Game: GIPF

Image

Bixby — 2008-08-29T01:23:38+00:00

The Whole Collection - Time To Start Our League.

Thread: Re: Ultimate Gipf takes a long time

htjester — 2008-07-02T14:14:03+00:00

J W wrote:
Do you mean each of everything?

No, I said we used four potentials each of Zertz and Yinsh and played blitz versions for the side games. Kris Burm clearly says one can be very flexible about just how many challenges to allow. I figured this was about as fast a game of Ultimate Gipf with unrestricted challenges that one could play.

weishaupt wrote:
The one game of UG I played took about two hours.
We expected it to be longer, but between the limited number of challenges and the fact that potentials left and right before you get a chance to use them, it boiled down to a very resonable game time.

The latter is a good point - we also removed many potentials before there was a chance to use them.

Our game really did take closer to two hours. My point is that using many potentials and unrestricted challenges turns into a marathon. I've played games that take over four *days* so four hours is not a problem for me, but it's not everyone's cup of tea.

Tim K.

Thread: Re: Ultimate Gipf takes a long time

weishaupt — 2008-07-01T14:53:00+00:00

The one game of UG I played took about two hours.
We expected it to be longer, but between the limited number of challenges and the fact that potentials die left and right before you get a chance to use them, it boiled down to a very resonable game time.

Thread: Re: Ultimate Gipf takes a long time

waddball — 2008-07-01T14:18:07+00:00

htjester wrote:
it took over an hour to play everything.
Do you mean each of everything?

A full game of ultimate GIPF, with all potentials involved, would take us at least four hours! I'd be playing this all time if I was as quick as you.

Thread: Re: Ultimate Gipf takes a long time

erak — 2008-07-01T13:31:25+00:00

As I understood it, each player only gets a certain amount of challenges. Granted, I have yet to play Ultimate Gipf...

Thread: Ultimate Gipf takes a long time

htjester — 2008-06-30T23:43:13+00:00

Took my first crack at a version of "Ultimate Gipf" this weekend. Previously my nephew and I played Gipf with each potential individually, just flipping a coin to see if we could use it.

This time, we played with four each of Zertz and Yinsh potentials. I figured it would be the fastest we could play - because to use the Zertz and Yinsh potentials we played side games of "Blitz Zertz" and "Blitz Yinsh".

It was very interesting. I feel we both have a lot to learn to be good Gipf players, and each type of potential has a different effect on strategy. The main thing though is that it was definitely time-consuming. We played about six side games, and it took over an hour to play everything. I don't understand how others say Ultimate Gipf is not that long - with up to fifteen potentials of five types per Kris Burm's recommendation, I believe it becomes a major marathon.

I do expect to try more Ultimate Gipf. I like the idea of restricting the number of potentials and letting each player chose his preference. That way I can load up on Zertz and Dvonn and Karl can load up on Yinsh and Tzaar, the latter being the games at which he has beaten me the most.

But I expect I'll always keep a coin in the Gipf box to make Gipf with potentials more playable.

Tim K.

Thread: Re: A Simple, Pure and Fun Abstract

Ambrose — 2008-06-22T20:58:39+00:00

vintermann wrote:
... or the level at which you can beat GF1

I'm afraid I'm a Mac user, and proud of that fact, so I can't get GF1. Crap is the word... crap.

Thread: Re: Rules Simplification (without even changing them!)

Quizoid — 2008-06-13T22:48:09+00:00

Good point, one does loose instantly if they have no GIPF. Steps one through 5 it is.

Thread: Re: A Simple, Pure and Fun Abstract

Ambrose — 2008-06-09T19:43:44+00:00

One way to make GIPF fun and help broaden your horizon: Think about it as resource management. You must weigh the costs and benefits of, say, pursuing the capture of an opponent's GIPF-piece, and correctly calculate how many turns you can use to attack/defend before you must refill your reserve, gaining a strong position without limiting yourself across other strategic arenas, etc...
Just even trying this way of thinking, regardless of whether you succeed or not, can make GIPF an even more exciting experience! And even if you fail, you will feel yourself getting stronger each time you play.

Oh my... just typing this makes me love GIPF all the more!

Thread: Re: A Simple, Pure and Fun Abstract

Ambrose — 2008-06-09T19:34:19+00:00

eh, I don't play on boiteajeux, but I need to get GF1.

I have strategic principles I can give you in the strategy section soon, but a more formal article will have to wait. GIPF is even more strategically complex than Chess!

Thread: Re: A Simple, Pure and Fun Abstract

vintermann — 2008-06-09T18:18:30+00:00

Ambrose wrote:

Now it is not hard to read ahead in GIPF. It is just a different type of reading which must be digested before the skill comes. Really, once you have spent at least 20 games of GIPF (I've done more), you'll see.

I have played far more than 20 games of GIPF, and I still find it very hard to read ahead by very much. This is in particular in comparison to Go (and Hex, which I'm better at), but I think maybe GIPF is even more opaque than Chess. Although movement is more regular, you move more than one piece at a time...

So, it's easy to you, huh? We want a strategy article as proof! And also proof that you are good, such as your rating on boiteajeux, or the level at which you can beat GF1

Thread: Re: A Simple, Pure and Fun Abstract

MENAREUS2000 — 2008-06-09T16:50:40+00:00

Yes a strategy article would be perfect to prove your point. I for one and hoping you put one together.

Thread: Re: A Simple, Pure and Fun Abstract

Ambrose — 2008-06-09T05:22:54+00:00

MENAREUS2000 wrote:
With so many possibilities to consider each turn, looking too far ahead becomes difficult, if not impossible.

I could say a bad word about this, but being a nice sort of a guy, I won't. Looking ahead/"reading" is part of the depth of the game. Generalized, looking ahead in any game is part of that game's depth.

Now it is not hard to read ahead in GIPF. It is just a different type of reading which must be digested before the skill comes. Really, once you have spent at least 20 games of GIPF (I've done more), you'll see.

hmmmm.... I have to make a strategy article....

