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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 :)
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 ;-)
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.
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.]
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.
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. :)
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 ... :-)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.