Combined ratings doesn't make much sense to me, since the games are different. Kind of like comparing Tiger Woods with Andre Agassi by combining the tennis and golf ratings?

I do like the idea of a multigame tournament though. It seems to me that you would need to play each rival in each game to make it fair.

I really like taurec's idea of a decathalon!

The only games which should contribute to a decathalon rating would be games against other decathaletes.

of the selected games two ratings will be recorded then -
for every player - her/his 'established' ratings and the decathlon-game ratings.
they should start fixed at the beginning of a season at 1350.
e.g. if chess belongs to them, each chess game has to be calculated for
both tpes of ratings separately to avoid useamly advantage for specialists.

there will be a poll which games to select for a period of one ear.
then a scpecial decathlon rating is calculated cumulating in one
big tournament at the end of the period - not changing games,
but for each of the ten gametypes a signup will be required.
5er groups presumed, still to handle - 40 games. 2 days reflection time.
to make such a tournament attractive, brainking sponsors a prize.
onto that the person with the highest rating after a period will
be counted and credited as decathlon-season winner. :-)

Ah I see, I thought the idea was an overall, all players rating :o)

Personnally I think there are too many single BKR`s. Perhaps would it makes sense to summarize BKR`s in groups for instance all Halma games,all Checkers,all Gammons ? In Chess I would like to see three groups: regular chess, chessvariations with regular board and set, and variants with bigger boards and additional pieces.

Taurec: pentathlons, decathlons and the like sould a good idea. I think it would be fun to have tournaments that change game for qualifiers as they progress.

Harley: I think you've missunderstood. The idea is an average rating calculated by the mean of all a players ratings. I think the average of all player's ratings over one game should be about the same regardless of the range, so lower rated players are needed to give other players high ratings.

may still be suspended for private games if wished so.
Should be no obstacle, thus - the ten games for a decathlon could
be determined by a poll and even promoted by annual price tourneys, then.

I'm not sure I'd like that very much, Caissus.

I have appalling ratings in some games, and I still continue to play them because I enjoy the game. But if I felt that my low rating was dragging down the whole of BrainKing I wouldn't enjoy play as much. And I'm sure the high rated players would feel quite frustrated at people like me holding down their favourite game rating!

I dont exactly object to the idea but it might cause ratings to be taken over seriously and considered competitively. There are two possible negative effects of such a tendency, first it could encourage various members to indulge in forms of rating manipulation, second it could discourage members from experimenting with "new" games for fear that poor results would adversely effect their general rating.

to see an over-all chess-rating covering all normal variations,
(i.e. no screen/dark/anti) or similar for backgammon and pente as well.

Even a special Brainking Decathlon of selected games is imaginable.

It is right,Ughaibu I thought as an additional feature,as average of all played games.

What would be the point of a general rating? The main point of ratings is to get a rough idea as to whether or not a prospective opponent is suited to one's own level and as such is game specific.

Would be a "Brainking BKR" a good idea for the new Brainking version?
It could be the average of all single BKR`s.
Btw I don`t like the word "Enemylist", better : "Ignorelist".

i wish i had time to play 50 games, let alone 500, lol. I guess I'll retire one day and then try for triple figures. :)

Thanx from me too Fencer

Thanks Fencer! That is one of the many awesome things about this site!

No one will be restricted in the amount of moves a day.

paying members shouldnt be restricted in the anount of moves a day , i do suggest that there could be a maximun abount of games though maybe 500 or there abouts , i wouldnt like to be limited on moves though

I wouls support limits, if the limites were only to stop (or slow down) people who might be taking advantage.

For example, limit a pawn to 100 moves per day. Most pawn will not even hit that limit, but only be hit by the ones who take a lot from the site.

So to be clear I don't support restricting moves unless it is helpful in keeping the site from going down. I would only support it as a temporary measure. I notice you have only 20 games running, whereas I've seen some players with 400+ concurrent games, which basically means they must have moves to make no matter when they log in. While this is fine in theory, if it puts a strain on the server I would be in favor of limiting the number of moves.

iyt limits non-paying players to 25. This is miniscule and an attempt to get those players to pay, not to help performance.

I know this was posted a couple of days ago..yet I just read it.Grenv had the Idea of reducing to the moves per day, The reason I was happy coming to this gamesite was because I could move as much as I wanted. IYT styfled me on this now this site might do it. I'm hoping you all don't take this suggestion?

I know of a dozen or so (not hotmail or yahoo) that will work just fine. And the details to set up an accout??

