Talk:TwixT

How to improve Start Class assessment?

What can be done to improve this article? There are very few references about this game to cite, and those that have been published offer little in the way of useful additional information, although they might be more approachable for general readers. Should I publish a book on Twixt and then cite that? Most of the information provided is a result of personal experience.

Besides the citation issue, what actual information about Twixt is lacking here? One might even argue that the tutorial on how to play extends beyond the purview of an encyclopedia, although I'm grateful that it has been allowed to remain.

A detailed critique on the writing style exhibited on the article page, and how it might better conform to the standards expected of a Wikipedia article, would be welcome. Thanks for your time. --Twixter (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest radically cutting down the page. The detailed discussion of specific strategems is really inappropriate for a Wikipedia article about a game, and I say this as a big Twixt fan. This article should be about a third of its current length, or less. — crism (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that strategy is inappropriate for wikipedia. There are plenty of high-quality pages which include strategy information (Chess#Strategy and tactics (FA), Go (game)#Tactics (FA), Stratego#Strategy (B)). --Quantum7 18:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The game play notation is never explained. I'm not sure that the game play should be in the article at all, but if it is included, it should be explained. From context, I'm guessing that the *-notation means to add a connection, and ** means to add two? Or something like that? 69.247.154.15 (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As a reader with no prior exposure to TwixT, I actually thought the article was pretty clear. I probably would have rated it a C class page. It meets the 'substantial' content criterion, and I don't see any major holes. It is weak on references regarding the rules and strategy, but is adequately referenced for the historical information. To bring it up to B standards would take a bit of work:

• Original research in Basic Patterns. Unfortunately, but the section is very helpful to a beginner TwixT player, so I would hate to see it cut entirely. Can we take you up on your offer to publish a book, Twixter?
• The Sample Game section doesn't really fit on the main TwixT article. There are some sample games on wikipedia for other games (eg List of chess games), but they seem to be either notable for the game itself or else used to illustrate specific strategies. Maybe if there were a TwixT Strategy article the sample game could be moved there, but as of now there's not enough content to justify two pages, IMO.
• As 69.247.154.15 suggests, the notation could be mentioned briefly. It was obvious to me, but I've read a lot of chess games.
• The 'Where to Play' section should be combined with External Links.
• Significantly more references regarding rules and strategy

--Quantum7 18:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

variants

Rather than risk deletion from the main Twixt page, I place some info on variants here.

Twixt Variants

Perhaps the most popular variant is called Twixt PP where PP means paper and pencil. The rules are almost identical to standard Twixt. The only difference is with regard to link removal. When you play with paper and pencil, links are never removed (no erasure necessary,) but your own links are allowed to cross each other. This means, for example, that a winning path might loop across itself. Crossed links are not inherently connected to each other. In other words, the object is still to form a sequence of pegs of your color, each directly linked to the next, which connects your border rows.

In terms of game outcome, for the vast majority of games, this rules change makes no difference. On the Little Golem turn-based server, thousands of games have been played, all using the PP ruleset. Of those, only a handful, less than 0.1%, can be pointed to as reasonably clear examples of games that probably would have ended differently under standard rules. Most of those are games which would have been a draw under standard rules instead of a win for one side. But one game almost certainly would have been a win for one side instead of the other. Here is a contrived example on a smaller board:

Under PP rules, black to move has an easy win with F9, linking to both E11 and H8. But under standard rules, black would have to first remove the F8/G10 link in order to place F9/H8, and that would allow white to then play at E9, double linking to D11 and G8. White is also threatening to play either i9, which is a triple link, or H10, which is unstoppably connected to the bottom. There is no way for black to effectively block all these threats.

Some players might argue that PP rules are cleaner than standard rules. For one thing, the incidence of draws is reduced. But draws are already quite rare under standard rules, my personal preference. I believe the extra complications that result from link removal add depth and beauty to the game. In the Randolph series of puzzles, link removal is an essential part of several of those puzzles, and they would not be particularly interesting or challenging positions under PP rules.

Row handicapping is another variant which offers a way for players of different strengths to both enjoy a challenging game together. The simplest handicap is to eliminate the pie rule. Beyond that, one dimension of the grid is reduced. The weaker player moves first and also has less distance to cross. On a physical board, this might be implemented with two extra pieces of neutral color which look nothing like pegs but which fit in the holes. These are placed in the two new corners of the board, which are out of play, to indicate the new location of one of the weaker player's border rows. Six rows plus move might be a reasonable handicap between an experienced player and a beginner. The idea is to find a handicap where each player wins about half the time. Of course there is no pie rule for any handicap game.

On the main article page, someone modified the last sentence above to:

Of course there is no pie rule for any handicap game, silly.

