Game: PÜNCT

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

Don Eskridge — 2008-11-14T20:05:35+00:00

Yeah, I googled VWÖRT. It is a good name though...

I think that removing Tamsk was a good choice with good reasoning, and that removing Punct would be a poor decision based purely on popularity. It's a fantastic, under-rated game, and hopefully Burm will keep it in the set.

Why not make a series of games based on a heptagon next so we'd have seven games? Than an octagon...

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

Geirerik — 2008-11-14T19:36:45+00:00

I love Pünct, but I can't see why it have to be saved. I got it and I will play it, and if it is replaced I will have eight great gipf games.

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

Ambrose — 2008-09-16T00:59:38+00:00

grid wrote:
vintermann wrote:
Noooo! Evil SMART! Don't even THINK of replacing Pünct! The GIPF project needs its brain burner.

I have yet to play Punct (or TAMASK). I have all of the other GIPF games. Is this one really more of a brain burner than the others? If so, I'm running out to get it ASAP! (I admit that I haven't even read the rules yet, but I sort of thought this looked a bit too much like other games out there, and that's why I haven't picked it up yet.)

From what I've read on the GIPF website, I don't think SMART is evil at all. It sounds like they're probably saving the games from a slow death, and I for one hope they will make them popular in a way that they could never have been without some serious (re)marketing.
Go and get it regardless, before copies run out! This one requires awareness of your opponent's plans, a mode of thinking "like your opponent". So in that sense, it is a brain burner, because it requires a different mode of strategy than many other games out there.

That is, btw, why I like the GIPF series so much. Each game is SOOOOO different, and each requires such a different mode of strategic thinking from the other games.

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

grid — 2008-09-15T23:47:35+00:00

vintermann wrote:
Noooo! Evil SMART! Don't even THINK of replacing Pünct! The GIPF project needs its brain burner.

I have yet to play Punct (or TAMASK). I have all of the other GIPF games. Is this one really more of a brain burner than the others? If so, I'm running out to get it ASAP! (I admit that I haven't even read the rules yet, but I sort of thought this looked a bit too much like other games out there, and that's why I haven't picked it up yet.)

From what I've read on the GIPF website, I don't think SMART is evil at all. It sounds like they're probably saving the games from a slow death, and I for one hope they will make them popular in a way that they could never have been without some serious (re)marketing.

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

Skwib — 2008-09-12T18:03:24+00:00

brdparker wrote:
BaSL wrote:
Keep them all. TAMSK, PÜNCT, TZAAR, VWÖRT, CRIYX, all!

Ok, how many of you were seriously as stupid as I was and tried to find VWÖRT and CRIYX in the search bar up top?

Guilty.

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-25T01:05:07+00:00

White will win

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-25T01:01:30+00:00

Close up

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-23T17:22:58+00:00

Near the end (black will win)

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-23T17:18:56+00:00

Close up during the game

Thread: Re: Pie rule?

Ambrose — 2008-06-03T17:52:30+00:00

Wow, this is a great discussion! I wonder why so little thumbs?

waddball, 1 thumb for you for using a Go term!

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

brdparker — 2008-06-03T16:41:23+00:00

BaSL wrote:
Keep them all. TAMSK, PÜNCT, TZAAR, VWÖRT, CRIYX, all!

Ok, how many of you were seriously as stupid as I was and tried to find VWÖRT and CRIYX in the search bar up top?

Thread: Re: Pie rule?

waddball — 2008-06-03T16:16:46+00:00

Phlegm wrote:
I think the Standard game rule about placing pieces in the center is something that is meant to have the game played without the Pie Rule. That combined with the hex shape of the playing area sort of takes away that central great move.
[...reviving thread from the grave....]
Did you mean Basic? You can only place directly into the center in the Basic game. Which is why I've come to the opposite conclusion as you. In the Basic game, black can somewhat offset going second (I doubt a central placement is quite sufficient for a complete offset, but it's better than nothing).

