Walter Montego: It's an excellent idea!

BuilderQ: No, a two-game match ends with the second game won by either of the players and you get one result, whereas a two-game "pachage" gets you two 1-game matches and two results. Have I got something wrong?

Fencer: Is it premature to talk about the new tournament system under development? If not, while recognizing you could have already taken these into account, I wish to make three suggestions:

1. In a multi-section event, when a point is reached at which there are clear winners in all the sections, the next round should commence ASAP, or within a day.

2. Pawns and Knights may be given the option to remove themselves from a tournament (sure, it can be done now by messaging you, but that's a hassle for you and the player) if they are already eliminated or have no chance for advancement and have either completed their games or agree to summarily resign those remaining.

3.Pawns may be allowed to enter more than one tournament at a time, say maybe 3 to 5. After all, a lot of them may not feel that it is worthwhile coming here for just a handful of games in a tournament and perhaps a few casual games on the side. And, I dare to wonder, if they get a taste of how enjoyable that is, it could be a stronger incentive to join!

Many would argue that Pawns contribute nothing, and so ought to be satisfied with what they get for free, but I strongly disagree. Even though they don't pay, Pawns are the bulk of the player base here, which provides much greater entertainment for those who want to buy more games and privileges. And, lest we forget, we were all Pawns in the origin, and many became members, but the future members to be are out there among the vast array of Pawns, so shouldn't we try to make it as interesting for them as possible? The more you get involved in something and the more you are given a chance to participate, the more you will want to and the harder it is to walk away from it.

Pioneer54: Thanks for the suggestions.

Fencer: You're welcome. :)

Pioneer54: "vast array of Pawns"... sounds like a game of Horde Chess :))

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Pioneer54: The more-than-one-tourney suggestion will certainly hit the ceiling of the number of games a Pawn may have started. If the 10-free-slots rule doesn't change, I suppose a Pawn could join these extra tournaments as long as they had enough slots left, by finishing other tourney games for example.

Pioneer54: My thoughts

1. This would be great if it would not put too much strain on the server. Maybe once a day when the server is the least busy, have a script run through current tournaments to see if it can be determined if there is a winner for each section - and start next round if so.

2. This can be a good idea, but at the same time - many players don't understand the points & S-B in a tournament and may not be able to determin if they are out or not. (Then what will happen if a pawn "removes" themself from a tournament, but then to find out he would have won?) Maybe just a change in the restriction would be beter then worring about this.

3. I could see 2 options for panws. (A) Let pawns enter as many tournaments as they want as long as they do not go over 20 game limit. or (B) Make it so they can only start a new tournament once a month - so at the 1st of the month they can enter a new tournament even if the first one is not done... and they are still under their 20 game limit.

I would also like to see the restriction of 1 of each game type of tournaments for knights removed also. For players who play MANY different types of games, this restriction does nothing. But for someone who only plays chess, well this could be a killer. Just having the 50 game limit seems like enough.

4. I would also like to add that it would be nice if a check could be put into place when a pawn/knight enter a tournament to see if they have room AT THAT TIME - instead of when it starts and then kicks them out. It would not be full proof since one might get in, but then be over the limit by a second round starting elsewhere - but I think it would be helpful.

BIG BAD WOLF: Another idea for your 4. is that perhaps the required slots could be reserved for the tournament (or as many as possible if insufficient), or some number that the player suggests having been given a warning that the rest must be played and freed by the time the tourney starts. This would be especially useful when booking far in advance (Lol which would be a week in my case).

Pioneer54: or Fencer: If a Pawn or Knight member makes it to a second or later round in a tournament, do the slots required to continue in the tournament count against the member's total avaliable or does the fact that they already qualified keep these extra games needed to carry on in the tournament not count against their total slots?

Walter Montego: The games always count to the total slots. But in case of second or next round, the max value can be exceeded.

Fencer: Thank you for your reply. I wasn't too clear on how it went. Seems like once you join as a Rook these issues aren't too much of a concern. I had the feeling you had it set up this way because otherwise someone would be thrown out of the tournament in a later round and that just wouldn't be too fair for someone that had made it that far.

Walter Montego: You Rooks are oligarchs! :)

I don't know if it's already been suggested, but I think that when someone is in a pond, and the membership period ends, one should be allowed to continue playing the pond, i.e. the restriction for members only of ponds, should be applied only when the pond starts

El Cid: This sounds logical, but the converse is true too. Don't join a pond if you know your time is up and you're not going to renew your membership.

Both your idea and the way it is actually done here are fair, though one may not seem right to the person that becomes a Pawn after starting in a pond. I can't remember if it clearly states in the rules as to what happens to you if a pond continues pass the expiration date of your paid membership.

WhiteTower: As we look down to the valley from the hall of the mountain king and wonder how the other half lives. :)

OK here's a real feature request, instead of a misplaced Bug Report:

1. It would be useful if the list of Finished games in the profile could be sorted by clicked on a heading, list the Main Page table.

