Please use this board to discuss Tournaments and Team Tournaments, ask questions and hopefully find the answers you are looking for.
Personal attacks, arguing or baiting will not be tolerated on this board. If you have, or see a problem or something you are not happy about or think is wrong, please contact one of the above Moderators OR contact a Global Moderator HERE Tournaments
crosseyed: i think you got the concept wrong. The creator of the tournament doesn’t get the entry fee, he has no advantage from creating the tournament. The Tournament itself collects the entry fees, and when it gets cancelled, they get returned to everybody. That has worked automatically for years, and never was an issue. So it doesn’t matter at all who leaves and when.
Carnie: on first glance, it looks like a funny idea, but consider that: In the final game, both players will of course immediately resign; so it’s purely random whoever gets the first move = first chance to resign.
MadMonkey: For some reason, we cannot sign up for the Backgammon team Tournament (Knights); it says: "Your team does not have enough players eligible to play team tournaments (Brain Knight or higher level)." which is untrue - we have six players, five rooks and one Knight. Any idea, anyone?
ketchuplover: there is no 'official' site championships.For some years, there were inofficial 'World Championships', for all games, but I think whoever did those stopped doing them - I haven't seen any in awhile. If you think we should have them - like for 2016 - I like the idea - the search for that tournament and check how it was setup (maybe message with the creator if you want to be nice) and set them up. I would participate. Make sure the timing settings are so they appeal to a broad audience, to get maximum participation, and chose a style that doesn't drag the tournaments out forever.
furbster: I always wonder why many people make Backgammon tournaments with no doubling cube. Backgammon has a certain percentage of luck in it, which gets reduced significantly by playing for a higher game count, and the doubling cube is a critical part of the game logic. Personally, I avoid tournaments where there is only a match to one point, because the game is too much chance under those circumstances. Don't get me wrong - I am not criticizing you, furbster, and it's of course your right to make any tournament you like. I just see many of those, and I don't join them for that reason, and it makes me wonder why even strong players create them this way. Do you care to explain?
coan.net: I agree. Sounds like a good idea. Or what about this: if the Pawn has finished all his game(s) in the tournament, he can join another one? It is not his fault that the others have not yet finished?
When I check the open tournaments, it shows a total of 1472. But when I page through, there are only 65!
What happened to the other 1407? I understand that the tournament creator can ban me from his tournaments, but a) I thought I would still see it, just can't join; and b) am I that much hated, so 96% of all tournaments are blocked for me?
If you say 'clearly, the first', what if I am inactive or my rating is provisional (or both)?
Also, nobody can know if you made the cut at any given time between now and the tournament start; someone would need to continuously check. Therefore, I assume he would check about at the tournament start, which is slightly different than at the moment you signed up. So - better let you losing games sit around a bit, or you might not make the cut anymore on that day?
Subject: Re: Open Invite: Top 10% Faster Backgammoners for 2015 3-4
ThunderGr: I find it also too cumbersome to check each discipline, especially as it is a moving target - I might be in today, and out tomorrow. In addition, and I mentioned that before, the top 10% are mostly people that do not play anymore, so effectively this limits it to 2 or 3 % of active players. Which is to small a pool I think.
And finally, I am simply not good enough to make it into the top 10% of most games, so I stopped checking.
Subject: Re: Open Invite: Top 10% Faster Backgammoners for 2014 11-12
TC: As I mentioned the previous time he started this tourney, the primary problem I see (aside from the fact that it is obnoxious to check the 10% for each game) is that most of the people in the top 10% are not playing anymore or not since a long time. That way, only 1% really are effectively eligible.
This tourney is coming up: The Big Prize Tournament 2014 I wonder if I should join, it seems like it gives me around 1200 games !? [128 games * 9 opponents in the group, minus a bit for smaller groups]
rod03801: First, only active players? Or inactive too? Only established BKRs? or provisional too? That leaves four combinations to pick from. Second, for me this page very often shows (incorrectly, of course) "Your current position is 1 of 1", which result in me having to do many clicks to even find my position.
TC: I checked that last time and I think I am outside those 10% in all games. I think you will run into the issue that a significant number of those 10% are not playing anymore just sitting there. But otherwise I like the idea. Here a hint how you can make it easier for potential participants: Obviously, because of your 10%-cutoff-point, the minimum rating needed is different for each game. You could list that minimum rating, so anyone can see right away if he falls into it. I found it rather tiresome to scroll through the full list to find out how many people are in total in the list, divide it by ten, and then find the rating of that position to see if I make it. If you do that once, you save everybody that work, and maybe get more players? Not me though...
computeropponen: FYI, the BKR never claimed to be mappable in any way to FIDE ratings. It follow a rather simple rule that only result in a relative difference; the absolute value has no meaning. Typically, games where a lot of people play, the ratings spread out very far (see Ludo or Runs); games where only a small number of people play, 1512 is already a top-10 rating (Portuguese Checkers). That is just a consequence of the definition.
I agree that 2000+ in Chess is probably about a FIDE master rating. Which implies that we have about 155 FIDE masters plus cheaters here.
computeropponen: This is an old discussion; it seems that 90% of the top-rated 100 chess players here on BK are using software (in other words: cheating), as they are just too good to be true. I have talked with one player that is a verified International FIDE Master and he barely can make it into the top 50 players. So either all world class chess players are here under secret IDs (including all the dead ones), or there are cheaters between them.
Again, note that this is an ongoing (and by now boring) discussion on all gaming sites; some claim that the rules don't disallow software so it is not officially cheating (correct), some claim that it is a lie and that they are just that good (hard to believe for me), and some just never answer if asked. And some might be really that good.
computeropponen: What I mean is that getting a draw is a slightly better result for the lower rated person (imagine you play chess with Karpov and manage to get a draw), and therefore the lower rated person gets in the next round. A better alternative would be of course to play another game, but first, that is the choice of the person setting up the tournament (and he chose different), and second, that has other issues, like it could go on forever while all others wait.
Anyway, this is how it is defined, and who doesn't like it has the choices to not enter such a tournament or suck it up and play. And any tournament creator can define that matches are for '1 point', which results in repeat game, instead of choosing '1 game', which forces this kind of decision after a draw.
happyjuggler0: it depends on the way the tournament was setup. If it is for one point, you would have another match. If it was for one game, that game is done and that's it. In this case, a draw results in the lower ranked participant moving into the next round (a draw is considered a 'little win' as he should have lost with the lower ranking)
JerNYC: Because the complexity of verifying this fact can be extraordinary high, and even if it is low in many cases, someone has to code it for those cases. The owner of this site has made it very clear, multiple times, that this or any other improvement of BrainKing is not high on his list of life priorities, so no such code is to be expected.
Chaosu: Did you call him names maybe? Otherwise, I agree. Copying the generated tournament completion mail is useless if the tournament has multiple games. Actually, the good fix would be to have the message enhanced, but until then, when you copy and post it, you should add the game name.