BrainKing - Discussion boards (Espionage)

Subject: Re: jonaron - quiet man

happy hermit:
I followed all the thread about the identities of jonaron and quite man.
I'm afraid only people coming from IYT may read that.
Maybe someone should explain other players who really is quite man............

5. November 2009, 00:46:07

Subject: Re: Tourny for those with brains

SL-Mark:

Stand and fight? It seems I have little choice. :)

5. November 2009, 00:51:57

Subject: Re: jonaron - quiet man

dAGGER: I think the clues are there for anyone to figure it out, but the short version is that happy hermit = quiet man = argyle socks = Eric Hanson etc.. I change my account every time I change computers. And I am no relation to jonaron . :)

5. November 2009, 02:44:40

SL-GentleKiller

Subject: Re: jonaron - quiet man

happy hermit: If a man has so many identities, what does it count one more in addition?

5. November 2009, 15:23:05

Subject: Reveal Bug

Just to let you all know, I have just reported a bug in one of my games.
If you make a move that captures a recon and in that same move, also move a '?' that would touch this recon, ensure that you take the recon first, otherwise the '?' will be revealed as it was seen before it was taken, even though it is the same move!

5. November 2009, 16:38:22

Subject: Re: Reveal Bug

SL-Mark:
Did this happen in our game?
I'm taken notes about my unrevealed pieces!

5. November 2009, 16:42:00

Subject: Re: Reveal Bug

SL-Mark:
I don't think it's a bug Mark.This was well documented on IYT where the same thing happened.

5. November 2009, 16:53:06

Subject: Re: Reveal Bug

dAGGER: Yes our game. I did leave you a message saying that your piece on g4 is now revealed!

5. November 2009, 16:54:24

Subject: Re: Reveal Bug

SL-Mark:

Nice find.

This is news to me, but I will keep it in mind.

5. November 2009, 16:58:52

Subject: Re: Reveal Bug

Celticjim: I hadn't realised that. It does explain all my defeats. :)

I can't be the only one, as dAGGER too has just fallen foul of this.

Do you suggest we leave it as it is, or get it changed (if possible) so it doesn't matter the piece movement order with a move

5. November 2009, 17:07:16

Subject: Re: Reveal Bug

SL-Mark:

I would consider it a bug and think it should be changed. I wouldn't expect it to be a difficult change (I suspect they need to update certain properties for individual piece moves and then again at the completion of all piece moves and the 'identified' flag is getting set in the first check instead of the second), but it should at least be documented somewhere obvious in the mean time.

I never knew the issue existed at IYT or here until now.

5. November 2009, 17:08:54

Modified by Celticjim (5. November 2009, 17:18:20)

I just assumed everyone knew this,I'm sure others will chime in but it was always something I bore in mind when making moves of that nature for many years now.Even if it is changed now it would be hard for me personally to break the habit of ALWAYS taking the recon first

5. November 2009, 17:09:34

Subject: Re: Reveal Bug

SL-Mark: I think it would be good if it got changed. It's not fair to those who don't know it and even if you know you can forget it. How do others feel about it? Should we make a request?

5. November 2009, 17:28:11

Subject: Re: Reveal Bug

SL-Mark:
thank you for admitting it!
I didn't know about this matter, that is a bug for me.
I think we should ask to fix it or at least to explain it in the game rules.

5. November 2009, 17:28:45

Subject: Next Tournament?

It's nice to see that it starts to be a discussion on this board. The level of the discussion is a nice mix of jokes, hints and other stuff. It's starts to look how it was in IYT in the old days.

I think it is to early to start up an "official" Sabotage Leauge-tournament. I think we should wait until January/February. Or at least the "Small Fast #1" should be finished. Or what do You think?

5. November 2009, 17:30:41

Subject: Re: Next Tournament?

SL-Bosse:
I look forward to a new league event, as I'm already out of the current ones!
:-)

5. November 2009, 17:31:13

Subject: Re: Reveal Bug

Chaos: Agree, it has nothing to do with the skill involved in playing the game. I have already listed it as a bug, saying that the piece movement order should make no difference whether the recon is captured first or last within the move.

5. November 2009, 17:34:38

Subject: Re: Reveal Bug

happy hermit: Me too. It was quite a surprise to see dAGGER's piece, one that he probably really did not want to show. An Italian disguise :)

5. November 2009, 17:35:40

Subject: Re: Next Tournament?

dAGGER: But can you as a Pawn enter a new tournament before it is finished? Or is it only to ask Fencer to fix it if you are out from the tournament?

