BrainKing - Discussion boards (BrainKing.com)

Moderator: Hrqls

, coan.net

, rod03801

BrainKing.com

Board for everybody who is interested in BrainKing itself, its structure, features and future.

If you experience connection or speed problems with BrainKing, please visit Host Tracker and check "BrainKing.com" accessibility from various sites around the world. It may answer whether an issue is caused by BrainKing itself or your local network (or ISP provider).

World Of Chess And Variants (videos from BrainKing): YouTube
Chess blog: LookIntoChess.com

List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.

Mode: Everyone can post

13. August 2014, 23:26:14

happyjuggler0

show this user posts | show thread | link

I suppose everyone has their own idea of what needs improvement first, so I will add my one idea.

IYT has a feature that declares a winner (or tie as the case may be) in a tournament section once it is mathematically over. Once all sections have a winner, the tournament progresses to the next round.

Such a system would help speed up tournaments without having to wait for stragglers who can have no impact upon the overall results.

I believe that if BK implemented that, then there would be more satisfied players in current tournaments, and more people might start playing in tournaments, which would help BK retain players.

I have no idea how easy or hard it would be to program such a situation here, and I also know others surely have other ideas which perhaps ought to have higher priority when it comes to making improvements.

14. August 2014, 00:30:10

rod03801

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

happyjuggler0: That is a MUCH needed feature.

14. August 2014, 00:33:03

BGBedlam

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

happyjuggler0: But how would BKR be calculated for games that were prematurely ended?

14. August 2014, 00:34:54

rod03801

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

BGBedlam: THe game isn't ended early. THe BKR would be figured as always. It's the tourney being moved to the next round or ended, etc, when it is mathematically known.

14. August 2014, 00:36:49

BGBedlam

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

rod03801: Ok, thanks

14. August 2014, 02:39:31

happyjuggler0

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

BGBedlam: rod is correct, that is what I meant.

I guess if I phrased it differently I would say that each tournament section should receive a yellow line (or more than one yellow line when it is a tie) once it is mathematically known who won that section.

Then once all the sections have a yellow line, the next round begins, or if it is the end of the tourney, then a tourney winner is declared.

All the remaining games can continue at their own pace, without being pressured by the others to hurry up and finish.

14. August 2014, 03:07:04

Aganju

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

Modified by Aganju (14. August 2014, 03:09:40)

happyjuggler0: I agree that this would be nice, but as a coder I know that it can become very complex in some situations to calculate that.
However, it would be not that difficult to implement the simpler cases, so it would catch 95 % of the situations, and let the remaining 5 % running a bit longer.
In other words, it doesn't have to be able to catch all mathematically decided situations, just most.

14. August 2014, 03:14:31

happyjuggler0

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

Aganju: They use the system I described at IYT, but their tournament sections range from 2 to 5 players, and they don't use a tiebreaker method, so I am guessing it would be easier to calculate than it would be here....

14. August 2014, 03:39:17

Purple

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

happyjuggler0: The down side is that IYT will let tournament finalists play 200+ draws until someone wins.

14. August 2014, 03:45:16

happyjuggler0

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

Purple:

I think my record (for rounds played) there is something like 5 or 6 rounds in Connect6.

I don't play checkers (a notoriously drawish game for the very best players against each other), and as I'm learning right now, I don't seem to be too good at any of its variants either.

So basically I guess I am saying that their system has little downside for me with my limited game preferences there, but would be brutal for a checkers player like yourself.

14. August 2014, 17:32:12

El Cid

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

happyjuggler0: I believe the reason Fencer pointed out most of the times was that it would be a burden to the site to be calculating every tournament possibilities every... hour. If that is the case, an alternative would be to calculate everytime a game is finished (and only then), or another possibility that the "early calculation" would be "user requested", for instance there would be a button in every tournament where I could go and click "calculate winners" and that I could only use once in a day or a week for each tournament (my idea was that only the user who clicked it would be blocked for a day). I don't understand much (almost nothing) of programming so I don't know if any of them is easy to implement

14. August 2014, 21:00:20

rod03801

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re:

El Cid: It seems to be pretty routine at other sites though. For example GT definitely does it. I'm not sure it would need to be once an hour. Heck, once a day would be plenty and would help move tournaments along. Even not THAT often, would be an improvement.