Talk:TwixT

message: Perhaps the most popular variant is called Twixt PP where PP means paper and pencil. The rules are almost identical to standard Twixt. The only difference is with regard to link removal. When you play with paper and pencil, links are never removed (no erasure necessary,) but your own links are allowed to cross each other. This means, for example, that a winning path might loop across itself. Crossed links are not inherently connected to each other. In other words, the object is still to form a sequence of pegs of your color, each directly linked to the next, which connects your border rows.
In terms of game outcome, for the vast majority of games, this rules change makes no difference. On the Little Golem turn-based server, thousands of games have been played, all using the PP ruleset. Of those, only a handful, less than 0.1%, can be pointed to as reasonably clear examples of games that probably would have ended differently under standard rules. Most of those are games which would have been a draw under standard rules instead of a win for one side. But one game almost certainly would have been a win for one side instead of the other. Here is a contrived example on a smaller board:
Under PP rules, black to move has an easy win with F9, linking to both E11 and H8. But under standard rules, black would have to first remove the F8/G10 link in order to place F9/H8, and that would allow white to then play at E9, double linking to D11 and G8. White is also threatening to play either i9, which is a triple link, or H10, which is unstoppably connected to the bottom. There is no way for black to effectively block all these threats.
Some players might argue that PP rules are cleaner than standard rules. For one thing, the incidence of draws is reduced. But draws are already quite rare under standard rules, my personal preference. I believe the extra complications that result from link removal add depth and beauty to the game. In the Randolph series of puzzles, link removal is an essential part of several of those puzzles, and they would not be particularly interesting or challenging positions under PP rules.
Row handicapping is another variant which offers a way for players of different strengths to both enjoy a challenging game together. The simplest handicap is to eliminate the pie rule. Beyond that, one dimension of the grid is reduced. The weaker player moves first and also has less distance to cross. On a physical board, this might be implemented with two extra pieces of neutral color which look nothing like pegs but which fit in the holes. These are placed in the two new corners of the board, which are out of play, to indicate the new location of one of the weaker player's border rows. Six rows plus move might be a reasonable handicap between an experienced player and a beginner. The idea is to find a handicap where each player wins about half the time. Of course there is no pie rule for any handicap game.
On the main article page, someone modified the last sentence above to:
Of course there is no pie rule for any handicap game, silly.
I changed it back. For one thing, personal opinion is not appropriate. Also, I have seen intelligent people deliberately make a weak first move in a handicap game because they did not comprehend the implications of having no swap rule. Calling them silly does not help them learn. --Twixter (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twixt Variants 

message: The text currently says 
:This "one-move equalization" was added by Randolph after 3M published his game. It is present in the Schmidt Spiele edition and all later editions.
It is my understanding that Randolph had a pie rule from the beginning, but 3M omitted the rule.  I have no cite.   Randall Bart    Talk   00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pie rule 

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

message: The external links section is a link farm.  I've split out the online play links, including the "Where to play" links formerly embedded in the article.  I think these are promotion, and should be removed.  The AI links are also promotional.  Some of the other external links are also superfluous to a scholarly presentation.Sbalfour (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online play external links 

message: The lead is supposed to be a summary of what's in the text, no new info presented here.  But its bloated with mostly superfluous details that belong somewhere in the text.  I think I'm going to be bold and fix it myself.Sbalfour (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead needs reorged 

message: This section is a WP:GAMEGUIDE, totally unreferenced probably original research.  I'm working on a related article Stratego, with the same issue and the analogous section there also has the same tag.  "How-to" manuals tend to swamp the article, and such text can grow without bound for a deep strategy game.  It may just be acceptable to remove the text to a website, and list an external link to that site.  But the text cannot remain in the article without citation, and the citation should be to a published source by a credentialed player or a historic champion and represent game experience in sanctioned competition, akin to a book on master play or combinations in chess.Sbalfour (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic patterns section