Nothingness:
if vacations are not allowed, I think it will not encourage me and a lot of players, because you can easily have any incovenience that prevents you from connecting to the site (sickness, holiday, work, connection breakdown,....).
It would be better to have a short time per move. Usually players can be very slow because they have hundreds of games running and they simply play the first one in the time list. They are always near the time limit.
The problem is: what is a short time for you?
For me it is 2 days, with vacation on.
Maybe it is too long for many others.

Nothingness:

I think the Fischer Clock controls are reasonable, The default for that control: 7 days with 1 bonus day added for each move seems reasonable. At the limit case, each player gets 1 day per move + weekends. The two slowest players in a tournament would both have to make 100 moves in a game in a year (200 moves + 80 weekend days + 90 vacation days) = roughly one year. Perhaps it would be more weekend days once the vacation kicked in, but close enough. If you play large sections (7 or 8 players) you should finish in two rounds.

Nothingness: you can make it an invitation only tournament, only it will require more of your time.

It 's a shame that the 6x6 tiny variant doesn't exist. ;)

I like Fast Espionage the most (yup, with the volcanoes), or Open Small Espionage.

For time control you should have the vacation on, as the new format only allows 45 vacation days (60 if they would pay another membership) . If those are all gone, that's over for them. It's fair to assume that players visit the site daily, so use a fixed time per turn, say 1,5 days per turn. If you hate the vacation system, do fixed weekends only or even no days off.

I'm thinking about running a prize tourney in the next month or so.. I want to know what the best time control is ( i know best is subjective). I dont want to have it be a tourney that takes years to finish. I also do not want to scare away many individuals that just cant committ to a short time frame? I will also be carefully watching who enters and will be eliminating individuals who move slower than molasses in the winter time. I want this tournament to attract as many individuals as possible. I currently am in a tourney when two individuals have not made there first move yet and they are black rooks ( tons of auto vaca) and the tourney started in october. and they are using 30 day time control.
Also what would attract more players for a variant and format? im looking at Open version and either elimination or 1 game each person 4 player sections.
The volcano versions do not get enough love and the open versions seem to be the most played.
As for the time control im looking at: 1 day plus 12 hour bonus with a 3-5 day max with auto vaca disabled? or a 1 day with 8 hour bonus with a max of 5-7 days. I'm trying to encourage fast play without making it too difficult to manage with daily life. I'm a school teacher so I have a fairly forgiving schedule, others may not. I'm open to suggestions.

Chaos: ..now I'm confused........the bug makes it possible to in fact not just move forward--that is the bug....it is relevant if you were down to 5 pieces or less surely? Actually now I think about that I'm not sure the piece number relevance is known.Can you link the game in question for us please ...

Celticjim: my pieces were still able to move, but only towards the claws of my waiting opponent. So the bug wasn't relevant in this game.

Chaos: you said earlier when referring to the rule about not moving back where one came from...."One can corner an opponent by limiting their movement abilities using this rule. As has just been done to me..."...so I thought maybe you would take the opportunity to 'check' whether the bug had been fixed,not ask about it as we all know that is pretty much pointless .....good luck getting a corner variant implement if that is the plan--never was a fan of that one

Celticjim: no, I haven't asked about the bug. Sorry! Some time ago I was busy trying to see what the consensus for a draw rule was, but didn't succeed. My plan was to combine the request for a draw rule with the request to change the bug. Now we also have the request we want to make for a diagonal version. At the moment I do not have the time to address people personally to get opinions or to formulate different options so players can vote for them. Maybe someone else can step up to take these tasks? You can put my name under the request for any of the diagonal variants, draw rule (50 or more noncapture moves) and the bug.

Dark Prince:

"I would be interested to know the other players who agree that long games show the greatest skill. I think they show the least skill."

I don't think the length of the game is too important. I like to see a player create an imbalance (e.g. Recon vs 2 or 2 vs Redon, 4 vs 5 or 5 vs 4, etc.) and then demonstrate they know how to play it advantageously.

