500 point giveaway!

[blankoblanco]

Exactly, that's the example John made that I was thinking of. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misapplying it. But it made complete sense to me here since you really are just fighting for every last move at this point. I believe the move he made instead on 32 was a bit of a waste since it was there for him later, and if you took that space before him it created another move (I think -- this is from memory, not looking at the board anymore)

And wow, in my very non-expert opinion you've played this game against Chair-Man beautifully Daniel. Perfectly used his unbalanced edge against him to sort of get 2 extra moves on 33 and 34 since he can't take that right corner without getting destroyed. He appears to be pretty stuck now

[JohnGalt2341]

Yeah that all pretty much lines up with my thinking, thanks for another insightful answer

So the issue I've had with aggressively attacking that center triangle early is it will often get flipped around on me a bit later. I'm not sure if I need to be focusing harder on preventing this (and I'm not even necessarily sure the best way to prevent it). Like in the game I posted Frank ended up still getting some good inside pieces so I feel like I must have gone wrong somewhere

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are asking but I'll give you my thoughts on the centerpiece. I've discussed strategy a little with some very experienced Reversi players that were new to Hexversi and I've had some of them ask me about the importance of the centerpiece. I've had at least a couple of players ask me "Is the best strategy to just have as many of your pieces touching the centerpiece as possible?" I tell them that I don't focus on the centerpiece much. I focus more on the nucleus of the pieces on the board which may or may not be exactly where the centerpiece is. Often times it will be, but in other situations there will be action only on one side of the board in which case the centerpiece is no longer in the middle of the game. I could tell neither player believed me as they continued to make their argument.

Late in the game it's often very beneficial to have your pieces touching that centerpiece because you can create a lot of good moves with it but... I wouldn't focus too much on the centerpiece early on. Focus more on the nucleus of the pieces on the board. And your primary focus should always be to maximize the number of options you have while trying to minimize your opponents options. The centerpiece is something that I rarely think about until late in most games. And even then... most of the time I'm not thinking about it much. Although, I will admit in most close games I would rather have more pieces in those centerpiece positions than not but it's not always going to help you. In post 182 and 190 I had 5 out of the 6 centerpiece positions fairly late in the game and I still lost. So... my advice is to not focus on the centerpiece too much. Just try to keep your pieces inside of your opponents, this should maximize the number of moves that you have. And if you can do this while keeping a smaller number of pieces than your opponent you are usually better off.

I just looked in on your game vs Frank. You're playing great. Move 9 wasn't particularly good but I did like move 10. That was a smart aggressive play that took out those Greens that were surrounded by your Purple's. Moves 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16(that's where the game is now) were played beautifully. This is some pretty high level play right here. And look at the Upper Side... it's easy to see who outplayed who here because not only did Purple get 2 spots vs 1 for Green... but the the empty spot in the middle is only available to Purple. Same situation as the example I gave in post 214. Well done! I'm really looking forward to seeing you guys play some of the tougher players.

[JohnGalt2341]

Let me know if all the questions are annoying but I have another one! It's about Daniel's game against Chair-Man, move 32 from both sides. I would have done exactly what Daniel did, taking the unbalanced edge, because it's a move for us that takes away a move from Chair-Man

So two-part question for John: do you agree with that, and if so, wasn't it a mistake that Chair-Man didn't take that edge himself?

Don't be shy to ask as many questions as you wish. I enjoy it. And I think it's helping me become a better player as well because I have to actually explain why I play the way that I do... and it's very challenging. And because of Covid-19 I have much more free time than usual so... if there was ever a time for me to teach people how to play this game well... now is a perfect time. And you and Daniel are proving to be great students of this game which makes it that much more enjoyable for me.

Move 32 for Green(CM), he should have most definitely taken that side. He would have had an unbalanced edge but it would have been an Unbalanced 6 which means it can only be attacked from one angle because all 6 of those pieces would have been his. These are the types of unbalanced edges that aren't nearly as bad. In most situations I will take these because they are difficult to exploit. As long as all 6 pieces(the 3 touching the edge and the 3 inside of those pieces) are yours it means that the edge can only be exploited from 1 angle. And usually... when you have an Unbalanced 6 it means you got 2 free moves in the process. I think Green could have won this game had he played that correctly. Now he's got no chance.

Daniel played 32 beautifully for precisely the reason you said... AND, what makes it even better is... he could have balanced out that edge on his very next move if he chose to do so(I would have). It didn't matter much though because Purple had many ways to victory after Green chose not to take the edge/side on move 32.

