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?

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 :)

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 :)

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!

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

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).

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!

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 :)

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)

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 )

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.

Sandoz: But I don't need to capture your base to win, only all your pieces and as I am two pieces up at the start, easy game :) Perhaps we could try it, firstly sacrifice the unwanted pieces at the start so we are left with our chosen pieces, then game on!

Rule modification only applies if you think it a good addition.

Sandoz: Thank you, just modified the rules though :)

I can't believe you would go for two bombs though :) In this case I would choose 2x5, 2x4, 2x3, 2x2, 2xRecon and game over :)

Chaos: As you don't have a recon, you won't know this, and Sandoz might have opted to barricade his hq with 2 bombs and dispensed with the 3s! :)
But yes, you are right, I ought to replace it with a 5.

Perhaps a minimum of 5 movable pieces must be chosen, and a general cannot be selected unless you have the one below it. So if you went for 5 pieces, you could choose 1x1, 1x2, 1x3, 1x4, 1x5, or perhaps 1xRecon, 1x1, 1x2, 1x3, 1x4 or even 1xRecon, 1xSab, 1x1, 1x2, 1x3.

Sandoz: If you chose only two pieces, I might guess that you have gone for 2x5 and your strategy is to blast through to my base. I would place my base and choose my pieces accordingly.
Probable outcome would be a draw?

Sandoz: Not knowing your selection, but only that you chose 6 pieces + hq, I might have chosen a recon, 1x5, 2x4, 1x3, 1xsab.

That would make an interesting battle :)

happy hermit: Developing Eric's idea for a faster game, what about:

White places his/her pieces, but does not have to take the full compliment (base must always be placed). So they might choose to only play 5 pieces + base.

Black now places their choice of 5 pieces + base. They will know that they can only place 5 pieces, but won't know what white has chosen!

happy hermit: Have you tried small fast espionage? It is played on an 8x8 board. So just remove the bombs

Colours and graphics make no difference to me, they won't improve my game!

On IYT we had a prolonged debate on an extra piece. I think we decided for the cannon in end?

The Espionage League wants to encourage players at BrainKing to learn the beautiful game of espionage. Especially for those of you who have never played the game or are in the beginner's stage we've created the:



Espionage Beginner's Tournament



Only beginners (no rating or below 1500 in any of the espionage variants) may join.


Prizes:

#1 - 1 year rook + 9 months bonus!

#2 - 6 months rook

#3 - 6 months knight



Send me a message (Chaos) so I can invite you for the tournament. I only send invitations to beginners. The espionage league is willing to help you learn the game. Ask questions on strategy or make a request for a mentor on the Espionage Discussion Board

happy hermit: Ha Ha
Perhaps it is Sandoz whom I should be asking for hints, as I note he beat you too!

But seriously, I do value the experience of playing against you, and once I've cleared some things out of the way, I'll send you an invite and take you up on your offer.

Chaos: All good stuff.
Suggest 3rd prize as a bishop or knight membership rather than brains.

Announcement should also be posted on Tournament board.

Who is paying for the prizes? Would you like a contribution?

How about listing the mentors and the students as they become know?

Chaos: That is true. I have just been playing in a fast espionage team tournament, invited by the captain to join his team. As I had no fast espionage rating at the time, I was paired with all the other low rated players. 12/12 easy wins :)

But I do agree with Eric as well, it would be much easier and less work if the entry was open. Is it possible to eject people just before the tournament start if they have not met the criteria?

As to when, well firstly need to find someone, then teach them so that they will at least beat your and Eric's student End January, beginning February?

Nothingness: Thank you, though it was really a Chaos idea.
I think some method should be applied in assigning the mentors, otherwise Eric will go for those at the top of the Dark Chess ratings, all of whom have not played espionage (here)! :)

edit = spelling correction!

Chaos: I was thinking it was an anagram of his name, rather than a abbreviation! Tony G = tgcon?

happy hermit: That would be a very good choice. Well discovered!
Perhaps I could interest vin in becoming my pupil :)

Chaos: "I'm already trying to get some beginner's (they've only played a few games) interested in really learning the game. If everyone of you will train 1 pupil the tournament could become very interesting indeed! We can compete with who has trained the winner!"

This is a very interesting idea! Assuming the trainers are reasonably competitive, you are pitting the trainers (through their pupils) against each other too.

lukulus: But even Thursday last year July, it was raining that day too, only it was light rain

Resher: I'll pack them away for the next few days then. Have a great time!
P.S. What do you call six weeks of rain in Scotland?
Summer!

A Scotsman visited New York for his annual holiday and stayed at a large hotel. However, he didnae feel that the natives were friendly. "At 4 o'clock every morning," he told a friend, "they hammered on my bedroom door, one the walls, even on the floor and ceiling. Heck, sometimes they hammered so loud I could hardly hear myself playing the bagpipes."

Chaos: Nice One!
Guess who joined the 28 hr mini rush ladder?
Careful you don't get kicked off the site!

Interesting is the difference between Patrick and Fencer. On BK, under Links, there is a long list of other game sites including IYT!!! (they do look like referral links though, so Fencer might receive a few cents if you click them)

On IYT, a month or so ago, I changed my display name from "SL-Mark" to "SL-Mark playing on http://brainking.com"
Our good friend Patrick has now changed my display name to my login name and I can no longer change my display name!

Chaos: a1, d1, e1, g1, j1

Celticjim: I was just teasing Jim
You are right about how the instincts improve over time, just that I lack the same confidence to attack blind as you do.
Mmmm, is that a weakness I have exposed?

Chaos: No no no! Go for victory not the mines. Attack the army every time

aaru: Oops, sorry aaru. Just re-readiing my previous message to Chaos, I didn't mean to imply that you are not a top player too!
I do find it amazing that you have managed to get 100 mines since the achievements started. Congrats

Chaos: If all is lost attack the mines.
No mines, shame, but then you are only exhibiting the traits of a top player!

Celticjim: Bah humbug
How many did you get wrong to achieve that score?

Chaos: Great, I'll join in too

Chaos: Not too bothered about variant, and time limit 3 days + weekends seems to be a balanced option.

Celticjim: It's a fix!
It won't let me choose my preference! It comes back and says I have already voted

Thom27: Wholly agree with you. However, Fencer has stated this is the way it is played here and the balance of opinion seems to be neither one way nor the other. At the very least, the rules should make this very clear, which they presently don't.

Resher: I have never played Stratego, but in trying to uncover what Combate is, came across the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratego
Interesting reading. There are even world championships in this game!

SL-Bosse: Link to the bug.
http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=1959

Chaos: Chaos: I did mention to Fencer that we are having a discussion about it on the Espionage board, so as you suggest, all views put forward will be seen by Fencer, and perhaps he will change as a feature request?