Marfitalu: Check it now.

Marfitalu: It would be difficult because there can be several textareas, one for each supported language. But it could be done for the primary language only.

rod03801: Thanks. I never noticed it. My sugestion now is make it biger and easier to notice.

mctrivia: You already can do that. Scroll to the VERY bottom of the rules pages. Right above "Back to top" is a little printer you can click.

I would like to see a printer friendly option for the rules pages. So I can read the rules to games I would like to learn on my free time.

There is a link for each game that shows how many games of that type were won, lost, or drawn. I would like to have a link that would take us to those games.

Fencer: Cool! Thanks Fencer!

Summertop: Now you can turn on/off the RTE on each page type separately.

headius: If you use <a href="Address">Address or Message</a> It will work.

[shortened]
URLs can contain commas, but BK appears to end links when a comma is encountered. I know it's a bit tricky to get that sort of thing exactly right, but I thought I'd mention it.

Ex:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=7300+University+Ave+N,+Fridley,+MN&ie=UTF8

how about a turn based paintball game?
for example,some links:
http://www.mv.com/ipusers/paintball/game/

http://play-free-online-games.com/games/paintballcarnage.html
or capture the flag turn based.
or ,this may be a unique idea,I see nothing like it around:
how a bout a mini golf turn based game,based on winning points,more like a board game than playing mini golf?
some skills required...may take some creativity.
still think yatzee would be good...what no comments?

grenv: I have posed this question before, but don't remember seeing any feedback from Fencer. We have options to change boardsize in many of the other games, such as Backgammon, Reversi, Amazons, etc. So, it seems a logical extension to include board size options for other games like Ludo & Jarmo.

grenv: agreed

Why not give the "RSS" possibility on the GameList and accessorily also on the message box?

grenv: Having 4 players would make it beter

...board is waaay to big. Can we make it a little smaller?

Summertop: Ya I have a friend like that to. WOuld be good if there was an option with an e-mail when you reach 24 hours left.

Right now there is the option in settings for: Notify by e-mail if the opponent makes a move and I am not online

Could other options be added:
1. Send a daily email if I have games where it is my move?
2. Notify me by email BEFORE I timeout

I have a friend that keeps timing out. He waits for the email to know when I moved. Sometimes, I move so quick that BK thinks he is still online and doesn't send the email. I know he should check more often. But, it would be nice if BK could notify players before they timeout.

Fencer:

tbart: http://brainking.com/cz/Board?bc=118

how about a go discussion board? (including 9x9, 13x13, 19x19)

Walter Montego:  Actually people are refusing to play me b/c i am the best player in the espionage series currently on brainking... You are just proving my point for me, and i am in total agreement with you. Dark chess is a bad example though... its somewhat even no matter which side you play, black or white. As for Horde chess yes they should have a 2 game requirement. What solutions do you have for players who avoid good competition? Like i had mentioned earlier, you could have players face off against top players every few months. To avoid hording the top spots, you should have to play someone in the top 10 at least once every 6 months, instead of just having to play "anyone".Or have a certain amount of games compted in a certain time frame. Brainkings ratings system is very good and i love it compared to IYTs broken ratings system (ladders). It is very accurate.

Nothingness: Maybe you should take up a new game? In Dark Chess, I and most of the top players play each other regularly and also enter many tournaments. I also play just about anyone that moves regularly.

I do not understand people that become so worked about their rating that they'll deny themselves the chance to play a good opponent. A lot of times a well played game that results in a loss is more fun than pasting a patsy without trying very hard. When it comes to Dark Chess, I don't even worry about my opponent's rating. Good players are challenging and new players like playing me. Dark Chess has one advantage over regular Chess, even a beginner can beat an experienced player. It ain't likely, but it does happen.

I think that the rating system should reflect the way the game is played. The rating system used on this site for Backgammon is not fair to people that worry about their rating. It seems OK for Dark Chess. I don't know about regular Chess as I don't play that game.

Games that favor one side over the other (As is Horde Chess)should have a requirement that two games be played, one from each side. The games could be attached to each other so they'd both have to be played and a player couldn't resign the disadvantaged side before making two moves and having the game not count in his ratings.

mctrivia: Of course ! I thought all agreed that the most meaningful rating is the one at the end of the game, not at the beginning.

gogul: The order of names in the brackers mean which player started the game. It would be inconvenient to change it.

Many use tab browsing meanwhile. It would be cool if the title could name the opponent first:
BrainKing.com - Backgammon (opponent against you)
instead of opposit. Or even
BrainKing.com - (opponent vs. you) Backgammon

Fencer: oh, *thank* you! bravo, bravo, bravo. =) finally i can keep all my blocked user info on one page! woohoooooo!!!!

Nothingness: Also annoying are Horde Chess players who studiously avoid playing Black. It's hard to know what their high rankings signify, if they result from having played White 95% of the time.

Nothingness: Not really I don't think you can force people to play.

