Snoopy: Thank you very much

"GERRY": you just click to disable wall button on your wall page

How do you remove your wall on your profile as i see on others don;t have it?

Thom27: Yes, this is a much needed feature.

Thom27: This is a great idea... When someone has alot games of one type... it is really needed... I had a frog finder game that I kept guessing the same move 10 times before I noticed...

to a message sent to the opponent in a game, not only date and time should be given in the list of messages, but also the move number.

Sometimes a message refers to a move, and afterwards it can be difficult to find out which move it was.

El Cid: It does, in the way aaru understood it. :)

Ok, now I got it..., then it seems that I will have much more trouble than I thought in getting to the 10 public tournaments in some gametypes (even so, I think the feature request makes sense anyway)

El Cid: But it's an Achievement awarded for team tournament wins, not fellowship tournament wins. :)

Pedro Martínez: http://brainking.com/en/Achievements?aid=93&submit=Submit&p=1 This is the fifth of them (1 tournament; 10x; 25x; 50x and 100x)

El Cid: I am afraid you are wrong, there is no Achievement for fellowship tournaments.

Pedro Martínez: In that case, I should have 3 or 4 game types marked in the achievements page and I only have one. I have always understood that the ones that count for the achievements, and are considered as public (and when counting them it usually makes sense) were only non private tournaments, and of course no-fellowship, because those are on a different achievement (which is also being bug counted)

El Cid: Public tournaments = non-fellowship tournaments, irrespective of whether they are open to everybody or invitation-only.

aaru: It's more like public+private. The fellowship are on another tab..., but for that you can go to the finish games tab, and you won't have to filter by game type, because you have all the information there

rod03801: Yeah but public+fellowship. El Cid (& me) want to see only public.

El Cid: Unless I'm misunderstanding, (which isn't unusual, lately ) You can already do that.

On your profile page, at the top, click on Won tournaments.

On that page, at the top, you can filter by game type.

Could there be a quick indication of how many public tournaments have we won for a certain gametype (I think I have won 10 public tournaments on 2 game types, but in my achievement page it only shows 1). This could be useful when only one tournament is missing for a game type to count for an achievement, so instead of having to enter the won tournaments page (especially if you are trying 50 or 100 tournaments per game type) you could simply watch the number and choose the one(s) that would be easier or faster to do so

rod03801: & Pedro Martínez: I meant that I'd like to see an option that would allow us to see what members actually click on the fellowship (i.e.The ORIGINAL Flame Pit) to read, as on the Chat board.
Besides most members I find are in a cloak mode when looking at "Who's on-line" so there is no way to tell what members are actually involved in a fellowship.

Groeneveld: Actually only the tournament creator gets the message, not the people who signed up. (but if it is added, hopefully it is an option - I already get too much "junk" mail here on my BK Message box of information I don't really need.)

this normal happens allready

I'd like to get a message when a tournament section that I signed up for is deleted due to lack of sign-ups. I might want to go looking for another tournament when this happens.

alilsassy: Ahh, I see i misunderstood your question. I was going to mention the "Who is online" link in the "Statistics" part of the left menu, as Pedro did, but I assumed you knew about that. lol.

alilsassy: a function showing the members that are present

http://brainking.com/cz/PlayerList

alilsassy: The chat room already does tell who is "present". It looks like it lists people who are either on the "static" page, or have the actual chat box enabled. It looks like it is split up in to 2 parts. From what I have seen, when someone has actively typed something in the chat box, their name goes to the top section of the list. After a certain period of time, it drops back down to the bottom part of the list.

With the new BK3 in the makings, I'm curious if there would be any way to add a function showing the members that are present, as in the Chat room?
I also think there may be an issue with pawns clicking on private fellowships just to boost ratings on the "Today's top visited boards"....If a pawn is unable to be part of the private fellowship then their clicks should not count as a visit.

Are there any plans in BK3 for fellowships to beable to delete smilies or put them in folders (like smilies for Christmas; happy smilies' dancing ones' etc?)

the ability to catalog would be useful.

I wish the system made it easier to gather the data that would demonstrate the severity of this problem.  As I've said elsewhere (I think), it could also help pinpoint when the problem began (or was it always this way?), which should help identify what changed to cause it.  I also wish the problem occurred 100% of the time, which would make it impossible to dismiss.  As it is, we have only the beginnings of statistical support for our claim, and gathering the aggregate data that would provide more solid support is a daunting task...for us the members.

