 |
|
 Feature requestsDo you miss something on BrainKing.com and would you like to see it here? Post your request into this board! If there is a more specific board for the request, (i.e. game rule changes etc) then it should be posted and discussed on that specific board. For further information about Feature Requests, please visit this link on the Brainking.Info site : http://brainking.info/archives/20-About-feature-requests.html 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
<< < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > >> 13. July 2004, 21:31:03 LOL.
or select avg(a.rating) as average_bkr... otherwise the code might become difficult to maintain. :) 13. July 2004, 21:20:28 This is merely a list of people who play virtually every game. I suppose amongst such players the list is valid.
I think average is better, perhaps with a minimum of 11! I choose that since I am rated in 11 game types :) 13. July 2004, 20:32:06 I would prefer to see it segmented more:
All the Chess variations added together. All the Gammon variations... etc Otherwise just a list of who plays the most types of games. 8. July 2004, 20:20:05 Subject: Re: Checker markers. Good point, i hadn't thought of that. I am not the expert at making images, nor do I play that much checkers, so I don't mind too much if they stay as they are.
I would have thought that our membership fees covered the cost of making images of the pieces? 8. July 2004, 19:45:15 Subject: Re: Checker markers. Hear hear. Pawns is silly, should use circular markers of some sort. Surely just a case of changing the images? I can't believe it's more than a few minutes to change? 7. July 2004, 16:38:09 Regardless of the corruption, recent world championships have been a set number of games. Typically 24 games or something like that. If the match ends 12-12 extra games (in pairs) are played to determine the winner.
In this case 4 game matches would be a good option. If 2-2 keep playing pairs until a winner is found. Once again, since some people disagree I suggest it be an option that the tournament organizer can choose, just as when setting up a friendly match. 7. July 2004, 04:39:46 so it seems that different games work differently. So I repeat: Leave it to the tournament creator. 7. July 2004, 03:29:05 Modified by grenv (7. July 2004, 03:29:47) i didn't understand that comment. in the group rounds draws count as 0.5 wins. In any competition in the world a draw counts the same.
Did you mean that's the way it is now? That's what I said. 7. July 2004, 03:22:33 Modified by grenv (7. July 2004, 03:25:24) I think the problem is that in chess such a match is never played. Draws always count 0.5 point in any match.
Except on this site. So the best solution in my mind is to have tournaments end in a points match, not a wins match. At least let the tournament creator decide. Does this count as a feature request? :) 5. July 2004, 05:10:49 Subject: QA report... "Show <player>'s games with me only" link seems not to work. It does get replaced with the "Show all games" but continues to show all the games instead of filtering by games against me. 4. July 2004, 22:59:04 This could be related to the bug where the lists aren't always correct. Yesterday I was in the wrong place on a list, but today it has corrected itself. 4. July 2004, 00:07:31 it looks fixed now.
Walter, it's obvious why your opponent resigned. Spectacular checkmate! :) 2. July 2004, 17:08:20 Subject: Re: BKR-lists Right, just as you don't see Bobby Fischer near the top of the chess rankings now. Whatever system they use to roll people of the ranking list should be used here. 2. July 2004, 03:12:45 not interested in keeping strategy secret. Besides, there are no secret strategies that I'm aware of. Anyone else aware of any? 2. July 2004, 03:06:48 I'd like to weigh in on the dark chess debate now that i've experienced it. We definitely should see the games afterwards in my opinion, in fact that's half the fun, seeing what the game looks like without the darkness. 30. June 2004, 07:53:33 Subject: Re: Fencer, no response on auto-login? If I want to log out, I will click "log out". Otherwise please let me stay logged in. 29. June 2004, 01:46:26 Modified by grenv (29. June 2004, 02:35:40) no auto-login? Why on earth not?
Actually it's quite annoying. All I need to do is navigate to another site and I am logged out. How about keeping the session alive for at least as long as the browser is open. I would expect a cookie to be used if requested by the user. Nothing particularly sensitive here. 28. June 2004, 22:35:31 How do I enable auto-login again? Seems the new version forces me to login all the time. 13. June 2004, 16:34:54 Subject: Re: I guess this is the weakness of applying this system to backgammon where a dice roll can beat a good player. In a game with no dice this strastegy is doomed to failure as the low rated player would never beat a 2700 rated player. So take the bg ratings with a grain of salt. 12. June 2004, 20:12:21 Subject: Re: Criteria for waiting games Are you suggesting it's just as easy to beat higher rated players? If so the whole system would be in jeopardy. The point is that in the long run the rating should be accurate no matter who you play. 29. May 2004, 16:15:19 sure, didn't realize that was one of the features. Is there a list somewhere of what's included in 2.0? 29. May 2004, 15:39:41 Please... Can subsequent rounds start automatically. On many occasions recently the tournament organizer has not started the next round because it's been a while and was forgotten. 28. May 2004, 14:49:52 Subject: Feature Request Here is the a real feature request, which addresses some of my concerns:
Can we please have the option of playing games with a time limit on each player for the whole game (rather than per move) ? Can this be an option for tournaments as well ? This way we can be assured that the whole tournament round would finish in, say, 2 months or whatever you choose as a limit. I too am shocked to discover that some tournaments I completed my games in about a year ago are still going. I may suddenly find myself appearing in the second round with little memory of even having played the first round. 26. May 2004, 22:22:25 I think not wanting to play slow players is the biggest issue. Some unknown circumstance that forces a timeout is not that likely.
My biggest problem is with tournaments that finish except for one player. Then it sits stagnant for ages waiting for that player to finish the games. Tournaments are fun when they move quickly and you can maintain the context, and eventually get a winner. On tournaments, can I suggest a 6 games match at the end instead of 3 wins. 3 wins can last forever with a game that draws a lot. 26. May 2004, 22:08:04 it wouldn't work because the timeout is supposed to be part of the game. If you can't move in 3 days tough luck, start another game.
