Bernice: I have noticed that too, and the same pop-up appears at logout; a real nuisance! The problem is that the castle layout is programmed into the log-in page, and settings only controls a player's main page. I'm surprised more players haven't mentioned this here.

It would be much easier (and less aggravating) if the site figured out what recent change has caused this, and alleviate it, or just get rid of that goofy bat (or whatever it is flying across the screen) altogether.

Gouwe gozer: Thank you; I had to use the settings; clicking on the flag only changed the log-in page, but nothing else -- kind of strange.

I looked at an event that was written in another language, and somehow it converted most of my literature that I look at to that language. How do I change it back to English?

rabbitoid: Thank you kindly, and to the others, for timely and concise response. I will issue a brief note to Fencer, and also ask him to refer to the notes here, and whether he wishes to handle it or delegate to a moderator is alright with me.

BK can't control what unruly individuals will do or say, but they certainly should be able and willing to enforce the expressly written codes of conduct. These offenders need to be put on notice!

This is a family site, thus foul language, sexual language, abusive personal attacks and threats ARE NOT ALLOWED on BrainKing.

The text is, of course, verbatim from the "user agreement". So, where would one (myself, that is) go to report another for reprimand for violating this clause? I don't want to print the sordid details in this forum.

The captured pieces outside the board are not showing up, although the rest of the displays are normal. But the lack of seeing what is captured is making it difficult to select moves, especially in Loop chess.

It seems that the site has suddenly developed a penchant for trying to fix something that wasn't broken, and this was mentioned before without remedy nor response. For several days, (some) games have shown up on status pages with "move 0" in the move column. For games such as Espionage and Logik that require a preset, it makes sense, otherwise it's patently absurd.

As it stands now, the move numbers are correct in games which you're the second player, but wrong (one short) for games which you're the first player. BK is otherwise running excellently, but this is quite a frustration, particularly when I see "move 1" which leads me to believe a new event has begun, only to find I've already moved once and it's underway. Why was this counterproductive change in move numbers made? (If it was explained earlier, pardon me, I missed it.)

Why are all the move numbers lagging in each game for the first player? For instance, if it says you're on move 16, you are actually on move 17.

Fencer: ... only if it suffices, and perhaps it no longer does, although it had been handy for me in the past.

What happened to the system of paying membership dues through a representative in one's own country?

What gives with the totals today? They're all grossly inflated.

Where do the avatars come from?

Luke Skywalker: I agree; I do not like the compression idea either, as it merely serves to punish those who have worked to achieve status. With large numbers of players, it may not even happen, but what would be wrong with an empty stair or two?

Meanwhile, those on the first stair risk nothing by losing matches, since they cannot fall any lower.

Just observations here, not criticism; no doubt many players are enjoying these new events.

When you get into a group, how do you know which players have openings and are eligible to accept a challenge? Must you scour the game list to see?

BIG BAD WOLF: How?? It does not seem likely that many Rooks would become Ns. I did it, to place a restriction on myself and my time, but I'm probably perhaps one of a handful.

Jules: That's a wonderful idea, and actually I once tried it, but invariably started more games than I could play comfortablly, and found myself rushing moves in a lot of them.

However, I would think it a great improvement if the 'one tournament per game type' restriction were removed, and I wonder if that change might entice some pawns to become Knights (read: more euros in BK coffers!!), especially players who are mainly only interested in one game type.

Do the games played on the 'Stairs' count against the total limitations of 20 for pawns and 50 for knights?

It is kind of amazing that this referral program has generated such heated debate!? It's an imperfect system, that doesn't seem to be in doubt. But in the blink of an eye, Filip could just as easily scrap the whole thing, and we'd all have "no brains"! Not that he'd want to necessarily, he has his own reasons for it being there, but he could do away with it.

For example, over two years ago, when I was a pawn, I referred a player who immediately became a Rook, and that player referred several other players of a specific game type who also became Rooks, but I got nothing. I later became a Knight, then a Rook, then back to a Pawn, then a Knight, but there was no retroactive payment for my referral; just the way it goes.

