用户名: 密码:
新用户注册
监管者: Hrqls , coan.net , rod03801 
 BrainKing.com

Board for everybody who is interested in BrainKing itself, its structure, features and future.

If you experience connection or speed problems with BrainKing, please visit Host Tracker and check "BrainKing.com" accessibility from various sites around the world. It may answer whether an issue is caused by BrainKing itself or your local network (or ISP provider).

World Of Chess And Variants (videos from BrainKing): YouTube
Chess blog: LookIntoChess.com


每页的消息:
讨论板列表
您未权限在该板张贴消息。只有最低脑马级别的会员才允许张贴在该板。
状态: 所有人能发表
帖子搜索:  

<< <   47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56   > >>
19. 十二月 2014, 13:15:08
Fencer 
Hmmm. I don't know. What kind of action? Any suggestions?

19. 十二月 2014, 09:17:14
Gabriel Almeida 
题目: Santa Claus
Hi Fencer!
How about a Christmas Action?

5. 十二月 2014, 08:09:17
♥♫βaβyĢіґŁŁє♫♥ 
Fencer: I'm hoping you might run a sale on your brain rooks this Christmas.

4. 十二月 2014, 13:07:18
Hrqls 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
Bernice: i noticed later in the description of your tournaments. nice!

4. 十二月 2014, 01:16:26
Gabriel Almeida 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
crosseyed:naaah... It's fine that way! :)

4. 十二月 2014, 00:45:53
ThunderGr 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
crosseyed:

3. 十二月 2014, 23:00:31
crosseyed_uk 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
Gabriel Almeida: Seek help....

3. 十二月 2014, 22:58:27
Bernice 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
Hrqls:I ran tournaments with a prize of aussie paraphernalia - nothing to do with this fencer...I sent T/shirts, caps etc.....

3. 十二月 2014, 20:41:20
DeaD man WalkiN 
题目: I tried to sent
a prize tourny. But the site would not go for a take turn. Like I would put up a prize one year if they would set for 2nd year. But as U can see I will not even re up my membership. If they will not put up then I will not put up. Plus I heard that they might be trying to sell the site. I think that is Y so many people don't play here anymore...

3. 十二月 2014, 16:24:52
Gabriel Almeida 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
SL-Mark:no way! I took a picture of that board with my name highlighted! :)

3. 十二月 2014, 15:35:54
Hrqls 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
Bwild: ah, Bernice sent the prizes by herself, not via the site, i see it now

3. 十二月 2014, 15:32:32
Bwild 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
Hrqls: you have to actually open tournys to see prizes...and no..you didnt win lol

3. 十二月 2014, 15:03:58
SL-Mark 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
Gabriel Almeida: Depends what S-B rules will be applied at the time the second round is created! Thom27 still has a chance if S-B Hrqls rules are applied!

3. 十二月 2014, 14:58:55
Hrqls 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
furbster: thanks!!! :-)

3. 十二月 2014, 14:58:26
Hrqls 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
furbster: hmm .. i need that magic SB spell again ... mathematically i will become 2nd in my second due to SB calculations .....

3. 十二月 2014, 14:55:49
Hrqls 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
Bernice: your profile shows 18 tournaments organized by you, and none of them prize tournaments?

in case i won any of your prize tournaments: thanks!!

3. 十二月 2014, 14:49:28
Gabriel Almeida 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?

furbster: And I'm already in the second round! :D


By the way... thank you, furbster! ;)


 


3. 十二月 2014, 14:25:23
furbster 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
Royal__Flush: This one started at the end of September! It's currently drawing an end to the first round!

Hypergammon blast for a rook!

3. 十二月 2014, 09:41:13
Bernice 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
Hrqls: I used to run them and paid massive money to send the prizes and never got so much as a thanks....never again :(

3. 十二月 2014, 08:13:03
Hrqls 
题目: Re: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
Royal__Flush: feel free to offer one ;-)

3. 十二月 2014, 02:02:25
Royal__Flush 
题目: Whatever happened to prize tournaments?
There used to be several prize tournaments offered each month by users. It's been a few months since even one has appeared. What does this say about changing user habits?

28. 十一月 2014, 17:37:46
speachless 
题目: Re: yeah!
Aganju: Thanks for the explanation, I think I understood now.

