Antje: Oh I thought one was a wittle girl and one was a wittle boy.. hehe

one has an overbite, and the other has an underbite!!!

<I dont see a difference between these 2 smileys.
Is there one ....And if not, why have 2 of the same LOL

( 81 & 550 )

81 --->
550--->

This is ridiculous, that someone can be kicked off this site, yet somehow get to use auto vacation days to cover their absense?

I know it doesnt seem like a hastle, but I had just started 20 games with them, and it is a long scroll down the page, plus what about if I was a pawn or had an account with a game limit, I would be screwed waiting for theses games to finally be removed from my homepage.

Brian - please let it drop now. It's becoming tiresome.

find out if there is a way to find out the average amount of moves to complete a certain game type?

I want to know which game takes the fewest amount of moves to complete a game? (on average)

Fencer: Or is it you are mad at me for readdressing the Autopass debate that you are noticably silent on. Of course you could have easily went down a couple of posts and replied to my original post with the Ponds question. However you intentionally snubbed me in my humble opinion.

Brian1971: That's the auto-fill reply feature :-) I was too lazy to rewrite BBW's name.

Interesting that I brought up the question but Fencer addresses the answer to Big Bad Wolf. I suppose if no one else would have responded I would not have had the question answered at all.

BIG BAD WOLF: Ponds are not counted at the moment but they will be against the 50 total ASAP [I had no time to implement it today].

I ask this question BBW as the first one did not count against the game limit total. However I have 36 games total between started games and waiting games, plus a tournament starting today and I am awaiting the next round of a tournament I advanced in. So I will snuggle up close to 50 games with all the games starting. I just wanted to know how the Ponds games would be counted.

Brian1971: That is a good question that we will have to wait for Fencer to answer.

If the games do not count against the total, I would be curious if there will be a limit to the number of pond games a Knight can enter.

Do Ponds games count against your game count total? For example I am a brain Knight and have a 50 game limit. Do Ponds games count against that limit?

Thanks Fencer I don't mind waiting

Szirak: This Saturday or Sunday. Please be patient, I didn't forget about it.

Fencer: Any idea when the BKR will be recalculated? I'm still missing 9 points.

The rules are still the same.

in the new pond games is there still automatic moves are not ?

MadMonkey: Yes, later.

Fencer: Is there going to be a way to create a private Pond tournament or better still one within a fellowship ? (rivet, rivet)

Fencer: *phew* i am bold again

Hrqls: Yes, exactly.

Fencer: ah ok thanks :)

so if we are only playing 1 game of a certain type .. and that game takes more than 6 months .. we have to start another one (and finish it) before those 6 months end ?

(hmm now i think of it i dont think i have had any game which took longer than that .. as i am not even a member that long ;))

it sounds nice for sure ;)

Adding my 2 cents...

Deleting inactive players from the ratings/ranking charts is a fabulous idea!

Removing pawns from these lists though, I too think is a bad idea.. I would rather see how I compare with thousands of people, rather than just a few hundred. Maybe if our paid membership base had more people, it would be okay..

Kevin: Thanks, that was the mixup (I just call them listings or ratings that all - must be my english).
But everything else I said still holds :)

Hrqls: There are no active or inactive BKRs. BKR is still a BKR and it will never change. What will be active or inactive are the positions in the charts - if you don't finish a game in six months, you have no position. It doesn't affect anything on the Statistics page.

Maxxina: Lets hope someone doesnt have one game of a type just with a player like Kevin then LOL Its not often a game with him is finished in 6 months LOL

btw..just for the do-gooders etc etc this is meant as a point made but a jest at the same time.

ok :) no reason to shout ;)

i prefer it being changed to 'you have to make at least 1 move each 6 months' ;)

HRQLS - FINISH A GAME

do you need to finish a game each 6 months or make a move in that type of game each 6 months ?

what happens to the overal ratings ? do people still have to have at least 11 active bkrs to get on that list or can inactive bkrs also used for that ?

That will be an excellent idea to add the date and time of players' last moves in each game type. If Fencer does this, there will be no need to make any extra charts or whatever. It itself shows every small detail!

Perhaps one can remain on the chart if he has been playing it or has finished a game, instead of just basing it on finishing a game. Require a certain amount of movement or finshed games per quarter. But even taking the scenario of a game that takes 4 months to finish with the players moving everyday, I think three months is more than adequate. You should have more that just one game going to retain a spot on the chart. Just ekeing out the bare minimum might be enough by the rules, but it sure isn't by the spirit of it. The rankings should be for active players, not people that play one game every six months. I'd go with delisting them until they played regularly. As an option there could be a link that would list all members ratings in an inactive chart of some sort, where a column on that chart could also list the player's last move in the game so rated. In fact, such a dated last move would be a welcome addition to the charts that we have now. How about it fencer, could you put the last time a person moved in the type of game in question on the game ranking page? Just having it public would show who desrves their top ratings. Anybody that sees a top rated player that hasn't moved in the game type of interest in over a year would know at a glance where not to look for a game to play. If you do make it so inactive players are delisted until they play again, it would also alert someone that they might want to get some games going before that happens.

