Look, people, this is crazy.
Obviously there has to be some sort of mathematical formula that can help a player do statistically better than average.

But there is no system that can gaurantee a win. Lets face it, 20 monkeys could play and 1 of them will always win. But for every game everybody but one will lose.

My point is that if it is a 20 person game, and all 20 people use this 'formula' 19 of them will always lose!

yeaa . There will be only one survivor :]

Ed said: (This strategy) works for Pond games too, unless, as previously stated:

1. Some other person also derives the strategy.

2. A "kamikaze" id enters the pond with the sole objective to disrupt your strategy, even though they will lose sooner in doing so.

3. Everyone else messages what they will play, so it is you vs. the pond-dwellers rather than everyone for themself.

see my edit (below)

Pedro Martínez: That is correct. But any game where there is only one person using a strategy is going to favor that person.

Czuch Chuckers: Ain't that the truth?

"So I see", said the blindman as he picked up his hammer and saw.

So we get back to the question of what was the point of all of Ed's talking? And why didn't he just stay quiet about it, fork over $18 for a six month Knight membership under a different handle, win 23 games in a row, and then reveal the secret? Too cheap, or too ingenuous? Or is he up to that right now? I really can't make any sense of it. Maybe you guys can help me out here. Or Ed himself. What gives dude?

In the meantime, it's just a game with a lot of uncertainty and luck in it. Whether or not it is subject to mathematical and game theory analysis is beside the point. So is Backgammon. Why make such a big deal about it Ed? Can't you just play the game and have some fun? Or is your obsession with maintaining your no loss record on this site reaching to picking fights with games that cannot be played perfectly and now you've talked your way into not playing it all because you just can't see that?

Show of hands. All those that are actually playing "Run around the Pond" and not talking about playing it.

Let's see. I'd definitely like to see this strategy work. Hopefully Ed is somehow going to participate in my pond.

Maxxina has suggested that the game be played just as it is now, but the names of the players not be revealed except as they fall into the Pond. Would that make a difference in the play?
Another Dark Pond idea would be to have the scores completely dark until the game is over. You'd just see people fall into the Pond each round. We had the checklist idea for the starting amount and the bonus awarded, how's 'bout adding some options for the amount of player information revealed during a game?

This suggestion was brought to the Czech version of this board earlier today, Fencer's response was "Hmmmmmmm hm." so I'd say the Dark Ponds can appear soon here...(if I'm not too bold to derive that from his reposne, LOL)

Pedro Martínez: Is that the Run around the Jacuzzi game?

Walter Montego: YUP

Pedro Martínez: OK, I'm in. I like lots of players at the start, even if it does take longer to play the game. I don't want to see all you gang up on me and send messages about forcing me into the Pond, now. :) Spreadsheets are welcome, though. Announced or not.

Stevie You are right. He be gone. That makes it "more" not "less", right?

Congrats to Pedro as the first winner of a pond game! Also the first entrant into my tournament of champions game for previous winners only! There will be many games finishing soon, and I will take the first 16 winners then start it.


I also need 4 more people to begin a 15000 first move pond game, sign up and I will start it tonight!

Im in chuck....just make sure everyone does bid 1500 first round this time LOL

Czuch Chuckers: I'm in Czuch.

fencer I like the line about being signed up for the Pond game in the listing of the Pond games. Makes it much easier to know what's going on with being signed up or not.

Stevie: I know, I hate it when people dont do it right, but sometimes its a simple mistake like the one you just made... its not 1500, but 15000!!!! good luck!

Thats what I meant LOL

Thanks, Chuck. I'm not entering any 10000, 15000, 19900 first bet ponds anymore cuz as far as I can see, there will always be someone who will screw up the whole tourney...Vikings has already made it twice...

Yeah, maybe I should do one by invite only...

its eazy to leave out a zero, but the tourney doesn't have to be over, I simply bet zero the next round and bow out

it's a silly idea anyway, just use the 20000 points.

