Andre Faria: hey.. can I use your paypal account and do some shopping??

ScarletRose: LOL, sure you can :))))))))))

Doerdich ....I went and gave you the draw in our loop chess game, because I pity people that don't know the rules and then want out, too many people fear that first blemish ...hehehe... but what bothers me ? your claim (on a Forum) that if you had underpromoted to a bishop you would have won...I'm happy to play on this nice site and happier more for the (blocked users) feature...

Andre Faria: kewl.. just send all infos needed to my pm box.. hehe..

Doerdich:

Sorry, it was my mistake.

But just from my point of view: The right discussion board for that would have been the German speaking board.

Another reason only (and only) to play here.

thank you all for your help,

we agreed draw now and will soon start a regame, so everything is fine now ;-)) best wishes, doerdich

For white, maharajah must lost absolutely.
I think it must be exciting if black side has only 8 pieces and none of pawns.

For black, must lost.
For more exciting, i think, must plus 40 or more pawns for black. ( 32 pawns are too few! )

kkkeeek: Yes, that's true :-) I didn't say all games on BrainKing were balanced. But they can be a good fun for beginners.

Yes they are fun, but after a while they become boring as the result is always the same......Why don't you change Maharajah a bit: Just add one more Maharajah.........! 15 seconds or 1-2 more lines of code.......

Pythagoras: What would be the goal of the game for the black if there were two maharajahs?

Pedro Martínez: capture you and the other maharajah

Pedro Martínez:
2 ideas:
A) Checkmate one Maharajah (or 2 if possible).....
B) Capture both Maharajah's (with check being valid or not).......

I don't know which is better.....

Hi,
usually only symmetrical games are balanced, because it is very difficult to figure out which arrangent is equal when there are different start positions or different pieces. But, sometimes I think also symmetrical games can extremly favour one side (usually white). One example: In Three Check Chess I think white is much better and black has a very difficult game...

For Horde Chess:

1)Allow the Hordes' Pawns to move one or two steps from any square on their half of the board. As usual, allow "in passing" captures. This small change might be enough to change the balance of power.

2)Adding more Pawns might work as suggested by kkkeeek.

3)How about adding a King to the Horde, but still require the chess set to capture every Pawn and then checkmate the lone King? The King could be checked and captured if not moved out of check, but not checkmated until the last Pawn is captured. If he is checkmated but still has one or more Pawns left of the Horde, it will be a win for the Horde.

I think idea 1 would be the most workable and easiest to impliment. If it proved to give the Horde an advantage it might have to have some modifications made to it, like only allow each Pawn the two step move if they're on the second row or haven't individually been moved if on the third or fourth row. It'd certainly give the Horde some more options just being able to move two steps from the third and fourth row. Would it be enough to offset the chess set's advantage though. How's 'bout some beta testing? Fencer could you set up a section of this site for play testing some of these games or rules changes that people come up with?

Idea 3 would change the nature of the game and probably wouldn't be Horde Chess any more. All the same, how many times would the Horde have prevailed if it just had a little more power on the board to tip the scale a little towards it? The King is the weakest of the chess pieces and still the symbolic leader of the troops. This idea could work also if you just added the King as an extra piece and didn't treat his capture as any different than losing a Pawn and required the chess set to capture all the Pawns and the King in any order. If it isn't enough to tip the power, perhaps two Kings could added? Put them in the space on the back row? Or maybe add a Knight? I'd start with just adding one King and see what happens to the winning statistics, especially if the added King is treated as just another piece on the board. That should be an easy addition to the game.

Maharajah Chess

1) Adding a second Maharjah seems like giving to much power to the Maharajah's side. Especially if the Maharajah side can continue on in the game after losing one of the Maharajahs. I suppose it'd need testing. If it proves too powerful, a weaker piece could be tried. I'm amazed the Maharajah wins almost 30% percent of the games here. It obviously is a strong piece that can checkmate by itself without back up. Just adding a Rook to its side might be more than enough to balance its chances out. It could lose the Rook and continue on, but the Maharajah would be like the King and lose the game if checkmated.

2) How about adding a row of Pawns to the Maharjah's side? That should help slow down the advance of the chess set's pieces. And, as with the Chess Set's side, no promotions.

2¢

Maybe we should continue this over on the Chess discussion board

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=6

Goodfoods and his wife went through hurricane Katrina.. their house withstood the winds.. they lost lots of trees.. and due to the power surges lost their A/C and their Refridge and Freezers.. amongst the smaller appliances.. which those smaller ones he says can be replaced easier.. he did mention though.. the larger appliances are a bit harder to afford at this time..

If any of you would like to help donate even 5 or 10 dollars would be of a great help.. and when we have reached the goal of getting him his needs perhaps the extra money can go to someone else in his area.. :)

TT and I, amongst others are anxious to help.. so please contact one of us privately to find out how you can help him and his family..

Thankies

where can i find a list of customer sevice people ?

Jason: http://brainking.info/service.html
But it's a little outdated.

I have a question about the BKR: How is it calculated?

