Bernice: Yeap, it did come to me as well. The user name was given as Hqrls(or similar) at first...then it disappeared.

rabbitoid: The basic problems with implementing features that the current implementation had not accounted for on creation, is the interaction with the existing system.
I felt the need to point out the holes in your algorithm, because you stated how "simple" it is and how "rubbish" is what others had said.

It is my estimation that the feature discussed here is implementable, but it is also my impression that the current system would need at least a partial reconstruction to do so, as the creator of the system had focused on other very important issues during the implementation(like versatility without compromising speed) and I have to say this site has the most flexible tournament system I have seen anywhere. Allowing unlimited players, variable-length sections, unlimited tournaments, a host of different time controls, different tournament types and so many things taken for granted by the people here really needed some very involved programming, considering all the issues you need to deal with in order to make it happen.

This does not mean that the integration of such a feature could not be done without reconstruction(as I can only guess as to current implementation), but extensive testing and very careful programming will be needed which I do not think is even near "very easy", even though the algorithm itself seems to be easy.

If you have not predicted that the need for games in a session to continue after a session is over may arise, you may need to expand the existing structure to allow that. Depending on where the structure is kept this can mean the need to rebuild the games database(again, wild speculation, and what I imagine to be worst case scenario).

So, contributing to the solution of problems and posting ideas is great, but I think it would be prudent to avoid classifications as to the difficulty of implementation for things we know very little(if anything) about.

rabbitoid: Interesting. Do you have any idea how this would interact with the current tasks when a game is over? Do you know how is the tournament system currently implemented? Do you know what methods and algorithms are currently used to check tournaments for completion? Do you know how this algorithm of yours would interact with that?
What about the rest of the games currently in progress within the session? Where in your algorithm is that being taken in account?
The fact that you are not supposed to end the session but allow the rest of the games continue seem to escape you. The games are played for the enjoyment of the game(mostly) and rating determination as well as tournament position add to the enjoyment.

Unless you know all those things I have mentioned, then your statement about easiness and simplicity are void.

And, by the way, 'for' loops tend to be costly, depending on the processing in the for loop and 'if' branches can also be costly, depending on the occasion, so your determination of simplicity and processing time based on the number of 'fors' and 'ifs' is rather arbitrary, as well.

rod03801: Of course there is. In a draw, the lower ranked player advances. The higher ranked player should always strive for a win to keep his/her position :).

Aganju: Yes, it is one fair method, as well. Besides, the exchange you describe is a sub-case of the system I describe(when you challenge someone exactly above you, and you have not another stair matches concluded, the lower ranked winning would give him a step, the higher ranked losing would take away a step, so, essentially, they exchange positions).

However, consider this situation: The player directly above you is a great player that is not interested in challenging to advance. This keeps him/her at a low step, preventing everyone else to move above his/her position.

Result: Frustrated, the players will stop challenging and the ladder will stagnate

Solution: If you give the ability to challenge at a greater range, you can sidestep said player who, eventually, will be forced to make challenges to stay in his/her preferred position.

JerNYC: "Mortal Enemies"...LOL...how grim :P.
I do not like GT. I hope this site does not become like it.
We are here to play and have fun, not be told what we should say and how we should be and to organize social activities.
If someone wants something like that should go to GT, in my opinion. This is why it is there for.

Vikings: I agree. I had posted a message about the way I think it should be for the stairs system to work. Forcing you to challenge at same level or *below* is a weird system for a stair/ladder. Lower ranked players thirst for challenge, higher ranked players, not so much.
I do not like IYT ladder system, as it is unfair to *exchange* positions with the one you defeat. Gaining a step(for the winner of the lower step) and losing a step(for the loser of the higher step) is what I consider fair. And, in my opinion, the lower ranked player should not lose steps on defeat as well as the higher ranked player does not gain steps on win.
So, basically, you only gain steps when you win against same or higher steps, you only lose steps when you lose against lower steps. You cannot deny challenges but a limit on the maximum number you can challenge and be challenged should exist. More than 1 each, for certain.

Marshmud: I got one message only now.

