Nome utente : Password :
Registrazione di un nuovo utente
Moderatore: rod03801 
 Feature requests

Do 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


Messaggi per pagina:
Lista delle discussioni
Non ti è possibile inserire messaggi in questo forum. Il livello minimo di sottoscrizione per linvio dei messaggi è {0}.
Modalità: Chiunque può inviare messaggi
Cerca nei messaggi:  

23. Aprile 2012, 10:24:10
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Events
Justaminute: It's below the member list in each fellowship. I think you have to check each fellowship separately.

22. Marzo 2012, 18:22:28
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Speeding up slow tournaments
Hrqls: A lot of topics in one thread here... 

On the subject of speeding up slow tournaments, a way to speed up a lot of them (but not all) would be if section winners were detected as soon as the outcome was mathematically certain. As it is now, the next round is only started after all games are completed, even if the remaining games can't possibly change the outcome. 

I can imagine one unintended side effect: The moment this change is implemented, a very large number of new games will start at once. Maybe a gradual release would be possible?

10. Marzo 2012, 08:45:48
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re:
Fencer: Works for me now - thanks Fencer.

10. Marzo 2012, 01:56:13
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re:
happyjuggler0: Exactly. It used to be above the game board, now you have to scroll way down to check if you're playing a match or a single game. I'd like it back the way it was, too.

15. Aprile 2011, 08:18:45
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Please restore a "New Game Feature"
happyjuggler0: I miss this option too. Any particular reason why it was removed?

15. Aprile 2011, 08:17:53
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: New Game Page
Orlandu: You're not allowed to have more than 50 games on the 'waiting games' list. I think if you try to make more than 50 new games, the last ones are simply not created.

7. Aprile 2011, 10:13:26
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Timeouts
El Cid: We're discussing several different things now. My biggest concern is with people (especially new members) who sign up for more games than they can handle, thus spoiling the fun for themselves, their opponents and to some extent the other people in that tournament. That's why I tried to propose a formula that forces people to prove that they can handle a lot of games before they are 'let loose', so to speak.

I'll try at this point to clarify my earlier proposal. I don't think it's perfect, but it's the best I can come up with. F is your total number of forfeits, N is the number of games you finished in normal fashion, and A is your allowance, i.e. the maximum number of games you're allowed to play. The formula goes:

A=N-F 

or, if that number is smaller than 1000, then 

A=1000

Some examples:

1) A new member who finished less than 1000 games would have an allowance of 1000

2) A member who finished 5000 games and forfeited 2000 or more of those would have an allowance of 1000 (remember, N in this case is only 3000, because forfeited games don't count as 'normal')

3) A member who finished 5000 games and forfeited 500 of those would have an allowance of 4000

4) An old member who has finished 37000 games and forfeited 100 of those would have an allowance of 36800, which is, practically speaking, the same as 'infinite'

So, for all intents and purposes, you could still play as many games as you like, but you would have to work up an allowance first.


6. Aprile 2011, 20:48:35
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re:
coan.net: But if you were already playing close to 2000 games, then one single forfeit would effectively mean you couldn't start any new games for 6 months. Isn't that a rather draconic penalty for only one time out?

And while your "black rook perk" might generate a little bit of extra income for Fencer (which is fine by me), I don't see how it helps to solve the problem about massive forfeits.

6. Aprile 2011, 08:43:18
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: timeouts
Fencer: I didn't know it had already been a rule. I'm still a newcomer, I guess!

There are some people here who can actually play thousands of games without any problems. Would you consider using something like the formula I suggested? I know it may sound complicated, but it basically means that you have to prove you can play a lot of games without timing out in all of them. Only then can you go beyond the basic limit (which could be 1000 games).

6. Aprile 2011, 08:18:16
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: timeouts
grenv: Thanks for the kind words... I've never played more than about 400 simultaneous games myself. Would that make me 40% genius?

I just wanted to suggest something that wasn't too restraining, to meet possible objections up front. I've seen people start 5000-6000 games and eventually losing most of them on time. At least, with a 1000 games limit, the damage would be reduced a lot.

6. Aprile 2011, 00:59:33
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: timeouts
happyjuggler0: I second that. Another possible formula would be something like:

Total number of games you can sign up for = (number of games you have completed in a normal fashion) minus (number of games you have lost on time) - of course with a reasonable minimum number that you could always sign up for in any event (this could be 1000, for example).