Thread: Re: Pronunciation

Ambrose — 2008-05-26T08:34:42+00:00

jayzen wrote:
I've always thought that the "g" wasn't hard, as it didn't seem to fit Kris Burm, the author. It just sounded too awkward and grating on the ears to pronounce it that way. I use the "j" form of "g" like "jipf".

The hard "g" totally fits Kris Burm... he's European. Normally in Europe, almost all of the "g"s are hard.
I think I heard that it is pronounced "gipf" with a hard "g" in an interview with Kris Burm, or a quote by him, or something, on the internet. I'm confident it's hard "g".

Like I said, pronounce them how you feel is the best, not just technically, but also personally.

Thread: Re: Pronunciation

jayzen — 2008-05-25T05:11:05+00:00

I've always thought that the "g" wasn't hard, as it didn't seem to fit Kris Burm, the author. It just sounded too awkward and grating on the ears to pronounce it that way. I use the "j" form of "g" like "jipf".

As for Tzaar, I pronounce it like "czar" with a "ts" in front "tsczar".

For Dvonn, I use "dvohn". It's almost a "de", but not quite.

I agree with Ambrose though. Pronounce them the way you feel it's best to pronounce them.

Thread: JS O Retorno

tiagoaob — 2008-05-13T12:00:02+00:00

Meu irmão retornou de Aracaju, e claro, isso exigia alguns jogos para marcar. Como a Nirvana não estava muito bem, resolvemos jogar alguns jogos mais rápidos com a possibilidade de jogar várias partidas ao invés de apenas 1 que poderia nem terminar.

O primeiro jogo escolhido foi GIPF e resolvemos jogar com relógio, dez minutos para cada um, sem limite para jogadas individuais. O GIPF tem algo interessante, nunca consegui jogá-lo com as regras corretas. Primeiramente eu achava que todas as peças que tocavam a linha fossem retiradas do tabuleiro, depois acertei isso, mas achava que eram necessárias cinco peças para formar uma fileira. Esta primeira partida foi jogada assim.

Foi uma partida relativamente equilibrada, embora devagar, pois fazer uma fileira de cinco no tabuleiro de GIPF é um pouco complicado, eu estava ganhando no tabuleiro, mas o tempo estava contra mim. No final das contas, meu irmão ganhou porque meu tempo acabou.

A dificuldade em fazer as fileiras me deixou com a pulga atrás da orelha e resolvemos confirmar no manual e vimos que eram necessárias quatro e não cinco peças para completar a fileira. Jogamos novamente, desta vez com as regras corretas (espero).

Novamente com dez minutos para cada lado, este jogo foi como uma balança. Começou comigo conseguindo uma boa margem de peças sobre o João, depois ele se recuperou bem. Teve horas que cheguei a ficar bem apertado, com apenas uma ou duas peças na mão e meu irmão também, sem falar do tempo, novamente estava com menos tempo que meu irmão e isso me preocupava muito, tanto que perdi pelo menos uma boa oportunidade de vencer o jogo por estar prestando atenção no relógio e não no tabuleiro.

Então consegui marcar uma série de fileiras contra meu irmão e ele ficou com bem menos peças do que eu, então ele passou a jogar na defensiva, pois não tinha peças para armar um ataque. Com mais algumas jogadas, tirei dele as peças que precisava e então foi apenas esperar que sua mão esvaziar-se.

Thread: Re: Pronunciation

Ambrose — 2008-05-01T03:50:40+00:00

My guesses:

1. GIPF
If you're European, you might say "GEEPF" with a hard "g". If not, just say "GIPF" with a hard "g".

2. TZAAR
"ZAR" is good enough. You could say "DZAR" too, but "TZAAR" is better.

3. ZÈRTZ
I say "ZAIRTS" as in "air". Some might say "ZERTZ" as in "her".

4. DVONN
You could just say "VOHN", but I put a slight "d" sound at the beginning, and use a long "o" sound.

5. YINSH
Just like it looks. Try to say "YINSH" not "YINTCH". If you're European, you could use an "EE" sound on the "i".

6. PÜNCT
The "ü" is said like a long "e" sound... only round the lips! It's weird, but I think it's correct. Also say all the consonants distinctively. If you say it fast, you could just say "POONKT".

But just look at them and say what they look like. That's probably the best advice.

Welcome.

Thread: Pronunciation

Starsunsky — 2008-05-01T02:48:19+00:00

Hi all,

I can't find anywhere, but how do you pronounce the games in the GIPF series and TAMSK?

GIPF
TZAAR
ZÈRTZ
DVONN
YINSH
PÜNCT

Thanks.

Thread: Re: ChipChuck Reviews: Gipf

Ambrose — 2008-05-01T00:19:53+00:00

One thing I think is important (from the perspective of a GIPF fan) is the potential to make a beautiful move. Not just about looks, more about the effectiveness of the move which gives it so much beauty.

Go has brilliant moves; PÜNCT has clever moves; but GIPF has a beauty in the moves I have not found in any other abstract game.

Thread: ChipChuck Reviews: Gipf

ChipChuck — 2008-04-30T19:50:57+00:00

Facts:

Designer: Kris Burm
Year: 1998
Players: 2
Ages: 9 +

Factors:

Presentation:
Covers the overall look and feel of the game (graphics, box art, board art, pawns, etc.) Scored 1-5

They say that art is in the eye of the beholder, and I believe, in the case of GIPF, that holds true. It must be said that I am not the biggest fan of computer generated, surrealistic landscape art, so keep in mind I have recognized that and have tried to not let my dislike totally skew the rating here. With that said, the box art is just that. The box will also open debate among the “oversized box” debaters. I’m one to think they could have gone with a smaller box, but hey, it wasn’t my choice to make. The board, on the other hand is completely opposite in its simplicity. The board is a clean white square with a light grey background upon which lines trace across to make a hexagon of intersections. I am reminded of the Go board in many ways. Go masters have said the cleanness of the board, before a game begins, represents the universe in its perfect state, before the corruption of existence. I’ll go into that further in the “Rules” section, but I believe this is something the designer was looking to capture and he succeeded. Pawns are equally simple, white or black circular tokens with a circular ridge on one face and valley on the reverse to allow stacking. Putting this together, I give Presentation a conservative 3 stars recognizing that some will love it and some not so much.