Mr Bloggs
Any Street
Any Where
Any Town

WILL WORK, then once you activate just leave the account, or use it time and time again, it is NOT bound to anyting or hooked to the back of an ISP.

We stopped sending email confirmation codes out becuase of this very problem, now we use Phone or Fax numbers that have been checked with Telephone Company first, expensive maybe, but works. Im not suugesting for one second that BK use this method, Fencer would loose a fortune, but email verification just WONT work. (IMHO)

Indeed - but it's less comfortable.
Onto that not all providers allow it.

Anyway I did not mean a confirmation code.
E.g. try to send an email from hotmail to
a non-existing address - it won't work.

On FICS, the FIDE chess server, your approval
is even bound to the home address given by your ISP.
They won't accept anonymous email services like yahoo.

www.web.de, one of the winning-award mail-services
sends your confirmation code with snail-mail, serious.

Of course.

Anyone can set up duff email accounts for a day or so any way??

We used to have an e-mail verification when BrainKing had been launched a year ago. However, lots of people didn't want how to use it and my mailbox was full of e-mails like "help, what should I do with that activation code?".
So I'd decided to remove it.

An email address is easily verifiable. If a password is sent to the given email address, and users cannot log in without this password... then a true addy must be given. Passwords can be changed once they have logged in with the one sent by email.

that freshly created accounts should not be granted to post
for an approbation time of a week, alternatively before they
have completed 5 games at brainking. After even moderators
and bk customer-support have already created fakes to disturb
players by nonsensical humbug, it would be just fair to everyone.

I also suggest to implement a mechanism of
verifying the email-addy given for registering.

crowded anti backgammon - I do not know if that would be a very good game since anti-backgammon is not very popular, I personaly don't think crowded anti backgammon would get too much play either.
------
Some of my new "gammon" game ideas:

1. Dark Backgammon Race (or Regular/Nack/Crowded?)
- Basicly just like regular backgammon. You don't see ANY place that you don't have your own piece, so you will never be "blocked" and allowed to move to any place.

Now when you move to a place that is open, your piece stays there. If you move to a place that only has 1 opponent piece, you take it like normal gammon. If you move to a place that has 2 or more oppenent pieces, your piece will be placed back to the bar like it was taken out.

So this game would involve a lot more strategy - making you want to set up many places of 2 or more pieces to take away your opponents pieces when they land on you.

I believe this would be better as Dark Backgammon Race. Also I'm debating if it would be good to hide the opponents dice or not.

2. Backgammon Attack.
- Basicly it is the same as Backgammon, but with the rule that you can also win once you land and move your oppenets piece to the bar for the 10th time. I also think this would be good as Backgammon Race Attack - since then you could try to keep many of your own pieces in your own bar to come out and "attack" unprotected pieces that have been places in your area.

3. Domino Gammon - Basicly instead of dice, each player will have 3 domino's, and can choose which domino to use for their next move, in which the domino that is used is replaced with a new domino. The other player can see your domino, so you can plan ahead since you know the 3 possible "rolls" the other player will have. (With other minor rules like if a player is stuck on the bar, they can change all three domino's)

Not very long game . Extremly long game . But why not . Some people like long battles :)

hehe i cant programme ,i can play games though lol .
i wwould play crowded anti backgammon (although i think it would be a very long game )

Maxxina , yes thats what i was trying to say i reckon a game could last about a year if it was moved once every day , even so i would like to play it if it was here ;)

Oh well ... thank you Kevin for your enlightment. I was already dreaming :-)

Spirou: jason just copied directly Fencer's post which you refer to. There is just the two of them :-)

I've thought of a new backgammon variant (or at least one that I haven't heard about before). Crowded Antibackgammon. The initial board setup is like Crowded Backgammon, as are the rules of movement. Winning conditions are as in Antibackgammon: force your opponent to bear off first. I know at least one other person who's quite excited about the possibility, and it's probably simple to implement.

Does the concept interest other people too?

Jason, that is a good news! (though Fencer already told something like that previously)

Just for my curiosity's sake : Are you in the Fencer's crew? I thought they were only two Fencer and Liquid. If yes this reinforcement is a second good news.

why worry about this im sure fencer said he will have completed alot of suff before the end of the year , making brainking even faster

Fencer 15. November 2003, 18:10:51
Spirou: Yes, I consider to add, as you say, face to face games. There was already a discussion about new systems of time per move/game and it could one of the possibilities.
I have this global plan:
1) Finish the BrainKing 2.0 core.
2) Launch it at a test mode and let it go through deep testing by volunteers. During the test period it will be connected to another database to make sure that possible bugs won't corrupt the "real" data.
3) After all tests are passed, new BrainKing will be released as a stable version and I will start to implement new features. Including the one you propose.
I am sure that all of this can be done this year.