But the Standard game offers nothing for black as compensation. I'm fine with switching sides in normal play, but if I only have time for a single game, I'm going to use the pie rule. Wading through the stats at the online sites is a pain, but white clearly has an advantage. Call it bad play or inexperience, but at my level, it exists. Even if the advantage is analogous to chess (white 53+%, but it appears to be closer to 60% in PUNCT), I'd rather at least try for balance.

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

vintermann — 2008-05-31T15:08:37+00:00

I can understand the art change: That computer-rendered mountain on Gipf looks awfully dated. I had more plausible-looking mountains on my Amiga...

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

Ambrose — 2008-05-30T21:07:29+00:00

domus_ludorum wrote:
Punct should stay part of Gipf.

I could just about accept the reasons for Tamsk to be replaced in the series and would undoubtedly be interested in Tzaar but am just a bit miffed that the box style has changed - I know that this is a little anal but it is supposed to be a set/series. Boo Smart boo.

I agree that the box art should have remained the same.

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

domus_ludorum — 2008-05-30T20:26:25+00:00

Punct should stay part of Gipf.

I could just about accept the reasons for Tamsk to be replaced in the series and would undoubtedly be interested in Tzaar but am just a bit miffed that the box style has changed - I know that this is a little anal but it is supposed to be a set/series. Boo Smart boo.

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

weishaupt — 2008-05-29T18:11:48+00:00

vintermann wrote:
Noooo! Evil SMART! Don't even THINK of replacing Pünct! The GIPF project needs its brain burner. Luckily Burm seems to be on us Pünct-fans' side, but I don't like that they push at all!

Ah, the people at Smart are not evil. They are actually quite friendly...
Their question (which is all it is at the moment) has everything to do with the "perception" of the GIPF Project, and nothing with the idea of keeping the Project down to six games.

Let's backtrack a bit.
The reason TAMSK was taken out of the Project was not because it wasn't a good game, but rather because

1) it didn't quite fit inside with the others.
Most serious players wouldn't play TAMSK in a tournament environment because of tiny differences in sand flow from one hourglass to the next, and also because players could screw things up by rotating the hourglasses too slowly or an a strangle angle. By that token, TAMSK has a major analog component, whereas the other games are strictly digital (on/off).

2) the current presentation of the game scared casual gamers away.
Smart reasoned that TAMSK was a perfect game for casual gamers. It's not a brain burner, and the hourglass "gimmick" makes for a great conversation piece. BUT as part of the Project, TAMSK looked like it was this big complicated thing.

So the plan is to publish TAMSK on its own (probably under a different name) so that it will get played by the people who will actually like the game.
And Kris Burm is in complete agreement with this.

As for PÜNCT... I would be very surprised if it got the boot, because the two reasons outlined above cannot be invoked to replace PÜNCT. I do believe it's the most difficult of the GIPF games (with ZÈRTZ a close second), but I can't imagine that it would get kicked out.

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

dkearns — 2008-05-29T12:20:23+00:00

BaSL wrote:
Keep them all. TAMSK, PÜNCT, TZAAR, VWÖRT, CRIYX, all!

VWÖRT!

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

jens_hoppe — 2008-05-29T09:02:58+00:00

dougadamsau wrote:
jens_hoppe wrote:
I think the whole idea of booting games from the Project Gipf series (because, you know, there has to be precisely six games?!) is silly...
It's all to do with playing with the potentials, isn't it? I enjoy the games as a series of quality standalone abstracts. Six, eight.... bring them on.

Potentials: I suppose you may be right... Still, I also only ever play the games separately, so the limitation doesn't make much sense from my point of view. But if combining the games requires exactly six games, couldn't players beforehand just agree on which six games to use?

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

BaSL — 2008-05-29T06:20:58+00:00

Keep them all. TAMSK, PÜNCT, TZAAR, VWÖRT, CRIYX, all!

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

dougadamsau — 2008-05-29T02:08:18+00:00

jens_hoppe wrote:
I think the whole idea of booting games from the Project Gipf series (because, you know, there has to be precisely six games?!) is silly...
It's all to do with playing with the potentials, isn't it? I enjoy the games as a series of quality standalone abstracts. Six, eight.... bring them on.