Rules:
Rates how easy to understand the rules are, and how those rules apply to gameplay. Scored 1-5

The rules of GIPF could not be easier to understand. Again, drawing from the mystique of Go, GIPF is most definitely a game that is a minute to learn, a lifetime to master. The rulebook is not a simple words-only booklet, so I give it points for that. The rulebook goes into great detail about the fluff of the GIPF project and takes on a highly metaphysical tone. I’m not opposed to metaphysics, but I thought they spent a little too much time on it. Then again, it’s the rule book and you don’t have to read the whole thing every time you play. I rate Rules 4 and ½. Very easy to read and learn, with only a little too much fluff.

Time:
Covers the amount of time needed to play based on a standard knowledge of the rules. Scored 1-5

The box states 30 minutes, and I found this hold fairly true. However my 1 on 1 abstract strategy partner is a buddy’s wife that takes strategy very serious. Therefore I suggest a chess timer (she also hums melodies while considering her move and it usually unnerves the un-expecting opponent). Still, 30 minutes is a good average for a typical game. In the realm of abstract strategy I consider that a plus. Time gets a 5 from me.

Gameplay:
Rates how the game mechanics work to create an enjoyable experience. Scored 1-5

The rules in a nutshell are place a piece and move it onto the board. This may/may not displace other pieces, but no piece can be displaced OFF the gaming area. The object is to connect 4 like colors and capture your opponent’s pieces. You win by making it so your opponent has no more pieces to play or capturing three special GIPF pieces of his. I think abstract strategy games need to keep rules rather simple. I find that in most cases, the more variation in rules, the more likely a person is to find some exploitation to sway the tide of play. GIPF does well to avoid this. For this I rate GIPF a 4 on Gameplay. If you like abstract strategy, you’ll probably like the way this game plays.

Overall:
Represents an average of Presentation, Rules, Time, & Gameplay. Shown 1-5

Combining all that, I give GIPF a solid 4. I think, like with all game types, if you enjoy the type of gaming you’ll enjoy GIPF. I have no problem sitting down for a game when an opponent is present.

Thread: GIPF and GIPF series microbadges available

jgrundy — 2008-04-27T23:53:34+00:00

Image

Talisinbear — 2008-04-21T18:46:37+00:00

My homemade set

Thread: Re: Rules Simplification (without even changing them!)

StCharles — 2008-03-07T23:25:58+00:00

Quizoid wrote:
1) Remove
2) TAMSK
3) Move
4) TAMSK
5) Remove
6) GIPF Victory Check

A player can lose his last Gipf piece after steps 1 and 3 as well as after step 5. Rather than cluttering the list with three victory checks, I would limit it to just actions (i.e. steps 1 through 5) and separately state that a player loses if at any point he has no Gipf pieces.

Thread: Rules Simplification (without even changing them!)

Quizoid — 2008-03-07T16:05:14+00:00

I came on here to post a new way of looking at turns, and found a similar discussion on the "Capture Sequence," thread between Roy Levien and Jim Thompson, but I think it's good enough to get it's own thread.

So, the rules, even before in the particulars, but especially after with all the potentials... are complex. They are written in a case-by-case manner, and seem to be filled with caveats. After reading them all, I though, isn't it just:

1) Remove pieces of your color
2) Move
3) Remove pieces of your color

Lo and behold, it is. Every strange and separate seeming caveat works and is accounted for if you simply use this "turn order."

To make it uber complete, it would look like this:

1) Remove pieces of your color
2) Use or discard any TAMSK pieces that have been triggered of your color
3) Move (normally, or by using a DVONN, ZERTZ, YINSH, or PUNCT potential)
if you can't make a move, you loose
4) Use or discard any TAMSK pieces that have been triggered of your color
5) Remove pieces of your color
6) Check to see if a player is out of GIPF, if a player is, that player looses.

or just

1) Remove
2) TAMSK
3) Move
4) TAMSK
5) Remove
6) GIPF Victory Check

If there's any problem with teaching the game this way, or rules that don't follow this model, please let me know.

Thread: Re: Capture Sequence Change When Using Potentials?

Quizoid — 2008-03-07T15:54:51+00:00

I was just thinking of this. Years back when I first got into GIPF... I read all of the confusing wordage... and just thought:

1) Remove pieces of your color.
2) Move
3) Remove pieces of your color.

Like I had an amazing epiphany, I reread the rules to see if it worked... and it did! Way less convoluted.

Actually, I came to this with just basic GIPF. The confusing stuff about "What happens when you make fours of both opponents' colors," is easily parred down with this step by step sequence.

To make it even more complete, you can say:

1) Remove pieces of your color.
2) Move (TAMSK before and/or after if applicable) You loose if you can't move.
3) Remove
4) Check to see if someone wins via their opponent having no GIPF (do it here for PUNCT potential weirdness)

Thread: Re: general Gipf project review

htjester — 2008-03-06T19:05:54+00:00

russ wrote:
Clarification: I believe a first player move on the edge loses for the first player against optimal play by the second player, right? So this is not really a "perfect plan".

To tell the truth, I'm intrigued to figure out how to respond to the poorly placed first marble - but once I do, the smaller board version of Zertz will be much less interesting. Clearly, a better game is not constrained by this limitation on the first player's play. Fortunately, I've got extra marbles and lots of extra rings.

For me Tzaar has the most strategic variety.

I hope Karl and I were playing Tzaar correctly. The rules are not posted at BGG, but I divined what I could from previous reviews.

Here is how we played. We used the Gipf board with all points eligible, including those on the edge. The only exception is that the middle space is out of play. All edge spaces are considered to be connected by a line. We used 15 basic Gipf pieces as Totts, 9 Zertz potentials as Tzarras, and 6 Tamsk potentials as Tzaars.

1) Initial set-up like Dvonn with players alternating, white goes first. Any piece may be placed in any open space with no restrictions.

