Talk:Connect6

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

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

message: How many people have played this game? I have a bit and I've quickly concluded that a defensive strategy is very good. If someone constantly blocks the opponent's stones from forming any traps (3 way wins) and further more even blocking 3 stones in a row, you can wait for an opponent to make a mistake and win with your own trap. This makes the game very fast or easy since it is not very hard to block 3 in-a-row stones, and thus preventing any 3 way traps. And if you never make a mistake (not so hard since in the beginning there are very few stones), the game should continue to be fairly simple. If both players utilize this tactic, the game is likely to be a draw. 
Also, I think it is strategic to start in the very center as you have the most space to expand, as the edge of the board limits the possiblity of traps and thus winning. If anyone can refute this argument it would be highly appreciated since this makes the game not as enjoyable as it once was; since if a fair game means always a draw, there is no point in playing it, especially in a simple game like connect 6. Chess is a different matter since it is so complex even from the start and I haven't found a winning strategy for it... yet.  70.111.224.85 14:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lattice configuration (placing of stones in diagonals creating open space and a triangle/diamond pattern) plays well offensively and may fair well against a defensive strategy. Perhaps it comes down to who moves first and what strategy they use. More testing needs to be done. For now it seems pretty fair. Someone about to be in a three way trap can avoid it by forcing the opponent to block a two way (4 stones in a row or in some combination to have two ways to win) to delay the loss for a little while and perhaps win with the stones they placed. It seems as if a defensive strategy is better in closed positions(where there aren't a lot places to place stones in the main structure), while an offensive strategy uses open positions and works better in them because of the abundance of combinations for a win. 70.111.224.85 20:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Observe games played by the top players on littlegolem.net, and you will see that they do not have such a strategy. --70.111.244.69 23:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy 

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

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

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

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

message: I have seen some books that they call this game roku-moku. --zzo38(*)? 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roku-moku