rod03801
The chess rules include one for draw situations.
Why would it be any less necessary for any other game that could potentially go on and on?
Fencer responded to my message to him and apparently doesn't think such a rule is necessary for Espionage.
If a rule doesn't exist prior to such a situation to cover it, enforcing a rule that doesn't exist or one made retroactively would be unfair to the other player. Rules themselves drive strategy and tactics. They must be clear before the situation arises or can apply only to games started after the rule is added except by agreement of both players.
Existing rules don't require agreement to be enforced even if program quirks allow them to be broken.

Nothingness:
It may be a rare thing to get into that situation, but I have at IYT. There, my opponent didn't agree to a draw, so I had to request support to enforce the rule. The game was declared a draw even though my opponent didn't agree. With nothing in the rules here, a game could go on indefinitely with no progress. The more patient player could effectively force the less patient player to resign a game that should be a draw.
Unfortunately, there seems to be little interest in adding a draw situation to Espionage rules here.

I could find nothing in the rules about draw situations for any Espionage variation.
I think 50 moves without a capture for the regular board size and 35 moves for the small variants is reasonable.
I would like to see that covered in the rules whether with those numbers of moves or other.

Dark Prince:
I just looked again at the game to see how many pieces the player making the illegal move had on the board and noticed that there was another illegal move prior to the one I indicated.
On moves 54 and 55, the 5 was moved from h1-g1 then g1-h1.
In this case, the player making the illegal move had 3 movable pieces and 2 in the other case.

Nothingness:
I thought that bug was only an issue when attrition became a factor with very few pieces left for the player moving the piece back where it came from.
Does the bug show up earlier in the game?

Nothingness:
Look at White moves 58 and 59
You'll see the 5 moves from i1 to h1
Then from h1 to i1
It violates the rule that a piece cannot move back to the square it had vacated on the previous move..

Dark Prince:
What would be the point of having such a list otherwise?

Chaos:
The agreement is indicated by having the name on the list.
Once the name is on the list, it will be up to the player against whom the illegal move was made to decide how to proceed and agreement by the opponent won't be needed if it's clear that an illegal move was in fact made.

Chaos:
I'd prefer the bug were fixed and this wouldn't be an issue.
I don't intend to have games against players that aren't skilled enough to know a move is illegal or that a particular position could lead to such a move.
A player can look at the previous move prior to beginning the move and look at the move list during the move to verify that all pieces are moving according to the rules.
Anyone who doesn't want to risk making the agreement certainly doesn't have to.
Nevertheless, I don't mind adding to the description:
It will be at the players discretion against whom the illegal move was made to either ask the opponent to resign or allow the opponent the opportunity to have the illegal move reversed.

Dark Prince:
Slight change in wording for description so intent is not implied. That is if the illegal move is unintentional, inadvertent or unknown to the player, the agreement stands.
"I hereby agree to resign any game against another player on this list if during the course of the game any piece of mine is moved back to the square it had vacated on the previous move."

Pedro Martínez:
YEAH...
That's enough for me, however unlikely it may be, to go with the list and agreement by opponents to resign in case an illegal move is made.

refers to identification by SPY, but also indirect identification.
i.e. a "1" runs up on a bomb and explodes identifies that piece as a bomb narrowing the choices to attack to destroy the BASE.

Pedro Martínez:
If reported to Fencer by Private Message, would it take hours, days or weeks to reverse an illegal move?
Would I be correct in assuming it would still be reversed even if several moves had been made since it was reported? The potential problem with previously unidentied pieces would apply here too.

Chaos:
based on your post and that of Pedro, I agree.
No date should be necessary and leave out the part in the parenthesis on the description.

Pedro Martínez:
As I understand it, a player may inadvertently make an illegal move due to the bug that would otherwise be impossible. More critically, in certain positions with few remaining movable pieces, a player may be forced to make the illegal move which would otherwise be prevented without the bug.
In either case, a player may have a legitimate argument that the illegal move was unintentional. With the list, voluntary resignation is agreed upon without involving a moderator or management and no move reversal is necessary.

Have such moves been reversed?
How long does it take?
What happens if unidentified pieces become identified as a result of the illegal move?

Chaos:
I would also like to see a date by the name of each player for when they are added to the list and suggest the following for the wording:
"I hereby agree to resign any game against another player on this list (in which both players have an effective date on or before the start of the game) if during the course of the game I move any piece back to the square it had vacated on the previous move."

I'll send her a message directly to find out how to proceed.
Thanks

lukulus:
I think a list would avoid any confusion about who has made such an agreement or not and with whom. It would be unfortunate to play thinking we had such an agreement and the opponent saying no. Why ask before or during each game when a list would be so clear in advance?
Could such a list or link to the list be placed in such a location that it would be easily accessible both at the time it's made and into the future without doing some kind of search?

Dark Prince:
postscript:
That agreement would not apply to players on the list who are playing against someone not on the list since those not on the list haven't agreed.

One can move into a position in which the only allowed move for a particular piece on the following turn is an illegal one (moving back to the square it had vacated the previous turn).
If that piece must be moved due to attrition,
I would think it fair to agree that any player who moves into such a position and is subsequently forced to make an illegal move should resign even if it results from attrition caused by the opponent that turn.
Naturally, our tactics would be affected to avoid getting into such a position. Unfortunately, however, such a position may otherwise be advantageous if the bug didn't allow illegal moves.
Perhaps we should have a list of players who agree to resign a game in which they make an illegal move whether intentionally or inadvertantly.

