Celticjim: when do we let the poll end? On the list Bosse made some time ago he counted 19 players reading this forum. Should we ask other players in the the small fast #1 and open fast #1 who don't seem to read this forum to vote?

Celticjim: it works & done!

ok try this one and see if people can vote

http://www.yourfreepoll.com/zazclsimsp.html

SL-Mark:

Mark,it automatically filtered for one vote per i.p. and cookie so maybe we share an ip address or something cuz I'm the only one who's voted ---*shrugs*

*edit*---somehow missed Erics post saying it told him same thing-----dang cheap poll

well, I vote for open fast espionage with a two day time limit.

but, I'm fine with small fast espionage, too.

the main issue for me is, that we start a new league event.
really looking forward to that. and big thanks for organizing, Bosse! :-)

Celticjim:

Apparently I had already voted as well. :)

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

lets vote
here's a poll I just made.It's for type only.Perhaps someone else could do another poll for time limit?

http://snappoll.com/poll/316276.php

Chaos: You asked a week ago about the name, and I propose we change to Espionage League

Yes excellent idea! The espionage.sabotage games came in a specific order on IYT. It grew with us and it should grow here the same way. The only variant that should not be touched is the plain original version due to time constraints. Other than that the small espionage is a much faster version that the IYT version due to random volcanoes. You only become a great player by making your weaknesses your strength.

I did mean play espionage variants with different people by putting those games on as waiting games.
If players here have the opportunity to try a variant and someone chats with them, SL could grow

I agree with Nothingness, if you look at Waiting games out of 298 only 2 are for any variants of Espionage.
Only if you play new opponents and get them interested in a different game will SL grow.
True they will sometimes be complete beginners but we all started sometime & I probably still play like a beginner - sorry

if we expect to recruit new blood here I suggest that we have a variety of game types i know that some of us only like to play certain variations but if we want to recruit new player we will have to suck it up and play all versions to at least get them hooked.

I think polls are available just for fellowships and global BK matters.

SL-Bosse:
my vote is for 2 days, weekends on, vacation on.
Maybe a poll can be useful.........

If it is 2 days will we still have weekends off? I don't play as much at weekends

Styleone: In the Open Fast, two players didn't more or less even start their games, so these timeout I think is not due to the shorter time. Two players had problem during the games with time control, so I can not totally agree on that it is a lot of games timed out due to the shorter time. With two days instead of four, it will give a much faster tournament. I vote for two days. Is it possible to set up a poll here?

I vote for a new small fast tournament, after the first one is finished.The last open fast tournament shows a lot of time out games, so I vote for 4 days for a move.

Chaos: At our current pace, our round 2 section will finish this month. :)

Celticjim: Chaos. She has won over all the players who can reach 3 points. So she will get the highest S-B. Or?

so who wins SF number 1?

I vote for small fast too

Chaos: And I think it already now is clear who wins the SF#1. So concrats!!!

SL-GentleKiller: I have got some input from SL-Mark and Resher about gramatic and spelling on the webpage. Thanks. Th corrections has to wait untill tomorrow due to business trip.

Well done, BOSSE!
The webpage will be very useful for posting results, pairings, rankings, etc. So we can organize homemade tourneys. Great job!
I vote for Open Fast, 48h+weekends

dAGGER: points: for every won game a player gets 1 point, for every drawn game (s)he gets 1/2 point.

S-B-points: for every won game a player gets as many S-B-points as the opponent has (normal) points, for every drawn game (s)he gets 1/2 times the number of points the opponent has.

dAGGER: Here are some links of some of my tournies where S-B was a factor:

Sunshine in June Game where each player has 1 game and S-B points came in to play

Masters 2 Game where each player has 2 games

Fast Start - First 5 - Massacre Chess #2 game where each player has 1 game each, but the S-B points tied as well

dAGGER: Of course in a game with 2 games for each player, it gets a little more complicated, but the way of figuring is basically the same.

