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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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

Nothingness:
You made my point quite well, thanks.

Nothingness:
There are players rated less than expert that know how to win efficiently with KBN vs K advantage, but I don't know about c-class. The rule is not for the rating level but for the skill in advancing the position. If a player of whatever ranking cannot advance the position, a draw is an appropriate outcome.

cookie monster:
In chess, a player with a material disadvantage may play for a draw rather than resigning (a draw is better than a loss). With the 50-move rule, it is up to the player with the material advantage to advance the position (a win is better than a draw). It's a good idea in an inferior (unlikely winnable) position to play for a draw. That outcome is more reasonably attainable with a draw rule.
K+B+N vs K endgames (in which the B & N aren't in a trap position where one can't avoid capture) are winnable in less than 50 moves by a skilled player.

If by "arbitrary" you mean 50 moves instead of 46 or 53, I agree. Otherwise, based on the things I've read about the history of the rule, I don't think the rule is arbitrary. I think it was well thought out. It takes into account the standard mates and a margin of error for accomplishing them as well as the moves for pawn advancement/promotion and captures.

There is already a 50-move precedent for an Espionage draw rule (35 for the small board variations). Deviating from that precedent is arbitrary if not capricious.

cookie monster:
I surmise that the 50-move draw rule in chess was based on empirical data from games played at the highest level and player input from masters and grandmasters.

No single game or match would have been a reasonable test of the rule. I personally think the best test of such a draw rule for Espionage would be one in which many of the highest level players evaluate a variety of game positions and determine the least number of moves without a capture to advance towards a win for each position. Those positions from which no clear advantage can be consistently developed should be excluded. Even if the advantage is not always in favor of the same side for a given position the result will be included if the position consistently leads to a win.
From the data of these positions, the number of moves without capture to bring the game to a win should tabulated. The maximum number of moves (from the various positions) will not necessarily be the threshold for the draw rule, but likely will be a smaller number. That is, as in chess, though some positions may be winnable, the excessive number of moves to accomplish it with solid play on both sides will justify calling it a draw by rule. Ultimately, the number of moves for the draw rule should be based on what is usually reasonable for top level players.

I decline participating in the test suggested by cookie monster.

Nothingness:
Extending the 50-move draw rule in chess up to 100 moves for some situations was experimented with for a few years and proposals were made to extend it to a greater number of moves for other situations. The results of those experiments were to reestablish the 50-move rule. Whatever conclusions you or others may come to for a greater number of moves for an Espionage draw rule, there will be those who will conclude that the number of moves should not be increased or that it should be decreased.
As in chess, the purpose of the rule is to keep the game advancing towards conclusion.

Nothingness:
No doubt, that would require a programming change. Altering the notation for that purpose is unnecessary since either player can go to any specific move to look at the capture lists of both players to verify any change to those lists. Additionally, any player has the option of utilizing the "add note" feature to record the most recent move # in which a capture is made and thereafter edit that note when another capture is made.

Chaos:
I agree that the existing stalemate rule is a good one.

Pedro Martínez:
That was just the definition for stalemate that I had put in quotes.

Chaos:
On the number of moves for a draw, I have made proposals indicating a smaller number of moves for the smaller board variations, but 60 moves is better than not having a rule. Will that be from the beginning of the game?

Pedro Martínez: I copied the below from the rules at the bottom of the page for the 2 move variation of Espionage:

How to finish a game

The game is finished when one of the following conditions is fulfilled:

* A player captures opponent's Headquarters. This player wins the game.
* A player cannot make a legal move. This player loses the game.

Chaos:
There already is a stalemate rule.
Stalemate: "A situation in which further action is blocked; a deadlock."
A player that cannot make a legal move on his or her turn loses.

Chaos:
The frequency of utilizing a rule is not a reasonable measure of whether the rule should exist. In chess, the 50 move rule is rarely used (as a percentage of games played), and the en passant rule is also rarely utilized.
The stalemate rule may come up even less frequently but is a factor that cannot be ignored in tactical considerations.
The 50-move draw rule would serve tactical purposes too in Espionage, i.e. "sh*t or get off the pot."