5. November 2009, 17:37:32

Subject: The Italian Disguise

Modified by SL-Mark (5. November 2009, 17:38:06)

dAGGER: I think we can name this bug as "The Italian Disguise"

I had to mention it, the game is so critical now that it would be cheating not to say anything.

5. November 2009, 17:43:51

Subject: Re: The Italian Disguise

SL-Mark: We can start a nice "non-leauge" tournament called "The Italian Disguise"?

5. November 2009, 17:44:25

Subject: Re: Next Tournament?

SL-Bosse:

Has there been any discussion about holding a tournament outside the brainking tournament framework? I.e., the tournament pairings are posted elsewhere as we did in the past. This would be so 'pawns' are not excluded? .

5. November 2009, 17:47:29

Subject: Re: Next Tournament?

happy hermit: I don't think so. But it can be an good idea. But then we need someone to administrate it.

Just another question: As a "Pawn" you can not be member of a Fellowship? Or?

5. November 2009, 17:51:17

Subject: The Italian Disguise

From: Fencer (show this user's messages)
Date and time: 5. November 2009, 15:23:23
Subject: Bug #1959 has been updated
Archive

Do not reply to this message! If you want to post a new comment, please go to this bug page.

Title: Espionage reveal bug
Comment author: Fencer
Status changed to "not a bug".

No, that's how it is played here. The order of moves matters.

5. November 2009, 17:55:54

Subject: Re: The Italian Disguise

SL-Mark: We could still make a request for a change. If we do this as a group we have more chance of succeeding I guess.

5. November 2009, 17:59:18

Subject: Re: The Italian Disguise

SL-Bosse: That would be a great name for the next tournament!

5. November 2009, 18:03:02

Styleone

which variant we play in the next league tournament?

5. November 2009, 18:17:02

Subject: Re: The Italian Disguise

Chaos: Chaos: I did mention to Fencer that we are having a discussion about it on the Espionage board, so as you suggest, all views put forward will be seen by Fencer, and perhaps he will change as a feature request?

5. November 2009, 18:18:49

Subject: Re: The Italian Disguise

SL-Mark: I vote for that it is a bug, and should be fixed.

Is it anyone who knows how to put up a poll here?

5. November 2009, 18:25:14

Subject: Re: The Italian Disguise

SL-Bosse: Link to the bug.
http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=1959

5. November 2009, 18:27:45

Subject: Re: Next Tournament?

SL-Bosse: "I think it is to early to start up an "official" Sabotage Leauge-tournament. I think we should wait until January/February. Or at least the "Small Fast #1" should be finished. Or what do You think?"

You mean to say Small fast #1 and Open Fast #1 are not official ?

Just when I made it to the second round after sleepless nights with questionmarks haunting me...

Ok, now serious, I agree the pawns should be able to enter every tournament. it's just soooo much trouble to get a tournament going outside the framework. The BrainKing framework is perfect. I've organised several tournament when we were still at IYT and it really is a lot of work. It's more than administration. Players have to be seeded, there has to be checked whether the games have started, whether games have ended, what the outcome is etc etc. Players even forget a game is a tournament game.

5. November 2009, 18:36:58

Subject: Re: Next Tournament?

Modified by SL-Bosse (6. November 2009, 11:46:11)

Chaos: It should have been "I think it is to early to start up next "official" Sabotage Leauge-tournament"

It should be intresting to know how many players are reading this Board, and not writing anything. So everyone who is reading, but not writing. Just give a sign here or by an PM.

Following is active here:

Chaos
SL-Mark
Styleone
happy hermit
daGGER
CelticJim
SL_GentleKiller
Nothingness
Sir Lance-a-lot
SL-Bosse
rod03801
redfrog
Dark Prince
Pedro Martinez
lukulus
Vikings
Sandoz
Resher
Tian-Xian

5. November 2009, 18:52:49

Subject: Re: Next Tournament?

Chaos:

It could be a hybrid tournament. I.e., set up single section tournaments on BK for those that have a free tournament slot (all non-pawns, pawns not in any other tournaments) and group the other pawns in section(s) outside the brainking framework.

This lets everyone play, plus we can start the second round as soon as the first is decided and don't have to wait on everyone of Mark's 200 move games.

