BIG BAD WOLF: It looked to me like there is no option to decline a game. Won't that work the same way as keeping them from being inactive?

playBunny: That is a good idea - I was going to say "random", but keeping the "highest" would probable be best. Then again, if the person does not like it, they can always switch it around.

Another thing that needs to be thought of are inactive players. It would be unfair to keep an inactive player in a stair - since everyone would just challenge them to get an easy time-out win.

Maybe some sort of process that runs monthly to remove (retire) players who have been gone for more then a month - or something similar.

BBW: And keeping the one which they've reached the highest in would be the kindest choice, or the top 7 if a Rook becomes a Knight.

Fencer: Maybe it would be best to "force" the player into "retirement" for all but one of the stairs - that way they can complete their games, but not start anything new. (And if they are just a couple of weeks behind in getting a new membership, they will not lose a lot.)

pauloaguia: Nothing happens. But I plan to add some restrictions for expired memberships. For example, if you don't renew within a week, all started games over the limit would be forfeited (for example, 10 games every day).

pauloaguia: If it's like the similar situation with regard to tournaments, you'll be able to continue playing games that have been started but not start any new ones.

That still leaves the question of how the system will determine which Stairs have to be dropped when reducing to the lower membership's 7 or 1.

1) Stairs can be created for all types of games on BrainKing. Your membership level determines how many Stairs you can enter:

Brain Pawn - 1 Stairs
Brain Knight - 7 Stairs
Brain Rook or higher - unlimited

So, what happens when a knight becomes a pawn, for instance? And what happens to the stairs games (s)he's playing?

gringo: The BKR changes at the end of a match according to the result of the match as a whole. The results of the individual games don't matter as far as the BKR is concerned.

One question: Does is make a difference in relation to my BKR, if I win a 2-games match 2:0 or 1,5:0,5?

I'm afraid I've been sucked into the 'discussion board zone'.

Either that or I have the 'discussion board syndrome' I have this terrible walleye to the right, and can't see a darn thing straight in front of me!

grin

lol the bright green goes past unnoticable? tis the first thing i see when they appear!

LOL. I am so terrible about reading Fencer's announcements !!!! LOL. Seems I always find out from the boards, as I scratch my head, thinking 'eh?? whut??? what stairs?'

LOL, now this sounds like FUN!

Fencer: Lol. Okay. Hmmmm, I'll have a ponder on that one.

playBunny: It means "if you want to play the best, you must deserve it first" :-)

Fencer: Thanks.

Another qustion, about Rule 5:
You can only challenge another player (who is not already challenged by someone else) on the same Step or within 3 lower as you. For example, if you stay on the Step 6, you send challenge players from Step 6, 5, 4 or 3.

That means you can only challenge those equal or weaker than yourself stairswise? No challenges to those above? I understand the opposite, namely where you can challenge those equal to or upto three steps above oneself. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I can't figure out the reasoning behind only being able to challenge those under you.

playBunny: Er, yes, BKR.

Fencer: I was going to reply 1) Super and 2) Super, but on reflection it's 1) Er, "Yes, BKR" or "Yes, outside BKR"? and 2) Super.

playBunny: 1) Yes. 2) Yes.

Fencer: Cooool. I like.

Couple of questions:
1) Do Stairs games count towards BKR or are they outside that system completely?
2) Can we have Backgammon with cube stairs please? I'd prefer 5-point matches myself. 3-pointers would be nice as well.

BIG BAD WOLF: Second forfeit recorded, 5 to go :)

fismoluni: I appreciate your points, but I think that the rankings on this site should reflect players who are active on this site. We don't include all the world's chess grandmasters in our chess rankings, nor all the backgammon champions in the world in our backgammon rankings. Just being a good player shouldn't be enough -- the player should have earned the ranking in games played on this site, and should be required to maintain a certain minimum level of activity on this site in order to retain that ranking. This is not disrespectful of anyone's ability. It just reflects the fair principle that a high ranking player should defend his status regularly.

fismoluni: The suggestion you make about a player only needing to be playing a game to remain in the ratings has been made before. The problem is that a game, on a turn based site such as this, might take a long time. I have had one game which went for about 2 years and the move number was up in the 70s or 80s. With up to 30 days per move and games which can last many moves, this is going to be a recurring issue.

alanback: hi, I am agreeing that it should not happen like you say, that people just sit on their big rating. But I think that is only one side of the story. Just to tell, I am still in the ranking, its not that what made me write this. But for example Tipau was not in the list now (he will be today again as we finished a game just now), and he one of the world strongest atomic players (if not the strongest) and takes a lot of time to play his games. but he always plays games and i am sure he is the last one who wants to sit on his rating. So my point is, that it makes the rating lists not very accurate if such players are not on it.
I can also understand, that one just has to pay the membership and there is no problem anymore, but I thought this site would also be for people who are content with the free features and I dont know if I like this players to be somehow punished. In the end I dont care that much about rating lists, but on the other hand, if there are rating lists, they should be more accurate than at the moment, where people appear and disappear all the time.

