72 replies to this topic

[GaryLShelton]

I believe I would win tons more games if this was implemented. I got tired of wasting time since I have a life and taking 6 hours running to make sure u don't lose 10 imaginary points does not interest me.

Well, you certainly would not have to take the escape loss as many times.

Gary

[GaryLShelton]

The timer would of helped me, but not the move counter.
Why?
because i could kill every one of my pieces except for one, so the game was a draw hours before i finally quit and later got my points back. The move counter would not of helped because I kept trying trying to whittle his piece count down. So the 200 move thingy never happened. The timer did kicke in at 1 hour 35 minutes.
OMG cant you see the diff?

To begin with, "of" is a preposition; "have" is a verb.

Look, I'm not saying the auto draw will be perfect, only that it will help. It may only be akin to a safety net for a trapeze artist, but it has a purpose. I have said recently that it's hard to know the reasoning of players higher than oneself. I'm currently in the high colonel/low general range. What you state as a situation better suited to a timer versus an auto draw may be common with people much better than myself. I cannot deny that. But I kind of doubt that the situation this auto draw proposal addresses is "rare" as you put it. At any rate that's why these polls are useful to see what others think.

I see even Nortrom is on board with the 200 total moves/100 per player limit, so that's pretty good confirmation for me that at least this auto draw is reasonable. The one thing I couldn't stand is if we enacted something, and it wasn't working, that we'd be unable to change it because things just take awhile around here. Assuming we could alter the rule if it were felt necessary, I feel this a.d. proposal would be a safe and good thing to try.

You mention an hour and a half game time. That is indeed long. But there've been 3 and 7 and 9 hour games I've seen reported in these forum pages. Surely the auto draw would help prevent those.

Gary

P.S.: How did you get points back?

[Roondy Moose]

Any 'real time' solutions are ridiculous. 200 moves; it is clear, the poll is evident. Implement it.

[maribo]

Randy,

you make no arguement. A timer is a simple thing to implement, and more effective. The move counter prevents a few games from going on forever and ever, but it is not the best solution.

[Midnightguy]

Admin (ref) intervention would be best solution. Else 200 excluding chase sounds fair

It would be best solution, but not practical with our current situation and we just don't have the resources .  First the programmers would need to do a huge overall on the programming to allow watchers to a game and then the site would need to increase the moderator team to have round the clock monitors in our games.  Then another factor you run into, you have a moderator declare one side at fault, there will be accusations of being unfair.  With the autodraw, the computer doesn't take sides and it keeps track of how many moves have been made. 

[GaryLShelton]

Randy,

you make no arguement. A timer is a simple thing to implement, and more effective. The move counter prevents a few games from going on forever and ever, but it is not the best solution.

 

maribo, I've never played with one, but I get that you say that the clock is a proven commodity.  I guess Karaiskakis will be using something similar in his WC in August in Greece.  (He posted this in another thread on this same topic in the past few months.)  I also get you say the auto draw is not the best solution.  

My question is, does it do any harm?  Is not the auto draw at X number of moves at least better than what we have now?  If we had the auto draw, would you not be able to at least say it would not interfere with your clock idea?  Couldn't the two work complementary to each other?    

 

Also, just to be clear, are you saying at all that you'd be happy with a simple game cap at, say, 2 hours?  Good, bad, or indifferent, the game would end at a certain cap like that?  Or is the only thing you're interested in is the complete two timer and free seconds plan you described elsewhere?  If so, and you'd care to repeat that plan here, it would help a few more who have never used it to understand it, perhaps.

 

Gary

[The Maestro]

Agree with Maribo, instead of counting moves, make it about the clock. Less seconds per move before the buffer is used. Makes for better games and leaves out discussions of 200, 300 or 400 moves. And even with 200 moves and then 1 action you need another 200 moves instead of the clock just ticking down and leading to the inevitable draw.

