Proposal for a Variant of Connect6 Gomoku, Connect6

7 replies. Last post: 2008-07-10

Reply to this topic Return to forum

Proposal for a Variant of Connect6
  • Ingo Althofer at 2008-07-09

    Hello everybody,

    so far Connect6 was Terra Incognita for me.

    I tried to collect some information on the website

    www.connect6.org. When reading through the

    FAQs, I stumbled about

    > Q3-1: Will the rule of Connect6 be changed or

    > extended later?

    > Answer: Yes, it is possible to extend some rules.

    > Most current Connect6 professionals play on 19x19

    > Go boards. However, many of them believe that

    > Connect6 is a draw game. After studying in one or

    > two years, we may need to extend the rules. Two

    > proposals are given.

    > \* Simply use 59x59 boards by tiling up 3x3 Go boards.

    > \* When all squares on the board are placed without

    > connecting six, the one who has more fives than

    > the other wins. If the number of fives are still

    > the same, the one who has more fours wins, etc.

    The 59x59 proposal seems very unpractical.

    The second proposal with (a lot of) counting of

    5-strings and 4-strings is anything but elegant.

    Here comes my proposal for a rule change to

    avoid draws:

    Once during a game each player is allowed to

    set only 1 instead of 2 stones. The meaning

    is the following:

    \* If one player gets a chain of 6, he is winner,

    independently of any “single set(s)“.

    \* If the game ends without a chain of 6 (thus a draw

    according to the traditional rules), the move list

    is looked up:

    (a) If none of the players made a single set, the

    outcome is really a draw.

    (b) If only one of the players made a single set,

    he is declared winner.

    (c) If each players made a single set, the one with

    the earlier single set is declared winner.

    In serious games, (a) should not happen.

    So, no more draws.

    Comments, discussion?

    Ingo

  • iec at 2008-07-09

    Could be made from the start that way, that only one 'single set' is allowed.

    It has no sense to make the second one anyway, with your rules :)

  • z at 2008-07-09

    @Ingo: Rule (b) and (c) imply that after one player makes a single set move, there's no incentive for the other player to make a single set move.

  • z at 2008-07-09

    I actually used a similar “single set rule” as a handicap system when I taught C6 in the offline world.

  • z at 2008-07-09

    Basically, the stronger player only wins if he gets a row of six and has made a single set move during the game.

  • Ingo Althofer at 2008-07-10

    @iec and @z:

    Good point(s). (I also realized it when I went to

    bed just after writing the post.)

    iec wrote:

    > … It has no sense to make the second one

    > anyway, with your rules :)

    Here comes a refined way to rate “draws”:

    There is one “single set” allowed for each player.

    When noone gets a chain of 6, and player A made his

    single set at move k and player B his single set at

    move m, than the full point is shared as follows:

    player A gets m/(k+m) points

    player B gets k/(k+m) points.

    So, when your parameter is the smaller one, you

    get more than 0.5 points.

    In case that only one player had used a single set

    he gets the full point in case of “no chain of 6”.

    In case that no player at all used his single set

    the outcome should be 0.5 for each in case of “noco 6”.

    \\\********************************

    Another proposal: With “such” point distribution rules

    (the basic one with only one single set, but also the one

    with fractional values) Connect6 might make sense on

    small boards (especially smaller than 19x19).

    Question: What would be the smallest nice board size?

    Ingo

  • ypercube ★ at 2008-07-10

    Another suggestion:

    - 1. Any time during a game each player is allowed to set 1 instead of 2 stones.

    - 2. If a player has set more single sets than the other, he is the winner.

    - 3a. If they have both set equal number of single sets, the player with the ealier single set is declared winner.

    And alternatively:

    - 3b. If they have both set equal number of single sets, the player with the latest single set is declared winner.

Return to forum

Reply to this topic