If someone wins both games against someone, they get double the number of wins that person had (In S-B points). (So, if player A won both games against player B, and player B had 2 wins, Player A gets 4 S-B points for those games against that person)

If someone wins one of the 2 games against someone, they get the number of wins that person had (In S-B points). (So, if player A won only one of their games against Player B who had 2 wins, Player A gets 2 S-B points for those games against that person)

If someone loses both games against someone, they get no S-B points for those games against that person

dAGGER: Again, they are only used when people have the same number of points from wins of games. They break the tie.

I'm not sure I can describe how they are figured, very easily.

Basically, you figure them by looking at each instance when someone wins a game against someone else. You get a point for each win that they had.

For example there is a 4 player section. Players are A B C and D. Player A won only their game against player B. Player B won their games against players C and D, Player C won their games against A and D, and Player D won their game against player A only.

So, when you just go by "wins", player B and C tied. So, Brainking would then go to the S-B points.

Player A has 2 S-B point. (He only won against player B who had 2 wins)
Player B has 3 S-B points (He won against C who had 2 wins, and D who had 1 win)
Player C has 2 S-B points (He won against player A who had 1 win and player D who had 1 win)
Player D has 1 S-B point (He won only against player A who had 1 win)

Now, since the Tie was between B and C (2 wins each), B actually wins the section because he had more S-B points. (In other words, he is considered to have done better, because he beat players who did better)

Does that make sense? Maybe I'll find an actual link to a tourney where this came in to play.

dAGGER:

Player A's S-B points are the sum of the points scored by the players that Player A wins against plus half the points scored by the players that Player A draws against.

BK's wording is a little more awkward.

rod03801:
someone knows something more about the S-B points?
The explanation given here at BK is not so clear.....

Dark Prince: Just one quick note about the S-B here at Brainking. The ONLY time S-B points have any relevance here, is when there is a tie in "points". (So the S-B points work as a "tie breaker") SO, if I am looking at the correct tournament, it appears Happy Hermit has won that section, regardless of how that last game turns out.

Maybe you have already figured this out. I'm a day or 2 behind in the conversation.

the rules here are in favor of an aggressive player since both pieces are not removed when the same ranks are in battle.

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!

dAGGER:
I wouldn't consider making such a presumptuous request. In fact, once I was informed that round 2 would not begin until all games of round 1 were complete, I discussed with Thom continuing our game though the offer of a draw had already been made. I then accepted the offer and am happy to have an interlude with no games here before the 2nd round begins.
Enjoy your game!
Jared

Hi - I'm hoping for some help from the international players. 

About 20 years ago I used to play this game against my cousin in Brazil and used his rules (from the Brazilian version called Combate) instead of those from my slightly different UK version (called Stratego).  All these years later I can't remember the differences, just that I preferred the Brazilian rules.

Is there anyone out there who can tell me the rules for Combate, please, as this site has rekindled my interest?

I'd vote for having the implementation changed, so that pieces are revealed only by spies not captured in that turn.

My main reason is that it is almost always possible to enter the piece-moves in a "safe" order, so that the captured spies cannot take effect in that turn any more. The rule variant has almost no effect on the game, except that players who don't know about the "bug" may have their pieces revealed unnoticed by themselves. It is just a trap for the uninformed.

Dark Prince:
I'm sorry to see that my game with Brainsurfer is the last of the first round and it is not relevant for the second round.
It will not last for long, please don't ask me to resign now because I'm near to win.

SL-Bosse: Great job Bosse! :)

I would be happy to join the league tourney but I dont always get on every day like I used to.
But I am considering it.
Nice to keep the league going like you guys have.
Its very good to see. :-)

Chaos:

I am ambivalent on the rule change and the league name.

On the tournament front, I'm not too interested in getting into a long tournament that doesn't accommodate all of the pawns that want to play. If a tournament gets put together that allows everyone to play than I am probably in as well whether it starts now or 6 months from now. Any variant works for me, but I think the open variants work better for big tournaments because they are faster. Perhaps mini rush, double round robin?

Chaos: I can be the adminsistrator for "The Italian Disguise"-tournament. It will be a tournament in the old IYT-standard. Which means we will not use BK-tournament-system, it will be with pairing and invitation. This will make a chance for the pawns to play and we can start as soon as we wants. Some questions about it. Should it be groups or eliminations? Should it be Open fast or Small Fast? Is it OK with 48 hours + weekends?