5. November 2009, 18:55:27

Subject: Re:

Styleone:

I suspect we will debate that at some future point. :)

In the meantime we could have our own two player tournament if you like. :)

5. November 2009, 19:16:49

Sandoz

Subject: Re: Reveal Bug

SL-Mark:

Hi everyone,

to me it does not seem like a bug. I know this from iyt.
And I consider it a quite logical thing, that a recon reveals every piece until the recon gets killed. Even within a move of your opponent. Nevertheless, one should clearly write it down in the rules of the game to avoid any disadvantages for newer players. If there are any new players .... ;-)

5. November 2009, 19:21:20

Styleone

I agree with Sandoz. Don´t know about this "rule" before, but when I catch pieces I ever catch the recon first, because I thought he will demask my piece before he gets killed.

5. November 2009, 19:21:50

SL-GentleKiller

Subject: bugs

I'm wondering so many guys didn't know about this issue of revealing. As Jim said, it was discussed at IYT. I'm neutral regarding it, but we have to admit, it has its logic, more than that, it could be very difficult to modify the algorithm, b/c, if we think well, there would be a need to implement an illogical or ambiguouse rule, otherwise should be treted as an exception, that also gives headache to programmers.
This is what bothers me: When I hit the link for previouse move, first there's a need to hit it 3 times to show the position as it was before the actual one. More than that, when I come back to the last position - using the link for the next move - I can't make a move, there's no "hand". So I have to hit somewhere on a move in the list of moves, than click the last move on the list.

5. November 2009, 19:28:44

Subject: Re: bugs

SL-GentleKiller:

Oddly, I've played a game or two at IYT and never had an inkling of this. Also, I don't find it particularly logical considering that other moves on a turn are considered simultaneous (e.g. you can't move two pieces to the same square even if one of them will disappear in an attempted capture.) Still, just being aware of it helps and I can think of a position where the problem can't be solved by move order.

5. November 2009, 19:44:52

SL-GentleKiller

Subject: Re: bugs

happy hermit: It's not possible to move two pieces to the same square. The order of the five moves it's very important regarding the possible side-effects, such as the formerly mentioned revealing issue, but there are many others. However, the final result of the five moves is generated as they were made simultaneosly, not one after another. I'm not sure of this, but it's very likely...

5. November 2009, 20:04:41

Josef said, in paraphrase"...When I hit the link for previouse move, first there's a need to hit it 3 times to show the position as it was before the actual one. More than that, when I come back to the last position - using the link for the next move - I can't make a move, there's no "hand". So I have to hit somewhere on a move in the list of moves, than click the last move on the list"

oh boy that is so annoying and illogical,well said that man

5. November 2009, 20:23:39

Sandoz summed it nicely I thought
"And I consider it a quite logical thing, that a recon reveals every piece until the recon gets killed"
ba boom

5. November 2009, 22:11:42

Sandoz

Subject: Re: bugs

SL-GentleKiller: 3 hits

That's definetely a usability issue that should get fixed!

6. November 2009, 03:12:21

Dark Prince

Subject: Re: Reading...

SL-Bosse:
The message board feature and rating system are attractive to me here, but I can't say I care much for the game graphics or rule nuances.

6. November 2009, 09:22:01

lukulus

Subject: Re: Reading...

Dark Prince: I agree with graphic, but dont agree with rule nuances. Such nuance can win a game.

6. November 2009, 11:00:08

Tian-Xian

I read but don't often comment

6. November 2009, 11:11:15

Resher

Subject: Re: Next Tournament?

SL-Bosse: I also read this board, but am waiting until my total number of games is more under control before joining in these espionage games more

6. November 2009, 11:35:03

Subject: Re: bugs and the 3 hits hinder

Sandoz: The 3 hits hinder is indeed extremely annoying. I think I remember people already complaining about this way back and that Fencer had answered it was the way it worked here. Isn't it the same in other games?

6. November 2009, 11:36:37

Subject: Re: Next Tournament?

Resher: Welcome on board! :) Hope to see you join the next tournament.

6. November 2009, 11:46:00

Subject: Re: Next Tournament?

happy hermit: 'It could be a hybrid tournament. I.e., set up single section tournaments on BK for those that have a free tournament slot (all non-pawns, pawns not in any other tournaments) and group the other pawns in section(s) outside the brainking framework.'
This is still a lot of work, because the organisor of the tournament will have to check on the single section tournaments and all the individual pawn games. If we grow bigger there will be several rounds afterwards. All individual games will have to be checked in those.

Plus it will be strange to have the pawns always playing against pawns in the first round. This will likely give uneven sections in numbers and skills.

6. November 2009, 13:58:47