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!

SL-Mark: well, with your setup you would probabely loose our game, hehe

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.

okay, Mark, here comes my real choice:
- hq
- 2xbomb
- 1xrecon
- 2x5er
- 2x4er
- 1x3er
- 1xsab

total: 10

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 :)

SL-Mark:
To me this sounds like an interesting idea, Mark!
We first should check out if there will be a greater strategic variety for choosing pieces. It should not end up everybody choosing 2x5, 2x4, 2x3 and so on plus the hq as a default

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?

Nothingness:
Perhaps an even smaller (faster) game on an 8x8 (or 8x10) board with no bombs.

I was wondering if perhaps it is time for a new version of espionage? Perhaps some suggestions as to what people would like to see. Fencer is very good at listening to his members and ALL users on his site. So if it is reasonable, I'm certain he would "consider" it or at least give it good thought... I think that New colors was suggested at one time.. I know we suggested it on IYT but it never materialized. Let hear some suggestions.

Celticjim: Like I did in this move?: Open Fast Espionage (drjohnj vs. MTC) (his movable pieces on a3 and b3 at the move linked here)

I do realize it can difficult to follow an active game of Espionage being played by two other players, not being easily able tell which pieces are which, but if you do look through the several moves since he’s had only two pieces left, and otherwise think a little more about the situation, I think you’ll realize that the only winning strategy does require the following of the rule that is broken by this bug.

My thinking is this:
My opponent’s best moves, without following this rule, are to constantly move his pieces around in a tight square at b1–c2. The only way I can win if my opponent does this is to place one piece following his 2 until it can capture the HQ. With this bug, my opponent will be able to capture my piece whenever I try that.

I’ll consider messaging Fencer, but I would have expected the bug tracker to be the best place to report this to Fencer.

MTC: is it not possible for you to move 4 of your pieces next to his 2 and then when he takes one way you move the other,hope that's clear enough.I'm saying it may be possible for you to sneak past him anyway even tho your pieces are inferior
If not I would write Fencer a message

Celticjim:The bug was used on my opponent’s move 76. He moved b4–b3, capturing one of my pieces after his piece had moved b3–b4 on the previous move.

Further information (I am not worried about my opponent knowing this information, there is no way he can use it to his advantage).
My opponent has 2 movable pieces left, either of which could capture any of my remaining movable pieces if given the chance.
None of my remaining movable pieces are capable of capturing either of my opponent’s movable pieces.
My opponent’s HQ is on a1, now protected by only one bomb on b1. I have no sappers left, so I can ultimately only approach the HQ from one square.
My HQ is protected all around it by bombs and my opponent has no sappers left.
The only way I can force a win is to get around his pieces and capture his HQ, the only way to do that (assuming perfect, legal play from my opponent) relies on my opponent not being able to move a piece back to where it just came from.

So if my opponent continues to be able to exploit this bug, I will not be able to win, but I would be able to if the rules are followed. Because of this, I will not play another move in this game either until Fencer intervenes, or until I am about to time out.

And in reply to your edit, if I could edit my previous post I would but, as a pawn, I cannot. My browser automatically converts it to a link anyway, but for the benefit of others, here is a link not surrounded by brackets: http://81.91.83.6/en/ReadBug?bgi=1995

I've had a message from Fencer and basically he is saying that any issues will be sorted in the upcoming brainking upgrade as the game models are being rewritten.He didn't say when

MTC: I had a late night and I'm just awake so gonna try and use that as an excuse as to why I can't get my head round that game MTC,can't quite figure out whats happening.Wait,so it's your turn and you have 6 moving pieces left?Or have they already reset the game and corrected the bug?

anyway this bug needs sorted.I'm gonna drop Fencer a message and see if he can give us some satisfaction

*edit* to say your brackets around the bug link have disabled it,leave a space between bracket and link and it will re-enable

Celticjim: So has anyone else seen a true case of this bug potentially changing the outcome of a game?
Here’s one:
Open Fast Espionage (drjohnj vs. MTC)

The only winning strategy i can come up with in this game requires making use of the fact that my opponent’s pieces cannot move back to their previous squares. So if my opponent exploits this bug, I cannot win, and now he has done so.

I have reported this as another case of the bug (http://81.91.83.6/en/ReadBug?bgi=1995) and expect either:
1) The bug is fixed immediately and the illegal move reverted (unlikely but best option) or
2) The game is ended as a win for me due to my opponent’s illegal move (could be considered unfair on my opponent but I see this has been done before…).

Dark Prince: after 5 years I'm gonna guess a LARGE bribe
obviously they're not that interested or just incapable

To get them to fix the bug?