[Midnightguy]

To summarize Maribo's disagreement to the autodraw he feels that 200 moves wouldn't be enough moves to mount an attack and an ISF timer should be implemented.  I'm not sure how 200 moves wouldn't be enough moves to demonstrate that a serious attempt is being made to win a game or get a substantial advantage in material.  Still a timer no matter what it is set at, can't determine if a game is winnable or not.  We already have a topic about timers created by Maxroelofs and if you have suggestions to use the ISF timer Maribo let's go over them there.  http://forum.strateg...tego-move-time/

 

Maribo also said a question should be asked if no autodraw should be allowed at the start of the match, I'd rather have the question Napoleon suggested when the X number of moves autodraw kicks in "Do you wish to continue the match?"  if both sides agree then match continues until either game ends or next time X number of moves with no capture happens again and question is asked again.  If at any time one of the two players refuse to continue the match, it will end as a draw.  

 

Gary brings out the point I trying to drive home here and it is:  While Autodraw may not be perfect, we can make adjustments if we feel if not enough or too many moves to get to that juncture.

[The Prof]

A draw clock is a bad idea for several reasons.  First, it is a heavy-handed approach that will change the dynamics of the game.  For example, if a player has a sure way to win, but it will take a long time because he’ll have to trade off several pieces before he can safely bring a miner to his opponent’s flag, then this player may have to choose a less effective strategy if there is the possibility the clock will run out.  Even worse, the draw clock would give an incentive to stall the game if one is losing, in an attempt to use up the clock.  If you think the complaints about stalling are bad now, just wait until there is a draw clock!  In my last game my opponent let his whole buffer run out when I was one move away from the flag.  He was being a jerk, but this didn’t get me too upset because I knew I had got the better of him in the game and that I would get the win.  But imagine if those minutes of buffer time were enough to force a draw based on time.  I cannot think of a more unfair result. 

[The Maestro]

Prof, each player should have their own clock as well (there is just an extra clock for the total game). When your individual clock runs out of time you lose (just like it is now).

[YOUR MASTER]

Hi I think there shouldnt autodraw players should decide wheather is draw or not!

[General Tso]

I have a couple points. I think that the differences of opinion have to do with different views of playing this game. Some of you may agree with me. I:

 

1. Don't like to play games more than 30 or 40 minutes tops. Shorter if possible.

2. Think that each side needs to at least mount a weak attack (not just rotating your pieces around without advancing).

3. Think that if you're clearly behind (as in two superior pieces) against an experienced player you should quit. Note that I have indeed lost with two superior pieces, but mostly because I got fatigued after a while.

4. That there is no shame in a draw, and these could occur for a variety of reasons.

 

Think about your personal life, if you were playing a casual game of tennis, or billiards, or any sport, would you intentionally slow down the game just to make your opponent lose concentration? Would you periodically take long breaks hoping the opponent gave up? Would you fail to concede or play to the end, just go for a 5 minute toilet break and never return?. I have waited as long as seven minutes to win a game- 5 minutes in the buffer and then a disconnect with seconds let. What is wrong with people? It's not like we're playing for money. 

 

I enjoy playing the game and the site is terrific. It's some of the players I really have issue with. Do you not have any life? I pull some opponents and I consider disconnecting immediately (and just taking the loss) because I can't stand to watch them diddle around for 30 minutes before they risk a piece higher than a scout. It's just not fun.

[Napoleon 1er]

Hi everybody,

 

The discussion in this forum is very interesting and there are many good ideas. Nevertheless for time beeing nobody has been able to convince me that the right thing is to have one single autodraw rule valid for all possible situations. Whether after x moves or after x minutes the right answer shall be depending on the given situation. Let me illustrate what I'm saying with 2 extreme examples:

Example 1: It is a game between 2 very defensive players. Nobody really starts attacking and there is a very long phase of observation, maybe with a few scoutings, during which both players try to understand the setup of the other. Imagine that at this very beginning of the game there are the 2x100 moves without any captured piece. No one of the player is complaining because such slow start correspond to their own playing "style". Both players know that the game will start anyhow at some point in time and have plenty of available time in front of them. At this stage of the game both players have possibility to get a victory so none of them is interested to get a draw screenshot popping up after 2x100 moves. So why forcing an autodraw in this game when  a ) neither of the players wants to end the game in a draw and b ) the game is definitely not a draw? WOuldn't you agree that in this game autodraw shall not apply?

Example 2: It is a game almost at the end. Both flags are sealed between bombs and none of the players has any miner left. Player 1 is left with only a captain and Player 2 with only a major. Player 1 is willing to end the game in a draw but Player 2 refuses the draw. Why would you force an autodraw after 2x100 moves in this case? Don't you think that the autodraw shall be declared immediately in this situation, no need to wait for 2x100 moves?

