I disagree with grumpy extrovert.. someone has to, lol.

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.

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.

Dark Prince:

I agree with Justaminute in that Sabotage, even the Open variations, favors the defensive player. The pieces don't have the range they do in chess so they can't easily take advantage of the extra space (don't tell Mark, he already thinks space is over-rated :).

That said, like you I am willing to attack, blindly if necessary, to keep the game moving forward in an interesting manner. 

In chess, defensive play can be very effective as long as latent power is developed waiting for the moment to be unleashed.
I agree that defensive play beats an aggressive style in the volcano variations, but not in the open variations. I pull back to regroup on occassion, but typically press the attack from the beginning of the game until the end. I don't play the volcano variations any more because it doesn't suit my style even though I have done relatively well playing those variations as well. Currently, I only play Open Rush and Corner but not here. I have one 3rd round game of Mini going in a tournament I joined by mistake. I expect to lose it fairly soon and be done with that variation for good.

I think chess is a far richer game than espionage allowing a wider variety of styles. In chess the opening is often about the struggle to create a battlefield that accommodates you style, tactical, positional or strategic. In espionage if your goal is victory then allowing your opponent to take the Initiative and counter attacking is the safest course. This only leads to dull long drawn out games however. Such a style would be punished in chess by a player of a similar standard.

For me, there would be no point in playing if I couldn't play aggressively. No doubt, there are times for caution and defense. I would rather lose an exciting game than win a boring game. That isn't to criticize those who play defensively any more than I would criticize someone for preferring vanilla to chocolate. I often take chances, but try to do so in a way that I stand to gain something significant for the risk even if I lose more material than I gain. I have a high winning % playing that way even though in a high percentage of my games I have an early material deficit.
I do so in chess also sometimes making sacrifices without knowing whether the attack it initiates will prove effective.

After about a year or so of experimentation of a new style of game play, ive decided to go back to a different more old fashioned playing style. unfortunately its rather boring but im realizing that the aggressive style i have been experiementing with just isnt me. So i appologize for any future uneventful games you may play vs me. =(

There was a guy who played a lot of mini sabotage on IYT. when you played him he would write to Patrick Chu to for you to make the game a draw when the game got to drawn out. i really hated playing him. we would move fast but the games woud go over 200 moves at a minimum everytime. He was not however a guy who would move slow on purpose. but that is an example of a player that was unhappy with certain aspects of game play.

Nothingness:

The most likely explanation is one or both of the players has several hundred games in progress and they only move on games where they are close to timing out.

Which may be the answer to a fast tournament . . . make it a private tournament and only invite players with a track record of moving fast.

That would be a nice statistic for BrainKing to keep . . . average time per move by game type.

yes its a large espionage touney with 4 sections, all of which are nearly done. Is this a spiteful thing... probably not, people do have lives. but some players are spiteful. some will intentionally move at the last possible moment b/c you do not agree to a setting in particular game. this would be a cause to a slow moving issue.

AbigailII:

I suspect this is a game in a tournament that Nothingness is playing in, but not  a game Nothingness is playing.

Abigailll: True but pedantic.

Nothingness: so basically they have moved 2x per month

Uhm, "they"? You know your opponent could have written exactly the same? If your opponent moves twice a month, it means you move twice a month as well.

i was just searching through my current tourneys and noticed that there is a game that is only on move 10 and the tourney started on Dec30. so basically they have moved 2x per month. WOW.. at that rate this round wont be over for another year or two.

Nothingness: I love the idea of a teamtournament. But we do have the problem that pawns can't enter the fellowships...

Many years ago there was a proposal made to the sabotage members to organize a league. i think that with the current members here we can organize. but perhaps with a twist. there is an option hre for team vs teams. perhaps we can have a team of 3 or 4 players and have a leauge. We can use the fellowships to make these challenges. We can have a draft lottery by a number of captains and. choose up teams . this i feel can spawn interest here just like it did on IYT.

In over the board chess our county organises a tournament each year where you sign up the players get paired, arrange to play the game at their convenience with a time control like all moves in 2hrs and when all games are played you move to the next round. This is the only way I see emulating a real time tournament on brainking working. If people were prepared to play at weekends time zone differences could be worked round. You could not post a tournament and start it automatically so it would have to be organised via messages. I doubt there would be sufficient people who saw the hassle factor worth the benefit though. Failing that fisher with +8hrs stops mindlessly slow play but won't create an over the board type game.

Why not just play the game without all the time control tactics?
If you do play time control tactics, there is no good reason to be upset when another does the same according to his own "rules" rather than adhering to yours.