There seems to be about five times as many Rooks as Knights, so it is obviously the optimum choice for those who do pay (or get a membership via grant). However, this is common knowledge, so retroactive rewards do not seem in order, but that is Filip's domain, so I'll say nothing more.... I'd become a Rook again, except that with over 50 games going, I cannot devote enough attention to each and play as sharply as I'd like, although this may not be of concern to many other players that just to have a lot of games going. The main drawback of the Knight membership is having to wait for other players to finish their games before another tournament of that type can be entered, but by trying new games I have adjusted to that somewhat; also, I look for events with shorter time limits.

After experiencing many different internet games sites over the past several years, I believe beyond question that this site is by far the best, all things considered.

Grim Reaper:

Grand Chess is too unlike contemporary chess.

You wrote this as if to suggest that it is some kind of drawback. Why should grandchess, or any variant for that matter, be more like chess? Furthermore, your point cannot survive scrutiny; grandchess is like chess in some ways, different in others. There are opening, middlegame, and (sometimes) endgame phases, as in chess, but obviously the play is more complex, and more tactical, due to the larger board and extra pieces.

The setup lacks symmetry,

HUH??? Each side's position is a mirror of the other, as in chess and many variants (including your beloved gothic), so you are just plain wrong there; besides, this point is meaningless.

there is no castling, and the starting position is mildly chaotic.

Yes, castling is forbidden. As the inventor himself says, "It is a battle. Why should the King be safe?"

The BrainKing community does not represent our target market, as we target consumers. We sold perhaps a couple dozen Gothic Chess sets on here, but over 63,000 worldwide since December 2000 (thanks mostly to large drop-ship orders to QVC and, oddly, correctional facilities in the United States.)

Then, why are you so upset?! Most of us would be elated with just a small portion of your success.

Each variant has their own lovers and haters, as was before Gothic, and will be after Gothic.
If you don't like it, don't play it, simple enough.

Finally, we agree!!!!!!
;))

Just don't try to tell me it is not popular. I walked away from a $75/hour consulting job in the year 2000 because I was making more with Gothic Chess on the side.

I'd never tell you it is not popular, and I never said nor suggested that; I just said it won't be much missed here. If you had read my previous post carefully, you would have observed that it read, in part:
although I recognize that gothicchess has a large following

Come to Bartell Hall in Kansas City next August. Watch over 4,000 high school kids play for the prize of having free college tuition for one year. The entrance fee is only $125.

Tell them how much you like Grand Chess, how much you dislike Gothic, and pay close attention to their reaction.

Sorry, can't make it, too far out of my way! Besides, if I don't even like playing gothic for free, why on earth do you think I'd want to PAY for it? .... So, tell me: Is the attraction the game concept or the prize money offered?

Chessmaster: "CRC is a good game (actually GC is just a starting position of CRC) but any "Fischer/Capablanca Random" implementation of Chess or Gothic Chess is not in the same league with the original games, because of lack of opening theory,"

This proposition is irrational. The absence of opening theory does not detract from a game concept, instead it enhances it, especially in the area of tactical play.

Grandchess is an absolutely marvelous game that I have been playing for many years, and it is delightful that it has been added to the BK repertoire. It is much better than CRC and other games using the special combined pieces because of the expanded 10x10 board. Also, the special promotion rule gives it unique appeal.

Conversely, although I recognize that gothicchess has a large following, I never liked it and never accepted that the originality of the concept was genuine; holding patents does not necessarily prove anything, since many patents have been granted to those diligent enough to reapply for coverage of non-orininal ideas (at significantly higher fees, of course).

Gothic won't be that much missed, and I view it as an improvement (rather than a handicap) that it is slated for removal.