Again I'm insisting with my previous proposal. There are 4 possible different situations A) to D) (see my post above) where a game shall end in a draw and to each situation  correspond an adequate rule. The objective of this "autodraw" rule shall be to find for each Case A) to D) the right way to end the game without having to wait unecessarily. So the first principle is that an "autodraw" shall apply only to games where at least one of the players is willing to end the game in a draw (not to games where both players are willing to continue moving pieces), the second principle is that such "autodraw" shall be activated by the player willing to end the game in a draw at the time he decides to end the game in a draw and after he has got at least 2 tie refusals from his opponent (for example the autodraw counter could be activated by clicking an autodraw button that would initiate either the move count or the clock countdown depending on which method will be preferred and decided (I have not yet any preference for one option or the other), so an autodraw shall not be automatically applied from the beginning of the game), the 3rd principle is that the number of moves or the time to elapse before the draw screen will pop up shall be correctly adapted to the given Case (sometimes it can be after x moves or x minutes, sometimes it can be immediate as in example 2 above) and the 4th principle is that in case of long lasting simple or multiple chasing it shall be differentiated between a "defensive chasing" (when the only solution for a player to not get a defeat is to chase his opponent) and an "abusive chasing" that would occur when a player is refusing a tie request and continues chasing while he is totally unable to get a victory whatever he would do (like in example 2 above). The case of defensive chasing shall be accepted as "part of the game" but the player in such situation should typically be the one who should send the tie request or activate the autodraw (if his opponent refuses the tie). The case of abusive chasing shall not only end in a draw without delay but the abusive chaser shall also be punished for such unsportsmanlike behaviour.

 

Napoleon 1er

[YOUR MASTER]

I agree, but only with the second example!

[The Prof]

Prof, each player should have their own clock as well (there is just an extra clock for the total game). When your individual clock runs out of time you lose (just like it is now).

 

I am aware of that.  I was talking about a case in which it is a close game that lasts for a long time so that it is starting to get close to the total game time, but then one player gains a strong advantage and then the other player starts using all his move time on every turn and also uses buffer time in an effort to run out the clock in order to avoid a loss.

[GaryLShelton]

Example 1: It is a game between 2 very defensive players. Nobody really starts attacking and there is a very long phase of observation, maybe with a few scoutings, during which both players try to understand the setup of the other.

 

 At this stage of the game both players have possibility to get a victory so none of them is interested to get a draw screenshot popping up after 2x100 moves. So why forcing an autodraw in this game when  a ) neither of the players wants to end the game in a draw and b ) the game is definitely not a draw? WOuldn't you agree that in this game autodraw shall not apply?

 

No, Napoleon 1er, it should apply.  Keep the auto draw rule simple.  Follow the principles of KISS, even though I agree it would never come to reality at the early stages of the game.  This is why I suggested that the move counter not even actually appear til at least 100 moves (50 per player) had been played.  This would help the counter not to become an annoying distraction early in the game.  So your example above is extreme.  Where's D-Spy?  I want to make a bet!  I'll bet that in the history of Stratego there has been exactly zero games where a capture has not been made in the first 200 moves.  

 

Example 2: It is a game almost at the end. Both flags are sealed between bombs and none of the players has any miner left. Player 1 is left with only a captain and Player 2 with only a major. Player 1 is willing to end the game in a draw but Player 2 refuses the draw. Why would you force an autodraw after 2x100 moves in this case? Don't you think that the autodraw shall be declared immediately in this situation, no need to wait for 2x100 moves?

 

Again, I'm not necessarily against a proposal that would hasten the auto draw's enactment for such a case, though we must make very sure that we aren't killing a game that is winnable by one party still.   The question is, how do we build that into the auto draw rule, though?  

 

Again I'm insisting with my previous proposal. There are 4 possible different situations A) to D) (see my post above) where a game shall end in a draw and to each situation  correspond an adequate rule. The objective of this "autodraw" rule shall be to find for each Case A) to D) the right way to end the game without having to wait unecessarily.

 

Ditto above.  How do we build it into the rule?  If it is possible, I might be all for it.