28. 十一月 2014, 17:37:01
speachless 
题目: Re: yeah!
rod03801: thanks a lot, i understand now :-)

28. 十一月 2014, 15:50:41
Aganju 
题目: Re: yeah!
speachless: 'Stronger' relates exclusively to the current tournament, and the number of wins the player had in it. So the SB is the sum of the points the opponents you beat had (plus half the drawn opponents). For example, if you have one point because you beat a player that has 4 points, and I have one point because I beat a player that has 5 points, SB considers me ahead - as I beat the 'stronger' player.
Remember that SB comes from live (chess) tournaments, where there is not neccesarily a BKR or any other rating available - people might have never played before publicly, or they might have multiple ratings in different systems.

It is an interesting idea though, to use BKR ratings instead of wins in the current tournament...

28. 十一月 2014, 15:44:43
rod03801 
题目: Re: yeah!
rod03801修改(28. 十一月 2014, 15:51:28)
speachless: S-B has nothing to do with ratings. I may not be wording it quite right, but it is based on the points of each person's opponent's whom they won against.

I know what I mean...

But yes, those are obviously wrong, in that tournament.

Here is an example of a correct one : Championship world BK 2013
If you scroll down to section 3 of round 1. It was a section that needed the S-B. It correctly made Schoffi the winner. He beat players 3, 4 & 5. Their points added up to 6. Whereas eefke (who tied him in points) beat players 1, 3 & 5. Their points only added up to 4.
Nothing to do with either person's BKR.

28. 十一月 2014, 14:01:46
speachless 
题目: Re: yeah!
happyjuggler0: in the SB FAQ there is written "...and is based on a theory that points earned with a stronger opponent are more valuable than with a weaker one."

--> so I think that the stronger opponent has a higher BKR-Rating, right? But on the specific tournament the BKR Rating of the players are actually the Rating they have today and not the BKR they had at the point when the Sections were ended.

So my question is, how could you calculate the SB today, if you are missing the BKR-Rating the system used to calculate the SB.

I still assume that the SB were calculated right at the point the section ended, cause if it were to 0 then, i ask myself why no one used to claim when the sections ended. Maybe the right calculated SB get missed over the years....?

28. 十一月 2014, 09:08:27
Hrqls 
题目: Re: yeah!
happyjuggler0: i like the idea of the finals being replayed as they should have been ...

28. 十一月 2014, 09:07:43
Hrqls 
题目: Re: yeah!
Roberto Silva: +1 :-)

28. 十一月 2014, 09:06:59
Hrqls 
题目: Re: yeah!
Pedro Martínez: i guess luck played a bigger part in this one than in most backgammon type games ;-)

28. 十一月 2014, 01:25:01
happyjuggler0 
题目: Re: yeah!
happyjuggler0修改(28. 十一月 2014, 01:28:36)
speachless: After I made my post about not doing math, I quickly checked out who the winners of each section "should have been". If I calculated correctly, then:

Section 1 was correct. (No S-B needed).
Section 2 looks correct for who advanced, but I may have miscalculated S-B. Edit: I was wrong. See the end of my post for details.
Section 3 was very wrong. milionovej kluk, Pedro Martínez, and cardinal all tied on matches won. They all beat players 4-6 with a perfect score. They all finished 1-1 vs each other. Therefore all three of them should have advanced.

Therefore the final section should have had 5 players instead of 3. To answer someone's possibly tongue in cheek question, I don't see how it could possibly make sense to replay the final section with all 5 players, even if Fencer were inclined to find a way to do it, which I doubt he would anyway.

If Pedro wanted to he could invite each of them (and only them) to a tournament with the same time controls, but really what would be the point?

Edit* Aganju looks right, I miscalculated and Hrlqs would not have advanced to roun 2. Instead TC would have advanced because he beat both of the other players who got 3 points.

28. 十一月 2014, 01:24:02
Aganju 
题目: Re: yeah!
speachless: no, you can easily recalculate it in the head, and it shows that Hrlqs would have been second place only.
Maybe - and that is just a wild guess - the other players were removed by management for whatever reason. But it seems a strange way to do that, setting there SB to zero.

28. 十一月 2014, 00:50:03
speachless 
题目: Re: yeah!
speachless修改(28. 十一月 2014, 00:51:02)
Pedro Martínez: I think when the sections ended, the SB could have been calculated perfectly right, but over the years the saved SB turned to 0 by a bug. I assume this cause many of this tournament players have a 0 SB, if so : 1 of you would have noticed it and many of them would have claimed very loud for correction. But maybe I'm just wrong...

27. 十一月 2014, 23:53:08
BGBedlam 
题目: Re: yeah!
Roberto Silva: Yeah! Let's make it an 18 year tournament.

27. 十一月 2014, 23:38:44
Roberto Silva 
题目: Re: yeah!
happyjuggler0: Does that mean round 2 will have to be reset and replayed?

Make that 12 years then...

