Do 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.
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
joshi tm: I am quite busy developing the Android application so until is it finished, new games are not very likely. After that, there is a good chance because I've already received some very nice tips.
There is the score of games shown which are finished with one particular player. But not the draws.
Say I played three games against somebody. Lost two and drew one. The score still shows 2:0 and not 2,5:0,5.
I would like to see the exact score instead of the gap between the players, because the drawn game, "winning" half a point maybe against a much better player, should be "respected too... :-)
Dont think it would be lot of programming to change this easy function, hm?
Reiner Knizia, one of the biggest game designer of all times, in his book "Dice Games Properly Explained" gives a very interesting way of playing category dice games, like Yahtzi, General and others. The whole idea is not to count and add points collected in each category and sum them at the bottom, but to reward the first player to score in each category OR the one who scored the highest point in category. There are two types categories. 1-6 categories, 3 of a kind, 4 of a kind, 5, 6, Chance and the second type which include fixed points like straights, Towers, Cars or Full House. So, the player who gets the highest score in the first type category (let's say 12 points when 3's are scored) gets 2 points for this row. In the second type of categories (with fixed points) the player who gets there FIRST scores 1 point.
In my opinion this way of playing makes the game more exciting. It's more like fighting for the holes on golf course. We are not fighting for the overall score but for each and every category. It changes our tactics and strategy significantly.
likewowman2cool: take the average of the one team and the aeverage rating of the other; after the end of the game, add or subtract the difference from the individual ratings
Aganju: thats exactly what happened to me and therefore I decided to put it in here for discussion - because the less exact time control removes this advantage...
diogenysos: Be aware though, that that is a valid and accepted strategy in real-life games - making complicated or surprising moves to have your opponent time out. The point here is more that there is an arbitrary 1 - 10 minute extra time before time-out, which makes it random. It could even happen that your opponent has -9 minutes and you have 0 minutes, and just when the demon comes by, it is your move, so you *lose*. And a malicious opponent could even use that - if you watch the timeouts taking effect in the system, you can time the demon's arrival up to 1 or 2 seconds, so you could make a move right before that... I agree with you that a game where seconds count should have a more exact time control that ~10 minutes.
Fencer: I see. Yes I can imagine that BK is growing and after a while some components do not work well with each other any longer.
I would appreciate a revision, as I think that an exact time-control would give those fast games more thrill and as many players calculate with their opponents timing out and do, for example, strange and difficult moves just in order to make their opponents think longer and use more time.
diogenysos: You know, the timeout system had been created a long time before introducing 1 hour games, so it is possible that it is not the best suitable solution for this specific time control. I'll look at it.
Playing an one-hour game with six minutes left and the opponent was at zero. The game continued with me - well - not watching the game any longer with full concentration, just waiting for the opponent to time out. Finally, I lost by a sudden checkmate which was to be avoided easily by playing a little more defensive.
My feature request is more a question: Isnt it possible to make a better and more exact programming in order to play games with clear and exact rules?
It would be nice if we could have Havannah here. It was created by Christian Freeling (I hope I've spely his name correctly, it might be Freeleng).
It's played on a hexagonal board and uses black and white stones, like Go. Unlike Go the goal is not to make territory or capture pieces but to make one of three configurations before one's opponent: a ring; a connection from one "corner" to another; or a fork connecting three edges (the corner hexes are not considered part of the edge).
There are other places where I can play it, but it would be nice if it was available here. Obviously I can't speak for Christian, but I don't think he would have any objections to Havannah being added to BrainKing's repertoire of games if he were asked. He has a website called MindSports, and he also plays at Itsyourturn. I think he considers himself a game inventor rather than a game player...
Excuse me if this was not the correct way of broaching this topic. :D
rod03801: Well aware of that, still not helping me much... a "go to next tournament game" option is what I still want to see. Why? I am not someone who plays a lot of tourney games, but I would prefer to not be the hold up in completing a tourney... additionally, I sometimes go long stretches (a week) without playing more than a few games. So, when I do play ten to fifty games a light night (opposed to some nights when I will plays thousands), I would prefer it to be a tourney game opposed to something other. Does that make sense?
