rod03801: It would have been of interest of the F.B.I.

The inappropriate spam was taken care of, and banned.

We have 7, possibly 9 spots available in our Yahoo fantasy league, it's all about fun , casual fans are welcome.Please message me for the link.

ThunderGr: Interesting discussion, but since the main ingredient (Fencer) is missing, pointless to continue.

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.

ThunderGr: No idea what other tasks are done on "game end". Same goes for the other "do you know" questions. I don't say that this is implementable code. This is a description, pseudo-code.
To implement correctly one certainly has to consider side effects.

When I say section (not session) over, I mean the section as a whole in the tournament. NOT individual games within the section. Those should continue. All we want is for the tournament to progress.

"For" loops can be costly, but those I described shouldn't be. they are on the number of players in a section and one on the number of sections in a round.

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.

All rubbish. There's no need for a time-check. Here's a 2-cent algorithm:
- when any game ends, check if it is in a tournament. If not, we're done.
- if yes, check it's section for winner
- if there is a clear-cut winner for this section, check if all sections are done.

How to "check this section for winner":
- Find the highest score
- for all the other players in the section:
- - assume that all the unfinished games for the player will be wins.
- - if the new assumed score is higher than the "highest score" the section is not over.
- if for all the other players in the section the test is good, the section is over.

This algorithm costs almost nothing in performance. 3 "for" loops and a couple of ifs.
Why won't it work? because there's no one to implement it.

coan.net: My idea was more like "check if there are winners in this tournament" (instead of calculating for all tournaments), rather than "I think the winners are A, B and C"
But a calculation attached to a finished game would solve the peak in the resources used

BrainKing has a lot of running tournaments, so as El Cid said, it might take too many resources to run every hour - but to save a ton of programming, I think the idea that a user can "ask for next round to start" button where someone who knows how to see if the results could re affected by current games could then manually assign the winners from each section to start next round (and let remaining games that don't matter to the tournament to continue) - it might be a solution to help with the amount of programming to calculate if the results can be different.

rod03801: If slowing down the site is a problem, there are no doubt times during a 24 hour day when there is a lot less traffic than at other times. That would be an ideal time for a "once a day" routine to run to determine mathematically definite "yellow lines" in tournaments.

I agree, even once a day would shave weeks or months (years even) off of each round starting in many tournaments.

beach: I vote for casual fridays

El Cid: It seems to be pretty routine at other sites though. For example GT definitely does it. I'm not sure it would need to be once an hour. Heck, once a day would be plenty and would help move tournaments along. Even not THAT often, would be an improvement.

happyjuggler0: I believe the reason Fencer pointed out most of the times was that it would be a burden to the site to be calculating every tournament possibilities every... hour. If that is the case, an alternative would be to calculate everytime a game is finished (and only then), or another possibility that the "early calculation" would be "user requested", for instance there would be a button in every tournament where I could go and click "calculate winners" and that I could only use once in a day or a week for each tournament (my idea was that only the user who clicked it would be blocked for a day). I don't understand much (almost nothing) of programming so I don't know if any of them is easy to implement

Purple:

I think my record (for rounds played) there is something like 5 or 6 rounds in Connect6.

I don't play checkers (a notoriously drawish game for the very best players against each other), and as I'm learning right now, I don't seem to be too good at any of its variants either.

So basically I guess I am saying that their system has little downside for me with my limited game preferences there, but would be brutal for a checkers player like yourself.

happyjuggler0: The down side is that IYT will let tournament finalists play 200+ draws until someone wins.

Aganju: They use the system I described at IYT, but their tournament sections range from 2 to 5 players, and they don't use a tiebreaker method, so I am guessing it would be easier to calculate than it would be here....

happyjuggler0: I agree that this would be nice, but as a coder I know that it can become very complex in some situations to calculate that.
However, it would be not that difficult to implement the simpler cases, so it would catch 95 % of the situations, and let the remaining 5 % running a bit longer.
In other words, it doesn't have to be able to catch all mathematically decided situations, just most.

happyjuggler0: I likes this revised plan of yours for the tournaments, happyjuggler0.

BGBedlam: rod is correct, that is what I meant.

I guess if I phrased it differently I would say that each tournament section should receive a yellow line (or more than one yellow line when it is a tie) once it is mathematically known who won that section.

Then once all the sections have a yellow line, the next round begins, or if it is the end of the tourney, then a tourney winner is declared.

All the remaining games can continue at their own pace, without being pressured by the others to hurry up and finish.

rod03801: Ok, thanks

BGBedlam: THe game isn't ended early. THe BKR would be figured as always. It's the tourney being moved to the next round or ended, etc, when it is mathematically known.

happyjuggler0: But how would BKR be calculated for games that were prematurely ended?

happyjuggler0: That is a MUCH needed feature.

