Has this been explored before? : Swapping not at the 1st move of 2nd player but at the 2nd move of 2nd player. Would that make the game more interesting?

This isn't a proposal for a change of golem rules. I like them just as they are, just an idea for discussion.

my opinion is that it could become more interesting. swapping at move 3 or 5 is used in some forms of gomoku too

I like that idea. Perhaps an option before the first move would allow an 'auction' of sorts to determine between the players when the swap would occur. The one who outbids the other gets to chose to go first or second. Bids up to the (x) move could be accepted, meaning that in somegames, the swap might give the win to the loser. Come to think of it, perhaps (x) should have some upper limit below 10.

That sounds really complicated. Is there something wrong with the swap rule as it stands? How would this make the game more interesting? Keep in mind many players get confused by the opening protocol set up here for Gomoku.

True, the beauty of hex is its simplicity. And true, it doesn't need much tweaking at all. That said, it can stand some variety. Just as at one point 10x10 boards were sufficient, they no longer seems so. However, even a 8x8 board could be interesting with variations on the swap rule. It would add a new dimension of defense. One might devise a method to prevent the swap, for example.

Someday probably a 14x solution will be found. Imagine that. Just as the swap rule negated the 1st move advantage, variations on it might negate different advantages.

But the game really doesn't NEED any tweaking.

i don't think that it would really make a difference, if someone is strong enough to analyze a 13x13 game down the the first move to determine a win, then i'm sure they could do the same thing with 3 stones on the board…

initialy the game was played without a swapping rule, it was added later because the first player has a big advantage…ofcourse u could say if a player sees a winning way on an empty startgrid, he can figure it out with 1 stone on the board too…then why the swap rule? it gets tougher ofcourse…imagine everyone knowing which moves to swap and know the winning way…then the point of swapping decreases to the point where the game was without swapping. 2 ways to get out of this problem is playing on a bigger board, or swap at a latter stage in the game.

If you are able to find a winning strategy on an empty board, that does not necessarily mean that you are able to see a winning strategy with one stone on the board. With an empty board, it is enough to have a winning strategy for one particular opening (usually the center). In order to find a winning strategy with one (random) stone on the board, you'd have to know the winning strategy for every possible opening.

The same difference applies when going from swapping after one move to swapping after two moves. The games would become more “even”, and probably last longer. However, I believe the swap rule is perfect as it is. If we see a clear tendency for the second player to win, we could rather increase the board size, but for now, no change is necessary.

A special form of swap rule would be “we swap after one player has won”. This means, ofcourse, that the goal of the game is to make your opponent get a path, rather than yourself. I believe this would be more difficult to solve than the ordinary game, and we would see some very long games. :-)

Marius