2) Play begins with white, who gets a capture move only on his first turn. Any friendly piece on the board is eligible for all moves (unlike Dvonn, where surrounded pieces may not move). Enemy pieces eligible for capture must be connected by a straight line to the piece that is moving, with no intervening pieces of either color. Also, one may not capture a stack of enemy pieces higher than the moving stack (a single piece may be considered a stack of one).

3) Black executes a capture move by the same rules as in 2). Black then has the option to pass, execute another capture move, or stack. Stacking on enemy pieces is not allowed. Friendly pieces eligible for stacking must be connected by a straight line to the piece that is moving, with no invervening pieces of either color. Once in a stack, only the top piece is considered to still be in play; e.g., a combination of different pieces topped by a Tzaar is considered one Tzaar.

4) Players alternate executing step 3 until either one player has no legal moves remaining or loses all of one of his three types of pieces. When any of these occurs, his opponent wins.

I'm waiting for someone to ask about Punct. I've played it twice on-line, and wasn't as engaged as with some of the other games. However, I got a good price from someone relatively local, and I'm picking up the game tomorrow! :-D So perhaps I'll have more to say about Punct soon.

Finally, thanks to the other poster for the clarification - thanks *Kris* Burm for these great games.

Thread: Re: general Gipf project review

KivasFajo — 2008-02-21T15:54:17+00:00

Just a small remark: The author's name is Kris Burm (with K, not Ch).

And Russ is correct regarding the "perfect plan" for Zèrtz.
However, in the meantime further analysis shows that approx. 80% of all opening moves leads to "the lost opening" (i.e. loosing the game against a skilled second player). Anyway, that is only true for the small 37 rings board and 6+8+10 marbles.

Michael

Thread: Re: general Gipf project review

russ — 2008-02-21T06:28:26+00:00

htjester wrote:
Although I'm still sorting out my own preferences, I do think Yinsh deserves its highest rating at BGG among the Gipf project games.It's nice that none of the games are clunkers - for every one in the series, I've seen people say it is their favorite. (For me, Tzaar is definitely the best.)

I recently read that Chris Burm said a "perfect plan" has been determined for the smallest board if the first person places any color marble anywhere on the edge. Perfect plans obviously kill games
Clarification: I believe a first player move on the edge loses for the first player against optimal play by the second player, right? So this is not really a "perfect plan". At least to me, a plan which depends on my opponent making a blunder is not a perfect plan. E.g. in Go, if one player puts their own 50-stone group into atari, then I have a "perfect plan" to win the game.

If the first player could force a win easily no matter how the second player responds, or if the second player could force a win easily no matter how the first player began, then I would agree that is a "perfect plan" which would kill the game.

Tzaar was great. Do not be fooled into thinking it is just a variation of Dvonn. Karl liked building the biggest stack. At first I tried to keep up, but he wouldn't let me. So I tried next to eliminate more of his pieces. Karl was best at this game, beating me three times before I beat him. I suspect we have much to explore with isolating pieces as another way to play effectively.
For me Tzaar has the most strategic variety. Do I make a big stack? Do I make several big stacks? Do I try to kill their rare Tzaars or go after other pieces? 4 different ways to lose (run out of any of your 3 kinds of pieces, or be unable to move), and I have seen all 4 ways happen, multiple times. The game has a lot of variety.

Thanks, Chris Burm, for these great games!Indeed!

Thread: general Gipf project review

htjester — 2008-02-20T19:14:43+00:00

This is my first review of any of the Gipf-project games. I bought Yinsh at Christmas and it's the only one I've played very much before last weekend. A few weeks ago I bought Dvonn, Gipf, and Zertz.

Last weekend my bright nephew and I played more games than I can count, including standard Gipf, standard Gipf with one potential at a time, Yinsh, Dvonn, Zertz, and even Tzaar using the Gipf board, 15 basic pieces as Totts, 9 Zertz potentials as Tzarras, and 6 Tamsk potentials as Tzaars. I have now played all the currently official Gipf games, since I've played Punct on the internet. I have not played Tamsk, which of course Tzaar replaces.

Although I'm still sorting out my own preferences, I do think Yinsh deserves its highest rating at BGG among the Gipf project games. I haven't quite divined a solid strategy for it; I do well against Karl and others, but not against on-line bots. Yinsh has a chaotic quality that makes it exciting.

Dvonn is also quite good, for a completely different reason. I really like the three red Dvonn pieces. They are so important, and their range of placement at the beginning means that, so far, every Dvonn game I've played has been different.

I think Zertz has the most esthetic appeal. The marbles and rings have a very attractive appearance. My interest in its gameplay is qualified; others have described it to be a "puzzle to solve". I agree. I recently read that Chris Burm said a "perfect plan" has been determined for the smallest board if the first person places any color marble anywhere on the edge. Perfect plans obviously kill games, but fortunately one may play with more marbles and a larger board. I suspect it will be a long time before I figure out a "perfect plan" for the largest board.

Tzaar was great. Do not be fooled into thinking it is just a variation of Dvonn. Karl liked building the biggest stack. At first I tried to keep up, but he wouldn't let me. So I tried next to eliminate more of his pieces. Karl was best at this game, beating me three times before I beat him. I suspect we have much to explore with isolating pieces as another way to play effectively.

I understand Chris Burm likes Gipf best. I have mixed feelings. No doubt, the standard game (with the Gipf pieces) is far better than the basic game. But it still feels too scripted to me. I do think adding the potentials was incredibly interesting. We tried each one individually. Karl zinged me more than once because I was slow to pick up on the capabilities they offered. Incidentally, we just flipped a coin instead of linking the potentials to their associated games. Tamsk/Tzaar and Punct potentials do seem most powerful; neutralizing a Gipf piece may be even more valuable than having a second move. The Dvonn stacking ability seems more valuable than Zertz and Yinsh potentials, but all are quite useful with the right opportunity.

Thanks, Chris Burm, for these great games!

Thread: Agora com as regras corretas

tiagoaob — 2008-01-21T13:56:54+00:00

Este foi mais um daqueles casos em que um jogo muda completamente quando você utiliza as regras corretas. A única vez em que tinha jogado GIPF anteriormente, joguei que qualquer peça tocando uma linha retirada seria retirada de jogo, as suas devolvidas e as do oponente capturadas.

