Walter Montego: Sorry about that bracket (but you found the icons).

Thanks for the description - inetresting.

I always play the original Ultima - I think nobody much plays the suggesition to limit moves.

Cartesian: http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/ultima.html

Your link has a bracket on the end of it and messes up where it sends you.

Utlimamen versus Chessmen is just that. One player gets Chessmen and the other plays with Ultimamen. Chessmen are very strong against the Ultimamen. The Immobilizer is an exception. Even though it can't capture a piece, I feel it is stronger than the Queen. Chamelions are pretty strong against the Chessmen too, though you have to agree to whether they can take Knights or not. It seems that the few times I played this game we didn't allow them to capture Knights as they couldn't move like them. IF the game was played more often and win and losses got too onesided in favor of the Chessmen, you could allow them to capture Knights as one way to attempt to balance the game. We also played that the Ultimamen could move as far as they wanted too, like in the original version of Ultima.

Walter Montego: What is Ultimamen vs Chessmen?

Walter Montego: Well I follow Abbot and turn over the Rook. But I really like the Alternate Ultima Pieces (see http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/ultima.html) which look good on flat boards or screens.

KotDb, Cartesian: Do you guys turn a Rook over for the Immobilizer, or do as we do and put a bottle cap on it? I have thought up a good design for some of the pieces, but we always have used a Chess set. If Fencer was to add Ultima to the site, I have some ideas for the icons that could be used. Though I suppose the Chess icons would work fine and a bottle cap or upsided down Rook would work for the Immobilizer.

Did you ever play Chessmen against Ultimamen?

well that's 3 players for Ultima!

Yes Walter I know the Roccoco version - looks very interesting too

Cartesian: That's how I originally joined IYT and then this site, looking to play Ultima. I believe I did request it a couple of years ago too. Have you seen or played the Roccoco version of it? I haven't but it looks like it'd be a good game too.

Cartesian: I second that.

I'd really like to see the chess variant Ultima on here.

rod03801:

Thanx for the response

Baked Alaskan: Yes, it has been mentioned.

In 2003, Fencer's responses were:

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=3&ngi=5299

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=3&ngi=60668

Has Mancala been mentioned for a future game?
Would love to see it here Fencer

mctrivia: Even when I wasn't a pawn I preferred to schedule my own vacations ;)

mctrivia: He is a pawn, so therefore he needs to schedule his vacation. I agree with him in that it would be a nice addition to persons "my profile".

pauloaguia: I can see that though I think most paying members use autovacation instead of scheduling there vacation time.

Can there please be a link on the profile to set the vacation days? I find myself always going to my profile looking for the place to set them only to remember myself after a while that they are set in Settings. I think it's so much obvious to look for them in my profile since it's where I look them up for everyone else.
I think a simple link next to the vacation days left would probably be enough.

Vikings: Yes, the second Pond I am taken to is the one! But I don't think that it makes sense to be taken to one with the most time left first! Maybe I want to think about that one, maybe not - but the other pond is definitely more urgent! The only problem about that is, that I have to move in the least urgent pond before getting to the urgent ones if I don't want to consult the MainPage. All that would be solved by a "play later" - option for ponds, like we have for all other games :)

Mr. Shumway: clicking the red number will show the last game to come up I believe, if you sort your games on the settings page by "time left", "Ascending" then when you are playing your ponds and click "go to next game" it will go to the one with the shortest time left

When I click on the red number on the MainPage that indicates in how many Ponds I have to bid, I would like to be taken to the Pond with the least time left, not the most!

mctrivia: Should be more like 100 though, problem is that the population of the site is small and many people are not that established, so 25 games here doesn't show as much as 25 games at a chess club against well established players.

Vikings: Sorry my bad. I didn't actually look it up to verify.