Justaminute:
If it would require a program change, I would agree that the option of removing a mine would not work. I am sure Fencer would answer that if it came to a point that a consensus of players liked that penalty addition. If the consensus were against it, it would be a moot point.

Justaminute:
Whether something has a chance of being implemented should not be a bar to its introduction for discussion.
Whatever the reason for the penalty, removing a checker from the board is a penalty that does NOT occur in all checker variations. It doesn't occur in chess or most other games where a player may choose not to make a move to capture an opponent's piece.

The point I was making was not to show an approximate comparison. It does show that penalties exist in other games. You do not have to agree with the penalty I propose or that there should be a penalty.
My suggestions on a draw rule are not part of the game yet it is being discussed by several others. Though the addition of a penalty is not a part of the game, it too could be discussed and either rejected or accepted.
I make no apology for suggesting it.

There has been no suggestion made that the rule would require any kind of program change other than to add the text to the rules. The 50-move chess rule is not programmed. A player who calls a draw in chess based on the 50-move rule sends it to support to call the draw if the opponent declines the draw offer. The same would be the case in Espionage for either the draw or the penalty.

Justaminute:
I'm not too concerned about whether the penalty I suggested is included as part of the draw rule. It has been rare that I've been offered a draw that I declined.

I can't agree with the reasoning, however, that a rule shouldn't lead to different treatment than occurs in another game type. On the contrary, differing rules are what sets a game apart from other games.
Penalties do occur in games for various purposes depending on the circumstances. In checkers, for example, there are variations that impose the penalty of removing a checker if an available jump is not taken.
In some timed chess tournaments there are time penalties for false draw claims and other infractions.
The lack of a penalty for an infraction in some game types does not imply that proposing a penalty for that infraction in a particular game is inappropriate.

Chaos:
Draw:
There are two ways of ending a game in a draw.
The first is by agreement between the opponents in which one player offers a draw and the other player accepts the offer. This can occur at any time during the game.
The other is by request to support under the 50-move rule if the opponent refuses the draw offer.
The 50-move rule (as it's called in chess) applies when X turns or more by each player have transpired since move Y (or X turns by one player and X-1 turns by the player requesting the draw) without a capture.

Move Y is the starting turn from which the X count begins. Regardless of the variation, the Y turn is reset to the latest move a capture by either player is made including resetting it to a turn prior to the initial Y for that variation. A capture is the only way to reset Y. A capture occurs any time a piece is moved to a square occupied by an enemy piece regardless of which piece is removed from the game board and placed in the appropriate capture list.

The draw must be offered when it is your turn and prior to making a move (it must be possible to legally make all moves that turn without moving any piece onto a square occupied by an enemy piece if it's the Xth move but not if beyond that move). If the X count is met or exceeded and no draw offer is made then or after, the opportunity will expire when a piece is captured.

It is annoying to many players to receive multiple draw offers when the threshold "X" moves has not been met.
Do not offer a draw more than once prior to the threshold or there will be a penalty. Any request for support to enforce the 50-move rule when the constraints for the rule have not been met will also invoke the penalty.
The other player will choose between two possible penalties. Either Y will be reset to the move of the inappropriate draw offer or the player making the offer must choose one of his mines to be removed by support.

at IYT:
"If a game of Sabotage has a certain number of moves in a row with no captures, then the game is a draw. The number of moves varies according to the type of Sabotage game:

* Sabotage: 50 moves per player
* Sabotage Rush: 50 moves per player
* Mini Sabotage: 35 moves per player


These rules apply to Sabotage games which were started after 5/8/01."

I recommend listing a date for which games that were started before are exempt from the draw rule or at least the count is reset on that date for them.

cookie monster:
Thanks for your input and correction.
I am so accustomed to the word "move" for a draw situation that I didn't realize I was using it where "turn" is the appropriate word for this game type.

