Vikings - Thanks

pedestrian - cookie monster will not grab any of your "waiting games" until he has rating :)

Nothingness - I assume you are referring to the draw between Mark and myself in your Open tournament adding to the anecdotal evidence that I am not too "rating-oriented" :)

Nothingness:

They are different.  I believe stratego goes 1 to 9 with 8 and 9 matching when spies and saboteurs.  You could get multiple sets, or use stickers over the traditional icons.

Nothingness:

Perhaps you could start with a Stratego set ?

I suddenly find myself with only two interesting games, both of which should wind down quickly.

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.

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. 

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.

AbigailII:

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

Nothingness:

"To lure an opponent into thinking that im weak"

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

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.

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.

Dark Prince: 

And a fine point it is.

That is how it is done in Dark Chess and it would be nice if it was done that way here as well.

lukulus:

I like the radar piece (and I think you defined it well), but, unless I am missing something, it seems to lend itself to helping a passive player.  In other words, is there a better use of radar than putting it in the front  or second row and using the aerial on Move 1 and leaving it there? 

I think this game, as defined, is played optimally in a defensive posture and any modifications to the rules should be made to benefit the aggressor. 

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a radar piece added if other additions favorable to the attacker were made simultaneously.

An idea for a new piece, though it may only be interesting on a larger board.

Engineer - Automatically builds a 'road' when it moves.  Any piece on a 'road' may move to any other square lying on the road in one turn.

Not sure if each army should have their own roads and/or be able to destroy roads. Having recons (spies?scouts?, whatever they are called here) positioned on a road revealing enemy pieces that cross the road is also a possibility.

There seems to be both some potential for speeding things up as
well as introducing a new level of complexity with this.  I think larger boards / piece counts would also be possible.

Thoughts?

I have four games of Open Fast on the waiting list and am happy to get in some games in other variants as well.

Nothingness:

OK.  You talked me into it. :)

Nothingness:
Perhaps an even smaller (faster) game on an 8x8 (or 8x10) board with no bombs.

SL-Bosse:

I just withdrew . . . I seem to be on a time-out binge again and rather not impose on anyone else.  :)

Have fun all.

Chaos-  I'll add the following to all of the moves I make today. :

Public Service Announce: 

A free prize tournament for beginners (<1500 or unrated) has been set-up Espionage beginner's tournament to begin at the end of the month. Please see the tournament link for more info. 

Contact Chaos for an invite.

Chaos:

I'm not sure that I have ever made it through a team tournament without timing out.

I have nothing agaist trying again thouhgh. :)

Pedro Martínez:

Hopefully, by the tournament rolls around at the end of January a number of the players will be well past beginner.

Espionage/Sabotage is a game without a lot of theory behind it and there's no reason a suitably clever person couldn't be one of the top 10 players on this site within a month and a handful of practice games of learning the rules.

Nothingness:

Noth - Chaos has been posting the information on the 'Tournament' board.

Chaos - Nothingness is looking for the tournament link on this board.

SL-Mark:

I am anxiously awaiting you clearing some things out of the way. :)

Chaos:

I'll help anyone. I have enough canned words of espionage wisdom that I could start a line of fortune cookies.

So . . .if you are reading this board and would like some help just send me a game invite and indicate that you would like hints. (Mark, that includes you. :) )

Nothingness:
Didn't we all start double round robins on IYT? :)

I think it's better to get in a few games and get a feel for a wider range of what you are up against than to get one game in.

dAGGER: I have never set-up a tournament, but when you set-up a new game (for the waiting room or to send an invite) you get a screen to 'Select this game parameters'. You can select the time control there. One option is time per move, the other has three options: game, bonus, limit. These correspond, respectively, to the initial time allowed for a game per player, the bonus time awarded to a player after making a move and the maximum amount of time a player can have to make the next move. It's a built in feature and, in my opinion, the biggest advantage of this site compared to IYT.

Chaos: A player could take a long time (up to 15 days) on a particular move, but would have to maintain an average move time of around 2 days (not counting weekends).

Chaos:

Why not go with the alternate time control. Say 7 days + 2 days per move bonus time with a 15 day cap? That lets players 'bank' some time if they know they might be away from their computer in the future without necessarily doubling the length of the game.

Nothingness: You are correct. I meant Recon and I fear I have been using the wrong word in several other places as well. :)

Chaos: I don't recommend trading a 3 for a Sab early in a game (while I do recommend trading a 2 for a Recon) as the opponent then has a lot of options in pursuing an attack. I just found it odd that I was playing three games simultaneously, against good players, in which I exchanged a 3 for a Sab so I thought I would mention it. :)

Taking the old Sab vs 2 debate a step further, I currently find myself in three games where I gave up a 3 for a Sab (Spy). All three were in extenuating circumstances (in each case I had already captured, or thought I had captured, three other spies) but I can't remember ever swapping a 3 for a Sab in a competitive game before.

For anyone interested in some pointers, simply send me an invite to any variant. During the game I'll include hints and tips along with my moves.

Chaos:

You can make it, I believe, an open tournament with a rating cap. 1500 seems a reasonable cap and I would guess you would get more participants that way.

I will look for a player right away.

Chaos:

It's Tony Gardner . . . Mark had it.

SL-Mark:

I think some of the Dark Chess players will do well here. :)

Chaos:

Hall of Fame -er :)

SL-Mark:

Can you guess which Sab League HoFer pioneer54 is? :)

SL-Mark:

I must go and find a worthy pupil.

Perhaps I can interest pioneer54. :)

Chaos:

Brilliant.

Celticjim:

Apparently I had already voted as well. :)

Chaos: At our current pace, our round 2 section will finish this month. :)

dAGGER:

Player A's S-B points are the sum of the points scored by the players that Player A wins against plus half the points scored by the players that Player A draws against.

BK's wording is a little more awkward.

Chaos:

I am ambivalent on the rule change and the league name.

On the tournament front, I'm not too interested in getting into a long tournament that doesn't accommodate all of the pawns that want to play. If a tournament gets put together that allows everyone to play than I am probably in as well whether it starts now or 6 months from now. Any variant works for me, but I think the open variants work better for big tournaments because they are faster. Perhaps mini rush, double round robin?

Dark Prince:

For viewing previous moves I open a second tab or window to do so. That way I can still move directly on one board without extra clicks. I don't keep notes in the browser but the second window would solve that as well.

dAGGER:

Perhaps we can delegate some of the duties in a hybrid tournament? Perhaps have a player in each of the the 'pawn sections' responsible for reporting the results?

A full tournament can last two years (10 years if we play a volcano variant and dAGGER and Mark are in the same section) and that's a lot of time to be limited from playing in other events if you are a pawn.

Chaos:
I agree it's sub-optimal, but I can't think of an option that is better. :)

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.

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. :)

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.

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? .