I second Dmitri's request - maybe not as permanent display, but like
the provisoric ratings, switchable ... merely also as regular addition
like, in football the games at home and, in the opponent's stadium are
separately specified on many leaderboards as well ...
( I mean football, not the american rugby-variation *grin* )

as I'm still unexperienced at Tablut and don't know the stats
for the maharajah chess either - no clue for which game type
it also might turn out handy yet ... ~*~

Why not try having 2 rating tables under each game, next to each other - one for games played as white, and one for black. That may give player an incentive to play more games as black to better their position?

for my person, such a display would influence me as following -

if I'd see somebody who challenges me having about 70%
of his games played as player1 I would simply DEMAND that,
in a first encounter he'd take player2, because I evidently couldn't
rely on the custom of granting a 2nd game with exchanged colours
- happened already.
I won't name the player though - may he remain happy ... :Þ ... ~*~

Danoscheck, good point. But, Gary pointed out to me that one need not be concerned with someone not offering to play the other side-- you cna simply send an invite for both games, and if the opponent accepts only the game where he goes first, you can delete it!

If you are concerned about it just make every game you create a 2 games match. To me personally it makes little difference as I am black 9 times out of 10 anyway. I just prefer being that color and by playing with it 90% of the time I do not get confused as what color I am in any particular game.

BlazinBrian, thank you for your civil reply. THe problem is, I cnanot force people ot play the 2 game set-- the people I am referring to choose which games they play, and they only play as white. THen they sit on the ratings leaders board and decline invites to be player 2. THat is a load of crap, and those people do not deserve ot have their name atop the leadres board! A simple extra column will at least show that hte person is playing a disprportionate amount of games as player 1.

My thought is do not play with those players. They will get bored when no one will play them. It is not much fun to be on top when there is no one to play with. Also I noticed that there are a lot of players signed up here that do not play at all or havent played in quite a while. I would suggest having a time table for them to play or have to start over. I wonder how many players there are on the boards who do not play here anymore or rarely play a game.

You don't understand, I DO want to play with these players. I think those atop the leader boards should play each other. But, if they opt not to, there is nothing that can be done.

Will they get bored? Maybe, maybe not, but it s irrelevant, because one cna just play a game as player 1 every now and then and remain atop the leader board, undeservedly so.

blazinshore... When you receive the notice to say if you have won a game or lost, if you press 'read' it SHOULD give you the final comments of your opponent. It always does with me! :o)

I for one,have had enough.If only ignore would leave off their post too.That would be great.I like alot of people come here to play a game and to meet new friends along the way. Let them argue in private and give the rest of us the option of ignoring this mess. Thank-you

I've read several times in the past on this board about Scrabble Bug closing down. Well, the site is now back up now. Hopefully this is good news to some.

Maybe we can have a forced challenge or something. If you are in the top ten then you have to take a challenge from someone lower every once in a while, or they have to play in a top 10 tournament every 3 months or they lose points or something. I know where people have high ratings but never play after a while, but they are on top of the ratings, and no one can play them....

i too like Scooter's idea of a forced challenge in a specified time period. I would suggest a new game at least once in two weeks.

I like the idea of a 'top ten tournament'!
I dont see how it could work forcing people to play, and some people have high ratings then get bored with the game and just dont WANT to play again!
The only problem with a top ten tourney is that you could end up playing people you really dont get on with. I avoid some tourneys so I dont end up playing a certain person, I'd hate to be forced into playing them just because our ratings are similar. :o(

harley: i totaly agree with you there :-)

Good point Harley. Ok, forget the top ten tourney then, but Scoter;s idea of the forced challenge is a good one. One must accept a challenge from someone in the top 5 or twn within a two or four week period or soemthing like that. and the challenge MUST be a pair of games, NOT ust the color that the phony player likes to play.

