pauloaguia: Simplest rule of all. Timeout on the bottom step and you're off the Stairs.

KotDB: Lol. You do agree with me. -- it's not possible (except in backgammon and its variants)

Given that I was prompted to make my posts as a result of getting nowhere on the Ludo 2-games Stairs, and that I otherwise only play Backgammon and its variants, it's nice that you do agree with me. ;-) BBW's objection on behalf of the starter-has-the-advantage games is no problem for me and I agree that 2-wins isn't a flawless solution to the problem there. But in fact I have no idea whether there is a problem perceived by the climbers of those Stairs, so I won't make any claims on their behalf. ;-)

But on the other solutions put forward, I don't see much difference between a single game and a 2-wins match. The starter in a single game has the advantage. More so than in a 2-wins match, surely? I like your paired-games idea. 2-wins of paired games. It could make for a lot of games, though, lol, but at least it would have a winner.

I don't particularly mind what solution was be used, just so that in games where draws are most likely there be some way of playing only for a win. Restricting it to game types where there's some small difference between the who-starts-wins percentages (say 5%) does makes sense although, in the long term, players wouldn't benefit from the advantage given that starting colours are randomly assigned in the Stairs.

Fencer: Might the 2 games matches be changed to 2 wins matches in the Stairs, please? At least that way someone's going to advance. ;-)

SimpleMind: But maybe I misunderstood you. Now I'm wondering whether you meant truly inactive players such as Ryna from Ohio who has been MIA since last year.

Such players will inevitably get pushed down to the bottom step but, unlike leaf mold on the forest floor they are non-biodegradable, so that step would eventually get cluttered. Such players do provide a free boost up to Step 2 when they timeout but I only rarely enjoy a win of that nature. So I second your recommendation that they be removed at some point.

On the other hand, lol, the above applies to Backgammon, say, but a sparsely populated Stairs like your Line4 one would look even emptier than before and a half empty room has less appeal as a party venue!

SimpleMind: One of the big differences between Fencer's Stairs and the traditional ladders is that the player above does the inviting. Or not! Speaking as a player who's enjoyed being at the top of a couple of Stairs, it's nice to be able to relax and enjoy the view without having to defend my position until someone has made a successful effort to reach me. Of course I'm not always relaxing for there are heads to be pushed down and fingers to be trodden on as people dare to climb up!

But that pause for relaxation can occur half way up a Stairs if there is a gap of empty steps above, and it's equally nice to relax there too.

Thus to remove non-active players would potentially mean removing the top player and those having a rest in the upper ranks.

The problem you face in your Line4 Stairs isn't having inactive players so much as it's having too few players. There are 12 players and no games going at all. Removing the inactive ones .. that would empty the whole Stairs! ;o)

If I might suggest doing a marketing campaign targetting a selection of active players in the Line4 ranks. Check people's game sheets and see who's got a reasonable interest level (a handful or more games, perhaps) and then write a short note to remind them about the existance of the Stairs and invite them to the challenge.

tenuki: You're welcome. If you'd like to tell me more about that timeout-and-nothing-happens in a PM I'll be glad to explain as much as I can work out.

tenuki: Abigail got to Step 2 by beating someone who has since left the Stairs. You can only challenge players at your own level and the three below so she has the option to challenge you but you must wait for a third player to join the Stairs.

Czuch: Aye. The name "Very fast" is being let down by these Stairs being only about as fast as standard Stairs (at least in Backgammon Cube).

Fast Cube Stairs Rule Ok.

J5o: Have a look at these..

Fast Stairs (Backgammon)
Very Fast Fischer's Stairs (Backgammon)

You'll see that the Fischer's Stairs have risen more quickly. That's an indication of the turnover rate and that is partly the result of having only one game. And that helps the Stairs live up to its name of "Very fast".

At least that's what I assumed when Fencer first created these Very Fast Fischer Stairs. It's nice to see it working out, at least in Backgammon.

Andersp: Yep.

Fencer: Lol. I haven't come across the opportunity yet but I'll give it a go. I noticed Alanback and Pedro were sole occupants on a Step but they've only got one game going which led me to the question. I'll see what Pedro says.

