Herlock Sholmes: Yes, that is right. I agree the instructions are a bit vague.

One way to think of it is that in triple dice poker, the bonus is calculated by the score that you get if you had scored three of each number, and in triple dice poker the bonus is calculated as if you had scored four of each number.

If you think of it that way, and you realize that you only got three 6's in 6D, then you need to make up that extra 6 somewhere else, for example by getting five 5's and five 1's, or five 4's and five 2's.

Herlock Sholmes: If you look at the rules for triple dice poker, which your game is a variant of, you will see that the score that you need is based on the upper section of the first column. In order to get the bonus for the second column, you need to multiply by 2, and to get the bonus for the third column, you need to multiply by 3.

ANZAC day,,,,lest we forget

Bwild:

true that

... Maybe a yearly top two match, with an award given to the winner

ketchuplover: dont get out much,do you? lol

who first logged on from 1 April 2012 to 22 April 2012 have logged on today(so far)

Bwild: Yes, I succeed in doing it with friends but sometimes, I've enough to ask this.
And friends often say yes because they are kind with me, but they can be bad players and do not like the game.
We come back to what Purple said : people try to keep their rating the most higher possible, so a neutral program for training would be great.

Mélusine: you can set games up to be unrated for practice.

Bwild: Yes, the variants are very .
I just regret that here, we don't have a programme for people who want discover a game or else practise.
I'm sure I would play more games, especially variants of checkers.

Mélusine: I have to agree with you. I'm terrible at some games...but I like to play,and I learn from the more experienced players who are willing to give me the time.
chess and checkers is tough,due to the large number of program players..but the variants are great fun.

Purple: I agree, it's not fair from him to reject a game with you, but I think we must not impose an opponent on someone : he must be free to play with you or not.
Nobody is dupe ; we often see, here, people who aren't fair (example : people who send an invitation to someone else just for raising their BKR).
Me, I look at my rating, just to see the games where I have to progress, and just to have an idea, but I don't want to be prisoner of this rating, I don't forget that, 1st, I'm here for fun.

Aganju: TY. I don't like to beat up on a bunch of less skilled players just to get to him but I may have to do it.

Purple: I checked, he is playing Checkers in many of the small tournaments. You could just enter yourself into one of those.

happyjuggler0: Not that "It's Your Turn" is any role model but their ladders work beautifully. This is a better site but they have better ladders.

Folks, you need to be careful before putting this type of "stairs" thing into BK rules for non-stairs games; there are all kinds of potential nasty unintended consequences.

For example, this could inspire people to change their settings to not accept invitations.

Another downside is wanting to limit number of ongoing games (for non-rooks) in order to make space for a tournament you want to play in, but too many people want to invite you to games and you are forced to accept.

Similarly you might be trying to clear up your remaining games to go on a playing hiatus (a vacation or just to not get burned out on a particular game).

Another potential problem is being forced to play time controls you don't want to play, or match lengths you don't want to play, or single game invitations where your opponent has the side that has a huge advantage (e.g. battleboats plus).

Right now I have a few players on my blocked users list because they were abusive or obnoxious in some other way. I would hate to be forced to play them.

I'm sure there are other potential problems that others can think of. Anyway, I hope Fencer would be very careful before implementing any such "reform" to make sure it doesn't hurt more than it helps.

I have had similar problems with players who are number one ranked while I was number two ranked who refused to play me. It is frustrating. Fortunately for me though none of those rating differences were insurmountable the way the rating difference in checkers is....

Thom27: Even a loss would not lose him enough points to drop out of first place..it would just be much closer.

Herlock Sholmes:
maybe this could work:
If an invitation is refused where both players have an established rating and the inviter has the lower rating and the rating difference is not all too big and the refuser has no good excuse (like being a pawn and playing the full number of games) and the players do not already play a game of this type or have played one short ago,
then the ratings of the players are updated as if the game was played and had ended in a draw.

Purple: I think Bobby Fisher and Alekhine played the same "game" with others. They were the greatest after all. But in this case, maybe there should be some kind of provision or rule that the first guy cannot refuse playing the second one ? What do you think ?

Resher: For example I am #2 rated checkers BKR but can NEVER be #1 because the top guy will not play me..he only plays those he can beat and he can not beat me. So there is no way out.

Resher: Ah yes, I see. Thank you.

Mélusine:Yes, use the Statistics tab on the left-hand menu

Is there's a list with the average BKR of each player ?
I mean with all the players together, because I know we have our result on our profile.

When the number of players increases, the number of winners goes down.
Of course, it's more difficult to win a tournament with a big number of players, and I think that this result has more value.

happyjuggler0, Resher: Thank you to you both.

Resher: Doh! I looked at that list too, but I thought the first column meant something else.

I guess my list is a list of winners of public tournaments, while yours is a list of winners of any tournament.

Mélusine: Found it!

http://brainking.com/en/TournamentWinners?tp=0&mipl=4&submit=Show

This is from the "Winners" tab, then change minimum number of players to 4.

Mélusine: Unfortunately I had to construct it manually; I don't think there is an accessible list at BK.

I started here, which is a list of those who won 1000 or more tournaments. Then I looked up each name and ranked them myself.

http://brainking.com/en/Achievements?aid=64&submit=Submit&p=1

happyjuggler0: Where is this list ? I'd like to see my rating.

aaru: 3875
Gammonator: 3049
Borowitz: 2710
FrancescoLR: 2380
cd power: 1793
AlterMann: 1413
Pioneer54: 1194
DeaD man WalkiN: 1188

Resher:

Gabriel Almeida: Aaru's on 3875 tournament wins! 

Can anyone beat this?

Gabriel Almeida: All 3 (Tenuki, Martinez and you) are players very strong. I'm sure that the average of your BKR is higher than mine.

Mélusine: me too! But tenuki or Martinez have... Hummm... A few more than i have! 1 or 2 more... :)

Aganju: I've just a few more than you.

Aganju:

high five

Yippie! 100 won tournaments!

pedestrian and Hrqls: Thanks for your help.

MissDelish:

welcome back kiddo

JungleBurger: you can buy a paid membership with brains

JungleBurger: You can use brains to play in prize tournaments that offer brains as a prize... I think that's pretty much it.

MissDelish: Am I your doc?

Roberto Silva: I haven't played any games on here in over 12 months hahahaha....I am thinking of buying a membership :)

MissDelish: cos you're too addicted to online boarding games?

(V): really?? why can't I sleep and it is pitch dark??

hello all ;P) have just returned after a long absence.