tonyh: Hey, take it easy, man. It's just a meaningless detail, compared to, say, the situation in Japan or Libya. Don't take this site so seriously.

wetware: I've just got caught in a game, where I have to throw but cannot get on. i'm utterly fed up with having to make a useless move! What a waste of time.

Fencer, i know this is an old request and your said about not making any changes to this version of BrainKing, but PLEASE add one small thing.

Can we have a Preview button added to the Fellowship Discussion boards please (well, main boards as well would be nice) for when we edit text etc... printed at the top of the Fellowship page. It would be SO handy for us that Moderate & post to the top of the boards

tonyh: Agreed. I never took any data, but I always felt the frequency was very high for having the identical opening move.

For some time now, I have felt that my opponent's and my opening moves were identical. I shared this view with Walter Montego and he agreed. We decided that I do a test of 150 games to see how often the opening moves were the same, expecting a result of about 10, at odds of 15/1.
Out of the last 153 of my games, 57 had identical opening moves. Surely, this cannot be right; it needs looking into.

grenv:  I'd like to see that...but not as much as I'd like to see random second rolls.    :-)

wetware: If there's a blot then presumably you could come off and therefore the option to double could become available again. This need only be for when there is no chance of coming off and rolling is not necessary...

grenv: When auto-pass was being discussed, I suggested that we could (inside a game) select auto-pass for "x" turns, in order to surpass the "I don't recognize this game" problem. Of course this was on the time that auto-pass was asked to be possible on a inside game option (and not for all the games of that type as it is now). Maybe this could prevent the anti-jokers situation

tonyh: Ahh...I see what you mean.  Sounds good in theory, but I'm not a fan of the dice-rolling routines here.  It's a looooooong story...

Anti-joker:  a very bad dice roll--opposite of a "joker".  In this context, a roll or series of rolls that would force a player to leave a home board blot or blots.

wetware: What are 'anti-jokers'? And you do realise that, as soon as there is a space, you would be rolling the dice again.

tonyh:  It can be a dangerous option.  I can see how you might regret having chosen it, if your opponent happened to roll some anti-jokers.

grenv: Correct; that is a good option. Gets the game moe like real life.

Thom27: Correct, and it would continue to autopass from then on until a move is possible.

rabbitoid: I think that "move and autopass" would tell the server that the player won't double in the next turn. So if he can't move a checker then, the server will autopass instead of giving him the opportunity to double.

Good idea, BTW.

tonyh: What's the point? it wouldn't be "auto", the guy still has to click. As it is, you click twice: once on the "roll dice" then a "move" button. your way it would save one click. big deal

grenv: Sounds good to me, grenv

rabbitoid: Simple solution; have a button next to "move" that says "move and autopass" - which you click when you know you don't want to double...

does anybody know the game Salta ??

tonyh:  LOL...every so often in such cases in over-the-board play, I do roll the dice (and I feel like an idiot).  Mostly because I've gotten so used to having to roll in online play!

tonyh: not when there's a doubling cube
ok, little chance the guy would double when he needs to enter into a blocked home, but still, it's a legal move.

Could not auto-pass work, even when you need to roll the dice but there is no way on (ie all the opponent's home squares are blocked). In a real otb game, I would just sit back and wait for the other uy to clear a space. No way do I roll the dice!!

grenv: There were even instances where a pawn actually won a pond :)

i'm still in... at this rate i could last a few more rounds :)

coan.net: I'm fine with only paying members being allowed to play in ponds. I think that's a good incentive to buy a membership here, but ya still gotta allow players who's paid membership expires finish their current ponds. It only makes sense.

Thad: I actually agree - I think that once a person starts a pond, they should be allowed to complete it even if their membership turns to a pawn. I seem to remember that Fencer also was thinking of changing that at some point...... but my memory is not the best, so I could be mistaken.

But for the history of the ponds on this site - they were introduced as a "premium" for paid members. That is as pawns, they were able to play all the same games as paid members - so for the first (more than 2 player) game, it was introduced as something special for the paid members.... as I understand it.

I think of it this way, if you sat down and made up a game, would you make it the way Ponds are now? Or would you make it the way it 'should' be? I think almost everyone would design it in the most sensible way, which is to allow everyone to play until they fall, even if it means giving away a few extra days of eligibility to someone whose paid membership has expired.

