Having 3x3 forbidden for both sides doesn't do much to negate the p1 advantage (except for making the game more complicated and potentially longer, so it's a slight help) Perfect 5 helps on the p1 advantage in some cases. Without being either an expert or a ninuki renju player, my guess is that while it is a fairer game than pente unless one has reached a mastery level of pente the added complexity outweighs the fairness advantage, so I wouldn't particularly recommend playing ninuki to most stone games players. I think their are simpler alternatives that offer similar increases in the level of fairness. I would recommend ninuki to renju players and to pente masters and to the curious (though I think without computer assisted illegal moves it would be challenging for many players). So I think the progression would likely be something like pente and/or tournament gomoku, then renju and/or d-pente and/or ninuki. Yes, I know up2ng will be upset because I didn't mention pente in sets. But I didn't mention poof pente in there either. It's a large (and growing) world of variants and ninuki certainly has a place in it, but I don't think it will ever become either a pente/gomoku or renju substitute. It adds too much complexity for too little return. Again, just my two cents. Having said all that, I think it would be fun to play (with computerized illegal moves; I don't really want to learn it THAT much otherwise).
P.S- it could well serve as a transitional bridge between master level players of pente and master level players of renju. In that case, I'm all for it, as I think that it would improve the level of play, which is something that I am all for, despite what it would no doubt do to my rating. Message was edited by: watsu at Jun 17, 2006 5:10 PM
Message was edited by: watsu at Jun 17, 2006 5:11 PM
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: Ninuki at PBeM
Posted:
Jul 30, 2006, 4:18 AM
Indeed, this is a very interesting game. Of all the ancient stone games I have heard of, it appears to have the closest resemblance to the modern game of Pente. After reviewing the rules again, it is clear why the creator of Pente simplified the rules so dramatically -- the complexity of Ninuki-Renju would not appeal to the masses.
Although I have no practical experience with Ninuki-Renju, I have played a lot of Pente and I have a few thoughts:
First of all, it appears to be a great stone game, so one day I would love to see it added to the list of available games which can be played here at Dweebo's Stone Games!
Now, I don't think this was nosovs's intention, but in the past there have been many discussions about pushing for a CHANGE in the rules of Pente to make it more fair. First of all, the rules of Pente cannot be changed -- they are what they are. But, these discussions are really more about agreeing on a new ruleset under which official Pente tournaments would be played. For example, most of the "big" Pente tournaments have not played by the rules of Pente for decades. They are played using Pro-Pente rules, which was deemed to be a "varient" of Pente for expert Pente players. Personally, I don't believe Ninuki-Renju can be considered to be a Pente "varient" in the same way that Pro-Pente is -- even though it is conceptually similar, there are just too many differences in the rulesets. However, that doesn't mean that Ninuki-Renju isn't a great game on its own -- as I said earlier, it would be great to see Ninuki-Renju added to DSG and eventually have Ninuki-Renju tournaments, etc. Just don't get carried away into thinking this could be a "replacement" for Pente. They are two seperate games.
I wish I had some experience playing Ninuki-Renju against strong players so I could comment about the "fairness" of the ruleset based on experience. For now, it is not even clear to me that it is any more fair than Pro-Pente rules. At first glance, it seems like it should be, but I don't have a good enough understanding of Ninuki-Renju to know for sure.
When I reviewed the rules, most of it was familiar since I had heard of the game before, but a few things surprised me:
First of all, Pbem allows a choice of grid sizes from 13x13 to 21x21. I am curious about the official size, if any, of Ninuki-Renju. It appears to me the grid size choice is something added by Pbem, but I could be wrong -- perhaps in ancient Ninuki-Renju it was common to play by various grid size restrictions... For Pente, the official size is 19x19 and playing with another size grid is no longer Pente -- at best it is a Pente "varient".
Next, I was not aware that Ninuki-Renju had opening rules. It was surprising to see that the opening rules were actually MORE IN FAVOR OF PLAYER 1 THAN PRO-PENTE! In fact, Player 1 had the same restriction, but Player 2 has a significant restriction -- the first move may ONLY be L9 or L10! In my opinion, this is a flaw.
It is unclear from the posted rules if both Player 1 AND Player 2 must form a perfect 5. If so, this rule is flawed for two reasons. First, rules about move restrictions should make the game more "fair" by making it harder for Player 1 to win. Secondly, it makes no sense at all to allow a 5-in-a-row by Player 2 to be destroyed by Player 1's next move -- Player 1's next move is an EXTRA move! For example, if Player 2 forms a 5 on move 20, Player 1's response would occur on move 21 -- how is that fair?? Player 1 was allowed to play one more move than Player 2 to extend the game. The reverse situation makes more sense -- if Player 1 makes a 5 on move 20, Player 2 gets a chance to respond on move 20. Think about a basketball freethrow shooting contest. It is a race to 10 made shots. If Player 1's 20th attempt scores his 10th basket and Player 2 has made 9 baskets, shouldn't he get a "chance to tie" with his 20th shot? But, you can see in this analogy that the reverse makes no sense. Anyway, I'm not sold on the concept of having a "chance to respond" in a stone game anyway. To me, it would be a lot like allowing Black to attempt to achieve a checkmate in chess on the move immediately following being checkmated to achieve a tie -- it's a silly technicality which takes focus away from the object of the game and adversely affects strategy accordingly.
"Neither player is allowed to form a double-three, unless...": This surprises me also. I was pretty sure this restriction was only for Player 1 -- otherwise, what is the point? Perhaps I keep thinking of Renju, which I have tried a few times. To restrict both players in this way does nothing to improve its fairness and seems to add complexity for no reason.
"Forming a double three while blocking or capturing a four or unperfect five is forbidden if there are other allowed defenses.": Again, this rule is surprising. If you look at the two examples given, this rule seems to screw the defending player -- the opposite of what you want to do when creating a rule to create more fairness. In addition, the fact that this restriction appears to apply to both players is also surprising -- what is the purpose of this rule?
"An "overline" (six or more stones in a row) does not win and remains neutral": I'm not a big fan of this rule in any stone game, but the surprising thing here (again) is that it appears to apply to both players. Why??
From this simple analysis, even though I do not have practical experience with this game, I conclude that the Ninuki-Renju ruleset is flawed and overly complex for no apparent reason, and that Pente (Pro-Pente) is not only a better game, but is actually more fair.
Posts:
205
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Moscow,Russia
Age:
56 Home page
Re: Ninuki at PBeM
Posted:
Aug 5, 2006, 8:38 AM
Of course I don't mean that Ninuki is possible to play. First player also win with that rule too. It was proved in Japan around 1930-1935 years. The rules which up2ng look strange is traditional because this game was part of Renju. 1. In Renju there are vertical and diagonal second moves only, and 5x5 zone is zone of Renju opennings for third move, so Ninuki play instead traditional way in Renju far from this zone. 2. Overline is normal rule because this game is Five in a row, so really you need to create five stones line , not six or more. 3. Perfect five - I think it is good idea, not used at new rules, because second players sometimes able to capture five, (and really he have to has last chance because he was played second), but it is just idea for creation new Pente Rules - BALANCED RULES