...on the 50 move draw rule in chess.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule

"The fifty-move rule in chess states that a player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty consecutive moves (fifty moves by each side). The intended reason for the rule is so that a player with no chance to win cannot be obstinate and play on indefinitely (Hooper & Whyld 1992), or seek a win purely due to an opponent's fatigue. All of the basic checkmates can be accomplished in well under fifty moves.
In the 20th century it was discovered that some positions of certain endgames can only be won in more than fifty moves (without a capture or a pawn move). The rule was changed to include certain exceptions in which one hundred moves were allowed with particular material combinations. However, more and more exceptions were discovered and in 1992 FIDE abolished all such exceptions and reinstated the strict fifty-move rule."

I hope it's not a problem that I copied the text and pasted it here.
The point is that though it was found that a game could be won beyond the 50 moves, the 50 move rule was eventually reinstated. Again, this rule ensures that a game must progress or a player will have the right to call a draw. I assert that such reasoning applies or should apply to Espionage as well.

Nothingness:
I would say the wins I have against you and others here playing Espionage and my very high win percentage in Sabotage variations at IYT adequately refute your claim that I am inexperienced.

The fact that "turtling" is a well known and widely used strategy does not necessitate that rules do not discourage their use. On the contrary, rules are commonly used as a mechanism to deter such strategies. The following is copied from the site you linked in your message.

"In practice, however, games are often designed to punish turtling through various game mechanics. Consequently, while turtling strategies are usually simple enough for novices to learn and are effective as such, they are easily defeated by experienced players who understand the game's methods to counter turtling."

That being the case, I strongly suggest that a draw rule be used to inhibit the use of turtling.

Dark Prince:
Another option to my multiple choice suggestion would be for those voting to specify the numbers for the variations they choose to vote on and then a bell curve analysis to determine the outcome. I don't know the minimum number of votes for such an analysis to be accurate or for multiple choice for that matter.
I'm interested in the input others may have on that.

Just because a strategy of stalling can be employed does not justify its support in rules. Here is where the voting should hold for those who either wish the game to be pushed towards advancement or to reward defensive play. I have previously addressed the option of a beginning move from which the count begins for the threshold of moves agreed upon for a draw situation.

I suggest multiple choices as follows, but feel free to add more choices than those I list below.
i.e.
45, 50, 55, 60 for each of the large board variations.
30, 35, 40, 45 for each of the small board variations.

Start move for draw count.
0,10, 20, 30, 40 for each of the large variations.
0, 5, 10, 15, 20 for each of the small variations.

Chaos:
There is no good reason for a draw rule to be excessively complex or subjective. All rules must be objective in the ability to enforce them.
I assert that ratings differences can have no place in any rule other than how ratings change with a win, draw or loss.
There is no stalemate in any variation of Espionage since the inability to make a legal move is a loss (if I understand it correctly). There are two other ways to lose. They are losing the HQ to enemy capture and losing all movable pieces to enemy capture.

The situation of various pieces that can avoid capture need not be addressed subjectively with their relative positions since it can be addressed objectively with the number of moves made without a capture being made by either player. When that threshold is met, either player can call it a draw without agreement by the opponent. If it were to require agreement, it would not be a rule and could not be enforced.
Regardless of any objections to such a rule, it would serve to keep the game moving at a more reasonable pace than would be the case without it.

If the move threshold without a capture is met, and a piece is subsequently captured prior to either player calling a draw, the threshold count is reset on the move the capture was made.

I suggest there are two things to discuss for draw rules. One is the number of moves for the threshold for each variation. The other is a three-time repetition of positions draw (with it being the same player's turn to move). Such a rule may be difficult with unidentified pieces, but possible since there is tracking with the move list. This might have the additional benefit of compelling development early in a game.

Chaos:
Several things demonstrate that the moves within a turn are sequential rather than simultaneous. The move list shows the order of moves and vacating a square must occur prior to another piece occupying it, but I agree that these do not definitively eliminate the simultaneous move possibility. I don't care for the analogy of cars moving on a road since continuous movement doesn't reflect a turn based game. When vehicles in a particular lane start from a traffic signal turning green, in reality, they do not all start moving at the same time except in some cartoons. So that analogy demonstrates sequential better than it does simultaneous moves.
The existing state of spy identification as described in previous messages clearly demonstrates that moves within a turn are not simultaneous, but are in fact sequential.

