Variation suggestion
Posted:
Aug 31, 2003, 6:30 AM
This was discussed back in the 80's, though I dont know if it ever got any real followers.I call it the even play rule. It might exist under another name.
The rule is simple. P2 always plays last. This means that if he can capture to break a 5, the game continues. It requires some tie breaking rules, since 2 pentes or double 10 stones, or one of each is possible.
Anyway I played with it a bit before I finished school and went on to other things.
Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: Variation suggestion
Posted:
Sep 1, 2003, 10:19 AM
This seems like an interesting concept and I can see how it is an attempt to reduce or eliminate the player 1 advantage. At first glance though, the way it is written here it almost seems to give player 2 too much advantage. In particular, if player 1 plays a stone to make an open 3, player 2 can counter by making an open 3 of his own! If P1 makes the 4, P2 makes his 4 and we will have a draw. If white instead blocks black's 3, this may often expose him to a keystone attack. I would have to see it played a few times, but it seems like this would be REALLY tough on P1, maybe too tough.
On the subject of pente variations in general, it seems to me that pente variations are created either to provide a new, separate game that is enjoyed just because it gives some variety to things, OR they attempt to tweak the rules to create a "better" version of the same game of pente -- where "better" often means creating a more level playing field between player 1 and player 2. If the goal is indeed to help reduce the player 1 advantage in the game of pente, then in my humble opinion, all of the original rules of the game should still exist, unchanged. Also, any additional refinements should be very few and very simple. Great examples of this are the Tournament Rule (Pro-Pente), which has long since become the standard competitive version of Pente, and G-Pente, which further refines the rules to create even more equal chances for the two opponents. Examples of variations that should NEVER be considered the standard competitive version of Pente, but are fun to play in their own right, are Keyro-Pente and Poof-Pente among many others -- these do not "improve" upon the existing game of Pente, but instead, actually "change" the rules, thereby creating a whole new, separate game.
In terms of reducing the player 1 advantage in Pente, I believe the best variation out there is D-Pente, which incorporates a simple swap rule, where, in theory, the player that ends up getting to choose which side he will play from has the advantage, but this advantage can be made to be VERY small by the efforts of the other player. Simply put (and the actual rules might be slightly different than this but you'll get the idea): Player 1 plays the first 4 stones without any restrictions -- 2 white stones and 2 black stones. Then, Player 2 analyzes this position and decides whether or not he wishes to continue play as Player 1 (swap) or as Player 2 (no swap) and play then resumes as normal with whoever is now Player 1 playing the next white stone and so on.
I hope very much that D-Pente will be implemented and become available at DSG ASAP as I really believe that it has the potential to replace Pro-Pente as the standard for competitive Pente. I think that it will help keep top players interested in the game, where currently they often become discouraged by the Player 1 advantage.
I would love to see more posts from others on what they think of the "Even Play" variation proposed and on Pente variations in general.
Re: Variation suggestion
Posted:
Sep 4, 2003, 2:45 AM
up2ng makes some great points!
This Variation sounds interesting but there would be 2 many ties.... Think of all the times white wins but black haves an open 4, if white made a 3, black dosnt need to block just make a 2 into a 3.......
The game would drag out.....
up2ng said: "I hope very much that D-Pente will be implemented and become available at DSG ASAP as I really believe that it has the potential to replace Pro-Pente as the standard for competitive Pente. I think that it will help keep top players interested in the game, where currently they often become discouraged by the Player 1 advantage"
I know for a fact this is true, i would play here almost every day, and did for just less then a year.. untill it hit me no matter how good i get if i ever played a good player we would split sets 50/50. in every sport i know of a 50/50 win % is less then great.
One possibility is that P2 could make a capture with his final play, thus breaking the five. Of course if he made a 5 or it was the 5th capture, he would win. Otherwise the game continues. This eliminates most of the ties, since the first Pente made takes precedence, just not game ending priority. Then the only tie is if both sides have 5 captures.
Re: Variation suggestion
Posted:
Sep 5, 2003, 2:04 AM
"One possibility is that P2 could make a capture with his final play, thus breaking the five. Of course if he made a 5 or it was the 5th capture, he would win." ~ but if player one has a five and player two makes a five then the games a tie
"This eliminates most of the ties" ~ how!?!?
"since the first Pente made takes precedence, just not game ending priority." ~ what is precedence if not game ending priority?!
"Then the only tie is if both sides have 5 captures" ~ what if both sides have a five?
Re: Variation suggestion
Posted:
Sep 6, 2003, 5:06 AM
As the rules are now, if either side get Pente, then the game ends. In the even move variation, the first player to make Pente wins, provided the Pente is intact at the end of the turn. So if P1 makes Pente, then it does no good for P2 to make one as well, since the P1 Pente has priority. However, he has the oportunity to make a capture to break the Pente is one is available. If he can play a capture, that breaks the Pente, then play coninues unless he simultaniously makes a Pente, or if the capture gives him 10 stones.