[JohnGalt2341]

Exactly, that's the example John made that I was thinking of. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misapplying it. But it made complete sense to me here since you really are just fighting for every last move at this point. I believe the move he made instead on 32 was a bit of a waste since it was there for him later, and if you took that space before him it created another move (I think -- this is from memory, not looking at the board anymore)

And wow, in my very non-expert opinion you've played this game against Chair-Man beautifully Daniel. Perfectly used his unbalanced edge against him to sort of get 2 extra moves on 33 and 34 since he can't take that right corner without getting destroyed. He appears to be pretty stuck now

Spot on. On move 32 Green has an open unbalanced edge... these aren't nearly as bad. All he has to do is wait for Purple to move in that open spot first and then Green can immediately balance out that edge. But he chose to turn it in to a closed unbalanced edge and Daniel capitalized on it immediately.

Just 3 moves back I think Green could have won this game. And now Daniel is going to destroy him. I've won lots of close games similar to this one. I was being outplayed and my opponent made a subtle mistake late in the game and I capitalized. My games vs Toptal and a few others... often come down to this in quite a few of our games. Learning how to play the sides well is paramount to improving your endgame. And there's not a lot of players on IYT that play the sides well in every game. Nearly all of them make at least 1 mistake on a side in most games. If you can use their mistake to your advantage you should be able to win most of your games.

[Daniel Espinosa]

I managed to win both of my matches! Now I'm currently playing Bruno. He seems tougher and I think I already made a couple mistakes.

[JohnGalt2341]

I managed to win both of my matches! Now I'm currently playing Bruno. He seems tougher and I think I already made a couple mistakes.

Nice work! Bruno is a good player with lots of experience. His style is different than mine but he's still very good. He makes a lot of mistakes on the sides so... it's easy to force him into bad positions.

He's really outplaying you in this one though... he beat you early on so... it's pretty hard to take advantage of his poor side play now because it's already too late. He's got an unbalanced edge but it's an unbalanced 6... which is not so bad especially in a game like this because it will be impossible for you to exploit it. Purple should get the tapout(you have nowhere to move) after Green's move on 18.

Moves I think you should have played differently include: 11(this one was pretty bad, you could have gotten 5 potential moves out of that move alone), 14(could have been 2 potential moves), 15(could have been 3 potential moves).

Other than that you played well... but he also played really well. Move #11 really cost you the game. Up until that point it was still pretty close and it was getting to the part of the game that he normally plays poorly. I think Bruno is the type of player that you might be able to beat after you get a few more games under your belt.

Congrats on your first 2 Ladder wins anyhow... you beat 2 pretty good players. Just having a positive Win/Loss record in the Ladder already with so little experience is impressive. And I suspect you guys will continue to get better.

[blankoblanco]

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are asking but I'll give you my thoughts on the centerpiece. I've discussed strategy a little with some very experienced Reversi players that were new to Hexversi and I've had some of them ask me about the importance of the centerpiece. I've had at least a couple of players ask me "Is the best strategy to just have as many of your pieces touching the centerpiece as possible?" I tell them that I don't focus on the centerpiece much. I focus more on the nucleus of the pieces on the board which may or may not be exactly where the centerpiece is. Often times it will be, but in other situations there will be action only on one side of the board in which case the centerpiece is no longer in the middle of the game. I could tell neither player believed me as they continued to make their argument.

Late in the game it's often very beneficial to have your pieces touching that centerpiece because you can create a lot of good moves with it but... I wouldn't focus too much on the centerpiece early on. Focus more on the nucleus of the pieces on the board. And your primary focus should always be to maximize the number of options you have while trying to minimize your opponents options. The centerpiece is something that I rarely think about until late in most games. And even then... most of the time I'm not thinking about it much. Although, I will admit in most close games I would rather have more pieces in those centerpiece positions than not but it's not always going to help you. In post 182 and 190 I had 5 out of the 6 centerpiece positions fairly late in the game and I still lost. So... my advice is to not focus on the centerpiece too much. Just try to keep your pieces inside of your opponents, this should maximize the number of moves that you have. And if you can do this while keeping a smaller number of pieces than your opponent you are usually better off.

I just looked in on your game vs Frank. You're playing great. Move 9 wasn't particularly good but I did like move 10. That was a smart aggressive play that took out those Greens that were surrounded by your Purple's. Moves 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16(that's where the game is now) were played beautifully. This is some pretty high level play right here. And look at the Upper Side... it's easy to see who outplayed who here because not only did Purple get 2 spots vs 1 for Green... but the the empty spot in the middle is only available to Purple. Same situation as the example I gave in post 214. Well done! I'm really looking forward to seeing you guys play some of the tougher players.

