Celticjim: no, I haven't asked about the bug. Sorry! Some time ago I was busy trying to see what the consensus for a draw rule was, but didn't succeed. My plan was to combine the request for a draw rule with the request to change the bug. Now we also have the request we want to make for a diagonal version. At the moment I do not have the time to address people personally to get opinions or to formulate different options so players can vote for them. Maybe someone else can step up to take these tasks? You can put my name under the request for any of the diagonal variants, draw rule (50 or more noncapture moves) and the bug.
"I would be interested to know the other players who agree that long games show the greatest skill. I think they show the least skill."
I don't think the length of the game is too important. I like to see a player create an imbalance (e.g. Recon vs 2 or 2 vs Redon, 4 vs 5 or 5 vs 4, etc.) and then demonstrate they know how to play it advantageously.
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: Always on the middle ranks, but placed after both players set up an army. I think it would be a big improvement to alreadt place volcanoes on the map before setting up an army, as a player can set up accordingly to the different terrain.
Justaminute: I do not agree with you on that. The rule not to be able to move the piece back where you came from is one of the best rules of espionage in my opinion. I'm not a fan of defensive play, but this rule makes defensive play harder as well. One can corner an opponent by limiting their movement abilities using this rule. As has just been done to me...
Dark Prince: I’m with you on this. I rarely play espionage anymore because of just this point. Games of 300+ moves may be strategically perfect but so what, for most people this is on par with watching wallpaper dry. I’ve said it before but I think the game would be vastly improved if forward moves were not penalised by not being allowed to reverse the next move. It would make the game a lot faster without reducing the skill level.
The rules indicate that the volcanoes are randomly placed, but some things are not specified. Are they placed symmetrically and always on the middle 2 ranks? Do you see the volcano placement when you begin setting up pieces or not until the first move?
Nothingness: Saying it, doesn't make it so, even though you've repeated it several times. I doubt many players agree with what you're saying. Your analogies don't support your point either. In war, blitzkrieg is an effective tactic that can force on enemy onto its heels, but mine fields can funnel an attacking enemy into killing zones. The volcanos perform a similar function to that of mine fields and thus favor a defensive strategy more than the open variations. The open variations do NOT force aggressive play, but they do require a different set of tactics for effective defensive play. Aggressive play does not imply reliance on blind luck. I would be interested to know the other players who agree that long games show the greatest skill. I think they show the least skill.
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.
Nothingness: I personally find quicker games more interesting and more admirable. Quick games tend to show that the winners exploited advantages efficiently and took appropriate risks rather than just posturing.
Modified by joshi tm (18. November 2011, 17:56:56)
How about a tiny Espionage game which features only a 6x6 square board and a piece set like this:
yyyyyy yyyyyy ------ ------ xxxxxx xxxxxx
1 Base 2 Mines 2 Saboteurs 2 Spies 2 1's 2 2's 1 3 ( or a 5, it does not matter since it should be just the highest level piece) I do not know if this is te best piece setup, maybe remove a mine in favor for another 1 or 3. The 3 can be captured by a Saboteur. Two moves per turn, no volcanoes. The game should go really fast as there's nowhere to run in this game.
Edit: If this set is used, with spies on B2 and e2 white can move those spies in such way that Black's pieces are revealed inmediantly as they move. That should not be possible, so maybe remove the extra spy as well in favor to another 1 to have a set like this:
1 Base 1-2 Mines 2 Saboteurs 1 Spy 3 1's 2 2's 1-2 3's ( or a 5)
@dAGGER: I like the idea to remove a rank and file to get the armies closer. The idea at IYT is also good to play I think.
dAGGER: Sounds good, and it could use the 7x7 triangle setup zone suggested by Joshi. x x x x x x x - - x x x x x x - - - x x x x x - - - y x x x x - - - y y x x x - - - y y y x x - - - y y y y x - - - y y y y y - - - y y y y y y - - y y y y y y y
Dark Prince: I also liked the corner version at IYT. I quitted the site because there wasn't anymore a message board and a lot of good players moved to BK. I suggest a corner version with a 9x9 board, that would be in the middle between Open Espionage (10x10) and Small Espionage (8x8). We should meet the requirements of a lot of players.
Nothingness: joshi tm: I have read other posts expressing interest in a corner variation. I would think it worthwhile to find out how many others would like such a variation and discuss the parameters with those interested. For me, the Corner variation at IYT is an equal favorite with Open Rush. I play those 2 variations almost exclusively. As to the parameters here, I would consider Joshi's 7 diagonal proposal as well as possibly an 8th diagonal. If only 7, we might consider removing a 1 and a mine or a 1 and 2 as Joshi suggests. If 8 diagonals, we might instead consider adding additional pieces and/or leaving squares within the 8x8 setup triangle unoccupied.
joshi tm: It is NOT the most popular variation, but many of those that like Open Rush also like Corner. Your proposal is different in a significant way to the Corner variation at IYT. There, the setup includes an additional diagonal for each player with 8 more pieces than you proposed.
