Single Comment

Whether or not a game contains pattern-bound pieces for each of its
patterns, being the diagonal in this case, does not negate the value of
the game.

In this case, the game begins with only two 'diagonal'-bound pieces for
each player on a field with a possibility of three.  In both the
two-player and three-player games, each side has these pieces on similar
patterns.

If a game was composed of pattern pieces and each player had sole command
of particular patterns, it might be argued that there was an increase in
the potential of 'draw'.  But this also does not negate the value of the
game.  It would definitely impact the play of the game. 

In fact, a player can take advantage of a pattern in the game if there are
fewer piece which operate in it.  In this game, it could be seen that the
pattern-bound pieces initially 'push' the goal piece into the remaining
pattern.

The un-qualified requirement for all pattern-bound pieces to be
represented for each and every pattern is subjective.  Even in this game,
there is the potential of obtaining a pattern-bound piece for the
un-occupied pattern with promotion.  Granted that this is very un-likely
since a player would most likely opt for a more powerful piece, preferably
one that is not restricted to a pattern of the field.