As we all know that in the original stratego when a 2 attacked another 2 both pieces were removed. This rule enabled a person to be aggressive and defensive all at once. Once you spotted the 2 and the 1s were exposed or removed it was a feast on the remaining armies and the 2 could attack without prejudice (granted that he didnt run into any bombs). But unitl that happened you played cautiously and very defensively.
Espionage and Sabotage changed this rule and created an aggresive style that if you attacked 1st you get favored with the win. This created a defensive style on my part and I realized that I have to be more cautious and not attack as much due to the numerous threats and open space.
When we ( the IYT committee [I was not on the open committee]) first decided to implement the open version on IYT we had many long discussions about many different things many of which i do not recall ( how many moves and board setup) probably Chaos would remember. I very much agreed on an open verison and wanted a more aggressive type of game. I really enjoy the open game b/c it challenges my defensive style and is much more difficult to set up a solid unbreakable defense. But i have yet to find a glitch or the perfect setup. But i try to find it all the time even if it means losing a game here and there. Every game has its glitch or achilles heel. eventually open will be exposed, but it will take awhile.

joshi tm: The one feature that really prevents a solid unstoppable defense was the implementation of random volcanos. On IYT "ialwayswinsam" and myself had a way of setting up an unstoppable defense. b/c we always knew the volcano set up prior to the match. Now it cant be done, you have to gamble on the setup which isnt tacticly sound and involves luck. We however rarely ever used this tactic unless we needed a must win. I had a record of appx 300 wins and less than 12 loses until i timed out of 33 games at once due to lack of internet access. As for saying something making it true or untrue the same works both ways. (and just b/c majority rules doenst make it a good or prudent choice.) And as for being able to move backwards that would not be good. to much to explain here. The rule i always favored is the original: equal rank attacks remove both pieces. This is why this game has always favored the aggressor. Which i will explain in a new post.

Dark Prince: Always on the middle ranks, but placed after both players set up an army. I think it would be a big improvement to alreadt place volcanoes on the map before setting up an army, as a player can set up accordingly to the different terrain.

I want to apologize everyone for my slow play for the moment. I am in to too many games, and to much work.

Chaos: just out of curiosity,did you check whether the bug had been fixed?

Justaminute: I do not agree with you on that. The rule not to be able to move the piece back where you came from is one of the best rules of espionage in my opinion. I'm not a fan of defensive play, but this rule makes defensive play harder as well. One can corner an opponent by limiting their movement abilities using this rule. As has just been done to me...

Dark Prince:
I’m with you on this. I rarely play espionage anymore because of just this point. Games of 300+ moves may be strategically perfect but so what, for most people this is on par with watching wallpaper dry. I’ve said it before but I think the game would be vastly improved if forward moves were not penalised by not being allowed to reverse the next move. It would make the game a lot faster without reducing the skill level.

The rules indicate that the volcanoes are randomly placed, but some things are not specified. Are they placed symmetrically and always on the middle 2 ranks? Do you see the volcano placement when you begin setting up pieces or not until the first move?

It's a shame we can't check the "knowledge" positions anymore of your game: Klein Spionage (Nothingness - Sandoz) as every piece is uncovered.

Looks like an awesome game. The volcanoes were pretty annoying here.

Nothingness:
Saying it, doesn't make it so, even though you've repeated it several times. I doubt many players agree with what you're saying. Your analogies don't support your point either.
In war, blitzkrieg is an effective tactic that can force on enemy onto its heels, but mine fields can funnel an attacking enemy into killing zones. The volcanos perform a similar function to that of mine fields and thus favor a defensive strategy more than the open variations.
The open variations do NOT force aggressive play, but they do require a different set of tactics for effective defensive play.
Aggressive play does not imply reliance on blind luck.
I would be interested to know the other players who agree that long games show the greatest skill. I think they show the least skill.

Dark Prince: It's just the opposite.. it shows that you were able to out wit and out think the opposition..you dont see the military just go in guns a blazing. There is strategy involved not just blind luck to see who B#$#$#%^%^ their best. Being able to out think your opponent is the best strategy. Being able to crack a strong defense is more admirable and takes skill. not just shifting peices around until you get lucky. Try letting a wild animal into your house (a Raccoon into your cabinet) and see how tough it is to get it out. But if its just running around your kitchen its much easier to get rid of just open your door. Ironically the open versions force people to play an aggressive style and it avoids defense, but the volcano versions allow for defensive play and more critical thinking and less offense. But in the volcano version offense MUST be timed PERFECTLY.. there can be no error or you will lose. You can get lucky with a runner in the open versions. But once your pinned in its over. Its like comparing Mac to the PC the both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Nothingness:
I personally find quicker games more interesting and more admirable. Quick games tend to show that the winners exploited advantages efficiently and took appropriate risks rather than just posturing.

