 Fast Weekend Tournament" still listed as a "running tournament", even though it is completed?
Should I, as the one who started the tournament, have done something after it was completed?

thanx

1) Sure. I will improve the messages.
2) Your Spider Line4 tournament contains only one section. The second round is available only if two or more sections were created.

first when we get notification when a round in one of our tourneys is complete...can it tell us (when applicable) that a second round is ready? or 3rd etc...i was erasing these msgs and didnt know i needed to start some second rounds...second question in my first tourney the eddie sfast one with all the games i limited it to only 8 players each game...in one game in there the spiderline 4 there is a 3 way tie for first place...one player asked me to start the second round but nothing comes up for me to start a second round..was that because i limited the amount who played?..

only 2 spots remain open... hurry and claim your spot today b4 its too late... lol :-)

Heyyyy, we got a 'my tournaments'!! Nice one Fencer, that will make life loads easier! :o))

The second prize tourney has been posted for 4iar on the tournament board, so if you are a pawn and would like a chance to win a 6 mo. knight membership, please sign up.. must have a rating of 1500 or less though!! Good Luck!

Hannelore.. i signed up for your 5-in-a-line tourny, even tho i'm on the 5-in-a-line for a different fellowship.. so i think you are correct.

There seems to be some confusion about fellowship tournaments. I have a lot of Chess players in my fellowship, but not many on my team. I understand that since many are on teams in different fellowships. I am sponsoring a "Fellowship Tournament" in several different chess types, and some players seem to think they can not join the T because they are on other teams. I believe this is a misunderstanding on their part. My understanding is that anyone in the fellowship can join this Tournament and it has nothing to do with teams. Please correct me if I am wrong.

hey, im looking for a game of reversi. it's my first time at this site, and i've never played here...of course...so, if u can...plz invite

only 6 slots remain... 10 spots filled...

its open for everyone... hurry and sign up today! :-)

I created new 3-checks chess tournament. It's open for everyone. Start time is 10th March 2003, 10,00 AM. Join and enjoy it!

Thanks Fencer

ellieoop: It will be added soon.

7 have signed up... only 9 slots remain open... hurry b4 ya miss out on your chance :-)

i was wondering if there's a way to remove the tournaments that you've finished, from your profile page.

Is open to the first 16 players... Sign up now and try to be the Ultimate Survivor!

I have created my second Spider Line4 tournament. You will be able to sign up until the end of Febryary. 3 day time limit. Good luck to everyone :-)

Sorry if players tried to sign up for this tourny. It's up again,and anyone can enter.

rabbit's blitz tournament available, with a timeout of one day.
this is well suited to people who have limited tournament participation: not to get stuck in rounds which never end
need some more signups to make it interresting.

Tournament started! A week to sign up, have fun!

I love the new game. How can we get some tournaments started with that game?

Atomic chess probably has an advantage for white. I prefer the swiss system with 2 game matches myself.

Hmm...there's actually a few games where colour is a big difference! Horde Chess is a big white advantage, Maharajah is a big black advantage, Tablut seems to be a white advantage, and Spider Line4 is a relatively small white advantage. (that's all i can think of right now).

However, Fencer did mention implementing more tournament formats later. Be patient...he has a lot to do :-)

I personally would like to see the old fashioned double elimination style tournament tried here. One-on-One, with random draws. With all the matches being played at once i would think it would shorten the length of a tournament significantly. With 5-in-Line being the only game here (far as i know) where the draw of color can be an advantage, youd have to make it a race to 3 match or something like that. All other games could be one game matches. Win, and move on, lose and go to the losers bracket for a second chance.

That's ok if you don't agree with me...everyone can have their opinions. But we can argue and argue here all we want and neither of us get anywhere, so i'm not going to argue about this any more - i have voiced my opinion, and will leave it at that :-)
We will see what Fencer decides (and i image a very difficult decision!)

Kevin: Sorry I don't agree but have to say this.
I think its wise to look towards the sites with the most success and emulate their good points, especially for a new site with quite a bit of competition out there for membership money.
The most successful tournament systems I have seen is Cases leagues (which offers a variety of formats and is used by most of the online gaming sites for all games) and IYT neither of them use S-B, both have over 1,000,000 members.
If players don't like something then they won't support it in the long term. And it is finding what makes people the happiest which brings in the money. :-)

I'm not saying it would give anyone an advantage, just maybe not a true S-B.
I'm quite happy to agree to disagree! We have different opinions, no big deal :o)

hrlqns: Ok. Assuming those 2 players timed out in every game, that would leave each and every one of the other remaining 5 players with 4 games to make up the S-B. Each player still has the 4 games. No one has more games then others to get more S-B. Those 2 games that were timed out will award the 5 remaining players with a grand total of 0 S-B. No advantage to anyone.

Also, that is what i said - they would complain now, but if it was originally introduced with 2 games against each opponent, i doubt many of them would complain then. Besides, it isn't a right to be able to play in tournaments for free. The pawns get a lot for free, why do they need more? :-)

If you don't agree with me about the S-B (which you quite obviously don't) that's fine. We are not the ones to make the final decision anyways. I think we have both argued our point, and i will let Fencer decide for himself.

dream: Yes, i have only seen it at one other site, which is littlegolem, so people are not used to it. Even if tournaments never go passed the 3rd round for a while (and i'm sure they will eventually with more people at this site), that doesn't make it just to advance everyone who has won the same number of games, especially with time-outs (if a player doesn't time out against everyone). I am not saying tournaments will not work without S-B, but i'm saying the winner will more often be deserved this way.