Sandoz: You could get away with a bishop membership (1 tournament of each game type) if ouna and I finish the game Championship continent 2012 - Europe and I win, before the Nothingness Retirement Tournament starts! If I lose, there will be another round and you will still be stuck in an Open Fast Tournament and a brain rook membership will be required.
Sandoz: Started 5 Sept 2011 Fortunately only the faster players left, but it is still a 2 wins match. At an average of one move a day, 100 moves per game, and 3 games to decide the winner, we are still at least a year from finishing :)
Nothingness, rereading your retirement post on the 2 Jan 2013, I hope your wife is understanding!
Chaos: No vacation. Fischer clock is defined by three parameters:
Time - specifies a time for all game moves in days and hours which is set for each player when the game starts. When a player makes a move, the elapsed time from the last move of the opponent is subtracted from this value. If the time drops to a zero, the player loses by a timeout.
Bonus - the number of days and hours which is added to the player's time left value each time he makes a move.
Limit - the maximum time left value for this game which cannot be exceeded using the Bonus feature.
so 36hr / 24hr/ 3days means - you have 36 hours to move. - every time you move, 24 hours is added to your current clock time - a maximum of 3 days can be built up on you clock, which gives you 3 days to move.
Chaos: Agree that the league doesn't really exist here, well not in the same form. At IYT, there was a need for some, and in many cases, considerable coordination to promote and run tournaments. That work has been made redundant through the flexibility of BK in being able to create ones own tournaments, e.g. Nothingness and Sandoz recently had some popular tournaments, and you had a beginners one a while ago. Who won?
Yes, I can remember when I first joined BK, that the interface was rather unwieldy, and that was without poking at all the settings behind the scenes! However, like anything new, it just took a little while to get used to.
The 2012 World championship has already started, and indeed, I still have games running in the 2011 championship. So we won't know who the 2011 champ is until 2013
The link to the 2012 Open Fast is Championship world BK 2012 As you can see, the competition is strong, though progression to final has been made easier through your absence. There are championship tournaments for all the espionage variants, as well as all the other games on site.
Sandoz: I've offered you the exchange again! And don't think that I will let you test the bluff with your sab in the next move, it comes at a higher price than that. More so if I'm going to be red listed by you, if indeed it turns out to be just that
I don't believe moonhippie plays here, though I believe he might of had an account here at one time.
Nothingness: " I'm in a game with Mark now that is about move 30 and no one has taken a piece or revealed a piece yet. This will take about another 50-100 more moves until the game gets "started".
You spoke too soon... just moved forwarded and I can see you! Still no capture, though this will surely follow soon. As you are white, thought I would make the first move and save you the embarressment of having to offer a draw, which I would have refused anyway
The only situation that I can see a draw occuring in espionage is when both players are left with one piece each. Even if you are left with the stronger piece, you can be left in a situation where you cannot capture the opponent.
This has happened to me once, back in the era of IYT and indeed it was with Nothingness, who had the weaker piece, but had forced the draw by his thought out final exchange. In this case if a player refused to accept a draw, I'm sure Fencer would overrule this, and no need for any game knowledge to see this.
As to stalling, and no capture in 50 moves, well I don't accept this. There are two people in the game and I will keep capturing, even if not captured in 50 moves! If a 50 move no capture rule was implemented, then white would always lose in a long dancing play from the start, or would be forced to make the first capture. So black wins simply by avoiding capture in the first 50 moves!
Yes, there are some jokers who keep offering the draw when losing, guess they are hoping you hit the wrong button :)
lukulus: Quite, if you have a long list of games, I would imagine it to be quite onerous to look out for certain games. And having so many games almost forces you to play every day... shorter time control will simply mean that the game is at the top of your list more often. Didn't understand your point on fisher clock. Is this form of time control a problem to many? Hope you join in too :)
Chaos: Also be mindful of the fact, that with weekends set, two slow players can result in only two full moves per week! We know that asking people to move fast is pointless (Nothingness tourny demonstrates that).
An alternative permutation would be fisher clock with setting 28hours/14hours/2days which would squeeze out a few more moves from the slow players.
Chaos: Only that this tournament will be at the top of the list more frequently! I would have made this an open tournament, the time control would weed out the slow movers quickly. It must be a hassle sending out all those invites, but I would invite all the usual suspects :) Put a post in the tournament board advertising the tournament and calling on people to contact you if they want to join.
Nothingness: "it would be impossible to win a game with someone having prior knowledge of your bombs for 5 1s being revealed."
Interesting that you believe this. Indeed cookie monster has offered a lot more than this just for the five 1s, and I'm still not sure if this was a good deal! Eliminate the pieces, assume equal information exchange in the process (and remove from the equation) and we are left with the three revealed 1s, an unrevealed recon (forgot about this one previously) against one revealed recon. Which gives (3x1 - 2) = 1 against 1. Have assumed an unrevealed recon = 2 and a revealed recon = 1.
But if you still think it would be impossible for me to win if I share the location of my mines (and base) in exchange for the knowledge of your five 1s, I will send you an invite on this basis. Note, you will have some very difficult decisions to make, e.g. whether you will exchange a 2 for a recon!
cookie monster: Sorry Eric, wasn't trying to hussle another 1, just didn't think this through. I have found some additional value that should balance this difference, making your original offer acceptable and fair (doubt I would throw in an extra 1), though I just know I won't like your set up :) I will send you an invite.
Chaos: My precious 4s and base! I would accept this offer. Anything else you would care to exchange in this game? I would be interested in learning the location of some of your recons. I put my 2s on the table.
Modified by SL-Mark (18. September 2010, 00:51:24)
cookie monster: Interesting! Swap them all out (useful pieces, i.e. those that can move) we are left with my remaining three revealed 1s against your revealed recon. So I have given you a value of 3 in exchange for 2! Throw in another 1 please and game on! I won't need the location of your base or mines :)
Modified by SL-Mark (17. September 2010, 23:56:38)
Nothingness: I did say it was a simple weighting. Infact, from Cookie Monsters post, an undisclosed recon would have a value of 2, which seems about right in this case. Still thinking about my reply to this one.
On your offer, not only would I give you the location of my four bombs (mines), but also the location of my base in order to know the whereabouts of your five 1s
Nothingness: You are absolutely correct. This is a theoretical / philosophical debate, which was intended as learning excercise and not a serious game variant. Hopefully a useful one, as we have to ponder during a game (well some of us do) what we are prepared to share and when.
Whilst the exercise is rather abstract, it does bring to attention some useful points. Chaos's point below is very valid, and I too for the same reasons would never disclose my five 1s to know the whereabouts of one 5 (at the beginning of the game). Information in a game is shared piecemeal, some acquired by luck, some by exchange, and some forced. But what will we end up with in the end game?
And of course, what becomes valuable later on in the game changes for each player depending upon what has been disclosed.
You say you couldn't careless where an opponents 2s are.... does this mean you couldn't care less if yours are known too?
What then would you want to know from me for the location of your four 2s? How about the location of my base?