The idea of having both players with 5 captures be a tie is less problematic, since in practice its much more unusual than having both players ready to extend 4's. In fact I dont mind playing with no capture limit, ie only 5 in a row wins. You still avoid captures since they often remove key defensive stones.
This rule change proposal is actually similar (though perhaps not exactly the same as) the rules for Ninuki-renju which was the game upon which pente was based. In Ninuki-renju a five must be a "perfect five" in order to win instead of being an immediate win. A "perfect five" is defined as one which cannot be captured across. If a five can be captured across in Ninuki-renju, play continues.
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
Re: Variation suggestion
Posted:
Sep 8, 2003, 7:25 AM
That makes sense, although the rule would not require that it be exactly 5. IIRC in ninuki a 6 does not win. Also this would be a P2 only consideration.
That actually makes me think its a better idea, though. Obviously the Japanese struggled with the concept of P1 dominance as well. Though their ideas of proper form can get a little stuffy, they also got a lot of it right.
Re: Variation suggestion
Posted:
Sep 8, 2003, 9:11 AM
Correct, a six does not win and the Japanese thus ended up with a rare and strange case where a six could be captured across for a fifth pair making it into a five, and this was considered a draw. I think that it makes more sense for this rule to be available to P2 only as Jay has mentioned. As the Japanese have the rule, once an imperfect five has been created it must immediately be captured across on the next play. So the pente rule could possibly be expressed as follows: the 2nd player may always make the last play in a game. The game ends if: P1 makes a five (or more)which cannot not be captured across; if P1 makes a five which can be captured across, P2 must do so as opposed to making a five. I would guess that a perfect five would be given a winning priority over P2 making a 5th capture on the next turn. If P1 makes a fifth capture and P2 can make a five on the next turn the five also wins. If P1 makes a fifth capture and P2 can also make a fifth capture, play continues until one player is ahead in captures at the end of P2's turn or until P1 makes a perfect five (or more) or P2 makes a five. This is all pretty complicated to express, but it would be one way to lay out the winning priorities which would help to offset the P1 advantage.
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
I have now decided that I am very strongly against any such "variation" to Pente as discussed in this thread. I refer you to paragraph 2 of my previous post for a diplomatic description of why I feel so strongly about this. The basic reason, in a nutshell, is that the inventor of Pente, Gary Gabrel, SIMPLIFIED the complicated rules of ninuki-renju and created some aesthetic improvements which resulted in an explosion of interest in the game. The key word here is SIMPLE. Let me say it again for all those who missed it, especially those players who are considered to be at the top level of pente play: When considering any rule variations that attempt to achieve more equal chances for player 1 and player 2 to win a game of pente, it is of utmost importance that the original rules of the game be preserved AND that the total rule set remains SIMPLE. Any variations that change the original rules result in a game that is no longer related to pente (such as Keyro-Pente) and should never, ever, be considered as the standard for competitive pente play. However, equally and perhaps even more importantly, any variations that substantially complicate the rules of the game of pente are violating the spirit with which the game was invented -- and the reason why the game has become popular. Recently there has been some concern and some effort given towards increasing the popularity of the game to a broader player base. It is extremely important to remember that new players are MUCH less likely to begin and sustain playing the game if the rules become too complicated and burdensome to grasp. The beauty of pente is in the fact that it is superficially so simple and pure, yet so complex beneath the surface.
As a fairly poor metaphor, let me tell you that I have met many many people that have never played the game of chess because of lame arguments such as "it's too complicated -- I can't even remember which pieces move where". Now lets suppose that the very highest geniuses of the game have decided that the player 1 advantage is just too great to overcome and thus the rules should be modified. Let's make it so that for player 1, the queen may not move twice in a row. The knight may NOT jump other pieces, but instead must move in an L-pattern that is open, unless it's the knight's first move or is a move that captures an opponent's rook or queen or threatens the king. Forks of two pieces of greater value than threatening piece are not allowed unless one of the threatened pieces is the king... Granted these may reduce the player 1 advantage but it totally mucks up the game.
Let me also remind the whole pente community that the player 1 advantage IS NOT as prominent as many folks have been preaching. As a personal example, I consider myself to be a very good pente player -- perhaps a step or two below the best in the world. However, I definitely do not consider myself to be unbeatable as Player 1. In fact, when I play an opponent at around my level, I probably lose as player 1 at least 20% of the time. An even better example may be to look at the recently completed Tournament 4 at DSG. In the semifinal and final rounds, which involved some of the very best players in the world, the matches were won by playing only a handful of sets.
Let me end my venting here by repeating that I believe that Pro-Pente, G-Pente, and D-Pente involve adequately simple rule tweeks to avoid breaching the original rules of the game yet also keep the rules simple enough to avoid ruining the game. I believe that D-Pente is the best option for high level competitive play.
Re: Variation suggestion
Posted:
Sep 9, 2003, 4:53 AM
I don't think pente should be simple. A variation is just that, a change to the rules, if it makes the game equal for player one and two then great!
if players want the "simple" pente game let them have it, but don't dumb down players who want the game to be equal........
