wellywales: It's on my graphs. If it isn't shown, it may be because your current rating is the highest you have achieved.

Yes, it is on the graph, wellywales. You may have to click back to last year or even the year before to see it, but the highest rating is there.

Is there any where on the site that shows your own highest score achieved in a particular game, I thought it was on the graph, but I don't think that is the case, perhaps it could be implemented on the graph

alanback: A small visual bug.

I notice that in a match where one player has doubled, the cube appears with a "2" even when reviewing moves that preceded the double. The cube should be displayed as a "1" when reviewing a point in the match where the cube had not yet been turned.

rod03801: thanks for that rod...makes me feel a little better.

The "show oldest messages first" used to always be there. Then, it disappeared for a while. I noticed it missing, but never thought to comment on it. (It is good to use when you join a new fellowship, or go to a DB you haven't been to before, and you want to read what has happened since the beginning. Much easier at that point to read from top to bottome, instead of bottom to top..) It did just return recently.
I think the "add to favorite boards" has been back a little longer than that, but it could have come back at the same time.
But yes, both used to be there, vanished, and are now back.. :-D

Vikings: oh thanks- I should rad that board! : )
Just wanted to give Fencer on on it, even if it was late!

baddessi:the dice fix was about 2 weeks ago and discussed on the backgammon board I believe, the read latest message first link was a little before that but I have never seen any one discuss it

Jason: you're like me- too busy playing your games!!!

baddessi: yes i noticed a few days ago it had been fixed was going to mention it , but my memory is slipping ;)

Eriisa: someone's gotta do it, right?
ok, how about the gammon dice...I know that before you weren't forced to use both dice, you could work around it..I'm probably not explaining that well, but I bet y'all know what I mean. Anyways, it seems "fixed" now and that seems new too..so whenever that happened, Thanks Fencer!

baddessi: There's never anything wrong with asking questions!


oh the other hand, I'm not afraid to tease baddesi! lol

that's the difference..I'm not afraid to embarrass myself and ask! LOL

playBunny: Ok baddessi, you have us wondering now!!!

playBunny: I think it has been there for a long time. Some people like to read messages starting from the top and reading down, which is good for board which have... 10-15 posts total, but when boards have many pages of posts, I find that option pointless and never use it.

Lamby: Exactly! I thought "Haven't noticed that before. or have I?"

baddessi: Im not even sure if it is new though!? LOL
It takes me ages to catch up!!!

baddessi: Lol. I noticed the "oldest first" a week or so ago and thought exactly the same as you.

I tried it and can't see the point of it.

ok, never mind

baddessi:

baddessi: I thought it had always been there????

Every fellowship has a link to list in with your favorite boards, and every board has a link to show oldest messages first.
Is this new, or have Inot been paying attention before?

rod03801: thanks for the heads up

Just askin'!

rod03801: Why should it be a bug? This feature was requested a long time ago.

Not sure if this is a bug, or intended, so I am posting here, instead of bug tracker..

We can have multi-game matches in non backgammon tournies too??? In the tournament set up, it states clearly that the doubling cube isn't there (of course) if you choose the multi game matches.. it says the multi game matches will be there though.

I was setting up a halma tourney in Brave Eagles Halma fellowship, and tried it out, and was able to create a halma tourney with 5 win matches.. Seems like this would be a VERRRRRYYYYYY long tourney!!!! LOL...(I deleted it)

Guess we will have to read the tourney details very closely! If not, you could find yourself in a 5 year tournament.. lol..

Eriisa: LOL!! Yep, I saw! Wow, that guy can really spin!

DanDanDan: LOL look at BBW doing his cartwheels!

you da man!

rod03801: The English description is always used if some other language one is not used.

When you create a tourament, the title and description fields are there for each of the languages supported by Brainking. If you only fill one of them in (English, for example), what do people viewing the site in the other languages see? Nothing? or the English description?

WhisperzQ: Thanks for the heads up on that. ;)

DanDanDan: And make sure when you select the "NON ACCEPT" button you have actually selected the corret button as a draw, once accepted, cannot be undone (as I unfortunately found out the hard way :(

BIG BAD WOLF: Never ever resign...unless hope is lost ;)

BIG BAD WOLF: Applies to the draw offers/accepts as well.

Hey cool - Now when you resign a game, you have the option to go to the next game instead of back to the main page. Great!

You have completely misunderstood me & the point I have tried to make about the rating system. You are now going off down other avenues that are not related to the rating system query. So lets leave it there. End of discussion about it.

Lets talk instead about making friends playing games & having fun!?

TwoThouSevHun: It's a waste of time if your goal is to achieve a rating several hundred points higher than anyone else. If you goal is to meet people and have fun playing games with them, and to test your abilities against theirs, then I would say the change in the ratings system is irrelevant.

alanback:

I had nothing to 'go over' so therefore, there is nothing to 'get over'. I just stated a point that has led to a discussion thats all and you do agree with my initial statement by saying 'If the system had been correct from the beginning...'