Fencer: If there are only two people on a Step can each challenge the other or is only one match allowed between them?

Hrqls: Welly's talking about this:

Match type: 2 games match

More stats: How about a table, per Stair, showing the top players in terms of how many days they've been on the top step?

Czuch Chuckers: Lol. This is rather the wrong place to be asking that. But as it's here, my vote is to keep it. I love that splash of colour, it's great!

rod03801: Excellent idea!

Eriisa: True, true, true, 'Tis a sea of blue.

wellywales: I find that one eventually solves itself when I look at my games list and think "Hmmm, not a lot of Stairs there".

Czuch: It has several meanings. In British it's primarily drunk, in American it's primarily angry. But take off the 'ed' and a whole new bunch of meanings comes into play. Hence it being bannable if your name is Stevie and you use it, and other words, too often.

Perhaps after a post has been deleted then the posts about the post can be deleted too. Then people won't write posts about the post about the post or post about posts that aren't the post. And there certainly won't be any call for posts about the posts about the posts.

Just a thought.

wellywales: As high as a pile of bodies can get in the crush and trampling to establish who's king of the hill.

wellywales: You always climb with a win. This is what'll happen. http://brainking.com/en/Stairs?tri=226

wellywales: Keep playing and winning and you'll open up a gap. If the gap gets to three Steps you won't have anyone left to challenge, nor will anyone be able to challenge you until they've climbed up. This can be good or bad, lol. I view it as a breathing space.

THE HIT MAN: It's all dependant on the timing. Each of you has a separate clock with your individual times. If your opponent moves 5 minutes after you do then he'll lose 5 minutes from his clock. If you take an hour to get back then you lose an hour. Hey presto he's got a 55 minute advantage.

If he makes a move just before you go offline for the night then that's a several hours advantage.

It's a good strategy to give priority to your Fischer's games and play as often as possible, even popping in for a minute at several points during the day just to check those matches. If you can arrange to get up several times during the night as well.... LOL.

You've got 500+ matches going at the moment. You might want to add your voice to the feature request that Fischer's matches be sortable to the top of the games list.

Fencer: lol. Phew!

Biggus Baddus: Hopefully not even then. It's nice to have a few emopty steps underneath and take a breather. I'd only want a compression if an unassailable gap opened up.

plaintiger: It uses the Fischer's clock time control which means that the time is for the entire game rather than per move.

BBW: I'll second that, though I'd prefer the background highlighting (as per games) rather than a bold font.

Fencer: Is there any purpose for the Creator column? Will anyone else be allowed to create Stairs?

Fencer: I've seen that one before but I'd forgotten it.

The 30 days value is about 4100. It doesn't seem to discount the non-countable one-peekers, though, so I'd say my estimate is more accurate as an active players count whereas the languages page (and the raw players list) is a logins count.

BerniceC: The idea about ratings is that they are a gauge of ability. (Not strictly true but we won't go into that). A high rated player is deemed stronger than a lower rated one. The thinking then is that if a weaker player draws with the stronger player then they must have played better. (Pretty much true in Chess, not so true in Backgammon). But that means they played better when the rating says they should have played worse, so the ratings need to be adjusted to fit reality. Thus the lower rating goes up a bit and the higher one comes down.

Pioneer54: Regarding that 20,000 players value: Go to the Players list and sort it by Last action so that today's action is shown. Then go to about page 85. That shows the players whose last action was about a month ago. There are 50 players shown per page so thats about 4250 players in the last month.

If you examine that page you'll see that there are a lot of Pawns who joined, had a look around and haven't been back since. The number of those decreases as you come further towards the present day. I counted 20 on page 85, 30 on the previous page, 35, 34, 33 on previous pages. On page 70 it was down to 20 non-countables, page 60 had 13... So let's say about 600 players in all. There are those who were active more than a month ago but who will be back sometime, but probably much fewer than the one-peekers. That's then roughly 3700 active players.

Pioneer54: It's very much too early to think that anything has settled down (unless few new players join!) but you're right in thinking that the stairs will stratify. That's the whole point of them! ;-) ("Cliques" isn't quite the right word because there's no collusion or relationship between the players, their positioning is the result of their playing strength.)

