Fencer: CCP is fine with the keyboard but the one which can't (so far as I know) be replicated with keys is to copy a shortcut, particularly useful with the "link" feature.

I noticed that the default for this new feature had a number of "commands" included which must then call up other key sequences, is it possible to have a list of all these, or are the ones in the defulat the only ones.

Also, not sure if this possible, but could the windows right click button be made a submenu if the right button javaa script is enabled?

Andersp: It worked for George

There is a lot of discussion wanting to "do away with" auto-vacation, some component of the weekends and even possibly predetermined vacation days.

Firstly, I am pleased to hear Fencer will be revising at least some of these. One of my gripes is that auto-vacation days (and at times vacation days) are not actually vacations, they are just "non-time-out" days. A vavcation day, I beleive, should step EVERY game back 24 hours, not just delay the ones which were going to time out to not time out till the next day. All the present system does is give you twice as many games to catch up on the next day, hardly a vacation.

Secondly, I try not to use auto-vacation days but there are times when I simply cannot get on for some periods of time because I have work to do or like BBW am not near a computer which is quick enough to play many games - try playing Jarmo on dialup!. When these days occur I get online if I can and play a few games, but am not able to play them all, and yes i am selective about the games I play and don't alwyas make the decision on whether that particular game will time out - there are many deciding factors in which games I play, time left is only one. Play less games you say ... well I play the amount of games I am comfortable with for 95% of the time and rely on auto-vacation for the other times.

Thirdly, also as said before ... only play in the games you are comfortable with. I do not play any 1 or 2 day games. I do not play any fischer clock games. I do not play any fixed weekend games (except where I missed it when signing up). I have adapted to what suits my style of playing, I think you all need to do the same. Because I don't play particular styles of play I do not call for the whole site to change to suit me, so please do not reply in kind.

Elsewhere Fencer has (recently) stated that this site offers many options ... use them if you want, or not.

And lastly a poignant offering ... I notice that two of the protagonists for doing away with autovacation still have their own autovacation set to on .... is this a double standard or just and oversight?

harley: But you all claim not to be gods so what would be the use?

harley: go to the global mods ... you're joking aren't you!

wetware: And to complete the set there are:

6x6: http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=106
10x10: http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=96
Other Variants: http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=45
Chinese: http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=92
Japanese: http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=94

There are also some German speaking boards and maybe other languages too.

Cheers ... WQ:)

WhisperzQ: No, there are some who offer from about move 3 or 4 (although it may true that there is game is indeed lost even at this stage, they just don't know it yet ... LOL j/k :)

And then there are others who offer draws with each move ... I find that a tad annoying too :(

Princess Alison:

Princess Alison: Talkin ta yaself, ya musta be crazy ... or Irish

playBunny: I thought all Welshmen got life at birth?

Dryznik: Actually, as site owner, financier, developer and host Fencer probably really is the lone King of the Hill :)

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.

02i: There has been extended discussion on this matter on the Chess Variants (8x8) Board over the past few years. Although there a lot of messages there and the ones regarding Maharajah Chess are somewhat intermingled, you might like to read through them to see what some others have suggested to possibly even out the game.

Cheers WQ:)

DanDanDan: And make sure when you select the "NON ACCEPT" button you have actually selected the corret button as a draw, once accepted, cannot be undone (as I unfortunately found out the hard way :(

As moderator there a number of issues which come up which may or may not belong on a particular board. Sometimes off-topic discussions can be fruitful and I am always willing to read and follow these, even allowing them to remain if they make a positive contribution to the site.

In the case which has recently been discussed here the posts were not on-topic for the board and the ongoing discussion was not contributing to the well-being or edification of 8x8 Chess Variant players. While some posts were clearly expressing individual opinions (to be admired) some were couched in a somewhat devisive idiom ... when this trait began to arise ALL posts on the subject were deleted and a general comment pointing to the stated aims of the board was posted.

