Nothingness: No doubt, that would require a programming change. Altering the notation for that purpose is unnecessary since either player can go to any specific move to look at the capture lists of both players to verify any change to those lists. Additionally, any player has the option of utilizing the "add note" feature to record the most recent move # in which a capture is made and thereafter edit that note when another capture is made.
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.
Nothingness: I think the chances of getting the rule implemented are higher if the rule is simple, clear and same for all variants. If we choose for the 60 moves instead of 50, you also have the 10 moves extra in the beginning.
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.
Chaos: I agree that the existing stalemate rule is a good one.
Pedro Martínez: That was just the definition for stalemate that I had put in quotes.
Chaos: On the number of moves for a draw, I have made proposals indicating a smaller number of moves for the smaller board variations, but 60 moves is better than not having a rule. Will that be from the beginning of the game?
Dark Prince: I guess you misunderstood me. I actually made a proposal to request a draw rule so you could conclude I think it's a good thing to install one. (my point to Nothingness was I don't see the point in reinstalling a committee, I think it's best to go to Fencer if someone doesn't accept the draw, since he can inforce it, my other point to Nothingness was that I don't see other draw situations needing a rule, much less needing a committee).
My question to everyone; is 60 moves ok? Or do we want 50 moves like in chess?
In my opinion there shouldn't be a stalemate rule in espionage; there's no king, no piece with a 'forbidden' move, like in chess. So if you put yourself in a position where you can only be captured or walk into a bomb, you've lost. It's not forbidden in espionage to do either.
Chaos: The frequency of utilizing a rule is not a reasonable measure of whether the rule should exist. In chess, the 50 move rule is rarely used (as a percentage of games played), and the en passant rule is also rarely utilized. The stalemate rule may come up even less frequently but is a factor that cannot be ignored in tactical considerations. The 50-move draw rule would serve tactical purposes too in Espionage, i.e. "sh*t or get off the pot."
Nothingness: we can ask for a draw rule to be implemented in the espionage rules, and I would be happy to do so as soon as there is a consensus what exactly we want to ask for.
DRAW RULE PROPOSAL: a draw can be asked for after 60 moves of non-capture. (seems a simple and clear rule to me). I would like to hear from you all what you think of this, so I can make the request to Fencer.
A committe only has authority to those who choose to be part of the group listening to this committee, which seems to me to be the people who would already be reasonable. A committee would also have to have a draw rule to apply. How often does the situation occur anyway? I've never had such situation.
Celticjim: I used to be paying member on IYT too years ago. It was a bit strange for me to see start of next round afte end of all groups, but it has also own logic. On IYT was much less tournaments, so may be it was reason.
I feel that re-installing a committee would help with any rulings. Such as drawn positions. if the committee can look at a situation and decide that "yes i see winning possibilities for white no you cannot be granted a draw" or no you cannot win in this situation draw" i can agree to this.
I shouldn't have to write to him and refuse to do so--I found him ignorant--fair enough english is his second language and I don't speak his tongue but my request to have pictures deleted was hardly a technically challenging one---
On IYT (where I am now a paying member again) the next round of tournament starts when the sections are decided-seems logical
Chaos -they were simple questions about pictures on my profile that I wanted deleted.No way to delete them and no help from person who answered.Another point that tournament that I am supposedly still in--the outcome is decided--Nothingness wins the section yet everyone must wait for a nothing game to finish between the 2 lowest ranking players.Ridiculous
Justaminute: If it would require a program change, I would agree that the option of removing a mine would not work. I am sure Fencer would answer that if it came to a point that a consensus of players liked that penalty addition. If the consensus were against it, it would be a moot point.
Justaminute: Whether something has a chance of being implemented should not be a bar to its introduction for discussion. Whatever the reason for the penalty, removing a checker from the board is a penalty that does NOT occur in all checker variations. It doesn't occur in chess or most other games where a player may choose not to make a move to capture an opponent's piece.
The point I was making was not to show an approximate comparison. It does show that penalties exist in other games. You do not have to agree with the penalty I propose or that there should be a penalty. My suggestions on a draw rule are not part of the game yet it is being discussed by several others. Though the addition of a penalty is not a part of the game, it too could be discussed and either rejected or accepted. I make no apology for suggesting it.
There has been no suggestion made that the rule would require any kind of program change other than to add the text to the rules. The 50-move chess rule is not programmed. A player who calls a draw in chess based on the 50-move rule sends it to support to call the draw if the opponent declines the draw offer. The same would be the case in Espionage for either the draw or the penalty.
Justaminute: I'm not too concerned about whether the penalty I suggested is included as part of the draw rule. It has been rare that I've been offered a draw that I declined.
I can't agree with the reasoning, however, that a rule shouldn't lead to different treatment than occurs in another game type. On the contrary, differing rules are what sets a game apart from other games. Penalties do occur in games for various purposes depending on the circumstances. In checkers, for example, there are variations that impose the penalty of removing a checker if an available jump is not taken. In some timed chess tournaments there are time penalties for false draw claims and other infractions. The lack of a penalty for an infraction in some game types does not imply that proposing a penalty for that infraction in a particular game is inappropriate.