The 28 X's represent Black and the 28 Y's represent white. The way different setup can change the strategy of play using the same Espionage rules (but removing a 1 and 2 soldier from the original 30 pieces). And of course, no one says you have to put the main base in the corner!
Nothingness: The choice to ignore a point one considers irrelevant does not imply the point was missed. From what I've read on minimum number of moves for a game to be rated at BK, it's 2 moves by each player. I don't know if that minimum applies to tournaments or stairs. In any case, it has nothing to do with how ratings are adjusted. Rather, It relates to whether a game is rated. I don't agree that playing a game, no matter the outcome, will either prove or disprove your point or mine. I believe we've already played 2 games here. Do you think the results of those games prove anything?
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.
Nothingness: I said nothing to indicate otherwise. I said it's a standard formula to adjust ratings. The existing system already takes into account wins, losses, draws and provisional ratings. To alter the existing formula to adjust ratings differently for draws would be arbitrary and without foundation. On the left, one can click on "Ratings" under "Statistics" to find the following: BKR means "BrainKing Rating" and is calculated by US Chess Federation formula(*) for each kind of a game separately according to your game results.
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.
The not making progress rule occurs quite often in chess tournaments where you often get down to having to complete you moves in 15 minutes and the player with more time just tries to run the clock down. I don’t think the rule is so applicable for correspondence chess or sites like Brainking.
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: Article 10 is very problematic. Imagine, referee has rating 1800 and he must judge if player 2350 is attempting to win by normal means or not... It is one of the reasons why increment is prefered and article 10 is not applied.
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
Nothingness: There are players rated less than expert that know how to win efficiently with KBN vs K advantage, but I don't know about c-class. The rule is not for the rating level but for the skill in advancing the position. If a player of whatever ranking cannot advance the position, a draw is an appropriate outcome.
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
cookie monster: In chess, a player with a material disadvantage may play for a draw rather than resigning (a draw is better than a loss). With the 50-move rule, it is up to the player with the material advantage to advance the position (a win is better than a draw). It's a good idea in an inferior (unlikely winnable) position to play for a draw. That outcome is more reasonably attainable with a draw rule. K+B+N vs K endgames (in which the B & N aren't in a trap position where one can't avoid capture) are winnable in less than 50 moves by a skilled player.
If by "arbitrary" you mean 50 moves instead of 46 or 53, I agree. Otherwise, based on the things I've read about the history of the rule, I don't think the rule is arbitrary. I think it was well thought out. It takes into account the standard mates and a margin of error for accomplishing them as well as the moves for pawn advancement/promotion and captures.
There is already a 50-move precedent for an Espionage draw rule (35 for the small board variations). Deviating from that precedent is arbitrary if not capricious.
I suspect, though I do not, that the 50 move rule in chess was arbitrary. I believe it was later discovered that there are certain positions arising in K+B+N vs K endgames where a forced win exists that takes more than 50 moves to achieve against best play.
Also, this isn't about testing the reasonableness of 50 or 60 turns as a draw threshold; this is about testing Nothingness' claim that he can go 50+ moves at the start of the game without allowing a piece being captured at, presumably, anything less than great risk to his opponent.
I agree with Nothingness that defending is generally an advantageous (if boring) strategy, but I disagree in the level of advantage that it brings. I think he is over-estimating it. I have only played against someone blatantly trying for a draw (or to provoke something reckless by turtling) three times (all against The Limbaugh Express) and none of those games went anywhere near 50 moves without a capture nor left me at any risk afterwards. Could I attack blindly against, say, jonaron without expecting to get the worse of it? Probably not, but the only case where that matters is when I enter a game against jonaron needing a win and he needs a draw (a multigame match or tournament perhaps) so that is a position that we have already put ourselves in by playing decisive games.
The proper way to test that would be, likely to, set up various defensive positions in each game and determine how well they can be attacked without knowing any of the pieces. The 10x10 boards would be more interesting.
In the end, however, it still comes down to whether the attacking player wants to accept the defending players tacit draw offer or to attack and the turn limit rule just makes accepting the implied draw that much easier.
cookie monster: I surmise that the 50-move draw rule in chess was based on empirical data from games played at the highest level and player input from masters and grandmasters.
No single game or match would have been a reasonable test of the rule. I personally think the best test of such a draw rule for Espionage would be one in which many of the highest level players evaluate a variety of game positions and determine the least number of moves without a capture to advance towards a win for each position. Those positions from which no clear advantage can be consistently developed should be excluded. Even if the advantage is not always in favor of the same side for a given position the result will be included if the position consistently leads to a win. From the data of these positions, the number of moves without capture to bring the game to a win should tabulated. The maximum number of moves (from the various positions) will not necessarily be the threshold for the draw rule, but likely will be a smaller number. That is, as in chess, though some positions may be winnable, the excessive number of moves to accomplish it with solid play on both sides will justify calling it a draw by rule. Ultimately, the number of moves for the draw rule should be based on what is usually reasonable for top level players.
I decline participating in the test suggested by cookie monster.