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

Ambrose — 2008-05-28T23:11:07+00:00

PÜNCT is probably the most under-rated game out there.

SAVE PÜNCT!!!

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

TheBrainDrainer — 2008-05-28T22:19:13+00:00

I certainly love Punct... I also like Tamsk, but I must admit I can't wait to get my hands on Tzaar...

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

uiek — 2008-05-28T21:54:16+00:00

SMART is a company which is now holding distribution of GIPF Project, and have big rights to the titles. Because of Smart boxes are being redesigned.

www.smart.be

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

jens_hoppe — 2008-05-28T21:19:55+00:00

I think the whole idea of booting games from the Project Gipf series (because, you know, there has to be precisely six games?!) is silly...

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

Drew1365 — 2008-05-28T20:56:28+00:00

I am smart.

Thread: Re: Save Pünct!!!

Windopaene — 2008-05-28T20:47:10+00:00

Quick question.

Who is "SMART"?

{note my "dons tinfoil hat" tag got stripped out }

Thread: Save Pünct!!!

vintermann — 2008-05-28T20:16:07+00:00

After a break of several years, Kris Burm has once again posted to his website.

http://www.gipf.com/editorial.html

It's an interesting read, but what he says about Pünct is alarming! I quote:

So here’s how I look at Project GIPF for the time being: the six games will remain what they are. SMART has already asked a few times if I would be prepared to replace PÜNCT, too. I’m still not prepared to do so, but I may come up with something in the periphery of the Project.

Noooo! Evil SMART! Don't even THINK of replacing Pünct! The GIPF project needs its brain burner. Luckily Burm seems to be on us Pünct-fans' side, but I don't like that they push at all!

Now is the time to say (via BGG rating) how much you love Pünct if you haven't already :-)

Thread: Re: Starting Player Advantage/Disadvantage?

vintermann — 2008-02-11T13:50:09+00:00

For me this mars an otherwise good game. Please tell me I'm missing something!

Well, quake (the top rated player at punct.biskai.de) wins practically all of his games, so it's not as if the challenge is insurmountable :-) As someone else pointed out, 37-ring Zèrtz has a second mover advantage, but it's still an awesome game.

Also, I'm inclined to think the effect you observe is indeed due to poor play. As black, you start off lying a piece behind, but there are many ways to catch up. Block his way so that he has to go through the center, for instance. Center can only be entered with moves (not onboarding), so while he moves there, you gain a piece on him.

Another issue is that it's not just how many pieces you have on the board, it's what they can do. A piece that is locked down is much less useful, especially if it's in a poor position for connection. By locking down two of his pieces with one of yours, you may fall a piece behind, but still win in influence.

Thread: Re: My first review

cradleofmilk — 2007-12-16T15:22:20+00:00

I just got this game, and I can't wait to play it. I love the GIPF games*. PUNCT's sliding maneuver/hopping over pieces to an area beyond seems clunky, but the depth within the game is exciting. I've psuedo-played a learning game by myself, and it was way cool. KB kicks ass.

*TAMSK ain't so great though.

Thread: Re: First Play Report

seppo21 — 2007-10-20T14:00:59+00:00

Dave is basically correct. Assuming no connection, the first player to play his last piece ends the game. Then whoever have the most visible pieces in the center of the board looking from above wins.
It's an interesting victory condition because you can't place a piece directly from your stock into the center area. You can only move a piece from the board into the center area.
Dave is only basically correct if you are playing the standard game, which we were not. We were playing the basic game, which seemed a good place to start for our first game. The rules to the basic game clearly state the game is a draw if there is no connection when the last piece is played. (Those rules also allow you to place pieces in the central hexagon.) I did point out to Will that it was possible to resolve a tie in the standard game but there were some added placement restrictions. Perhaps that is what we will play next time.

I will admit that I felt kind of dirty forcing the game to a draw as Will completely out-played me in the latter half of the game. For the record, I told him he should count it as a victory (despite what the rules say) as I think he deserves it.

