 |
|
 BrainKing.comBoard 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 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
<< < 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 > >> 12. 六月 2009, 20:37:43 题目: Re: Byes  MadMonkey: Already people complain that some players get "too" much credit for winning a tournament when there are only 4 players in the tournament - having only 2 or 3..... I honestly don't think that is a good idea. 4 is a good minimum number. But as for the elimination tournaments, you should ALWAYS have either 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, or 128 spaces for players ... and so on. At first when I looked at your tournament examples you posted below, at quick glance I first thought... Oh, those look OK - but then noticed they were a 12 section tournament with 8 players, and a 14 section tournament with 9 players... which of course would be interesting to see what the system does in later rounds when there is an odd amount of sections to match people up against. 12. 六月 2009, 20:07:34 题目: Re: Byes  alanback: Exactly what i meant to write  On the same subject, the lowest value should be 2 really. OK its a straight Final, BUT at least the 2 people that entered that particular Elimination would get to play  12. 六月 2009, 19:53:06 题目: Byes There is never a need or a justification for byes after the first round in a single elimination tournament. It's easy to calculate the number of byes. If there are N players and X is the next power of 2 higher than N, there should be (X-N) byes. Of course, if N is a power of 2, there should be no byes. 12. 六月 2009, 19:38:35 题目: Re: Czuch: It looks like things will sort themselves in the next round.... that nobody will get a bye then, Incorrect. For the first tournament, there are 2 matches, and 4 byes. So the round will have 6 players (winners of the two matches, and the four people with byes). That means there will be 2 byes. Now, it may very well be that the two byes actually "play each other" ("winner" of 13 against 14 against "winner" of 15 against 16), but that means there's still a bye in the round after that. It's a complete mess. 12. 六月 2009, 18:00:32 题目: Re: Fencer: Trust me, if there is a problem i will find it  12. 六月 2009, 17:30:04 题目: Re:  MadMonkey: Heh, that's funny.  And it's interesting that nothing like that happened when I was testing byes before releasing them. Well, BrainKing is already too complex and even a small change can cause unexpected problems.I'll look at it soon. 12. 六月 2009, 15:00:32 题目: Re: MadMonkey: Yeah, that is totally whacky! It looks like things will sort themselves in the next round.... that nobody will get a bye then, but the pairings of who plays who, make absolutely no sense at all? Why does the guy rated 1900s get a first round bye anyway?  12. 六月 2009, 14:32:57 题目: Re: 被MadMonkey修改(12. 六月 2009, 14:33:38) AbigailII: Agreed I knew it was wrong, but wanted to make sure, so i messaged a few people as well Will be interesting to see what happens after the first round lol 12. 六月 2009, 13:54:19 题目: Re: MadMonkey: That looks very wrong to me. The first tournament has only 8 players - there's shouldn't be any byes to begin with. The second tournament has 10 players - 6 players should have byes, the four remaining players should play the two matches in the first round. Ideally, the two matches should be distributed over both halves of the bracket; that is, if the winners of the first round matches keep winning, they should meet in the final. If you use the schema below, and fill in the participants in order, then there will not be byes, and first round winners will meet as late as possible.
This also easily generalizes to 32, 64, 128 participants (and to 8). 12. 六月 2009, 13:01:17 hmmmmm ok PLEASE someone explain to me this: Madhouse 2009 - Week 24 Madhouse 2009 - Week 24 Byes take effect in the FIRST round on an Elimination Tournament. Looking at these 2 examples something odd is happening. The only way this can work here is if you are having Byes in the next Round & the next etc..etc.. so you could get a Bye to the Final. To me using Byes, the first column of games should be 4, 8, 16 etc... where the empty spaces are Byes as such. Other games in the Tournament are fine whether they have 5, 7 or whatever amount of players. PLEASE tell me this is a bug  11. 六月 2009, 13:15:13 题目: Please Fencer... About the more boards for fellowships.. http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=1&plla=988251 Is it, is it not happening? By this conversation I thought you were going to increase the number of boards that a fellowship can have by 2 or 3. 11. 六月 2009, 13:10:05 题目: Re: ChessVariant: It's probably the Vegas lot and all other USA based gambling groups moaning about losing business. And your right, they could easily make it that each gambling site has to have a licence which they must pay for.... and have to renew annually. And I'd probably guess that the online companies within a heartbeat will say.. "YES". 11. 六月 2009, 03:50:57 题目: Re: 被Herlock Sholmes修改(11. 六月 2009, 03:52:00) alanback:but do you know why ? because those greedy, fat cats do not know how to profit from this gambling ... don't worry, if they could get 40 percent of gambling site income it would be suddenly legal ...  this is what I think about what is legal or illegal in this country ...11. 六月 2009, 03:30:08 题目: Re: nodnarbo:Internet gambling is illegal in the US. 11. 六月 2009, 01:13:08 题目: Re: Czuch:Indeed. One hopes that non-US players weren't affected, but who knows? 11. 六月 2009, 00:50:07 题目: Re: U.S. Deals Blow to Online-Poker Players alanback:   11. 六月 2009, 00:47:51 题目: U.S. Deals Blow to Online-Poker Players In an apparent crackdown on Internet gambling, federal authorities In an operation that began last week, the office of the U.S. A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office had no comment. 9. 六月 2009, 22:48:57 题目: Re: Dan & Kyu joshi tm: There is a table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_ranks_and_ratings#Elo_Ratings_as_used_in_Go 9. 六月 2009, 22:19:01 题目: Re: Dan & Kyu aaru: How are these calculated? Other than the BKR I think as the higher BKR here has a lower dan rating Go Ceiter 2260 - 2 dan Go 13x13 ad0 2414 - 4 dan Go 9x9 Ceiter 2142 - 1 dan 8. 