Subsequent posts containing personal attacks and veiled threats were deleted immediately.

I stand by the "moderating" which I have done ... I have, I believe, acted in the best interests of the site and not because of any personal biases, and I would hope that all would see that my actions have been impartial and that all have been treated equally regardless of whichever side of the fence they may reside.

I have said to AbigailII personally and now reiterate it publicly ... I would encourage her to stay here and play her games, run her tournaments, and continue to contribute to discussion groups in a positive, constructive and instructive manner. BrainKing is a community of individuals with a wide range of opinions, but in all our actions we need to remember to be a strong community we need to build ourselves up not tear each other down.

Regards ... WhisperzQ

playBunny: The 100 points was what A and B agreed the game was worth ... if they had agreed 200 points then the 3 results would have been:
A wins - A goes to 2050, B goes to 1450.
Draw - A goes to 1950, B goes to 1550.
B wins - A goes to 1850, B goes to 1650.

The purpose is to make it worthwhile for the better rated player to actually play the game. I have games now (particularly in Tank Battle) where I will either stay the same (if I win) or go down if I draw or lose. Hardly an incentive to play as there will always be a game or two you will draw or make a silly mistake and draw. As you say, possibly not sufficiently independant to be a rating system.

AbigailII: I understand what you are saying about being unratable without a draw or loss (likewise someone who only ever losses is also unratable) ... no doubt it is to do with trying to divide by zero. But it is not that they exceed the rating system, it is that they are outside it! Maybe they should not be even given a provisional BKR until they do have a contrary result or have reached the stage where they have completed 25 games and can get an established rating. I know of only one or two players here who are so exceptional in their particular game types that their would warrant such a high rating from scratch.

So here is another suggestion ... A player's rating may never be more than say 10% higher than the highest player they have beaten or equal with the highest player they have drawn with. This would encourage them to play the higher rated players and they would not be able to obtain unmerited BKR levels by playing moderate players.

WQ:)

AbigailII: Renaming the consequence does not solve the problem. Surely you do not think that a 2600 rating (by any name) after 4 ordinary games is right!

playBunny: While you were writing your latest note, I was also putting together my thoughts (interrupted by a few phones calls). I think the K factor is also a good idea, then a tournament, for instance could be set up to have K factors built in to encourage higher rated players to play and put less of their points at stake against lower rated players. Maybe a combination of both ideas?

Or another idea is that players could agree the number of points they will "put up on offer" (there would need to be a max.) at the beginning of the game and the respective splits they might get out a win draw and lose. An example might help:
A is rated at 2000.
B is rated at 1500.
The (historically) expected result from 100 games might be (for A) 70 wins/10 draws/20 losses.
They agree the game is worth 100 points (actually probably too much but lets move on).
A risks 70 + (1/2 of 10 = 5) 75 points.
B risks 20 + (1/2 of 10 = 5) 25 points.
If A wins - A gets 100 (+25 now 2025) B gets 0 (-25 now 1475).
If a draw - A gets 50 (-25 now 1975) B gets 50 (+25 now 1525).
If A loses - A gets 0 (-75 now 1925) B gets 100 (+75 now 1575).

WhisperzQ

BuilderQ: If the top players have only played say 50 or 100 games and they have say a 75% win rate then someone at a 90% win rate might only need 30-60 games. But to be there in 4 (and sometimes way beyond) is, I believe, ridiculus.

playBunny (and others): The problems with the BKR system are not limited to Backgammon ... that someone can play 4 games and have a rating of over 2600 is ridiculus ... even if they play against top opponents (which in a number of types of games they haven't).

A while back you gave a formula which I think would work excellently ... takes into account the relative abilities of both players and requires someone to work their way to the top if they are good enough. If it takes 200 or 300 games to get near the top then so be it, at leat then it is a true reflection on concerted effort, not an anomily in the system.

