I'll reveal two 1s, two 2s, a 3, a 4, a 5, a Recon, two Sabs all 4 bombs and my base . . . 15 out of 30. :)

Now that I have said it, I need someone to play. :)

SL-Mark: hmmm, still I think even Eric's recons can't fly through 1s so I'd happily take a shot if he shows me half his army.

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!

SL-Mark: Oh, I thought he wanted to show half of all his pieces if in return for the 1s. I thought it was a brave thing to do indeed.

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: Even if you know all my 1s it would be hard to get around them! I think I could stop/get rid of your recons using my 1s, some 2s and some of my recons. I'd go for the deal!

your giving a preset value based upon your own piece value system. I consider a Bombs location more valuable, than a 1.

would you give 4 bomb locations for all 5 ones? i certainly wouldnt.

SL-Mark:

Mark- I think once you show me five 1s I can show half of my pieces and still reach a complete information situation with my recons . . .they simply have to avoid your 1s.

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?

SL-Mark: i would expose the location of a 2 and a 1 and a bomb for both 3s

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?

cookie monster: A 1 and a 2 would be the last pieces i would want to know the location of early. unless it was all of them. the sabs or the 3s and 4s are most important to me for the end game.

I don't know that there is much of an advantage to be gained by revealing pieces early without decreasing the number of Recons in play. To the extent that there is an advantage, I'd be more interested in knowing where my opponents 1s are as they pose the most danger to my Recons.

ill show you mine if you show me yours! what a quote.. but seriously.. this is more of a philosophical situation. some people value certain pieces more than others. i value the vision of a particular enemy piece...but could care less of where an opp 2s are. in the beginning of the game every piece is assumed to be a recon. unitl something is revealed. as each piece is revealed deduction takes over. but with auto revealing it gives away a lot about a set up position. not sure what im trying to convey but cont think it will be practical for anything but a mentoring/ teaching tool.

Chaos: So the value of five undisclosed 1s is greater than a disclosed 5

Okay, would you show me all your 1s for both of my 5s? A possible bargain here

Nothingness: There are some technicalities to that. For example, the player has to choose which recon they disclosed during negotiations. I would not want a program to determine this and show my 'tucked away' recon :)

In any event, whilst the idea is serious, I do not really think that it should be converted to a variant, there are far more worthy suggestions that have been put forward.

The idea was more about understanding the value information and its exchange.

Would you show me your five 1s and I'll show you where one of my 5s is located?

There is the option that we can have Fencer have them revealed when the 1st move is made. So that there is no honor system needed.

Back to the subject of espionage variations, here is on you can implement now! Indeed, it may also help beginners (and some of the more experienced) better understand the value of information.

So, for example, immediately after you have set up your pieces:
i) Tell me where all your 1s are, and in exchange I will tell you where one of my 5s are.
ii) What information would you want from me, if you wanted to inform me of where two of your recons (spys) are located?
iii) If I were to tell you the location of my base, what information would you give me in return?
iv) Give the me location of your four 2s and I will share with you the location of one of my 5s and 4s
etc. etc.

So the game might go like this:
1. Both players set up pieces.
2. Negotiation starts through messages until one player decides they are not prepared to negotiate any more.
3. Game starts.
4. It is each players responsibility to track the information they have received (this is a very useful exercise for those that don’t take notes)

Of course, each player is expected to be honourable and to be honest in any disclosure, which can be easily checked against the written negotiation messages. Of course the setup of you pieces may reflect the fact that a negotiation round will take place ;)

Even if you do not like the idea of this game, it is nevertheless a useful thought exercise for this game, as it is just a game of negotiation, only we are doing some of it before we start!

Anyone want a game? Open Fast, no BKR, send me an invite :)

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" :)

the suspicious nature of the tourney game in which a draw was taken very early is suspect and i felt that was the case.

cookie monster: I don't think anybody suspects cheating or anything remotely close to that. People get away with things that are much, much worse (and btw., it's obvious that a professional translator could have done a better job with the different versions of those rules).

cookie monster: you are not flirting with a ban,the reminder was put up more for others who try to cheat. Being as open as you were, it is obvious that you do not fall into that catagory

Thanks for the info. I, apparently, have never read the rules.

I have one game started on this account, and 10 or so on the other, so I guess I am flirting with a ban. On the bright side, I think we call all agree that I have very little interest in my ratings. :)

In any case, I won't start any more games on the other account beyond those assigned to me for tournaments already in progress.