Doerdich: how BKR's are calculated:
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/holography/web_pics/blackboard-W00.jpg

nobleheart: LMAO!!!

nobleheart:

Is it possible to find easily the games that you have played with somebody?

tycho: Go to their profile, and choose to be shown the players' games with you only.

reza: Thank you reza!

tycho:

nobleheart: LMFAO

nobleheart: LMAO at that! That looks like the way I would have done it myself!

pauloaguia: Sorry for the delay, been busy at work. I like backgommon, although I haven't played in a few years. Feel free to send an invite if you'd like!

nobleheart: I think that you have mistaken that formula with the formula for level 6 burnt auburn hair color

Vikings: LMAO

Vikings: ya think?

http://www.strangecelebrities.com/images/content/104594.jpg

Vikings: your hairball...lol


http://www.photohome.com/pictures/animal-pictures/wildlife/orangutan-1a.jpg

ehm nothing against but thats OFF TOPIC

get a life bud,the though police thing is a little dated don't you think?

chupacabraVS2: Maxxina isnt trying to be tough police. There is a general discussion board for jokes and funny images ( and a jokes board for that matter). This board is for the features etc in BK. Please read the top of each discussion board before getting rude with ppl who are only trying to be nice and let you know it is off topic.

oh rose..geez ,I though we were in the general board

It does not appeal to the new way to me to calculate the BKR. the stronger players are a lot penalized and if 100-150 difference is one points forgiveness a lot rating. I nearly had arrived beyond the 2500 points in backgammon (modestly and with hard work against all) and in little time I have lost 160 points (watches my diagram).
Type can go well for chess or similars but absolutely not for the backgammon where the player with a rating of 1500 can strike one with 2600.
Therefore one stimulates the strong players not to play!!!

arpa: I agree with that. I with a BKR of 1800+ but not yet 1900 can win a player whose BKR is 2500+ in backgammon. As I have once dfeated Rex Nihilo. He's a great player but if it's my lucky day, I can win. If he loses a lot of BKR, it just encourages him not to play me any more.

In other games it's fair, but in Backgammon and Hyperbackgammon, I think not.

maybe you could try to figure out a solution for that my dear Fencer?

Regards

arpa: Yes, many people will agree with that.

The rating system that is currently on BrainKing is a system that is used for Chess - or games that use a lot of "skill", and very little luck.

But when you get into games like Backgammon which still takes skill to play good, but luck is added into it - then the "skill" rating system does not work as well.

Then when you get into even more "luck" games like battleboats, then the "skill" rating system really does not work.

There was been talk before by other users (with more knowledge them me) of different rating systems which would work good for different games.... But I'm not sure if Fencer wants to mess with a lot of different rating systems for a lot of different games.... even though in my opinion, it would be a good thing.

BB: Aye. Hypergammon has a higher luck component than Backgammon. How do you quantify the luck in Battleboats? There's a small but discernable degree of luck in Dark Chess. Different formulas for each would be appropriate.

But just two - the Chess one for games of pure skill and the Backgammon one for games with chance in them - that would be a good compromise and easy to implement.


As an example:
A top player here (BKR 2540) plays a single match against someone of 2400 points. It will be a gain of +5 for a win and a drop, -11, for a loss. That means that the higher player must win 2 out of every 3 games. Such a small rating difference does not reflect such a degree of difference in skill. In the example given the two players are well matched. The lower rated one has won 9 matches so far and the higher player has won 8.

Using the well established Backgammon formula (top player's rating at 2100 and lower player at 2000) the points would be 1.88 for a win and -2.12 for a loss. That ratio better reflects the skill differential: 52.9% winning chance for the higher player, 47.1% for the lower (and the points in inverse proportion).

Also noteworthy is that the match itself, being a single pointer, is only worth 4 points in total rather than being worth 16 as in the BKR example.

I hope it is clear from the example above that the Chess formula is unfair - and this is of a top 5 player playing a top 20 opponent!

When it comes to a high rated player against a much lower player, say a player 300 points lower (which is still top 70 and a strong opponent), the formula makes it highly punitive. A drop of 14 points for a loss and only 2 gained by a win! That means the higher player must win 7/8 matches just to stay even. There is no way that a 300 rating point difference can be justified by that.

Even against an average player, and Reza gives himself as an example, the top player will lose a substantial percentage of games because of the Dice Gods. (The Backgammon formula predicts 30%). The Chess formula's ratio of -14:+2 and worse will make higher ratings plummet as a result of normal losses in tournament matches - and that's a good reason to feel wary about joining them.

playBunny: Whenever i play a player in any backgammon game with a rating of 2000 or more.they always win the dice roll.LOL does this come with LUCK

THE HIT MAN: I maintain the dice roller should be destroyed painfully, but he /she keeps coming back LOL

dice are evil

dice are fickle

arpa: that is why I will only play high rated opponents now. You have a couple bad rolls and your losing a lot of rating. I still have games with low rated players going, but with the new rating system, will only be playing higher rated players. at least then I am only losing by 10 or so points, and will win enough games that I can maintain my rating.

That's what i was thinking to myself earlier, a lot more high rated only tournements i think i'll be joining.

Kata Liana: That would be a shame if all high rated players played like that. The lower rated ones would never grow!

It seem silly though Eriisa to be able to gain 1 point (if that) yet lose 50 or whatever, i just lost a game of tablut and went down over 100 points and the ratings were only 250-300 apart anyway.

Eriisa: Maybe they need to rethink the rating system then for backgammon. It was fine the way it was before, I had no problem with it then. I joined all tournies then. With the change, you are really penalized.