Slither - Was this created by . . .

Am reading different posts about this game
and it seems like people are frustrated by difficulty in formulating
a strategy!
I read the rules and am deciding whether or not
to play this game.

Slither was created by Corey Clark.

For what it's worth, it is simple and (or because) it offers a beautiful solution to the diagonal cross-cut problem. But affinity would depend on a player's preferences. I've played 75 games here and lost 50 of them. I concluded lack of affinity must be the reason. I left it at that, others might find it an extra stimulus to try to master the game.

scottygr8, I recommend that you give it a try on a 9x9 board first. Once you get familiar with the basic tactics, explore various strategies on a 13x13 board.

I myself was initially intrigued by Slither's simple rule set and the tension throughout a game. I later marveled at a great diversity of playing styles in championship games, which is probably a manifestation of the depth of this elegant game.

Give it a try! I get the impression there is very little known strategy out there, so you'll be in the same position as many other players.

Although I'm not particularly good at the connection games Slither is definitely my favourite and probably the one I'm least bad at.

The strategy is evolving, so it's difficult to formulate.

At this point:
http://littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=1451829&nmove=34
the grid strategy was just discovered and the grid step was 3-1.
Today it seems that players favor 2-1 grids.

I wonder though if a Voronoi game with connection winning rule would be a good practice for Slither strategy.

[game;id:1451829;move:34;title:WTF!??!?!]

It is a clever cool game with simple rules and non-obvious strategy. It is well worth trying.

[game;id:1557223;move:26;title:Example of 2-1 pattern]

The idea of this is simple, when you'll need a stone somewhere, you'll have this stone since you put stones everywhere at the begining.

Moreover, when you'll want to move a stone, you won't have any problems of forbidden's connection since you put your stones in a good patern.

There are other ways of course to start, maybe better, probably better.
But I'm sure this one is not bad.

I think my friend 5466 prefers the "lines" at the begining :P
(lines in the same way as the sides he has to link of course, just see example of Fatphil)

Thank you for joining in, Florian.

> when you’ll want to move a stone, you won’t have any problems of forbidden’s connection

This is my problem with the 2-1 grid though: a stone can't be dropped anywhere without moving something nearby. I dislike this so much that in this championship I'm experimenting with a hybrid grid (3-1 along one direction, 2-1 along the other).

Yep, with 2-1 grid you have to move and play at the same place, but i think it's not a problem.

But of course you can mix some different paterns.
3-1 and 2-1 is probably a good idea, you can also add some lines somewhere.

The thing is, a 2-1 grid can be easily changed in "lines", it is also why I like it.

Interesting.

This gives me an idea for yet another little connection game with the Slither restriction

Rules:

1. Same goal as Slither.

2. Played on an even-sized square board with the following set-up:

bc. . o . . . . x . . . . o . .
. . . x . . . . o . . . . x
x . . . . o . . . . x . . .
. . o . . . . x . . . . o .
. . . . x . . . . o . . . .
. x . . . . o . . . . x . .
. . . o . . . . x . . . . o
o . . . . x . . . . o . . .
. . x . . . . o . . . . x .
. . . . o . . . . x . . . .
. o . . . . x . . . . o . .
. . . x . . . . o . . . . x
x . . . . o . . . . x . . .
. . o . . . . x . . . . o .

(x = Black; o = White)

3. Starting with Black, players take turns placing one or two stones of their own color on empty points of the board. On his first turn, Black can only place one stone.

4. At the end of a turn, there must be no diagonal-only connections on the board (same as Slither).

Draws are not possible.