 

So the first principle is that an "autodraw" shall apply only to games where at least one of the players is willing to end the game in a draw (not to games where both players are willing to continue moving pieces), the second principle is that such "autodraw" shall be activated by the player willing to end the game in a draw at the time he decides to end the game in a draw and after he has got at least 2 tie refusals from his opponent (for example the autodraw counter could be activated by clicking an autodraw button that would initiate either the move count or the clock countdown depending on which method will be preferred and decided (I have not yet any preference for one option or the other), so an autodraw shall not be automatically applied from the beginning of the game), the 3rd principle is that the number of moves or the time to elapse before the draw screen will pop up shall be correctly adapted to the given Case (sometimes it can be after x moves or x minutes, sometimes it can be immediate as in example 2 above) and the 4th principle is that in case of long lasting simple or multiple chasing it shall be differentiated between a "defensive chasing" (when the only solution for a player to not get a defeat is to chase his opponent) and an "abusive chasing" that would occur when a player is refusing a tie request and continues chasing while he is totally unable to get a victory whatever he would do (like in example 2 above).

 

Napoleon 1er, I must congratulate you.  I nominate the above for longest sentence in the forum this year!  I repeat, the most elegantly beautiful solution is to make the auto draw effective from the very first move of the game to the end and make it dependent upon a capture, regardless of the various situations (A-E) that might come up.  The purpose of the rule would be to end the games where bad behavior of one or both players would unnecessarily continue a game to a ridiculous length.  In these cases the people generally wouldn't be civil with one another.  

 

But, I offer you a concession,  Napoleon 1er.  If the players were being civil and they both wanted to end the game earlier, OR, they both wanted to ignore the auto draw in the last 10 red flashing moves (using my plan) and therefore continue the game for another 200 moves, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.  But in the absence of such accord, the auto draw rule needs to be automatic.  No exceptions.  As laid out herein, it is not a sophisticated coin mechanism that could detect the slugs and foreign coins that you wish it to.  But it will, in its simplicity, serve to kill the worst of problems, and likely a lot of lesser ones as well, I think.  Perhaps we can better fine-tune it later for the "no miners" scenario.  If so, then I would more than likely agree to that.

 

The case of defensive chasing shall be accepted as "part of the game" but the player in such situation should typically be the one who should send the tie request or activate the autodraw (if his opponent refuses the tie). The case of abusive chasing shall not only end in a draw without delay but the abusive chaser shall also be punished for such unsportsmanlike behaviour.

 

Napoleon 1er

 

Napoleon 1er, if had the double chase enacted along with the auto draw, then it would take care of the "abusive chasing" problem.  The "abusive chaser" wouldn't have to be punished for unsportsmanlike behavior.  His actions would be stopped in a 2 x 5 or even 2 x 3 plan, so that in 6-10 moves the problem would be ended.  I submit it would likely be that the game would be decided with the double chasing rule without the auto draw ever coming out of the drawer.

 

Gary

[maribo]

Writing down thoughts as they come:

 

First I will accept the 200 move counter (100 per side) as long as the double chase is eliminated because the double chase is self propogating from both sides because on one hand is the chaser and on the other hand is the double chasee, the player who is escaping every capture from 2 attackers is also prolonging the game (yet fairly so). So the 200 move counter without a double chase rule will send more games to autodraw than we all would want to end up as so.  In fact this could occur at the very beginning of a game, and both players would be like "wtf" it just drawed on me. The move counter has to be right up there in the corner of the screen and reset to zero when one piece is revealed/attacked. Or better yet, start at 200 and go down for each move that is not an attack.

 

MidnightGuy-I am for whatever is easier to program, if the goal is to eliminate the unsportsmanlike player who denies a draw to try and steal a win. If that is easier I vote for the 200 total moves between both sides not revealing or attacking each other (this includes a scout hitting a bomb even). The downfall is that sure a game in which one side has 2 pieces(captain & major)  but no scouts or miners who is bombed in playing against an opponent with no miners but say 3 scouts and a sargent left (who hasn't moved), can become a problematic game , for example if the player with the scouts is refusing to draw but also not using his scouts to attack for 199 moves, than uses one scout on the 200th move thus prolonging the game 3-fold( I know I use a rare example). In any case regardless of my example I will agree with the masses that a move counter which can be adusted set at 100 unrevealing moves per side would be peachy fine.