Pedro Martínez:
Sooooo..."very soon" means???
LOL
Thanks for the info.

Celticjim:
Thanks for your response.
Although I don't care for the game graphics or move tracking here, it's the bug that causes me the greatest reluctance to play here. There are many very good espionage players here I would challenge if the bug were resolved.

According to the rules, a piece cannot move back to the square it moved from on the previous move. As I understand it, there was a bug that allowed such moves in certain circumstances. Has that bug been fixed?

Even with the laptops/ipods and playing online, you could use your chess clocks for time control. You would just need to make sure your opponent or anyone possibly in league with your opponent could not see your computer screen.
You might want to experiment to make sure how close to instantaneous a move submitted is before it's available for the opponent to move.
If there is a delay, or for potential connectivity problems, you may add some game time to compensate.

Nothingness:
Doing so will make the game different than the internet/ computer based game since recons would reveal themselves when they reveal anything else. Bring Ipods or laptops and play online.

happy hermit:
That may be true. I guess I would have to compare my games against defensive players to those against aggressive players. I will concede that at BK defensive play is more effective than at IYT in the corresponding variations due to move tracking.
As far as space is concerned, an aggressive player tends to acquire space for manuevering while the defensive player may end up with very little space for the same. At least that has been my experience.
It could also be that a less skilled/experienced player may do better playing defensively than aggressively. For me though, I don't want to wait for my opponent to make a mistake but would rather attempt to manuever into a superior position from which to attack.

In chess, defensive play can be very effective as long as latent power is developed waiting for the moment to be unleashed.
I agree that defensive play beats an aggressive style in the volcano variations, but not in the open variations. I pull back to regroup on occassion, but typically press the attack from the beginning of the game until the end. I don't play the volcano variations any more because it doesn't suit my style even though I have done relatively well playing those variations as well. Currently, I only play Open Rush and Corner but not here. I have one 3rd round game of Mini going in a tournament I joined by mistake. I expect to lose it fairly soon and be done with that variation for good.

For me, there would be no point in playing if I couldn't play aggressively. No doubt, there are times for caution and defense. I would rather lose an exciting game than win a boring game. That isn't to criticize those who play defensively any more than I would criticize someone for preferring vanilla to chocolate. I often take chances, but try to do so in a way that I stand to gain something significant for the risk even if I lose more material than I gain. I have a high winning % playing that way even though in a high percentage of my games I have an early material deficit.
I do so in chess also sometimes making sacrifices without knowing whether the attack it initiates will prove effective.

Why not just play the game without all the time control tactics?
If you do play time control tactics, there is no good reason to be upset when another does the same according to his own "rules" rather than adhering to yours.

I care more about stalling in the game itself than on the clock. I never consider the motives of my opponent in clock use when considering my moves. I move according to board position not clock time. As far as stalling in the game or otherwise defensive play, I play only the open variations now. That eliminates the defensive advantage which is big in the volcano variations.

The appeal of popular games is their commonality.
Any game that is somewhat obscure will have a low draw. You can see that in many of the chess variations while chess itself has a high draw.

I suppose Espionage/Sabotage doesn't have enough of a draw to warrant being set up on a realtime site.
That would be fun though.
30 seconds per move and the game would be complete in 3 hours and usually much quicker.

Actually I wasn't serious, but making the point that the move list can be detrimental to many possible good game ideas. Maybe the move list should indicate only the player's moves and not those of the opponent.

Caused by a 1 that cannot move a space when causing it but counts as a piece move. The one must be touching the volcano diagonally to cause the eruption. The Eruption destroys any adjacent piece (hor or vert) and freezes pieces within 2 spaces for 2 turns(hor vert and diag) by covering them with ash--applies to both black and white pieces. Frozen pieces cannot be revealed by recons until they thaw, but capture rules are the same as usual. Previously revealed pieces covered in ash are disguised again until revealed by recon...oh wait, that won't make a difference with piece moves tracked in the move list.

To get them to fix the bug?

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.

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?

"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.

SL-Bosse:
You questioned whether 15 January should be your start date. Since 20 January (2am I believe for the Pacific time zone) is the deadline for signing up, is that also the date the games begin?

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

Chaos:
We had each ID'd most of the other's pieces, and our material was close to even. Strategically it seemed unlikely that either one of us would be sure to force our way through to the enemy HQ or to gain a decisive advantage.
Additionally, it seemed our schedules didn't coincide well for making many moves per day and there was only one other incomplete game in the round. We can do battle again.
Jared

It appears that the players highlighted in yellow advance to the next round.
It looks like round 2 will have 2 sections of 4 players each if the S-B calculates Thom and me to be even.

lukulus:
I was stating personal preferences.
Whether here or at IYT, the nuances can be used to acquire advantages and win games.
Viewing previous moves here is much more cumbersome than at IYT, and the private notes disappear here when viewing any previous move.

SL-Bosse:
The message board feature and rating system are attractive to me here, but I can't say I care much for the game graphics or rule nuances.

Do most players prefer that over the 2-game matches against each opponent?

For the tournament, does the above mean that we play one game against each opponent in the section?

"Unrated games (no BKR will be affected by this tournament): no"
This appears to indicate that the tournament games will be rated.

Then clearly the flaw is not in the rating system, but in the system allowing players to pick and choose their opponents and decline challenges.