This way, you won't be able to sign up for thousands of games until you know what it's actually like to play all those games. And if you consistenty lose more than half of your games on time, you will never move above the minimum limit.

The (intended) beauty of this formula is that all membership types except rooks already have a maximum number of games they can play. This should make implementation reasonably simple.

(I apologize in advance for all the parentheses in this post. I hope it is still readable.)

6. Agosto 2010, 13:09:04
pedestrian 
Argomento: Message when tournament is deleted
I'd like to get a message when a tournament section that I signed up for is deleted due to lack of sign-ups. I might want to go looking for another tournament when this happens.

21. Aprile 2010, 12:41:50
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re:
AbigailII: Ok, that's probably better. Or maybe 'number of checks' would be even more precise than 'number of kings in check' ? One king might be in check from several pieces.

I'm also not sure I understand the purpose of rule 12. It could complicate the whole 'number of kings in check' issue, but maybe that's the point? Consider a situation where your knight and king both threaten my king. The dice tells me to move my queen, and as it happens, my queen is placed in such a way that it could capture both of the threatening pieces. According to rule 12, I would have to take the knight because it gives check, although capturing the attacking king makes more sense.

21. Aprile 2010, 11:04:46
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Possible Chess Variant
AbigailII: Rules 10 and 11 may contradict each other when you have three kings. What if you can only eliminate a check to one king by moving another king into check?

20. Febbraio 2010, 20:32:26
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Restrict the number of tournaments created, by each player, per month
Undertaker.: I think the best solution is to implement better search options, rather than restricting the tournament creators. For example, a search for a specific game type should give you a list of only the relevant sections of each tournament (rather than the current list of tournaments, where you have to click each one and look for your preferred game). That way, you could compare your options more easily. Add to this an option to search for those tournament sections that only need a few players, and I think the problem is more or less solved.

The real problem is not all the empty tournament sections, the real problem is that we can't get rid of them in the search.

12. Febbraio 2010, 20:21:18
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Doubling cube in chess
AbigailII:
you cannot see it's beneficial for the trailing player that draws won't count?

I think that's a valid point - that's actually how it works without the doubling cube, too. In my defence, I'll say that I covered this possibility when I said that I didn't see any serious drawbacks. Let's take your argument a step further:

If I'm trailing in a match, and the current game is likely to be a draw, there shouldn't be any hesitation to double if that means the game effectively won't count, should there?

Why is that a problem? Most likely, the game is going to end in a draw. In that case, both you and your opponent gets the double of 0, which is 0. So you can double, but it will only have consequences if there are indeed other possible outcomes than a draw. Which I guess was sort of the intention of introducing the doubling cube in the first place. Or, in other words: If there is even the slightest possibilty that you might lose, there should also be a slight hesitation to double. And if there's really no such possibility, then as you say, there shouldn't be any hesitation. I think that is how it should be. I don't see a problem.

12. Febbraio 2010, 19:12:04
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Doubling cube in chess
AbigailII:
Draws are a fundamental part of the game of chess, and very common. Scoring a draw as a loss is a big change of the game. You might as well replace the rooks with diamond aces. It just doesn't make sense.

Giving both players 0 points in case of a draw doesn't equal "scoring a draw as a loss", and if the game is played as part as a match, it doesn't change the game at all. It simply means that draws aren't counted, and the match continues as if this game wasn't played. World championship matches have been played this way (but not with the doubling cube, obviously!).

As you pointed out yourself, when draws are scored as 0.5 there's an undesired side effect of the doubling cube: The leading player can double the effect of a draw, thereby bringing himself closer to winning the match. This can be remedied by not scoring draws at all, and I really can't see any serious drawbacks of this solution.

Btw., how do diamond aces move on a chessboard?

11. Febbraio 2010, 22:17:39
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Doubling cube in chess
Herlock Sholmes: Sorry, but I don't think funny money would work for me. What happens if I win funny $1600 rather than funny $100... would I have to pretend I was sixteen times more happy? I just chipped in here because I thought the theoretical discussion was fun, but I think I'll leave it at that.

11. Febbraio 2010, 22:00:13
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Doubling cube in chess
Herlock Sholmes: Hmm... I'll have to admit that it was those 'technicalities' that caught my interest, though - I've never played games for the money, so I was responding to a situation where the game is a part of a match, rather than a single game with a stake. In that case, I suppose the stronger player should double - and the weaker player shouldn't have made the bet in the first place.