Rose: I didn't know it either, Rose (nor was I aware of the delete option, rather handy). Perhaps a more explicit explanation of this item could be installed on the "Blocked users" page?
;))

Thanks to you and Fencer for speedy answers!!

How can one prevent a posted waiting game from being accepted by a blocked user?

Thanks, mrloupcity, for a reply. Yes, I had tried clearing out all the cookies, and then came back here and got the same problem. Another check of temp files reveals that almost same operating cookies had been reloaded, so I figured it had something to do with the ads here.

It's manageable, but a real nuisance. I have to hit an extra keystroke to open each page!?

I use Internet Explorer. This never happened before, but now every time I open a new page at BK I get a script error message. It does not matter whether I respond yes, no, or X, the damn thing keeps popping up. Why is this happening? It is not occurring on any other web site.

I use Internet Explorer. This never happened before, but today every time I open a new page at BK I get a script error message. It does not matter whether I respond yes, no, or X, but the damn thing keeps popping up. Why is this happening? It is not occurring on any other web site.

Caissus writes:
"Playing only unrated games after some time for non-paying members is the most used restricton on other chessservers"

But how, assuming it's factual, does this translate in net revenue production? What chess playing pawn is going to be compelled to buy a membership here because of the simple prospect of losing his rating status? Rather, it seems more likely he'd just go find another of the hundreds of free chess sites already on the internet.

Yes Steve, I reckon you may have a valid point in saying that many small problems are sprouting from the main obstacle, which seems to be the installation of a better server. However, this looks like a vicious cycle that was the same topic of talk late in 2003. And, things have gotten better since then, although there is still much room for improvement.

There have been a lot of suggestions posted here about ways to raise capital, some interesting, others ridiculous, or made merely to lighten up the banter! For me, it isn't a matter of dollars per se as value derived. Ordinarily, in business practice, it is customary for a salable product to be developed before ANY revenue is incurred. Who among us would walk into Wal-Mart and buy a defective toy in the hopes that one day it might just work properly? Or go to a grocery store and give five bucks to them for a shipment of bananas that wasn't due to arrive until the following week? Now, we're dealing with an uncommon item here in that BK is a very special site, and things like this don't happen often, but I sense that all too many members here are too eager to put the cart before the horse. The devotion and willingness to offer assistance is laudable, but I have a tough time accepting the subjectivity.

Maybe things will in fact only improve if some cash is generated; if that is the case, then it needs to be definitively stated by the management, and some bold steps taken to get results. So far, only a figure has been tossed out with an implicit opening to discuss it, which isn't exactly the "captain of industry" approach.

As things stand currently, I'm content to lay back and see what happens, and if at some point I become confident that the site will run flawlessly, then I'll renew at whatever the going rate is, and be glad to pay!

Didn't we just go through this (discussion of getting a server upgrade) a few months ago? .... Just wondering!!?

However, the idea of a short-term infusion of cash via membership extensions at slightly reduced rates is a good one, because it will both retain members by their commitals and make it possible for new paying members to join at future dates, neither of which will be possible without continual sound operation of the site. A mere observation, though having said it, I myself am apprehensive about many things here, and I cannot even say if I'd be willing to plunk down $20 for an additional year, if offered. For example, I am having some trouble with some games: when I click on a game that is in my 'pink' to-move section, it goes back to the position after my last move!!? I'm sure this will get ironed out in time, but little annoying glitches like this one seem to keep popping up.

To some amazement, I pretty much agree with everything everyone has said!! But don't assume that I am perfectly content. I lost 11 titles, so I can definitely empathize with Jason's 17 lost!!? But, as stated, it is impossible to rectify at this point.

I really admire and appreciate those here who play for just the fun of playing; however, there are those among us who take a bit more strident view of the competition and all; 'serious players', if you will. It is why we become game players, because we not only want to have fun, but want to excel as well, and we want to do it against the other best players. I'm really not bitter, harley, and there are indeed much more important pursuits in life than games, although it is really not very soothing to have someone tell you 'it is only games' knowing full well that six weeks of diligence has just been flushed down the toilet!