?????????? your serious!!! it would be like going on a first date and then your date saying im going to the bathroom, ill be right back. he stays away for an hour...... in the bathroom. i guess you would stay and wait. or would you leave? then he blames you the next day and says why did you leave?

Nothingness: I never get upset if they move fast unless its an unually low amount of time. such as 1 hour and they make 10 moves in a short time. then they go away, then,i go away. then when i come back game is over and i lose.,

Let me get this straight. You and your opponent play 10 moves in a short time, gaining some pool time. Then your opponent stays away for a while, but not long enough to time out. Your opponent moves, and then you stay away longer - and you time out. And that's your opponents fault?

when someone commits to that time limit they should make the effort to stay online and finish that game. if i play you in a game that you created with a 1 hour limit and bonus and you move 8x right way and i have no games going on i will go offline ( b/c i have no games to play now) then you come back and move then the next day i time out.

Eh? You go offline. So, it's you who isn't making the commitment. Don't blame your opponent if you decide to stay away till the next day if you're playing a time limit of 1 hour/move. And certainly don't accuse him of not making the commitment. If he doesn't time out, but you do, it's you who doesn't make the commitment.

I care more about stalling in the game itself than on the clock. I never consider the motives of my opponent in clock use when considering my moves. I move according to board position not clock time. As far as stalling in the game or otherwise defensive play, I play only the open variations now. That eliminates the defensive advantage which is big in the volcano variations.

The appeal of popular games is their commonality.
Any game that is somewhat obscure will have a low draw. You can see that in many of the chess variations while chess itself has a high draw.

ironically the fischer clock is great...its the moving 1-2x per week without the clock. the clock i feel helps move things along and eventually it will time out the person who is moving slowly.I never get upset if they move fast unless its an unually low amount of time. such as 1 hour and they make 10 moves in a short time. then they go away, then,i go away. then when i come back game is over and i lose., when someone commits to that time limit they should make the effort to stay online and finish that game. if i play you in a game that you created with a 1 hour limit and bonus and you move 8x right way and i have no games going on i will go offline ( b/c i have no games to play now) then you come back and move then the next day i time out. that hurts

Nothingness: I really fail to get what it is you want. You seem to be upset if your player plays fast for a while, then "doesn't move for three days" (which he can only do after accruing enough time on the clock), yet it's fine if you're awarded extra time (by moving fast enough), and take it?

It seems you want to have your cake and eat it.

it is fair if i have buit up enough bank to do so using the fischer clock. other wise in a game that has vacation and weekends i can abuse this and think as long as i want. especially brain rooks since they have tons of vacation time. but i will be rewarded for the fast moves that i made easrly in the game. im in a game now with an opponent that is using Fischer clock he has 1 day and a few hours left and i have about 9 days. this is with a 24hour bonus. i will never time out no matter what. but he is close. i really dont want to win that way.

Nothingness: i even have to do this in times of great concentration. i will think about a move for 4-5 days.

So, let me get this straight. You want a time control that forces your opponent more than once a day, never going to have a 3 day break, but you want to allow yourself 4-5 days thinking time for a move?

Doesn't seem quite fair to me.

Nothingness: if you think like that in a game against me you'll be puzzled all the time . I sometimes I make clicks instead of moves because I don't want to think while I really should, and sometimes I can't move in the rare case I actually have a plan.

Nothingness:

"To lure an opponent into thinking that im weak"

Works on me all the time . . . I always think your position is weak. :)

some players do not move for days at a time then they will be on and play a few moves in a row for like 10 minutes. then there gone for over a week! this happens ALL THE TIME in game of espionage. i even have to do this in times of great concentration. i will think about a move for 4-5 days. sometimes its a psychological tactic. To lure an opponent into thinking that im weak when im really not. " he tought about that too long he must be bluffing" etc...then after the 5-6 days away ill move then the second he moves i try and respond immediately and put them on the defensive "why did he respond immediately" "im in trouble better take a few days to think this through."

Nothingness: Why would you play 3 moves/day, and then not move for 3 days? And repeat this? Note that when using the Fisher clock, you can prevent this from happening. A setting of "1/1/1" requires one move a day. Of course, if you and your opponent coordinate, you'll still be able to drag a 300 move game into a 1.5 year time stretch. But that'll require both you and your opponent to move at the last possible time.

