Nothingness:
I personally find quicker games more interesting and more admirable. Quick games tend to show that the winners exploited advantages efficiently and took appropriate risks rather than just posturing.

Dark Prince: It's just the opposite.. it shows that you were able to out wit and out think the opposition..you dont see the military just go in guns a blazing. There is strategy involved not just blind luck to see who B#$#$#%^%^ their best. Being able to out think your opponent is the best strategy. Being able to crack a strong defense is more admirable and takes skill. not just shifting peices around until you get lucky. Try letting a wild animal into your house (a Raccoon into your cabinet) and see how tough it is to get it out. But if its just running around your kitchen its much easier to get rid of just open your door. Ironically the open versions force people to play an aggressive style and it avoids defense, but the volcano versions allow for defensive play and more critical thinking and less offense. But in the volcano version offense MUST be timed PERFECTLY.. there can be no error or you will lose. You can get lucky with a runner in the open versions. But once your pinned in its over. Its like comparing Mac to the PC the both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Nothingness:
Saying it, doesn't make it so, even though you've repeated it several times. I doubt many players agree with what you're saying. Your analogies don't support your point either.
In war, blitzkrieg is an effective tactic that can force on enemy onto its heels, but mine fields can funnel an attacking enemy into killing zones. The volcanos perform a similar function to that of mine fields and thus favor a defensive strategy more than the open variations.
The open variations do NOT force aggressive play, but they do require a different set of tactics for effective defensive play.
Aggressive play does not imply reliance on blind luck.
I would be interested to know the other players who agree that long games show the greatest skill. I think they show the least skill.

Dark Prince:
I’m with you on this. I rarely play espionage anymore because of just this point. Games of 300+ moves may be strategically perfect but so what, for most people this is on par with watching wallpaper dry. I’ve said it before but I think the game would be vastly improved if forward moves were not penalised by not being allowed to reverse the next move. It would make the game a lot faster without reducing the skill level.

Justaminute: I do not agree with you on that. The rule not to be able to move the piece back where you came from is one of the best rules of espionage in my opinion. I'm not a fan of defensive play, but this rule makes defensive play harder as well. One can corner an opponent by limiting their movement abilities using this rule. As has just been done to me...

Chaos: just out of curiosity,did you check whether the bug had been fixed?

Celticjim: no, I haven't asked about the bug. Sorry! Some time ago I was busy trying to see what the consensus for a draw rule was, but didn't succeed. My plan was to combine the request for a draw rule with the request to change the bug. Now we also have the request we want to make for a diagonal version. At the moment I do not have the time to address people personally to get opinions or to formulate different options so players can vote for them. Maybe someone else can step up to take these tasks? You can put my name under the request for any of the diagonal variants, draw rule (50 or more noncapture moves) and the bug.

Chaos: you said earlier when referring to the rule about not moving back where one came from...."One can corner an opponent by limiting their movement abilities using this rule. As has just been done to me..."...so I thought maybe you would take the opportunity to 'check' whether the bug had been fixed,not ask about it as we all know that is pretty much pointless .....good luck getting a corner variant implement if that is the plan--never was a fan of that one

Celticjim: my pieces were still able to move, but only towards the claws of my waiting opponent. So the bug wasn't relevant in this game.

Chaos: ..now I'm confused........the bug makes it possible to in fact not just move forward--that is the bug....it is relevant if you were down to 5 pieces or less surely? Actually now I think about that I'm not sure the piece number relevance is known.Can you link the game in question for us please ...

Dark Prince:

"I would be interested to know the other players who agree that long games show the greatest skill. I think they show the least skill."

I don't think the length of the game is too important. I like to see a player create an imbalance (e.g. Recon vs 2 or 2 vs Redon, 4 vs 5 or 5 vs 4, etc.) and then demonstrate they know how to play it advantageously.