What happened to happy hermit?
Any information?

if someone has the URL,it's probably still archived on the wayback machine.All my bookmarks from couple years ago got deleted in a computer crash 

Nothingness: sorry, they're not! It's horrible. At some point Yahoo removed geocities, I learned about it when I tried to log in after I hadn't been there for quite some time.

Ruth's page... what happened to it. please tell me the stats were saved? Chaos?!!?

For many years we have been trying to implement a 4 player (team version) on IYT and since then Patrick has shot it down saying that it is not feesable. i think that it can happen now. If Fencer feels that it too is not possible then I would agree to take it off the board. In no other game on either site is this a game. I think it would be a great learning tool . accepting a random opp in the waiting room to be partners with.

dAGGER:
yep, it might not be easy to implement this variant.
But, on the other hand it's "just" the implementation of the three-round-logic and the pieces-logic. As the rules of the game itself remain basically unchanged. But, I'm not a programmer.

The economical decision whether it's worth developing this game/variant in terms of potenzial no. of players etc. ... that has to be made by brainking. May be, Fencer strives this board and could simply leave a statement like "forget it guys,. Never ever!" or "great idea guys, please go ahead with the concept!".

Well, I wouldn't mind if we first start with the atomic or extinction version. But, honestly, if I understood the rules right, I'm not sure if this would fit with the basic concept behind the game espionage. In other words: these two variants won't have much in common with the original game dynamics/concepts. Feels more like a quick-shoot-version. This does not mean that I won't like it, ;-)

What about a rectangular 10x8 version?
25 pieces
5 moves (as in large espionage)
the board is large 10 and long 8

Are you still in time to put it in the poll?

Sandoz:
This 3-game-match variant is very fascinating, but I'm afraid it is quite complicated!
It would be difficult to implement for the programmer and also difficult to play for beginners.
I'm afraid only 10-15 players in the site would really play it!
I think extinction or atomic espionage would work easier and better!

Here comes my proposal for the 3-game-match-variant:

The Winner:
The winner of the match is the player who first wins two games. Thus, the match lasts 3 games max.

Number of pieces:
Each player has a total of 39 pieces for all of the 2-3 games. A headquarter will be added for each game.

Size of the board:
8x8

The mechanic:

First round: White places at least 10 pieces (plus hq) out of the 39 pieces on the board. Then black places at least 10 pieces out of his 39 pieces on the board. The number of pieces set on the board does not have to be equal. I think, this gives this variant an extra strategic edge.

Second round: Colours change, White places again at least 10 pieces on the board. Then black decides on at least ten pieces, ... see above

Third round:
All remaining pieces have to be placed on the board.

A headquarter is added with each round/game.

The pieces in detail:
- 4x5er
- 4x4er
- 4x3er
- 7xrecon
- 6xsab
- 4x2er
- 4x1er
- 6xbomb
plus the hq, which will be added with each round.

I guees this variant offers a whole new range for strategic thinking.

What do you think about this?

For Espionage, when it says "There is no check or checkmate", does that mean in this variants we play without headquaters?

Sandoz:
Okay I refrain from voting again :)

The Atomic and Extinction variants are expained well in the chess variants:

http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=18

http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=28

(IYT has a different version of atomic chess, which I prefer http://www.itsyourturn.com/t_helptopic2020.html )

What about anti-espionage :)

SL-Mark: grinch! this is how my dictionary translates the German word "Spielverderber" ;-)
not every system is meant to become crushed, if you know what I mean. well, but I see, things aren't that easy, lol.
I suggest, we then change the rule in that way, that everyone may choose more than one favorite. But no multiple identities, Mark!

Alternatively, we switch to a site with a radio-button-poll-tool.

Or, we discuss the whole thing here at the board.

How does the Atomic and the Extinction thing work, anyway?

SL-Mark: After you went for 5 options I think four is ok :)

Sandoz: Oh dear cannot amend, but I can vote again :) I see Styleone went for 4 options :)

Sandoz:
I believe Fencer could do the atomic and extinction quite easily, so we should ask for that anyway. Will see if I can amend my choice!

SL-Mark: hehe, in that case your vote would not influence the outcome pretty much ;-)

Sandoz: Cool, you can enter more than 1 favourite. I have 5 :)

Nothingness: yes, you are right. I'll come up with an explanation of the 3-game-match idea, soon

Sandoz: we need an explanation as to which version is what. i forget half the proposals.

Heck, (I like this word :-)
to keep things going I've set up a poll.
May be we can first figure out, on which variant to put our further focus. And then we bring up a concrete proposal to those guys running this platform.