It also seems that the goodwill gained by allowing players to finish their ponds, rather than marring the game for everyone still in it would be worth it.

Justaminute: Just doesn't seem like the site gains anything... i'm not going to pay membership just to finish 1 pond... so all that is achieved is that you piss people off.... not a good marketing strategy.

grenv:
I expect the point is that if you are deemed to lose a game your opponent is also penalised in that a possibly interesting game is cut short. In a pond you are one of many so you are affected much more than your opponents, for whom the pond goes on.

grenv: After all, missed the deadline. Part of the fun too...

It is kind of stupid though, in every other game or tournament I could finish, but not this one? Stupid or retarded, not sure what the best description is.

Thad: Turns out Rabbitoid didn't move and dropped out of the pond,. whereas I got the bonus and stayed in :)

rabbitoid: I thought pond games were about making good (and sometimes lucky) bets, not about stalking your opponents and checking and rechecking to see who has been online right before deadlines. ;-)

Thad: now the fun thoughts start. aha, a pawn in the pond. Hmm, no * near the last bet, so he wasn't a pawn then... now did he think of placing a new bet before reverting? risky! mark this pond to be checked one minute before the target date, the joker might have set it so to re-buy membership just before, to plunge us all...

grenv: I agree. Pawn ought to at least be able to finish the ones they're in. It stinks to play in a pond where others downgrade to pawns almost as much as it does to be the one who downgrades. This would benefit all pond players.

Since becoming a pawn again today, my pond disappeared. I guess this means pawns can't even complete the ponds they are in the middle of playing? Seems a little draconian, but oh well.

When a piece has been landed on it is hard to know who is the blocked player and how many pieces are on the point, it just look like the graphic has failed to load properly.

Owari/Oware should be introduced it is better than Mancala that is a fairly trivial win for the starter!

Oware is a theoretical draw and has a lot more depth than mancala!

joshi tm: I must agree with you..."a team with 5 2100+ players is tough to beat, random or not random". However, for me it's the best option, keeping the same type of tournament and with same number of games. :)

But you give me a new idea...until now, we have always the same type of team tournament, so why not allow some types of tournaments? The old format, "my format" and round robin format? The creator of team tournaments could choose what type of tournament people would play.

I don't know if this possibility is difficult to implement, but would be fun to change the type of tournament. Single elimination tournament is a bad option for team tournaments, so we would have others types of team tournaments...

Coan.net, what do you think about a public opinion poll about these ideas? :)

Undertaker.: Still a team with 5 2100+ players is tough to beat, random or not random :)

The fairest idea would be round robin, but then there's that annoying amount of games, maybe work them away in time-specified rounds, like a soccer competition? So players get one opponent per team, and after a while (say 1 week) the next round kicks in so they get another opponent from the other teams. A quick player can finish the eight games they get within the one week period.

For short games like Hyper Backgammon the time period can be even shorter. But for longer games like Go they time period should be even a month, and then still will be games running.

coan.net and joshi tm: Ah, thanks for the explanation. Still about joshi tm post, yes, the pairing would be based more on luck, but in my perspective that would be better than you knew you don't have chances to win a team tournament, right? So, what's the problem?

I'm going give you some examples:
Goldfinger
The Chess Club had a very strong team and they only won 8-6 on final, because Grim Reaper and King Reza lost by time-out. Do you like to play these tournaments where everybody knows who will be the winner?

Another example:
Nov 2008 Taphephobia (Amazons)


Now, see that:
July 2009 Freddy Krueger Massacre Chess
My team won, because when this team tournament started, the game (Massacre Chess) was new on BK and the players position wasn't clear...many players didn't still have rating, so his position was random and that particularity allowed a "surprise".

So, with my idea would be possible create more surprises and interest for team tournaments.

But ok, we can keep the old format and go on with 2 or 3 strong teams and who know, in soon, you'll only see team tournaments with 4 or 5 teams (or worst, tournament doesn't start because there only be 2 or 3 teams). Many people prefer don't play, because they know they don't have chances to win, so why play? There's no funny, no competition...nothing.

