Chess rule is not only 50 moves w/o capture,but also w/o pawn move.
In case this rule, it should be definitely more than 50 moves w/o capture. In chess is such rule applied after, say, 60th move, so there is near same ammount of moves available to realization of advantage as was length of games - and 60 moves is already considered as long game.
But I think there is no need for such rule. There is possibility to contact Fencer to claim game as draw and it should be sufficient.
Dark Prince: We can request Fencer to add a draw rule to the rules. And since we already have the agreement of fair play regarding illegal moves, we may just as well add a draw situation to it in my opinion.
Nothingness: In chess, the 50 move rule has the purpose of ensuring that the player with the advantage exploits it efficiently. A case in point is that of an endgame with Knight, Bishop and King versus King. A skilled player can win within 50 moves with that advantage while a player uncertain of how to coordinate those pieces may well take longer. In the latter case, the game is a draw because of the inefficiency of the player with the advantage regardless of the fact that it would otherwise not be considered a draw position.
There's no reason not to have a rule as to when the game can be declared a draw.
There are ways to reach a positions near the end of the game where a win cannot be forced and even more ways to reach a position where a player needs to take what might be deemed unacceptable risks to attempt and force a decision.
A 50 move rule without a capture seems a very fair rule.
Dark Prince: The purpose of a draw is to avoid a game going on forever. Yes i agree that there should be a rule for this. What the rule is needs to be voted on by the people who play the game the most. Generally if two players are of equal skill level and we are at a point early in teh game where no one wants to advance and both plays thus build two walls. The player who attacks first will probably have to sacrifice a piece. Then the 2nd player pounces on that advantage and considers themselves the better player in an eventual win. (not always the case) . This is a strategy and should not be punished. if you are unable to crack a defense then you are not skilled enough or knowledgeable enough to exploit that defense. Asking for a draw b/c a he/she has no way of breaking a defense is simply weak! There is a way to guarantee draws. we need to vote.
Nothingness: I have never known the 50 move rule come into play personally in practise in chess although I have played over 1000 competitive games in leagues and tournaments. I've heard of it a couple of times in grandmaster play but that's it. The fact that such a rule is a problem in espionage illustrates why the game will always appeal to a small group of enthusiastic players rather than have popular appeal.
SL-Mark: The volcano version would have to have a different set of rules due to the merry go round technique. If i have a 1 and you have a 5 remaining and both of our flags are protected than no side can ever win since you will never be able to capture anything. Having to use a strategic sacrifice in order to get a draw is a thought out plan but boring an opponent is tricky. This where the volcano versions should be ruled differently. I alwayswinsam was a master at this. Those versions simply are flawed/difficult in that you really need to wait for a mistake and be patient. the open versions however will require a rule to prevent an unwinnable situation from going on forever. 50moves in this game would not be practical. we need a different rule. ill put some thought into it. and post a poll
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 :)
Nothingness: You previously said: "That would be reasonable since that is the way it pretty much goes in chess. So 50moves without a capture of a piece..." That isn't the site forcing a draw situation. That is a player failing to make a capture to prevent a draw. "Enforce" is not the same as "force." Hence, the rules drive the strategy/tactics. From my perspective, a player failing to make a capture in 50 moves is stalling. A 150 move game sounds exceptionally boring to me no less a 400 move game.
Dark Prince: I am dead set against requesting a site to force a draw situation. That is not fair to all parties. UNLESS the opponent is intentionally stalling for time. If it takes a long time it takes a long time. I have had 400 move games on IYT. There was 1 player that would ask for draws all the time. Classless. But we need to have some sort of rule in place to prevent it. A point rule could be used. BUT never asking for support. This was one of the reasons for a committee. They can rule on such situations. Only an advanced player can really rule on such a situation.
rod03801 The chess rules include one for draw situations. Why would it be any less necessary for any other game that could potentially go on and on? Fencer responded to my message to him and apparently doesn't think such a rule is necessary for Espionage. If a rule doesn't exist prior to such a situation to cover it, enforcing a rule that doesn't exist or one made retroactively would be unfair to the other player. Rules themselves drive strategy and tactics. They must be clear before the situation arises or can apply only to games started after the rule is added except by agreement of both players. Existing rules don't require agreement to be enforced even if program quirks allow them to be broken.
Nothingness: It may be a rare thing to get into that situation, but I have at IYT. There, my opponent didn't agree to a draw, so I had to request support to enforce the rule. The game was declared a draw even though my opponent didn't agree. With nothing in the rules here, a game could go on indefinitely with no progress. The more patient player could effectively force the less patient player to resign a game that should be a draw. Unfortunately, there seems to be little interest in adding a draw situation to Espionage rules here.
I could find nothing in the rules about draw situations for any Espionage variation. I think 50 moves without a capture for the regular board size and 35 moves for the small variants is reasonable. I would like to see that covered in the rules whether with those numbers of moves or other.