Chaos:
Current Wording:
Spies: A Spy reveals an identity of all enemy pieces which are currently located one space next to its own position (horizontally, vertically or diagonally). Once a piece is "unmasked", it stays visible for the opponent to the end of the game. Such situation can happen either when a Spy moves next to enemy pieces or if a piece moves next to enemy Spy. A Spy can capture only another Spy or a Sapper and dies when steps on a Mine.

Proposed Wording:
Spies: A Spy reveals the identities of all previously unidentified enemy pieces which are moved adjacent to its location or whose location is adjacent to the square to which the Spy is moved. This includes movement within a turn in which either that Spy is subsequently captured after a masked piece moves adjacent to it or a masked piece is subsequently captured after a Spy is moved adjacent to it. "Adjacent" means abbutting horizontally, vertically or diagonally. The identities of unmasked enemy pieces are shown upon submission of the turn and remain visible either on the board or in the capture list for the rest of the game. A Spy can capture only another Spy, a Sapper or the Headquarters and dies when it steps on a Mine or Ranked Soldier. A Spy can be captured by any enemy piece that steps on it.

Chaos:
I agree that individual moves within a turn cannot be viewed as simultaneous since one piece vacating a square allows another piece to subsequently move to that square the same turn.
As such, it is consistent for a spy to identify a piece moved adjacent to it prior to its capture that same turn. It is also consistent for a spy to move adjacent to a previously unidentified piece, another piece capture that one subsequently the same move and that captured piece show up upon submittal in the capture list with its identity revealed.

Chaos:
"A Spy reveals an identity of all enemy pieces which are currently located one space next to its own position (horizontally, vertically or diagonally). Once a piece is "unmasked", it stays visible for the opponent to the end of the game. Such situation can happen either when a Spy moves next to enemy pieces or if a piece moves next to enemy Spy"

It seems to me, that a "move" is not the same as a "turn."
That being the case, it could be argued that it is implied that the existing state of identification as specified in the message by Thom27 complies with the rule above (copied and pasted from the rules). The word "currently" in the first sentence of the rule, certainly doesn't imply the end of the turn but does at least seem to imply the end of the move.

I agree that rules should be clear and unambiguous. I would argue, however, that many rules fail that test more blatantly than this one.

Chaos:
Though I agree bugs should be fixed/eliminated, if the rule is that identification by spies can occur on the move the spy is captured (but prior to the capture within that move), it is not a bug. Furthermore, knowledge of the identification would be available through the move list by seeing what was adjacent to the square occupied by the spy prior to its capture. That would be the case for an unidentified spy that is revealed later as well.

Nothingness:
What is the basis of your disagreement?
The basis of my statement is on how rating systems work.
My statement does not apply to the entertainment value of an exciting game vs. an hum drum game.

Nothingness:
A win is a win regardless of how quickly it's accomplished.
A loss is a loss regardless of how well played.
A draw is a draw whether agreed or enforced.
Even if a reasonable argument could be made to tweak the rating change for such a draw, I have no reason to think support would tweak it and doubt it would be a simple task to do so.

Nothingness:
Yeah, that's cool.
In fact, I think I was the one to first suggest a starting point even though my preference is move #1. Maybe Chaos will create a list once concrete numbers are ironed out. You suggested move 20 if I read correctly for Open Fast. What do you suggest for other variations?
Do we agree on a 50 move rule for the 10x10 variations and 35 for the 8x8 variations?
Will the volcano variations be the same with only the starting move yet to be determined?

Chaos:
I personally think that a starting point for the 50 move/35 move draw rule should be at the first move of the game but don't have a major problem if it's later.
If that starting move is different for different variations, it could be addressed in the specific rules for those variations.
If no draw rule is addressed in the game rules any time soon, perhaps an agreement list could be made once those draw rules are ironed out.