Just finished a 312 move game of small espionage..very crazy...there were a few streaks of 50-60 moves without a capture.

How about a tiny Espionage game which features only a 6x6 square board and a piece set like this:

yyyyyy
yyyyyy
------
------
xxxxxx
xxxxxx

1 Base
2 Mines
2 Saboteurs
2 Spies
2 1's
2 2's
1 3 ( or a 5, it does not matter since it should be just the highest level piece)
I do not know if this is te best piece setup, maybe remove a mine in favor for another 1 or 3. The 3 can be captured by a Saboteur. Two moves per turn, no volcanoes. The game should go really fast as there's nowhere to run in this game.

Edit: If this set is used, with spies on B2 and e2 white can move those spies in such way that Black's pieces are revealed inmediantly as they move. That should not be possible, so maybe remove the extra spy as well in favor to another 1 to have a set like this:

1 Base
1-2 Mines
2 Saboteurs
1 Spy
3 1's
2 2's
1-2 3's ( or a 5)

@dAGGER: I like the idea to remove a rank and file to get the armies closer. The idea at IYT is also good to play I think.

dAGGER:
Sounds good, and it could use the 7x7 triangle setup zone suggested by Joshi.
x x x x x x x - -
x x x x x x - - -
x x x x x - - - y
x x x x - - - y y
x x x - - - y y y
x x - - - y y y y
x - - - y y y y y
- - - y y y y y y
- - y y y y y y y

Dark Prince:
I also liked the corner version at IYT. I quitted the site because there wasn't anymore a message board and a lot of good players moved to BK.
I suggest a corner version with a 9x9 board, that would be in the middle between Open Espionage (10x10) and Small Espionage (8x8).
We should meet the requirements of a lot of players.

Nothingness:
joshi tm:
I have read other posts expressing interest in a corner variation.
I would think it worthwhile to find out how many others would like such a variation and discuss the parameters with those interested.
For me, the Corner variation at IYT is an equal favorite with Open Rush. I play those 2 variations almost exclusively.
As to the parameters here, I would consider Joshi's 7 diagonal proposal as well as possibly an 8th diagonal.
If only 7, we might consider removing a 1 and a mine or a 1 and 2 as Joshi suggests.
If 8 diagonals, we might instead consider adding additional pieces and/or leaving squares within the 8x8 setup triangle unoccupied.

Dark Prince: do you think it may be worth exploring?

joshi tm:
It is NOT the most popular variation, but many of those that like Open Rush also like Corner.
Your proposal is different in a significant way to the Corner variation at IYT. There, the setup includes an additional diagonal for each player with 8 more pieces than you proposed.

I knew this one had been discussed in the past. Do you know why it didn't work?

joshi tm: They did this on itsyouturn.com it didnt catch on

How about having a 10x10 Espionage board where the board setup looks like this:

xxxxxxx---
xxxxxx----
xxxxx-----
xxxx-----y
xxx-----yy
xx-----yyy
x-----yyyy
-----yyyyy
----yyyyyy
---yyyyyyy

The 28 X's represent Black and the 28 Y's represent white. The way different setup can change the strategy of play using the same Espionage rules (but removing a 1 and 2 soldier from the original 30 pieces). And of course, no one says you have to put the main base in the corner!

cookie monster: Thanks im tired of the time controls being so long..things need to speed up..

Nothingness

I like the time control. There is a good chance this will finish with most, perhaps even all, of the players still alive.:

Nothingness:
The choice to ignore a point one considers irrelevant does not imply the point was missed.
From what I've read on minimum number of moves for a game to be rated at BK, it's 2 moves by each player.
I don't know if that minimum applies to tournaments or stairs.
In any case, it has nothing to do with how ratings are adjusted. Rather, It relates to whether a game is rated.
I don't agree that playing a game, no matter the outcome, will either prove or disprove your point or mine.
I believe we've already played 2 games here.
Do you think the results of those games prove anything?

