unforum

[choie]

Actually the quote's from Raiders of the Lost Ark, said by Belloq to Indy. Hence the "Dr. Jones" part.

FWIW, as a newcomer to being actively involved in an ARG (even though I mostly lurk), I agree about it being important to copy important spec like this in the forums -- which offer the benefit of being archived and thus available to everyone, rather than just those lucky types who happen to be in #acheron at a given time.

Sure, if this were a game that encouraged rivalry between team vs. team, I'd understand the "you snooze you lose" mentality. But it's always seemed to me that the point of this community is to include more people, rather than fewer, in the spec and puzzle-solving.

To me, trouting when someone's posted something that's already been discussed in the forums is absolutely cricket. It's a bit annoying when people don't read older threads to see what puzzles/clues have been solved, so they deserve to have a fish slap their face. But considering the impermanence of a chat, I don't think we can have the same expectation of foreknowledge/prior research.

Just IMO of course. Hope I don't offend!

[dishboy]

[tartanwolf]

[dmax]

I agree, and think that most of us already understand that intuitively through our experiences.

RAMiles is a noob, and I figure it's just something that he hadn't thought through completely.

The stuff is chat is fun, but ephemeral. If something important happens there, and isn't posted, it may as well have not happened - to a lot of the people playing. It's presumptuous to think that everyone interested in the game is constantly logged on. It can't be done - particularly if you have a real life.

[jamesi]

Everyone should know, by now, that spec is spec and belongs on these boards. Everyone should also know that #acheron is not the end-all, know-all source of information. People can certainly play ARG through discussion boards only, if they choose. I very rarely went into #evanchan for The Beast, and still found the game to be thoroughly exhilarating.

Continue to discuss freely and without borders. There is no bad information. Telling others to 'check with _____ before posting" is not something we encourage here. Let the ideas flow freely.

I think that's all that needs to be said about this particular stream of thought. Let's get back to the game. Have a great day.

[aliendial]

Just to be clear. If it ain't posted in the forums, it's not troutable.

It's perfectly OK to note that it has come up in chat and encourage newbies to jump in, but NO TROUT! Yes this is not a hard and fast rule, but you must assume that a large proportion of your fellow players are at a lower level of involvement, which is perfectly OK, and will be not logging you all in chat to keep up. If the chat crowd were the game, I can't imagine why the PMs would keep generating content. ARGing makes room for all levels, and it's up to the most involved to let the less involved peek over your shoulders and try to keep up through regular posting to the forums.

Trust me, there's plenty to go around even with this as a standard of troutability.

And then we also extend sympathy rather than auto-trout when someone resurrects an old idea that has not been kept alive but perhaps suddenly appears to have relevance. Trout is not used to emphasize who said it first, but merely to suggest that the troutee has some catching up to do. If the idea died out and is being resurrected due to new events, it deserves some attention and not trout.

[ramiles]

Sorry.. If I have upset anyone..


I am not a NEWBIE or a NOOB.. what every that is..

[danman_d]

[dashcat]

[addlepated]

Back to the topic at hand!

I played Reggie tonight and got quite a few more moves from him. His were:

nf6 nc6 d5 bg4 bf3 e6 Rc8 Bb4 Ba3 0-0 Na5 b6 Rb8 Re8 Re7 c4 c5 Rc7

The entire game, in Yahoo format, is as follows (thanks, Dulouz!)

[choie]

Roy Hobbs -- i.e., the baseball card Mephisto rather curiously said he was looking for -- is the fictional player in "The Natural," as played by Robert Redford in the film.

It probably isn't relevant, but FWIW, there's actually a Hobbs' Gambit in chess:

f2 f4 g7 g5

Here's an analysis of this opening (which the author calls "unorthodox"):

[Duluoz]

Here's addlepated's game in handy pgn descriptive notation:

[Date "2003.10.01"]
[White "addlepated"]
[Black "Mephisto/Reggie"]
[Result "*"]

1. Na3 Nf6 2. b4 Nc6 3. g3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Nd4 Bf3 6. exf3 e6 7. Bh3 Rc8 8. Nab5 Bxb4 9. a3 Bxa3 10. Rxa3 O-O 11. Ra5 Nxa5 12. f4 b6 13. Nb3 Rb8 14. Bg4 Re8 15. Bf5 Re7 16. c4 dxc4 17. Ba3 c5 18. Bb4 Rc7 19. Nxc7 *

This is the same series of moves that he played against me, so there has to be some game or sequence of moves that we're supposed to follow.

[MageSteff]

We have the message and it is ours

[addlepated]

Was the winning game derived from a database? Where did the solve come from?

[MageSteff]