BerniceC: right - what Fencer said. because Your rating is well higher than SandyH's, the system (quite logically) regards Her drawing a game with You as something of an accomplishment on Her part (and thus something worthy of reward) and conversely it sees Your drawing a game with Her as - shall we say - an incidence of Your not playing up to Your potential (and thus something worthy of demerit). She's rewarded with some points; You're demerited some. and there it is.
Isn't there going to come a point in time when the whole 'Stairs' project will become saturated? That is, everyone who is going to join has, and certain game types will end up with cliques of sorts that just keep cycling each other. I wonder if we are near or at that point already. If not, where will new blood come from?
It seems that Rooks are the only ones with options to enter a high number of different stairs. I suppose it could be argued that, with over 20,000 pawns, there are at least that many possible entries into the experiment, but that is not happening, in fact not even on a scale anywhere close to it.
I have just finished a game with SandyH...one game each......she GOT 5 points and I LOST 4 points....it said the game was a draw....why would I lose and why should she gain....this is stupid in my book :(
here are the final results....we both should have stayed where we were :(
The game is a draw.
SandyH: old BKR = 1914, new BKR = 1919 (+5)
BerniceC: old BKR = 1992, new BKR = 1988 (-4)
plaintiger: If the players are equally matched, the probability of a split is 50%. So, if you are seeing nothing but splits in a lot of matches, that may indicate a glitch somewhere. However, I can't imagine how a bug like that could work its way into the system, since (among other things) the dice generator must be independent of the match format. So, I suggest that what you are seeing is purely the result of chance. In time, every event that is merely improbable must happen.
Come to think about it, not instead of... add it as another alternative, since if a player proved a worthy opponent, it's perfectly legit to want to challenge him/her again for another standard game...
When a match is finished, a message is sent to both players stating the outcome of the match. An option is also available to send another game invitation to that player, optionally deleting the message.
In Stairs games, instead of "another game with the same player" could there be an option "challange another player in this Stair" or something similar? Maintaining the option to automatically delete the message, of course ;)
speaking of a lot of draws, i know this is far-fetched, but it's happened to me so much that i'm compelled to ask: there isn't some bug or something in the stair code that greatly increases the likeihood of a two-game match ending in a draw, is there? i don't think i've played a single two-game match in any stair that hasn't ended in a draw, and when i commented on that just now to an opponent (with whom i'd just drawn a two-game match), he said he's seen the same thing. whole lotta drawin' goin' on...
Andersp: Lol. That's a cute analogy. Taking it further the kids probably throw their rattle and a lucky throw sometimes get our hero in the eye. I guess the pain of the eye poke must outweigh the gain of the candy. Or maybe these babies just don't have enough candy to steal. It's hard to tell without knowing the thinking of this top player (no name). Are you sure this candy actually relates to BKR and not to the experience of the game itself?
My sympathies to the topplayers (top dice rollers in backgammon) who must play lower rated players. If they should lose (awful thought!!) they could lose some of their so well deserved BKR. If i was a top dice roller i should absolutely restrict myself to not playing any stairs at all
S O C R A T E S: My suggestion to anyone who hates to play lower rated players and only want to play same rated players, then stairs may not be the best thing.
Unless you want to stay around long enough to climb the stairs - then once a stairs spread out some and you are near the top, then you will only have to worry about being challenged by players close to you - which most likely will also be higher rated players.
S O C R A T E S: My sympathies indeed and that objection makes a lot of sense. That's why I restrict myself to 5-point Backgammon, at least for now.
As a top checkers player it's certainly disadvantageous for you but, being of that class, you'll most likely be on the top Steps of the Stairs. It's early days yet but in due course you won't find anyone challenging you who hasn't also got a high rating. It's a question of patience and accepting the initial "blood sucking". [Lol. I play at a Vampire site too, hence that analogy.]
Fencer: How about an indicator on the page where you can view all the stairs you are currently playing in, that would allow you to see which ones you have to wait before you can challenge in? That way you wouldn't have to go to the individual page for each to find out if you can issue a new challenge - you'd be able to tell at a glance from the "show your stairs only" page.
estanto: Well that is one thing I like about BrainKing's stairs - they did not just copy another system, but tried to do a few things different to try to make it different for the site.
I'm sure if problems arise where players are unable to challenge people, and such and something like being able to challenge above would fix it, Fencer would look into doing that. But right now, the system is working great how it is. My opinion is to try it how the system is now, and once (if) something does not work, then would be the time to start thinking about being able to challenge above yourself - but since when someone loses, I believe there will always be people at the bottome and near enough to you to always be able to challenge people at the same (or below) your level to earn your way up to play the top players. (instead of skipping the same level people and jumping up to challenge the top players right away.)
BIG BAD WOLF: Ok, the stronger players should be protected to be bothered by challenges of the weakest, I agree. But it would be very normally to allow a challenge in a certain range. That range could be normally +1, 0, -1, but at the top down to -2 and at the bottom up to +2. That's the way a ladder normally works. I cannot see, what should be better with that stairs.
Btw, I would also prefer to allow empty steps with the interpretation to challenge to the next not empty step.
Walter Montego posted about not liking the idea of not being able to challenge people on higher steps on the BrainKing.com board, so I will expand an answer here.
The point of the stairs is that the best players will sooner or later raise to the top steps. If a new person joins a stair, they have to EARN the right to challenge the top player - they need to play people on their own step and slowly climb to earn the right to play the top players.
The purpose of letting people challenge people in the steps right below them is so that will allow the top players to hopefully have someone to challenge so they can at least keep some games going, and not just jump to the top with no games to play. (Then again they do not have to challenge if they do not want to.)
WhisperzQ: the only problem with that is that there are people here that I know of that would slow down in a game that they are losing in to the point that the other game would finish and a new one start and then they would finish the new one still before the original game just to have better odds of wining a second game
I know it probably too late, but I would have preferred to see the standard lenght set at 3 days rather than 4 days. (And yes, I know you can play faster, but if I only take the games from the top of my time sorted list they do not get there as fast.)
It seems as though most of the games (maybe Backgammon excluded, I don't play it) are set up a two game matches, but these are by nature sequential. Is it possible to set up a new style which are two game matches where both games are played at once. This would not need to be restricted to use in stairs but could be an alternative two game, and two win matches, they could be called "paired" games for instance.
The reason to ask is to have the result of the game resolved quicker. A "four day" game (the standard length) may last for a long time and for it to be followed by another it might be a year before a result is known ... this might well slow up the stepping considerably.
Eriisa: I think Fencer's looking ahead to the potential of having 1000+ players on the Stairs. That would make it a very big page. I think it might be an idea to show the Step that the player is on plus the one above and the three below in full detail and the short list with ellipses for other Steps.
Eriisa: yea, i think once it starts to spread out some, it will become less of a problem. But would be nice if you do click on the "..." to show everyone, to also show the other steps - but not that big of a deal (to myself that is)