If chess has a 50 move rule and sabotage at IYT has it for some variants, maybe it's best to ask for at least 50 moves for all variants here? Same for all seems most clear to me. 60 moves is fine with me (as cookie monster asked for). Could everyone live with that?
@Dark Prince: With y I referred to your earlier post: To allow for slow starters, the 50 move rule could start at move 25 and the 35 move rule for smaller boards could start at move 15 for the open variations. 50 moves starting at move 50 and 35 moves starting at move 30 for the volcano variations.
Dark Prince: I think the part about multiple draw offers isn't appropriate. Yes it is annoying and yes it is bad manners but this can happen in any game on Brainking and I see no reason why Espionage should be treated differently. BK is no different to playing over the board, you politely decline the first time, do it more firmly the second time and then ignore them. They get the message. If it reaches a point where it is harrassment you can appeal to the arbitor (Fencer here).
Chaos: Draw: There are two ways of ending a game in a draw. The first is by agreement between the opponents in which one player offers a draw and the other player accepts the offer. This can occur at any time during the game. The other is by request to support under the 50-move rule if the opponent refuses the draw offer. The 50-move rule (as it's called in chess) applies when X turns or more by each player have transpired since move Y (or X turns by one player and X-1 turns by the player requesting the draw) without a capture.
Move Y is the starting turn from which the X count begins. Regardless of the variation, the Y turn is reset to the latest move a capture by either player is made including resetting it to a turn prior to the initial Y for that variation. A capture is the only way to reset Y. A capture occurs any time a piece is moved to a square occupied by an enemy piece regardless of which piece is removed from the game board and placed in the appropriate capture list.
The draw must be offered when it is your turn and prior to making a move (it must be possible to legally make all moves that turn without moving any piece onto a square occupied by an enemy piece if it's the Xth move but not if beyond that move). If the X count is met or exceeded and no draw offer is made then or after, the opportunity will expire when a piece is captured.
It is annoying to many players to receive multiple draw offers when the threshold "X" moves has not been met. Do not offer a draw more than once prior to the threshold or there will be a penalty. Any request for support to enforce the 50-move rule when the constraints for the rule have not been met will also invoke the penalty. The other player will choose between two possible penalties. Either Y will be reset to the move of the inappropriate draw offer or the player making the offer must choose one of his mines to be removed by support.
dAGGER: I think a minimum number of moves with no capture is a good rule to force a draw, if one of the opponents claims for it: 1) it is simple to remember for everyone 2) it helps preventing games to go on years, when only a player is very slow 3) if two skilled and defensive players agree on going on, it does not oblige to end up the game as a draw, if no opponent asks for it."
I agree with dAGGER completely. For this reason I think the rules shoudln't be too different between the various variants, best would be 1 and the same rule (x amount of noncapture moves maybe with an addition of beginning after move y)
cookie monster: Thanks for your input and correction. I am so accustomed to the word "move" for a draw situation that I didn't realize I was using it where "turn" is the appropriate word for this game type.
On the Spy issues, I like Dark Prince's proposed wording change for the additional information it provides even though the current wording appears consistent.
On the Draw rule, I think we can ignore both repetition of position and moves that prevent that (e.g. a piece being revealed by a Spy) and focus solely on the number of TURNS without a capture. (Other approaches would hit the clause eventually anyway). As for the number of turns, I would suggest 60, but will happily go with a higher number if someone links a game that includes more than 60 and still resulted in a decisive outcome on the board.
As far as turtling, I again agree with Dark Prince's statement: "The fact that "turtling" is a well known and widely used strategy does not necessitate that rules do not discourage their use. On the contrary, rules are commonly used as a mechanism to deter such strategies. "
If one player wishes to sit back and do nothing but defend then, obviously, the second player can sit and not attack and a draw is the natural outcome. Letting a person not attack and then refuse a draw indefinitely seems sub-optimal to me.
Nothingness: I think a minimum number of moves with no capture is a good rule to force a draw, if one of the opponents claims for it: 1) it is simple to remember for everyone 2) it helps preventing games to go on years, when only a player is very slow 3) if two skilled and defensive players agree on going on, it does not oblige to end up the game as a draw, if no opponent asks for it.
I think the most important thing here is to help games to go on faster.
"The fifty-move rule in chess states that a player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty consecutive moves (fifty moves by each side). The intended reason for the rule is so that a player with no chance to win cannot be obstinate and play on indefinitely (Hooper & Whyld 1992), or seek a win purely due to an opponent's fatigue. All of the basic checkmates can be accomplished in well under fifty moves. In the 20th century it was discovered that some positions of certain endgames can only be won in more than fifty moves (without a capture or a pawn move). The rule was changed to include certain exceptions in which one hundred moves were allowed with particular material combinations. However, more and more exceptions were discovered and in 1992 FIDE abolished all such exceptions and reinstated the strict fifty-move rule."
I hope it's not a problem that I copied the text and pasted it here. The point is that though it was found that a game could be won beyond the 50 moves, the 50 move rule was eventually reinstated. Again, this rule ensures that a game must progress or a player will have the right to call a draw. I assert that such reasoning applies or should apply to Espionage as well.