One final note: I did get the end-game condition wrong. We played until both players had played their final piece instead of the first player to do so. That means the game would have ended several turns earlier than it actually did.

Thread: Re: First Play Report

Aiken Drum — 2007-10-20T12:04:20+00:00

Thread: Re: First Play Report

willk_1230 — 2007-10-20T05:43:07+00:00

davidmilne wrote:
When all the pieces run out, without either player achieving a connection victory, the player with the most pieces in the central region wins doesn't he?

Beats me. I never read the rules, and I was taught to play it by someone who's never actually played it before. Wouldn't surprised me at all if you're right. Certainly makes more sense than the game just ending in a draw.

Thread: Re: First Play Report

davidmilne — 2007-10-20T03:39:23+00:00

When all the pieces run out, without either player achieving a connection victory, the player with the most pieces in the central region wins doesn't he?

Thread: First Play Report

willk_1230 — 2007-10-19T17:49:51+00:00

I recently made a great new gaming buddy. In addition to being an excellent gamer and a worthy opponent in every game we play, he's got a game collection pushing 400 or more games. This means I get the opportunity to play something new almost every time we get together.

My friend hosts a weekly game night at his home every Monday, but because of the mix of players, the games tend toward the lighter side and usually have to be things that can accomodate 4+ players. Knowing that he has many "deep" or "heavy" games in his collection that he doesn't get to play very often, I invited him over last night and told him to bring anything he'd like to play. I could hear the excitement in his voice on the phone as he replied "Anything??"

When he arrived, he had 1825 and Punct under his arm. I know he's a huge fan of train games, so I was expecting a good heavy-weight train game. Punct, however, was a pleasant surprise. I've seen the Gipf series on his shelf, and although I've never played any of the series, I've heard good things about them and was excited to have the opportunity to play.

Knowing that we needed a good 4 hours for 1825 we played it first (you can read my session report on it under the 1825 session reports if you're interested). We wrapped 1825 up about 11:15pm, but both being avid gamers *and* night owls, we couldn't resist trying Punct before he left.

As it turned out, this was one of his game that he'd never played either, so I wasn't at the disadvantage at which I'd been in 1825. He explained the rules in under 60 seconds. It's that simple. Place a piece or move a piece. Connect two sides. Great! Let's play!

Neither of us had a much of a strategy. We both started near the middle sort of positioning near each other but also stretching toward opposite sides of the board. Then he laid one of his pieces on top of mine. That Punk! (pun intended! ) Game on! After about half the tiles were laid, we were all over each other's pieces, but neither of us were really close to completing a path. Then he informed me, "Oh yeah, if we both play all our tiles, the game ends in a draw." Oh really? Ok, note to self, "Self, don't play all your tiles unless you're losing. Then make sure to play them all!"

Play continued rather uneventfully with each of us maneuvering and capping pieces. Me more aggressively and him more defensively. However, as we both approached our last few pieces, neither of us seemed very close to winning although I probably had a slight advantage with more visible black pieces than his white.

Then, with 2 tiles left, it was like I had an epiphany. I could see it. My winning moves. I was only about 5 moves away from winning! Two turns later, I had my last 2 new pieces on the board and was only 3 well-camoflaged moves away from ending the game. Unfortunately, my opponent's spidey-sense started tingling as he sensed danger was imminent.

Perhaps it was my calmness and the confidence in the way I played those last 2 tiles? Should I have acted more uncertain about where they were going? Was it the seemingly senseless positions in which I played them? They weren't anywhere near the *obvious* place he was expecting me to play. They were way over here with no apparent reason. Regardless, he said "I think I'm in trouble. You're up to something."

Then he saw it. Not the whole plan mind you, but one chink in the chain. He could sense it was important and he place a tile on the board so he could break that link on his next play. He had one tile left. Fortunately, he'd laid his tile where I could trap it like a fox in a snare with one of my non-essential pieces! 2 moves from winning, and he only had one piece left and none on the board that could stop me! Victory was imminent! Sweet, sweet victor... wait a second! How many pieces left?!? Oh no!! I almost cried as he laid his last piece on the board thus ending the game in a draw! "Noooooooo...!!!"

