Kiwiyeti: I woundered why my GPS had a +13 hour time zone

mctrivia: Its just one way our Government can put us ahead of everybody else.

I think some BK staff should be also a Go-Judge, a player who can ''judge'' the mark dead stone procedure. In this game Go 13x13 (joshi tm - faith) I'm having trouble because my opponent refuses to mark her stones as dead.

Please may we have an ice cream smilie, a doughnut smilie and a baby in a nappy

joshi tm: yes, it's tough sometimes, when your opponent doesn't know to play the game well.
But why don't you start capturing them? She won't have any dead pieces to mark that way...

joshi tm: I agree with you, joshi tm!

pauloaguia: Because
A) He shouldn't have to
B) It reduces his score, which is not something that he wants to do. In this particular case, if he captured the 4 dead stones at J8, G10, F10, & A12 and faith passed on all 4 turns, then he would actually lose.

jurek: Yup,that's right. I would lose by a half point, I saw.

jurek: I used the wrong value for komi. In that case PM Fencer and he'll make you win the game...

joshi tm: Then surely you deserve to lose? I was under the impression that ending a Go game by passing and marking dead stones was just a way to finish it quicker if it is obvious one person has won.
If you would lose by continuing on then you have lost the game fairly and should accept that, rather than trying to cheat your opponent out of a win by passing and hoping they make a mistake in your favour while marking the stones.

MTC: No, that is the incorrect impression. When both players pass, they are signalling that they are done placing stones. Any stones that are not "alive" (take a good read on http://senseis.xmp.net for what it takes to be alive) should be marked as dead, and then the score should be tallied.

Well, I think that joshi tm has a go point about an arbitrator. Here is an example of a game that I am playing where the opponent kept playing after I passed. We are still playing. He moves about once a week. I request that if the number of stones taken exceeds an opponents territory then the game should be automatically decided..

joshi tm: Certainly this problem needs to be fixed, and having an arbitrator would be one way to fix it, assuming that someone can be found who has the knowledge and the time and wants the job.

But there is a very simple solution that doesn't require any human intervention (except for a one-time bit of coding on Fencer's part). The rules of the American Go Association specify that when both players pass, fail to agree on the status of stones, and both pass again without placing more stones, the game ends immediately and all stones on the board are counted as alive. I can't think of any reason why something similar shouldn't be implemented here.

KotDB: You left out one very important part of the AGA rules: scoring is by area (as in Chinese scoring), not territory (as in Japanese scoring)

jurek: Actually, under AGA rules, the two scoring methods are equivalent, and either can be used. Is the scoring method relevant to the current topic?

KotDB: Absolutely. You're proposing changing the scoring rules. Why wouldn't that be relevant?

Backgammon wall - all pieces start at opposit ends of the board They pla until they form a wall on their side...When a player has all pieces on their own wall they win...

jurek: No, I haven't proposed any change to the scoring rules, only to the criteria used for determining when the game ends. Nevertheless, after thinking about it some more, I've realized that the two issues are not independent. My proposal is not suitable for use with BrainKing's Japanese-style rules, as it would have made joshi tm the loser when he clearly deserves the victory. I could say more about rules and scoring, but this is the wrong board.

I withdraw my specific proposal, but I agree with joshi tm and others that this problem needs to be fixed. Arbitration is not a perfect solution, but it would be far better than nothing.

While so many good features are unavailable to pawns, I find it very strange that the game list filters are available to pawns even though it is useless since pawns can only have 20 games.
So I request this feature be made optional or even not available at all to pawns, since this is more annoying than it is useful

It is possible to sign up for all games of one tournament at once, this is nice but not useful for me because I'm playing less than 50% of all game types.
It would be a great improvement if there would be an option to sign up for all games "one likes", this could be a list of games defined by the user

Retep: GREAT IDEA !!

Retep: How about when you goto a Tournament, and each game has a tick box ?
Just tick the ones you want, and hit a Sign-Up button.

MadMonkey: love that idea i hate signing up 1 at a time lets get on it fencer pleazzzzzzzzzzz

MTC: It seems to be optional already. I removed mine by going to Settings and unchecking "Show game filter on the main page".

Beren the 32nd: The option was added after I posted, it was announced here

Why hasn't the game filter been placed on waiting games? Also, it should be set up so we can filter by family too. I mainly play pente and espionage. When I play my pente games, I don't care whether it's open pente or whatever variant. When I play espionage, same thing, any variant is fine. We need to be able to filter our games by family.

Thad: Because nobody has programmed it yet.

can someone tell me how to get my name on the pawn registry as i'm close to expiring thank you

prettymama:When you expire, then you can put your name there.  You're not a Pawn yet.

King Reza: thank you i figured it out after I jump started my brain lol

prettymama:    I'll keep that verb in mind: jump start!

King Reza: lol

Fencer: I like Thad's idea. Are you suggesting that it's already a "work in progress" and a feature that we will have (just as soon as it is programed)one day?

Tripod Tom: One day, that's a good proposal.

be nice to be able to leave a fellowship without having to finish every single game which can take more than a year in some cases

"Snoopy": Yes i agree with you.

I think they should have a rating setting for ponds... At a game of 2300+ ratings... There are always somebody way lower on getting in the game
to try and get in the deadline before someone sees this... People have earned those high ratings for a reason...

xmas is soon: Maybe the lesson is to think these things through BEFORE joining anything... .

"Snoopy": Yeah I agree, it can be a pain in the bum.

boop2004: Yes i think alot of people take on more than they can chew.

Daniel Snyder: the only way to have a high rating in ponds is to play quite a few and finish high in most of them. I am not saying your request is a bad one, I would like to see settings on the ratings also but it's not easy getting some of the ponds to start as it is

"Snoopy": I agree as well. Perhaps we could call it fellowship purgatory . Before we can exit the fellowship we sit in a waiting status until the games finish. (Could be like the retirement on Stairs.)

I've been playing a few games of Pah Tum lately. As a recent game was nearing the end (there were no more scoring possibilities, just about 7 or 8 spots left to be filled)and it seemed light a big waste of time. Neither player had any more possible combinations of earning any more points. It was mathematically impossible. But as per the rules of the game, play continues until all spaces on the board are filled.
What are the chances of getting the computer to automatically end the game when there's no longer a chance of any more points being scored? Therefore, when the game is technically, it will also become physically and officially over.

Tripod Tom: You can always aggree with your opponent on the outcome and one of you resigns the game or aggree on a draw, if that's the case.
I suppose having the computer automatically check these situations would be computationally hard to do on every turn, and a big strain on the server (just think of how many moves are played each day by hundreds of players).

But I have a request for this and other situations - what if one of the players could call uppon such an algorithm manually? Take chess, for instance - it has precise rules about draws. Over a number of moves without capture anything, or repeating 3 times the same position. This puts a strain on the server if checked for every game, but if there was an option to call such algorithms at player's request, it would allow to quickly and automatically solve those games that now require a lot of explaining to do for beginner opponents or sometimes an administrator's intervention when you end up with a stubborn opponent that doesn't want to finish a lost or drawn game...

pauloaguia: It's much more likely to be a programming prioritization issue. Mathematical calculations are not much of a strain on the server, it's what computers are designed to do.

Would also be nice if when randomly "booted" from a fellowship you didn't have to keep playing games for a team (or teams) that you really don't want to be involved with anymore since they didn't feel you were worth having there - talk about purgatory

srnity: I am not sure that you are worried about BKR or not but wouldn't the games be still counted for it?

BORNTOBEWILD30: That would be cool! I mean does anyone actually read those things? It would be nice to know if they did lol!

Mousetrap: Sounds like a great idea to me to