Pioneer54: My thoughts

1. This would be great if it would not put too much strain on the server. Maybe once a day when the server is the least busy, have a script run through current tournaments to see if it can be determined if there is a winner for each section - and start next round if so.

2. This can be a good idea, but at the same time - many players don't understand the points & S-B in a tournament and may not be able to determin if they are out or not. (Then what will happen if a pawn "removes" themself from a tournament, but then to find out he would have won?) Maybe just a change in the restriction would be beter then worring about this.

3. I could see 2 options for panws. (A) Let pawns enter as many tournaments as they want as long as they do not go over 20 game limit. or (B) Make it so they can only start a new tournament once a month - so at the 1st of the month they can enter a new tournament even if the first one is not done... and they are still under their 20 game limit.

I would also like to see the restriction of 1 of each game type of tournaments for knights removed also. For players who play MANY different types of games, this restriction does nothing. But for someone who only plays chess, well this could be a killer. Just having the 50 game limit seems like enough.

4. I would also like to add that it would be nice if a check could be put into place when a pawn/knight enter a tournament to see if they have room AT THAT TIME - instead of when it starts and then kicks them out. It would not be full proof since one might get in, but then be over the limit by a second round starting elsewhere - but I think it would be helpful.

Pioneer54: The more-than-one-tourney suggestion will certainly hit the ceiling of the number of games a Pawn may have started. If the 10-free-slots rule doesn't change, I suppose a Pawn could join these extra tournaments as long as they had enough slots left, by finishing other tourney games for example.

Pioneer54: "vast array of Pawns"... sounds like a game of Horde Chess :))

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Fencer: You're welcome. :)

Pioneer54: Thanks for the suggestions.

Fencer: Is it premature to talk about the new tournament system under development? If not, while recognizing you could have already taken these into account, I wish to make three suggestions:

1. In a multi-section event, when a point is reached at which there are clear winners in all the sections, the next round should commence ASAP, or within a day.

2. Pawns and Knights may be given the option to remove themselves from a tournament (sure, it can be done now by messaging you, but that's a hassle for you and the player) if they are already eliminated or have no chance for advancement and have either completed their games or agree to summarily resign those remaining.

3.Pawns may be allowed to enter more than one tournament at a time, say maybe 3 to 5. After all, a lot of them may not feel that it is worthwhile coming here for just a handful of games in a tournament and perhaps a few casual games on the side. And, I dare to wonder, if they get a taste of how enjoyable that is, it could be a stronger incentive to join!

Many would argue that Pawns contribute nothing, and so ought to be satisfied with what they get for free, but I strongly disagree. Even though they don't pay, Pawns are the bulk of the player base here, which provides much greater entertainment for those who want to buy more games and privileges. And, lest we forget, we were all Pawns in the origin, and many became members, but the future members to be are out there among the vast array of Pawns, so shouldn't we try to make it as interesting for them as possible? The more you get involved in something and the more you are given a chance to participate, the more you will want to and the harder it is to walk away from it.

BuilderQ: No, a two-game match ends with the second game won by either of the players and you get one result, whereas a two-game "pachage" gets you two 1-game matches and two results. Have I got something wrong?

Walter Montego: It's an excellent idea!

I like to be able to play the matches that break a tournament's tie by having all the games start at once instead of having them as a long series of games. This would really be great for Backgammon seeing how each game only counts as one game point anyway. For games that always count as one game point, this would be how I'd choose to set up my tournaments in the case of a tie happening for a champion. That way a three wins match could just have all five game start at once. Or three games could start at once, and then add the others if needed. It'd sure speed up tied tournaments if implimented and I don't see a downside to it.

WhiteTower: A two-game match, instead of two separate games, would ensure that they both were picked up at once.

WhiteTower: Cariad was pointing out thet 2 games switched colors is the best way to have a fair match. Randomly assigning colors may work for a ladder or something I guess.

cariad: This already exists, but the REAL request here is the option to pick up BOTH games, not each one individually.

Two games, switched colours?

wierd: I agree too. I would not have to feel guilty about choosing my preferred colour for a game when creating a new game. Random colours in single games are more fair all round for ratings.

