Posts:
30
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Sao Paulo - Brazil
Age:
38 Home page
Another question for Mark
Posted:
Jul 27, 2000, 1:54 AM
Mark, I've read the PBeM tournament rules and you've written:
Opening rules: Even though some of us had discussed alternate opening rules for a tournament, the server crash prevented us from implementing or testing any new rules in time for this year's tournament, so the standard opening rules as found in the help file apply. (The first move is in the center K10, and player one's second move must not be within 2 of K10.)
The question is: Which are those New Rules?
Can we discuss them here too?
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
260
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Maryland
Age:
53 Home page
Re: Another question for Mark
Posted:
Jul 27, 2000, 9:11 AM
>Which are those New Rules? >Can we discuss them here too? Sure we can discuss them here!
This question was also discussed in the 80s in US Pente Assoc. newsletters. Keryo Pente was developed to be a more balanced game than Pente. In the final round of the 1999 PBEM Pente tournament we can see that player one has a significant advantage I think p1 won 80% of those games. So the regular tournament rule is not enough to balance the game. Here are some options to add to the opening in an attempt to make the game more even.
1. Possible opening move restrictions a. First stone must be to the center. b. Second stone must be adjacent to the center (on the 3x3 square around center). c. Second stone must be within or on 5x5 square around the center d. Third stone must be on or outside of 7x7 square e. Third stone must be on or outside of 9x9 square. f. Third stone must be on or INSIDE of 7x7 square (or 5x5, or 9x9).
(1 a and d are the current rules.) The reason for b, c, and f are for swapping.
2. Swapping a. The second player has the right to swap sides after the third stone is played.
b. The first player may swap after the fourth stone is played, then P1 (either original P1 or the new one) places a stone. Then P2 has the option to swap (even if he was P1 and swapped after 4.)
Note: It is necessary to include 1b, 1c, or 1f along with swapping or P2 can swindle P1: If 2a is used, P1 plays to center, P2 plays to a corner! Then no matter where P1 places the third stone, P2 will swap and have a great advantage. For example, even if P1 places the third in another corner, P2 swaps. Now as P1, ignoring the two corner stones, he will be able to play the third stone (really the fifth) with NO restrictions!
If 2b, P1 places the third stone in the corner, then swaps after any 4th move. Now as P2, he can choose either side after the 5th stone. It will be difficult for the other player to place a 4th and 5th stone so as to make an even position.
3. Placing openings a. Player one places the first three stones of the game. b. Player one places the first 5.
In either of these, the second player has the option to swap after the placement.
4. Black's Choice from Renju For the fifth stone placing, P1 must present TWO possibilities and P2 gets to choose which one is placed.
5. Size of the board the 15x15 board makes it more difficult for the first player to win, I believe.
When putting some of these together, you have to be careful not to eliminate all of the traditional openings and/or greatly change the game. Here are a few possible sets of rules:
I. 1a, 1b, 2a. The possibility of swapping after the third stone forces P1 to create an even position. 1b does eliminate some openings such as R3U1 or R4U1 for the second stone.
II. 1a, 1e. Makes it a little tougher for p1, but eliminates most traditional openings.
III. 3b. A nice way to ensure an even position but some people will probably place goofball openings with stones scattered all over the board. Allows a great variety of openings, but maybe too much.
IV. 1a 1b 3a Almost like Renju, a structured and fair opening.
V. 1a 1c 1f(9x9) 2b. I like this idea, allows reasonable variety in openings while keeping it fair.
I will select a combination and modify the Pente opening rules creating a new (test) game and have people try it to see if it works.
What is everyone's opinion of these? I may try V first.
Mark
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Re: Another question for Mark
Posted:
Jul 27, 2000, 8:14 PM
1. Possible opening move restrictions a. First stone must be to the center. b. Second stone must be adjacent to the center (on the 3x3 square around center).
By second stone here, do you mean the second player's first move or the first player's second move? It makes a big difference.
I have always thought that Pente needs only one small rule change to be balanced--allow for the possibility of a draw. That is, when White makes a winning move (either a five-in-a-row or a fifth capture), Black has one move remaining to equal that accomplishment. If Black can do so, the game is a draw. This equalizes the game theoretically because now both players have the same number of moves to accomplish the same objective. Also, White must play to gain tempo, just as Black has had to do all along. An even game will no longer give White an automatic win.
True, this rule would only affect closely matched games, but only closely matched games are significantly thrown out of balance by the first-move advantage. Every statistical breakdown I have seen shows that the advantage to going first goes up in proportion to the level of play.
But I'm willing to try other rules changes. My thought, though, is that without some way for Black to draw the game, additional move restrictions will only put off the inevitable solving of the game for White. Remember, the original tournament rule was meant to balance the game, and here we are 20 years later discussing its impending failure.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
260
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Maryland
Age:
53 Home page
Re: Another question for Mark
Posted:
Jul 27, 2000, 8:49 PM
>>b. Second stone must be adjacent to the center (on the 3x3 square around center).