I did a quick search to see if this has been asked before but I didn't find much...
Would it be possible to have a "go to next tournament game" option? I don't want to delay any tournaments I am (they take long enough as is!!!) in and I would prefer to play all of my tournament games each day despite the long time limits as to not be the bottleneck in the tourney... also, I would prefer to not go through 2, 5, or even 10 pages to click each game... Any thoughts on if this can be done? It would certainly be on my short list of selected sumbit move actions!!!
pgt: I don't see why each player shouldn't be able to set the default for who goes first to whomever they want. You can have white (or black) and I can have random. ;-)
Thad:The default now is that the inviting player is white, but irt can always be changed. What I was suggesting was that the default was black (but could always be changed by the inviting player)
Since we are taking about defaults, I think it would be good if your default colour when setting up a game was black. Then when a game invitation is accepted, the person accepting can make a move immediately.
happyjuggler0: I think each user should be able to set his/her own default time limits. I *hate* seven days/move as my default. I prefer Fischer settings of 3.1.5. I would also like to have 'Random' as the default for who moves first.
BK should give each user the ability to set the defaults up as s/he wants.
Only now did I finally realize why so many people here select 7 days per move when creating game invitations. It is because the default setting is 7 days.
I wonder if someone who has the ability to create polls could pose a question to users of BK and ask what they think the default setting should be?
For example if it were to be 5 days, then everyone could still play only once a week without dipping into vacation time.
I personally prefer much shorter games, but that is another issue. People can choose to pick any time limit they want of course, but perhaps if new people (who are more likely to blindly pick the default settings) wound up with shorter time limits then their games would move along faster and they would enjoy BK more.
Same goes for tournament setting defaults. I'd like that to be even shorter if possible so that when someone carelessly forgets to change the time limit they don't wind up creating a tournament that lasts far longer than they wanted to.
I don't know if it is possible, but when looking for another user game filter, could our name be added on the friends group? If I go to any user's current games, I have the drop down box to filter by opponent. On that drop down box I have (as in my main page) the list divided by my friends and the ones that are not my friends. However, since I can not add myself to my friends list, my own name gets lost in middle of the "other users". I hope there isn't any user that considers himself(herself) as not being his(her) friend, so I think no one would mind this option, if it's possible to program...
3 Pips instead of 6 3 pieces per person 1 Dice only - No doubles Doubles can be done - a dice is rolled before each game telling you which dice numbers is the doubles One double roll only...
coan.net: If you roll a six and another number, would it be taken as 2 separate moves? What if you roll 66? Or would sixes be nothing special in this variant?
Is it possible to create a "Show running games" option in team tournaments, like there is in single player tournaments? Sometimes it is a bit tricky to see if the running games will last for long, because we have to search for each of them.
diogenysos: Yes, your suggestion of a Fisher Clock on tournaments would be an excellent solution. I second it! (Incidently, I was a rook when I entered this tournament, and will be again when there is a sensible autopass feature in Backgammon - but on this one I am not holding my breath))
pgt: Well, sorry to say that, because its not a solution and looks more like a "discrimination" - but especially for pawns (like you) being stuck in such a tournament is very bad because it blocks a free gme-space. So maybe pawns should be excluded of "more-than-x-point-matches"???
Nope. No way. But this leads me to another option - like fishers clocks there could be a tournament option which defines the "complete-match-time": We have had it 30 years ago when we played chess by using postcards. One game had to be finished within, for example, one year.
You are lucky!! I am in one tournament when my last move was made on 19th February 2007 - that's over 5 years ago. Tournaments that run this long are just a joke. I have noticed that the one outstanding game has got to 10-7, and these are 13 point matches. And these players are taking about two weeks between moves, so it looks like being another year or two until this tournament can progress. There are 135 players in this tournament, and these two inconsiderate players look like holding up the whole tournament for some years more. Ridiculous.
Thad: My comment is as much about the ability of one person to hold so many hostage. It's a single round tourney, but I will send a PM for fun. Thanks!
(hide) Use the Notepad to see what your Profile will look with html tags before submiting your new profile. (Paying members only) (rednaz23) (show all tips)