~This is in general for pente games, not just this player two plays last.. i think its a crappy variation, its stealing wins from white, when the real problem is that black never has a chance from the start, thats why most variations are concerned with the first few moves of the game.~
Ps: the Spell Check Marks the word Pente as wrong, and offers pent, lol
Re: Variation suggestion
Posted:
Sep 9, 2003, 5:18 AM
That about sums it up. And you would consult the rule book once every 1000 games. It really is intuitive: if P1 make a 5, then P2 has to capture, or the game ends. The rest is details.
Re: Variation suggestion
Posted:
Sep 9, 2003, 7:40 AM
Up2ng, as always I appreciate your perspective whether or not I agree, and we have dicussed this before, but I just would like to say here again that while the rules of D-pente may be easy to state, that doesn't imply that it may not make the game much more difficult for new players to learn and play. If two players are starting off in the game and are at an equal skill level, then theoretically under D-pente rules they will have a nearly equal chance whether playing as player 1 or as player 2(probably the player who chooses which side to play from will have a slight advantage). The problem, IMO, is how do they arrive at an equal position to start the game? Will every new board sold include an opening book of D-pente moves which are considered to offer a pretty equal chance for both players? This would be a great thing, but what about all the players who are already playing regular pente with their own boards? Will the opening book be updated as professional players discover lines which give an advantage to one side from a position? Who is going to come up with a number of workable positions and test them to see whether one side has a significant advantage? These are not insurmountable problems, and I like the idea of D-pente, my point is 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. With current rules for pente once players understand the opening restrictions for P1 they can play wherever they like (within those restrictions) and don't need to refer to a book each time they want to start a new game. Anyway...like I say I don't fundamentally disagree with you about the value of D-pente for making the game even, nonetheless it does complicate things. Tom
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
watsu, why does an opening book of D-pente positions need to be written before people play it regularly? The lack of a pente opening book never stopped anyone from playing standard pente, despite the fact that several positions are far stronger than others. Just like with regualr pente, as players play D-pente they will learn which setups to play into and which ones to avoid.
If I do not accept a game invite right away, it means I will once I have fewer games in progress.
up2ng, I have two objections to your post. I will quote you and address the quotations.
Your first comment: "Any variations that change the original rules result in a game that is no longer related to pente (such as Keyro-Pente) and should never, ever, be considered as the standard for competitive pente play. "
I do not understand your position here and I consider it to be short-sighted. I don't know what the best way to play competitive tournament pente is, but dismissing keryo pente entirely makes no sense. Keryo pente is NOT complicated or confusing; in fact, it is one of the easiest variants to understand. I do NOT think it alters the game nearly to the extent that you think it does. How can you say that "Keryo pente is no longer related to pente"? I assume you have played keryo pente, so you should be aware that is it very much related to pente.
Your second comment: "Let me also remind the whole pente community that the player 1 advantage IS NOT as prominent as many folks have been preaching."
Let ME remind everyone that up2ng's saying so does not MAKE it so. His personal experience as player 1 in no way negates the tremendous advantage that player 1 has in pente. take a look at the matches between strong players and you will see player 1 winning almost all the time. Note that I am drawing on matches played by MANY players here, which I think carries more weight than up2ng's personal experiences. Most strong pente players recognize the powerful advantage that player 1 has; most top players consider the advantage to be just about insurmountable.
It is definitely a step backwards to take the position that "the player 1 advantage IS NOT as prominent as many folks have been preaching." A game cannot survive if the top players all leave the game after a period of time out of frustration and boredom. Among the top level players who have decided to quit or dramatically reduce their pente time are: Scott Justice, Dmitri Krasnonosov, Gary Barnes, and myself. Any number of other near top level players might have quit for that reason--being frustrated by the player 1 advantage.
It is undeniable that player 1 has an extra stone on the board. This is one of very few games with that feature. To deny the huge advantage that comes with having an extra stone seems to defy logic. All it takes is 3 stones in pente to make an unstoppable attack, but two stones cannot form an attack. Thus, player 2 is constantly playing catch-up. He cannot make his own 3 stone threat uless it also interferes with player 1's 3 stone threat. That is almost impossible to do now that most opening defenses have been solved. (Note- Othello is NOT a legitimate comparison, because in othello, the game does not end with someone making a specified formation such a 5 in a row. It ends when the board is filled (for the most part), thus there is no reason to think that going firat is any better than going second, despite the extra stone.
Following up on my previous paragraph, I do believe that most to pente players consider most defenses to have been solevd for player 1; that is, whatever player 2 does, player 1 can draw from memory or experience the known winning move without having to analyze the position. We don't even tihnk when we make our moves as player 1, we just do, because we already know what the winners are. games between top players now amount to each player taking turns with bizarre moves until player 1 makes a careless blunder. When this happens, it is not often a win by player 2 because he came up with a strong defenbse, but rather, because player 1 had a momentary lapse in judgment. I can think of one, maybe two defenses that have merit that have been created in the last year, and player 1 was quickly able to adapt and "solve" those as well.
If I do not accept a game invite right away, it means I will once I have fewer games in progress.