That would be a lot of work to implement though, wouldn't it?! You'd need reminders sending out that you have to challenge somebody (otherwise you may not BE challenged!!), I dont know, it just seems a lot!! Its basically a good idea, but you'd end up with the 5 best players continuously playing each other.
Which would solve the original problem of frauds at the top, but it might take the fun out of playing if you're playing the same people all the time.

Let's go with this! A top player has to start a pair of games of his own OR accept a top 5 player's challenge, within two weeks. That should keep the top guys honest! It won't really affect players with lower ratings.

Is there any thought to a "top" player's life or schedule.... perhaps they don't have time to play all challengers... ... why don't people get to be a "top" player themselves by winning games on their own accord???...

How about this? I am sure Fencer can set it up. Have a 2 game tournament every six months. That way the top spot is up for grabs. Make it an 8 player tournament. It would be a required tournament and you could give each player like 2 or 3 days to make the move. To sweeten the pot so that these "phony players" will want to play put up a prize. This could be a 6 month membership, merchandise, or a cash reward.

Are you sure that this (playing only as white and not accepting challenges from good players) is so common that it needs to be done something about?
Or is it maybe only 1 or 2 players who do that?
None of the top10 (or lower) Five-in-line players has declined an invitation (2-game matches) from me so far. This was also true when I just started playing here and was still unrated.
And one thing: I think you have seen this problem with Pente which is a new game here and so the BKRs are based on relatively few games. As the number of played games increases the BKR becomes a much better indication of the players skill than after a few games only. For example, I`d imagine after 50 or so played games Dmitri will have a BKR in the neigbourhood of 2500 points AND can still keep on increasing it. A not-so-good player may be able to get a good rating in the beginning BUT is bound to lose a few games at some point AND can never climb back up. To do so he would have to play against good opponents, who probably wouldn`t agree to play only as black.
This is because after you have reached a high BKR getting points gets really difficult and you have to play good opponents to get ANY points at all. For example, if I win a Five-in-line game against an opponent who has BKR as good as 2100 my BKR increases with a whole 1 point.
Shortly: provisional BKRs are often misleading, when you get an established BKR it is already much more reliable and the more you play the better indication of your skill it gets.
Top10 (or so) tournaments might actually be a good idea, BUT to be REQUIRED to play in a certain tournament is not.

although I indeed fully support the basic idea, I think a time-range
of two weeks only will let the whole system become a bit obsessive ...

go figure what kasparov would think about
if we project the whole construct at chess

leads to a second objection, the timing simply MUST depend
on the regular game-length of a certain gametype inflicted ...
how should a brainpawn be able to accept all
the challenges regarding his/her limited slots ?

to all my sincer suggestion to reflect all sidelines properly

some people actually have a life and can't stay on 24/7 to accomodate challenges

let's cool down and make a substantial idea of it !

have a blessed sunday, you all ~*~

"some people actually have a life and can't stay on 24/7 to accomodate challenges " Cant believe HE has the odasity to make such a statement...lmao. What did ya do, take a whole 3 hours off so you could post that? (not TOO transparent)hehe. Or was it the threat of some of us making admissions and getting over it? In any event I see you werent man enough or classy enough to join the ranks. Dont worry though, you'll find another sparring partner, you ALWAYS do.

hope your friend blazeinshore who stays on 24/7 to
give directions which board to post to is appropriate
will find you soon ... ~*~

how to deal with concerted mobbing (reminder) ~*~

Dont worry, I never expected civilty.

