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 the question whether an issue is caused by BrainKing itself or your local network (or ISP provider).
I can't seem to find a board where rule discussions belong. If there is one, please LMK and I'll post there instead, or an administrator/moderator should feel free to move my post.
I have a question about Fevga - the "hidden rule", as I call it, as it's not software-enforced and thus causes confusion. Here it is, taken from Brainking's rules:
It is allowed to build a prime (six consecutive blocked points) anywhere else (not in the player's starting quarter), but if opponent has collected all his checkers onto the one point behind player's prime, the player must unblock a point in his prime to allow the opponent a chance to move.
How I've always interpreted this rule is that once you are completely blocked - IE none of your pieces can move because primes are built in front of all of your pieces, and they are all immediately behind said primes, your opponent must move a piece. I've never had a problem with this before, but my current opponent has a slightly different interpretation, and when the rule is read literally, I can understand their viewpoint. They are suggesting that all of my pieces must be on the same point, since the rule says: "if opponent has collected all his checkers onto the one point behind player's prime". Now, that seems to me like a strange rule, as it would be extremely rare to be blocked in only one place, but that is what it says. So, who's right? Here's the game in question:
If that link doesn't work, you should be able to find it in my Started Games, me vs. ekko. You'll notice that I have a single piece stuck behind my opponent's prime (11 rolls in a row with no 6 - argh!), and then my other 14 pieces on one point that is behind what is effectively a two-point prime. I believe the intent of the rule would be that this fits the criteria, but I can see that the rule isn't worded in quite that way.
Aganju: Yes, my opponent was going to be up against that limit a few moves later, and I was aware of it. I don't believe there was any malicious intent here; just a matter of them wanting to get as many pieces home as they could, I suppose.
Modified by Carpe Diem (30. November 2017, 09:29:35)
Glad I brought this up; some very interesting points.
I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I guess my perspective is shaped by the fact that when I was young, I played and organized a lot of tournament chess, and that's one game that, past the beginner stage, is not often played to the end. If it was, there would be some painful games. In some other games resigning is almost a foreign concept. Take a couple of the most popular games on this site - you're not eliminated until the final move in Ludo, and Dice Poker and Backgammon aren't usually decided with THAT many moves remaining. Battleboats, Logik, and numerous others - basically no resigning. There are lots of other games like that. If one is used to games where resignation isn't standard, perhaps it doesn't occur to one to ever resign.
I had thought of taking away the "glory" of the victory, and that maybe some people don't like that. It's why I often don't bother in games like the different "line" games (Pente, Connect6, Line4, etc) - you usually don't know you've lost until you're a couple of moves away from losing (or you'd do something about it!), so I figure my opponent is more likely to want to go to the end than be done slightly sooner.
Achievements are definitely something I didn't think of. I'll try to be mindful of possible achievements when considering resigning in the future.
The kind of games I think could use a little more resignations would be ones like Mancala. It plays quickly enough so it's not a big deal, but there's no game where it's easier to see when you've lost. Thankfully I've never been stuck in a dragged out game of Frog Legs, which is already one of the most painfully long games as-is. :) The one that brought on the mini-rant was a game of Halma where I had moved all my pieces to the opponent's home, and they still had one piece left there and lots to move to my home. I had to move back and forth for several moves while they move their other pieces home, and then they finally moved that last which enabled me to win. Seemed kind of silly.
But really, even though I decided to share my little rant with everyone, it isn't that big of a deal to me. Just something to think about, and some of you gave me more to think about. :)
Hrqls: Yeah, I certainly could, but I don't feel strongly enough to bother with that most of the time - just enough tonight for a small rant on the boards instead. :) And in this particular case, it's someone with in-game comments shut off. I feel better now anyway. :D
Brief rant - it's OK to resign! I understand playing a game through to the end, especially when there is the possibility of some learning coming out of it. But once you are mathematically eliminated, and nothing is to be gained even in terms of knowledge, why drag things out?
Subject: Re: Thousands of games and years to play one round of a tourney
Carnie: If there are people with several hundred or even thousands of games who are still signing up and playing extremely slowly, I could see how that would be frustrating, although I'd be surprised if it was common. The way I arrived at the situation was that I was (and am) in several fellowships, and signed up for a lot of games at one time. A message for one tournament would come to me, and I'd sign up for a bunch of games, and then another message for another tournament would come before the first set of games started, and on that went for a little while. So I was signing up for more games not fully realizing how many I was committing to (obviously still my own fault).
And also because games can, as we know, take a while, people's situations change. Mind did - I became a lot busier a couple of months after signing up for all of them.
None of this is to say that I think you aren't justified in being annoyed with this, but that it's not only people being inconsiderate - there are sometimes mitigating factors. And yes, people could resign their games, but doing that with hundreds of games is going to have a pretty huge impact on their BKRs, which is why people would be reluctant to do so.
crosseyed: Could be that Carnie is talking about past situations.