Strong new blood will cause a minor stir as that player rises through the ranks but for the players in the regions below their destined destination it will only be a passing excitement. Weaker new blood will reach its level sooner.

I imagine that the Stairs will grow as a kind of pyramid. The players at the top can only go up when there are challengers below and they may be in short supply (either absent because the higher player has climbed too high, or too busy with each other and those below). This limits the absolute growth rate of the Stairs. For each succeeding lower level there will be a wider and wider choice of players. I suspect that those on the uppermost levels will be able to make a complaint about stagnation but I doubt that many players below would.

Eriisa: Yes and yes.

And with that player just below you, if you lose then you effectively swap places. And if you win you open up a gap.

Fencer: A wee bug in some player's Show all games Step numbers.


Backgammon alanback (1) BIG BAD WOLF (2) 17. 5 days 23 hours
Backgammon heyblue32 (1) lunedith (2) 14. 5 days 21 hours
Backgammon lunedith (1) AbigailII (2) 12. 5 days 19 hours
Backgammon Spiritstorm (1) chattytea (2) 17. 5 days 19 hours

Step 2, 4 players;
alanback (2266), Spiritstorm (2147), 4evolution (2122), lunedith (2122)

Step 1, 61 players;
playBunny (2372), frolind (2291), arpa (2242), qetutor (2190), basplund (2189), Hrqls (2185), WizardII (2178), Ebru (2169), furbster (2164), Zach (2159), incognito (2158), heyblue32 (2156), Hannelore (2148), BIG BAD WOLF (2134), afella (2132), SueQ (2124), Czechgirl (2120), lovelysharon (2120), LuTze (2117), chattytea (2072), AbigailII (2013), ...

Andersp: Lol. That's a cute analogy. Taking it further the kids probably throw their rattle and a lucky throw sometimes get our hero in the eye. I guess the pain of the eye poke must outweigh the gain of the candy. Or maybe these babies just don't have enough candy to steal. It's hard to tell without knowing the thinking of this top player (no name). Are you sure this candy actually relates to BKR and not to the experience of the game itself?

Eriisa: That opponent's Stairs (ie. no fast Stairs for Checkers). If you resign from a Stair your matches continue unless you resign those as well.

Andersp: I thought you'd enjoy a good laugh at this one.

S O C R A T E S: My sympathies indeed and that objection makes a lot of sense. That's why I restrict myself to 5-point Backgammon, at least for now.

As a top checkers player it's certainly disadvantageous for you but, being of that class, you'll most likely be on the top Steps of the Stairs. It's early days yet but in due course you won't find anyone challenging you who hasn't also got a high rating. It's a question of patience and accepting the initial "blood sucking". [Lol. I play at a Vampire site too, hence that analogy.]

Good fortune!

S O C R A T E S: Because....?

Could the Stairs Show games list (and any others) be sortable please? If not with re-sort links, could they be ordered by challenger name rather than game id?

Also, could the player viewing the list be highlighted as with ratings list?

Eriisa: I think Fencer's looking ahead to the potential of having 1000+ players on the Stairs. That would make it a very big page. I think it might be an idea to show the Step that the player is on plus the one above and the three below in full detail and the short list with ellipses for other Steps.

Fencer: You used the name too!

Fencer: 3 to 7 days can easily see a 5-point match finished.
Fast Fischer's For Cubists?

WizardII: GoldToken has a platform type ladder where groups of people share one level. I haven't played it - it's only for paid members so I've no idea what kind of experience it provides.

WizardII: Aye. Instead of grabbing the legs of those above and trying to clamber over them it's more a question of seeing who's below you and stomping on their hands as they try to reach upwards (or booting your peers off the platform). ;-)

Could the Stairs challenge show the estimated BKR change?

I'll also vote for a challenges-made/accepted column on the player's stairs page. It's hard to know which ones I'm fully booked in.

Niki: There's a link to Stairs under New Game, Waiting Games, Tournaments.. That page has a link to the Rules.

Fencer: I'm right there. Thankee. :-))

Grand Job