So unfair. I can't believe you can work so hard and be so close and spend a whole half hour on the game only to have it be ended so easily in a draw! Oh well, there's a lesson to be learned here somewhere. Maybe somebody will learn it and tell me what it is.

Great game! I can't wait to try it again!

Thread: Re: Dirty or stained pieces?

BoB3K — 2007-09-28T13:32:00+00:00

Pretty much all of my white pieces have yellow rings in the recessess. Which leads me to assume all the blacks do to and I just can't see them because they're black.

Also, many of my straight pieces are bowed, meaning if i set them on the table, the middle nub rests on the table and the pieces teeters back and forth.

The wobblers, and all the pieces in general don't really fit together very stuggly on the board.

Overall, compared to the other beautifully made GIPF pieces, I say these are double thumbs down.

Thread: Re: Elbow piece bridging corner where there's no space

Jixx — 2007-08-11T03:38:16+00:00

3/ Moving a piece, point 6.
".. both minor dots must remain in play."
Meaning, both must occupy a space.

Thread: The Metagamers >> Episode 10 - The GIPF Series

habermanm — 2007-08-08T19:58:32+00:00

Site: http://www.themetagamers.com/
RSS: http://www.themetagamers.com/rss

In this episode we talk about the GIPF series of abstract games with our special guest Joe Gola. We get into general strategies for each of the games, and discuss issues such as balance and tension as it relates to each game.

As usual, our discussion assumes that you are already familiar with the games, so if you aren't, check them out on here on BGG first. The Abstract Gamer podcast also has nice introductory episodes on YINSH and GIPF.

Jay is off this episode, but look for all three of The Metagamers to return to form in the next one.

Hosts
Jim Cote (ekted)
Mark Haberman (habermanm)
Joe Gola (Gola)

Index
00:00 Intro
00:32 Contest Winner / New Contest
02:52 Unity Games
03:23 GIPF
14:45 TAMSK
21:36 ZERTZ
25:23 DVONN
36:48 YINSH
46:13 PUNCT
57:44 Wrap Up
63:22 Outro

Games Mentioned
Main Segment: GIPF, Abalone, TAMSK, Space Dealer, ZERTZ, Dots and Boxes, Samurai, DVONN, Fjords, YINSH, PUNCT

Image

Aldaron — 2007-07-23T13:58:06+00:00

Close up, after black win.

Thread: Re: Elbow piece bridging corner where there's no space

Aldaron — 2007-07-14T22:52:45+00:00

dbuel wrote:
May an elbow piece be moved, assuming that its punct is correctly placed on one of your own pieces, so that the elbow forms a bridge out over the corner of the board where there is no space on the playfield?
Is there an official anwer to this question?

Image

KSensei — 2007-07-10T23:39:39+00:00

Lots of bridging going on.

Image

KSensei — 2007-07-10T23:39:09+00:00

A white win.

Thread: Re: Starting Player Advantage/Disadvantage?

sbszine — 2007-04-23T01:35:29+00:00

The second winning condition (centre territory) makes komi a possibility, if the game ends up favouring the first move.

Thread: Re: Starting Player Advantage/Disadvantage?

Bryan Rankin — 2007-04-20T14:11:03+00:00

b5mith wrote:
I had a look at the last 483 games played on punkt.biskai.de. As you can see it's a nice even distribution indicating white's win rate could be close to 60%.

Is the starting player assigned randomly? If not, this data is much less meaningful.

Image

oceano — 2007-04-17T17:36:19+00:00

Light wins over Darkness

Thread: Re: Dirty or stained pieces?

sbszine — 2007-04-16T00:06:35+00:00

Same here. Haven't tried cleaning them yet, as I'm afraid the painted spot will be damaged if I do so.

Thread: Re: a portrait of the koala as a...

