User Name: Password:
New User Registration
Moderator: Chaos 

For all Espionage fans

Messages per page:
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Mode: Everyone can post
Search in posts:  

<< <   10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19   > >>
17. September 2010, 23:50:41
Subject: Re:
cookie monster: Even if you know all my 1s it would be hard to get around them! I think I could stop/get rid of your recons using my 1s, some 2s and some of my recons. I'd go for the deal!

17. September 2010, 23:37:14
your giving a preset value based upon your own piece value system. I consider a Bombs location more valuable, than a 1.

would you give 4 bomb locations for all 5 ones? i certainly wouldnt.

17. September 2010, 01:27:45
cookie monster 
Subject: Re:

Mark- I think once you show me five 1s I can show half of my pieces and still reach a complete information situation with my recons . . .they simply have to avoid your 1s.

17. September 2010, 00:31:21
Subject: Re:
cookie monster: I think we have to assume that all recons are present, and negotiations take place before the board is set up.

What would you share with me for the knowledge of my five 1s? Perhaps your five recons? Or maybe four 1s for four recons?

17. September 2010, 00:10:29
Subject: Re:
Nothingness: Well yes? But then would you offer the location of two 3s for a 2, 1, and a base? If not, you can't reasonably expect some else to accept this offer.

Simple weighting:
(2+1+base = 3) for (3+3=6)

Original offer to Chaos was (5x1s=5) for (1x5s=5), but my offer to Chaos is now (2x5s=10), a bargain surely?

16. September 2010, 23:52:42
Subject: Re:
SL-Mark: i would expose the location of a 2 and a 1 and a bomb for both 3s

16. September 2010, 23:48:09
Subject: Re:
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?

16. September 2010, 23:46:13
Subject: Re:
cookie monster: A 1 and a 2 would be the last pieces i would want to know the location of early. unless it was all of them. the sabs or the 3s and 4s are most important to me for the end game.

16. September 2010, 23:41:26
cookie monster 
I don't know that there is much of an advantage to be gained by revealing pieces early without decreasing the number of Recons in play. To the extent that there is an advantage, I'd be more interested in knowing where my opponents 1s are as they pose the most danger to my Recons.

16. September 2010, 23:14:13
ill show you mine if you show me yours! what a quote.. but seriously.. this is more of a philosophical situation. some people value certain pieces more than others. i value the vision of a particular enemy piece...but could care less of where an opp 2s are. in the beginning of the game every piece is assumed to be a recon. unitl something is revealed. as each piece is revealed deduction takes over. but with auto revealing it gives away a lot about a set up position. not sure what im trying to convey but cont think it will be practical for anything but a mentoring/ teaching tool.

16. September 2010, 16:07:08
Subject: Re:
Chaos: So the value of five undisclosed 1s is greater than a disclosed 5

Okay, would you show me all your 1s for both of my 5s? A possible bargain here

16. September 2010, 14:56:56
Subject: Re:

SL-Mark: Would you show me your five 1s and I'll show you where one of my 5s is located?

I wouldn't. First because you know five of my pieces and I would only know one, but also because you know all of one sort: you know all of my 1s, so none of my other pieces can be a 1. I would only know one of your 5's, so I cannot conclude anything about the rest of your pieces.

16. September 2010, 12:32:42
Subject: Re:
Nothingness: There are some technicalities to that. For example, the player has to choose which recon they disclosed during negotiations. I would not want a program to determine this and show my 'tucked away' recon :)

In any event, whilst the idea is serious, I do not really think that it should be converted to a variant, there are far more worthy suggestions that have been put forward.

The idea was more about understanding the value information and its exchange.

Would you show me your five 1s and I'll show you where one of my 5s is located?

16. September 2010, 03:56:25
There is the option that we can have Fencer have them revealed when the 1st move is made. So that there is no honor system needed.

