kleineme: I still don't believe that one game is more important than another in a round robin. Tie breaskers are unnecessary unless you really need to find a winner.

kleineme: I agree, it is an arbitrary rule to break ties that doesn't make much sense. But then again no tie breaker makes sense. Even looking at head to head is flawed for the same reason. Why should one game count more than another?

In my opinion tied players should advance regardless of attempts to break the tie.

WhiteTower: Cariad was pointing out thet 2 games switched colors is the best way to have a fair match. Randomly assigning colors may work for a ladder or something I guess.

Spirou: Are you asking people who are cloaked to explain why they don't move against you even though they are online?

fungame: I agree, Also agree with time limits that allow finishing in a year. Actually every 6 months would be my vote.

While we're on the topic of FRC. I'd like to request Atomic Random Chess. This would avoid the deep knowledge of opening positions and make for an interesting game.

playBunny: You can do that if you like, though there are a very large number of positions so it wouldn't help much.

I was referring to the "point" behind the invention of the game, not the players point in playing it.

fungame: This is actually played on some sites, though the symmetric rule means you know opponents starting position. Better would be each side random and independent of each other. "Real" dark chess :)

playBunny: Interesting, but the whole point of FRC is to not be familiar with starting positions.

pgt: Yeah, looks like a single game to me as well. I do remember accepting a match though, wonder why? oh well.

Game ID: 989543

How about threads on the boards so we can have a decent conversation without being told off. It really isn't all that practical to move the conversation since you lose the history.

I think a feature request needs to be debated a little in order for Fencer to assess support for the feature as well as understand the pros and cons before deciding whether to implement it. This is why a threaded discussion board would be better.

As it is responding to feature requests should be encouraged in order to further understanding. Why stifle creative discussion just because you're not interested?

Chessmaster1000: babareza = amirh. He admitted it to me, saying "I am trying to break the ratings record". Also babarezas name is strikingly similar so it's pretty obvious.

Look at the games between the 2. All resigned by Amirh at the same time and all private.

The fact that we can't delete both players from the ratings list is frankly dissappointing. Even if it means eliminating all games involving those players and the resulting change in other players' ratings.

fungame: That seems pretty good, though I think the middle is 1300? I can't remember why I think that though.

Walter Montego: Agreed! I propose subtracting 50 points for every month of inactivity in a particular game type.

Inactivity defined as neither starting nor finishing nor making a move in any game of that type.

I should add that althogh the ratings are calculated after each game, they are not displayed until 4 games are played, hence the confusion.

playBunny: I believe that on this site the rating is calculated after the first game. Since it is only one game it is prone to move violently up or down depending on the result.

If they were calculated on the average of the first 4 it would be a slight improvement, but still too few to really mean anything.

In the real world of chess your first 4 games are probably against very established ratings so the results are probably much more accurate than here, particularly in games where luck plays a role (such as backgammon), I believe that is why the call for using a different (standard) system for bg.

not to mention this moron, who not only used this tactic, but cheated by playing himself to guarantee winning.

http://brainking.com/en/Profile?u=10983&p=1

nobleheart: But why should you be able to reset your rating? That doesn't make sense.

You can play non-rated games if you want while you learn, but starting over seems to be cheating.

Frankly i think it's a bug that auto-vac is activated if a player has made a move already that day. Perhaps we should submit it as such.

If it's a "feature" let's hear a valid argument for it.

Pioneer54: I suggested this myself a long time ago. I totally agree, people playing too many games should time out.

wekke: lol.

what is a threatened DB? Seems a little sinister to me.

Grim Reaper: ai is a south american sloth, my favorite 2 letter word, along with aa (a hawaiian word for lava that slipped into the language somehow).
I think once the dictionary is in place it wouldn't take that long to parse. I wouldn't like to create it though. Of course you'd have to have a version in different languages with different letters etc etc.

chessmec: I thought a Stein was what you drank beer out of!

Luke: My last post was a joke [insert laughter here]

Luke Skywalker: Also 14 pounds.

chessmec: Small rock. Tiny boulder. Miniscule asteroid. Take your pick.

miuek: I think the point was if you create the images yourself it will happen a lot quicker.

AbigailII: I believe checking every 10 minutes AND when a player moves would suffice.

I agree. like a normal game, 2 hours + 90 minutes after 40 moves,

That equates to 2 hours + 2 minutes/move (actually 2.25 for the pedants).

For those that don't know, Fischer's cloak is similar to Harry Potter's cloak, and is what he used to evade the authorities for so long.

I think it should work like real chess clocks, so you have N days to finish the game (or play 40 moves or whatever). Your clock stops counting down after you move and starts again when your opponent moves.

playBunny: What was <u> supposed to do? underline? try < a href="#" >

334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 > >>

Also nobody's going to read an archive when they can just post a question.

And if it's asked for over and over perhaps it could be implemented?

Lamby: Boldly spoken, but I'm sure this hasn't been requested, could you point us to the request, perhaps who requested it etc.

Not to be confused with automatically passing subsequent moves, this was only in reference to the first move.

All: you guys really do get caught in the minutia. I think the request was clear and made sense:

Don't have a pass as a first move, go straight to the player whose move it really is.

The only excuse for not implementing it is a technical reason (takes too long to alter the code). Nobody in their right mind is going to complain about not getting to click the stupid button.

Vikings: You're right, they both will be here. I still would like to fix the ratings so they degrade over time without play.

Even something simple like subtracting 5% for each month without a game of that type finished or something.

Vikings: Yes but I play 20-30 games at a time and not all of the same type. This is because I have other things to do. Some people seem to play 24 hours a day and have 1000 games going. These people have an advantage.

I would prefer that ratings degrade with little or no activity, that would solve the problem you correctly identified.

Vikings: I have never seen a ladder system i liked. Too often rewards people who play a lot, rather than the best players.

nobleheart: Correct, even other player's ratings that have been modified by playing these players are now inaccurate.

If possible the users should be deleted and the ratings recalculated.

If that is too difficult then at least turn off the accounts and remove them from the rating list.

redsales: Ah, the voice of reason.

reza: That was the tipping point for me as well. Fencer should delete both accounts in my opinion. But then it's just an opinion.

reza: not only that, Amirh played very slowly in games where I was winning and quickly if he got the upper hand. When I queried him about it he said "I'm trying to break the rating record"


hmmmmm.

Can we delete these two as well? they are clearly the same person and cheating to achieve a 2697 rating in Atomic chess.

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGameList?u=10202&op=10983&tp=28

BIG BAD WOLF: I disagree, the calculations aren't that big, especially if you compromise (if each player from 2nd down adds remaining games to current wins and is still short of the leader for instance).

I, too, would like to see the S-B calculated before the section is completed,

More important: Completing the section if a winner is decided prior to all the games finishing. This should be easy with a brute force method.

chessmec: You must have hidden someone?

Pedro Martínez: I was putting my support, in a round about way, for free and open debating. I know this is considered radical and dangerous to some though.

Rex Nihilo: Watch out, you may have to say "all heck will break loose" on this board. People have been banned for less.