andreas: plus... if a third person can see the pieces, then it would be easy for a cheater to create another account and see what is going on... thus defeating dark chess.

andreas: I think the ability to have that could give information to the players.
Imagine an empty board with a white queen on a1 and a black rook on b2. The rook can obviously see itself and the queen can see the rook, but if you were to allow outside observers to see that the rook is visible to both players, then black could potentially become aware that her rook is under attack by a piece, when she normally wouldn't know this.
Obviously, there are other ways to deal with this (only show pieces which are mutually attacking each other, more complex yadda-yaddas, etc), but I really don't see how that would make watching an in-progress dark chess game any more exciting or worthwhile.

Walter Montego: For "Dark chess" would be nice to allow to observers see pieces, which both opponents see anyway.

alanback: No offense taken. As I have the smileys shut off I had to look up the number four one to see that you were winking when you typed that. So you went down the vortex too, I see? Pull up a chair, what do want the barman to pour you, it's on me. Yes, that'd be an appropriate name. That's an interesting theory of compromise, but it has a ring of truth to it. If someone likes the compromise, they got the better of it. :)

Walter: That's a good point. I think the game state should unfold as the game unfolds (this should apply to the cube in Backgammon, too) .. but a further board revealing the final position would be a nice addition.

ps. A fine move. Congrats at getting back out of the Vortex.

playBunny: Dark Chess is one such game too. There's no way to let the board be seen without it ruining the game. I've requested in the past that after a game is over that all three views of the game be shown. As it is now you see the whole board after the game is over and sometimes the moves make no sense and it can be hard to understand what someone was planning by making what is obviously a poor move until you realize that they couldn't see the whole board.

Walter Montego: No offense meant, old chum, just playing. Maybe a good compromise would be "Taurus Froglet" with the question whether the reference is astrological or vehicular left intentionally vague. Remember, a good compromise leaves all sides unhappy . . .

alanback: The little dictionary does indeed have pedantic in it. The extra "n" makes a big difference. You're all making sense now, but I'm not sure about the reference to nearsighted mankind haters? I like you just fine. Yep, a cold draft cures what ails. Perhaps I'll survive to the knockout round yet.

As I sit contemplating the nature of beer foam and how it adheres to one's glass I have to wonder why Fencer wouldn't just rename the game and be done with it? The torus side has convinced me of the correctness of their point of view, but I'm against the display of intelligence in a pedantic way.

There's a flag on the play. The refs are reviewing the post and just might have Walter pulled out of the vortex. Stay tuned after the commercial break.

Andre Faria: I always said you were special!

Andre: It's an internationally important game and many would like to follow its progress.

playBunny: Before seeing it I was sure that this link was about my game with JIMMYLOVESNirvana...

In watching a "dark" game such as Small Espionage, the pieces are obviously hidden from observers while the game is in progress. But it wouldn't be giving anything away to have the two players differentiated, perhaps by colouring the question marks differently. An observer could then at least tell who has the most pieces.

Walter Montego: Pendantic: Like, or in the manner of, a pendant; swinging. Often mistaken for "Pedantic" by myopic misanthropes

playBunny: I'll quaff a few. Maybe it'll help for the post game discussion. My dictionary doesn't have pendantic in it, so I'll have to get the big one out.

Walter:

Here's the pitch!

And all this time I had thought the earth was an oblate spheriod.

There's a flag on this sentence. The referees are confering. They've decided. Here's the ruling:
That does not constitute a saving throw. Walter is sucked into the Vortex and out of the game.

Oh well, I tried. At least I have a head start to the pub while you guys duke it out. :) Fun game. How'd you think it up so fast?

alanback: To clarify a misunderstanding: I care about the name of the game and would like to see it changed. I discussed this right after the game was introduced but Fencer sayed he didn't want to change it. Ok, for me this ends the discussion about the name of the brainking feature.

It doesn't end the discussion about which name is correct. In my post I only wanted to correct a mathematical error (that a sphere and a torus are equivalent), and btw, KotDB has described this perfectly. Last time I was too lazy to type a long explanation.

I hope this is now really my last post on this subject.

I'm glad you guys cleared it up, i was beginning to really think the north and south poles were adjacent.

Well, perhaps more like calling a giraffe a biped.

alanback: Ah, sorry to have misunderstood you. Perhaps you're right about the offtopicness of this thread; discussion of the "Sphere" Froglet name really belongs in the bug tracker rather than the feature requests board.

We understate our case, though, if we say it's only "for the sake of mathematical purity". It's as if we called a butterfly a giraffe and claimed that it didn't matter because the distinction was only zoological.

KotDB: "Why should it matter whether it's mathematical, topological, topographical, geographical, geological, biological, anthropological, etymological, or entomological?"



That's graphic in its logic even if only slightly matic.

KotDB: You misunderstand me. I am as mathematically pedantic as anyone, and I have the BS in math to prove it. I believe strongly in using the right term, especially when the wrong term is misleading. As you have already pointed out, some players might be misled into thinking that the north and south poles are adjacent to each other!

The only thing that disturbed me in the string of messages was that Luke made it clear he did not care at all about the name of the game as a feature of BrainKing, discussion of which is the sole purpose of this message board. He only wanted us to call a torus a torus for the sake of mathematical purity. While mathematical purity matters much to him (and to you and me), it has nothing to do with the purpose of this board!

WhiteTower: Yes, the Earth is spherical in the relevant sense. But the point is that the playing area of the game called "Sphere" Froglet is not equivalent to a sphere. Look at a map of the Earth. Yes, the east and west edges should be joined together, but not the north and south edges. Or are you really suggesting that Greenland is adjacent to Antarctica?