Relendo o manual, vi o grave erro, pois apenas as peças que continuam a linha são retiradas do tabuleiro. Assim, o jogo ficou muito mais dramático e longo, pois é muito mais difícil conseguir eliminar peças do oponente e na verdade, muda um bocado as estratégias de jogo.

Estávamos jogando eu e o Sol enquanto esperávamos mais gente aparecer para a última Jogatina Campinas (19 de Janeiro). Começamos o jogo e ele estava bem devagar. Lentamente eu ia ganhando um pouco de vantagem, capturando duas ou três peças a cada peça minha que o Sol capturava.

Depois de uns 30 minutos de partida, chegaram mais pessoas, e eu e o Sol achamos melhor encerrar o jogo para podermos jogar algum coisa que mais gente pudesse participar. mas foi bom ver todo o novo potencial deste jogo que estava esquecido em casa.

Thread: Gipf Cup 2008 joins the 2008 IAGO World Tour.

docreason — 2008-01-01T19:30:23+00:00

Just an FYI everyone here. This online Internet event is now on the IAGO World Tour schedule. For list of all current IAGO World Tour events visit:
http://www.IAGOWorldTour.com

Info on the event is here:
http://www.boiteajeux.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7662

Page 3 of the thread has confirmation. The site is French, most of the text is in French.

Thread: Re: rules and pieces

trapeze — 2008-01-01T10:28:35+00:00

or alternatively: http://www.gipf.com/gipf/rules/rules.html which is more comprehensive

Thread: Re: rules and pieces

chessduffer — 2008-01-01T08:41:38+00:00

Rules are here, as are most if not all riogrande games.

http://riograndegames.com/games.html?id=93

Thread: rules and pieces

Talisinbear — 2008-01-01T04:43:13+00:00

are the English rules on line anywhere?

how many pieces of each colour does one need ?

Do the pieces need to stack ?

thanks

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

weishaupt — 2007-12-24T03:55:26+00:00

Leaving personal tastes aside, the easiest game to learn in the Project is DVONN. I know that from experience: I've thought all seven games to various people, and the one they "get" the fastest is always DVONN.
In order (from easiest to toughest), the list would look like this:

DVONN
TAMSK
TZAAR
GIPF
YINSH
ZÈRTZ
PÜNCT

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

Abstractite — 2007-12-24T03:48:15+00:00

As for me, I like ZÉRTZ the best. I think it is most beautiful game in Project GIPF. The asthetics are pleasing as well as the game play. A funny coincidence since ZÉRTZ and my temperament type both correspond to the element water. :-)

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

Ambrose — 2007-12-24T03:21:58+00:00

Unfortunately I'm not familiar at all with abstract strategy game you've personally been involved with, so I can't comment on it other than to say "Good Luck" with it. I've always been a lover of abstract strategy board games, so please always feel free to drop me a line, if you think it might be helpful.

If it is what I say it is, then you would want to wish me luck!

Don't you want another "GIPF-like" game? I know I do!

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

Ambrose — 2007-12-24T03:19:15+00:00

Forgot to add, that any game that involes any level of skill, can be considered a game of mistakes, meaning whoever makes the fewest mistakes, should be the one who wins. Plus in all games, and with Gipf in particular, winning by taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, is what often leads to a win.

Very true. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

MENAREUS2000 — 2007-12-23T23:33:38+00:00

Ambrose wrote:
Now on to the game itself. GIPF really isn't the sort of game that lends itself to planing ahead. It's more "the taking advantage of opportunities as they come up from turn to turn" sort of game. It's perhaps the most pure abstract in the entire series. Pure meaning that there are very few rules, a simple board, along with simple game play that all manages to add up to what sometimes seems like endless possibilities. Ironically, it seems that the endless possibilities part is the game's weak and strong point, depending on your own particular view on what's enjoyable. More often than not, you'll find yourself either winning or losing a game of GIPF because one side or the other failed to see an immediate threat. So here it's difficult to look back at all the clever and interesting moves you've made when you pull off a win. It's not that it's impossible but, like the game of "Go", one has to play a very long time to be able to get to that point. So the bottom line is that "GIPF" actually deserves to be a Classic Game and yet I suspect that many gamers may not invest the time in studying all the wonderful nuances that exist here that would take this game to such a lofty position. This game seems to cry out for some strategy books that just might peak the interest of players to take this game to the next level.

Hmph! I think GIPF really IS a game of strategy, and not a "taking advantage of mistakes" game. I guess that I am more of an abstract thinker than most people, so I can read in my mind what is going to happen next, and what the board will look like when I make a move. (For general info, my temperament type is ENTP. For more on temperament, go to www.keirsey.com.) I also think playing Go helped.

I have general principles that may be discussed in the strategy forum, if you wish. Let me know!

But really, you need to play GIPF *a lot* to get good at it... and I have! (I just never played it on the internet, which I should probably do.)

Also, you can write down your games as they happen using Kris Burm's GIPF notation. That way you can see your mistakes when you replay the game.

GIPF should be taken to a new level, but people are not exposed to it. Spread the word! Play GIPF!

Ambrose

Forgot to add, that any game that involes any level of skill, can be considered a game of mistakes, meaning whoever makes the fewest mistakes, should be the one who wins. Plus in all games, and with Gipf in particular, winning by taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, is what often leads to a win.

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

MENAREUS2000 — 2007-12-23T23:28:57+00:00

Ambrose wrote:
KRIS BURM

I can't say I've ever met the man. What I have to work with is his games and maybe even more telling, a brief exchange of e-mails with him when I had some rules questions. The fact that he'd taken the time to personally respond to my questions alone, probably speaks volumes about the man. One thing I'll always remember was him commenting on how "GIPF" (prior to TZAAR) was his favorite game. I can see how that would be true considering I think it's the most pure abstract of the lot. I know he's married with children and has been involved in producing games for many years. There's one thing I believe about Kris Burm, even though I have nothing to back it up beyond my own gut feelings, that tells me he's a man who loves what he does. After playing any of his games, that love really shines through. I have to imagine he hasn't made a fortune creating games, particularly considering they're all in the Abstract Category which may be the least popular form of gaming for many gamers but it seems to be what Kris Burm does best. So if you haven't played, purchased, or enjoyed any of these games, you owe to yourself to change that. After all, the day Kris Burm stops doing what he does will be a sad day for all of us.