Also 2-3 years to let the system run the way it has is hardly a 'begining' either. I'd say its been a waste of time, but on the bright side there was absolutely nothing to 'go over'! ;)

TwoThouSevHun: Why not just play your games as normal?Surely a player of your stature will soon rise to the top.

TwoThouSevHun: If the system had been correct from the beginning, you would never have had a lead of several hundred points. Period. In other words, that lead was due to a flaw in the system and not to your abilities. Get over it!

Ok Pedro I understand :)

But I kind of disagree with this one statement of yours on a personal note. You said 'All you had to do was play opponents within 400 BKR points and you always gained 8 points if you won'

Take a good look at my Spiderline4 game playing history over the past 3 years. The vast majority of my games were against the very best players, ie: Badman, PJA & Slayer just to name a few. These were NO easy gained 8 points! I earnt a 200-300 point gap from these players, now Im less than a 100 points ahead of lesser players. Again Im not being disrespectful to these players. Its just that you would all agree with me that if you played say 20 games of chess, line4 or spiderline4 etc against a player that is 300 - 400 points, nevermind 500 -600 points, below you then you would expect to win 18 to 20 out of 20 at least? Surely this is no fun as it is no challenge?

Therefore, only 100 points ahead is NOT a true reflection of the BKR, this is all Im trying to point out :)

Matt: I was say for example over 200 points ahead of my nearest rival and about 500+ points ahead of the next four players below second place. Now Im only 100 points ahead of my top 5 or so players. Therefore, this is NOT a true reflection of the ratings is it?.

I think and believe that under the BKR formula that is used now, the gap of 100 points corresponds to a gap of 200+ points under the previous formula. That means that to be able to "hunt you down", your opponents would have to do the same job, win the same amount of games, both under this and the former one. You have to take into consideration this fact: Before, it was WAY easier to gain BKR points. All you had to do was play opponents within 400 BKR points and you always gained 8 points if you won. Now, it's not that simple. Going up is much more difficult and e.g. for you as the best spider player here, it seems like something almost impossible to get back where you had been with your rating before the BKRs were recalculated.

Yes I understand that EVERYONE has dropped in ratings...I never suggested that this is a personal matter. I am merely suggesting that this site confuses me!

Mirjam: you say this 'The object of ratings: to show who's stronger and how much.'

Listen, I agree with you 100%. I was say for example over 200 points ahead of my nearest rival and about 500+ points ahead of the next four players below second place.....how did I get so far ahead then? miscalculation? I dont think so!

I got so far ahead of my rivals by BEATING my rivals fair & square over 3 years of game play. I am sure many other players on BK in other games have been penalised the same thing.


Now Im only 100 points ahead of my top 5 or so players. Therefore, this is NOT a true reflection of the ratings is it?.

Yes I can build my rating back up, which would take many years, but Im afraid this is not a challenge for me anymore as the nearest competitors, bar 1 or 2 players, just do not give me a match. This is not being disrespectful....its just a 400-600 point difference FACT of my nearest rivals.

Its a dam shame that just about ALL the top 'old school' Spiderline 4 players (dating back since 1998 on IYT) have now left this site BUT most of them STILL continue to play at IYT. Why is this? I know why!

TwoThouSevHun: Also, do not foget EVERYONE, not just you had the ratings calculations done, and most everyone else had very similar drops in the ratings, and I would guess that your position/ranking compared to everyone else is basicly the same.

As an example of myself, before the switch, I had a 2768 ratings in run around the pond and was ranked about 2nd/3rd overall.

After the ratings correction, I had a 2425 ratings in run around the pond, over 300 drop - but I was still 2nd/3rd overall.

The ratings were corrected, and they were corrected for everyone.

TwoThouSevHun: Basically no rating was correct at the time. With the old system it you earned the same points when the rating difference between you and your opponent was any number between -399 and +399.
Now the rating calculation is 100% correct according to the definition given. I checked it.
If the recalculation made a so high difference to your rating, it meant that you had somehow profited a lot of the calculation errors, without knowing it.
Don't forget that your opponents ratings were wrong too. For instance you may remember having won a lot of games against a 2200 opponent while he should in fact have been rated 1900 at that time.
About continuity : of course Fencer could very well have said nothing about the error, and just corrected it without recalculating the ratings. Then the ratings would have slowly evolved towards the correct values. But wasn't it fairer to openly admit the mistake and to correct it completely ? Who really wants an undue rating ?

<> TwoThouSevHun >try to vieuw the positive side:now you have very much opponents to challenge to prove that you are better;)
And if you are really better you will earn the points back. If you're not stronger, then the drop is fair. The object of ratings: to show who's stronger and how much.

Well Im affraid EVERY time I got a point was the correct score AT THE TIME of winnning it. But now the 'goal posts'' move!?

Listen I aint gonna cry & sulk about my rating dropping over 400 points over night..its just that EVERY point was earnt against the best players on the net...then they get taken away! Winning and drawing matches for points was not playing under 'false pretences' then, so why now?Im sorry but it does not make sense to me.

BuilderQ: And of course "correct" means "according to design", which begs the question whether the design is correct for all games; there is considerable sympathy among backgammon players for the view that the BKR system isn't well designed for backgammon.