Don't want to answer for Fencer, but these would not put any strain on the server, or take up much space. Disk space is cheap anyway.

What we probably need to do is reduce the number of database requests, which is why the discussion on reducing total number of games per player allowed etc. I propose a move limit per player per day might work, which could be slowly raised until capacity is reached.

I'm not sure if ppl have mentioned this already to you Fencer, but there seem to be a ton of idle accounts that could be taking up space. I noticed there are ppl who signed up for a day or two or even a few months that never came back. How about if you auto delete any account that isnt used with in 3 months? Would that clear up a lot of wasted disk space.

Another good idea ArtfulDodger :-)

is if new accounts had to wait a period of 7 days to post to the DB's. They should spend the first few days just getting familiar with the place anyway and I guess that most new accounts don't post right away anyway.

Whisperz: Good idea.

Or possible have a "toggle" option for the moderator to see deleted/edited post, or just see current post. Then only if the moderator wants to investigate things said on the board they are watching, then they will be able to.

Poor moderator, he will see much crap :)

Or if Pawns (or even knights or rooks) are able to edit/delete their own post, possible still let the moderator (& site owner) still see the "original" post.

... possible just "hide" and mark special in the message list that only the moderator can still see the original.

Thanks Ug ... review my performance any time you like :)

As a suggestion ... remove the ability for pawns to edit or delete their posts so that it will prevent psuedo signups and logons which aim to bait other members and then delete their posts, or maybe they can only edit or delete after maybe a month or so, or making so many moves, just to make it harder ...

I dont think it's just a question of "get rid of Gothic", but clearly the performance of moderators needs to be open to review. Moderation along the lines of personality cult lacks the objectivity required by the position.

My Feature Request is...get rid of Gothic.

GothicInventor The environment is changing 15. November 2003, 10:33:17
In case you have not noticed. Everyone has been given a clear slate at ths point in time. Dano was warned about his posts, which were unwarranted, and now he is gone.

He keeps making mention of manipulated posts. I am not sure what he means by that. I occasionally make typo corrections or punctuation changes at the tournament board, if this is manipulation, so be it.

Yes, I posted that I would help everyone playing Dano in Gothic Chess to win. I was letting off steam, but I really meant it when I said it. Logistically, does anyone really believe this was possible? In fact, nobody took me up on my offer, as those who were members of the fellowship recall. They all wanted to try and give him a drubbing by their own hands, win, lose, or draw.

I posted it mostly because I knew it would agitate dano when it leaked, so the spies helped me immensely, and I thank you for it.

It was an impossible task to do (play every move for every opponent against dano) but knowing the way his paranoia is manifest, I knew it would send him over the deep end.

So what had I actually done?

I made a post, then took no action on it. How many times a day do we each do similar things? You see a beautiful woman walking down the street, do you think "I wonder if she likes doing Crossword Puzzles?" If you see an armored car making a cash pickup at a store, do you think "I wonder what kind of gas mileage it gets?"

No, we have fleeting thoughts about getting her in the sack, and tossing bags of money into the back seat and peeling off down the road. (Or maybe peeling off down the road with the girl in the back seat, and sleeping with the bags of money, whatever you prefer!)

The point being my previous fellowship was created for those to let off steam about dano, much as this one is most likely geared at letting steam off about me.

But does anyone really think I crashed the server just so dano, who won his section in the $3000 Gothic tournament, would not be able to continue on? Did he really think I was making all of those moves against him and he kept beating me game after game?

Folks, you have to face the fact that he was at least a little off his rocker. If nothing else, this must be conceeded.

The server crashed. That's all that happened.

A new policy is in place. It is one we can all live with. When I make a post about how the 4 kings in the deck of cards are not really modeled after those in antiquity that have permeated the culture, then someone calls me a prick for doing so, a line has been crossed. It was uncalled for.

Even now, I could of had this person banned, but I elected not to do so.

No more warnings will ever be issued, as the policy is any direct insult, in a private or public forum, will result in an immediate banning.

If it cannot be discussed without name calling, do us all a favor, and save yourself some keystrokes.

If you have read the hidden message I placed in this post, you know which 4 people will be banned next because they will most likely make snide remarks about this post. This is what I am hoping for. This is the bait