Fw: [pbmserv] Five in a row.... with a twist

["David J Bush" <twixt@cstone.net>]

| David, you mention opening protocols and other things.  But don't these
| sometimes have to come after the new game has been played for awhile?  What I
| mean to say, how do the game inventors know that a swap rule needs to be
| enforced?  Or any of the other rules you mention.  The new game needs to be out
| there and played for a long time before we learn that it requires such things. 
| Look at Trax for example, we learned that the 64 by 64 board was too easy(?)
| and now the standard board is unlimited in size.  I think Havanna was changed
| also after a while of being played.  (IIRC) 
 
Trax is sold without board. Trax sets are sold these days with only 63 tiles.
For the vast majority of players, that is probably an ample supply.
 
Once Havannah was marketed, it had the same ruleset it has today, didn't it?
Wayne Schmittberger got one of the rules wrong in his book "New Rules for
Classic Games" but that was his fault, not Christian Freeling's (the game's
inventor.) Mr. Freeling mentions that a grid 10 cells on a side (instead of 8)
would make a better game, but that is arguably not a rules change.
 
It seems we are talking about two different things here, Douglas. Certainly a
game should be playtested, and the rules may need to be adjusted. That's why
game companies hire playtesters. When you play on PBMserv, it costs you nothing.

It looks like Pentago is a ***product for sale.*** Is that right? If I'm going
to pay money for a game, I would expect a finished product. That means it
should have been playtested already. When a game is published with inadequate
rules, this can lead to lots of confusion and arguments over what the correct
rules should be. For example, many people still today dismiss Twixt as
unbalanced, because over 40 years ago 3M ignored Alex Randolph's inclusion of
the swap rule (which he called the pie rule.)

| I agree with Douglas there, who knows if it's needed yet...
| maybe it needs to be...

On such a small board I would be astonished if no equalization is needed.
Otherwise what hope does the 2nd player have, except maybe to draw?
In fact, the advantage of the first move looks so strong here, maybe
one-move equalization would not be enough for a balanced game. Maybe
a more complicated ritual, such as 3-move equalization, would be needed.
For example, if Black moves first, then to start the game Black places
two black stones and one white stone on the board, producing a position
with White to move. The 2nd player then decides which side to play.


| > Does an overline (six in a row) win? If there is no mention of this
| > possibility in the rules, again this would indicate to me that the 
| > inventors
| > did not put a lot of thought into the game.
| >
| 
| well, the board is only 6x6 so I guess it won't be that easy,
| but if you have 6 in a row you also have 5 in a row so that is probably a 
| win...

So, the website does not mention this possibility? There must not be any
Gomoku or Renju players among them. All they had to do was say "at least
five in a row" instead of "five in a row." But if they are ambiguous on
this point, that is further evidence to me that the game was not playtested
or even thought about very much before they tried to market it.

juman's original question, which started this whole thread, was about the
advantage of the first move, and whether the game is balanced or not. I
certainly cannot prove it, but it sure looks unbalanced to me. This might
be a fun diversion for newcomers, but not a very substantive game.


David