>By second stone here, do you mean the second player's first move or the first player's second move? It makes a big difference.
The second player's first move.
>allow for the possibility of a draw. That is, when White makes a winning move (either a five-in-a-row or a fifth capture), Black has one move remaining to equal that accomplishment.
That is similar to a Ninuki Renju variant in which a five can be captured immediately after it is formed:
A. The first to form a perfect 5 or capture five pairs is the winner.
B.Black starts as in Renju. If a five is made and after that White takes a capture and destroys the five there is no win. This is called an unperfect 5. However the destroying of the unperfect five must be made with the move immediately following the five.
C. The first player (or sometimes both players) is not allowed to form a double-three, unless it is necessary to do so when destroying an unperfect 5.
D. An overline (six or more stones in a row) does not win and remains neutral (the same rule as e above).
E. A rare case occurs when a fifth capture gives the opponent a five. This occurs when one stone is captured away from a 6-in-a-row, thus leaving 5. In this case, the game is draw.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Re: Another question for Mark
Posted:
Jul 27, 2000, 10:07 PM
>allow for the possibility of a draw. That is, when White makes a winning move (either a five-in-a-row or a fifth capture), Black has one move remaining to equal that accomplishment.
That is similar to a Ninuki Renju variant in which a five can be captured immediately after it is formed:
Right, but if we institute all the rules changes from Ninuki Renju, we would no longer be playing pente. Perhaps we should borrow a page from their book, though, by allowing the possibility of a draw as I outlined in my previous message.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
30
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Sao Paulo - Brazil
Age:
38 Home page
Re: Another question for Mark
Posted:
Jul 28, 2000, 10:52 PM
I've asked the question because I was curious about them.
I've been thinking about the options that Mark has described and would like to share with you my thoughts.
First, besides I consider myself a begginer player, I like the current rule.
Anyway I just would like to ask if it would be really necessary to change rules. During tournaments, two games with oposite colors are started for each two players.
The only problem I see is when there are only two players in the final round and there is a tie (each player win a game). In this situation it's necessary either to declare both Winners or restart another round with two new games.
In this situation what happens?
What PBMServ does?
What IYT does?
André
PS: I agree with Joeking and Patrick about to not discuss games in progress!
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
30
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Sao Paulo - Brazil
Age:
38 Home page
Re: Another question for Mark
Posted:
Jul 28, 2000, 10:57 PM
I'm playing at IYT the final round of Pente (13x13) with only two players (against Gary Barnes). I'm not sure I will be able to beat him. In fact, I think I won't.
If I win one game and he wins the other. We will be in this particular situation.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
260
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Maryland
Age:
53 Home page
Re: Another question for Mark
Posted:
Jul 28, 2000, 11:29 PM
>two players in the final round and there is a tie >What PBMServ does? For ties on PBM tourney I use the Berger Coeffiecient : determined by adding, for each game won, the number of wins in that round achieved by the defeated player. If still a tie -- its a tie!
>What IYT does? I believe they keep starting additional rounds until one player wins both games. I think there is a limit to how many more they will start before they declare co-champions.
MM
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Pente is becoming more and more popular because of the net. Lots of new players are learning the game and players who loved the game, but had no one to play, are finding pleanty of action on the net! Pente is not broken, please dont fix it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Re: Pente rule changes
Posted:
Jul 31, 2000, 1:01 AM
Precisely BECAUSE pente is becoming popular again, those of us who want to see the game grow over the long haul must see potential problems now and move to fix them. The current version of Pente DOES give a large inherent advantage to the first player. The strategy of the game must grow with its popularity. What will happen if pente continues to grow? More and more people will play; more and more people will spend the time to get good at the game. That's great, but that also mean that chances are increased that someone will come along and solve the game for player one. Under the current rules, this IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME because theoretically, White should win. Every time. The last time I talked with Rollie Tesh (which was a year or so ago) he thought he already had the answer. This may be why he seems to be staying away from the game. He must, I would think, have caught wind of Pente's resurgence by now.
But I'm not saying these things to kill the game. After all, I started this club as part of a continuing effort to breathe life into the game. Over the long haul, though, this means that the game MUST be evened out theoretically, and we are close now. The tournament rule was a good start--it bought a lot of time for the game. But the time will come soon for a permanent solution to this problem, or Pente will be solved permanently. Personally, I want to see Pente stay as much like the original as possible, but the game must evolve--at least a little--or it will eventually die.
In the meantime, let's just play and have fun, and let's keep discussing/trying out different ways to even the game while preserving its integrity.
Aaron
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
86
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Lake Tawakoni just east of Dallas, Tx.
Age:
56 Home page
Re: Pente and Pool!
Posted:
Aug 1, 2000, 1:12 AM
Ever play a game of Pool? It dosent mater if your playing 8 ball or 9 ball, the player who gets the break is supposed to win IF he dosent make a mistake. Since Pente and Pool can never end in a tie, one side always has the starting advantage. You could make a rule change in Pente and switch the starting advantage to the player who goes second, but it can never start out even. So what, that dosent change the fact that Pool and Pente are both great games! What do you guys think??