Also in one of those min first bet 19,000 tournies someone bet 19,000 and wasn't the lowest. I contend that that person should also drop out, for being stupid (if 19,000 is the minimum it must, by definition, cause the player to drop out).

Chuck - good idea.

Vikings - yes, it's easy to leave out 0, but it will never going to be the same tourney as it would be if all of the players bet as much as they were to. I am 100% sure I wouldn't have won my 19900 tourney if you three guys had abided by the rules. Diogenes would have been out in the first round. Bry wouldn't have fallen into the pond as ridiculously as he had... ... ... ...

Also, i don't understand how it's easy to miss a zero? If you do just go back and edit it.

you guys are all messaging each other to get rid of me. That's why I fell in the second round. You all conspired to bet more than 2, what are the odds of that happening without collusion! Cheats! fakers!

Do I have to add a joke tag?

Man, I suck at this game

redsales: LMAO@Redsales

EdTrice: please dont leave .. dont make them 'proof' they are right .. even if there arent .. play in the ponds .. proof yourself .. for one thing i will never work with any schemes .. and i know there are others who wont ..

I'm affraid Ed has already left. He has solved the game, he knows that he's able to win every pond, why should he waste the time by playing it? ;-)

So, the Run around the Jacuzzi is up and running. I received a PM from EdTrice saying he found a person who will place bets for him.

Pedro Martínez: Well that is pointless unless we know who it is - I guess Trice is just afraid to get a "lost" next to his name in his profile.

Without knowing who this "mystery" person is NOW at the start of the game, there is no way to look back at each move and see his "thery" in action.

.... what a lame thing for Trice to do.... Claim he has a winning system then run for the hills when challenge about it.

Heck, I have a way to win every game on this game site.... Just I won't prove it to anyone because I know I'm right.... lame.

redsales: Delaying an opponent's victory or draw isn't new to turn based play,unfortunately. I have a game on GT that is over 3 yrs old as a result of that tactic. (I am not the one using that tactic lol)
But I don't see it as an issue for pond games as all moves have a required time limit and is not based on anyone's tardiness

amirh is doing that to me in Atomic Chess right now, and it isn't the only cheap tactic he and his alter ego have used.

Stardust: you're right, it's not relevant to pond, but it does show a lot about someone's character if they do that and at the same time brag about being "unbeaten"! It's funny how the really good players never find it necessary to cheapen the games but the journeymen sometimes do.

grenv: I empathize with you, and it was after my experience that I refused to play more than 3 day/move limits with unknown quantities. I thought Fencer banned all alter pawn egos?!

he sent a message to amirh/babareza, but he's still on the rating list.

So does this player getting advice on a pond game from Trice not constitute cheating?

redsales:

My profile says "0 losses". I considered myself to have been in 4 losses so far, and I battled back in all instances.

This is the game you say I am losing, which has, in fact, repeated positions, so 1 more, and it is a draw:

>http://brainking.com/game/ShowGame?g=415627


His Bishop is of the wrong color, something I tried to explain to you on more than one occasion. I don't have to move any pawns, and he can't win them. As pawns come off the board in pairs, he will be left with King + Bishop vs. King which is a draw, as everyone knows.

So, Redsales, get off my back about something that does not concern you at all.

I started the game off DOWN TWO PIECES because I was experimenting in a crazy opening, because I thought it was interesting.

>http://brainking.com/game/ShowGame?g=415627&i=16


So I essentially played a game with a huge handicap, against the #1 player on the site in chess no less, but it's my game, and I played it the way I wanted.

And, if you happen to look at the matrix for this tournament, you will see Reza is only on move 21 against me in the game he is losing to me, whereas I am on move 38 against my opponent.

************************************
********

I looked at that game. Why can't he just take that passed pawn and then go after your Pawns with his King? I hope he tries that before letting the position repeat three times. If you're right about the draw, he has nothing to lose by giving it a try.