What you said about the center makes a lot of sense, thanks again

Looking back at move 9 in the game vs Frank, yeah I really have no idea why I did that, I see a better move right away. Also funnily enough, since move 16 I've felt pretty lost as to what to do. Just haven't been able to find any moves that felt "right" to me, and I honestly had no idea who was winning overall (though I did know the upper side was good for me)

Lucky for me he screwed up bad on move 25 (exactly what I wanted him to do, tunnel visioning on the left side corner and not noticing the upper left, just can't believe it worked)

[Daniel Espinosa]

I told you, I was just clicking buttons in the early game. Am I doomed already? That was quick haha

[JohnGalt2341]

I told you, I was just clicking buttons in the early game. Am I doomed already? That was quick haha

I was just looking at Bruno's stats. He has a lot more Hexversi experience than I thought he did. More than me even. No shame in losing to Mr. Bruno.

Below are his Ladder stats:

Hexversi

1021 (78%)

292 (22%)

3 (0%)

1316

That's a pretty good record. Especially considering most of his losses are against the top players.

Regular games:

Hexversi

537 (85%)

92 (15%)

3 (0%)

632

Tournament:

Hexversi

80 (65%)

43 (35%)

1 (1%)

124

[blankoblanco]

I told you, I was just clicking buttons in the early game. Am I doomed already? That was quick haha

That being said, you're sparring with (and mostly beating) the top half of the ladder already! It took the #5 guy to stop you! That's really impressive. Seems like you have a lot of natural instinct and talent for this kind of thing

It's kinda funny, I feel like you and John have more in common with your ability to approach this game compared to me. I think I have less natural ability/instinct than you guys. My tendency is to want to try to map out all the possibilities to the point where I screw up or out-think myself and inevitably make a costly mistake

It's probably similar to chess in a way. A perfect machine can calculate so many moves ahead that it can make seemingly unintuitive, winning moves that make little sense to human players. But since people can't possibly make those calculations, the real early and mid game is largely about just knowing how to put your pieces in good positions that allow you to have better attacks later. I've watched Magnus Carlsen stream turbo chess, and he just intuitively knows the good spots for his pieces, almost instantly

[Daniel Espinosa]

Impressive stats indeed. Are those available to members only? I can only find general stats, not for a specific game. Would you mind sharing yours btw?

Blanko you should probably challenge chair-man and/or butterbean when you get a chance. I think they didnt understand the unbalanced edge concept and you should beat them.

I see this is a very abstract game. I am good with numbers, but not so much with abstract things. If John didnt tell me the unbalanced edges concept I would have never found it by myself (Im probably good at that too, learning things from others). I see it kinda like postflop in poker. Preflop is easier to calculate things, more of a math game, and I have always felt very comfortable with that. But in postflop, especially back in the day, you needed a lot of "intuition and imagination", which I always lacked of.

[JohnGalt2341]

That being said, you're sparring with (and mostly beating) the top half of the ladder already! It took the #5 guy to stop you! That's really impressive. Seems like you have a lot of natural instinct and talent for this kind of thing

It's kinda funny, I feel like you and John have more in common with your ability to approach this game compared to me. I think I have less natural ability/instinct than you guys. My tendency is to want to try to map out all the possibilities to the point where I screw up or out-think myself and inevitably make a costly mistake

It's probably similar to chess in a way. A perfect machine can calculate so many moves ahead that it can make seemingly unintuitive, winning moves that make little sense to human players. But since people can't possibly make those calculations, the real early and mid game is largely about just knowing how to put your pieces in good positions that allow you to have better attacks later. I've watched Magnus Carlsen stream turbo chess, and he just intuitively knows the good spots for his pieces, almost instantly

I should mention that the Ladder rankings are far from perfect. But generally the top 10 are better than the bottom 10. Below is how I would rank the top 5 players in the Ladder.

1. Holden2341
2. Toptal
3. Ryan
4. aragon
5. This could be a lot of different players here including Bruno. But I think the top 4 is exactly right.

I think you guys might be able to compete with just about anyone outside of my top 4 even now... and certainly with just about anyone outside of the top 10. You might not win them all.. but I definitely like your chances against many of these players because of their mediocre side-play. The majority of the players in the Ladder are vulnerable to unbalanced edges in nearly every single game.