Arthur Reilly

So touching! I have to say, he's exactly like you said, as I have also emailed him, only about some more personal subjects. He also said to me that GIPF was his favorite (it ties in with some childhood memories for him, too).

He is a man that walks alone... until now. My abstract strategy game follows in the same vein as a Kris Burm game (in it's originality), and it gives a totally new mechanic to abstract games. I hope it is well received by him and by BGG. Wish me luck!

Unfortunately I'm not familiar at all with abstract strategy game you've personally been involved with, so I can't comment on it other than to say "Good Luck" with it. I've always been a lover of abstract strategy board games, so please always feel free to drop me a line, if you think it might be helpful.

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

MENAREUS2000 — 2007-12-23T23:25:28+00:00

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

MENAREUS2000 — 2007-12-23T23:24:31+00:00

Ambrose wrote:
Great article!!! Have you sent it to Kris Burm? You might consider it! (Although he might not like the part about GIPF not being a "strategy" game, but a "taking advatage, etc..." game.)

From reading all your different comments, you sound like someone I really like. In spite of that though, I'd just like to throw my two cents in, regarding some of your earlier thoughts and comments.

In my article, I never actually said that "Gipf" isn't a strategy game. My actual quote was:

"GIPF really isn't the sort of game that lends itself to planing ahead."

The word strategy itself, at to to me, means being able to have a long term plan on how to go about winning the game. In the case of Gipf, it's certainly still possible to look ahead to a limited extent, given the seemingly countless way the board may change from turn to turn, but I seriouly doubt most people will find themselves playing it that way or even enjoying it in that way, given the ever growing tree of possibilities from move to move. On the other hand, when anyone plays a game over and over again, over a long period of time, patterns will almost always come up, and thus strategy may become much more of a factor in those cases. I was trying to point out that for most players, that probably won't be the case. For example, many people might play Backgammon as a simple racing game, or something even a little more. In my own case, I've played the game over 30 years and can see tons and strategy and tactics that exist in the game, that your average gamer will probably never get to see.

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

Ambrose — 2007-12-23T22:15:17+00:00

Great article!!! Have you sent it to Kris Burm? You might consider it! (Although he might not like the part about GIPF not being a "strategy" game, but a "taking advatage, etc..." game.)

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

Ambrose — 2007-12-23T22:13:15+00:00

KRIS BURM

I can't say I've ever met the man. What I have to work with is his games and maybe even more telling, a brief exchange of e-mails with him when I had some rules questions. The fact that he'd taken the time to personally respond to my questions alone, probably speaks volumes about the man. One thing I'll always remember was him commenting on how "GIPF" (prior to TZAAR) was his favorite game. I can see how that would be true considering I think it's the most pure abstract of the lot. I know he's married with children and has been involved in producing games for many years. There's one thing I believe about Kris Burm, even though I have nothing to back it up beyond my own gut feelings, that tells me he's a man who loves what he does. After playing any of his games, that love really shines through. I have to imagine he hasn't made a fortune creating games, particularly considering they're all in the Abstract Category which may be the least popular form of gaming for many gamers but it seems to be what Kris Burm does best. So if you haven't played, purchased, or enjoyed any of these games, you owe to yourself to change that. After all, the day Kris Burm stops doing what he does will be a sad day for all of us.

Arthur Reilly

So touching! I have to say, he's exactly like you said, as I have also emailed him, only about some more personal subjects. He also said to me that GIPF was his favorite (it ties in with some childhood memories for him, too).

He is a man that walks alone... until now. My abstract strategy game follows in the same vein as a Kris Burm game (in it's originality), and it gives a totally new mechanic to abstract games. I hope it is well received by him and by BGG. Wish me luck!

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

Ambrose — 2007-12-23T22:02:27+00:00

With the reputation Kris Burm had developed by the time "PUNCT" was released as the last game in the GIPF Series, I would have picked up a copy of it even if it had involved laying crayons on a board.

Right on!!!

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

Ambrose — 2007-12-23T21:58:09+00:00

What I mean to say is that, at present, there's no easy way to produce such a game at a reasonable cost where the egg timers could each be precisely calibrated to be like all the others. The nature of abstract strategy games is such that precision seems to be the overriding element that makes us want to play them in the first place. After all, who wants to lose a game because one of your egg timers was missing a few extra grains of sand?

Well, you could say that the variation of the egg timers in the TAMSK you bought just adds to the game itself! That's how I think of it.

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

Ambrose — 2007-12-23T21:53:56+00:00

And start buying games for game play, not for looks! It will help you find great games! Good luck!

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

Ambrose — 2007-12-23T21:51:56+00:00

Now on to the game itself. GIPF really isn't the sort of game that lends itself to planing ahead. It's more "the taking advantage of opportunities as they come up from turn to turn" sort of game. It's perhaps the most pure abstract in the entire series. Pure meaning that there are very few rules, a simple board, along with simple game play that all manages to add up to what sometimes seems like endless possibilities. Ironically, it seems that the endless possibilities part is the game's weak and strong point, depending on your own particular view on what's enjoyable. More often than not, you'll find yourself either winning or losing a game of GIPF because one side or the other failed to see an immediate threat. So here it's difficult to look back at all the clever and interesting moves you've made when you pull off a win. It's not that it's impossible but, like the game of "Go", one has to play a very long time to be able to get to that point. So the bottom line is that "GIPF" actually deserves to be a Classic Game and yet I suspect that many gamers may not invest the time in studying all the wonderful nuances that exist here that would take this game to such a lofty position. This game seems to cry out for some strategy books that just might peak the interest of players to take this game to the next level.

Hmph! I think GIPF really IS a game of strategy, and not a "taking advantage of mistakes" game. I guess that I am more of an abstract thinker than most people, so I can read in my mind what is going to happen next, and what the board will look like when I make a move. (For general info, my temperament type is ENTP. For more on temperament, go to www.keirsey.com.) I also think playing Go helped.

