I have to say here that for the most part dmitri is correct and I admit that some of my statements in my last post were worded incorrectly and too strongly which really just showed my mood while writing the post.
However, I still have a strong opinion about keyro-pente. It's not that it's a bad game, I think it's quite a successful variant. However, it's just a different game -- it changes the original rules of pente. It does not implicitly create more equality between player 1 and 2 besides just making the game more complex and although it is related to pente, it is not pente. I think that it would be great to see competitive keyro-pente tournaments, for example, but the keyro-pente champion should never be considered to be the pente champion -- it's simply a different game.
On the second point, I agree with dmitri in every respect. The game of pente grants a huge advantage to player 1. I also admit that my personal experience of how often I lose games as player 1 is subject to the fact that I am a step or two below the top level of the game -- mostly because of my inconsistancy of playing flawlessly as player 1.
However, if even the best players in the world claim that they have a 99%+ winning percentage against an equal opponent in a real time game as player 1, they are most likely not telling the truth. Let me use once again the example of Tournament 4 at DSG, which had a very strong player pool. Out of the ENTIRE tournament, not a single match lasted longer than 3 sets except for the quarterfinal match between dmitriking and progambler, which lasted 5 sets. In my opinion, this is not so bad. I rather like the dynamic of tournament play where you have to "break your opponent's serve" and "win by two". This is very similar to men's professional tennis, where the serves are so powerful and provide such a huge advantage that breaking serve is rare -- but when it does happen, it's important -- and it doesn't happen so rarely as to ruin the game.
But I think this might be a good time to bring up an important related point. The scoring/rating system for players at the top level of the game is flawed. Players that are 1900+ have worked so hard to reach that level that they begin playing much fewer rated games. Part of this may also be, as dmitri stated, that some top players reach an understanding of the game which shows that it is futile to play from player 2, much like kids learn at a young age that tic-tac-toe is always a tie. However, I think another large reason why someone rated 1950 might not wish to play someone rated 1800 is that there is a large probability that they will split games 50/50 and this ruins the rating of the higher rated player.
I would propose a rating system that uses basically the same formula for adjusting scores, but make the adjustment be based on "winning by two" -- and if folks decide to quit before there is a winner by two, the match should be a draw and ratings unchanged. I don't think this makes much difference at the beginner or intermediate levels, but at the expert level I think this would foster more play with less risk as players focus on trying to "break serve" rather than being worried about what will happen to their rating when they lose as P2.
Dmitri, I'd love to see you more at DSG even if you just wanna play unrated
you made some good points. I agree with you about Keryo pente. If there is to be a world keryo pente championship, it should definitely be in addition to the standard pente championship. Time permitting, I would like to see both the next time there is a live tournament.
Your other point is also valid; Keryo pente does nothing to inherently eliminate the player 1 advantage. It may exist right now because people haven't solved the positions yet, but it is only a matter of time before that happens, since player 1 still has the extra stone.
Regarding the tournament, I did not realize that only my match with Gary went 5 rounds. That said, that match was a bit frustrating. Although there were some good games, several of them were veyr weak. In timed games, such as at the DSG tournaments, maybe the player 1 advantage is lessened a bit by the time constraints. TUrn based play, however, is essential to the popularity of the game, as dozens of people still play at IYT and now many play at brain King as well. And in turn based games, the player 1 advantage is overwhelming. I have lost interest in playing turn based games with the current rules. The only tournament I still have going is with Istvan Virag, the OCtober main 1 tournament from Last year. We have written to IYT many times to request a shared championship, having split 8 games already (all wins by player 1), but IYT is not responding. Maybe a member (my membership lapsed) could write and ask them what the deal is.
But I digress. As for games at DSG, I would still like to play, but using the computer is still bothering my wrists, despite little to no computer sue for the last 6 weeks. I have probably typed more than I should so I'll leave it at that.
-Dmitri
If I do not accept a game invite right away, it means I will once I have fewer games in progress.
I was not saying that d-pente cannot be played without an opening book. What I said was with regards to making a fair(i.e. as close to even chances for both players as possible)game; my comment was:"that quite a bit of work needs to be done before it can be offered to the general public as the fair way to play pente." I have played several games of d-pente some by using lines which have been tried by other players and some by making up my own or having my opponent make up his/her own. Many of those positions which were offered turned out to be quite uneven despite the fact that both players had played pente for at least a year in all cases. So my point is not that d-pente is unplayable without an opening book of equal positions, my point is that equal positions are not easy to come up with for most people, even those who have quite a bit of previous pente experience.
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
