No private conversation is expected in the pond game messages. So it's perfectly okay to make it visible for everyone.

I must admit - I would agree with Thad, but can see Fencer's point of view. Can the game discussion in Pond be changed so that we can enter a comment after making a move? We can edit our bid, but not any posts, or add a post after a move.?

No, the "discussion" cannot be changed.

why? - is it difficult to do?

No. I didn't want to.

i'd ask why? but i see you dont want to so i'll drop it....

I would like to be able to write an explaination to someone when I remove them from one of my games.

Pedro Martínez: This issue is a day old but I haven't been on site to respond to your post.
IF someone uses calculations based on a theory (what I understood to be Mr. Trice's spreadsheet) I do not see that as cheating. But rather deductions being made by the person playing the game. Really no different than me sitting down at a checker board next to my computer and making moves to determine which would be the best move to make in another game. The calculations are mine. Not those of a computer or another person.

Czuch Chuckers: To say it isn't cheating because there are no ratings points involve...well...With that way of thinking it would be alright for someone to get the answers to a test they are writing because the mark on the test doesn't count towards the grade total.

Stardust: I didn't get the analogy. Is it cheating or not? Why would you even sit for a test that doesn't count? I'd be at the local bar instead.

grenv: ok it was a bad analogy but yes,it is cheating. The purpose of playing a game is to have fun and try to win...to test your own skill...not the skill of a program or friend.
If Mr. Trice's shill wins , will it not go on his record? If he were to be a shill for another game and then another...until he's played 20 games FOR/AS SOMEONE ELSE....how can that accurately show his skill? It's cheating and it's wrong.

Stardust: I agree, by the way, just couldn't resist the quip

Stardust: I still dont agree that it is cheating. I did not say that it isnt cheating only because there are no ratings. Just that it is not cheating, and the only other reason to be against it is if there were ratings involved, which there isnt.

Actually I believe there will be some sort of ratings and/or stats for the game at some point - just not ready yet.

Czuch Chuckers: I've stated my reasons why I feel it's cheating. I'm sure you have your reasons for thinking it isn't. We can agree to disagree or we can debate this in the Debate club,perhaps?

k

so if a man is golfing by himself and shoots a score of 85, but his score card shows a score of 79 because of mulligans and hurried tap-ins that he thinks shouldnt count. etc... is he cheating?

not that it matters, because there is a serious flaw in the formula, mr Trice may get close, but he won't win

Vikings: It depends on the rules his round was played under. As it stands now, certain things are cheating and certain things aren't. I think the real solution to the problem is to get Fencer to augment the rules to allow certain things. For example (and this is kinda ridiculous, but it makes my point). I am trying to teach some fellow players to improve their Pente game. I'm advising them on certain moves, which, technically, is cheating! Of course, we should be encouraged to help each other, not discouraged from it, so the cheating that I am doing should be allowed. The only way to make this so is to change the rules.

We are getting off topic. I would be happy to continue this...which board?

Vikings: Yes, the golfer is cheating.
But that is another analogy that does not work in this instance.

These two players are not colaberating with each other.... it is Ed Trice playing a game under a different name so nobody will know which player he is. There is no way this is "cheating"!

Back to the golfer...he is cheating because he is technically breaking the rules, there is no rule in multi player games that have no rankings, that a player cannot make moves at the suggestion of someone else who is not themselves in the game.

Thad: I think it is cheating for you to be advising someone else how to play if it is a rated game. This changes if the game in question is not a counted game though.

Czuch Chuckers: Is there anything in the rules of the user agreement (or elsewhere) that distinguishes the rules between a rated and a not counted game? I don't think there is, so what I am doing is either cheating or it's not, regardless of how the games are set up. Right? ;-)

Thad: I think the spirit of part of the cheating rule is for the integrity of the rankings and BKR. If you gain no advantage from the help is it really cheating? In the golf example, yes it is against the rules to not count every swing etc.. but when it the score is not counted in a tournament or to compute a handicap then it does not matter and is actually an accepted form of play for many amatuers.

Unless Thad is throwing his games, I think it is teaching. I have advised lesser players after they have made their moves as to what could have been a better move, and had stronger players than I, do the same for me, and still not compromised the game.
Like the golfer, Mr. Trice's serrogate player is cheating himself

yes, but in golf you are essentially competing against yourself. Here, who wants to play a rigged or fixed game, ranked or not? Now, of course, this is blown out of proportion, I know no one's doing it, but cheating ruins games, who cares if it's for rankings, it's still for posterity!

actualy, there are golfers who will cheat their scores to raise their handicap so that when theiy play in a tourney, they gain an advantage, its called sandbagging.

I'm not saying what Mr.Trice is doing is against the rules of this site. What I am saying is,it is morally wrong. UNLESS,the shill is a nic of his that he will never play against. Then he is not telling another player how to bet.

http://brainking.com/game/Pond?g=29&trnst=2

have a look at the HUGE bets in this T-shirt prize pond of mine....thank god im not in it lOLOL

Above question is from Fencers first pond.

