Sandoz: Thank you for the results and look forward to improving my game in Fast Espionage.

I have now prepared tactics against those who make all out blind lucky attacks

Chaos: I second that.
Sandoz as Moderator.


(Not because I don't think you have done a great job, because you have.)

Sandoz: You could get away with a bishop membership (1 tournament of each game type) if ouna and I finish the game Championship continent 2012 - Europe and I win, before the Nothingness Retirement Tournament starts! If I lose, there will be another round and you will still be stuck in an Open Fast Tournament and a brain rook membership will be required.

This gives me an idea. As there is some appetite for a new tournament (see posts below), why not create a Nothingness Retirement Tournament:

Open Fast Espionage on Fischer clock of 2d/1d/5d.

Nothingness, you could host this game and even join in, comfortable in the fact that it will finish before the current round of Espionage Masters I

Sandoz: Started 5 Sept 2011
Fortunately only the faster players left, but it is still a 2 wins match. At an average of one move a day, 100 moves per game, and 3 games to decide the winner, we are still at least a year from finishing :)

Nothingness, rereading your retirement post on the 2 Jan 2013, I hope your wife is understanding!

Styleone:
What about:
2 days, standard vacation
3 days, no vacation
2d/1d/7d on Fischer clock

Styleone: Sounds great, may be an Espionage Masters II?
Many players have let their membership lapse, so doubtful of a strong field.

SL-Bosse: "Playing to Win" See a few posts down.

Sandoz: These continental championships are just side shows to the world championships

Bosse must have received the book. He has beaten me twice in as many weeks.

Nothingness: Just a note to thank you for your prize tourny which has recently finished
Open Espionage League Brain prize Tourney

You mentioned in your post of the 2 Jan 2012 a second prize of a book by David Sirlin, which would go to dAGGER.

However, I think Sandoz is much more in need of this book "Playing to Win", unless he is just going through a generous streak of gifting games

Usually a good tournament:
Championship world BK 2014

Styleone: Thank you for the post, though it is a shame you can't join it!. These are usually good tournaments.

Nothingness: Looking at your current games, I guess you will still be playing in 2014.

A Black Rook account too! You could gift it / lend it out for your period of absence. On your return you would the be able to admire the improved stats of your account :)

Joking aside, all the best for 2013 and your New Years resolution!

Chaos: No vacation. Fischer clock is defined by three parameters:

Time - specifies a time for all game moves in days and hours which is set for each player when the game starts. When a player makes a move, the elapsed time from the last move of the opponent is subtracted from this value. If the time drops to a zero, the player loses by a timeout.

Bonus - the number of days and hours which is added to the player's time left value each time he makes a move.

Limit - the maximum time left value for this game which cannot be exceeded using the Bonus feature.

so 36hr / 24hr/ 3days means
- you have 36 hours to move.
- every time you move, 24 hours is added to your current clock time
- a maximum of 3 days can be built up on you clock, which gives you 3 days to move.

Styleone: Yes, but only with Fischer clock. Getting fed up of the persistently slow players.
What about Fisher clock: 36 hours/ 24 hours/ 3 days

cookie monster:
Yes, following games on two sites is beyond my current capacity and motivation.

That said, even distinguishing between the amateur and professional world championship events on this site can easily be mistaken by some! At least that ambiguity did not arise at IYT.
:-E)

Chaos: Agree that the league doesn't really exist here, well not in the same form. At IYT, there was a need for some, and in many cases, considerable coordination to promote and run tournaments. That work has been made redundant through the flexibility of BK in being able to create ones own tournaments, e.g. Nothingness and Sandoz recently had some popular tournaments, and you had a beginners one a while ago. Who won?

Yes, I can remember when I first joined BK, that the interface was rather unwieldy, and that was without poking at all the settings behind the scenes! However, like anything new, it just took a little while to get used to.

The 2012 World championship has already started, and indeed, I still have games running in the 2011 championship. So we won't know who the 2011 champ is until 2013

The link to the 2012 Open Fast is Championship world BK 2012
As you can see, the competition is strong, though progression to final has been made easier through your absence.
There are championship tournaments for all the espionage variants, as well as all the other games on site.

Chaos: The move from IYT to BK came about because we lost our forum and hence our ability to speak, jest and provoke each other.

I see little point returning. Even if there was serious competition at IYT, how would the SL organise events?

Why does quad not want to come here? S/he could have entered any of the 2012 World Championship espionage tournaments.

Celticjim: Bored Jim? That was a timely reply to a post made on the 16th Nov 2004!

Sandoz: I've offered you the exchange again! And don't think that I will let you test the bluff with your sab in the next move, it comes at a higher price than that. More so if I'm going to be red listed by you, if indeed it turns out to be just that

I don't believe moonhippie plays here, though I believe he might of had an account here at one time.

Sandoz: Bluff? Moi? Never
Red list? Is that the list that's red with your own blood?

Celticjim: I didn't hear about it either.... perhaps the message just went to the players that moonhippie can beat?

Sandoz, despite being shiny and new, is number 2 in BK, soon to be put in his place by the current number 4

Chaos: "For the draw rule I suggest we vote on it."

In the event of a draw, I vote for myself!

Nothingness:
" I'm in a game with Mark now that is about move 30 and no one has taken a piece or revealed a piece yet. This will take about another 50-100 more moves until the game gets "started".