Nothingness:
Above the opponent's side of the board there is a "Captured pieces:" list with the identities if those pieces the opponent has captured, and below one's own side of the board board there is a "Captured pieces:" list with the identities if those pieces you captured and "?" for unidentified captured pieces. Pieces show up on the list whether captured by successful attack or unsuccessful attack. Any time a piece is moved to a square occupied by an enemy piece, one of those pieces will be captured.
There is no capture on a move that the pieces moved all move to unoccupied squares.
Sorry for not properly linking my previous post.

That depends on what you mean.
It is implied already if what you mean is losing a piece running it up onto an enemy piece that it can't capture.
A capture of any kind shows up in the capture list.
If it doesn't show up in the capture list, it isn't a capture and will not reset the the 50 move count.

Dark Prince:
If the player to make move #50 wants to call it a draw and 50 moves by the opponent were already made without a capture, that player may invoke the draw rule before moving by stating the intention of not making a capture on that move. It must be clear, however, that the move choices available do not require any piece to move onto a square occupied by an enemy piece.

Offering a draw to the opponent under those conditions is considered invoking the draw rule even if the opponent refuses the offer. I would hope that support would be able to verify that the offer had been made. If that's not the case, and the opponent declines or doesn't respond to the offer quickly, the player wanting to invoke the rule should inform support before moving, and then move to avoid timing out.

Chaos:
In chess, the 50 move rule is 50 moves for each player.
That being the standard, it is implied unless stated otherwise. If one player makes 50 moves and the other had made only 49 since the last capture, the latter could prevent the draw rule taking effect by capturing that move. In any case, if a capture is not made and neither player invokes the draw rule, the game continues. The draw rule could be invoked any move thereafter until a capture is made. Once a capture is made without the draw rule being invoked, the 50 move rule starts over notwithstanding it could have been previously called a draw. That is to say, if a player wants to invoke the 50 move draw rule, it must be done both after 50 moves without a capture and before a capture is made.
A sapper deactivating a bomb is considered a capture.

SL-Mark:
The advantage of such a rule is that, if refused and the indicated number of moves has been reached without a capture, it could then be enforced even though the opponent refused the offer.

I don't think advancement to some particular rank indicates enough of an advantage to justify it as a measuring stick in the draw issue. It would create difficulties in verification and possibly allow a temporary advancement. Whatever the number of moves, I think the capture of a piece by either player must be the criteria.
To allow for slow starters, the 50 move rule could start at move 25 and the 35 move rule for smaller boards could start at move 15 for the open variations.
50 moves starting at move 50 and 35 moves starting at move 30 for the volcano variations.

lukulus:
Yes there are other differences too as chess is a very different game. In chess, a stalemate is a draw. In Espionage, having no legal move is a loss.
The issue on the number of moves without a capture should not be related to the overall length of a game but a reasonable number of moves for a SKILLED player with an advantage to be able to either win or increase that advantage with a capture or sacrifice.
If there is no advantage, the same rule applies (as it does in chess) to attempting to gain the advantage.
I think 50 moves is a reasonable for Open Fast.

Sandoz:
I appreciate the attention given in discussing this issue by both the players and staff including any in opposition to my proposal.
You are correct that this forum is a big plus for this site.

Nothingness:
In chess, the 50 move rule has the purpose of ensuring that the player with the advantage exploits it efficiently.
A case in point is that of an endgame with Knight, Bishop and King versus King. A skilled player can win within 50 moves with that advantage while a player uncertain of how to coordinate those pieces may well take longer. In the latter case, the game is a draw because of the inefficiency of the player with the advantage regardless of the fact that it would otherwise not be considered a draw position.

Justaminute:
With no draw rule for Espionage here, it has lost all appeal to me and I won't be participating in future games.

Nothingness:
You previously said:
"That would be reasonable since that is the way it pretty much goes in chess. So 50moves without a capture of a piece..."
That isn't the site forcing a draw situation.
That is a player failing to make a capture to prevent a draw. "Enforce" is not the same as "force." Hence, the rules drive the strategy/tactics.
From my perspective, a player failing to make a capture in 50 moves is stalling. A 150 move game sounds exceptionally boring to me no less a 400 move game.

Dark Prince:
The 50 move rule for chess is listed but not automatic, so a player still has to contact support to have the game declared a draw. I'm suggesting the same for Espionage.