OK Rod..Take a look at the pond list. We have one pawn ( pawns are those whove memberships ran out after the pond started) who's auto bid is making it nigh on impossible to go for the bonus. We have another pawn who's auto bid is so low that unless everyone realises and bids just above it, they will be stopping the bids from going up a touch maybe. Also once everyone realises and they go high enough to remove that pawn...we then have the same situation due to a pawn ( thats a pawn due to being banned from site) who's auto bid is also low. etc etc etc

With these low auto bid pawns..those that normally risk falling in by bidding low, are not at risk.
With the high auto bid pawns we dont get a chance at the bonus. cos why bid 1500 for example..to get back just 500, you still go down by 1000. so may as wwell bid something a lot less than 1000 in first place.

I would suggest that if someone goes down to pawn status...then their bid should automatically go to 0 ( cos i keep hearing that we cant resign) This would mean only 1 messed up round


did that make sense?
I am not the best at getting my point across in writing :o(

Maybe even better would be to remove all pawn automatically from the ponds they eventually participate. But in the First pond they are really extremly boring.

I think its a nightmare for Fencer to remove them. :o(

Did what I said make sense though BB?

Sure it makes sence. I mean Angelmouse with 6 points bidding is not so bad, because there are still enough [beeep] who mess up the game with his/hers suicides, but Alesh is deadly.

We only have 3 or 4 rounds left with Alesh. But thats been many 500 bonuses lost already without those 3 more.

Neverthless I very appreciate EIHNs suicide (if I'm not wrong) by bidding the same ammount as Alesh. I'd say it helps a lot and is not affecting the game. Many thanks, EIHN! :-)

I thought anyone whos membership lapsed during games could continue to finish all the games they were in before their membership had lapsed?

If anyone has been banned from the site and is not allowed to play, I think that info should be posted on the discussion board for that game.


One of the inherent problems in a long game like the first pond is that it is too long :) seriously... who is goinfg to go a whole year with 2 day moves and not miss any turns? Then the game becomes who can be better about obtaining inside knowledge about who is a pawn or who is banned or who is on vacation and using auto moves or who just wants to commit suicide. Those are not what we are supposed to be doing to find an advantage in this game.

If there is no advantage gained or lost, how is it cheating?

I would agree, in the Trice example, maybe he is gaining an advantage because he is using a formula but nobody knows who he is, but this is an experiment for him, and I dont see any disadvantage for the rest of the players. I agree he should have just done his experiment quietly and talked about it aftetr the win, but who would have believed him then? (not that he will win anywho)

Czuch Chuckers: let's continue this in the Debate club

What good is Eds system anyway, if even he claims it doesnt work if anyone knows it is being employed? Seems like it is a moot point if it is a valid system or not if there is no practical use for it.

No good.

got to love it LOL

Stevie: You got your point across perfectly. I understand now. Thanks.. :-)

Fencer:

So if it's no good, why did Mr. Nash get one of mathematic's highest honors in publishing his paper on parallel competitive gaming countermeasures?

All I did was implement what was in his paper.

EdTrice: Because you cannot eliminate the human factor. Why don't you play one or two ponds to prove your theory?

EdTrice: I think most people agree that your spreadsheet would probably give you an advantage, and probably win you some games. But to say it guarantees a win, is a little silly.

Again, it is not my theory.

And again, I said I generated the entire spectrum of bids using ranges and multiple worksheets.

Furthermore, I stated that there is a range of bets for every situation that would allow one person to finish ahead, given the 3 stipulations of:

1. non-discovery of the strategy
2. non-cooperation of others
3. non-suicidal bets

This is not the same as saying there is always a way to win. In fact, if you look at item #3, it is clear there is a way to disrupt this strategy every game. If just one player in each remaining round does something cavalier, it completely negates any gains that can be made.

This is not a "cop-out" as so many of you have said, it is something that was identified from my first post.

This is not "my idea", this is based on a paper that has been public for decades.

Anybody can do the same thing as I did.

As for Fencer's "human factor" remark: Nash's paper was PRECISELY about the human factor! You should really read it before you make such remarks that are so easy to dispute!

EdTrice: Nash got the honor because it is a good theory. The problem is that there is no practical use for it in a pond game, since you yourself admit it wont work if anyone knows it is being employed.

the flaw in the theory is that as Mr Trice says, is that it is to stay alive in the game. But you have to play to win the game, If you don't do that by the second to last move, you lose

Czuch Chuckers:

BUZZZ, wrong again.

Knowledge that it is being used is not what invalidates it. COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STRATEGY is what allows a player to defeat it.

Czuch, you will have to tell me how come Nash's paper was of some assistance to the S.A.L.T. participants, a much more complex series of negotitations with more dire consequences, yet it is of no value in a pond game.

Can you please explain that?

Just because the game discussion cant be edited etc...
I would suggest you dont go showing your frustrations on there
So in future maybe save it for here..and at least then you can be modded .

Stevie: First, not sure what you are talking about.... second, why would I needlessly subject myself to your censorship?

Czuch Chuckers: Czuch Chuckers: (22. January 2005, 13:36:44) this is so efing stupid!