Here comes the link:
http://www.doodle.com/xcxzd4iidcrz6m2k

How is everyone progressing in the latest tourney? By the lack of posts lately I'm assuming that everyone is deep in thought in their games.

heck why not just add in exposed base espionage where you can see where you opp base is located from the start position

Good post Mark!
I would also add a 10x8 board variant (10 is the width and 8 is the depth).

Nothingness: Ground breaking? What about a machine gun wielding number 1? dAGGER would like this too as it could all be over in a couple of moves :)

My vote is for atomic espionage, extinction espionage, the canon piece, the 3 game match and the 4 player individual (in order of ease of implementation).

i'm against the corner version.. i couldn't stand it. I would love to have something ground breaking and new for a new game. Let take our times on this...

SL-Mark:
I never played Extinction or Atomic chess. I just read the rules and I think we can apply both variant to Espionage with success!
They both comply with "my requests" for the new variant: higher speed and different strategy.

SL-Bosse:
I did not even know about this chance of blocking users.
I discovered that you and Mark where in my blocklist!
Maybe it was because I lost a game with you some weeks ago... :-)
Now you are both removed and you can send a message if you like.

dAGGER: I can't send you an answer on your message, because you have me on your "blocklist"

Chaos and I trying to set up ateam in the upcomming Team tournament in Espionage. The tournamnet starts on the 31st of January. If you are intrested send me a message, and I will invite you to the fellowship "Espionage League". Just rember that you must be at least a "Rock"-meber to be able to be a member of a fellowship, and play in team-tournaments.

dAGGER:
I have posted a new corner game on IYT. Would you be able to use that to send as a template?

SL-Mark: The problem with the 4 player individual game is that the site hasn't got the options for multiplayer games yet. Way back I asked Patrick Chu at IYT about possibilities for a 4-player game and he said he would have to change too much in the workings of the game. IYT and BK are set for 2 player games. 2 vs 2 is still the same game, same board, only the moves change between the teamplayers.

Nothingness: Exactly. Eric doesn't stand a chance :)

Styleone: Yes, from memory it was something like this:
1. There is only one cannon per player in a game.
2. Can fire a shot two spaces in front of it, e.g. if it is on e5 it can only shoot at e7.
3. It may fire at and kill any piece, even undetected, but it cannot take out mines nor the hq.
4. Any piece may capture it. Also, if it moves onto a space occupied by the enemy, it will lose.
5. The shot is considered as a move, so you cannot move it and fire on the same move.
6. In small espionage, the board can accommodate another piece, but in open espionage, it would have to replace one of the existing pieces, perhaps a 1?
That's about it!

SL-Mark: Can you say something about the extra piece the cannon?

SL-Mark: I think that could get frustrating and too much like Risk. All the skill in the world wont help you if its 3 on 1.. uggg

Nothingness: I prefer the 4 player individual variety. In that way, 3 players could gang up against one, or form other temporary alliances before proceeding to everyone for themselves :)

there is also the stratego rule where ties remove both pieces from the board. samegames but that one rule change . I side with Chaos for the 2 on 2 thing.

Sandoz: Thank you, I will keep that in mind

dAGGER:
1. Yes, I agree with this and was also a concern for Sandoz. But the 3 game match would change this considerably.
2. I think these games would actually play faster, though there are now 3 matches in the game.

As you want speed, another idea, what about atomic sabotage (similar to atomic chess)? Or even extinction sabotage (again similar to extinction chess)

SL-Mark: yes, and don't waste all your big guys in the first round! :)

Sandoz: I like the 3 game idea, though for games 1 & 2, white may still choose how many pieces to place, between a max & min, hence ensuring always at least a piece for game 3. (Don't get left with only bombs to place in game 3 :D )

If the set of pieces is not fixed, but you may choose some of them, I'm afraid it will give two problems:
1) the strategy would not change much, because you don't know the set choosen by your opponent.
2) the uncertainty given by the unknown opponent's pieces would lead to a more difensive and slow game

The most important thing for me in a new variant is a higher speed of the game.

SL-Mark: in that case, it should allways be a 2-game-match. This makes it more interesting from the choosing-point of view.

Different idea: how about a 3-games-match with a fixed set of pieces you choose from in game no 1 and no 2. The third game then is an all-in game (all remaining pieces have to be placed on the board) ?

Nothingness:
I think the Corner variant already exists and it was very successful at IYT.
The game is faster than Open fast and the strategy is different.
If they could implement it at IYT, sure Fencer can do better at BK!
Is there anyone remembering the adress of the site with the example of the game? Rules at IYT don't show the "corner pattern " of the board.

Sandoz: Yes, but you don't know that I have no sabs and your single recon would be gone in a flash, without having even detected my 5s :)

Unless we have another rule modification, winner must capture base to win, if this cannot be achieved then game is a draw.

SL-Mark: I would simply try to trade one of my 4 + sab against one of your 5ers. And then: I'm king of the board!