Another reason: Many players that time out are playing 800 games or so and probably don't care about one or two timeouts and don't want to burn vacation on them. 26. May 2004, 22:04:07 I disagree. I can't think of an unforeseen circumstance that would keep me out for more than 3 days. On the other hand maybe that's what unforeseen means. Oh well, in cases like that who cares about games.
By the way BBW, I think that time taken to move would be the right stat when taken over a long period of time. Your 12:00 scenario is hardly going to happen all the time, we log in at various times. 26. May 2004, 21:39:32 I think the suggestion to track "Time taken to make a move" is better, if possible.
Moves per day may be 100, but if you're playing 700 games it still takes a week to get to a particular game. 26. May 2004, 00:17:15 it's not just challenging down, it's winning against someone lower when they challenge you. 25. May 2004, 23:07:04 How about this?
Only one challenge is allowed at a time, but you must accept up to 4 challenges from others. No moving up unless you beat someone ranked higher than you. 25. May 2004, 23:04:34 What sucks about iyt is moving up when you beat someone below you. That just means that those that play quickly and often will rise to the top, rather than those that play well.
For example if you're number 2 and you beat number 100, is it justified that you move up to number 1? I think not! 23. May 2004, 17:46:10 IYT ladders suck. Too much reward for just playing. The idea that a player can move up by beating someone near the bottom is ridiculous.
I suggest that only beating someone ahead of you moves you up. You should be forced to accept up to (some number) games at a time, and only be allowed to challenge people (some number) places above you. The main attraction of a ladder seems to be to see who is currently playing well? If so I suggest a second rating, where only games finishing in the last few months count. Not sure exactly what the algorithm would be. 20. May 2004, 04:58:08 Subject: Re: Another Time Maybe? i agree, winning by timing out is bad. I just like to play quickly. If you time out against me I'll have it reinstated. Except Dark Chess of course. :) 19. May 2004, 18:48:00 aargh. Please don't apply that logic. I would suggest a time limit for the whole game instead of each turn.
So for example you could have 30 days each for the game. If you take 4 days for your first move you have 26 left etc. Whisperz. Now I know why I have been successful against you lately. Better watch out, I'll be moving super quick against you from now on! :) 19. May 2004, 17:29:33 You can play however you want,
All i requested was a way to define a tournament that would guarantee a quick finish. Those that don't want to play quickly won't enter those particular tournaments. Just as I don't enter tournaments with 10 day moves. 19. May 2004, 17:20:45 Subject: Re: 300 moves per day. Assume 30 seconds thinking time (Which is quick in my book). That is still 2.5 hours / day, which seems excessive.
I agree with tracking "How long do I take to move". Also I absolutely don't see the point in playing so many games. It seems to me that a game is enjoyable when you can follow the flow of the game as it's happening rather than waiting weeks to play a move. Even if I could play 300 moves, I'd want to play 10 moves in 30 games, not 1 move in 300. Just my 2c :) 19. May 2004, 16:10:02 i am constantly in tournaments where everyone but one finishes in a few days and the one takes 3 weeks per move and we never finish. I don't know of a way to prevent this from happening. Even setting the limit to 2 days seems to be circumvented by vacations.
Perhaps a tournament option to not allow vacations would work? ugh. Perhaps when I retire I will have time to play 300. It would seem that there is diminishing returns after 100 or so, wouldn't you always have a move to make with 100 games going? I have never exceeded about 50 so I don't really know, but even at that level I was rarely left waiting to make a move. 19. May 2004, 15:59:25 Subject: Vacations Personally I think 6 weeks is too much. How many people actually have 6 weeks where they can't get to a computer?
One request: When setting up a tournament I'd like to be able to set a limit on current games. For instance: Only players with fewer than 50 unfinished games, or something like that. :-) 9. May 2004, 18:28:24 Subject: Definition. Convocation: The act of convoking.
Just in case anyone was wondering. :) 8. May 2004, 23:10:26 Subject: Re: Walter go here for more info Ridiculous, how can someone cheat on a game site. If you don't understand the rules try another game. Chatting will still happen if you use my system of playing all the moves at once within your time limit. There will be fewer "turns" per game but you can always start another game if you want to keep chatting. 8. May 2004, 22:08:48 Subject: Re: It's called auto-pass, is it? Questions for Fencer. I agree, it would be a lot better. In fact a "turn" in backgammon should be all the moves you can make until the opponent can roll. The time limit should be on all these moves so that people aren't waiting 6 months to make a move. 2. May 2004, 22:41:21 well the site can't auto log in without cookies. The browser can though if you tell it to remember. Neither solution can possibly work on a shared computer. 4. April 2004, 04:09:42 i'm sure most people look at the list of tournaments to see what to enter. Following random links is a little hit and miss. 31. March 2004, 00:00:13 Subject: Re: draw offers I agree. Many times my opp has asked me "why not?" and I reply "why not what?" and he says "accept the draw?" and I say "what draw?" etc.. :) 30. March 2004, 16:12:37 A set number of games is better. It would need to be an even number to avoid that problem. If the score is tied an extra 2 are played until someone wins.
I wouldn't be worried about the tournament length, some of these tournaments seem endless as it is! 29. March 2004, 01:24:47 That's somewhat misleading since that unrated player has a provisional chess rating of 2200+ and has won 90% of his chess/variants so far. I'd say you still may be good! :) 28. March 2004, 19:00:30 Subject: Re: Vacation days Which leads me to the question: Don't you lose context and focus playing more than, say, 30 games (I sometimes creep over 30 but not often)? << < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > >> |
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Back to the top |