Off the top of my head, I'd say the draw problem could perhaps be solved by counting draws as 0 points instead of 0.5. Wouldn't that cancel all speculations about doubling in a drawn position?

11. Febbraio 2010, 21:31:33
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Doubling cube in chess
AbigailII: Interesting discussion. In your situation, I would actually do the opposite. Consider the two extremes:

If both you and your opponent keep redoubling, the entire match will be decided in just one game. That means that you're just one mistake away from losing the match. More specifically, you would lose 26% of the time in this case (not considering draws).

In the other extreme case, if nobody doubles and each game is only for one point, your chances of winning a long match are significantly higher. I'm not going to do the math, but the more games you play, the smaller the chance is that your opponent will win more games than you. Your risk of losing the match will be significantly lower than those 26%.

In general, I would say that the stronger player should be conservative in using the cube, while the weaker player should be eager to use it. I even have a feeling that this is true in backgammon as well, but I wonder what stronger bg players would think about this?

20. Gennaio 2010, 13:58:13
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re:
AbigailII: No, tournaments are sorted according to their deadline. Some tournaments start immediately when the maximum number of participants has been reached, even if their deadline is years into the future. I find myself sifting through those tournaments that 'start in the far future' all the time, because in reality they don't.

Hopefully, we'll get better sorting/filtering tools in the new BrainKing 3.0.

19. Dicembre 2009, 13:19:17
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Feature for Chess or similar games
talen314: Agree with all of your suggestions.

Slightly related, it would also be nice to get a notification when a tournament you signed up for is cancelled due to lack of players. Bishops and Knights can only play one tournament at a time of each game type, so it's relevant to know when you're free to pick another tournament.

10. Agosto 2009, 18:20:13
pedestrian 
Argomento: Pop-up message for new players?
”Warning: This is a turn-based game site. The game you are about to start may take days, weeks, or even months to complete, depending on the time control used in the particular game. If you start a game, your opponent may not respond right away, in fact they may sometimes take several days to respond. You should not start a game unless you’re aware of this and prepared to finish the game.”

I suggest something like this should pop up the first time a new member tries to start a game from the waiting list. It happens too often that somebody creates an account, surfs around the site happily for a few minutes, finds the list of waiting games, starts a few games, then sits around for a few more minutes wondering why nothing happens, logs off, never comes back…

Of course, when I create new waiting games, I could just limit them to rated or paying players and avoid playing new members at all. I actually do that some of the time. But if everybody did that, how would new members ever get to play? If these ‘ghost players’ were scared away with a warning, I expect that more old members would be willing to play new members, and everybody would benefit :-)

27. Giugno 2009, 11:07:51
pedestrian 
Argomento: cheshire cat dice - yet another game idea
This idea is not fully developed, I just wanted to put it up here and see what people think.

A cheshire cat dice has the special feature that whenever it lands on one side, that side disappears and you can't land on it again. That means that a cheshire cat dice can only be rolled six times, then it's used up. It also means that the more times it is used, the more predicable it gets.

Now, what would happen if we played some of the dice games here with cheshire cat dice? Backgammon? Dice Poker? Do you think it would change the strategy in an interesting direction? I imagine that the dice would be replaced every sixth move, and you would have some kind of special graphics to show which rolls are still possible.

9. Giugno 2009, 23:42:50
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Protected Chess
ChessVariant:
I think this "protected chess" would be confusing enough without special rules for the pawns. Consider, for example, a position where white has a pawn on d3 and bishops on e4 and f6. Assume that the bishop on f6 is unprotected and moves like a cardinal, giving check to the black king on g8. Now, provided that the d3 pawn is the only piece protecting bishop-e4, black may parry the check by taking this pawn. Be4 now becomes unprotected and moves like a cardinal, so Bf6 is protected and moves like a bishop, and there is no check. I imagine that this kind of chain reaction could become extremely complicated and create some insane tactics - so please, just let the pawns be pawns :-)

28. Maggio 2009, 14:17:04
pedestrian 
Argomento: Re: Crossdresser Chess - new game proposal
ChessVariant: Special rules for promotion doesn't seem to make very much sense in this game, since the pieces change with every move anyway. A pawn on the 7th rank would have gotten there by accident, because you never hoped for it to become a pawn when you moved it there. To simplify, I'd suggest that any piece or pawn that is moved to the 8th rank will crossdress like usual, except that it can't become a pawn in this case.

Data e ora
Amici in linea
Forum preferiti
Gruppi
Consiglio del giorno
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Torna all'inizio