A compromise would maybe be, that only players who are not playing a game at all in a certain variation for a month should be removed, but people who are actually playing games should stay on it. But reading most comments to my post, I think you dont like that compromise as you still fear there are players just playing to stay there. And maybe you hope players will pay just to stay on the rating list.

friendly greetings,
fismoluni

BerniceC:

is it just me or is the site a bit slow today?

basplund: Provisional rating is not important.

Fencer: Ok, I see. It was just a strange effect occuring when several players with provisional ratings beat each other in a chain: player B beats player A(BKR 2000) and gets BKR 2400. Player C beats player B and gets BKR 2800. Player D beats player C and gets BKR 3200.
But it will correct itself in time.

Everything is correct.

Fencer: I'm looking at the rating history according to the graph. Something is not right there.

basplund: What I can see is 2454. Looks pretty normal to me.

I'm not sure if this is the right board to discuss this matter. I've noted a strange thing happening on the BG rating list. It says that the new #1 spuds entered with BKR 3217. Is that really possible according to the formula? What do you think Fencer!?

nobleheart: Eh???
please explain

Fencer: re :alanback: No. What is not related to BrainKing, is absolutely off topic on this board. It has nothing to do with an intolerance.
--
not to start trouble.but anyone who assumes intolerance just because you are in a place were it is inappropriate or if you encounter someone whos not into the subject...is paranoid or looking for a problem that doesnt exist.

Marfitalu: you can add a description to an individual on your 'friends list' as a reminder to yourself on what games you like to play against them. (use the 'change description' drop down box on your 'friends' page)

Marfitalu: go into their profile, their ratings will still show up in there

fismoluni: I finish many games every week; I think Fencer is extremely generous to the occasional player who climbs to the top of the ratings and then smugly sits there playing as little as possible to protect his/her rating. I don't think my ratings should be compared to those of a player who can't manage to finish one game a month!

im not sure but is there a link that also includes inactive players ? or maybe that is on the to do list

Marfitalu: nono, what I meant, and I think nabla understands, is if you see someone you want to play again, put them on your friends list, and if they drop off, you can still see them..

After all, you never can have too many friends!

Marfitalu: That would mean to check for the rating lists and to put them on your friends list when they reappear.
Not something which could be done by newbies, but well, it's OK you have to play some games before challenging the top guys, isn't it ?

Eriisa: Not really what I intended to use the friends list for, but definitely not a bad idea :-)

nabla: What about if you put them on your friends list?

fismoluni: You are right, but IMHO the point is that one month is a little short.
I don't care that I sometimes disappear of the rankings, and if I would care, as Jason points out, all I would need is to pay the subscription.
But I do care that other top players disappear of the rankings, because when I want to challenge someone strong to a game, I have no way of finding those "not-that-inactive" players again. Not really a big issue, but I now realize that it is penalizing for all users, not only for pawns.

fismoluni: paying members get 6 months before they drop of the list ;)

Hi, I find it ok that inactive players vanish from the rating list, but I think that players who are playing games at the moment should still stay in the rating lists, as a game can take more than a month and I think its wrong to say that a player who is currently playing a game is inactive, even if he hasnt finished a game in the last month. If you understand what I mean.

friendly greetings,
fismoluni

alanback: Well you should win 3 points for each time out - so for a 21 point game, you will only have to wait for them to time out 7 times!

I just noticed that a time-out in a multiple-game match does not forfeit the match, but only the current game. This is arguably a good thing, since it reduces the penalty for inadvertently allowing the clock to run out. However, it may impose a hardship on other players in situations where the person timing out has no intention of continuing the match. The situation just came up in the first game of a 21 point backgammon match; assuming my opponent has left the site or just lost interest in backgammon, is it really necessary for me to wait for him to time out 21 times before recording a win? Maybe this should be a user-settable option or, at least, one that tournament directors can modify.

Oh, wait; I just did some further investigating. The system awarded me a backgammon when he timed out! So this only has to happen 7 times in order for me to win the match ;-)

I notice he has lost quite a few matches in this way lately.

SwirlyShirley: No.

can players that I have on my "blocked users" list join games that I have posted on the "waiting games" list?

bumble: shush

Mirjam: That would be Me!!