I suppose everyone has their own idea of what needs improvement first, so I will add my one idea.

IYT has a feature that declares a winner (or tie as the case may be) in a tournament section once it is mathematically over. Once all sections have a winner, the tournament progresses to the next round.

Such a system would help speed up tournaments without having to wait for stragglers who can have no impact upon the overall results.

I believe that if BK implemented that, then there would be more satisfied players in current tournaments, and more people might start playing in tournaments, which would help BK retain players.

I have no idea how easy or hard it would be to program such a situation here, and I also know others surely have other ideas which perhaps ought to have higher priority when it comes to making improvements.

beach: Nice! I totally agree!

beach: Well put and I agree with all you put.

beach: I agreee!

One of the great things about BrainKing is Fencer never tried to "compete" with other game site, even having a discussion board that is dedicated to Other game sites. Hopefully this site will continue with that - just making a good game site, doing it's own thing, and like always - let the players decided where they like and play on the sites they like best.

List of Turn Based Game Sites

For many years I played on 5-6 games sites at once, these days as I have less time I focus on just 2 sites (here & GT), and occasionally jump on Dragonheels Lair and YourTurnMyTurn for a few games. The main "down side" of BrainKing as of late is Fencer just doesn't have the time to invest in the site, to keep adding/improving the site.

My wish list: New games/variants, a better auto pass/auto play system, multiple ranking systems for different games ("luck" based rating systems for more "luck" games, and current "skill" based rating system for more "skill" games).

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 :).

Vikings: Yes. That was my concern when the stairs were created. Too many draws, due to 2 game matches. Thats why I like the "Very Fast" stairs. Those are just one game. I understand the reasoning on the other ones, due to games that one color has an advantage. Probably there is a better solution though.

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.

ThunderGr: When I played Chess in a club (last lifetime), we had the stairs as a strict sequence. All participants were listed in a sequence, and you could only challenge the player immediately above you. If you win, you switch places with him, if you lose, you cannot challenge for a set amount of time (maybe 2 weeks).
This worked out very well.

Love Badger but the site is fluffy with recipies etc.

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.

JerNYC: and I agree with you 100%.

Purple: Untrue. GT rolls out more new games and variants than any of the three sites. They have some fantastic people programming for them; always upgrading. I'm tired of people putting GT down without actually even giving them a chance. All I hear is same tired complaint that they're too strict on their DBs. So? Is that it? If Marshmud were smart, he would reach out to Badger, GT's owner, for advice and friendship. She's a very nice person and was in the same position Marshmud is in now when she took over from Chad (GT's Founder). No reason these sites have to be mortal enemies.

I hope Marshmud that you get this site...fix a lot of the proboems people complain about and straighten out others LOL...I personally think that a new set of "minders" would be a good thing as well...Except for 1 or 2 of the old ones there isnt many left that Fencer picked....it is all one sided at the moment :(

rod03801: The biggest problem with our stair system is that you can only challenge down or even, so there is no incentive to make challenges. I know that when I get to the top of one I just sit there. also there are too many 2 game matches that end in a draw, there should always be a winner

Marshmud: His biggest headache was when he had DB's. Some very toxic foul mouths went completely out of control and it became too big a pain to monitor. So Patrick aborted them all.

rod03801: Believe it or not I become friends with Patrick Chu owner of IYT. My daughter went to the college where chu went and designed IYT. He has a big wallet now.

Purple: Also Purple I listed information on the general chat board about your fellowship and the fantasy football league.

Marshmud: I haven't experienced it either. But I don't use fischer that much here. Our user created tournaments are awesome.

I personally hated IYT's ladder system. But I ended up hating about everything about IYT. (And that was my full time game site before I discovered Brainking. I was obsessed with IYT. I bought all their merchandise too lol)
I think ours is decent. But seems to have lost interest. At least none of the ladders I'm in here are as active as they used to be. Err. I mean stairs. LOL...

Purple: Yes our ladder system is a bit odd. I like the way you move up with the IYT ladders.

rod03801: I think it is a superb feature of BK. I would think it should be a priority to fix. I however have never experience a timeout by error as many here have.

When it comes to tournaments BK is best. On Ladders IYT is much the best. GT has most of its resources promoting non-games type social activities with their DB's. But to each his own.

Marshmud: Oh, no, all tournaments are site made or Club made. (some automatic, some wiki-based) Definitely not like here. I was only mentioning the similar time control opportunity

rod03801: Can you set up your own tournys at Gold Token Rod? I know people who play there but I really just play here and Tibs site Dragonheelsliar so I don't get out much. lol. Im just curious of other sites that allow you to describe your own tournament time limits.