15. September 2010, 00:11:04
Subject: Espionage - Simply a game of negotiation
Back to the subject of espionage variations, here is on you can implement now! Indeed, it may also help beginners (and some of the more experienced) better understand the value of information.

So, for example, immediately after you have set up your pieces:
i) Tell me where all your 1s are, and in exchange I will tell you where one of my 5s are.
ii) What information would you want from me, if you wanted to inform me of where two of your recons (spys) are located?
iii) If I were to tell you the location of my base, what information would you give me in return?
iv) Give the me location of your four 2s and I will share with you the location of one of my 5s and 4s
etc. etc.

So the game might go like this:
1. Both players set up pieces.
2. Negotiation starts through messages until one player decides they are not prepared to negotiate any more.
3. Game starts.
4. It is each players responsibility to track the information they have received (this is a very useful exercise for those that don’t take notes)

Of course, each player is expected to be honourable and to be honest in any disclosure, which can be easily checked against the written negotiation messages. Of course the setup of you pieces may reflect the fact that a negotiation round will take place ;)

Even if you do not like the idea of this game, it is nevertheless a useful thought exercise for this game, as it is just a game of negotiation, only we are doing some of it before we start!

Anyone want a game? Open Fast, no BKR, send me an invite :)

23. August 2010, 13:03:57
happy hermit 
Vikings - Thanks

pedestrian - cookie monster will not grab any of your "waiting games" until he has rating :)

Nothingness - I assume you are referring to the draw between Mark and myself in your Open tournament adding to the anecdotal evidence that I am not too "rating-oriented" :)

23. August 2010, 07:24:13
the suspicious nature of the tourney game in which a draw was taken very early is suspect and i felt that was the case.

23. August 2010, 02:16:10
Subject: Re:
cookie monster: I don't think anybody suspects cheating or anything remotely close to that. People get away with things that are much, much worse (and btw., it's obvious that a professional translator could have done a better job with the different versions of those rules).

I had to say though, that if I had a choice I'd rather play against happy hermit than cookie monster. I know I'm a bit strange that way, but I do care about my ratings ;-)

23. August 2010, 01:57:40
Subject: Re:
cookie monster: you are not flirting with a ban,the reminder was put up more for others who try to cheat. Being as open as you were, it is obvious that you do not fall into that catagory

23. August 2010, 01:53:54
cookie monster 
Thanks for the info. I, apparently, have never read the rules.

I have one game started on this account, and 10 or so on the other, so I guess I am flirting with a ban. On the bright side, I think we call all agree that I have very little interest in my ratings. :)

In any case, I won't start any more games on the other account beyond those assigned to me for tournaments already in progress.

22. August 2010, 20:18:23
Pedro Martínez 
Subject: Re: just a reminder
Modified by Pedro Martínez (22. August 2010, 20:19:59)
Pedro Martínez: And the German version is even stricter:

Generelle Regeln: (gelten für Spiele und Diskussionsforen)

1. Jeder Spieler auf BrainKing darf nur einen Account haben. Multiple Accounts sind verboten und können zum Ausschluss führen.

[General Rules: (to be applied to games and discussion forums)

1. Each BrainKing player may only have one account. Multiple accounts are prohibited and may lead to a ban.]

22. August 2010, 19:50:48
Pedro Martínez 
Subject: Re: just a reminder
Vikings: The Czech version says this:

Základní pravidla: (aplikovaná na celém serveru)

1. Každému hráči je povoleno mít právě jedno registrované konto. Používání více kont stejnou osobou, především za účelem umělého zvyšování hodnocení pomocí úmyslně prohraných her je považováno za nesportovní a podobné chování nebude tolerováno.

[General Rules: (applicable throughout the site)

1. Each user is allowed to have only one registered account. Use of multiple accounts by one person, in particular with the view of boosting ratings by losing games intentionally, shall be regarded as unsportsmanlike, and such conduct shall not be tolerated.]

Now I wonder which version takes precedence?