Brad Oliver — 2007-04-10T21:46:47+00:00

filovirus wrote:
Just a side-note. PUNCT is the fifth (not sixth) game in the GIPF series, even though it was the final game to be completed in the series.

I'd like to see an authoritative statement on this. Going to the official project GIPF web page, I see that originally YINSH was slated to be the last in the series, but when PUNCT was completed, Kris Burm says that he finds it is suitable enough to close out the project instead. I think that's about as definitive as it gets.

Thread: Gipf Club Ohio/Michigan

Raid1280 — 2007-04-06T20:09:30+00:00

Hi, I enjoy the Gipf series very much, the only difficult part is finding opponents. Would anyone be interested in forming a regular Gipf/Abstract Gaming group in the Toledo, OH/Flint, MI area? I am willing to drive to meet folks, I just think it would be great to get a group together and play this great series every now and then.

EH

Image

Ceryon — 2007-01-31T00:22:01+00:00

I am winning

Thread: Re: A sample punct.biskai.de game

Raid1280 — 2007-01-22T21:12:00+00:00

Wow, I had no idea about this being online in this manner! Thanks so much for posting this. I've just signed up and am already in a game of Punct and Yinsh! Great post!

Thread: Re: a portrait of the koala as a...

drunkenKOALA — 2006-12-15T20:21:46+00:00

generalpf wrote:
Great review.

After quite a few games of PÜNCT against many different players, I'd argue against your assertion that stacking is that important. Rather, it seems that your primary concern when placing a piece is keeping paths open to connect. It seems that the first player who has to move a piece rather than place one will forever doing so while the other player continues to place new pieces, mounting an even greater threat. The skill in PÜNCT is to force the other player to be the first to move a piece rather than place a new one. Quite often, the winner is a foregone conclusion once one player starts moving instead of placing.

Well our different experiences just goes to show the depth this game has to offer. I'd say both aspects are important and a good player will need to take both into consideration. Even if you don't end up stacking, the threat to do so may be just as important. I think you need to be making good connections and in the meantime also making good stacking threats. I focused on the latter aspect because for me, it's what really made punct feel different from the other connection games.

Just a side-note. PUNCT is the fifth (not sixth) game in the GIPF series, even though it was the final game to be completed in the series.

Yeah, I knew it was the "fifth" game but I didn't want to get into that cuz it can be kind of confusing. Any one know why Kris Burm decided that this is the fifth game? Does it have more connection to the fourth game (Dvonn) than Yinsh does?

edit:
I guess I can see why Yinsh is more related to gipf than punct is (5 in a row). And punct with dvonn? The stacking I guess.

Thread: Re: a portrait of the koala as a...

filovirus — 2006-12-15T16:26:54+00:00

Punct is a perfect information game played by 2 players. Games last around 30 minutes. It is the sixth and last game of the project gipf series.

Just a side-note. PUNCT is the fifth (not sixth) game in the GIPF series, even though it was the final game to be completed in the series.

Thread: Re: a portrait of the koala as a...

jp26 — 2006-12-15T16:08:38+00:00

generalpf wrote:

Quite often, the winner is a foregone conclusion once one player starts moving instead of placing.

Indeed, I would agree with this, but it is all a matter of having placed your supporting pieces appropriately to both attack and defend when the first jump happens. There is a lot of depth here...

With evenly matched players it is a very interesting game, but hard to balance it out otherwise. I have tried allowing new players to play in the central hexagon, but it only delays the inevitable, it seems!

Thread: Re: a portrait of the koala as a...

generalpf — 2006-12-15T15:05:02+00:00

Great review.

After quite a few games of PÜNCT against many different players, I'd argue against your assertion that stacking is that important. Rather, it seems that your primary concern when placing a piece is keeping paths open to connect. It seems that the first player who has to move a piece rather than place one will forever doing so while the other player continues to place new pieces, mounting an even greater threat. The skill in PÜNCT is to force the other player to be the first to move a piece rather than place a new one. Quite often, the winner is a foregone conclusion once one player starts moving instead of placing.