Nothingness:

I think the Dark Prince's point was, with respect to ratings, you have a proposed a rule which affects only one player's rating in a game. That would be a change to the system

Dark Prince: Umm you totally missed the point. "IF" a game ends prior to move 4 it does not count into the ratings. If a "FORCED" draw rule which does not exist (yet) is implemented then it would not count for the person requesting the draw. This would be something that could be put into the rules.. It has zero to do with the ratings system.
To prove my point I will play you in any version and I'll prove to you that you cannot win when the forced draw rule is in effect. The game becomes broken and most games will end in a draw. Most in the meaning that if a player plays a defensive style. If you want to randomly attack b/c your not intelligent enough to crack the defense and want people to bow to your (not you specifically) aggressive style that is fine. It takes intelligence and patience to crack a solid defense. Not a rule that will eliminate a weakness in your play style. I'm in a game now with Sandoz that is about 70 moves without an attack. This is game #2 of the set. The defense I set is un-crackable b/c i'm playing it the way I'd play it with a forced draw rule. Which is different than normal game play.

Nothingness:
I said nothing to indicate otherwise.
I said it's a standard formula to adjust ratings.
The existing system already takes into account wins, losses, draws and provisional ratings.
To alter the existing formula to adjust ratings differently for draws would be arbitrary and without foundation.
On the left, one can click on "Ratings" under "Statistics" to find the following:
BKR means "BrainKing Rating" and is calculated by US Chess Federation formula(*) for each kind of a game separately according to your game results.

Dark Prince: The ratings are not fixed. i think that if you quit a game within the first 4 moves it does not count the same could be implemented in this instance.

Nothingness:
are fixed according to a standard formula. It is my opinion that there is no solid reason to deviate from that formula.

I was also thinking that perhaps if we decide on requesting a forced draw we can do this. Anyone how decides to force a draw the game will not count against that opposing players stats but will effect your stats if it benefits your stats.

Justaminute: Correct it is not.. what concerns me most are situations in games that require time to break through b/c of moving pieces from one side of the board to the other. With being conspicuous ( due to blindness of the pieces) you cannot expect to be forced to reveal a piece b/c your limited on time. ( not reveal through actual recon but through redirection.

The not making progress rule occurs quite often in chess tournaments where you often get down to having to complete you moves in 15 minutes and the player with more time just tries to run the clock down. I don’t think the rule is so applicable for correspondence chess or sites like Brainking.

Dark Prince: Seeing all points are very important not just what one person wants or just being stubborn b/c it doesn't adhere to what we consider logical or fair. But chess is a very different game and those rules were made for a reason.

Nothingness:
You made my point quite well, thanks.

Nothingness: Article 10 is very problematic. Imagine, referee has rating 1800 and he must judge if player 2350 is attempting to win by normal means or not... It is one of the reasons why increment is prefered and article 10 is not applied.

Nothingness: The last part of this is very important and would be detrimental to my argument. But it is still an interesting rule when draws are discussed. There is another rule im trying to find having to do with class players.

In a sudden death time control (players have a limited time to play all of their moves), if it is discovered that both players have exceeded their time allotment, the game is a draw. (The game continues if it is not a sudden-death time control.)
If only one player has exceeded the time limit, but the other player does not have (theoretically) sufficient mating material, the game is still a draw. Law 6.9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states that: "If a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay." For example, a player who runs out of time with a king and queen versus a sole king does not lose the game. It is still possible to lose on time in positions where mate is extremely unlikely but not theoretically impossible, as with king and bishop versus king and knight.
Because of this last possibility, article 10 of the FIDE laws of chess states that when a player has less than two minutes left on their clock during a rapid play finish (the end of a game when all remaining moves must be completed within a limited amount of time), they may claim a draw if their opponent is not attempting to win the game by "normal means" or cannot win the game by "normal means". "Normal means" can be taken to mean the delivery of checkmate or the winning of material. In other words, a draw is claimable if the opponent is merely attempting to win on time, or cannot possibly win except by on time. It is up to the arbiter to decide whether such a claim will be granted or not.

Dark Prince: Actually if you are asking for the draw rule to be implemented when you feel that your opponent has insufficient material to win than the level of player matters. ill try and find the rule in my chess rule book. or online