Hmmm. I don't know. What kind of action? Any suggestions?

Hi Fencer!

Fencer: I'm hoping you might run a sale on your brain rooks this Christmas.

Bernice: i noticed later in the description of your tournaments. nice!

crosseyed:naaah... It's fine that way! :)

crosseyed:

Gabriel Almeida: Seek help....

Hrqls:I ran tournaments with a prize of aussie paraphernalia - nothing to do with this fencer...I sent T/shirts, caps etc.....

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...

SL-Mark:no way! I took a picture of that board with my name highlighted! :)

Bwild: ah, Bernice sent the prizes by herself, not via the site, i see it now

Hrqls: you have to actually open tournys to see prizes...and no..you didnt win lol

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!

furbster: thanks!!! :-)

furbster: hmm .. i need that magic SB spell again ... mathematically i will become 2nd in my second due to SB calculations .....

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!!

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!

Hrqls: I used to run them and paid massive money to send the prizes and never got so much as a thanks....never again :(

Royal__Flush: feel free to offer one ;-)

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?

Aganju: Thanks for the explanation, I think I understood now.

rod03801: thanks a lot, i understand now :-)

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...

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.

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....?

happyjuggler0: i like the idea of the finals being replayed as they should have been ...

Roberto Silva: +1 :-)

Pedro Martínez: i guess luck played a bigger part in this one than in most backgammon type games ;-)

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.

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.

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...

Roberto Silva: Yeah! Let's make it an 18 year tournament.

happyjuggler0: Does that mean round 2 will have to be reset and replayed?

Make that 12 years then...

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.

Hrqls: And looking at your Section, pal, you would not have made it to Round 2 had the S-B been calculated correctly. :)

BGBedlam: Absolutely... Why was my S-B 0?

Pedro Martínez: isn't it because the S-B was higher than the rest?

Hrqls: Can somebody please tell me why Section 3 in Round 1 had only 1 winner?

Hrqls:

crosseyed:

Hrqls: Well done and for sticking it out.

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

Gabriel Almeida: thanks! great posts!

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.

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.

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

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.

ThunderGr:
Well said.

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 .