I have a question to the strong expert Reversi players:

is there a significant advantage for black because of the first move? Would it make sense to award the win to white if the number of white and black stones is equal at the end of the game?

According to WZebra, the strongest freeware program, which has analyzed thousands of top-level matches for its opening book, correct play should give a draw. So there is no particular reason to award the win to either side in case of a draw. Many players, however, like to play white in games against opponents of the same level, since this can give a parity advantage in the endgame if black doesn't get a better position in the opening.

This could mean that it's more fair to draw the game in case of an equal number of stones, than to give the win to either white or black. The latter might in fact increase the asymmetry of winning chances.

This is unpleasant, because there's no natural and straightforward way to avoid draws.

Maybe one could use a kind of pie-rule: One player sets up an arbitrary position on the board at the beginning of the game, and also names a side (white or black) who wins in case of equal number of stones. Then the other player has the choice to play white or black. More general, the first player could even set a kind of komi value (always a non-whole number) which is added to the stone number of white at the end.

This rule should work well in practice, because the first player has to set up the starting position in a way that the game is complex enough not to be analyzed completely, so that the second player could choose the winning side, thus yielding an interesting game, and also in a way that the winning chances are equal, from the view of imperfect playing humans.

I think that in some Japanese tournaments it is almost like that: One player decides who wins in case of an equal number of stones and the other player can choose to play white or black. As far as I know this rule has never been adopted by European reversi communities.

Choosing the position would make it more an offline analysis game where you would set up a trap, see for example the preceeding thread and the game Beck_Vs_Vu.

Glad to see my article is getting some views. =)

Please leave me some feedback on some of it - and explore the site some more.

The point you make is very valid, you could well set up traps for your opponent to fall into. but that is part of the fun of any game and it is already an offline analysis game.

I think its impossible to improve your game by only playing. As Ben Seeley pointed out in one of his articles weaker players are weaker because they try to make use of weaker patterns and a stronger player is familiar with those patterns being ineffective and looks for stronger patterns (confused)

In short you cant improve without someone or something (i.e. a programme) pointing out your mistakes. otherwise you will continue to play those weaker patterns and wonder why your not winning =)

So the top players do already take the time to analyse positions and openings in an effort to catch out or trap their opponent. Its already a fundemental part of the game.

Finally i dont think that the game me and Amy (FU) played was really a trap as such… as the parity switch only lead to a -1 position and didnt result in a win for Amy. though if it is a trap - i did fall into it =)