Some very good players are pawns. For whatever reason, they choose not to become Knights or Rooks, but having them on the charts is very important. We all want to see how we rank against **everybody**, especially the best players, whether they are pawns or not.

I like the 6 month time limit for paid members. 1 or 3 months can fly by quickly, and for some longer type games (like anti backgammon), it can take 3-4 months just to complete 1 game (even with both players moving daily.)

It seems Fencer is talking about these charts while pauloaguia is talking about the BKR history and graphs. Yes, pawns do not have access to the history, but (as Fencer said) even guests can see the rating charts. :-)

I must say that I totally agree with Walter Montego. Perhaps I'll decide to stay a pawn after my membership gets finished this time since I really don't like any other kind person to pay for me and I haven't yet received any answers from those Iranians I had asked if they wanted to join as a paying member either. Or shall I say only two have said that they want to join BK as a paying member.

I am now the top rated player in Screen chess, Cylinder chess and Berolina chess and really wish to stay the top rated player. So even if I am a pawn, if I still play those games, I think it is not fair to have me removed from the charts. That's some sort of pushing players to join by money. But, I totally agree that those who have played against four oponents and are no longer playing the game at least with the same ID, are to be removed from the charts. If one is the top rated player, there must be no fear of accepting new invitations to games. I have always admired that of Walter Montego. He playes DARK CHESS with everyone interested. That's how a top rated player must be.

Fencer:
I believe we had a discussion of removing inactive players from the charts before. This is a good idea. That way I wouldn't have look at a game I no longer play on my main page, would I? It'd certainly get those players that won four games, took the top position be virtue of having defeated four players and have never played another game of it, but continue to use this site. If you're going to keep your ranking, then you should have to continue to play to hold it. Besides, you say they keep their rating it just won't show on the ranking list until they start playing and finish some games, right? Though I consider the established rating the important one, it's nice to have a high ranking with an established rating on the provisional chart too. I think I'd cut the time to three months instead of six. A month for a seems kind of short. Though that's an incentive to become a paying member and yet get to see how the site works too.

As for not having Pawn members listed in the rating charts at all. I think this is a bad idea. As long as one is active by the criteria set forth, you should have a rating listed. We're all members of this site, paying or not. For some people 20 games or less is plenty for them. I can see not joining as a paying member if that's all they use it. Why penalize them? Also, as others have argued, I sometimes look through the list for prospective opponents and I am not interested in whether they're paying members or not, but if the game we might play will be a fun or chalenging game to play. The ratings and rankings help in finding opponents.

Agree with Stevie. Remove inactive, keep pawns on the charts.

I like the remove in-active players...but think Pawns should stay on charts etc

I think Paulo Aguia wanted to say graphs, not rantings or charts...

Then I must be making some confusion... what charts are we talking about?

pauloaguia: Nonsense. You can see the ratings and charts even in a guest mode.

Szirak: pawns already can't see any ratings on any charts because they don't have access to them ;)

Which brings me to another suggestion: maybe (just maybe) on the PaidMembership Detail page, there could be a link to a snapshot of the so said charts. So that we pawns know what we're missing (a few of the other functionalities could use some examples or better explanations too).

How about if pawns just can't see their ratings on the chart!?

BIG BAD WOLF: An option of showing ALL ratings [including the disabled ones] should do the trick.

I like the idea of removing inactive players from the charts. I will just have to remember to play a game of each game type every 6 months.

= = = = =

Removal of pawns from charts. I kind of like the idea - give another prevledge to paid members.

But another negative to that is some paid members like to find like-rated players to play, and it would then not make it easy to find them if they are pawns. For example, *IF* I was the best ranked on the ratings board in Backgammon, I would want to know if a pawn has a higher rank then I do to challenge that person to a game. But if they do not show up on the ratings board, it would be hard for me to find them.

That's fine :-)

Purple: Inactivity has nothing to do with payment. If they don't want to play a certain game type, then that surelly means they probably don't bother their rating in that game either.
Take a look at Fencer's profile. It's been ages since his last Horde Chess game so, naturally, he'd fall off the ratings. He probably doesn't bother that much since he's only playeda few games anyway.
Besides, you can allways come back to the ratings as soon as you finish another game of that type, nomatter how much time there is left in your membership.

(Sorry to use your profile Fencer, but Purple had no suitable example in his )

pauloaguia: That could be a problem if Rooks had time remaining on their paid membership..unless they notify Fencer they are not returning.

Purple: I think it goes for inactive dormant rooks as well