I changed it back. For one thing, personal opinion is not appropriate. Also, I have seen intelligent people deliberately make a weak first move in a handicap game because they did not comprehend the implications of having no swap rule. Calling them silly does not help them learn. --Twixter (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Different size grids from the standard 24x24 could be regarded as variants. The 12x12 board shown here leads to a very short game. It might be useful for development of computer programs which play the game, but between humans it is not very interesting. Even on the 24x24 grid, tactical considerations tend to predominate. The opening phase is over quickly, and the rest of the game is spent attempting to tactically justify the plan which you are now stuck with. By comparison, Hex, which has a very similar game object, may have more monotonous tactics, but strategical considerations are much more important. In this sense, Hex is more like Go than Twixt is, since a single move is generally less committal, and mistakes may not be punished as quickly. In my opinion, a larger grid for Twixt would result in greater balance between tactics and strategy. Since most commercial sets use boards which are made from four "quadrants" which either clip together or are hinged, a 36x36 grid could be cobbled together from three sets of the same size. In Europe, there briefly appeared a Twixt knock-off called "Imuri" which used a 30x30 grid. The board had no holes, and lines were drawn to indicate where the links could be placed. But the manufacturing quality was not so great; for example, link paths were drawn at each corner between adjacent border rows (A2 to C1 etc.) This edition was removed from shelves after Mr. Randolph threatened suit.--Twixter 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am indebted to Mark Thompson for the variant Diagonal Twixt. This has the same rules as standard Twixt, but the border lines no longer run parallel to the square grid of holes. Mark's idea was for border lines which run at a 45 degree angle to the grid. You can see an image of such a board at the link given. Scroll to the bottom of the page. My version has the border lines running parallel to link paths. These variants result in many different tactical patterns. They feel like completely new games in this respect.--Twixter 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pie rule

The text currently says

This "one-move equalization" was added by Randolph after 3M published his game. It is present in the Schmidt Spiele edition and all later editions.

It is my understanding that Randolph had a pie rule from the beginning, but 3M omitted the rule. I have no cite.  Randall Bart   Talk  00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I used to think so as well, but Klaus Hussmanns told me that he and other players suggested the pie rule to Randolph after the 3M edition came out. --Twixter (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sample game

This has clearly been copy-pasted by someone from their personal website, and clearly doesn't belong here. I don't even edit wikipedia but even I can tell that having some random guy's e-mail address on a wikipedia page is totally inappropriate. I was tempted to delete the whole lot but I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings (or look like I'm vandalising). At most have a link in the external links section at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.55.215 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well no, this was never on my website, but you have a valid point. I appreciate you did not delete it. I reproduce the sample game here on the Talk page, where I originally put it. Someone else moved it to the Article page. I also return the images to a readable size, and I update my email.

Here is an 18x18 game played on the K2z real time server. The actual moves of the game are in boldface, and variations are in plain text.

1.G3 Black has the option at this point to swap sides, but decides not to. 2.H8 This and the following two moves are straightforward attempts to block the opponent's previous peg. 3.L9 4.L11 Now white has no easy way to block L11. He must play the whole board, and try to find a move which makes as many threats as possible, or blocks as many of the opponent's threats as possible, depending on how you look at it. 5.F10

The point of F10 is that it makes two threats to reach the top, either straight up with something like D5, or through the center with J10*. The assumptions behind this plan are that F10 has a good chance of reaching the bottom border row, and L9 has a good chance of reaching the top. 6.G6*

Black tries to block both threats in one move. Now getting past G6 on the left looks very unlikely for white. At the same time, black threatens to cut straight across the top with L6, or through the center with i10*. 7.N10*

White played on the left side with F10, then black responded along the top with G6*, and now white plays on the right side with N10*. Such a clockwise (or counterclockwise) sequence of moves is called "windmilling" and seems to crop up often in the opening phase, especially on the standard 24x24 grid. Black might continue the windmill at this point with M13* or L15, but instead chooses to attack along the top. 8.M5

White now has a couple of tempting choices which lose. 9.M6 might be called a coign hammer attack, which sometimes works, but not here. 10.L7* 11.L8* 12.K9** and black wins.

Instead of 9.M6, a much more subtle losing move is 9.K7*.

White threatens M6* so black has to play 10.K4* and then white has the clever idea 11.F5*

E7* or H6* is white's double threat here. But black has a surprising resource: 12.F9*!

Now after 13.H6* 14.M13*

M13 cannot be prevented from reaching the right side, and on the left, black can use the threat of connecting to the H8 group. Here are three possible variations:

15.J10* 16.H13 17.H11** 18.F14* 19.Q13 20.P15 21.P16 22.O17* 23.Q14* 24.Q16* black wins,

or 15.D9* 16.G11* 17.G12* 18.E5* 19.i11* 20.i8 21.H9* 22.G9* 23.D4* 24.C4* 25.J8* 26.J6** 27.F7 trying to draw 28.J7 black must not remove his i8/J6 link yet 29.L5* now black can play at i5, remove the i8/J6 link, and add the chain of three links H8/J7/i5/K4. The notation for this is 30.i5-i8/J6+H8/J7/i5/K4 black wins.

Another variation is 15.i11 16.J12* 17.D9* 18.H13* 19.G12** 20.F14* 21.B14 22.D14 23.D15* 24.E16** 25.C12* 26.C17* black wins.

So 9.K7* Loses for white. But white did not play 9.K7*, he played 9.K6

What should the outcome of this position be? Let's do the battle on the bottom half first. If black can win across the bottom, there will be no need to bother with the top. What follows is a variation, though, not what black actually played.

10.K13* does not work because white has 11.O12*, for example 12.O16 13.L15

White connects to the bottom easily. Instead of 10.K13* black has 10.L15 11.J10* 12.G14 13.i14 14.J14* 15.E14 16.H13* 17.E12* 18.J9*!

J9 threatens i11** and at the same time supports black's attack across the top. Continuing this variation, 19.H11** 20.J4 21.J3 22.L5* 23.i5** 24.K7**

Black wins. It looks like 10.L15 would have won for black.

Returning to the game: 10.J4 11.J3 12.L5* 13.i5**

It's still not too late for black to win with 14.L15, but instead:

14.K9* This hands the win over to white.

15.J8** 16.M14 17.H9** 18.G14 19.J14 20.H12* 21.K12*

Black resigned.

Questions or comments about the variations seen here, can be directed to a help email, located at twixtfanatic@gmail.com