Do you miss something on BrainKing.com and would you like to see it here? Post your request into this board! If there is a more specific board for the request, (i.e. game rule changes etc) then it should be posted and discussed on that specific board.
It works fine because the stronger play wins by the proportion predicted by the ratings. The idea of ratings for backgammon is nonsense and I dont imagine anyone gives a hoot about them.
It's fun that I can read my own messages even on boards on which I'm barred, it would be cool fun if I could read the messages of any and all members who were barred.
Go to the ratings list for the game of your choice, select a suitably strong player, check how many games they're playing, at what time limits and when they were last online. If they seem okay for you send a challenge with a note explaining your feeling about time management. Would be a lot simpler than to keep bringing this nonsense up as if everyone else should comply.
The number of people who both want to play quickly and suffer a fear of timing out must be pretty small, get together in a fellowship. It could be called "quick games with slow time limits" or similar.
I've completed 1196 games, apart from some tournaments these have nearly all been at 4 or less days/move, in only 1 out of all those games did an opponent time out and request the game be re-instated (a 3 day/move game), this is not even worth considering a problem it's so entirely insignificant.
What if a person is playing slowly but winning all their games? Tournament creators choose the time limits so it is completely nonsense for those same creators to claim that anyone is moving too slowly.
It would be nice to be able to personally arrange one's completed games. For example if they could be grouped by colour, opening, etc it would make them much easier to peruse.
I'm another person who thinks this is an outrageous amount of fuss over a non-existent problem. If people want to play quickly but choose games with seven day time limits ? ? ? ? For sure I dont want to have to consider what the concealed time limit of a game or an event is because a few members have a morbid fear of being unable to access the site. The concept of a time limit is dead simple and there's nothing wrong with it. The only meddling that appeals to me is the option to remove weekends from tournaments.
My quick calculation gives you 63% success with white and 56% success with black at tablut, a 7% difference but I make you favourite with either colour.
How about a facility whereby posts are rated and the social side also enters the game/competitive mileau? Could save on the endless repetitious nonsense about politicians.
When viewing a members profile would it be possible to see their waiting games? Also it would be nice to have a total waiting games figure on my main page, please.
Lythande: Thanks for the elucidation.
Fencer: How about more flags? At the moment there are five(!) for the UK but none for Europe. There's one for Tibet but none for Saminsk, none for various Pacific states, etc.
I dont get your meaning. Are you suggesting that a tournament's conditions include two time limits? One preferred and one "emergency"? If such is the case how do you define the emergency? If a person genuinely suddenly cant get on there must be a serious reason, eg a hurricane cuts of all electicity throughout the city, and I'm quite sure Fencer would reinstate games that timed-out in such conditions.
Have there been any complaints about unwanted comments on non-private games in progress? Personally I'd like all games to be public or at least the private games become public once they're finished.
I didnt mean the deletions, about which I agree with you and IMupChucKing, and if, as your later post suggests, you've changed your position on "Who is on-line" I retract my enquiry.
One can presently search a player's archived games just for games with oneself, it would be nice to be able to select just the games with any specified user.
I think the view online players is a great feature and I really wouldn't want to lose it, I cant see any way in which it can be considered an intrusion of privacy. Because there's been a bad experience with one member isn't any justification for removing a feature that is generally helpfull for all members, after all, if someone wants to pester you they'll find a way to do it anyway.
Reality is that you assume that being right has a special degree of objectivity where you're concerned, it's not the case, plenty of people disagree with you on all the things you feel are self evident. That's life.
(skrýt) Pokud pravidelně čtete několik vybraných diskusních klubů, můžete je přidat do seznamu oblíbených kliknutím na odkaz !přidat k oblíbeným klubům" na stránce příslušného klubu. (pauloaguia) (zobrazit všechny tipy)