What you said in bold is very similar to what my nephew(Eddie) has told me in the past. In fact, I'm playing him in round 2 of the tourney right now and he just mentioned how he always overthinks his moves and second guesses himself. The good news is... he's a really good player and his instincts are usually right. I think you've got good instincts as well... and they are definitely getting better as seen in your recent games.


I used to play a decent amount of Chess in my younger years. I would say your comparison is a good one. But in Chess I was always thinking ahead... in Hexversi I almost never do. I never played much speed Chess but I don't think I would have been very good at it... especially against good players. Whereas... in Hexversi I think I could play all my moves in 10 seconds or less and barely notice a difference between my play. And that's generally how I play anyway. I think it's because in Hexversi at any given time you will have a handful of choices to choose from and most of them aren't necessarily great so I eliminate them from my choices rather quickly so... I'm usually just choosing between 2 or 3 options and it makes it a lot easier. Whereas in Chess... I would always be planning some massive attack and thinking about what my opponent is going to do as well. Thinking about what my opponent is going to do in Hexversi is something that I don't worry about too much. At least not more than 1 or 2 moves... and most of the time I'm not thinking about what they are going to do at all... especially in the first part of the game. I mostly just try to play soundly and wait for my opponent to make a mistake... and they usually do.

I have a ton of respect for top Chess players like Magnus. These guys are really brilliant. I have a feeling guys like Magnus could learn Hexversi and probably be able to beat me in a very short period of time. It would be fun to find out that's for sure.

[blankoblanco]

I don't think I would have figured out the unbalanced edges idea myself either, or at least it would have taken me a long time

John, it's super interesting to me that you don't have to think ahead that much when you play Hexversi. To me it seems like such a complicated (and abstract as Daniel said) game sometimes, trying to factor in what certain pieces getting flipped means for other moves. I feel like I'm always on the verge of making a huge mistake. And yet you just effortlessly see all the moves and are the best player on the site. Dare I say the Magnus Carlsen of Hexversi

John's ladder record (Wins/Losses/Ties of course):

Hexversi

688 (96%)

26 (4%)

2 (0%)

716

Ridiculous!

[JohnGalt2341]

Impressive stats indeed. Are those available to members only? I can only find general stats, not for a specific game. Would you mind sharing yours btw?

Blanko you should probably challenge chair-man and/or butterbean when you get a chance. I think they didnt understand the unbalanced edge concept and you should beat them.

I see this is a very abstract game. I am good with numbers, but not so much with abstract things. If John didnt tell me the unbalanced edges concept I would have never found it by myself (Im probably good at that too, learning things from others). I see it kinda like postflop in poker. Preflop is easier to calculate things, more of a math game, and I have always felt very comfortable with that. But in postflop, especially back in the day, you needed a lot of "intuition and imagination", which I always lacked of.

Anyone can look at all the stats. Just go to the Ladder and click on a person's name and then click on "view regular user profile" and then scroll down to Regular, Tournament, or Ladder games. You can click on any of them and then scroll down and click on the individual games. From here, you can even review their games if you want to. Some players hide their stats but most do not.

Below are my Hexversi stats:
Regular games:

Hexversi

279 (94%)

19 (6%)

0 (0%)

298

Tournament:

Hexversi

353 (97%)

11 (3%)

0 (0%)

364

Ladder:

Hexversi

688 (96%)

26 (4%)

2 (0%)

716

3 of my Ladder losses were timeouts so... I don't really count those. Lately I've been wondering if I'm better now than what I used to be. When I review some of my old games it feels like I am... just barely... but it's hard to tell for sure. I decided to look at my Ladder stats by year to see what the evidence shows. This is what I found:

2007 17-0
2008 93-3-1
2009 39-3
2010 11-1
2011 20-0
2012 113-1
2013 83-5
2014 110-1
2015 85-3
2016 5-0
2017 0-0
2018 18-0
2019 71-6-1
2020 25-0


I should mention that players like Toptal weren't in the Ladder until 2018. There have a been a lot of other good players that have come and gone though.

[JohnGalt2341]

I don't think I would have figured out the unbalanced edges idea myself either, or at least it would have taken me a long time

John, it's super interesting to me that you don't have to think ahead that much when you play Hexversi. To me it seems like such a complicated (and abstract as Daniel said) game sometimes, trying to factor in what certain pieces getting flipped means for other moves. I feel like I'm always on the verge of making a huge mistake. And yet you just effortlessly see all the moves and are the best player on the site. Dare I say the Magnus Carlsen of Hexversi

John's ladder record (Wins/Losses/Ties of course):

Hexversi

688 (96%)

26 (4%)

2 (0%)

716

Ridiculous!

