this is the moment of truth. Here I decided to protect something other than the base. I take the 1 instead of the more powerful 2. hoping that he will decide that a different piece is my base. ultimately it works. you have a 1-5 shot with this setup.. give your self a shot at 1 or 2 "?"and sacrifice them. 20% or 40% is better than 0%. I'm still not sure why he didn't choose a "?" to attack with the 3.. the key to the game wasn't the choice at the end, but that he was blinded early had had very little vision and wasn't quit sure what pieces were where.
After my opponent makes his move I said to myself i'm finished. I will have to move quickly to prevent looking weak . much like in poker if you show weakness your opponent will sense it and crush you. I have been in situations just like this where I allow the break through bc I want a more comfortable lead and I know he cannot get to my base so i'm looking for my opp to sacrifice carelessly. This was our 3rd game the past 2 months. I lost #1 won #2 and was well in the lead in #3 and nearly blew it.
Here was where the mistake happens on my part and when you need to understand when a weaker piece is worth much more than a stronger one. I was on cruise control. After I made my move I wondered if my opponent understood that many people sacrifice their 5 for a 3 in the end game since it can render your opponents sabs unless.
dude Id love it but im trying to stop playing all together..i hate it when I see another rd has started from soo long ago... I used to move 20-30x per day now im lucky if I move 2x per week. now I got stitches in my hand today. love the game just no time with my career change...
As of 2013 I will have to announce that I will be giving up gaming for the foreseeable future. I need to focus more on my marriage and family than I do gaming. Gaming had been a huge part of my life for the last 20 years and its about time to set it aside to work on other more important things. My gaming focus the past few years has been very poor, i do not like doing things half way, its 100% or nothing. once I finish up my current games I will be leaving here till further notice. I will not be starting any new games. thanks for the fun times.
Within the next few weeks I will be in the process of moving, the long stress filled year is coming to any end. My wife and I have been looking to buy a new house and we are selling our current one. anyone who understands the current housing market can empathize with the stress it creates and the time it takes to sell a house. Hopefully after all this is done I will be back to my quick playing self... and much better too. Once i get setted i will create the new tourney.
As i get ready to open up my prize tourney. Which should be ready in about a month or so. I will be adding a secondary prize onto the BK membership prize. It is a book a friend of mine wrote a few years ago called "playing to win" by David Sirlin. This a book written by a multiple-time national tournament champion in video games. Part of streetfighter team USA . Representing USA in an annual international game tournament held in Japan. He is a graduate of MIT's Sloan Business School. Its an excellent read.
On a 3rd note I wish we could have double elimination tournaments, like most gaming tournaments. that would be a prefered format for this tourney, I may ask Fencer if this could be a selectable format in the future.
Styleone: i am still in the middle of playing vs one of the players.. I messaged the one who ironically lives very clsoe to where i do.. about a 30 minute drive. So I might be able to convince him. The other has not spoken at all and im still in tehmmiddle of our 2nd game. The first of which i lost. He is a non member there.. ill try and message him again.
I'm thinking about running a prize tourney in the next month or so.. I want to know what the best time control is ( i know best is subjective). I dont want to have it be a tourney that takes years to finish. I also do not want to scare away many individuals that just cant committ to a short time frame? I will also be carefully watching who enters and will be eliminating individuals who move slower than molasses in the winter time. I want this tournament to attract as many individuals as possible. I currently am in a tourney when two individuals have not made there first move yet and they are black rooks ( tons of auto vaca) and the tourney started in october. and they are using 30 day time control. Also what would attract more players for a variant and format? im looking at Open version and either elimination or 1 game each person 4 player sections. The volcano versions do not get enough love and the open versions seem to be the most played. As for the time control im looking at: 1 day plus 12 hour bonus with a 3-5 day max with auto vaca disabled? or a 1 day with 8 hour bonus with a max of 5-7 days. I'm trying to encourage fast play without making it too difficult to manage with daily life. I'm a school teacher so I have a fairly forgiving schedule, others may not. I'm open to suggestions.
Subject: equal rank attacks and the origin of open
As we all know that in the original stratego when a 2 attacked another 2 both pieces were removed. This rule enabled a person to be aggressive and defensive all at once. Once you spotted the 2 and the 1s were exposed or removed it was a feast on the remaining armies and the 2 could attack without prejudice (granted that he didnt run into any bombs). But unitl that happened you played cautiously and very defensively. Espionage and Sabotage changed this rule and created an aggresive style that if you attacked 1st you get favored with the win. This created a defensive style on my part and I realized that I have to be more cautious and not attack as much due to the numerous threats and open space. When we ( the IYT committee [I was not on the open committee]) first decided to implement the open version on IYT we had many long discussions about many different things many of which i do not recall ( how many moves and board setup) probably Chaos would remember. I very much agreed on an open verison and wanted a more aggressive type of game. I really enjoy the open game b/c it challenges my defensive style and is much more difficult to set up a solid unbreakable defense. But i have yet to find a glitch or the perfect setup. But i try to find it all the time even if it means losing a game here and there. Every game has its glitch or achilles heel. eventually open will be exposed, but it will take awhile.
joshi tm: The one feature that really prevents a solid unstoppable defense was the implementation of random volcanos. On IYT "ialwayswinsam" and myself had a way of setting up an unstoppable defense. b/c we always knew the volcano set up prior to the match. Now it cant be done, you have to gamble on the setup which isnt tacticly sound and involves luck. We however rarely ever used this tactic unless we needed a must win. I had a record of appx 300 wins and less than 12 loses until i timed out of 33 games at once due to lack of internet access. As for saying something making it true or untrue the same works both ways. (and just b/c majority rules doenst make it a good or prudent choice.) And as for being able to move backwards that would not be good. to much to explain here. The rule i always favored is the original: equal rank attacks remove both pieces. This is why this game has always favored the aggressor. Which i will explain in a new post.