 

However I am not quite sure about your debate on my argument that 200 moves is not enough to mount a defense. If you clarify that to say 200 moves combined between both sides not attacking or revealing at least one piece then 200 moves is plenty. I'm really just re-adding the reference of 200 moves where neither side attacks. 

 

Gary- I think Gary is saying that even 75% of the brats who try to extend the game will be a little bit ashamed at doing so when they know the auto draw is coming, so the games may result in a mutual agreed upon normal draw a lot quicker. (its like saying Obama is coming to take my gun away some day so I might as well give it up now, lol just kidding - really a dumb reference). Gary also, this move counter HAS to reset to zero, at each attack, because again my argument that 200  unchallenging moves over the whole game can and will and does go by  See "To Prof" below to see the exception to why a game should be sent to a draw when one player is INDECISIVE.

 

 I think the 200 move counter if ever enacted probably would be so in those games where there are no more than 15 pieces left per side including bombs and one of the 2 players is being a real jerk.

 

I agree with Mguy that to let the autodraw become enabled unless both sides agree to extend the game, do you mean for another 200 moves or on into infinity.

 

Whether a game is winnable or not has nothing to do with ending an unsportsmanlike game with timer. The timer has the ADDED BENEFIT, of ending a game in a draw if the player with the upperhand is not moving fast enough to finish off his opponent. I agree Mguy that is a separate issue. Timers in ISF games are meant to make one put forth your strategy in a timely fashion and become penalized for NOT WINNING FAST ENOUGH. So while Maestro and I want a timer to become enforced, there are two outcomes of a timer, and that is beyond the scope of the goal here. The goal of turning losses into draws for the victims of unsportsmanship.

Move counter it is.

 

To Prof- While I root for the timer, I also know what the real effect of a timer is, and I hate it for that reason. A timer helps the Sohal's of this league hang on for a draw for that newbies once in a lifetime chance at beating The Gods of the game. Once a God gets behind by a major piece he will start working his expertise to force you into fearing lottos or fearing him swapping out all your pieces and preventing that INDECISIVE newbie from trapping any colonels/majors/captains etc. With his expertise in moving slowly and swapping pieces yes you poor soul your once in a lifetime chance at beating a God ends up a draw. Thats why I hate timers. So fear not little ones, your chance of a glory win of David over Goliath lives on because the timer is not coming. Spend 20 seconds on every move if you must the limp ones here enabling your wet dream becoming reality.  This timer is why at Gvon, the higher up players use it and the little injuns hate it. 

 

However , Gvon does have games without timers, because their admins can step into the room and view a game when one player is becoming a jerk, but that is not an option here and it can't be programmed to become so, and that is okay by me.  

 

General Tso - stick to Chinese food, because a lot of your wishes are not programmable and therefore are not going to be entertained. "a player should just quit". lol.  I agree 7 minutes is too long however. Therefore if the player sits for 5 minutes and does not move, the system has to calculate that the player has not moved, and so when his timer is 2:29 or less once he discos the game ends in a win for you right then and there. Furthermore and this is not in the Jumbo funds account, I think that the system should be able to look for gaps of time in which a player has not  moved for 2:30 of his clock and this grand total number of times he does this over all games is recorded in the system and the frequency of these instances can be used as evidence in sending out auto punishments. I dont agree that just because a loss is immenent that you should just automatically give up because once in a blue moon that 2 piece advantage player decides to wak a mole or whatever into a bomb and walla new game  is winnable. Also if you want fast games then thats too bad so sad, without a timer, you are going to run into those player who will dabble over every single piece and protect everything without risking anything. Those are the players who win 70% of their games. Gvon has a 5 minute game timer game, try it its like lightning and ends in extra draws.

 

Napoleon 1er your example #1 has been solved with the concept set forth here of having an option to extend the game if both players agree., that warning will come up when move #180 has happened without any attacks. You cannot possibly say that a game cant be won if I have to give up a scout just to keep the game going. Yes your highness you will have to give up that scout to extend the game. OMG the sky is falling. Its impossible to say that giving up a scout every 200 moves is going to some how alter your playing style, lol, give me a break. However as a peace offering to you, perhaps maybe the 200 move timer of no challenges should never ever start until possibly after the first 50-100 moves of both players has occurred. Maybe that would help you.

