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).
crosseyed: Actually I am not sure that even buying a membership will help. He is a brain rook which meant he already blew through his entire vacation days for the year since Jan 1 already. It is my understanding he won't get any more vacation days even if he buys a membership; he would have to wait until Jan 1 rolls around again to get new vacation days.
If his member ship had been a knight and then he had bought a rook then I think he would get more vacation days.
MrDelete: It doesn't matter if it is Friday morning where your opponent is. What matters is that it Friday morning according the BrainKing time...which as it happens is also where your opponent is.
Perhaps you understood that point, perhaps not. If you are in the US and you have Fridays and Saturdays off, and it is Thursday in the US, and you run out of time on your clock, you *will* be timed out even though it is Thursday here in the US.
The rule for when your weekend day starts is BK time, or server time. If you are unsure of the time zone conversions, just log out and look at the clock on the upper right and it will tell you what day it is and what time it is in server time.
speachless: After I made my post about not doing math, I quickly checked out who the winners of each section "should have been". If I calculated correctly, then:
Section 1 was correct. (No S-B needed). Section 2 looks correct for who advanced, but I may have miscalculated S-B. Edit: I was wrong. See the end of my post for details. Section 3 was very wrong. milionovej kluk, Pedro Martínez, and cardinal all tied on matches won. They all beat players 4-6 with a perfect score. They all finished 1-1 vs each other. Therefore all three of them should have advanced.
Therefore the final section should have had 5 players instead of 3. To answer someone's possibly tongue in cheek question, I don't see how it could possibly make sense to replay the final section with all 5 players, even if Fencer were inclined to find a way to do it, which I doubt he would anyway.
If Pedro wanted to he could invite each of them (and only them) to a tournament with the same time controls, but really what would be the point?
Edit* Aganju looks right, I miscalculated and Hrlqs would not have advanced to roun 2. Instead TC would have advanced because he beat both of the other players who got 3 points.
rod03801: If slowing down the site is a problem, there are no doubt times during a 24 hour day when there is a lot less traffic than at other times. That would be an ideal time for a "once a day" routine to run to determine mathematically definite "yellow lines" in tournaments.
I agree, even once a day would shave weeks or months (years even) off of each round starting in many tournaments.
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....
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.
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.
ThunderGr: Oops! Wrong name. That is what I get for casually reading the posts.
I'll just leave the suggestion out there for anyone with open slots for games. Use the "waiting games" feature to find time controls you like, and use the "new game" feature to create your own open invitations.
Have you ever considered setting up game invitations for the "waiting games" list? You can set up your own time controls and other parameters, and if it is a commonly played game you are likely to get some acceptances in a day or two (or much faster).
Vikings: I am going to push back on that, because at the very least it seems misleading or confusing, if not just plain wrong.
S-B is a tiebreaker system. If you win four games and tie one game, then the tournament table will say that you have "4.5 points".
There is also a column labeled "S-B". If someone else also has 4.5 points, this method will decide which of you wins the tournament, or sometimes the tournament will be a tie if both of your S-B scores are the same.
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.
One can argue that this makes sense, or not, but it is how things work here. If nothing else, everyone plays under the same system.
beach: "Now the tourney section is a joke, you cannot find any tournaments and they stay on the list for 30 days after they start. "
Actually you can find new tournaments still, you just have to be a bit more creative in your search terms than before.
Every day when I log in (when I remember anyway!) I now visit the tournament page, and then modify the "Created in last" to 2 days (I am not sure what it means by 1 day or 2 days...is it the last 24 hours for a day, or the last Czech time zone day. Therefore I pick 2 days).
The list is usually(!) very short, and I never have to scroll to see what else is out there....
Aganju: That is not how it works. The system records the times in both of your games in your records as if the game occurs between two players in the same time zone.
Next time that an opponent of yours plays a move in a game of yours, check out the clock in the upper right of your screen and then click on that game and you will see that it was played only a few seconds earlier, regardless of which time zone your opponent was playing in.
I voted in a BrainKing poll, as I often do when they are available.