Baked Alaskan: yes, 25

mctrivia:
I thought it was 25 games?

alanback: I chose 20 because I beleive that is when your BKR becomes established. But I agrea games of high chance should have a higher BKR establish point.

hexkid:
Wow! I just learned something new... thanks to both you and rod03801.

cd power: Click Finished Games on your profile (the link takes you there; I've filled in your user ID).

cd power: On your Finished Games page, you will see little clickable graphs. Also in each individual game you are playing, you will see the graph icon beside your name and your opponent's name. (There may even be a few other places. Messages at the end of games comes to mind also. There is a graph icon next to the BKR change.)

furbster:
I must be blind... I'm a paying member but can't find the charts/graphs anywhere on this site. I did a search and found that it's supposed to be on my user profile page? I don't see anything there... where can I find the charts/graphs?

mctrivia: For backgammon and other games with a luck factor, the minimum number of games should be much higher, not less than 100.

gambler104: However it would be nice to see a list of the top 10 ever bkr games for each game. Though only BKRs after the first 20 games should be counted.

ok, thanks. I just forgot that paying members could look at it.

gambler104: for example, your highest chess rating was 1856 in the early part of this year

You can see that on the BKR graphs/charts if you're a paying member.

Would it be possible to list the highest rating a player has ever achieved in a game?

Summertop: Good idea. Even better with colours reversed ?

When a game is completed, you get a PM giving the outcome of the game (including the rating change). It would be nice if there was a link to issue a re-match. Basically, just issue a challenge to the opponent with the identical settings as the original challenge.

grenv: Yes, and the same is true about Recycle Chess.

nabla: Hostage Chess looks like fun, and it can be played on a regular board (unlike loop et al where the pieces change color).

Fencer: Yes, good question, the link I gave is slightly outdated. It looks like Recycle Chess is now always played with promotion, and it is also the way I played with the inventor some months ago. Of course it makes a huge difference : pawn drops to the seventh rank are very common when playing with promotions.

nabla: Recycle Chess with or without pawn promotions?

KotDB: I love Bughouse, believe me, but I don't support it to be implemented here. Bughouse requires to be live and fast-paced to be of any fun. To play it turn-based you would probably have to set up an order of play like (boards are A,B) A white - B white - A black - B black - A white ... It has been done but I don't think that it has been fun :-)
As for Crazyhouse, I fail to see why it should be better than Loop Chess (generally named Chessgi). The only difference is that in Crazyhouse a promoted piece return to pawn after it is captured. The reason of this special promotion rule is obviously to copy over-the-board Bughouse, where you don't have time to seek for a promoted piece and you continue to play with one or more pawns which have the power of a queen ; it is already hard to remember that they were promoted while they stay over the board but it would be impossible to remember it once they are taken, so the only way to handle promoted pieces is to state that they return to normal pawns once captured.
So the only advantage of Crazyhouse over Loop Chess is that Bughouse players are more acquainted to it. This being said, it is less logical, and a completely correct user interface for it would require to place markers on all promoted pieces, as they behave differently from normal pieces once they are captured.
Rather than Crazyhouse, there are two other excellent games in the same family, namely Recycle Chess and Hostage Chess. Recycle is not hard to implement, Hostage is harder.

Nothingness: You're thinking of Bughouse. I'd like to see it here as well, but it may not be so easy to implement.

Also, I'd like to echo a recent request for Crazyhouse, which in my opinion is a better game than Loop Chess.

Walter Montego: But, I do agree that chances are slim that Fencer will add new discussion boards for this.

Walter Montego: I don't visit the Backgammon board, but I used to go to the Chess (and other boards). I have seen the moderator(s) ask that feature requests be moved the Feature Request board.

alanback: That's not how I remember Backgammon requests. True plenty of them show up on this board, but the Backgammon board gets its share of Backgammon related requests. Considering it wasn't that long ago that Fencer consolidated the boards, doubt if he'll be adding discussions just for the purpose of making requests for individual games. The Chess discussion boards get game requests all the time on the various variant pages, why should Backgammon be any different?

Walter Montego: Not so. That board could be considered to correspond to the BrainKing.com board -- for general comments on backgammon. I was referring to a specific feature requests board. The main purpose would be so I don't have to keep reading feature requests for things like Ponds and Super Intergalactic Go.

alanback: There already is such a board.

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26

Just as the heading says on this board.

I really like this idea. But, not just for Backgammon. I would like to see a general features board for non-game features. then a feature board for each game family (chess, backgammon, etc.).

alanback: I second this idea..

Nothingness: Very similar to loop chess, but your partner gets the pieces you capture. It would be fairly easy to implement (I think). Each game could go on independant of each other. You would need to be able to see your partner's game.