I thought blaze was my alter ego, or ya working on a new allegation? Still waiting to hear what nationality I am after you allege I'm not Canadian. Ya know when you make such claims Danos it helps to back it up with at least a little fact, ya know...credibility and all that.

any suggestions from serious players how an appropriate timing
for obligatory games of top-players [like me :D] should look like ?

a chess game might take even a few months itself ...
how should the right to challenge be defined ?

for the top ten or, twenty ?

quickshots to fix some glitches of the rankings
messing up the whole system won't help - easier
solution could be that a player who makes only
4 games to feel all cosy on the top of a list is
simply removed from it after being idle for 6 months.

as previously stated, I'm able to look through the surface
even by just utilizing the features that are already available
e.g. view profile - look up game-type - and voila, there's
the spot distinguishing masquerade from seriousness ... ~*~

not that I am a top-player.. but I don't think there should be an obligatory .. or complusory anything... this site is supposed to be fun.... not work... I pay for the use of this site for my own enjoyment and not to be demanded upon by others... as in life there will always be those who take advantages .. and TT I wish you would keep your comments on danos or anyone else to the proper board... it is you who is perpetuating it here...

Is there a way to rotate the board 180 degrees during chess games? Sometimes I find it helpful to see things from my opponent's perspective.

good idea ! I wouldn't need it for playing,
but maybe sometimes when reviewing games of other players :) ~*~

Why? In a real game of chess you can't get up, walk round to the opponents side and view the game that way!!

in a real game of correspondance chess you cAn ... ;) ~*~

Lovely Sharon, you make a good opint with "Is there any thought to a "top" player's life or schedule.... perhaps they don't have time to play all challengers... ... why don't people get to be a "top" player themselves by winning games on their own accord???..."

however, that is not the reason I was given. THe reason I was given was "I won't play you because you might win." in other words-- (my paraphrase): "I won 5 games, all as player 1, and now I will just sit here and play only the weakest players so that My rating never goes down."

It is difficult to move from the 2 spot into the 1 spot of thep erson in the 1 spot who is 80 points ahead refuses to play.

But, Sundance makes a good point about the long term raitngs, so before too long, this fruad will be a distant memory.

Dmitri that is only one person... perhaps their rating may not go down.. but yours can go up... Invite the #3 person... I'm sure if you win your's will climb much more than his by conning some poor soul into playing... soon others will catch on and refuse invites by him/her until he sees the light.. ..

"as in life there will always be those who take advantages .. ".... BOMB them!!! .

Perhaps this board should have a new title?

sorry... it started off as a talk for a new feature and got side tracked... i won't be doing that again..

Scampy: I do agree with you so much, people should look at where they are typing & what about.

AGAIN i will state, this is a GAMES site & it is here for games, to have fun & make friends ( I HOPE ). Not a chat room !!

Fencer has been kind enough to have a General Chat Board ( which is getting worse !! ).

Again, a Question to anyone - what are we on this site for ???

M.M.

posts that complain about other post not being on topis are really getting tiresome. Mad Monkey, I appreciate your concerns about this matter, but, I think you have taken it to the extreme. The discussion was about adding a new feature (forced challenges) and possible variations of this idea. I don't see why you think this is off topic. We all know there is a general chat board, as you have pointed this out before! And in this particular case, you are complaining about posts that ARE on the right board.

it's a feature not only on brainking ... 0:)

e.g. kids, joining a new kindergarden and too insecure to simply
deliver themselves into the yet unknown social structure, respectively
about their chances of making their way in the game-rankings by just
participating - try to occupy the role called 'Guardian Of Rules'
to build a first outpost in the new world ... ;) ... ~*~

PS
for children, that's a sign of intelligence btw as it's besides
of the role called 'Clown' actually the easiest entry into
SOCIAL ranking, confirmed by psychological studies
as being working ...

Dmitri: I understand totaly what you are saying :-) - but at the end of the day this is a board for Feature requests, not debate about what is happening, that is for Fencer to decide.
I still say he has enough to deal with apart from reading alot of crazy chat (not on this board) about things going on & he has to take it all in & still keep the site running well & developing new games etc....

M.M.

i dont think people should be forced into playing tournaments or the top five , i myself play when i have the time to play this could cause extra strain on gameplay

you are probably right. It is an interesting idea, but not necessarily one that can be implemented.

