Fencer ?? is this tolerable ?

I'm fairly new here ... ~*~

ok .ok ...as anyone with any grey cells can assume.all server sites are different.some have good/bad features..as per the individual users opinion.no offense to anyone,but it is not enough to simply say you dont like a particular site.might be in better taste to simply say you prefer a certain site.no need to ramble on for several pages saying nothing of any substance.I hope this board doesnt start to remind me of a adolescent name calling chatroom.

besides,with everything going on in the world today,we could talk about a REAL issue.

...how about a version of reversi 10X10 for more than 2 players...using more than 2 colors.I think the large board would reduce a bit the odds of it ending in a multiple draw.what do you think?
I know,I'm still hinting at multiple player games,but they are fun.

to everyone flaming Danoscheck for whatever reason... If Danoschek is the poison, then many of thep eople at IYT must be far worse than poison, whatever that is. If any of you don't like what he says, apply Bid Bad wolf's advice that he repeatts over and over (and over and over) AND DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THEM (the posts I mean).

I don't think there is really anything wrong with what he says-- but yet about a half dozen people made dozens of posts jumping all over him...

So everyone chill out. Danoschek may have soem odd posts, but he is usually civil, so I am not sure why he is called a spammer. As for whoever referred to him as "bannedoschek," well, his banning at IYT was total nonsense.

I see that danoschek has remained popular as always (not)... but WHY post that stuff here? It's an insult to Fencer and Brainking.com that you (and by "you" I mean anyone who has participated in the recent flame war) chose this board to post your nonsence on, hence shadowing the postings of anyone who wants to post up about brainking.com itself; hasn't that occured to any of you? Least of all because Fencer went to the trouble of supplying us with a General Chat board yesterday. If nothing else you should have enough respect to stay on-topic on THIS board and post your other stuff on the General Chat board.

Blaze

I really have no time to ask everyone to be nice on discussion boards. I am overloaded with my work on BK and I have to sleep sometimes.
Please, use the General Chat board.

I havbe won two chess games. Actually I won them both on the same day, but only one appears in my total results. Is there a reason for this? The two results were about 5 hours apart.

jon: Are you sure that you won both of them? I can see that you've finished two games yesterday but you have lost the second one.

The top two show the menssage I received to show my opponent resigned and the second two are the game archives.

http://brainking.com/game/ReadMessage?mi=128811

http://brainking.com/game/ReadMessage?mi=129459

http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=52908

http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=47761

jon: The 52908 game is a part of 5 games match. It will be shown in your statistics after the whole match is finished.

Does that mean it doesn't count for ratings until then?

Right.

that only the overall score ie, wheter I win or lose the match overall will be used for ratings calculation? Or does each match from part of the calculation itself.

Also, if the answer is that only the overall socre counts, wouldn't it just be wiser for players to play individual games first to build up a rating and then longer series?

In OTB chess each game is factored in individially to the ratings.

It is described at the FAQ page.

I've got a question for WebTV users - are you able to select more then one item of a list? It is possible with "normal" web browser by holding down the CTRL key but I'm not sure about other devices.

I have just read the FAQ and I would like to suggest that this rule is somewhat unfair. For example if I was an 1800 and I was playing a 2000 and he best me 3-2 in a 3 pointer, my rating would not be affected by the fact that I aactually managed to take two points off him. This is somewhat unfair, especially since FIDE factor in the results of all games, even where they are part of sets such as the last FIDE World Championship.

Perhaps this could be changed so that each subgame is counted for your rating or maybe there could be a facility where you choose whether the results of sub-games or the overall score will be used in rating calculations.

Counting subgames would be better for lower rated players as they would be rewarded for all of their play against high graded players. Otherwise, there is little point in anyone playing a series game against anyone who is 200pts above them or more as there is little chance of them winning overall.

CleverHunk... multi reversi games?! that would be interesting, it would be difficult not to be completely wiped out with four players though. There would have to be a few changes. If it would work it would be great to see!! And great fun to play!

i can very seldom see my online opponents or who is on line. everything is fine, except that. the site is fast. i don't knpw what you mean by the ctrl key.

I have, on this keyboard, a ctrl key on both sides of the spacer bar which is the elongated key on the bottom of your keyboard.

Sure....I can select more than one item on a list using my WebTV but not at the same time. I have to make my selection/s one at a time....time consuming but that's how it goes!

i have a ctrl key on left of my spacebar, but nothing happens when i click it, but then again , i don't know what's supposed to happen. LOL..

You.."suggest keeping both variations.." but in fact, it is not a variation. It is an ILLEGAL move that needs to be corrected. I'm sure chess and checkers players etc. would not be happy if their opponents could have 'variations' in rules which allowed them to do something illegal.

