Nothingness: This sounds serious. I will anxiously wait your return.

I think you can save some time, perhaps a lot of time, by not setting it up as a single tournament.

If you set each section (and round) separately than you can start, for example, round 2 once the round 1 sections are decided instead of having to wait for every game to complete.

I have no idea on the technical issues encountered here, but I will put in a plug for random start positions. I play by setting my base and bombs and, usually one or two spies in the front row and one or two sappers in the back row and then 'randomly place remaining pieces'. It takes less than 10 seconds to get going.

I doubt it's visible any more a IYT, but there was a game played there between pcron and Ruth that highlighted the dangers of saved positions. pcron apparently used a saved start position and Ruth apparently knew which one. :)

SL-Mark:

I don't think setting up custom tournaments here is a big advantage in sabotage/espionage simply because of the length of the games and the fact that BK tournaments are limited by the longest game in each round. I.e., we would still benefit from running tournaments as we did at IYT.

That said, the custom time controls offered here, plus the forums make this a preferable location.

Personally, I've been timing out of a number of games here lately due to inattention and won't be adding any IYT events anytime soon.

Chaos: My first Sabotage opponent at IYT was Chaos . . . so I'm the real rookie here. :)

Nothingness:

I think the Fischer Clock controls are reasonable, The default for that control: 7 days with 1 bonus day added for each move seems reasonable. At the limit case, each player gets 1 day per move + weekends. The two slowest players in a tournament would both have to make 100 moves in a game in a year (200 moves + 80 weekend days + 90 vacation days) = roughly one year. Perhaps it would be more weekend days once the vacation kicked in, but close enough. If you play large sections (7 or 8 players) you should finish in two rounds.

Dark Prince:

"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."

I don't think the length of the game is too important. I like to see a player create an imbalance (e.g. Recon vs 2 or 2 vs Redon, 4 vs 5 or 5 vs 4, etc.) and then demonstrate they know how to play it advantageously.

Nothingness

I like the time control. There is a good chance this will finish with most, perhaps even all, of the players still alive.:

Nothingness:

I think the Dark Prince's point was, with respect to ratings, you have a proposed a rule which affects only one player's rating in a game. That would be a change to the system

Dark Prince:

I suspect, though I do not, that the 50 move rule in chess was arbitrary. I believe it was later discovered that there are certain positions arising in K+B+N vs K endgames where a forced win exists that takes more than 50 moves to achieve against best play.

Also, this isn't about testing the reasonableness of 50 or 60 turns as a draw threshold; this is about testing Nothingness' claim that he can go 50+ moves at the start of the game without allowing a piece being captured at, presumably, anything less than great risk to his opponent.

I agree with Nothingness that defending is generally an advantageous (if boring) strategy, but I disagree in the level of advantage that it brings. I think he is over-estimating it. I have only played against someone blatantly trying for a draw (or to provoke something reckless by turtling) three times (all against The Limbaugh Express) and none of those games went anywhere near 50 moves without a capture nor left me at any risk afterwards. Could I attack blindly against, say, jonaron without expecting to get the worse of it? Probably not, but the only case where that matters is when I enter a game against jonaron needing a win and he needs a draw (a multigame match or tournament perhaps) so that is a position that we have already put ourselves in by playing decisive games.

The proper way to test that would be, likely to, set up various defensive positions in each game and determine how well they can be attacked without knowing any of the pieces. The 10x10 boards would be more interesting.

In the end, however, it still comes down to whether the attacking player wants to accept the defending players tacit draw offer or to attack and the turn limit rule just makes accepting the implied draw that much easier.

Nothingness:

I suggest this test.

A. Pick whichever variant you think provides the most advantage for playing defensively.

B. Challenge Dark Prince

C. Try and go 50 moves without a capture or to force your opponent to make a losing move to avoid it.

If Dark Prince isn't up for it then I'd be happy to play one.

Chaos:

I think 50 or 60 turns is fine.

It's never happened in one of my games, but that's only because a draw was agreed to in positions where it would have happened. It's easy to construct a position where it can happen.

On the Spy issues, I like Dark Prince's proposed wording change for the additional information it provides even though the current wording appears consistent.

On the Draw rule, I think we can ignore both repetition of position and moves that prevent that (e.g. a piece being revealed by a Spy) and focus solely on the number of TURNS without a capture. (Other approaches would hit the clause eventually anyway). As for the number of turns, I would suggest 60, but will happily go with a higher number if someone links a game that includes more than 60 and still resulted in a decisive outcome on the board.

As far as turtling, I again agree with Dark Prince's statement: "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. "

If one player wishes to sit back and do nothing but defend then, obviously, the second player can sit and not attack and a draw is the natural outcome. Letting a person not attack and then refuse a draw indefinitely seems sub-optimal to me.

Nothingness:

There's no reason not to have a rule as to when the game can be declared a draw.

There are ways to reach a positions near the end of the game where a win cannot be forced and even more ways to reach a position where a player needs to take what might be deemed unacceptable risks to attempt and force a decision.

A 50 move rule without a capture seems a very fair rule.

Dark Prince:

I can promise not to move back if you want to play. :)

-Eric

Mikong:

I have a poor track record of completing tournaments . . . so I only join them when I forget that.

Always happy to play a game though..

SL-GentleKiller:

:)

Chaos: Same as our game. I revealed 15 assorted pieces to see five 1s.

Mark and I set the pieces up then revealed them.

Sounds like a plan.

I'll reveal two 1s, two 2s, a 3, a 4, a 5, a Recon, two Sabs all 4 bombs and my base . . . 15 out of 30. :)

Now that I have said it, I need someone to play. :)

SL-Mark:

Mark- I think once you show me five 1s I can show half of my pieces and still reach a complete information situation with my recons . . .they simply have to avoid your 1s.

I don't know that there is much of an advantage to be gained by revealing pieces early without decreasing the number of Recons in play. To the extent that there is an advantage, I'd be more interested in knowing where my opponents 1s are as they pose the most danger to my Recons.

Thanks for the info. I, apparently, have never read the rules.

I have one game started on this account, and 10 or so on the other, so I guess I am flirting with a ban. On the bright side, I think we call all agree that I have very little interest in my ratings. :)

In any case, I won't start any more games on the other account beyond those assigned to me for tournaments already in progress.

Chaos:

The name was Mark's idea. :)

I am in two tournaments and my intent, as always, is to finish what I start. Of course, we all know how that has worked out in the past. :)

I use the same email/user id/password for all of my "casual" accounts and whenever I switch computers I just create new accounts. That made a little more sense 10 years ago, but it's just how I do things. :)

I'll be switching to this account in the next day or two. I've been saying that quietly for two weeks, but I might mean it this time.

-johnerichanson, quiet man, argyle socks & happy hermit