Thread: a portrait of the koala as a...

drunkenKOALA — 2006-12-15T05:55:05+00:00

...LACONIC REVIEWER
Punct is a perfect information game played by 2 players. Games last around 30 minutes. It is the sixth and last game of the project gipf series.

]]>

...LICENSED LAWYER
Punct is played on a hexagonal board, where the players' objective is to use their pieces to connect any two opposite sides. Each piece is 3 dots in size, with one of the dots being colored and called the "punct" of the piece.

On a player's turn, he can either place or move one of his pieces. When placing a piece, it must lie on the "ground" level (not stacking on any other pieces). It also cannot lie, either partially or completely, within the center area of the board (marked by a darker shade of gray).

When moving a piece, the punct of that piece must move along a straight line on the board, and the piece can rotate freely with its punct as the axis. The punct must land either on the board, or directly on top of another of your own piece (this means that only non-punct dots can cover up opponent pieces). If the piece is on top of other piece/s, all the dots must be resting on the same level (the piece remains horizontal). Furthermore, when stacking on top of other piece/s, none of its dots can be overhanging. That is, unless you form a "bridge", all dots must directly rest on top of another piece.

There is no limit to how many levels there are or which levels you can jump to (any level can jump to any level). A piece that is covered by another piece cannot be moved. When looking for connections, the topmost piece counts for the color in that dot/space.

when one player runs out of pieces to place
Whoever has the most occupied dots in the center area wins.

...AVID GAMER
Compared to other connection games of its sort (hex, gomoku, etc), Punct is not as simple in rules, not as elegant in gameplay, and not quite as deep in strategy. Now, those are not necessarily bad things; all it means is that Punct has a distinct quality that sets it apart from other connection games. Certainly not everyone minds more complicated rules, or care much for the type of "elegance" found in games like Go. And as far as strategy goes, lets just say that unless you are planning on studying this game to death, it has more strategy than you would care to explore in your life time.

Now on to what, in my opinion, single handedly makes this an unique connection game: the stacking. Instead of straight and up front connecting and blocking, pieces can stack on top of each other, thus "killing" the opponent piece it is covering. This is not dissimilar to capturing an opponent piece in chess: my knight captures your pawn, your bishop captures my knight, and lastly my queen captures your bishop to mantain ownership of that space on the board. In Punct, players also strive to perform the last "capture" in a vital area on the board (usually where the two opponents' connections intersect), so that their color/piece will end up on top of the stack. To do so, a player places his pieces such that they can move into stacking positions in the vital area/s. This is akin to moving your chess pieces into positions to attack certain positions on the board. This lends a Chess-like, tactile feel to the game. Note that I am a piss-poor Chess player so take my analogy at its worth.

So if you are looking for a simple and elegant, pure connection game, look elsewhere (read, hex). However, if you are looking for a pseudo connection game with a capturing twist to it (strange thing to look for I'll admit), Punct is very well done. In fact, given its premise, it's about as well as it can possibly be done. For those who dislike traditional connection games, they might find punct to be the best connection game out there, because shortly into the match it morphs from a simple connection game into a very different beast.

...MATH PROFESSOR
placing to set up stacking attacks
Now, as mentioned above, the stacking tactic is important. Try to come out on top in important areas. The pieces that are more useful for stacking are the lines and elbows with the punct at their tips. So use these to stack. Use the other pieces as (potential) foundations for your stacking pieces.

What happens is that you'll usually want to move pieces from the edge to stack on pieces in the middle. So, play the stacking pieces connecting on the side, and have their puncts line up with your (potential) foundation pieces near the middle area, or whatever area that seems important and is being contested. Again, these areas of dispute are usually where the black and white connections intersect.

So, when a player places his pieces, he must try to have it do two things. 1)Form an effective connection in its initial placement. 2)Be lined up to "attack" possible area/s of dispute.

managing your reserve
Try to spread out in your uses of pieces. Try not to run out of a particular type of pieces, especially the useful stacking ones.

the center area
I don't have a convincing explanation for this, but I feel that it's not worth it to occupy the center area. I just try to work my way around on the edge of it. Even though it is a longer connection, it actually takes fewer turns to complete.

player advantage
White, the first player to go, has a distinct advantage. Therefore as black, your goal from the start of the game is to defend and cut white off.