I guess it will take some time for me to adjust my mindset to play here again. I certainly cannot do it at the present time. One thing I am wondering is, can we report results we know to Fencer and have him tally the games, or must he hear from both players for every game?

Must we replay (or try to remember) these old games? Some of mine I have written records for, and some not. However, I can recall what the results were, but..... we're kind of in a perilous situation here. With all the exuberance, no one seems to have noticed that we are going to somehow have to dispose of all these old games. It would be nice if everyone would adhere to the honor system, and admit which games they have lost, but is it reasonable to expect this, even among the friendly BK clientele? Will all of this need to be solved on an individual basis? I hope things will improve, but fear as more users return, dismay and complaints will follow. Perhaps just wiping out all the games in progress and starting over is worth considering.

I am also mystified by the fact that some time ago there was some talk about Ed Trice making a substantial investment here. What became of that? If such funds were derived, why didn't they get used to prevent this sort of disaster? Just curious.... I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers, but there is no denying that the events here have been very perplexing.

I think Eddie's endurance should account for something. It is amazing that anyone could even complete that many games in the time he has, let alone win at least better than half of them. The winning percentage isn't that spectacular if taken only on its intrinsic value, but when coupled with the sheer volume of games, it is indeed very remarkable!

I disagree with the assertion that this board is not the place to mention such a significant milestone. Quite the contrary, this board is the perfect place to do just that!

I do not favor limiting either the advantages or the number of games Rooks can initiate, but I do strongly believe the price for a Rook membership should increase. For what they receive, a more reasonable price would be $45 or $50 per annum.

I have my own complex set of reasons for purchasing a Knight membership, but admit the Rook is by far a much more attractive deal. Why is it that, of the paying members, there are roughly twice as many Rooks as Knights? It is simple really. The benefits for Rooks are a lot greater than those of Knights for only a marginally steeper cost. Current contracts must be obliged, of course, but at some future point a price increase for Rooks should be worked in.

Putting limitations on Pawns is meaningless. It sounds good in theory, but any user can get around it by simply creating another account.

So, what would be a suggestion (or plurality thereof) to improve upon the rating system we have? There is no such thing as a perfect one, but if there are flaws, they could be thrashed over, perhaps even rectified.

I just don't think that a lot of time should be spent on it by the players. I mean, I am much more concerned with won-loss records than any rating, which is at best only a rough guide as to how good (or not) a player is. In contrast, numbers of games won and lost are factual, and although they do not necessarily address the strength (or weakness) of opposition, they are still unequivocal.

However, ratings are always fallible, no matter how good the system used. I purport that in most rating systems, about one-third of the players are overrated, about one-third underrated, and about one-third rated fairly close to where they should be. The variance in rating systems won't change that. The only thing which will make rating systems better is longevity; that is, a lot of the players in a certain game type playing a lot of games against the others in that group.

From time to time on here, I've noticed that people complain about their rating(s), the rating system, or one thing or another having to do with ratings. What a waste of time and energy! Ratings are cuious and interesting by nature; they are also a very inexact science no matter what formula is used. It has always been this way, and probably always will be. If those yammering about ratings would spend half that time studying and improving their play, their ratings would improve dramatically! So, why worry? Look up your rating if it makes you feel good, acknowledge it, then resolve to do something about it, or just forget it!

As for extremely high numbers of games per member, I suppose that is Fencer's province alone. Some of my opponents (even friends) fit this category, and I don't especially like waiting days for a response in a game, but as long as they make their time control, I cannot complain, although I have a tough time understanding how anybody can handle several hundred games simultaneously. There has to be a certain comfortable level of peak performance beyond which play diminishes.

There will always be a small number of people (in proportion) who are impatient with what the site offers, and when and how it offers it, and even if they could be placated at present they would find something else to get anxious about, so let them be on their merry way and concentrate on the resolute majority.