Nothingness:
300 moves? That is probably why Dark Prince is correct in saying it does not have enough of a draw. Espionage needs a 20-20 version for mass appeal leaving the test match version to the aficionados.

b/c we are not moving 3x a day only 3x in one day then not moving at all for 3 days.. so its still 150 moves in 150 days. which is 5-6 months. if the game ends that early

Nothingness: If you move 3 times a day, it must mean your opponent moves 3 times that day as well. With that pace, you do your 150 move game in 50 days. What's the problem here?

i work a typical time schedule. and i will have no problems playing vs a person from europe or Asia. if i play 3 moves per day i jsut ahdded 3 days to my limit. with only three moves i can then not mave for 3 days again! thus it equals out to 1 move per day in a 150 move-200 move game like most open versions or 200-300 moves in many smaller versions. his very difficult to finish a game in a reasonable amount of time. and you then must double that number for days b/c if each person takes that long it is now twice as long of a game. i move on monday you move on thursday i move again on thursday you move on Saturday then i move on monday again. and just keep that pattern it will take forever to finish i have been in a game now for over two years with tenuki we are on move 170 or so... with no end in sight. and i just finished a game with Sandoz in 300 moves but we moved quick and it lasted only a few weeks to a month. with a 28 hour fischer clock and moving once a day we would nto finish for a loooong time.

I suppose Espionage/Sabotage doesn't have enough of a draw to warrant being set up on a realtime site.
That would be fun though.
30 seconds per move and the game would be complete in 3 hours and usually much quicker.

Nothingness: If you and your opponent live 12 timezones apart, and are both primed and ready to move instantly between noon and midnight localtime, your game will progress at a steady speed of 1 move/day. It will also be impossible to do 10 moves/day. You can only play multiple moves a day if your online time overlaps with your opponents, and you and your opponent move in the overlap time.

Nothingness: Take a 3-day bank and do the same math you did with the 10-day bank. I guarantee you will arrive at the same results. It's actually the bonus what the key is. The bonus tells you the average speed with which you need to move without timing out. With both 3-day and 10-day bank, you need to move, on average, 1 move per day (if the bonus is 1 day), so the total length of the game will stay the same.

Nothingness: The IYT time limit of 28 hours a move seems to work pretty well. I played a Jarmo tournament here with Fisher which added 8 hours per move which also worked well although when my opponent got down to 12 hours I did try using my time advasntage to move last thing at night hoping he had gone to bed. Not terrible sporting but as we are playing in an espionage tournament that has reached move 20 after 3 months I didn't have much sypmpathy!

Nothingness:

Agreed.  You are not going to complete an espionage tournament in any reasonable time period, but it's the game type not the time control that will be the culprit. 

Open games are usually under 80 moves.   On IYT I had one game go 100 moves.  Here, in part due to the subtle rule differences I have had a couple of games go over 100 moves, but that is still the exception.

In Small Fast / Open Small the games are generally done in under 60 moves.

hmmm i can see that neither of you have played much espionage. with a 1 day bonus the game will take appx 3 years to complete. here is a devils advocate way of looking at it. 7 days to start. 1 day bonus and lets say the bank is 10 days. first day i move 10x. i now have a limit of 10 days. i dont make another move for 9 days. then move 10x again. then take another 9 days off my bank drops to 1 day then gets built back up again. with another 10x per day move. im already over a month and the game has just started,. most espionage games among great players is anywhere from 100-200 moves. with a 200 move game at 30 moves per month. 7 months for the game at that is being generous. x that by 3 rounds of a tourney and we are looking at 2 years to complete a tourney, IF your lucky. your bank i feel is the key and keeping the bank at 3 days may speed things up. keep the 24 hour per-move bonus, just lower the over game time. and add weekends.

Nothingness:

If you set up a new game with bonus time the default setting is 7 days to start with a 1 day bonus per move and a 15 day maximum for time allowed.

I think that's a very reasonable time control because:

1. Overall game time is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the normal 3 day per move limit.  Longer games, those that cause scheduling headaches, will be close to 1/3.  An 80 move game would have a max length of 174 days compared to 480 days using a 3 day limit.

2. Players needing time-off can usually "bank it" if they plan ahead and avoid time-outs.

3.  Anything shorter than 24 hours for the bonus time runs into possible timing issues.  E.g. Player A logs in 8pm ET each day and moves and Player B logs in 9pm ET each day and moves.  Player A will lose time every move against Player B and often be at risk of timing out even though they both have comparable schedules.

Nothingness: 6-8 hours will "punish" average movers. And it will even punish one of the players for being in the wrong timezone.

Considering players come from all over the globe, a bonus of at least 24h/move is required to be fair on all players. Regardless of max. pool time. And regardless of the game being played - be it Espionage or anything else.

Nothingness: It sounds terribly quick. Time bonus should be at least 12 hrs raher more.

What would be the optimal time setting for an espionage tourney that woudl promote fast play yet would not punish people for being average movers. i thought about a 10 day limit with 6-8 hours bonus plus a 5 day bank. and no vacation enabled. What does everyone think or suggest?

open small = small fast yes

Nothingness: open small = small fast?