Hi,

I have created a new gomoku-like game, called Pie5, and I have playtested several time. But I'm not good at Gomoku so I would really like to have someone more expert than me testing it. Can someone do it, please?

Thank you in advance.

RULES:

The board is an 8x8x8 hexagonal one (as Havannah).

Black chooses two empty cells (we can mark this with a third colour), and white chooses which one will be black and which one will be white. White do the same: he chooses two empty cells (we can mark this with a fourth colour), and black chooses which one will be black and which one will be white. And so on.

The winner is the first player to get five (or more) stones in a row. If both players get 5 in the same moment, the winner is the player who has chosen the colours, so the looser is the player who has chosen the cells.

this is a good, original idea. i tested it on a chinese checkers board (5x5 havannah board on inner hexagon). it has the same property that connect 6 has: after each turn, black and white have same number of stones on board, which probably means it is fair (no first-move advantage, which makes sense since it's based on the pie-rule). it is probably possible for this game to end in a draw, so the rules should probably be specific about draws. and to avoid draws, i think a larger board would be better, larger even than 8x8x8, i would say.

also, iggc has a 'sandbox' feature which allows testing of games with generic board game equipment.

Hi Plastique,

really really thanks for your reply.

I have tested Pie5 several times in the Sanbox on igGameCenter.com. But, as I said, I'm a bad n-in-a-row player (and also the opponent who tested it with me), so I really would like someone more expert than me to test it.

Anyway, despite the placement mechanism – that I called it 'iterated pie-rule' – is the most balanced, the game ends pretty fast, because it's difficult to block the opponent.

At least, this is what I (a very very weak Gomoku player) have discovered so far. :D

(…) the game ends pretty fast, because it's difficult to block the opponent.

In that case, are you sure it would be too drawish if the lower bound was increased to six in a row?

Hi Tasmanian Devial,

good observation.

I have tried this game with 6-in-a-row goal on both hexagonal and square board.

To me with 6-in-a-row goal the game seems to be drawish, but I can be wrong.

i'm surprised you say the game is over fast because of difficulty blocking. i had that problem in early tests when i wasnt disciplined enough to use a third and fourth colour for proposed moves. things became confused and i was merely replacing *any* of white's or black's pegs with my new ones. are you sure this isn't what you're encountering?

I'm quite sure, because I have tested it several times in the igGC's Sandbox with third and fourth colour. Maybe in the future we could meet each other in the Sandbox to playtest it.

Nice idea.

If it's over too quickly, then you could add an initial phase where each player places a neutral piece that can't in the future be part of a line,

Rule contamination!

FatPhil,

thanks for your appreciation. :)

Your suggestion about an initial phase with neutral pieces probably would solve the problem of fast play, but I prefer simple and organic rules.

Did you try it on a Goban? It seems to me very enjoyable!

Some simple winning patterns, do you agree:

1- unblocked 4

2- 2 one-side blocked 4

3- 1 one-side blocked 4 + two 3

Not sure if and how an unblocked 3 should be defended, it seems blocking one-away is enough?

Hi Carroll. :)

“Did you try it on a Goban? It seems to me very enjoyable! "

Yes, I did. It seems to me (but as I said I'm not good in Gomoku, so I can be easily wrong) that on a square board is too difficult to block the opponent.

“Some simple winning patterns, do you agree […]”

Yes, the are winning patterns. ;)

“Not sure if and how an unblocked 3 should be defended, it seems blocking one-away is enough?”

Yes, I think this is the best solution. So you get an opponent's one-side blocked 4.

If you try Pie5 let me (and us) know, please.