Marshmud: No message in my message box since July, Marshmud. I hope it is everything for the best :).

happyjuggler0: Excuse me? I do not have any complains whatsoever. Why would you refer to me?

Walter Montego: The "Limit to Time" is actually "Limit for one move", as it was explained to me by aarou here

Dice Cheater: You have just 7 games out of the 20 that is your limit. I am pretty sure you could, if you wanted to, start games with faster players.

Dice Cheater: Well, I do not know where you find your opponents, but most of my backgammon games go through blazingly fast. To me, the site bustles with life :P.

speachless: My apologies. I corrected the original post.

Believe it or not, despite of the most generous time controls features here on BK, there are some people that systematically Time Forfeit their games.

I would be more interested in a TF(%) on someone's profile rather than a deceptive average speed.
When someone goes on vacation during the summer, this average speed may drop significantly without representing the actual playing speed of a person.

And, of course, Hrqls is right. Some people do take their games seriously enough to think more in one type of game(e.g. Grand Chess or Shogi) than in another (e.g. Dice Chess or Ludo)...

Justaminute:

Bernice: You must be joking, right? What kind of language has he used that may be offensive or insulting, that could be a reason for banning? Speachless has used much more offensive remarks in her comments.

Agreeing or not with a person's opinion is one thing, threatening him with banning for no reason at all is another.

Justaminute: Nice catch . He could have another account, though.

435152: Nope. The problem is that some people have to go to work, shopping, spend time with their family, etc.
In addition, some people have hundreds or thousands of games and it takes time to make a move in all of them.

Obviously, you are very inconsiderate about the conditions of other players.

Walter Montego: A very enlightening and insightful post. Thank you.

beach: It is often the case that people will not sign to a tournament starting, say, in 3 days but they would sign on one that is about to start as soon as the minimum number of participants sign up.
I've had most of my tournaments starting up while past the starting up time.

I think the waiting period before deletion is a good thing.

badgerboy78: I find it unreasonable to *complain* about your opponent moving within his time-limits.
I do not think this has anything to do with membership level. And a simple, I move within my time limits, please do not complain about that, would suffice, in my opinion.
There are questionable behaviors, though, like players that move reasonably fast but, when they see they are going to lose the game, start moving at time limit, which is really unsportsmanlike but the only thing you can do about that is just stop playing against those players.

Justaminute: What you propose does not sound unreasonable to me. When I was a non-paying member I was wondering whether I could post to discussion boards or not, before I post my first ignorant question that some very helpful paying members bothered to answer.

The creation of a board specifically for non-paying members to post and the reservation of the others for paying members would help a lot, I think.
This way, those willing to help could check that board while those like you, that are bothered by those posts could avoid the "nuisance".

I think that complaining is as much human as possible and that it is not confined to either paying or non-paying members.
It is in anyone's discretion to misinterpret a complain if they so wish, but this does not make the interpretation right.
Complaining is a form of interaction and posting a complain in a general way *may* result in the improvement of someone's situation(or it may get them flamed, of course :P).
I am one of those that prefer even flames to stay in the non-condescending spectrum of discussion :).

Justaminute: It is understandable that when you have just 20 games allowance to play, the delay in moves gives you a harder time than when you have dozens, hundreds or thousands.
Instead of initiating a rivalry, it is best if you explain it to them and help them find games with better time-controls for their preferences.
As for the contribution, I was a non-paying member a few months back, as well.
Several of my games are against non-paying members because most paying members...do tend to move slowly for my liking, even in time-controls like 2dpm-no days off.
If people like the site, they can bring other members as well, which could either become paying members or contribute with their participation, ideas and, yes, even whining.
If paying members are being condescending instead of understanding and helpful, those people will, most likely, leave and the site loses with them leaving, as well.

Last, but not least, I think it is best to behave to non-paying members with the same respect you would want to be treated if you were a non-paying member.

Justaminute: Condescending attitude towards a person is hardly justified. The site would be much less without the non-paying members. Please, consider that when you express this kind of opinion.

speachless: I think you are being too harsh on the person.
It is true, his issue is not related to aaru's problem but this board is not about aaru's problem either. It is a general board. Everybody can post an issue at their discretion.