Subject: Re: Thousands of games and years to play one round of a tourney
playBunny: I don't disagree that it can be a problem, especially when, as you mention, it takes up the slots for a Pawn that's new to the site. But I also don't think it's fair to pin the problem completely on those who are playing within the designated time limits. The solution might be a combination of things - make it more clear to people the repercussions of signing up at certain time limits, and for signing up to multiple games in multiple tournaments, perhaps have some allowance to give pawns some more games to play if they are maxed out with games that are taking forever.
Modified by Carpe Diem (5. November 2017, 00:35:04)
Carnie: Yeah, that's the key - it's on us to decide what games, and time limits, to play. I've been on both ends of this. A few years ago I went crazy signing up for tournaments and ended up with well over a thousand games running and had a VERY hard time keeping up. Games were going to their limit all the time, and I used up most of my vacation days. Not something I'd have done on purpose, and I could see how some might find it frustrating, but at the same time, I was playing within the limits. Just gotta know that there will be some people who use up the full time allotted, so you have to allow for that when signing up. These days it's rare a game goes a day without a response from me, and games I'm in are often the first done in tournaments. But I don't begrudge those who make a game go on what seems like forever, as they're playing within the rules.
beach: Yeah, that happened to me recently; I considered sending them a message to ask what they were doing, but in the end decided I couldn't be bothered. Player had a number of <1000 ratings, so it obviously isn't the first time.
Carnie:Well, I can "hear you" now, as when I look at the game record it does indeed now show that you timed out and lost, in spite of you having made the last move. Very odd. I'd suggest sending Fencer another message.
Modified by Carpe Diem (1. November 2017, 05:05:37)
Carnie: I'm confused by "I thought people left this place because of bullies but I see the owner doesn't care." - were there some posts deleted? I sure didn't see anyone bullying you, but maybe you're referring to something else.
Aganju: I think what you'll find is that although it claims that you lost and shows rating points going down for you, if you look closer you'll find that the names don't match the rating points, and that your points actually go up.
So it works something like this. Let's say you and I played, and you won the match but I won the last game. Let's also say your rating was 2100 and mine was 1900 before the game. It will say something like Carpe Diem won, 2100 (+13), and Aganju lost 1900 (-11). I actually lost the 11 I should have, and you gained the 13, it just gives the wrong names in the message.
This bug's been there since I started playing here. It's simply a display error, not a problem with rating points.
crosseyed: No, there doesn't need to be anything wrong - I believe there is approximately a 2% chance of having 23 non-6 rolls in a row, so inevitably it will happen to anyone who plays enough. Now if that happens to you every game, that's a different matter. To me, the bigger issue with Ludo as a game is that the skill element is pretty low in my opinion - but maybe that's just because I'm not skilled enough to understand the subtleties of the game. :D
Aganju - no offense, but that's just silly. I have definitely noticed times when I roll in Dice Poker and the exact same number comes up again, which always make one wonder. But then I think back to all the times that doesn't happen, and realize that the issue is likely just that I take note of the times when it does. But even if there was an issue with the RNG, your time solution would be useless. If the RNG uses the system clock, it will be dealing in fractions of a second, and waiting 15 minutes isn't any more "random" than responding in a couple of seconds. But as you say, there is no risk to waiting, so if you feel it works for you, I'm not here to tell you to do otherwise. :)
happyjuggler0: "Your S-B is decided by the number of games your collective opponents have won. If you play against players A,B,C,D, and E, and player A won 3 games, and players B and C won 2 games each, and players D and E won 1 point each, then your S-B score is 9. If the player you are tied with under the "points" column has a higher S-B than you, then s/he wins the tournament at BrainKing. If you have a higher S-B, then you win the tournament. If you have the same S-B, then you both win the tournament."
Not quite - your S-B is decided by the number of games your collective opponents that you have defeated have won. Your S-B is the sum of the points of all your opponents you defeated, plus half the points of all your opponents that you tied.
Carpe Diem: Quite a coincidence, I just came up against this very situation, and made a different move than I would have previously. But I forgot to follow my own advice and tell my opponent why I moved the piece I did. :(
Modified by Carpe Diem (3. February 2014, 14:43:27)
cd power: I also had no knowledge of this rule. I think it's great that you proactively follow it - I'd suggest that when you do, you let your opponent know. Something like:
"Hi there. I'm not sure you're aware of this, but I was obliged to move one of my pieces since you were unable to move; this is a rule of the game that isn't enforced by the software. Just letting you know in case you find yourself in my situation in a future game."
The wording of why you were obliged to move a piece could probably be improved to include whatever the actual rule says.
Raistlin: Thanks! That seems to be an equally bizarre option. When I look at the tourneys in question, they say "Sort by BKR: No", but it sure appears that they all are sorted that way, so perhaps that's displaying incorrectly.
I guess I'll send a message to Fencer so he can look at the specific tournaments and tell me if that's the issue. I just think that any setting that allows someone to give themselves (or anyone else, actually) the same colour throughout the tournament should be removed - I can't see any good reason for the existence of such a setting.