I play here for fun but I also play to have interesting hard competative games, ... I am, indeed, competative perosn by nature. I do not mind losing where I am soundly beaten, but I also like to have my abilities (or lack thereof) recognised and the BKR is one way to do that.

I think the current system stinks and has me, for one, now very disallusioned.

WhisperzQ

IMCK - good to see you value my comment at 2c because no-one puts any value on your comments.

Needs to shed more than a skin ... but that has always been the case

Socks in our house don't come in pairs ... they go into the washing machine together but by the time the dryer is finished with them its all over red rover (Bernice ... here's another one). Just doubled your ip count BBW!

Na, you're not my worst enemy BW

Maybe LOL :)

looks like we need to employ the hammer technique with you then :)

Me thinks, with all the plans that are around now, you are on the wrong one ... even dsl might be competitive whe you add up call cost, ISP + $20 ... send me a pm if you would like to know more ... W:)

I think the draw is a valid result. In chess, for instance, there are the three conditions for a draw ... stalemate, thrice-repeated board postions and 50 moves (plus an agreed draw). All are situations where the player who might win should be able to control the play to ensure that the draw does not occur; if they do not, then they do not deserve to win. And so, I think, it should be here. This also ties in with an earlier discussion on the advantage white appears to have in this game and one proposal was touted whereby white could not repeat a move (maybe should be board position?) to generate "perpetual check". Again, I have not found this rule on any other sites, did Linnaeus included something on this?

I think the play by white in this game was quite clever to get to the end position once it was obvious they could not escape (or maybe they were just lucky?!). The more important issue is the game was played under one set of rules and decided by another. This is not the first time rules on this site have been changed mid(post)-game. While you say the King was clearly captured, in terms of the capture rule this is not so and moving into a beavy of defenders is part of the tactics of the game, so why should it change just at the end?

Ughaibu: Where do you find these rules by Linnaeus?

I believe that the game should (have been) be a draw, not a win for black. One task that black must take on in this situation, where they are in such control, is to manage the situation so that they do win. If they cannot do this they do not deserve to win and playing for the draw (successfully so in this situation) should be an option for white. The rules should definitely NOT be changed mid (or post) game.

I have just checked the rules and see that there is now a 3rd win condition that I do not remember before which references the "no valid move" situation. I expect this has just been added. This scenario was previuosly discussed in the Tablut DB without any change being considered appropriate then so I don't see why one is pertinent now. I do not agree with the rule change and believe that the game (would be) is devalued with this change ... just my opinion though.

*Edit* I have just done a search of other internet sites with Tablut and other similar variants. While some rules are slightly different (number of pieces, size of board, need for King to reach the corner, capturing against the King as well as pawns) none mention a rule whereby a win is awarded against a player not able to make a valid move ... I STRONGLY believe the rule change must go.

The crux of the matter is not if it is one person but who that person is, or so it would seem.

Looks like you have removed more than Steve and MM ... ahhhhhh ... feel that power of the Moderator!

... and sugar and all things nice :)

I doth do at that, but seriously, all I have done is held up the tape measure, should the numbers you read be not large enough all I can suggest is that you get a higher chair.

Oh, to live in a world where you can pay to be free ... nuff sed.

I play here because I enjoy it, but I also enjoy and stay because of many of the other activities as do you, so just because you do not write stories do not belittle the enjoyment this brings others. To be consistent then I guess you will need to be resigning from the following fellowships as they are not primarily for "games" or are you going to let these slip through to the keeper too?

!The Zoo! (manager)
ﭺOUR PLACEﭺ (member)
∙♠Uncensored Debate♠∙ (member)
** BADINAGE ** (member)
*´`¤Just Us GURLS¤´`* (manager)
Angel's Among Us (member)
Boiler Room (member)
Debate Club (manager)
Goodfoods' Kitchen (member)
Hobby Time (member)
HOME (member)
New Beginnings (member)
Noodleland (member)
QuizMasters Asylum (member)
Sane and Sober (manager)
The Pagan Fellowship (member)
The Reptilians (member)
~rAnCho biZArRo~ (member)

Not all contributions need to be financial ... if life is based solely on money then I expect it is probablay pretty soulless ... I guess you are then saying that the pawn's contribution to this site had no value which I think is really a poorer reflection on you than her honesty in admitting she would prefer to buy a new DVD.