I agree,
I would love to see a feature to randomly pick a color for each player once the challenge is accepted, or, if thats too difficult, just a random color to be picked when issuing the challenge.

fungame: randow color for every game would be nice!

valley girl chess :: you can make a move without a mobile phone
los angeles chess :: you can make a move without a valet
manhattan island chess :: you can make a move without a doorman
new york bronx chess :: you can make a move without a ghetto blaster
mexican chess :: you have to sneak across the board

alzheimer's chess :: you forget how to play
redneck chess :: the queen has buck teeth & chews tobbacco
republican chess :: you dont like to get to close the the right side of the board
procastinator's chess :: still working on the rules

With the chess clock settings, it should be possible to sort outstanding games according to the time left on my OWN clock even when it's not my turn. This would help in better game time management. Right now, I have to click on each individual game where it's my opponent's turn to see how much time I have left...

Any seconds?

New game:
1) new option: notify me by message when challenge is accepted (useful for extremely fast games to not miss the started game)
2) new color: random

as to when boards are updated.. meaning that rules and regulations stated onto a DB Heading.. or a fellowship Board Heading.. it would be nice to see the date and time published just to avoid those trying to change things on the board at the last moment..

Thanks.. :)

One of my home page links takes me to the playBunny: Started Games page. I use it when I'm not logged in to have a quick look and see if there's a move to be made. If I then use the Login button at the top, I get the same page except that it's mostly blank, ie. just the standard Profile page chrome.

I know that I can see my list of games on the main page, but is there any reason why page 2, Started Games of my own profile must be blank once I'm logged in? It does seem to be an exception that serves no purpose.

Spirou: No need to apologise :o) I don't think your request was too difficult, I just think we had trouble trying to understand you, even though your English is pretty good :o)

Salkkuman: LOLOL. That's really funny. Lucky Chess!! And an excellent idea too. :-))

It wuold be nice to play chess with luck, game where one roll the dice which unit to move. in chess there are six kind of pieces. And of cource if one is checed then you roll again if you cannot move that to stop check.

I know we have asked for it before; and recently as well.. but, I have yet to hear anything other then members talk about it.. Has Fencer any comment on whether or not we can expect to see something to this nature added..

and what I mean by complete hide.. is when I put someone on block.. and go to different boards.. I would hope they wouldn't pop up there .. I would hope that once I blocked them.. that is all I needed to do not to have to run into them somewhere else on the site..

playBunny: Thank you for developping those arguments. You could be right, my suggestion is too complicated.

Grenv, FunGame and Lamby: After reading playBunny, I realize it was like a smokebomb, sorry .

Lamby: You win the prize as I see it too.

LOLOL. This is a complete contrast to those who say cloak mode should be abolished because "why should people hide?". Spirou's suggesting that we all be all be hidden as a matter of course.

Spirou: "annoyed imagined opponents "

There are two possibilities here. Firstly that you imagine your opponents to be annoyed because you get annoyed. Scondly, you don't get annoyed yourself but are being considerate and wishing not to offend others who might.

My assumption is that most people don't mind and have got used to the ways in which other people go about their gaming. It's very reasonable to allow others to do as they like, whether that be reading all the boards first (which is what I am doing, for example) or writing messages, perusing the new members list, etc, or just opening the main page and let it sit there while doing something around the house.

It's true that it would be a politeness to inform your opponents that you are not moving but, because making moves is only part of enjoying this site, it's a politeness which many people would find strange - it apologises for normal behaviour.

The ones who get annoyed? Let them get annoyed and deal with it themselves. I'm one myself sometimes when a particularly slow player is holding up a tournament and I see them online. But that's my frustration to deal with and the rational viewpoint is that my opponent shouldn't have to account for their actions. The bext course for an impatient player is to request of their opponent that they give their game more attention if it's convenient and then practice more patience.

A related point: Another bevaviour which is quite normal is to be playing somebody and then they go offline all of a sudden. Sometimes they will inform their opponent why (bedtime, or work, etc) while other times - most times - they will not. Getting offended by that is as pointless as getting offended because someone's reading a discussion board rather than making amoves.

Ferjo: I thought Fencer took some ideas from my and similar suggestions while building "improved tournament system", but I am not sure. I think things like you, me and several other people suggest are really useful for finding appropriate opponents, and for tournament creators they are useful to target the group of people they wish to attract.

fungame:
Yes I read now your post of 31 May, sorry didn't read it at that time... Yes is something like you point out, and because its a statistic thing it could serve the tournament creator purposes or the ones who want to pick games or opponents on the waiting room.
Didn't think it could be by game type, because i was thinking in the player itself but you are right, theres games its more easy to play "without thinking". Anyway the sugestion stays and i suppose it wasn't accept it, unfortunately now i don't have time to search for comments to your suggestion in May.