This poll was about Nascar, which I know virtually nothing about. Which means I probably (certainly?) should have voted for "Don't watch NASCAR". But I didn't. Instead I checked out the odds on some website that google gave me, and found out that Danica Patrick was only 40-1 against, and so I voted for her.
The missing subtext is that lots of people simple HATE her, despite her being a solid racer at worst. So I chose to be "that guy" who voted for her.
That is the number of games where it is your turn, vs the number of games you have to play where it is your opponent's turn to play.
I thank you for your implicit attitude towards making your moves in your games. Far too many players here choose (for whatever reason) to have more games that they have to play in than they can handle in a given day, or any time period for that matter.
computeropponen: There are two ways: you can go to a player's page and invite that person directly, or you can make an open invitation to players in general here at BrainKing (with some restrictions if you want to).
For the general invitation, on the left side of the page near the top there is a category called "new game". Click it.
Then select the type of game you want to play, then pick the parameters that you want. Be careful on time controls and such so that you get what you want; there are default settings but I suspect you won't want to use those.
If someone on the "waiting games" page has an invitation that states that it is a 5 wins match and my color is black, does that mean that all of my games in that match will be black, or does it mean that my first game is black and alternate each game after that between black and white, or is it something else perhaps?
thechosen0ne: I guess I should have looked at your profile before posting. You have the automatic vacation turned on.
Imagine that you run out of time in a game that does not have a green dot (no vacation time allowed) or a red dot (no vacation time allowed; also no "weekend days" allowed). What happens is that you lose an hour of your vacation time, but all of your non-dot games also gain an hour of time left to play.
Once you run out of vacation time, then the next time you run out of time in a game you lose that game.
thechosen0ne: On the left side of the site there is a column of links.
1) Click "Settings". 2) Click the "Calendar" tab on the top of that page. 3) Check the box near the top of the calendar page. Then go to the bottom and click "save and finish". 4) Check your profile to make sure it worked.
SL-Mark: It is a common mistake of people who don't understand the game of backgammon very well to downplay the element of skill. Some of these people even sometimes put the word skilled in quotes, as if it is not actually worthy of the name skill.
SL-Mark: In dice games, the skill is in managing that which luck gives you. There are good ways to play what the dice give you, and there are less good ways. The more highly skilled players find the better plays more often than the less skilled players do.
I can't say why others play them, but I don't view it as destiny or fate when I win or lose; not over the long run anyway....
Herlock Sholmes: Yes, that is right. I agree the instructions are a bit vague.
One way to think of it is that in triple dice poker, the bonus is calculated by the score that you get if you had scored three of each number, and in triple dice poker the bonus is calculated as if you had scored four of each number.
If you think of it that way, and you realize that you only got three 6's in 6D, then you need to make up that extra 6 somewhere else, for example by getting five 5's and five 1's, or five 4's and five 2's.
Herlock Sholmes: If you look at the rules for triple dice poker, which your game is a variant of, you will see that the score that you need is based on the upper section of the first column. In order to get the bonus for the second column, you need to multiply by 2, and to get the bonus for the third column, you need to multiply by 3.
Folks, you need to be careful before putting this type of "stairs" thing into BK rules for non-stairs games; there are all kinds of potential nasty unintended consequences.
For example, this could inspire people to change their settings to not accept invitations.
Another downside is wanting to limit number of ongoing games (for non-rooks) in order to make space for a tournament you want to play in, but too many people want to invite you to games and you are forced to accept.
Similarly you might be trying to clear up your remaining games to go on a playing hiatus (a vacation or just to not get burned out on a particular game).
Another potential problem is being forced to play time controls you don't want to play, or match lengths you don't want to play, or single game invitations where your opponent has the side that has a huge advantage (e.g. battleboats plus).
Right now I have a few players on my blocked users list because they were abusive or obnoxious in some other way. I would hate to be forced to play them.
I'm sure there are other potential problems that others can think of. Anyway, I hope Fencer would be very careful before implementing any such "reform" to make sure it doesn't hurt more than it helps.
I have had similar problems with players who are number one ranked while I was number two ranked who refused to play me. It is frustrating. Fortunately for me though none of those rating differences were insurmountable the way the rating difference in checkers is....