2. A column for Total Games played would be useful too.

M132T003C:

1. When I click on ANY heading in ANY page where "sorting" is available, nothing happens - is this ANOTHER "paying members only" feature or what?

WhiteTower: I'm a non-paying member and the sorting on the Main Page works for me

WhiteTower: And now?

Fencer: Fencer, you're a magician!

No, you're not, but yes, it worked, so come on, let the embarassment aside and tell us what was wrong ;)

WhiteTower: Nothing but a missing row in one table :-)

Fencer: I suppose the Romans will always be right:

Errare humanum est.

Or an even better modern version:

We're mistakes and we make humans.

I would like to see the moves list sorted from bottom to top. I think it should be an optional setting so that players who prefer it the way it is now can keep it as is.

In longer games, I find that I keep having to scroll to the bottom of the page to study what my opponent did the last few turns, then page back up to the top to study the board, then to the bottom again if I want another look. In long games (I've played Espionage past 100 moves more than once), this can be a pain. If the moves list were sorted with the most recent move on top, this could be avoided and would make at least one player very happy. ;-)

Thanks,
Thad

Thad: No.

Thad: No. Sonneborn-Berger must stay. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonneborn-Berger out - it is an usual used system.

Fencer: OK, at least rename it to its proper name: Neustadtl score?

Please?

WhiteTower: No. If rename, then show both names. In Germany/Austria nobody uses "Neustadtl-Score" (Germen Wikipedia - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonneborn-Berger )

chessmec: Is this some kind of political struggle? Whoever was first to mention it gets to name it, I think. So both pages claim the same? In that case, name it something neutral :)

WhiteTower: I think Fencer decided well to use "Sonneborn-Berger" as the name ... I think in chess world this name is more known and used than "Neustadtl Score".

Nothing political struggle. I am just wondering about the "Neustadtl-Score"-English Wikipedia.

I use the name I am used to it. There is no reason to rename it.

Fencer: You're the boss. But did you know about this tie-breaking system before you started BrainKing? ;)

Anyway, back to feature requests. On behalf of people with widescreen monitors, I would ask for a favour: to increase the width of the background brain image to 1280 - this will also cover people with the 1280x1024 normal resolution as well as the 1280x768 widescreen resolution.

WhiteTower: But the image gets harder to load which is not that good for players like me who use dial up with really low speed!

WhiteTower: I used to be an active chess player for more than 10 years before BrainKing and I am aware of all possible tie-breaking and other systems. I would never introduce anything which is totally unknown to me.

WhiteTower: Hey what about those poor people struggling to fill their 1600x1200 screen? Do they have to suffer these tiny images?! ;-p

Reza: What background image? I have it turned off in Settings.

playBunny: I like the image butnot if it gets bigger!

reza: It gets bigger by a very small amount, because there's nothing in the extra area covered. Anyway, if you come through dial-up, you should really have it turned off anyway, isn't it a waste of your bandwidth?

WhiteTower: What about using Browser-Cache?

reza: The image seems to have 60 kB with current resolution, wouldn't be much different with higher I bet. By the way, do some web browsers offer some "cache images" feature? It might be useful in certain cases. Images for brainking pieces ocassionally fail to load and this would help there too, rather that usual "Show picture" approach.

chessmec: The original image is 800x768, 65Kb approx. at 72DPI. I suppose the way the image is right now is perfect for 800x and 1024x resolutions, but any higher and you get repetition on the right side. I'll just have to live with it... Not that I see that page that often anyway.

WhiteTower: Either turning off background image in your settings (do not know if pawns can do that) or blocking this special image only with your browser.

Or waiting for a new and improved visual layer of BrainKing.

chessmec: Maybe I wasn't clear - I already have that background image turned off - but the front page of BrainKing has it permanently there whatever your setting is.

Fencer: Tell us a bit more, please :)

WhiteTower: Now, what about blocking this one and only image with your browser?

chessmec: After logging in, I can visit that front page and THEN the background image isn't visible - the gray background is on at that time. I believe that to be a result of the relevant cookie read by the website, except it's not read before I log in.

would it be possible to show the online status of players in tournament tables? E.g. using a green dot as on the main page.

chessmec: <quote>Sonneborn-Berger [...] is an usual used system.</quote>

yes, it is, but in my eyes it's nonsense. In a round robin you may look at the result(s) between tied players but any other system is just an arbitrary way of breaking ties at all costs.

SB basically honours wins against higher ranked opponents. Agreed: if a player has a better SB then he has scored better against the stronger opponents. But he has also lost more points against the weaker opponents, so what's the sense in granting him the higher rank?

kleineme: I agree, it is an arbitrary rule to break ties that doesn't make much sense. But then again no tie breaker makes sense. Even looking at head to head is flawed for the same reason. Why should one game count more than another?

In my opinion tied players should advance regardless of attempts to break the tie.

grenv: Right!