Pedro Martínez: And the German version is even stricter:

Generelle Regeln: (gelten für Spiele und Diskussionsforen)

1. Jeder Spieler auf BrainKing darf nur einen Account haben. Multiple Accounts sind verboten und können zum Ausschluss führen.

[General Rules: (to be applied to games and discussion forums)

1. Each BrainKing player may only have one account. Multiple accounts are prohibited and may lead to a ban.]

Vikings: The Czech version says this:

Základní pravidla: (aplikovaná na celém serveru)

1. Každému hráči je povoleno mít právě jedno registrované konto. Používání více kont stejnou osobou, především za účelem umělého zvyšování hodnocení pomocí úmyslně prohraných her je považováno za nesportovní a podobné chování nebude tolerováno.

[General Rules: (applicable throughout the site)

1. Each user is allowed to have only one registered account. Use of multiple accounts by one person, in particular with the view of boosting ratings by losing games intentionally, shall be regarded as unsportsmanlike, and such conduct shall not be tolerated.]

Now I wonder which version takes precedence?

as long as you are not manipulating your ratings, I don't think it is a big deal

General Guidelines: (rules to be applied throughout the site - in games, discussion boards, tournaments, ponds, stairs, fellowships etc.)

1. Each individual who plays on BrainKing is asked to use one, and only one, BrainKing account. Multiple accounts created for cheating in tournaments, games, ratings, or to get around bans on boards are prohibited.

Chaos:

The name was Mark's idea. :)

I am in two tournaments and my intent, as always, is to finish what I start. Of course, we all know how that has worked out in the past. :)

I use the same email/user id/password for all of my "casual" accounts and whenever I switch computers I just create new accounts. That made a little more sense 10 years ago, but it's just how I do things. :)

I'll be switching to this account in the next day or two. I've been saying that quietly for two weeks, but I might mean it this time.

-johnerichanson, quiet man, argyle socks & happy hermit

Chaos: Maybe with the new espionage players who joined the beginner's tournament and with players like you signing up for a paid membership we could get a good tournament going! (/quote)

=> yep, that's the background of my question: Is it worth becoming a paying member? At the moment, I see no reason.
Playing more games simultaneously? Not really
Joining more tournaments simultaneously? Hmm, there aren't many interesting espionage tournaments
Playing other games than espionage? Hmm, for battleboats, poker etc. I would prefer realtime-versions
Perhaps, cool espionage team-tournaments ... :-)

Sandoz: As for team tourneys... they are all dependant upon fellowships and they are not as big as i hoped they would be. as per my previous posts i would love to get something like that going.

are you guys playing a lot of espionage team tournaments?
Is there anything going on?

A great idea would be for us to start up 4 or 5 fellowships and have a large team tourney!

As of now i have had more time to observe some more things about the Fischer clock. currently im in a game with black knight. we started 2 games one with a clock the other without a clock. We started the games on the same day. I moved as fast as possible both of those games. In the one game we are about move 120 and in the other move 15. The games started on april 15. Im still gathering more data, But i do know that a 12 hour clock is not reasonable unlike I had previously thought. 24 hours is barely reasonable.... unless you have a large bank.We all need to beware of auto vacation.

Even with the laptops/ipods and playing online, you could use your chess clocks for time control. You would just need to make sure your opponent or anyone possibly in league with your opponent could not see your computer screen.
You might want to experiment to make sure how close to instantaneous a move submitted is before it's available for the opponent to move.
If there is a delay, or for potential connectivity problems, you may add some game time to compensate.

i think i have a partial solution to the fischer clock.Some of us get to set our profile for weekends and wht days will be considered weekends for us. We can do this for time as well. and call it sleep time. no games can time out while it is during your sleep time. im on EST time. and my sleep time hypothetically is 11pm till 7am. in this time frame i cannot time out of any normal game. once it passes this time frame, you start timing out. Right now im starting to experiment with the clock and have timed out of one game due to a misjudgemt in clock management... and due to being very busy. when i gahter more data ill post about my observations.

Dark Prince: point taken...

Nothingness:
Doing so will make the game different than the internet/ computer based game since recons would reveal themselves when they reveal anything else. Bring Ipods or laptops and play online.

im concerned about the human error of the "DRAWING" effect of my art work with the "?" and the flaws of the carton squares.

Nothingness: you could use simple thick carton squares. On one side you have a questionmark, on the other side the espionage piece. I admit it wouldn't look attractive, but it's simple and effective. The only difference with the real game is that you know when your opponent detected a piece.

Anyway, back to this Grand Master draw.....

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.