I agree with you that the complain is not justified, but a simple pointing out of why it is so should be enough, IMHO.

aaru: You are right, of course, but if you had noticed, it could help pin down the bug. If it was showing correctly the incorrect time limit then it is a calculation bug but if not then it would be a more difficult bug to find.

aaru: Where you playing on time limit? How much time did you have after your last move? Had you noticed?

aaru: I see. Thank you for clarifying this.

moistfinger: Maybe so, but, if I am not mistaken, the 3rd number in the fischer clock indicates the *absolute limit* of the game. That is, despite of what the other 2 numbers say, the game cannot exceed the *total* of the 3rd number. So, a game with a 30 days limit will end at the 30th day, no matter who's turn is to move at that time.

aaru: The game had started 24/03/2014 with a 30 days limit, aaru. I think this is your problem. You should pay more attention to the time *limit* of a Fischer clock.
It is not just the 18 hours bonus, you know. It does not look like a bug to me.

aaru: When had the game started? I can see there is a 30 days limit.

baddessi: I confused the vacation days with the days off setting, obviously. Sorry.

baddessi: It is under Settings -> Calendar

ketchuplover: This defeats the purpose of the stair, IMHO. You should only lose steps when you lose a game. If we are to talk about a fairer stairs system, you should only gain steps when you defeat someone on the same or higher steps. You should only be able to challenge someone on the same step or higher than yours. You should not be able to challenge the same person more often than once every 2 weeks. No restriction on how high is the person you want to challenge on the stair. The restriction on the number of games at the same time for the stair is good, IMO. So, this would sort everything nicely. No gaps between steps, since you do not advance steps if you win against someone at the lower steps. The top players are not invulnerable to challenge and the whole thing can be easily implemented with the current mechanics, if only someone would take the little time it needs to be done...

furbster: According to the help about stairs, the site is supposed to cleanup this situation once per month. A cleaner solution would be to make it so that, when you are at the top step, you no longer advance steps by winning but only maintain your position(and your opponent drops a step).

I am fairly certain that this must have been discussed at some point in the past, however I was not around at that time. So, isn't it somewhat breaking the point of a stair if you cannot challenge someone at a higher step than you? Instead the -3 rule, it should had been something like +2, -3, in my opinion. The way it is, people at higher steps have no motive to challenge those below, and they cannot be touched by those below, either.

coan.net: Indeed. So, this is working as intended? It would be nice if there was a notification when this happens instead of the "game successfully created" that you get.

crosseyed: Yes, I have seen that. However, when I create new games(public invitations) I cannot create more than 50. After that, it says that the game was created but it does not appear anywhere.

It appears that I can only have 50 games created at a time. Is this accurate?

winterangels: What do you mean? Pawns can play in tournaments if they have enough game slots available.

speachless: Ultimately, we subscribe to support the site and help its development. If the creator has deserted the site though, I really see no point for people to continue paying for using it. If you are content with the tournament hole and have no problems with your conscience, go ahead, I would say, although not something *I* would do. Of course, fellowships and stairs are out of question, since the stairs do check the game number limit.

Justaminute: I agree 100%. I was also wondering about the tournaments mess. However, I think that any limitation about the number of tournaments should go with the ability to save the game types in the template. As it is, you must check one by one all the games you want *every single time*, as they are not saved with the template.

happyjuggler0: Thank you. Posting it there now.

Can someone point me to the right direction to find out what fellowships are about? There is nothing really enlightening in the FAQ.

JerNYC: I found it. Thank you. It appears that it will change the background color of all games boards, though. I would like to know for certain if it will work, though, because if it doesn't, I will have to resign the game. It is totally unplayable for me. Perhaps the shogi board should have another default square color. How can anyone play it like that?

JerNYC: The layout options get you to your settings layout. There, you can only change the general site layout. For the shogi options, you only have the options to change the size of the pieces, just like the rest of the chess-like games.

Hi all! Is it only me that thinks it is a chore to play Shogi here with this "white pieces over white squares" board on this site? I like shogi but I find it very difficult to play it here. Is there any way someone can change square colors on the board, at least?