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Ever play a game of Pool? It dosent mater if your playing 8 ball or 9 ball, the player who gets the break is supposed to win IF he dosent make a mistake. Since Pente and Pool can never end in a tie, one side always has the starting advantage. You could make a rule change in Pente and switch the starting advantage to the player who goes second, but it can never start out even. So what, that dosent change the fact that Pool and Pente are both great games! What do you guys think??
I think that's a faulty analogy. Pool depends on the action of physical bodies outside, ultimately, of either player's control. If there were a specific set of motions that a pool player could undertake that would assure a winning position every time, if a player could apply the exact same amount of force to the exact same balls at the exact same angles to produce the exact same winning result every game, you might be approaching the kind of advantage that White has or could have at Pente. Even then, though, in pool, some racks are tight, others loose. Simply put, pool is sufficiently randomized to keep the theoretical advantage of player one from busting the game. Pente isn't. Pente is pure strategy; thus, if player one can play a perfect game in theory, someone will figure out how to do it in practice.
This doesn't mean that Pente can't enjoy a resurgence and, eventually, widespread popular appeal. What it DOES mean, though, is that in its current form, Pente will be solved, and at that point it will hold all the appeal of Connect 4 or tic-tac-toe for hard-core strategists. I don't think that's good for the game, because avid players are the ones who get others into the game.
So that's my (more than) two cents on the matter. To me, the question is not whether the game is to change, but when and how it is to change.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
My take on rule changes.
Posted:
Aug 2, 2000, 5:02 AM
I seem to have lost mmammel's post about rule changes (I do all this stuff offline so I can't check it right now), but I did want to offer another perspective on this issue. Both pentejr and jokeing2020 have made valid points about the rule changes.
The current rules are sufficient for the vast majority of pente players -- if there even are enough players to comprise a vast majority. Part of the allure of pente is its simplicity. You can teach someone the game in only a couple minutes, and they will be able to understand the basics in a very short time. I believe that the first-move advantage does not exist for casual players. We simply haven't taken the time to advance our game to a level where it becomes an advantage. Additional complications to the rules would detract from the game's simplicity and some of its appeal.
However, if there is sufficient evidence that the first-move advantage makes victory inevitable (or close to it), then some rule change will be necessary to maintain interest in the game. Although I don't really want to make the game more complicated, I think it would be a serious blow to the game if changes were not considered.
That said, jokeing2020 and I could still play by the old rules if we wanted to, and I think that the current rules would be the best way to teach beginners. Pente (like many things) can be enjoyed at many levels, and we need to make sure that all levels are considered in approaching this issue.
Enough babbling; I'm off to play some pente...
--Patrick
p.s. Is there any way to post to this group using email? It's a real pain to have to write a post offline and then have to cut and paste it into the yahoo form when I go online. Thanks for any help you can provide.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Posts:
72
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
pensacola
Age:
40 Home page
A few thoughts.
Posted:
Aug 6, 2000, 1:00 AM
I'm glad to join the club. Wish I had more time to play lately, but work seems to keep getting in the way. Here's a few thoughts on some issues y'all been discussing: 1. Pente is a game where the first player wins unless he makes a mistake, even with the tournament rule. You can restrict it some more and make it a sure win for the second player, add a swap option to muddy the water or leave it alone. I agree that part of the appeal of Pente is its simplicity, and that for most players playing over-the-board, the sure win for the person who goes first is far from sure. However, its not too fun playing email tournaments with experts spanning months and knowing all along that you are going to win with white and lose with black. 2. Live pente tournaments are not feasible. The best place for sparking tournament action is on line on dweebo's site. Email tournaments are also fun, but last forever with the inevitable split. Pente is a game meant to be played over-the-board with the clock ticking. 3. Seems like few of the old time Pente experts from the early 80's have found the Pente sites or have little interest in playing the game on-line. Larry Fortune, my brother Bill and I seem to be about the only ones. I wonder why? 4. I hate the Berger Coefficient. ;^). 5. There seems to be few moves left out there that have not been covered with the data bases. The exhaustive listings are neat, but also seem to be another nail in the coffin for the second player. I am finding it difficult to come up with a good continuation for black that has not already been proven to lose, but I will keep trying I guess. Scott
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
Regarding the first-player win, even with tournament rules: If Pente were played on an infinite board and the first player's second move were required to be 1000 units away from his first, wouldn't the second player have a win then?
So here's our data. If we require the first player's second move to be n spaces away from his first move, we have n=2 is a first player win, n=1000 is a second player win. It would seem to follow that for some n between 2 and 1000, there is a place where the game turns from one to the other, i.e. the advantage is minimized.
Unless the contention is that the game suddenly turns from first player win to second player win, without any dubious territory in between, I feel the task of the serious Pente players of the world should be to find that value of N.
This message was originally posted at Yahoo's pente group.