...COFFEE TABLE DECORATOR
I don't own a copy, but judging from my copy of Yinsh and the pictures online, Punct seems to be of decent quality.

...QUIRKY MARSUPIAL
The alternate winning condition when one player empties his reserve definitely feels artifical and lame to me. I would say just keep playing, or provide a larger reserve pool of pieces. But these solutions may have some problems which require some fiddly rules to fix as well. I still think they were cheap for not providing more pieces. By the way, I think they should've also given us more discs in Yinsh, and more rings in Zertz.

Personally, I love the simplicty, elegance and depth of connection games such as Go, hex and gomoku. In fact, hex is my favorite game of all time. However, I also enjoy Punct for what it is, which is to say that I enjoy it for different reasons that I enjoy these other connection games.

Image

BaSL — 2006-11-28T13:06:30+00:00

Inside the box...

Thread: Re: Pie rule?

waddball — 2006-08-22T15:35:46+00:00

Update on the stats from punct.biskai.de. Of 1754 games played:

White: 1012 wins (57.7%)
Black: 737 wins (42.0%)
Draw: 5 times (0.3%)

Chess is a tough comparison as results vary considerably depending on the Elo bracket evaluated (draws increase as Elo rises), but a high-level composite [1] shows something like 37% draws, 37% white, 26% black. A rough guideline that I've often read is that, barring draws, white has a 10% advantage (55-45). I bring this up because chess has succeeded without a pie rule. However, I doubt anyone thinks the disparity is ideal, and I bet that if chess had been invented in the last few years, the scoring or the rules would be different to address this issue.

Personally, we tend to just switch sides, so it's fine as is. I don't play tourneys or in any "official" events, so I'm not terribly concerned with the official stance on this. But if I did, I think I'd want this addressed via switching, pie rule, scoring adjustment, etc.

[1] Stats from http://www.chessgames.com/chessstats.html

Thread: Re: Dirty or stained pieces?

Steve99 — 2006-04-21T13:38:54+00:00

I soaked mine in very hot water and then used scouring powder and was able to scrub about 75% of the stain away.

I'd wait until the first run of 7000 copies is sold if you are two minds whether to buy.

Great game though. Possibly my second favourite in the series after DVONN.

Thread: Re: A sample punct.biskai.de game

Getzen — 2006-03-29T14:58:59+00:00

Very cool and very interesting. I may have to take up this game!

Getzen

Thread: Re: Starting Player Advantage/Disadvantage?

orangeblood — 2006-01-15T05:37:37+00:00

b5mith wrote:
The top ranked player on punkt.diskai.de (Chris Burm maybe?? ) told me the mistake players make when playing as black is they try to play the same way they do as white. White's goal should be to try and connect sides as soon as possible while black should always be doing his best trying to block white in any way possible. If black plays a good game he should be in a position later to threaten with his own connection.
This may be the reason white's advantage appears to be so great.

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say in relating the game to Hex. And I would extend this further: It's possible that black strategy will catch up and start beating white more often, and then white will have to "re-learn" proper strategy.

What do I mean by that? You learn early on in Hex that one of the worst strategies is to try to connect sides as soon as possible. Your attempts are easily blocked by good players, who are then in much better position to win. The two games are similar enough that I'd think the same would be true for Punct.

P.S. The top-ranked player is not Kris. But he's pretty darned good himself. :-)

Thread: Re: Starting Player Advantage/Disadvantage?

b5mith — 2006-01-15T01:28:21+00:00

The top ranked player on punkt.diskai.de (Chris Burm maybe?? ) told me the mistake players make when playing as black is they try to play the same way they do as white. White's goal should be to try and connect sides as soon as possible while black should always be doing his best trying to block white in any way possible. If black plays a good game he should be in a position later to threaten with his own connection.
This may be the reason white's advantage appears to be so great.

Ben