Yeah, it's a difficult thing to explain. But somehow I can tell what is a good position and what is not. And positioning is pretty much all I think about. I can tell other players such as Toptal and FGYTPeti have similar instincts as I do. Both are very experienced regular Reversi players. I think the instinct kicks in after a while once you have enough games.

I appreciate the Magnus comparison... but I'm pretty sure I'm not worthy. Magnus is the best among millions of players. And Chess is terribly more complex... at least in my mind it is. There have been only a few hundred people or so that have ever even played Hexversi. I think the World Champion Othello players would likely stomp me.

I often get the feeling like... "the things I'm doing are pretty simple here... it's only a matter of time until everyone else figures it out..". But so far... not many have.

[blankoblanco]

Speaking of the comparison to chess, just a little thing I was wondering about. In chess it's well established that white wins slightly more than black and is considered to have an advantage. Do you think the same thing exists in hexversi, either theoretically or based on something you've observed in your own games?

[JohnGalt2341]

Speaking of the comparison to chess, just a little thing I was wondering about. In chess it's well established that white wins slightly more than black and is considered to have an advantage. Do you think the same thing exists in hexversi, either theoretically or based on something you've observed in your own games?

I definitely prefer to be Purple(go second). It's hard to tell that just judging from my losses because they are about equal. But if you consider my losses in my regular games 68% of them was when I was Green. However in the Ladder only 43% are Green. So, that would appear that it's pretty equal. However in my regular games I played about an equal number of both Purple and Green. We often played matches of 2 so it was one game of each color. However, in the Ladder you only play 1 game at a time with a person and you are in complete control of you invite to play. But you have no control of who gets to invite you to play. If you are constantly choosing tougher opponents you will likely have more losses when you are Purple because your strength of schedule is much stronger than what would happen by chance. However, when players are inviting you, you may end up playing a very weak opponent. Therefore it would be natural to have less losses as Green because your schedule isn't as tough. I almost always choose the toughest opponent on the ladder available and if there is none I am happy with I just wait until there is. I think this is why I have more losses as Purple in the ladder. In tournaments it's about equal. We'll see what happens in the rest of this tournament.

Overall I would bet that the stats are probably pretty close to even for most players... but I think the strongest players would prefer to be Purple(go second). I like Purple mostly because the openings are easier for me but another thing to consider is if the entire board fills up and nobody has to skip a turn.... Purple will get the last move of the game because he went second. That could be enough to win the game.

[JohnGalt2341]

25 Point Hexversi Challenge.

What's the best move for Green? There's 2 really good moves here so... just try to pick the one that I chose.

[blankoblanco]

I'd take 6. Takes away purple's move on the left side (granted, that move isn't a problem for us). But now his only moves will be to right of 6 or in 7, both of which give us top right corner, meaning we'll also get top left corner

[JohnGalt2341]

25 Point Bonus question... what was the final score?

[blankoblanco]

I definitely prefer to be Purple(go second). It's hard to tell that just judging from my losses because they are about equal. But if you consider my losses in my regular games 68% of them was when I was Green. However in the Ladder only 43% are Green. So, that would appear that it's pretty equal. However in my regular games I played about an equal number of both Purple and Green. We often played matches of 2 so it was one game of each color. However, in the Ladder you only play 1 game at a time with a person and you are in complete control of you invite to play. But you have no control of who gets to invite you to play. If you are constantly choosing tougher opponents you will likely have more losses when you are Purple because your strength of schedule is much stronger than what would happen by chance. However, when players are inviting you, you may end up playing a very weak opponent. Therefore it would be natural to have less losses as Green because your schedule isn't as tough. I almost always choose the toughest opponent on the ladder available and if there is none I am happy with I just wait until there is. I think this is why I have more losses as Purple in the ladder. In tournaments it's about equal. We'll see what happens in the rest of this tournament.

Overall I would bet that the stats are probably pretty close to even for most players... but I think the strongest players would prefer to be Purple(go second). I like Purple mostly because the openings are easier for me but another thing to consider is if the entire board fills up and nobody has to skip a turn.... Purple will get the last move of the game because he went second. That could be enough to win the game.