Aganju: What a bizarre setting - why would anyone ever want that? As you say, it certainly shouldn't be the default.
But even so, I would think that since the setting is for "games with a random start position", this would just mean a player would end up with either all white or all black in an individual tournament - having all white in something like 15 consecutive tournaments would still be a little odd. But it makes sense that it's somehow tied to that setting.
Modified by Carpe Diem (11. January 2014, 03:01:47)
Carpe Diem: No one has any thoughts on this?
"I'm wondering if it's possible for the creator to choose their own colour in a tournament. I've come across someone who had had white at least 48 consecutive times for one particular game in tournaments this person has created. They are single game matches."
Typed out another post about this, but I guess I didn't send it properly.
I'm wondering if it's possible for the creator to choose their own colour in a tournament. I've come across someone who had had white at least 48 consecutive times for one particular game in tournaments this person has created. They are single game matches.
happyjuggler0: It can happen for a number of reasons. Some people like to have a lot of games on the go so they always have some to play. And some, like me, started out by signing up to a lot of tournaments without realizing what we're getting ourselves into. A lot of tournaments don't start for a number of days, or even weeks, and if you play a lot of different games, you can sign up for quite a large number without fully realizing what you've done. And I can tell you from first hand experience, once you dig a hole, it can take a long, long, long time to get out. I managed to get myself all the way up to 3,000+ games early this year, and it's taken me until now to get down below 1,000, starting no more than a handful of games in that time. When you're that far behind, you have little hope of doing more than keeping your head above water - this means that you're maxing out all your game times, and therefore they take much longer to complete, leaving you in the hole for that much longer. It's sort of a vicious cycle.
I take at least a little pride in the fact that aside from a handful of no vacation games I failed to notice, I dug my way out without forfeiting any games. But I feel bad about the many tournaments that were (and are) waiting for me to finish, and for the pawns that had one (or more) of the few game slots they have available tied up by playing me. Of course I was within the rules, and my opponents knew the time controls when they joined the tournaments, but I appreciate that having opponents that max out all their time controls must be frustrating for those that are on top of things.
Not really sure why I addressed this to you; I guess I just saw an opportunity to get a confession/apology off my chest. :)
Modified by Carpe Diem (25. September 2013, 05:48:17)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's been nothing since shortly after I signed up initially last October - it probably was at Christmas time I saw them, as beach suggested. Maybe I'll renew for 6 months and see if any come up again - might be wise anyway if traffic really is slowing down. Although I'm not noticing it that much, and still enjoy it here, so if the right incentive showing up now or at the end of the year will probably bring me back for a while.
Modified by Carpe Diem (3. September 2013, 08:11:23)
JerNYC: I just don't see the benefit. Do people actually turn down a lot of games with higher rated players? It's not like you can get hurt too badly by playing players rated much higher than you - it's usually to your benefit to do so. If you lose, you lose very little (or nothing) in rating points, and if you win, the gain can be huge.
The only thing I've seen on this site that I've considered at all suspicious is some of the pond games; they would be easy games to cheat by having players privately agree on their points for each round, and I've seen some odd results that made me wonder. But that could just be paranoia on my part, so I'm not losing sleep over it.
Bots and software? Definitely a potential problem, and not one that there's really any answer for. I doubt there's much of that in most games, but I wouldn't be even remotely surprised if some players are using software for games like chess and go. But even if they are and their software is very good, they'll end up with a suitable rating, and so will us human opponents. :)
Subject: Re: This site's current estimated worth is...
rod03801: I would take a wild guess that it would be...anyone who buys it.
Pedro Martínez: Really? I have no idea what the site is worth (nor do I know why anyone really cares), but it seems pretty apparent that those sites are automatically calculating revenue based on a site's ad revenue potential. I doubt there's any automated website that calculates a site's paid membership revenues.
Just looking for some opinions on this - do people consider it poor form to resign the 3rd game of a 3 game match when you are leading 2-0, just to end it sooner? I'd do it when down 2-0, but I don't want to deprive people of that third game if it's going to bother them. The result of the match has already been determined, but the fact that they don't resign could be an indication that they'd like to play every game. Or they're just not paying attention.
Thinking about it, I guess I'd limit this strategy to people with lots of games going, as opposed to someone who only has 10 games on the go.
Modified by Carpe Diem (6. February 2013, 21:31:42)
likewowman2cool: Absolutely, but wouldn't that apply to most games? The better the players, the more in-depth understanding they have of the game, and the closer they'll be to optimal play, which will increase any inherent biases in the game.
Thinking about it, it's not surprising the "plus" adaptation of Battleboats would be flawed - pretty big advantage going first when you get to make 5 moves, and sinking boats reduces the opponent's moves. I wonder if a simple fix for that game would be one like in Connect6 - you don't get the full 5 moves on your first turn.