I notice that some top players are avoiding players of high caliber. for example the top players in Espionage are afraid to play top players in fear of losing their top rankign and points. perhaps we should implement a rule stating that you need to play a top ranked player to remain in the rankings. and they only have to play a game every month against a really bad opponent to stay on top.. im 200 pts behind 1st but will never catch 1st place even though im in 2nd. if i lose 1 game out of 50 i lose pts b/c my games are only worth 1-2pts but my loses are -70 or more, where the top player never has to play, anyone who is threatening. Any solutions?

nabla: I think this should be just for past games. Any currently running game should show there current BKR not what they had when they started the game.

kleineme: I would also like it very much if the accurate ratings were in the PGN files. As I am already automatically extracting the header to show the player's names and the result, I could very easily extract the ratings too and then filter the games by rating, which would be very nice.

nabla: There has to be a history table already, how else would it be possible to show those pretty BKR charts? Probably it currently contains information about player, type of game, date/time, BKR. If you add one more column with the game ID, then you've got it!

This would solve another inconvenience as well: currently it's the date/time of the last move made in a game which constitutes the end of the game. It would be more appropriate to show the date/time of the resignation or draw acceptance, which could deviate some days or even weeks from the last move made.

I think that the proper ratings and end dates should be shown for all games, including those already finished. Some months ago we had a short downtime when all ratings were newly re-calculated. If it's necessary to create that new column then I wouldn't mind another downtime in order to add this more meaningful information.

By the way: then the ratings could be added to the game scores as well. This would make it more easy to decide which games to look at, when you have downloaded hundreds of games from people you don't know.

pauloaguia: Well ,put it this way:
I don`t think that more time to some players wouldn`t help.

nabla: Surely the extra storage space is negligible, compared with everything else that is stored.
I definitely think it is worth it, for the reasons you state; it would give a lot of satisfaction.

kleineme: I agree too. More meaningful ratings would also be useful to me when I am looking for nice games by strong players. This would for example avoid that Chessmaster1000's games show a low rating only because he lost a lot of games on time when he left.
Now I suppose that this would require to store information which is not currently stored (or is it?), so some more storage space, and it would still show "incorrect" ratings for games played before this new feature. Is it worth it ?

kleineme: Thank you for that insight and the very valuable comment. As you say, whatever rating was used in the calculation of the new one, let that rating stay with the finished game forever. i think that covers fencer's point about which rating needs to stay with the game.
Excellent.

tonyh: gogul made this proposal only recently, but with not much response ;-) I don't want to repeat that thread, but I would prefer to see the ratings which were used for BKR calculation in all finished games. There are certainly some fluctuations during the course of a long game, but those ratings at least have something to do with that game. On the contrary it makes no sense to show today's ratings for games which were finished years ago.

Fencer: One reason to see the rating at the time of the game is to better understand why a player has a certain BKR. I saw one player with a rating of over 2000 after four games but he had not beaten anyone over 1500 and had lost one game to a 1600 or so player. In addition, it would better help players gauge the difficulty of a player. Personally, I would like to see- if it were possible- the rating at the time the game started or ended, and the current rating.

Jason: It's not quite what I meant; I just want to see the final rating as it was when the game ended.
You have a fair point, though and I know of another game site where the original ratings are used to calculate the new rating. Anyone know what happens in correspondence games?

tonyh: Do you mean that when you accept a game at say 2200 bkr each then the game drags on forever and the person drops to say 1300 (because of say timeouts and not lack of ability ) ,then you end up with a loss to someone with a low bkr and will take alot of points from you ? . If so keeping the same bkr from the start of the game to the end of the game (the proper bkr would still be displayed but the origanal used for calculating) could be a usefull idea .

Fencer: That's a fair question! But I think the rating as it was when the game finished. If I wanted to see what the rating was when the game began, I guess I could look at another of my past games and look for a similar date.
I suggested this, because I would guess that the programming involved is not too arduous.

tonyh: Hmmm, which value should be shown if a game was played for 6 months and your BKR had changed 20 times during that time range?

I'm sure this has been discussed before!
When we look back at past games, could the ratings shown be the ratings as they were when we played those games? I would find it interesting to see how much I might have improved (or not!)

tonyh: I dont see any need for any extension on time limits , if anyone has a problem with thier pc or problems at home then there is auto vacation which will always kick in.

How about if a player in a tournament needed more time for a good reason, a request could be made to all running players in that tournament, and can only be given more time by a unanimous decision. If the player making the request didn't have a good reason, or was otherwise being the 'slow' player, they would not stand a chance of getting a break. This option is most likely a bit much as far as the programing goes... but I thought I'd throw it out there.

tonyh: Time extensions are good and this option has been proposed before. Our conclusion the last time it was sugested was that in the case of a tournament the time could only be mutually shortened not mutually extended. The reason mutuall shortening was sugested as being allowed was to allow friends that play often to move there games to the begining of the game list sorted by time left.

The reason this featur should not be allowed to extend game time is perfectly shown by this game which was started in 2005 and is still going.

gambler104: As I understood rabbitoid's original suggestion, the increase in time was purely temporary, to enable a player to get over a sudden problem,(like a PC blowing up!!)

tonyh: If it were all rooks playing, I don't think it would be a big deal. But with knights and pawns who have limited tournaments, it could create a bigger problem. The only way I would support it in tournaments is if everyone in the tournament agreed upon it. I don't want to sign up for a tournament that I think will require a move a day and then have someone change it to seven moves a day or something. It essentially is unfair to pawns who have to plan what tournaments to play in based on time limit and what other tournaments they want to sign up for.