But if it is, and a person does not accept the forced challenge, then he would just be removed from the leader boards.... no big deal... if the person is too busy to play even one challenge over such a long period, then he should not object to being removed from the leader boards.

ok i play plenty of games out of the waiting room and plenty of tournaments i can loose planty of points already without having to play another game that is not needed . i suggest that another idea must be a better option (people cant be forced into games when they are playing them already)

Jason, take another look at what I said-- No one would be FORCED to play any more games. IF the person declines to accept any challenges in a time period, he simply is taken off the ratings leaders board until he does. Do you think soemone should just be able to sit on the leaders board for life without actually PLAYING any of hte other top players? That doesn't make sense. Besides, anyone who is unwilling to play ANY of the other top players does not deserve to be on the top of the leaders board anyway.

sorry i misunderstood what you had said , i do agree with you

... I quickly read through the last 20 or so message, so if this has been suggested as a solution, sorry.

Why not have 2 types of ratings? 1 for non-tournament games, and 1 for tournament games. This way if people just want to play the "easy win" games, they can do it as a non tournament - but play tournament games where your color is random (if it's not a new 2 player match), and a little more accurate of a players true skills.

Ok I have only been in one tournament here. I find tournaments take long to play like at IYT. SO I prefer playing non-tourney games so they move faster. I also play all kinds of opponents from bottom rating challengers to top players. For me it seems like more fun that way. After we should be playing for fun. There are too many serious things in the world without freaking out over a rating number.

Exactly - and if there were 2 different ratings (one for fun non-tournament, and one for tournaments), that would solve a lot of the problems that was described before.

That way the people who come here and play for fun - play non-tournament games with frieds will still have a rating system to help judge their skills.

Hope people don’t take this post too seriously! If so, please forgive me in advance for being long winded!

The critical point if all of this ranting is rankings and ratings. Some people value their ratings and see it as recognition of their abilities. In this sense, some people will go to great lengths to ensure they get the highest ratings possible, like only playing white. I personally have no problem with this, if they are so tied up in their self worth that they must play white to get their ratings high, they have bigger issues. I typically invite using 2 games, so we both get a chance to go first and thus make it even.

The "problem" as some might see it, is that when people do get high ratings and then don't allow for a fair and equitable means of "validating" their ranking/rating. If the person is ranked number 1 (or 2 or 3 or whatever) and decides not to play anymore, it makes it difficult for someone else to try to claim that spot. This hasn't happened here but as it grows and people decide to not play anymore for whatever reason (too busy, not interested in games anymore, lobotomy, etc... whatever) there will need to be a means of resolving this issue. As an example, you can't have someone be ranked #1 forever if that person hasn't played for years, right? Correspondingly, you wouldn't want someone ranked #1, who just plays white all the time. Does he/she deserve that ranking? For example, I just challenged someone in Spider Line and he had a 2100+ rating and he's only lost ONCE! Must be good, right? Well his record of game play was that he only played black once and lost! Other than that he has only played white. I only use this as an example and have no ill will or negative feelings for that person. To each his own.

As someone astute person mentioned earlier, this site is for fun and I think most view it as such. If that is truly the case, then people ranked at the top should have no problem if their ratings go down, right? But there are some that do care, and they want to “protect” their rating.

Like Dimitri mentioned no one would be FORCING anyone to play anything. They don’t have to play if they don’t want to! If they truly are here for fun, they will play, and if they decide not to, their rating goes down a bit, but if they are here for fun it will be no big deal right? Why would anyone have a problem with that?

I like to measure myself against better players, and it does pose a problem if I can’t play them, or if they really aren’t “better” players per se. The basic premise of challenges exists in all levels of competitive/casual game and club play. It’s not a new concept, and anyone that was on a chess team in school would know this.

For me personally it doesn’t make too much of a difference, I just mentioned it earlier as a means of suggesting a solution to resolve a “problem”. If I never make it to a top 10 position, I won't lose any sleep over it. IN any case, I hope I haven’t offended anyone and hope people do not misinterpret this post. Happy gaming everyone.

Cheers,

Scooter