Fencer is quite correct about the groundless wailing over poker or dice cheats.  There's plenty of that online; such complainers are easy to find, and the vast majority deserve our scorn and satire.  But the genuine exceptions (in online poker especially) that have come to light should give one pause.

Hats off to those who stood their ground in such cases, labored to gather the data, and revealed the truth at last.

(added comment Wednesday evening / Thursday morning):  I plan to make one last good-faith effort to present some useful data.  I plan to examine all of my backgammon (but no variants) games stored here from 2009--that's 13 matches, and a total of 137 games in which at least 2 rolls took place.  I have no reason to believe that that year is appreciably better or worse than any other year of mine.  I'm sorely tempted to separately track the opening rolls that I "won" and "lost", but I don't plan to do so for this exercise.  If I'm understanding the situation correctly (and there are good "numbers" people here who will be able to correct me if I'm wrong), the responder's roll should theoretically match the opener's roll 1 in 18 times (or 5.555_ %), on average.  I'm also going to report the percentage of responder's rolls where both dice differ from the opener's roll.  Theoretically, I think that should happen 4 times in 9 (or 44.444_%), on average.  But I think the actual observed value is going to shock and convince even the most diehard skeptics here.


Average expectation of opener's and responder's both dice exactly matching out of 137 played = 7.6111_ games.  Observed number=38 games (27.737%)

That's about 5 times the expected frequency!

Average expectation of responder's dice both differing from opener's dice out of 137 played = 60.888_ games.  Observed number=28 games (20.438%)

That's less than half of what's expected.

Pedro Martínez: oh, that should be interesting. i'll have a look.

plaintiger: Read also the Backgammon board. It has been discussed there quite a lot, and someone has even downloaded a bunch of games and made a statistical analysis of the occurrence of the opening rolls.

Pedro Martínez: oh good...i'm glad to hear somebody chime in so i don't sound like the lone lunatic (however clear-sighted). thanks, Pedro.

plaintiger: It is obvious to everyone who plays back on a regular basis here and has their eyes open.

Fencer: sounds good, Filip (i say, having just taken yet another screenshot of yet another hyper backgammon game (#4697746) in which both my opponent and i had the same first rolls...just as happened in the last hyper backgammon game i started before that - yesterday, game #4692215)).

and for the record, i play poker at Full Tilt and Ultimate Bet, and used to play at Live Poker when their Mac software worked, and i never had any complaints about their deals. they seem obviously random to me (and i don't know about Live Poker, but Full Tilt's and Ultimate Bet's shuffles i know to be monitored by outside agencies). but the un-randomness of die rolls on BK is very - and i mean VERY - obvious to me and to several people i play with. real dice just do *not* roll the same, twice in a row, 85 or 90 percent of the time...but at least on the first two moves of each game, BK dice do. heck, if you want, i'll start logging real statistics with my game numbers and let you know what the percentage of identical first rolls really is. i promise it will be very high.

or heck, if you really want to see this in action, just put move logs next to backgammon games that show the die rolls for each turn. *then* you and everybody else will see the pattern in black-and-white.

i'm glad to hear the game models are being rewritten. sounds like it might address this issue.

thanks for your reply. all the best...

plaintiger: I recommend to visit Facebook, find pages of popular poker rooms and look at their respective discussion boards. You will find them full of such complaints: "Full Tilt Poker is rigged! Chip leader always wins! I have been playing poker for 20 years and I never saw something like that. Cards are definitely NOT random!".

Heh heh. Given the fact that online casinos and poker rooms are usually regulated in order to keep a fairness and balance, it is clear that no matter what you do, there will be always someone who provides a "guaranteed proof" of the opposite.

As I said many times, BrainKing dice rolls are driven by time in milliseconds (or even nanoseconds), so they cannot be more random and no player has a better chance than others.

However, all game models are being rewritten, so I will have a close look to all pieces of the code and if I find anything suspicious, it will be taken cared of.

i know that, last i read, Fencer was still defending the supposed randomness of the algorithm that determines the die rolls on BK...but however sound and watertight that algorithm may look on paper or on the screen, there's something wrong with it. i'm in my 40s, and i've seen a lot of die rolls in my time - enough to know that dice that are truly rolled at random do not come up the same, twice in a row, anywhere near as often as do the dice on brainking. and nowhere is this more obvious than in the first two rolls of a given game. i haven't counted so i can't give an exact percentage, but based on my experience, i'd say the first two die rolls of my dice-based games on BK come up the same about 85-90% of the time. i just started a game of Ludo, in which both players roll three dice each until they get one of their pieces out of the holding dock. my opponent went first, and rolled 1-1-1. then came my turn...and you'll never guess what i rolled.