27. 十一月 2014, 20:53:13
happyjuggler0 
题目: Re: yeah!
Pedro Martínez: Looks like SB wasn't calculated correctly for either section 2 or 3, but perhaps section 1 was. I am not going to do the math.

Looks like an old bug.

27. 十一月 2014, 20:30:20
Pedro Martínez 
题目: Re: yeah!
Hrqls: And looking at your Section, pal, you would not have made it to Round 2 had the S-B been calculated correctly. :)

27. 十一月 2014, 20:26:40
Pedro Martínez 
题目: Re: yeah!
BGBedlam: Absolutely... Why was my S-B 0?

27. 十一月 2014, 20:24:47
BGBedlam 
题目: Re: yeah!
Pedro Martínez: isn't it because the S-B was higher than the rest?

27. 十一月 2014, 20:08:32
Pedro Martínez 
题目: Re: yeah!
Hrqls: Can somebody please tell me why Section 3 in Round 1 had only 1 winner?

27. 十一月 2014, 16:12:06
crosseyed_uk 
题目: Re: yeah!
Hrqls:

27. 十一月 2014, 16:09:12
Hrqls 
题目: Re: yeah!
crosseyed:

27. 十一月 2014, 16:04:43
crosseyed_uk 
题目: Re: yeah!
Hrqls: Well done and for sticking it out.

27. 十一月 2014, 15:54:32
Hrqls 
题目: yeah!
Hrqls修改(27. 十一月 2014, 15:54:42)
i have to say: it feels great to win a tournament for which you worked so hard for for more than 9 years! :)

The first doubling cube tournament

25. 十一月 2014, 09:35:51
Hrqls 
题目: Re: back to brainking
Gabriel Almeida: thanks! great posts!

25. 十一月 2014, 05:48:13
rod03801 
题目: Re: back to brainking
rod03801修改(25. 十一月 2014, 05:48:29)
mal4inara: I hear you. I've been participating in this same debate for years now. Unfortunately, some people won't accept the reality of a turn based game site, and will attack people who don't play the way they would like. It's just the reality of it. It is really better to just let it pass, because some won't accept that its on them TOO for joining games that don't meet the ideal time constraints.
And I don't mean anyone who is participating in THIS current, civil, conversation.

25. 十一月 2014, 05:40:47
Gabriel Almeida 
题目: Re: back to brainking
rod03801:thank you both, Rod and jo, for your comprehenion. In fact, i dont want to offend. And honestly the discussion about slow or fast playing, compared with the possibility of someone that is playing fairly and nice as you both are, is nothing.
Good games, people!

25. 十一月 2014, 05:20:45
mal4inara 
题目: Re: back to brainking
rod03801:it's ok, I wasn't offended, just really didn't like being singled out for playing within time limits, which some see as slow play.

I don't join many tournies now, only ones I am really interested in.  Or team tournies in games I like.

Anyway, the comment just caught me at a bad time, and I am sorry I over-reacted.

Jo

25. 十一月 2014, 05:09:26
rod03801 
题目: Re: back to brainking
mal4inara: Please don't take offense. Gabriel Almeida is a good guy, and I am sure he really didn't mean to offend you.

I don't take offense by the comments. My response would really be the same as yours. I play in order of time out. If a tourney has crazy long time constraints, then they do take longer with me. As with you, if anyone looks at my profile, they would see I've BARELY touched MY vacation time too.

I've stopped joining new tournies, (unless they realllllly interest me), in an effort to get my number of games down enough to the point that I can hopefully make a move in every game, every day.

Like you, it is NOT my plan to hold things up, but I have seemingly done so. I don't join tournies with long time constraints anymore. I am also more than happy to concentrate on the older tournies, but it isn't always possible.

My main point is that I hope you won't be offended. There may be SOME people who purposefully hold things up, but I know it's not me, and I'm sure it's not you either.

I don't want to be in long, never ending tournies either. That's why I only join ones with VERY short time constraints, to FORCE me to keep up. As my # of games get down further, it will be less of an issue anyway.

24. 十一月 2014, 22:40:00
Justaminute 
题目: Re: back to brainking
ThunderGr:
Well said.

24. 十一月 2014, 22:32:08
ThunderGr 
题目: Re: back to brainking
mal4inara: Hey, do not get discouraged like that! Playing games is for fun! No need to let some random comment spoil your fun.

Just because something is a fact, it does not mean it is an accusation, you know .

<< <   47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56   > >>
日期和时间
在线的朋友
最喜欢的讨论板
朋友群
每日提示
Copyright © 2002 - 2025 Filip Rachunek, 版权所有
回顶端