I disagree! I find 'auto refresh' very handy at times, and would hate to see it taken off the site. Admittedly, there are those who will abuse or take it to excess, but this does not validate the negation of it for everybody.

Clearly, two PAYING MEMBERS who use the same computer (and therefore submit the same IP address) do not fall into the category of pawns (who, of course, do NOT pay) with multiple accounts.

A policy of one pawn account per IP address would be appropriate and weed out those who are breaking the rules. And yes, a few users who happen to share a computer due to same household or friendship would be alienated, although I suspect they are outnumbered by the cheats.

I appreciate that the tournaments are largely unfettered because of the "one per pawn at a time" rule, and perhaps Fencer is content to let it go at that. So be it, but as for casual games, the 20-game limit (or ANY limit) is virtually meaningless as long as any user may create more than one account.

The recent posts have alluded to something I have been wondering about for quite some time, that is cheating the system by establishing more than one userid. At almost any given time, less than 2% of the 'registered users' are logged in, yet the site maintains that there is traffic heavy enough to occasionally overload the server. This would seem to indicate that either a lot of pawns with multiple userids are logging in and out or a lot of players have registered and subsequently left the site while still being counted as a user, or some proportionate combination thereof.

I was a pawn for over three months before I joined, mainly because I was hesitant about the prospect of cheating pawns putting a drag on the system and I didn't sense that any corrective action was being taken. I decided to take a chance and join anyhow since I wanted to play in more tournaments and it's money well spent. Some might ask what the difference is between 5,000 or so pawns and maybe several hundred with different accounts. Well, my response would be... PLENTY!! With the 5,000 pawns, many will eventually join; in the latter scenario, none will because they cheat expressly to avoid payment.

Two years ago, I bought an IYT membership which is set to expire due to my disenfranchisement with them and their mistreatment of members. However, I admire their approach to attacking the problem of users with multiple accounts, which they did by tracking the IP addresses of computers logging on, and they even went so far as to tell a family of three using the same computer that two accounts must be closed, by this was an exceptional case.

This site needs an implementation of some such program. BBW astutely suggests that, without this safeguard, limiting pawns to a 3-month trial will do no good. I also agree with BBW that pawns should be permitted to join another tournament if they have concluded their games in one, even if games of other players are ongoing (many of us have experienced the frustration of that).

I suspect that most pawns are honest and complying with the rules, and there is not a problem there, but sadly there are some (even just a few is too many) who will always try to "have their cake and eat it".

As for dormant accounts, maybe the site should have a periodic review of users who have been long absent and move those records off-site to an archive or a storage disc. I'm not sure if such a scheme is workable or would solve more problems that it creates, and it is always possible for users who have been away for weeks or months to return, although the likelihood of that seems remote.

I'd be particularly interested in how members feel about pawns using more than one account, but thanks to anyone who patiently waded through all of this. I pride myself on concise expression, yet this topic is complex and it still turned out to be rather lengthy.

I appreciate your clarifying those points, and there is no doubt that the Rook membership is the best overall value. I was considering Knight only to limit myself; that is, 50 games is a reasonable cap, and if I went much over that then other personal endeavors would suffer.

But, I really just wanted to make sure I could enter a tournament (provided enough game slots) of a particular type, assuming of course I was not already in one of that type. Your posts cleared that up.

Not sure if this is the correct forum instead of the tournament board, but...

If I get a Knight membership, how many different tournaments can be entered? The site literature says one of each kind of game, but I am wondering what exactly constitutes a "kind of game". For instance, if in a Halma8 tournament, could I also get into one for Halma10?

These would seem to be different games, although when I finished my first tournament as a Pawn I was fooled into thinking I could join another tournament, but to my dismay I discovered that I had to wait for the other players' games to finish!?

I have no objection to the site's policies, but I think they could be more explicit.

I have used auto-refresh quite a few times, and found it handy; not always, but on occasion. That isn't what is slowing down the site.