EdTrice: Can you remove the attack / confrontational comment off your post please


And can we get back to the POnds also

EdTrice: I'm the number one player of Dark Chess Ed. Let's play a series of games. You need a few defeats handed to you so we won't have to deal with your overbearingness. Though I kind of doubt that'd shut you up. You may certainly try a experimenting with a crazy opening against me. I love a challenge. Say seven games? You have to win them all. I need to win just one. Sound fair? Or can we just play all seven and see who wins the most. Though I can't stop you from using your machines and computers, atleast Dark Chess would give me a little bit of a chance against such a great Chess player as yourself. I know my limitations, but you don't seem to have any. You can't even play a game or two of "Run around the Pond" without making a world crisis of it and focusing everything on you.

That game of Chess that you're playing with Alex. What a slap in the face to open a refuted opening. King's Gambit? Didn't Bobby Fischer put that one to rest 30 years ago? You purposely play a poor opening against the number one player on the site and then you want us to feel sorry for the position you find yourself in? As for how much time the game is taking, I'd say you or redsales has some explaining to do. It doesn't seem like the game is going overly long if there's slower games going on. But then again, perhaps you moved with speed early in the game when the outcome was in doubt and now with the writing on the wall the delaying tactics are starting to show? That could certainly explain why you have more moves in so far. I'll check all the games out when I get around to it. It looks like it is a good tournament.

RedSales did not "get aggressive"?

Let's review, shall we?

Redsales: "Ed's already lost a game..."

FACT: My losses = 0, so that is a lie.

Redsales: "There's a rumor that he said he'd wait until the last minute to move each time to delay his opponent's victory..."

FACT: A rumor? Give me a break! And since when is using the time allocated for your game against the rules?

Redsales: "...that is the single poorest show of sportsmanship I've witnessed on this site to date."

OK Steve, what do you call this? A lie lending support to a rumor concluding with drama is...what? It's not aggressive? What is it then? And where did I provoke him?


Redsales: "It's so pathetic that I hope it isn't true. The kindergarteners I teach at in Korea have a leg up on that level of maturity."

OK Steve, what is that? Is this not another attack against me?

Sorry pal, he removes the posts, or maybe I show Fencer how biased you are as a moderator.

Redsales was off topic, he didnt get aggresive, whereas you have. Please remove the confrontational comments. Or the hide button is used for not carrying out the mods wishes



walter, I asked for us to stay on topic, if you want to get Ed into a game or more to prove who is best etc etc, can you ask him by pm please

Stevie: Sure Stevie, but I was mainly responding to Ed in anger. I'll await a private message or invitation from him.

Atleast I did mention "Run around the Pond" in my post. It was Ed's previous comments and actions about Pond that got me going in the first place. Now that he's bowed out of playing, for whatever reason, I suppose I should just ignore him and wait for the next day for the Pond games that I entered to show on my Main Page, eh?

OK thanks

I noticed you mentioned ponds LOL

BBW et al.

It does not matter if we can see the actual moves, if his shill wins, then we will know his theory works, if not, then who cares?


On a side note.... (not to bring back any bad blood) but I was hiden on this board for calling anyone who bid 1 in the first round "ignorant", now I have to put up with all these "negative" posts, some of them from board moderators. Please get it back on topic and no more "negative" and hurtfull comments please :)

BBW, Chuck - I'm going to keep records of each round so we can see at the end, when the secret person is revealed, how everyone bet. The table will be similar to the Bad Bishop's and will be accessible on-line.

I think it is wrong. I think the secret person is cheating, and action should be taken against Ed Trice and to the Secret person.

Pedro Martínez: How amny people in that run? It could be a long wait!

I did not agree to have a secret person in the game I joined

Stevie: Why is it cheating?
As long as there are not 2 or more people colluding in the same game, I dont see any problem with it.