I have general principles that may be discussed in the strategy forum, if you wish. Let me know!

But really, you need to play GIPF *a lot* to get good at it... and I have! (I just never played it on the internet, which I should probably do.)

Also, you can write down your games as they happen using Kris Burm's GIPF notation. That way you can see your mistakes when you replay the game.

GIPF should be taken to a new level, but people are not exposed to it. Spread the word! Play GIPF!

Ambrose

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

Ambrose — 2007-12-23T20:26:32+00:00

OK, thanks guys! I glad that is cleared up... and I'm glad I have the latest version of GIPF!!!

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

MENAREUS2000 — 2007-12-23T18:00:35+00:00

Dingus wrote:
Ambrose wrote:
I haven't purchased Gipf or Tamsk due to their less than uniform boxes.

GIPF is the same size as all the others! What do you mean?

My GIPF box is longer than the others and has to live on a different shelf, which bothers me. It is a sit-alone game.

The reality is, when Gipf was first introduced, the size of the box was indeed longer than the other boxes in the series. later editions of Gipf, were made the same size as all the other boxes in series. I have the longer box myself.

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

Dingus — 2007-12-23T17:55:40+00:00

Ambrose wrote:
I haven't purchased Gipf or Tamsk due to their less than uniform boxes.

GIPF is the same size as all the others! What do you mean?

My GIPF box is longer than the others and has to live on a different shelf, which bothers me. It is a sit-alone game.

Thread: Re: Which is the best standalone in the GIPF Project?

MENAREUS2000 — 2007-12-22T23:16:03+00:00

Ambrose wrote:
I love Kris Burm's games too.

But I can't find your article, Arthur. Could you tell me specifically where it is? Thank you.

I've emailed Kris Burm a few times, and he's going to play my abstract strategy game that I have designed. He is very kind.

I also just found out about a new GIPF game (I think?) called "GSHNË." What the heck is it? and When will it come out? I thought TZAAR was it, but *another* one? COOL!!!

Does anyone have info on this game? Please tell me if you do!!!

I don't know how to get the link to the article I spoke about, so I'll just copy it below. "GSHNE" I've never heard of and would certainly love to know more about it as well. Here's the article.
Kris Burm - The Man & His Games

As strange as it sounds, I was a Kris Burm fan even before I knew who Kris Burm was. Looking back at some of the games I've collected over the years, it's only now that I realize I started collecting his games long before anyone even heard of the "GIPF Series." There's "Inversa", "Quads", and "Balanx" for example that still sit on my overstacked shelves. Of course, none of these can compare to any of the games in the "GIPF Series", but one can certainly see the beginnings of what was to be in all them. You might say that his previous works, although fun in their own right, were really just the foundation of what Kris Burm was to become famous for.

I'll first attempt to tackle the games themselves, so In the order of their appearance, the GIPF games are:

1) GIPF
2) TAMSK
3) ZERTZ
4) DVONN
5) YINSH
6) PUNCT
7) TZAAR

I should note that "TZAAR" supposedly replaces "TAMSK" in the series, but I'm still including it here because I can't help but feel that most players will always think of "TAMSK" as part of the series and that, in reality, "TZAAR" is really just a happy new addition to this already wonderful collection.

GIPF

For some reason I never purchased this one until I already had "ZERTZ", "DVONN", "YINSH", and "PUNCT" in my collection. Even though I'd read the rules online and thought the game sounded interesting, it wasn't until my son expressed a desire to play it that I finally picked up a copy. I suspect it was the plain look of the board and pieces that kept me purchasing the game. Oddly enough the plain-looking board works perfectly with this game. The focus is always on the dark and light pieces and the board really helps to make them stand out. Not the sort of thing you'd realize until you actually play the game. Now on to the game itself. GIPF really isn't the sort of game that lends itself to planing ahead. It's more "the taking advantage of opportunities as they come up from turn to turn" sort of game. It's perhaps the most pure abstract in the entire series. Pure meaning that there are very few rules, a simple board, along with simple game play that all manages to add up to what sometimes seems like endless possibilities. Ironically, it seems that the endless possibilities part is the game's weak and strong point, depending on your own particular view on what's enjoyable. More often than not, you'll find yourself either winning or losing a game of GIPF because one side or the other failed to see an immediate threat. So here it's difficult to look back at all the clever and interesting moves you've made when you pull off a win. It's not that it's impossible but, like the game of "Go", one has to play a very long time to be able to get to that point. So the bottom line is that "GIPF" actually deserves to be a Classic Game and yet I suspect that many gamers may not invest the time in studying all the wonderful nuances that exist here that would take this game to such a lofty position. This game seems to cry out for some strategy books that just might peak the interest of players to take this game to the next level.

TAMSK

First, I must confess to never having played or purchased this game although I certainly wanted to. In many ways, "TAMSK" was a game ahead of it's time but not in the way one would think when hearing the "ahead of it's time" reference. What I mean to say is that, at present, there's no easy way to produce such a game at a reasonable cost where the egg timers could each be precisely calibrated to be like all the others. The nature of abstract strategy games is such that precision seems to be the overriding element that makes us want to play them in the first place. After all, who wants to lose a game because one of your egg timers was missing a few extra grains of sand? In spite of that, "TAMSK" was perhaps Kris Burm's biggest leap as far as bringing something new to the gaming community. For that reason alone, I believe "TAMSK" deserves it's rightful place in the "GIPF Series." Like with humans, we all have our flaws and good points and "TAMSK", after all is said and done, is far better than the sum of it's parts.

ZERTZ

This is the game that introduced me to the Gipf Series. When I first read about the game, I didn't give it much thought, until I saw the box sitting in a display of games at a local bookstore. The artistic rendering of the pieces on the box cover, really grabbed me. Who would have thought that a bunch of marbles and round plastic discs, would turn out to be so interesting. This is the game that perhaps has the widest appeal to those who play games. The components are simple, yet beautiful along with the game play itself. I have to imagine that this is the game that's within the reach of most players, as far as being able to apply tactics and strategy in interesting ways. As chess players have known for years, the art of the sacrifice is a beautiful thing and that's an often and enjoyable part of this game. I think it should be enough to say that it was "Zertz", that kept the name Kris Burm and his games at the back of my mind, which is still true today.