Or look at it another way. Start with a rectangular piece of paper, and think of it as representing the board in the standard Froglet game. Now the rules for "Sphere" Froglet tell us that the left and right edges should be joined, and the top and bottom edges should be joined. So take the paper and first join the left and right edges. We now have a cylindrical tube. Then if we join the top and bottom edges (this may require the paper to be a bit stretchy) we have something in the shape of a doughnut, which is called a torus. The name is not what's important here, and in my view Doughnut Froglet would be as good a name as Torus Froglet. The point is that it is in no way equivalent to a sphere, and hence "Sphere" Froglet is a misnomer.

alanback: You and others have used the phrase "mathematical correctness" (or "mathematically correct") as if the word "mathematical" somehow means that correctness is of no importance. It seems to me that when we have a choice between correctness and incorrectness, we should choose correctness. Why should it matter whether it's mathematical, topological, topographical, geographical, geological, biological, anthropological, etymological, or entomological?

grenv:

playBunny:
Rule 1: Pedantic mathematicians have to make a saving throw each turn to avoid being sucked into a vortex.

Rule 2: When there are no pedantic mathematicians left alive the game ends and we go to the pub for a drink.

playBunny: Easiest game in the world, you don't have to know anything to play

grenv: How do you play Torus Shmorus? It sounds like an interesting game. Do you have any more details?

alanback: I know. I answered White Tower's post which started: "Sorry to be off-topic"

P.S. This will be my last post on this topic

Luke Skywalker: If you're only concerned with mathematical correctness, then you're off topic :-)

Torus Shmorus. Does any of this actually matter?

alanback: I'm not arguing user interface details (BTW I was the first to suggest doughnut) but simply stating mathematical truth (a torus is NOT equivalent to a sphere).

Luke Skywalker: Maybe the problem is with the word "torus", which is certainly unfamiliar outside geometrical circles (no pun intended). How about "doughnut" or "inner tube"

WhiteTower: you might be correct with the non-mathematicians, but for mathematicians it's clear that sphere is wrong. torus is not "also valid" but it's the only valid thing

Sorry to be off-topic, but ...

KotDB: The Earth is almost spherical and its Cartesian map is equivalent to a Froglet playing area - Q.E.D. Even if it is also valid to say Torus instead of Sphere, the spherical aspect is more easily understood by lay people, i.e. non-mathematicians :)

plaintiger: Again, that would be Torus Anti-Froglet.

i've got a suggestion, if it hasn't been made already: Sphere Anti-Froglet.

pitchman2: Try looking at Settings -> Chess. There is an option to set colours of the borad. Not sure if it affects checkers boards though...

I find it difficult to see the black pieces against the squares. Is there any chance in the future of making it easier to deal with this problem as I believe I am not alone in having this particular problem.
The other idea I suggest is using proper checkers men, say in Red and White, instead of chess pawns and chess kings.
I hope this idea is worth considering for the future :)

Fencer: Oops, I had even translated it in Greek - egg on my face!

WhiteTower: Northern Ireland

emmett: If Quebec has its own flag (which, I believe, it does) then it's just another option for Fencer to add, exactly like England, Scotland and Wales for Great Britain - BTW why is there no Northern Ireland??? :)

Does anyone know how to check and see what the longest running game is?

Marfitalu: I live on the border between Quebec and Ontario. I have lived in Quebec several times in my life. Of course, as many Quebecers would like to separate their culture from the rest of Canada's, they would like some distinction as a nationality on BK. It couldn't hurt. Yet they are still Canadians. Continuing to separate countries on BK could be interesting, but more work for Fencer.

The clarification of fellowship game types via a dropdown list is a valid suggestion. For example, I play chess variants. Subsequently, I had to go through every fellowship and not only look at the game lists associated with them, but I had to go into each fellowship and look at how many players there were on each team. A lot of fellowships state that they play all sorts of games, but often there is no one actually playing those games on a fellowship team. Even though I am on several teams, we have never played another fellowship anyway. Up until now, stairs seem to be the most active way to compete... but I would like to partake in more team efforts.

As Emmett suggested, some fellowships are little more than yet another chat forum. And that's a splendid use for some of them. It would be nice if there was a Chat Only option in the Game type: dropdown list so that such fellowships could be found.

Yes! I agree so much that having the ability for 1 team to challenge another team would be a boon to the whole fellowship concept!
The current "team tournaments" aren't started very often, and when they are, are large and take a long time to complete. With Team vs. Team, they could be created whenever any 2 teams feel like it.
Also, in partnership with this, it would be cool to be able to create multiple teams within fellowships, and be able to have a Team Vs. Team between those teams..

Fencer, in case you missed them, my recent fellowship feature idea concerning increasing the roles of team captain was posted on Jan 26, 19:35:58. It was followed by a couple of more posts elucidating this idea.

Fencer: Lol. I know it's a No. (And, even so, you do much better than other sites as regards sorting; I'm just envisioning the ideal of everything sortable/everything searchable/everything optional).

I'm still curious what you have against sorted lists, though. Is it a programming issue or a big drag on the server?

emmett: I agree, it is a pain scrolling through the pages of fellowships to find one you want.

Maybe even something as simple as a key word search feature to help navigate the fellowship list?

I also agree that the fellowships have a huge untapped potential....

Fencer: The reason for the sort request is that there are now a lot of fellowships. Sometimes I have considered a fellowship, but trying to find it later has been an unnessasary hassle. I have been playing long enough to know which long-term players that I respect, so I would like to be able to look at fellowships alphabetically by Big Boss so I can more easily consider the fellowship boards... But I was only asking... it's okay if you don't want to add a sort feature, Fencer. I wish you would have responded to my earlier queries a few days ago about my inter-fellowship matches idea, which involves increasing the role of fellowship team captains. The idea of Fellowships is great, but largely underdeveloped and therefore provides little more than yet another chat forum.