Undertaker.: My point of disagreement was about the examples : I woudn't like to play a game with a BKR 2200 and a BKR 1600, however my position may be : 2200 or 1600.
But, I must admit I hadn't thought to the " terrible " example you mentioned : " In past, I remember I was the player with best BKR of my team and the weakest opponent player had a BKR more high than me ".
This confirms my idea : a team with several and different BKR and no possibility to play when the difference in ratings between 2 players is too big.
But this is also a little restrictive.

Undertaker.: As a side note, joshi tm talk about "Extra games" was because he through out another idea - a "Round Robin" type of team tournament - So Player 1 will play all players on the other team.... and so on. (so for a 5 player team, 2 games per - you will get 10 games instead of 2) - for each fellowship (so up against 4 other fellowships, 40 games instead of 8 - so yea, lots of extra games under the round robin idea.)

Trying to think of other ideas - is to possible weight each team tournament game - so for example, if you play and win against someone who is within 100 ratings of you - games worth 1 point. If you beat someone that is below 100, you only get .8 points. If you beat someone who is 100 or more, you get 1.2 points. (or something like that... I just pulled those number out of my head. Not sure if I like this idea, but just throwing it out there.)

Mélusine: No problem. The discussion is always a good way to get a consensus and, who knows, better ideas. :)

However, in your explanation, i cannot find an only point of disagreement. You said that when you're the highest player, you prefer to play with an opponent with a similar BKR...i agree 100% with you...me too. And if you're the highest player of your team, with 1900 points, for example, and your opponent has 2300 points, where is the interest and balance? :)

In past, i remember i was the player with best BKR of my team and the weakest opponent player had a BKR more high than me. In these cases, the weakest team cannot do anything, but with "my idea", the possibility to order players is the only strategy to surprise opponent teams.

This format is specially directed for strategy games, where the luck factor doesn't exist and usually there aren't surprises about who will be the winner.

About your idea, it's necessary there be similar bkr's between all players to become true and possible. :)

Undertaker.: Team tournaments are my favorite and I don't like your idea (sorry !).
I explain why :
I know these 2 situations : to be the highest BKR of the team and to be the lowest BKR in another one.
When I'm the highest BKR (so a rather good player), I prefer to play with an opponent with a similar BKR because a closed game is more interesting than a game where I'm sure to win easily.
When I'm the lowest BKR, I always hope to have an opponent with a similar rating so as to have a chance to win, because it's very sad to play a game with no possibility to win.
I imagine your idea differently :
So as to " mix " the teams, we could do like that : it would be possible to play with an opponent only if the 2 players have a difference of BKR below 150 (for example), so all the teams would have players with low, medium, and high BKR.
The choice of the difference could be an option.
Like that, the teams would be more well-balanced.

cd power: Thanks. :)

joshi tm: Extra games? Sorry, but i think you didn't understand my idea. You would play the same number of games (if there're 5 teams, so you'll play 8 games, 2 games against each opponent). However, each captain decides the position of their players. This way, if you're the 3º best player of your team, your captain can decide that you will play like first player or last player of team. It's a strategy question. Then, you could play with best player of team B, with 5º best player of team C, with 4º best player of team D, etc, but you'll never play with best player of team B and with other player of team B in same tournament...you only play against one player of each team like now.

cd power: I don't like that, because pairing now will be reliede more on luck.

How about a round-robin style Team Tournament? Play against everyone of the other teams, but that will give you a hell lot of extra games.

Undertaker.: I like it and think it's a great idea

coan.net: Exactly. Moreover, the strategy of the strongest team (A) could be good to beat the team B, but could be bad to defeat team C, etc...
I don't want to mislead anyone... obviously, the team with the best players will always have more chances to win, but with "my format" the element of luck and surprise would be greater.

More, I think the captain would have a much bigger role than now, where only signs the team and little else does...

Groeneveld: Then team A would still win 4/1 - I think the point being made is some teams pick the super strong team, leaving most other fellowships little chance of ever winning - so it's an interesting idea to possible give other fellowships more of a chance

Undertaker.: At first I was going to say "I would hate to see a team captain basically choose me as a sacrifice to a high level player" ---- but I then seen that it would mostly be a blind pick - that is the team captain will choose the order of the 5 - but you can't see the other of other teams so it would be more left up to chance. Like I said, interesting idea.

who says that in the old situation team A would win 5/0
it happens ofter that a player with 100 or 200 points defeats a higher ranked player