Dark Prince: move 54B--the exact move where the rule break occured???LOL

Dark Prince:
The link takes me to move # 54B

Celticjim:
I have received achievements too.
The game reference link takes me to move 56. I didn't check previous moves until now for rule violations.
Move 54-55:
The 5 moves from h1-g1
then back from g1 to h1 next.
Stranger still, other moves were available to the 5 as it was not trapped by its own bombs.

Dark Prince: I think you need to recheck the move numbers there mate.There was an occasion AFTER the rule break where his 5 did stay unmoved in the corner next to his HQ

*edit* you are partially right,there was another rule break when he had 2 pieces left that I didn't even notice.Go back further tho to when he had 3 pieces

as to why I let him take my sab
I was finished with it.I wanted to capture all the mines to get that achievement which I did.3 more to get the MASTER achievement that only aaru has so far---yeah a bit geeky but ya know I love the game

Celticjim:
In the game you referenced, it appears the rule held when your opponent had 3 remaining pieces.
i.e. moves 56-57
the 5 from h1-i1
5 not moved next turn
then with 2 remaining pieces
moves 58-59
5 from i1-h1
then h1-i1 on the following move
violating the rule.
On another note, why did you not move the sab to j1 having already ID'd the bombs on a2 and b2, but instead allow your opponent to capture your sab?

Celticjim: undoubtedly this is a BIG BUG

looks like all instances of this reverse move bug are when the player has 5 or less pieces.Fencer indicated in 2005( http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=526 ) that it was when the player was down to one piece and it would be fixed HA ...check my game though,opponent had 3 pieces left Open Fast Espionage (grillyx vs. Celticjim)

The final round of Open Fast Espionage - # 1 has started. It is "dmoresco" and "Thom27" who will fight for the victory.

"If you see that your opponent has been able to move a piece back to a square that it came from in the previous move, then write to us. We will back the game up and ask that your opponent make a different move."
The above is stated in the rules at the other site mentioned about the movement bug.

According to Espionage Rules:
"All mobile pieces can move one space horizontally or vertically. The piece cannot return to its previous position in the next turn, a different move must be done first."
If a move violates the rules but is allowed by the program, the program has a bug that must be corrected. If the bug is not to be corrected, the rules must be changed to accommodate the program.

Sandoz:
on my current game with grillyx which will be over in 2 more moves his 5 general was in the middle of open squares,in fact he was given opportunity to do it again after I pointed out to him what happened.

as for our game-------you definitely could have benefitted from this bug

Sandoz:
slight correction: this should of course only work if you move your piece between your own bombs and not if you move a piece between your oppenent's bombs.

And now I stop spamming ... :-)

Celticjim: on the other hand, I know realize that I probabely could have beaten you by this cheap trick, lol

Celticjim:
and as you know from our latest game, the whole forced movement thing sucks at all!! ;-)

Celticjim:
As far as I know from iyt, it works like this:
If you have less than 6 moveable pieces on a board of open fast espionage (i.e. excl. hq and bombs) and you move one of them between two bombs of your opponent placed on the bottom line, then, within the next turn, you should be able to move your piece back to field it came from. For example: your opponent has a bomb/or hq on b10 and on d10 and you move your piece from c9 to c10. In that case, due to the forced movement thing, you should be able to move your piece back to c9 in your next turn.

Unfortunately, I can't have a look at your posted game in the bug list, as it's obviously still running.
But, in the bug reported by pauloaguia it seems to be the case like I desribed above.

Hope that helps.
Greets, Michael

just happened to me with an opponent moving his piece back to square he just left and I reported the bug.I see the same bug was also reported by pauloaguia back in august 09.Check it out.Whats going on here,this will undoubtedly cause someone to lose/win a game they shouldn't at some point
http://brainking.com/en/BugTracker
In fact 4 instances of same bug reported as far back as 2005.Slack job Fencer

50 players--this is gonna be epic-roll on 2mrw

SL-Bosse:

I just withdrew . . . I seem to be on a time-out binge again and rather not impose on anyone else.  :)

Have fun all.

It's less then 2 days before Small Fast Espionage #2 starts. So far 49 players, and more or less all top 10-players are in. But it's still space for more players, so sign-up!

Chaos: Darkobie

Tian-Xian: I trust you :) what's his name? I'll send him an invite

Chaos:
Oh
I was teaching my son and trying to get him interested but he has signed up since then

Tian-Xian: It's because good players could be tempted to log in with a new name to win the price.

y 1st log in b4 nov 29th ?

happy hermit: 

Chaos-  I'll add the following to all of the moves I make today. :

Public Service Announce: 

A free prize tournament for beginners (<1500 or unrated) has been set-up Espionage beginner's tournament to begin at the end of the month. Please see the tournament link for more info. 

Contact Chaos for an invite.