Ferjo: But it should be dependent upon actual game type, for example I play extremely fast backgammon variants while in other games I am almost turtle. In fact you mean something similar like I suggested for tournament definition (link few messages below), but you suggest it in player profile (may be waiting games) already.

fungame: Spirou where have you gone? :oD

Area: Statistics
Place: Player Profile
Reason: The information of seing one particular player everytime on line and what he is doing (if he let me)its not enought to judge if he has a good rhytm of playing.
Calcul: Median Time between last oponnent move and his currently move for every game played.
Objective: Like to select players who at least plays in less than 3 days (median), after the oponnents move.
Another use of the information: Build a chart of the Top 50 fast players of Brainking.
Thank you.

Hehe, 3 different opinions, wondering who takes the prize for best guess

grenv: From what I understand, I think Spirou is asking for everyone to be cloaked so that noone has to explain anything, that everyones actions can be invisible

grenv: I don't think he means that, though I don't really understand what he does.
Seems like he is talking about some substitution for cloak mode, though I don't understand why it's a problem to turn the mode on.

Spirou: Are you asking people who are cloaked to explain why they don't move against you even though they are online?

Oh dear, I realize how my english is chaotic. Please, pardon me, I try to do my best. (Could you believe me).

In my opinion, 'cloak mode' is a poor mode.
Wehre is the interest for anyone to see what I am or was watching?
Why not all of of us must be in a claok mode?
For example, actually I am not in mood to play but I am curious to see what could be wrote in discussion boards and fellowships. But I am annoyed imagined opponents are waiting I could make a move. Isn't that a honest a point of view? I know, I know I may be perhaps to sensitive but I am perhaps not alone in this mood.

Therefore is my suggestion: if the 'cloak mode' is not put for all of us:
provide a message to all of our opponents explaining why I don't react to their move actually.
Isn't that a normal polite behaviour (if the cloak mode is not a usual state, of course)?
for some reason.

I hope you spent a little time to meditate upon.

fungame: I agree, Also agree with time limits that allow finishing in a year. Actually every 6 months would be my vote.

Beren the 32nd: Very good idea. And latest winner could be visible in ratings list for that particular game as well.

I note that "Improved tournament system" is a feature in development, but I don't know the plans.
How about establishing an official champion for each game type? The official tournament for a game type would start at the same time each year (but game type tournament starts would be staggered throughout the year). The winner would hold the title until the next year's tournament was won.
The aim of this is to have regular meaningful tournaments. Brainking is the best site of its kind, and winning a title here would be prestiguous. For example, why not try to attract some chess grandmasters to play here, including those that play correspondence chess? (Maybe there are some here already that play under pseuodonyms?)
The difficulty might be establishing time limits to ensure that a tournament with several entrants can be finished within a year! Maybe every two years would be better.

Addition to this suggestion :
- number of tournament wins (all/particular game for that tournament)
- number of tournaments played (all/particular game for that tournament)
Would be useful for tournaments for tournament winners.

I would welcome to still have a possibility to have the same piece with the same image and the same name/notation abbreviation in all games. May be settable through settings, some might prefer some original piece name for actual game. I think for a player who doesn't specialize in one of these games it just causes confusion, there is no reason to call the bishop&knight piece in one game cardinal, in other archbishop, in third janus, rook&bishop has for now only one name (queen), rook&knight (marshall/chancellor), rook&bishop&knight (amazon, maharajah) - though this one is slightly different, as in mahajarah chess infinite piece value because of king role changes it, but the image could stay the same.
Cardinal/Archbishop/Janus looks like schizofrenia already

I'd like to add a vote to the previous request that the red (3) link to new messages should go to the first new message rather than the last so that a series of messages can be read in the correct order.

WhiteTower: That would also be a good idea.

I would ask that the pieces themselves are replaced with non-Gothic-Chess ones, for obvious reasons.

Walter Montego: This change should be made to avoid confusion since the letter "C" is used in both variants. The grandchess rules here denote "Marshal" and "Cardinal", but the graphics are probably appropriated from the gothic set. Filip will most likely make the letter change in due time.

Walter Montego: I think the "A" and "C" must just be copied from Gothic Chess.

In my games of Grand Chess that I have going, I notice that the Cardinal is denoted with an "A" and the Marshall as a "C". Could the letters be changed to "C" and "M" respectively, or are "A" and "C" the standard for this game?