I just thought I tell everyone I was Happy today.
The weathers great and so am I,Happy Happy Happy :)

You say the system is unfair to the lower rated player, But if you were indeed rewarded for winning 2 out of the 5 games then this would be unfair to the higher rated player as this could mean that even though the higher rated player has won the match they could take a drop in their rating.
The BKR state that a winning players rating will not drop.
I think the easiest solution would be to play only single games or alternativley, Make sure you win the match..
:D

That's great. But go and be "happy happy happy" on the General Chat board rather than on a site related board :))

...ty harley for the positive feedback.multi-player games = interesting strategy & socially fun.I do hope we see some here.

if those variations are known before
I have the choice which I prefer to join.
as stated, here the move is legal. we even
have 3 legal names for the same game ...
you don't have to convince me though,
for me, software-dice are illegal ... :D ~*~

I know you are busy,so if sometime ,whenever,let me know what you think.I have another idea.seems a lot of players here like stats.like the BK ratings,position & most active player.I would be curious to here from users here these stats might be of interest to add beside "most active player":
longest game(most moves in a game)
shortest game(least moves in a game)
most backgammons by a player
most gammons by a player

or is everybody else going in slow motion too?
hey, even GOLDTOKEN is faster tonight

indeed some statics perceivable,
despite of my fast connection ... ~*~

Nope, not just you rabbitoid. It's like walking through treacle here tonight - for me anyway.

It all depends on the ratings gap. What if the reslt overall and the results of the individual games was taken into account?

According to the way ratings work only a 500pt gap should ensure wins all the time so surely over a larger number of games the effect would subside.
Big ratings will usually win one offs but smaller ratings can pull off small shocks.

Fencer, what do you mean by selecting more than one item on a list? With web, it is only possible to do one thing at a time on the screen. Not like windows.

some things are better slow[wink]..but not servers

I agree,the winner's rating should not drop,why should it,the player earned it.If you are willing to play,you are willing to lose.losers should not whine about it..learn from it...have a positive atitude = do better the next game.isn't that what life is all about?nitzche said"whatever doesn't kill me,just makes me stronger".remember,its just a game,and we are all mature enough to know that & deal with it(I hope).

he means something like more than 1 item at the same time... like IE (Internet Explorer) you can have many things (windows) goin at once... unlike MSN TV (Formerly WebTV) where we can only do ONE thing at a time...

I hope this is what you are asking Fencer :-)

Erm, perhaps I should be more specific. Sorry :-) Here is the example - when you define a new tournament, you have to select one game type for it. You simply click on the combo box and select one game type, only one. But I would like to change the "combo box" to a "list" where you should be able to select more game types at onces. With Internet Explorer etc. it is possible to click on several items with holding down the ctrl key and the result is that more than on item in this list is selected.
It is possible with WebTV too?

not really no

when we delete our msgs, we click more than one box, why would that be any different, or am i still not understanding?

Thanks Dave. I will find another solution.

sorry i couldnt be more help

It is WebTV's fault, not yours :-)

I'm not sure exactly how to program it - but have 1 list box on the left of the screen (with all the games in it) - on the right side of the screen have an empty list box (where you add which the games) - and in the middle you have "Add Game" and a "Remove Game"

If I explained what I'm thinking in my head well enough, would that solve the problem? Then a user can just select 1 game at a time, add it to the second list box.

And I see that you are adding/testing the 2 games (1 of each color) thing for the tournaments - GREAT! Good Job! :-)

Jondownie, I agree with you, to a certain extent. I think players should still have the OPTION of creating a match with the current rules. But, I would also like to be able to do the following:

invite a player to a 2 game match, one of each color. Both games count for all purposes.
Pente and Keryo pente are usually played in pairs, so this is just a shortcut for having to send two separate invites--- Also, thep layer, under the current system, can decline the invite for the game where he is black, and accept the one where he is white.

Fencer, I think this would be a valuable addition ot the site, it is one of the few areas where I feel the site is lacking, because just about everything else here is great. Of course, I think priority should be given to enabling 2 game sets as an option for tournaments as well.

Yes, it is possible but each Add Game click would require the page reload (it must be in JavaScript without page reload). I will think it over.
About tournaments - it must be tested but I think that the main functionality is correct, I hope ;-)

Dmitri: Yes, I think that IYT has this feature (two games). I can do it.
About tournaments - it is already done ;-)

The only other thing that comes to mind is a list of all the games with check-box's for each game. (but that would take up a lot of screen space).

Possible when someone is about to create a new tournament, have 3 options: (1) Create Tourny for single game. (2) Create Tourny for multiply games. (3) Create Tourney for all games.

If they pick single or all games, it can go to a screen like it is now. If they pick multiply games, it could go to a screen with a list of all games with check boxes for them to choose just a few games.

Just some thoughts.... :-)

Thanks for all thoughts :-)

"Dmitri: Yes, I think that IYT has this feature (two games). I can do it.
About tournaments - it is already done ;-)"

Awesome! You continue to amaze me with the efficiency with which you get things done. I think soem great tournaments will be held here in the future.

As I have alreasdy said, any drop would only be affected by the number of games. For instance, if there was only a 100pt gap and the higher rated player lost one game from five there would be no drop (or a negligeable one at best) but if there was a 500pt gap and the lower rated player managed to take one game from five, they should be rewarded for their achievment. In the real world high rated players have to keep their guard up all the time, so why not here?
Surely if there is a 500pt gap and thew lower player runs it very close this should be reflected with a ratings change.