 

Your example # 2 yes it should become a draw quicker and even immature people will see their foolishness a little soooner so yes the games will end in a draw, which they already can become draws now, sure, but because this counter is going to FORCE the issue, just the threat of its enforcement will create the inevitable draw quicker and mutally agreed upon, because the jerk will feel guilty quicker and agree sooner. So what are you even arguing this for, the autodraw's threat will create quicker draws not its non-existence. The non existence of it is why we are here today requesting a change in the system. You can't program your idea of a faster auto-draw just because each side only has this or that left. Just let the 200 move thing do it or the threat of it do it. Progress has arrived.

 

No on the punishment of double chasers. The move counter should not be dependent on any aspect of any circumstances of the game, it should be outright and start either right away (or at my option above after 50 moves or 100 as mr. shelton the grammatically correct one says). The double chaser who is defending his flag is not an exception to an abusive chaser. They are one in the same. A man does not have a right to defend his castle infinitely. The double chase itself is what has to be eliminated regardless if the flag is going to be captured as a result of enforcing the rule or not. I would counter to say that a miner is a device set to detonate and you cannot turn off that detonator just because you fear losing. Chase one miner with 2 pieces and giveup the flag on the other side, so sad too bad, you cannot double chase for any reason, YET NOW IF YOU DO WITH THE RULE CHANGE, THE 200 MOVE COUNTER will save you via draw, so NIX that and get the double chase prohibition rule put in without any circumstances of exceptions applied.

There need not be any communications of double chasing going on . If you move 2 pieces in alternating fashion (or 3) and cannot take either piece than the software kicks in and makes you move another piece or a different direction. so sad too bad miner gets the flag oh well you screwed up somewhere not saving a miner to swap one of the 2.

 

And lastly I would like all the forum respondents to give a round of applause to Gary. Without Gary's valuable input, we'd not be able to read his glorious posts, and counter them with tried and true logic. Me? I just like to agitate. Gary clean up your inbox it is full i cant send you a message. I wish to friend you so that we can have a chat about somehow arranging a game or two to play.  I want to show you what I've learned from the Gods of this site.

 

Sincerely,

Silver Wannabee

[GaryLShelton]

Napoleon 1er, I had thought we Scorpio's were the kings of long writing but maribo, unless he to is a Scorpio too, just eclipsed us!

Maribo, I like not starting the counter for the first 100 moves of the game. It's semantics, perhaps, but I was pretty much saying the same thing by asking that the counter not not appear for this length of time. I'm glad you like the auto draw as progress. I agree that the double chase rule and this can be a one-two punch, as The Prof has indicated and as you also seem to concur with. I also agree that there shouldn't be any notification of the double chase rule kicking in. It should just happen, as you said, and like the current HmmNess rule.

But I am going to have to disagree with you about the defending the flag. I stand by the exception for it in the rule against double chasing.

About my inbox, a week ago it was full but now should be fine. As far as friending goes, you've said earlier that I give you a headache, and tonight you say you like to agitate me. Just taking a wild stab here but that doesn't sound like the basis of a cozy, amicable relationship to me. But hey, go ahead and send me a friend request on the other side. Tell me about the gods, and then we can return to our normal state of verbal sparring.

Gary

[maribo]

Oh Gary, you've never spoken to me on the tables, can you play more than write it would be beneficial.

2 miners against 2 pieces is an advantage to the miners dude and should result in a win for the miners dude

[Napoleon 1er]

From all posts above we can already summarize one aspect of the autodraw that will satisfy all opinions expressed above. in view of the fact that:

 

Some people want the autodraw beeing activated as from game start

Some people want the autodraw to start after 50 or 100 moves

Some people want the autodraw to start after a certain time

Some people want the autodraw to be activated only once they choose to activate it

 

If the program would be changed to integrate the autodraw option (which should just be a button that would start the move count or the time countdown and allow for game end and draw screen to pop up when the decided limit will be reached), and although I'm not an IT guy I would understand the programming of such a button is not a big deal, and making sure that such autodraw button can be clicked on by any of the 2 players who wishes to start such countdown at any time during the game we would have a solution that would satisfy all opinions and desires above. The only point that has not reached consensus is "what should be the limit between activation of autodraw and effective end of the game in a draw?". I still wish to see different limits for different cases.

 

Napoleon 1er