No Eriisa, Rose's joke has been activated and the pawn has been deposed. Well done Rose, let's all give her a *clap*.

Here was someone who showed some initiative, suggested an option which would make this site better and offered to freely help Fencer out by moderating the board thus reducing the pressure on Fencer's time so he could get on with more important issues. There were a number of times where she withstood some grief from people who resented her "moderating" of unsuitable material and a number of times wanted to quit. (That should have made you happy Rose!) At times the threats and content of pms was very unsavoury ... but she continued, with the help of her friends. It is good to see this conflict has abated and the board returned to normality. She continued to guide the board's development but that is no more.

One of the reasons I came to this site, and stayed, and paid, was the variety of people who you meet here, their acceptance of your views at face value and that competition is keen but friendly. There have been others who have not held these views but we (all?) hope that they are now gone. If this is the way we are to treat a pawn who is trying to improve the site then what is to encourage any other pawns.

When you check you will find that I moderate a number of chess boards, a task I took on because Fencer originally needed some help, not as a reward for paying (I think I was a pawn at that time myself). If we are to follow Rose's lead then maybe all Discussion Board's moderatorrial rights can be rescinded and Fencer can auction them off to the highest bidder ... maybe the site can make some more money from this.

But to close, let us give Rose one more *clap*

Thanks Fencer ... that's a lot of moves but only about 3 weeks for SteveRRRRR and the like :)

MM, I had noticed that number and I am aware of where the (more ...) leads, but what I meant was my TOTAL moves ... this is, from when I first logged on :)

I'd be interedsted to know the total number of moves I had made ... not all the time, just out of interest :)

So we are to finally and completely deDanoed ... may be a few others will get added to the list too :)

I think vacation days should suspend any timing clocks just as they do for a game ... and maybe it is just a requirement to move in any game (thereby showing taht you are active) would suffice, but once the time is up (30 days if only a move required) then the decay begins. Of course there could be special circumstances for suspending accounts and ratings but Fencer is such a great bloke I am sure these few cases could be dealt with adequately.

Thought about it some more and I think 90 days should start the decay process and it then continues each 30 days ... and percentages are a better option.

If someone is playing, and they are "bottom feeders" (never heard the term before but I think its great!!!!) then so be it ... they eventually plateau anyway and how interesting can they be! For those who use programs, variants often sort them out as only rudimentary programs exist for things like atomic chess and I have never heard of a game engine for tablut or tank battles. Looks like I am saved from fritz (but not myself :)

I like the idea of rating decay but am a little concerned for pawns who may play a number of types of games but overall not many games of each type ... I think the decay period probably needs to be longer and possibly logrithmic, say 100BKR if nothing in 90 days, and additional 200BKR if nothing in next 90 days, 400 for next 90. There would also have to be a consideration of the minimum rating. Another idea would be for the decay to be percentages of BKR ... 90 days 5%, 180 days 10%, 270 15% ...

I think the details still need to be worked through but I like it!

I have 19 games which either I or others have timed out in!

I have as many email addresses as I can dream up want (as I have a domain and an email server) so this wouldn't stop me if I were that way inclined and as I do not have a static IP then the IP address wouldn't work either except during the same session.

Eriisa ... the offending posts have now been deleted so NHB's comments are now a little out of context :)

Great links Jason ... they work for me.

A word of warning for those who haven't played here and want to learn the game and follow link 1 ... the rules there are slightly different. They have a computer otb opponent where you can play on your own. That may suit you unbeatableking if you can find no-one here to play with.

Cheers W:)