22. August 2010, 19:32:52
as long as you are not manipulating your ratings, I don't think it is a big deal

22. August 2010, 19:31:32
Subject: just a reminder
General Guidelines: (rules to be applied throughout the site - in games, discussion boards, tournaments, ponds, stairs, fellowships etc.)

1. Each individual who plays on BrainKing is asked to use one, and only one, BrainKing account. Multiple accounts created for cheating in tournaments, games, ratings, or to get around bans on boards are prohibited.

22. August 2010, 15:56:09
cookie monster 
Subject: Re: cute name :)

The name was Mark's idea. :)

I am in two tournaments and my intent, as always, is to finish what I start. Of course, we all know how that has worked out in the past. :)

I use the same email/user id/password for all of my "casual" accounts and whenever I switch computers I just create new accounts. That made a little more sense 10 years ago, but it's just how I do things. :)

22. August 2010, 15:01:10
Subject: cute name :)

cookie monster: Why the need to change? just curious.

And how about the Open Espionage League Brain prize Tourney? you'll continue playing that one, right? Would be a shame to lose a possible winner because of an identitycrisis.

22. August 2010, 12:57:22
cookie monster 
Subject: Old player, new name
I'll be switching to this account in the next day or two. I've been saying that quietly for two weeks, but I might mean it this time.

-johnerichanson, quiet man, argyle socks & happy hermit

6. July 2010, 13:10:24
Subject: Re: team tournaments
Chaos: Maybe with the new espionage players who joined the beginner's tournament and with players like you signing up for a paid membership we could get a good tournament going! (/quote)

=> yep, that's the background of my question: Is it worth becoming a paying member? At the moment, I see no reason.
Playing more games simultaneously? Not really
Joining more tournaments simultaneously? Hmm, there aren't many interesting espionage tournaments
Playing other games than espionage? Hmm, for battleboats, poker etc. I would prefer realtime-versions
Perhaps, cool espionage team-tournaments ... :-)

6. July 2010, 12:53:36
Subject: Re: team tournaments
Sandoz: The problem is only paying members can become part of a team. There was a plain espionage teamtournament starting quite some time ago, but plain espionage is a bit too slow for me. I would join fast mini or open fast. I'd love a teamtournament!


Maybe with the new espionage players who joined the beginner's tournament and with players like you signing up for a paid membership we could get a good tournament going!

6. July 2010, 12:47:40
Subject: Re: team tournaments
Sandoz: As for team tourneys... they are all dependant upon fellowships and they are not as big as i hoped they would be. as per my previous posts i would love to get something like that going.

6. July 2010, 08:58:00
Subject: team tournaments
are you guys playing a lot of espionage team tournaments?
Is there anything going on?

9. June 2010, 23:35:51
A great idea would be for us to start up 4 or 5 fellowships and have a large team tourney!

6. June 2010, 04:49:30
Subject: random tourney....

4. June 2010, 13:29:27
Subject: observartions of the F clock.
Modified by Nothingness (5. June 2010, 19:06:20)
As of now i have had more time to observe some more things about the Fischer clock. currently im in a game with black knight. we started 2 games one with a clock the other without a clock. We started the games on the same day. I moved as fast as possible both of those games. In the one game we are about move 120 and in the other move 15. The games started on april 15. Im still gathering more data, But i do know that a 12 hour clock is not reasonable unlike I had previously thought. 24 hours is barely reasonable.... unless you have a large bank.We all need to beware of auto vacation.

28. May 2010, 15:08:48
Dark Prince 
Subject: Playing face to face
Even with the laptops/ipods and playing online, you could use your chess clocks for time control. You would just need to make sure your opponent or anyone possibly in league with your opponent could not see your computer screen.
You might want to experiment to make sure how close to instantaneous a move submitted is before it's available for the opponent to move.
If there is a delay, or for potential connectivity problems, you may add some game time to compensate.