Dark Prince: It's just the opposite.. it shows that you were able to out wit and out think the opposition..you dont see the military just go in guns a blazing. There is strategy involved not just blind luck to see who B#$#$#%^%^ their best. Being able to out think your opponent is the best strategy. Being able to crack a strong defense is more admirable and takes skill. not just shifting peices around until you get lucky. Try letting a wild animal into your house (a Raccoon into your cabinet) and see how tough it is to get it out. But if its just running around your kitchen its much easier to get rid of just open your door. Ironically the open versions force people to play an aggressive style and it avoids defense, but the volcano versions allow for defensive play and more critical thinking and less offense. But in the volcano version offense MUST be timed PERFECTLY.. there can be no error or you will lose. You can get lucky with a runner in the open versions. But once your pinned in its over. Its like comparing Mac to the PC the both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Dark Prince: Umm you totally missed the point. "IF" a game ends prior to move 4 it does not count into the ratings. If a "FORCED" draw rule which does not exist (yet) is implemented then it would not count for the person requesting the draw. This would be something that could be put into the rules.. It has zero to do with the ratings system. To prove my point I will play you in any version and I'll prove to you that you cannot win when the forced draw rule is in effect. The game becomes broken and most games will end in a draw. Most in the meaning that if a player plays a defensive style. If you want to randomly attack b/c your not intelligent enough to crack the defense and want people to bow to your (not you specifically) aggressive style that is fine. It takes intelligence and patience to crack a solid defense. Not a rule that will eliminate a weakness in your play style. I'm in a game now with Sandoz that is about 70 moves without an attack. This is game #2 of the set. The defense I set is un-crackable b/c i'm playing it the way I'd play it with a forced draw rule. Which is different than normal game play.
I was also thinking that perhaps if we decide on requesting a forced draw we can do this. Anyone how decides to force a draw the game will not count against that opposing players stats but will effect your stats if it benefits your stats.
Justaminute: Correct it is not.. what concerns me most are situations in games that require time to break through b/c of moving pieces from one side of the board to the other. With being conspicuous ( due to blindness of the pieces) you cannot expect to be forced to reveal a piece b/c your limited on time. ( not reveal through actual recon but through redirection.
Dark Prince: Seeing all points are very important not just what one person wants or just being stubborn b/c it doesn't adhere to what we consider logical or fair. But chess is a very different game and those rules were made for a reason.
Nothingness: The last part of this is very important and would be detrimental to my argument. But it is still an interesting rule when draws are discussed. There is another rule im trying to find having to do with class players.
In a sudden death time control (players have a limited time to play all of their moves), if it is discovered that both players have exceeded their time allotment, the game is a draw. (The game continues if it is not a sudden-death time control.) If only one player has exceeded the time limit, but the other player does not have (theoretically) sufficient mating material, the game is still a draw. Law 6.9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states that: "If a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay." For example, a player who runs out of time with a king and queen versus a sole king does not lose the game. It is still possible to lose on time in positions where mate is extremely unlikely but not theoretically impossible, as with king and bishop versus king and knight. Because of this last possibility, article 10 of the FIDE laws of chess states that when a player has less than two minutes left on their clock during a rapid play finish (the end of a game when all remaining moves must be completed within a limited amount of time), they may claim a draw if their opponent is not attempting to win the game by "normal means" or cannot win the game by "normal means". "Normal means" can be taken to mean the delivery of checkmate or the winning of material. In other words, a draw is claimable if the opponent is merely attempting to win on time, or cannot possibly win except by on time. It is up to the arbiter to decide whether such a claim will be granted or not.
Dark Prince: Actually if you are asking for the draw rule to be implemented when you feel that your opponent has insufficient material to win than the level of player matters. ill try and find the rule in my chess rule book. or online
i was unable to finish my last post before my battery ran out. The problem with chess is in a K+B+N vs K is that the rule is basically setup that can a C class player draw a master level player..or something to that effect. Yes having advanced players look at this would be the best idea. im playing Sandoz in small variation now, and am trying this forced draw setup.. so far it is working. 1 game i was able to eliminate all 3 sabs very early. the next game i have dug in very well and can just sit and wait for a mistaken attack. and eventually get a large lead and still not attack. the ultimate goal.
Dark Prince: This is an excellent idea but with the small variation of espionage there are certain setups that are UNBEATABLE. Luckily te random volcano feature prevents you from getting this unbeatble setup applied everytime. This was the case at IYT. Ialwayswinsam and myself had a setup that was unbeatable and caused us to have games last well into the 300 move range without a capture..ugghh
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but we probably need to have an "x" added to the notation so that it can be easier to track the move count. Currently we cannot differentiate between a regular and capture moves.
We should probably start to enforce(begin to count) the rule once a potential engagement "can" occur. For example no one can attack for at least 3-4 moves depending upon an opponents response. So we can start counting then. I think someone mentioned starting the counting after a few moves have started.Such as turn 15 or 20. The enemy cannot be engaged until proper reinforcements have been established. The volcano versions make for a more difficult attacking challenge. So perhaps waiting a little bit before starting the count. The open challenge is much easier to attack so a lower start count could be feasible.