Dark Prince: I just looked again at the game to see how many pieces the player making the illegal move had on the board and noticed that there was another illegal move prior to the one I indicated. On moves 54 and 55, the 5 was moved from h1-g1 then g1-h1. In this case, the player making the illegal move had 3 movable pieces and 2 in the other case.
Nothingness: I thought that bug was only an issue when attrition became a factor with very few pieces left for the player moving the piece back where it came from. Does the bug show up earlier in the game?
Nothingness: Look at White moves 58 and 59 You'll see the 5 moves from i1 to h1 Then from h1 to i1 It violates the rule that a piece cannot move back to the square it had vacated on the previous move..
Chaos: The agreement is indicated by having the name on the list. Once the name is on the list, it will be up to the player against whom the illegal move was made to decide how to proceed and agreement by the opponent won't be needed if it's clear that an illegal move was in fact made.
Chaos: I'd prefer the bug were fixed and this wouldn't be an issue. I don't intend to have games against players that aren't skilled enough to know a move is illegal or that a particular position could lead to such a move. A player can look at the previous move prior to beginning the move and look at the move list during the move to verify that all pieces are moving according to the rules. Anyone who doesn't want to risk making the agreement certainly doesn't have to. Nevertheless, I don't mind adding to the description: It will be at the players discretion against whom the illegal move was made to either ask the opponent to resign or allow the opponent the opportunity to have the illegal move reversed.
Dark Prince: Slight change in wording for description so intent is not implied. That is if the illegal move is unintentional, inadvertent or unknown to the player, the agreement stands. "I hereby agree to resign any game against another player on this list if during the course of the game any piece of mine is moved back to the square it had vacated on the previous move."
Dark Prince: Unless Fencer is on a vacation or something, the reversal will definitely not take longer than a few days. I believe your assumption would be correct indeed. The problem with undesired identification of pieces would have to be taken as an inevitable side effect though.
Pedro Martínez: If reported to Fencer by Private Message, would it take hours, days or weeks to reverse an illegal move? Would I be correct in assuming it would still be reversed even if several moves had been made since it was reported? The potential problem with previously unidentied pieces would apply here too.
How long does it take? It depends on the method of reporting the illegal move. It takes Fencer much less time (and effort) if reported to him directly via PM than if reported in the BugTracker (or at least this is what my experience tells me).
What happens if unidentified pieces become identified as a result of the illegal move? I have no idea. Good question though. :)
Pedro Martínez: Is it at all possible to have the move reversed? At BK some things seem to be impossible while they seem logical and wanted, like the next round of a tournament starting as soon as the winners of the previous round are known. In that case we have to wait untill all games of the previous round have finished, whether or not their outcome is relevant. That's why I wonder if it's possible to have a move reversed. My guess is it can't.
Pedro Martínez: As I understand it, a player may inadvertently make an illegal move due to the bug that would otherwise be impossible. More critically, in certain positions with few remaining movable pieces, a player may be forced to make the illegal move which would otherwise be prevented without the bug. In either case, a player may have a legitimate argument that the illegal move was unintentional. With the list, voluntary resignation is agreed upon without involving a moderator or management and no move reversal is necessary.
Have such moves been reversed? How long does it take? What happens if unidentified pieces become identified as a result of the illegal move?
Chaos: Well, people who have accounts and play at BK are deemed to have agreed to the User Agreement and to the rules of all games that are played here. My understanding is that when my opponent (or anyone else on this site) makes an illegal move (i.e. a move which is not in agreement with the rules applicable to BK games), I am fully entitled to require the management to have such a move reversed. Therefore, I think the list of “obligated players” is rather redundant since they are obligated to that effect (not to make illegal moves) already.
Chaos: I would also like to see a date by the name of each player for when they are added to the list and suggest the following for the wording: "I hereby agree to resign any game against another player on this list (in which both players have an effective date on or before the start of the game) if during the course of the game I move any piece back to the square it had vacated on the previous move."
Dark Prince: Rather than "clutter" the top of the board with several names, such as you describe, the better way would be to have one post, listing all the names. Then a link directly to that post, could be placed at the top. That post could be edited at any time by Chaos. (Or whoever does the post, AND any moderator)
In each post, you see a "Link" link under the date. If Chaos copies that URL and puts it at the top of this board, telling what it is, anyone can click it and see the up to date list of people agreeing.
It's pretty simple, but if any assistance is needed, just let me know. (Or any other Global Moderator, really)
lukulus: I think a list would avoid any confusion about who has made such an agreement or not and with whom. It would be unfortunate to play thinking we had such an agreement and the opponent saying no. Why ask before or during each game when a list would be so clear in advance? Could such a list or link to the list be placed in such a location that it would be easily accessible both at the time it's made and into the future without doing some kind of search?