六月 2009, 19:12:23 题目: Re: Congrats Fencer! Czuch:To my surprise I found that my first login was on 12 February 2003, so I've been here even longer. My how time flies! 8. 六月 2009, 13:49:14 题目: Fencer..... You mentioned that you might be increasing the number of boards a fellowship can have, by the talk I thought you were going to increase the quantity to maybe 6 boards?? Is it happening??? 7. 六月 2009, 21:16:53 题目: Re: vacation days Pedro Martínez: okay, thats what i was trying to say, I think.... it is not their weekend day for sure. 7. 六月 2009, 21:15:22 题目: Re: vacation days  Czuch: Either Sunday is one of their weekend days or your game was not the first one to "time out" today. 7. 六月 2009, 21:14:58 题目: Re: vacation days Czuch: So... maybe if you used a vacation day today already on another game that was ready to time out, then again on a different game the same day? The second time (and every other that same day) would only reduce your vacation days left on the first game? 7. 六月 2009, 21:14:45 题目: to all Massacre Chess players I would like to invite all of you to join my new, highly competitive fellowship ... it's all about Massacre Chess and nothing more ... please join ... Massacre Chess Club Andy. 7. 六月 2009, 21:11:41 题目: vacation days auto vacation.... I had a player who was given an extra 24 hours added to their game, but their vacation days left did not go down? Someone explain this to me, or show me where to read about this please? 7. 六月 2009, 05:53:50 题目: Congrats Fencer! You got me for 6 full years so far!!!  6. 六月 2009, 18:28:03 题目: Re:  Fencer: That worked, and I see what the problem is...In Plakoto the images which have black and white pieces on the same point aren't supported in the large style pieces 6. 六月 2009, 08:34:17 题目: Re: nodnarbo: Switch to small pieces at your Settings / Backgammon game. 6. 六月 2009, 04:20:10 题目: Re:  nodnarbo: I see them all fine when I click your link 6. 六月 2009, 04:17:41 I'm having issues seeing some of the images in this game. Is it just me? I'm not having problems with any other games... 1. 六月 2009, 19:32:14 Yeah... and you can still see them on your friends online column, and there is still a green dot beside their name on your list for waiting games, but not on your online users list or your online opponents list? 1. 六月 2009, 15:50:20 题目: Re: rod03801: Thats right, but you also cant see them on your "opponents online" link, or your "players online" link as well? Now I wonder.... if you are in a game with them, and you "move and go to the next game with an opponent who is online" would someone who has you blocked still count? 1. 六月 2009, 04:52:02 题目: Re: Gouwe gozer: You can visit someone's profile even if they have you blocked 1. 六月 2009, 04:50:36  As far as I know/understand, if you're on someone's blocked user (= enemies) list, you can't visit her/his page at all, can't sent messages, etc. No idea yet about the question, but I've time enough to find out 31. 五月 2009, 18:41:31 题目: Don't you know what you are doing at that time anyways?  rod03801: I can honestly say that I often don't know what I'm doing at the time I'm doing it.  31. 五月 2009, 18:28:19 题目: Re: last action rod03801: That might be it then Rod, thanks! I guess it is one way to find out who has you on blocked or enemies list.... Why should we even have any access to the profile of someone who has you on block then, I wonder? Also, this issue of ponds, where people who have not been online cannot change their previous play, and people keeping track of this, makes it an advantage/disadvantage when this blocked user function comes into play, seems like this could be improved upon.... I gotta run now, but will have to give this some more thought 31. 五月 2009, 18:12:27 题目: Re: last action Czuch: Yes it is normal not to have this view of yourself. Don't you know what you are doing at that time anyways? As far as the other question, it may have something to do with either you having them on your blocked user list, or them having you on their blocked user list. Just guessing on that one, but it seems the most logical explanation. 31. 五月 2009, 18:07:36 题目: last action I am noticing that on most profile pages i see a "last action" line, says what time and day a person was here and what they are doing or if they have cloak mode.... But some profiles do not have this line available to see? How does one have this info removed from their profiles anyway? Also, I dont see this line on my own profile either, but I have done nothing to exclude it? Is it normal to not have this view for ourselves? 24. 五月 2009, 00:49:02 Thanks for the information and confirmation Haven't create a tournament with this game but in my opinion a good option 23. 五月 2009, 21:16:44 题目: Re:  Fencer: I seem to recall playing in some tournaments (not here at BK) where that approach was used, and it was a great option. It works exceptionally well with variants like fischerrandom progressive chess--where you can avoid having an over-analyzed starting position, but at the same time you don't want to give some players far more favorable/inferior positions than other players. 23. 五月 2009, 20:57:08 题目: Re: Gouwe gozer: I believe on the tournaments, it would depend on what the creator chose. There is the option when creating tournaments with games with "random" positions, to have everyone have the same set up or not. 23. 五月 2009, 20:12:58 As far as I can see is the same startposition in all my games in the same tournament. That means that my black games are equal in the starting position as my opponents when they play black. The same appears in my white games lolA quick view in other games, in the same tournament, showed me exactly the same startingposition as well. I'm not sure the position is the same for the whole tournament, but I think yes In that case it's a fair tournament The tournament I joined is a small one (5 players), it makes me curious for a bigger tournaments, everybody in the same position?  << < 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 > >> |
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 |