*gasp!* you guessed!! you're amazing!! how did you *do* that?!

*ahem.*

56 possible combinations when rolling three six-sided dice, if i'm not mistaken...and my opponent and i roll the same exact combination twice in a row. random? you be the judge.

the last die-based game i started before that was hyper backgammon; same exact scenario (except with two dice instead of three) - which is the usual way of die rolls, and especially starting die rolls, in BK backgammon games. it's a running joke among the people i play with. "wow - look at that!! we rolled the SAME THING!! AMAZING!! that NEVER happens on brainking!" (laugh, laugh)...

so yeah, that would be my feature request: a re-write of the randomization code for BK die rolls. because no matter how little sense it may make to someone looking at the code, that code *is* flawed. maybe it's perfectly sound in and of itself, but it's just calling a number in the ROM that isn't as random as it's supposed to be...or something. i don't know. it's been too long since i coded anything. i just know what random looks like, and that BK die rolls are not it.

that's all.

"GERRY": Can you not just (remove from favourite boards) then it wouold not be on the left hand side, you would have to goto Discussion Boards to find it

"GERRY": Thats ok. Donna worry bout it!

Mousetrap: I must have missed that then sorry about that

Gerry. The music board always shows up same as any other public board when someone post. Even every other game site shows when ther is a new post.

Is there a chance that music board be like ( Other Game Sites) so it does not show up when posted.

Dominoes Would be a great addition here!

rod03801: I have a request to see a remove/delete button for the smileys in the fellowships. Once released there is no way to remove them if you accidentally have 2 of the same one or you get tired of certain ones.

Could the center intersections be marked with dots in games like Pente and Connect6. It would be a small change an a big hlep.

Mahalo,
Thad

rod03801: Thanks Rod i got them working now:))

"GERRY": Feature Requests isn't really the best board for this sort of thing, but what exactly does "not playing for me today" mean? I personally am not having problems with any of my games, but if you get more specific, someone might be able to help.

Hyper Backgammon Game ID 4668586
Backgammon Game ID 4668654
" " " ID 4668658

My Hyper Backgammon games are not playing for me today
Thats 3 i got now

Fencer: With Ludo being one of the more popular games with no variants, you could always throw out a quick Ludo variant to take a break from the new BK version.

As an idea:

Ludo Express

Same Board, pieces as regular ludo

Get out of start with either a 1 or a 6

Roll 2 dice each turn. Each turn, 2 dice rolled. (6’s don’t do anything special – doubles don’t do anything special – Just 2 dice rolled each turn by each player)

Each dice is separate. Like Backgammon, you first make a move with Dice #1 – then make a move with Dice #2 (or swap and move first with Dice #2, then Dice #1 – order is up to player) You can move the same piece twice, OR move 2 different pieces – 1 with each die

So for example, first turn of the game, you roll a 1 & 6 – you have 2 options. Use the “1” to get out of start, and then use the “6” to move 6 spaces – or use the “6” to get our of start, and then use the “1” to move 1 space.

You can split the dice up between different men. You can use the “1” to get a piece out, and use “6” on a different piece on the board.

NOTE: If you own man is sitting on your “start space”, you have to move it BEFORE you can get another piece out of the board.

If you can move – you have to move. (only pass if you have no move) Plus it is possible to move with 1 die, and then pass the other if there is no move with that one. I would say make it like the gammon games. BOTH dice must be used if possible. If only one of the dice can be used, the highest is used.

The rest are the same rules as regular Ludo

Fencer:
There's no rush, even one new game a month is ok.

mella2000: Just 33 new games? Give me 2 days and you will have it.
Now seriously, it is very unlikely that I would ever do all of this. It might be easier if I release BrainKing game model API and delegate this work to skilled volunteer programmers.

Hi Fencer,
I'd like to play more Shogi variations, more connections games and some chess variations (progressive chess for example).
Also I haven't ever played, but I'd like to find opponents to play with for the following board games:
Hive, Zèrtz, Yinsh, Dvonn, Tzaar, Gipf, Pünct, Army of Frogs, Che, Micropul, Palago, Spangles, Trax, Santorini, Fanorona, Exxit, Gobblet, Plateau, Dipole,
Truchet, Volcano, Traboulet, Qyshinsu, Knockabout, Warp6, Breaking Away, Cannon, Triad, Mutton, Octiles, Medina, Bushka, Tumblingdown