DVONN

Ah, "DVONN". My personal favorite. After first having a read a review in Games Magazine, I just knew this would be a game I would love and I wasn't disappointed. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that the three red pieces were like hearts, that all other pieces needed to be connected to stay alive. Although it's nothing like "Go", the thought of the possibility of life and death for your pieces was an intriguing one. Although "YINSH" ranks higher on the BGG for reasons I'll explain later, I think "DVONN" (with the possible exception of "TZAAR") is the best of the lot. The initial placement phase of the game alone is an interesting one and is chock full of more decisions than you'll find in other games. In fact, the game can be won or lost at this phase before the movement phase even begins. So in that sense, it's like having two great games in one: the Placement & Movement Phases. Although no two games are ever exactly alike, "DVONN" seems to allow players to wrap their minds around both a long and short term strategy in the game, in spite of the constant variations that crop up. It's for this reason alone that "DVONN" really shines. So for me, "DVONN" is a solid 10 out of 10.

YINSH

As is typical in a Kris Burm game, in YINSH you become weaker as you get closer to a win. What can you say? It's clever and it works. Here the concept of jumping, aligning pieces in a row, and turning pieces over in an "Othello"-like fashion, are all concepts that gamers have become comfortable with over the years. So there's no denying that "YINSH" offers elements that we all feel right at home with. It's for these very reasons that I think "YINSH" ranks as high it does here on the BGG. On the other hand, it's because all these elements aren't new that puts "YINSH" further down on my list in the series. In spite of it all, "YINSH" succeeds because it is familiar and manages to put it all these different elements together in a fairly new way and fun way.

PUNCT

With the reputation Kris Burm had developed by the time "PUNCT" was released as the last game in the GIPF Series, I would have picked up a copy of it even if it had involved laying crayons on a board. Thankfully, there weren't any crayons in the box and, once again, we had a brand new Kris Burm original. With this one game, Kris Burm managed to take the whole "Connection" genre of games and took it to a whole new level, literally. It's absolutely brilliant and no other words I can think of are more fitting. One would think that "PUNCT" should be rated as the #1 Abstract Strategy Game, and yet it isn't. I sense that "PUNCT" suffers from what I'll call the "GIPF Syndrome". It's incredibly simple and yet complex all at the same time. Unfortunately, this makes it difficult for players to get a handle on a winning strategy without having played countless games beforehand. Again, it can be a plus or a minus depending upon the amount of work one wants to put into they're games. Personally, I think it's all worth it and for those willing to find their way into the maze of possibilities, will find a game that unlikely to be matched anytime in the near or distant future. (Oh wait, what about "Tzaar"?)

TZAAR

When this becomes available, I'll be the first in line to get a copy. So with that out of the way, I must admit to feeling somewhat disappointed when first seeing photos of the game online. Without having read the rules at that point, it just looked like another "GIPF" game to me. I couldn't help but think, "Is this the best he could come up with?" Finally, someone posted a review and described the game and that's when I knew that Kris Burm struck again. Without having actually played this yet, what follows is pure speculation on my part, so here it goes: "Tzaar" seems to bring bits and pieces from some of the other games in the series. The hex board (all the games), the capturing of pieces (GIPF), the stacking of pieces (DVONN), the board gets smaller as you play (DVONN, ZERTZ, TAMSK), the varying of the types and number of pieces (ZERTZ), along with a winning condition as in GIPF where you win if your opponent can no longer make a play. Don't mean to sound as if it's all been done before because it's quite possible this could be the best game yet. If I had to guess, I'd say it sounds like "GIPF" and "DVONN" taken to a new level. Now that can't be a bad thing. Now, when can I get my hands on a copy?

GAMES SUMMARY

You won't find any Action Points, Cards, Dice, Meeples, or even little wooden cubes in a Kris Burm game. What you will find is a new breed of games that any adult will find countless hours of enjoyment playing. As far as children go, any child should be happy to play and grow up with with these games and be better for it.

KRIS BURM

I can't say I've ever met the man. What I have to work with is his games and maybe even more telling, a brief exchange of e-mails with him when I had some rules questions. The fact that he'd taken the time to personally respond to my questions alone, probably speaks volumes about the man. One thing I'll always remember was him commenting on how "GIPF" (prior to TZAAR) was his favorite game. I can see how that would be true considering I think it's the most pure abstract of the lot. I know he's married with children and has been involved in producing games for many years. There's one thing I believe about Kris Burm, even though I have nothing to back it up beyond my own gut feelings, that tells me he's a man who loves what he does. After playing any of his games, that love really shines through. I have to imagine he hasn't made a fortune creating games, particularly considering they're all in the Abstract Category which may be the least popular form of gaming for many gamers but it seems to be what Kris Burm does best. So if you haven't played, purchased, or enjoyed any of these games, you owe to yourself to change that. After all, the day Kris Burm stops doing what he does will be a sad day for all of us.

Arthur Reilly

Image

Torpor — 2007-11-04T16:43:06+00:00

Photo showing pieces and potentials for all games in the Gipf Series. From left to right: Gipf, Yinsh, Punct, Zertz, Dvonn, Tamsk and Tzaar. The potentials for each are behind the piece. Tzaar does not have a potential as of yet, but as it may replace Tam

Image

Aldaron — 2007-07-23T13:54:32+00:00

Board at the end of a game won by white.

Image

fehrmeister — 2007-07-04T22:39:35+00:00

Fortunately For Black, His Row With 4 in a Row Gets to be Removed First

Image

kirbyattack — 2007-06-15T20:20:21+00:00

Image

fehrmeister — 2007-05-31T05:12:44+00:00

Back of the Box

Image

Viper[FFW] — 2007-04-20T23:17:29+00:00

Game ready to start

Image

Viper[FFW] — 2007-04-20T23:16:40+00:00

Game in progress- white doing better

Image

Viper[FFW] — 2007-04-20T23:15:38+00:00

Macro shot