You spoke too soon... just moved forwarded and I can see you! Still no capture, though this will surely follow soon. As you are white, thought I would make the first move and save you the embarressment of having to offer a draw, which I would have refused anyway

The only situation that I can see a draw occuring in espionage is when both players are left with one piece each. Even if you are left with the stronger piece, you can be left in a situation where you cannot capture the opponent.

This has happened to me once, back in the era of IYT and indeed it was with Nothingness, who had the weaker piece, but had forced the draw by his thought out final exchange. In this case if a player refused to accept a draw, I'm sure Fencer would overrule this, and no need for any game knowledge to see this.

As to stalling, and no capture in 50 moves, well I don't accept this. There are two people in the game and I will keep capturing, even if not captured in 50 moves! If a 50 move no capture rule was implemented, then white would always lose in a long dancing play from the start, or would be forced to make the first capture. So black wins simply by avoiding capture in the first 50 moves!

Yes, there are some jokers who keep offering the draw when losing, guess they are hoping you hit the wrong button :)

Mikong: Thought I had been excluded as I didn't see any game! Ah no, I only have a bye

lukulus: Quite, if you have a long list of games, I would imagine it to be quite onerous to look out for certain games. And having so many games almost forces you to play every day... shorter time control will simply mean that the game is at the top of your list more often.
Didn't understand your point on fisher clock. Is this form of time control a problem to many?
Hope you join in too :)

Chaos: Also be mindful of the fact, that with weekends set, two slow players can result in only two full moves per week!
We know that asking people to move fast is pointless (Nothingness tourny demonstrates that).

An alternative permutation would be fisher clock with setting 28hours/14hours/2days which would squeeze out a few more moves from the slow players.

Chaos: Only that this tournament will be at the top of the list more frequently! I would have made this an open tournament, the time control would weed out the slow movers quickly. It must be a hassle sending out all those invites, but I would invite all the usual suspects :) Put a post in the tournament board advertising the tournament and calling on people to contact you if they want to join.

Chaos: I believe many here can play fast. It is not that they choose not too (though some I'm not sure), it is just that they have 100+ games and move in games at the top of the list.

Chaos: The tournament is full!!!
Only four people allowed to enter.

Chaos: I am fairly new, not sure if I have any talent or promising in any respect, but I do play quite fast

Sandoz: Really, there is no need to thank me

Nothingness: Great, sent you a new invite, base and bombs on row 1 or 10. Bombs at A,B,I,J and base at E.

Nothingness: Okay, then I will tell you the location of my bombs and base before you setup. You can tell me the location of all your 1s on move 1.

Shall we delete this game and start a new one?

Chaos:

Nothingness: Game I sent you an invite for is random colour and uncounted, meaning it is neither BKR rated, nor does the game count on your stats.

The order is:
1. Negotiation concluded
2. Game is setup.
3. White moves and tells
4. Black moves and tells.

Chaos: I said I would put my 2s on the table. I didn't necessarily mean all of them... three 2s for two recons would have been more friendly

Chaos: Mmmmm, finding it difficult to evaluate this information exchange, moreso in the light of the previous exchange.

Against my better judgement I will agree :)
So we have:
I show 2s, 4s and base
You show 1s and two recons.

Suddenly my 3s and 5s looked very exposed :(

Nothingness: "it would be impossible to win a game with someone having prior knowledge of your bombs for 5 1s being revealed."

Interesting that you believe this. Indeed cookie monster has offered a lot more than this just for the five 1s, and I'm still not sure if this was a good deal! Eliminate the pieces, assume equal information exchange in the process (and remove from the equation) and we are left with the three revealed 1s, an unrevealed recon (forgot about this one previously) against one revealed recon. Which gives (3x1 - 2) = 1 against 1. Have assumed an unrevealed recon = 2 and a revealed recon = 1.

But if you still think it would be impossible for me to win if I share the location of my mines (and base) in exchange for the knowledge of your five 1s, I will send you an invite on this basis. Note, you will have some very difficult decisions to make, e.g. whether you will exchange a 2 for a recon!

cookie monster: Sorry Eric, wasn't trying to hussle another 1, just didn't think this through. I have found some additional value that should balance this difference, making your original offer acceptable and fair (doubt I would throw in an extra 1), though I just know I won't like your set up :) I will send you an invite.

Chaos: My precious 4s and base!
I would accept this offer.
Anything else you would care to exchange in this game? I would be interested in learning the location of some of your recons. I put my 2s on the table.

cookie monster: Interesting! Swap them all out (useful pieces, i.e. those that can move) we are left with my remaining three revealed 1s against your revealed recon. So I have given you a value of 3 in exchange for 2! Throw in another 1 please and game on! I won't need the location of your base or mines :)

Chaos: And have you thought about my earlier offer of both 5s for all your 1s? I will even throw in a mine or two if you wish :)

Chaos: He was replying to my previous post, hence I am assuming he meant half his recons!
If it was half his pieces, I still don't think it would make much difference against Eric!

Chaos: I think Cookie Monster is offering you 2.5 recons for five 1s.

2 recons for five 1s well I would go for the side of disclosing recons.
3 recons for five 1s, here I would show you my five 1s!

Nothingness: I did say it was a simple weighting. Infact, from Cookie Monsters post, an undisclosed recon would have a value of 2, which seems about right in this case. Still thinking about my reply to this one.

On your offer, not only would I give you the location of my four bombs (mines), but also the location of my base in order to know the whereabouts of your five 1s

My value system puts no value on these pieces!

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?

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?

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?