 |
|
 Feature requestsDo you miss something on BrainKing.com and would you like to see it here? Post your request into this board! If there is a more specific board for the request, (i.e. game rule changes etc) then it should be posted and discussed on that specific board. For further information about Feature Requests, please visit this link on the Brainking.Info site : http://brainking.info/archives/20-About-feature-requests.html You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn. Mode: Everyone can post
<< < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > >> 7. September 2005, 14:35:09 Subject: Re: Tournament play 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. 6. September 2005, 16:55:33 Subject: Re: Tournament play 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. 31. August 2005, 16:34:05 Subject: Re: feature request 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. 29. August 2005, 21:21:29 Subject: Re: Claok mode .. next: Spirou: Are you asking people who are cloaked to explain why they don't move against you even though they are online? 29. August 2005, 15:47:38 Subject: Re: Game type champions fungame: I agree, Also agree with time limits that allow finishing in a year. Actually every 6 months would be my vote. 27. August 2005, 21:09:49 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. 27. August 2005, 20:47:15 Subject: Re: Random Chess 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. 27. August 2005, 20:31:51 Subject: Re: Random Chess 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 :) 27. August 2005, 18:02:40 Subject: Re: Random Chess playBunny: Interesting, but the whole point of FRC is to not be familiar with starting positions. 22. August 2005, 22:33:22 Subject: Re: pgt: Yeah, looks like a single game to me as well. I do remember accepting a match though, wonder why? oh well. 22. August 2005, 00:04:11 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. 21. August 2005, 17:44:00 Subject: Moderating 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? 16. August 2005, 16:46:30 Subject: Re: 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. 15. August 2005, 20:04:44 Subject: Re:Ratings and resetting fungame: That seems pretty good, though I think the middle is 1300? I can't remember why I think that though. 15. August 2005, 18:36:55 Subject: Re:Ratings and resetting Modified by grenv (15. August 2005, 18:37:54) 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. 15. August 2005, 18:28:42 Subject: Re:Ratings and resetting I should add that althogh the ratings are calculated after each game, they are not displayed until 4 games are played, hence the confusion. 15. August 2005, 18:27:59 Subject: Re:Ratings and resetting 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. 15. August 2005, 16:51:13 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 15. August 2005, 01:06:03 Subject: Re: has anyone ever thought of this before? 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. 13. August 2005, 08:06:59 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. 12. August 2005, 20:28:50 Subject: Re: Automatic Vacation, and too many games Pioneer54: I suggested this myself a long time ago. I totally agree, people playing too many games should time out. 8. August 2005, 06:30:34 what is a threatened DB? Seems a little sinister to me. 4. August 2005, 16:51:43 Subject: Re: 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. 3. August 2005, 20:50:17 Subject: Re: Stones chessmec: I thought a Stein was what you drank beer out of!
Luke: My last post was a joke [insert laughter here] 3. August 2005, 16:57:39 Subject: Re: chessmec: Small rock. Tiny boulder. Miniscule asteroid. Take your pick. 3. August 2005, 03:11:27 Subject: Re: miuek: I think the point was if you create the images yourself it will happen a lot quicker. 22. July 2005, 00:15:41 Subject: Re: Fischer-clock minutes bonus AbigailII: I believe checking every 10 minutes AND when a player moves would suffice. 21. July 2005, 21:15:20 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). 21. July 2005, 17:41:29 Subject: Re: More time controls 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. 21. July 2005, 16:05:15 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. 21. July 2005, 08:02:56 Subject: Re: Multi-page navigation links. 16. July 2005, 21:25:36 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? 16. July 2005, 20:22:35 Subject: Re: Dice rolls etc...... 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. 16. July 2005, 19:44:57 Subject: Re: Ponderous start to some games Modified by grenv (16. July 2005, 19:45:38) 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. 16. July 2005, 02:59:24 Subject: Re: Identifying cheaters 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. 16. July 2005, 02:49:18 Subject: Re: Identifying cheaters 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. 16. July 2005, 02:34:38 Subject: Re: Identifying cheaters Vikings: I have never seen a ladder system i liked. Too often rewards people who play a lot, rather than the best players. 16. July 2005, 00:19:59 Subject: Re: Identifying Cheaters. 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. 15. July 2005, 19:40:15 Subject: Re: So you disapprove? Big deal. redsales: Ah, the voice of reason.  15. July 2005, 03:04:50 Subject: Re: 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.
 15. July 2005, 02:39:47 Subject: Re: 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. 14. July 2005, 18:56:13 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 14. July 2005, 00:39:54 Subject: Re: Sonneborn-Berger points system 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). 13. July 2005, 22:20:47 Subject: Re: Sonneborn-Berger points system 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. 12. July 2005, 20:51:40 Subject: Re: [OT] strange ... but can me somebody explain this? chessmec: You must have hidden someone? 12. July 2005, 18:22:53 Subject: Re: 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. 12. July 2005, 15:51:41 Subject: Re: Rex Nihilo: Watch out, you may have to say "all heck will break loose" on this board. People have been banned for less. << < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > >> |
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Back to the top |