Talk:Connect6

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References[edit]

The page only has one reference, "On optimistic methods for concurrency control", which seems unrelated to the content of the page. The information doesn't seem incorrect per se, but it would be great to have specific claims attributed to specific references. mmKALLL (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game-tree complexity[edit]

The statement

Now, let us investigate the game tree complexity. Assume that the averaged game length is still 30, the same as the estimation for Gomoku (Allis 1994). . . . Thus the game-tree complexity is . . . much higher than that for Gomoku.

in the Complexity section doesn't seem justified. Why would the average game length be the same? You're putting roughly twice as many stones on the board then. Perhaps the total number of stones played being the same would be a reasonable assumption instead (this isn't certain, of course). Note that this assumption produces a game-tree complexity of the same order of magnitude as that for Gomoku. I'll add a statement to this effect. kfgauss (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy[edit]

How many people have played this game? I have a bit and I've quickly concluded that a defensive strategy is very good. If someone constantly blocks the opponent's stones from forming any traps (3 way wins) and further more even blocking 3 stones in a row, you can wait for an opponent to make a mistake and win with your own trap. This makes the game very fast or easy since it is not very hard to block 3 in-a-row stones, and thus preventing any 3 way traps. And if you never make a mistake (not so hard since in the beginning there are very few stones), the game should continue to be fairly simple. If both players utilize this tactic, the game is likely to be a draw. Also, I think it is strategic to start in the very center as you have the most space to expand, as the edge of the board limits the possiblity of traps and thus winning. If anyone can refute this argument it would be highly appreciated since this makes the game not as enjoyable as it once was; since if a fair game means always a draw, there is no point in playing it, especially in a simple game like connect 6. Chess is a different matter since it is so complex even from the start and I haven't found a winning strategy for it... yet. 70.111.224.85 14:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lattice configuration (placing of stones in diagonals creating open space and a triangle/diamond pattern) plays well offensively and may fair well against a defensive strategy. Perhaps it comes down to who moves first and what strategy they use. More testing needs to be done. For now it seems pretty fair. Someone about to be in a three way trap can avoid it by forcing the opponent to block a two way (4 stones in a row or in some combination to have two ways to win) to delay the loss for a little while and perhaps win with the stones they placed. It seems as if a defensive strategy is better in closed positions(where there aren't a lot places to place stones in the main structure), while an offensive strategy uses open positions and works better in them because of the abundance of combinations for a win. 70.111.224.85 20:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Observe games played by the top players on littlegolem.net, and you will see that they do not have such a strategy. --70.111.244.69 23:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity[edit]

Does it make sense that the game-tree complexity is less than the state-space complexity? shouldn't at least be equal? 70.111.251.203 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most states will have around two thirds of the board occupied by stones. Since there are 361 spots, this means that 120 moves will be required to produce such a state. But each game only lasts for 30 moves, so most of the states are not reachable. 128.252.121.2 21:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Info[edit]

Someone add in the information from the official Connect6 site, and that it is in the computer olympiad this year in Torino. 70.111.251.203 22:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search[edit]

Is there some way to improve the search for Connect6? Such as including "connect 6" and the like included in the association with this page. Even when I search "Connect6" it is the 10th result down. 70.111.251.203 14:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drawish[edit]

From playing the game, if both players have some experience and use a defensive strategy, it seems as if the game is drawish, leading to long games that basically fill up the edges of the board. Any more information/research out there? 70.111.251.203 14:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draw games are actually quite rare from what I have observed at littlegolem.net.

Roku-moku[edit]

I have seen some books that they call this game roku-moku. --zzo38(<font color=#7799FF face=Wingdings>[[User_talk:Zzo38|*]]</font>)[[User:Zzo38/sand|?]] 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Who first invented the game? The idea of the game and a lot of discussions have been seen on bbs.tsinghua.edu.cn around 1999, and also on bbs.mit.edu (who is now www.mitbbs.com) later that year. A google search on "六子棋 site:tsinghua.edu.cn" shows a lot of results dated back to 1999. These two BBS sites are highly popular among Chinese college and graduate students both domestic and abroad. It's believed that on the order of 10000 students have tried the game since 1999. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Massbless (talk • contribs) 10:38, 22 June 2007.