Very interesting. I had a hunch going 2nd might actually be better in this game, just because it's so reactive and less about "mounting an attack." Didn't think about how it's more often the last move though. Good point about how your sample from each side would be skewed. I'm challenging people I think are closer to my skill level, and nobody's challenged me yet so a bunch of purple so far

[blankoblanco]

25 Point Bonus question... what was the final score?

Oh my, if I'm supposed to be able to figure that out I might be way behind the curve. Way too complicated for me

I have no idea myself. I'll say 90-0* for green even though I have my doubts that that's possible from this position!

Your turn to guess, Daniel!

[blankoblanco]

And just to spice things up I challenged Daniel on ladder for the much anticipated rematch. I don't love my chances but we've both learned plenty since the first time we played, might be interesting

[Daniel Espinosa]

I just noticed, gl!

Final score will say 72-18

[blankoblanco]

GL sir. I'm intimidated, not gonna lie

[JohnGalt2341]

Oh my, if I'm supposed to be able to figure that out I might be way behind the curve. Way too complicated for me

I have no idea myself. I'll say 90-0* for green even though I have my doubts that that's possible from this position!

Your turn to guess, Daniel!

I just noticed, gl!

Final score will say 72-18

Yeah, it's virtually impossible to figure out an exact score from most positions unless it's really late in the game. I was just throwing it out there as a Lottery type pick. I've never beaten anyone 90-0 to my knowledge. That's nearly impossible to do in most games as well. I have gotten in the 80's quite a few times though. This is also really hard to do... but it's fun when you can make it happen I think my best win was 85-0, or something pretty close to that. In most games my goal is to try to break 60. I figure if I can do that... I'm probably covering the spread.

Btw, the final in the game in post 263 was 73-17. Daniel was close. If you guys should ever want to look at one of the games I posted in this thread I can tell you what game it was and you can review it from my IYT stats page. The game above was against a very good player by the name of derricksdad. It ended on 9-29-12 which can be found on my Ladder wins stats page.

[JohnGalt2341]

And just to spice things up I challenged Daniel on ladder for the much anticipated rematch. I don't love my chances but we've both learned plenty since the first time we played, might be interesting

I just noticed, gl!

Final score will say 72-18

GL sir. I'm intimidated, not gonna lie

I'm looking forward to this one. Two promising new players in what should be an excellent rematch. Let's see if I can set the line for this one.

blankoblanco playing Purple
Ladder record 2-0 Ranked #19
Head to head record 0-1
Moneyline -135
Spread -9.5

DanielEspinosa playing Green
Ladder record 2-0 Ranked #9
Head to head record 1-0
Moneyline +115
Spread +9.5

My analysis:
Both players already understand more about unbalanced edges than many players will ever learn. blanko has looked great in his last 3 games. Daniel stomped his 2 prior aggressive opponents but he's struggling with a much less aggressive style in Bruno. I expect blanko to play more like Bruno than Daniel's other 2 opponents in this game. And although I think there is a very good chance that this game could be decided late in the game, I'm going to predict that blanko outplays Daniel early and midway through and he'll be able to pick up the first corner of the game and that should be enough to glide him to victory.

My prediction:
blanko 50
Daniel 40

[blankoblanco]

Can I bet on Daniel?

[JohnGalt2341]

Can I bet on Daniel?

I have a question for both you and Daniel... if you were to set the line... what would you set it at?

[Daniel Espinosa]

Well if I keep playing the same way Im playing against Bruno, Daniel +200 seems about right

[JohnGalt2341]

Well if I keep playing the same way Im playing against Bruno, Daniel +200 seems about right

[JohnGalt2341]

25 Point Hexversi challenge

What's the best move for Green?

[blankoblanco]

Must be 3, no?

And to elaborate, I'm pretty sure we'll get both corners if we take 4 here as well, but 3 takes away a move from our opponent whereas 4 doesn't and can be saved. Is that essentially the reason 3 is better? Or is it more about how many pieces we'll get?

[blankoblanco]

I have a question for both you and Daniel... if you were to set the line... what would you set it at?

It's really hard to say. I mean, the only time I've played someone as good as Daniel was... against Daniel, and we know how that went! He arguably deserves to be the favorite based on that. But of course our understandings of the game have developed. Calling it a coinflip is probably reasonable though

[JohnGalt2341]

Must be 3, no?

Bravo! Here's a 25 point bonus question either one of you can answer. There is a very specific reason that #3 is the best move. It's an incredibly important aspect of the game that even very good players often overlook. So... try to name the reason I am looking for.