Near the border it is more difficult to form a row of 6, thus it is more attractive to play in the middle. My idea is to equalize this by giving a bonus for playing near the border: a row of 5 stones wins if at least one of its stones is on a border point. Could this work? What do you think?
In my opinion, in order to keep the game competitive, I'd suggest that if the six-in-a-row condition cannot be reached, the player with more five-in-a-row would be the winner.
I honestly don't see what advantage such a rule would bring. Is non-uniformity across the board such a bad thing? Do games really end in ties too often?
For me, while the idea sounds interesting, I doubt that it would really add any value to the game that doesn't already exist.
I'd be curious to try this, especially on a smaller board. It might encourage some crazy play if the first 15-20 moves aren't decisive.
I suspect it wouldn't change the game a whole lot, though. Most edge play would be quickly and easily stifled without support, and the edges don't really come into play very often.
It's hard to say if this rule would actually reduce draws, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't…it doesn't expand the board all that much (think of it like a hybrid 21x21), and the number of Connect6 draws are so few that there may be no reasonable chance to observe.
Honestly, I'm interested in the idea because it would encourage playing far from the center of conflict and put a whole new wrinkle in the game.
Played on a 5x5 board, this idea has an undeniable allure.
In case some weird imbalance crops up on larger boards, one could instead implement a compromise rule and allow edge-contacting wins of five and a half stones.