26. May 2010, 21:04:56
Subject: fischer clock
i think i have a partial solution to the fischer clock.Some of us get to set our profile for weekends and wht days will be considered weekends for us. We can do this for time as well. and call it sleep time. no games can time out while it is during your sleep time. im on EST time. and my sleep time hypothetically is 11pm till 7am. in this time frame i cannot time out of any normal game. once it passes this time frame, you start timing out. Right now im starting to experiment with the clock and have timed out of one game due to a misjudgemt in clock management... and due to being very busy. when i gahter more data ill post about my observations.

22. May 2010, 07:37:21
Subject: Re: Why make pieces at all?
Dark Prince: point taken...

20. May 2010, 19:18:49
Dark Prince 
Subject: Re: Why make pieces at all?
Doing so will make the game different than the internet/ computer based game since recons would reveal themselves when they reveal anything else. Bring Ipods or laptops and play online.

20. May 2010, 15:16:32
im concerned about the human error of the "DRAWING" effect of my art work with the "?" and the flaws of the carton squares.

20. May 2010, 15:14:43
Subject: Re: game pieces
Nothingness: you could use simple thick carton squares. On one side you have a questionmark, on the other side the espionage piece. I admit it wouldn't look attractive, but it's simple and effective. The only difference with the real game is that you know when your opponent detected a piece.

20. May 2010, 14:48:28
Anyway, back to this Grand Master draw.....

20. May 2010, 14:41:25
happy hermit 
Subject: Re:

They are different.  I believe stratego goes 1 to 9 with 8 and 9 matching when spies and saboteurs.  You could get multiple sets, or use stickers over the traditional icons.

20. May 2010, 14:30:15
i thought about that.... but i think that the ranks are different arent they. they lack enough of the correct #s.. There are no 1s or Spies for whatever.

20. May 2010, 14:26:59
happy hermit 
Subject: Re: game pieces

Perhaps you could start with a Stratego set ?

20. May 2010, 04:06:50
Subject: game pieces
I'm curious if anyone has any ideas as to how I can create my own personal Espionage game pieces. The main obstacle here is the trackability of man made pieces. I would love to try and introduce the game to a local chess club or in the skittles rooms of chess tourneys.

17. May 2010, 15:42:14
Subject: draw?
Mark, Eric, why did you agree to a draw in your game in the Open Sab Brain prize tourney? Didn't look over to me at all!

14. May 2010, 16:13:09
happy hermit 
Subject: Can I interest anyone in a game?
I suddenly find myself with only two interesting games, both of which should wind down quickly.

12. May 2010, 17:17:49
I disagree with grumpy extrovert.. someone has to, lol.

11. May 2010, 19:37:05
happy hermit 
Subject: Re: aggressive style
Dark Prince:

I agree defensive play is more effective here than at IYT.  It is easier to gain complete information which, in turn, makes material relatively more important (and initiative less important).

It's hard to judge how effective one style is compared to another.  Though I think a defensive style is technically better, I doubt it makes a huge difference and I think most players prefer an aggressive style.

I consider myself relatively aggressive, but of the 2000+ rated players I am familiar with only Mark and dAGGER are clearly more defensive than I am.  On the other hand, only pcron and Borg-one were clearly more aggressive.   The rest seem willing to gamble some of the time . . . a poker analogy is probably appropriate here.

11. May 2010, 18:47:29
Dark Prince 
Subject: Re: aggressive style
happy hermit:
That may be true. I guess I would have to compare my games against defensive players to those against aggressive players. I will concede that at BK defensive play is more effective than at IYT in the corresponding variations due to move tracking.
As far as space is concerned, an aggressive player tends to acquire space for manuevering while the defensive player may end up with very little space for the same. At least that has been my experience.
It could also be that a less skilled/experienced player may do better playing defensively than aggressively. For me though, I don't want to wait for my opponent to make a mistake but would rather attempt to manuever into a superior position from which to attack.

<< <   10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19   > >>
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Tip of the day
Copyright © 2002 - 2020 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Back to the top