Aganju: Thanks for the explanation, I think I understood now.

rod03801: thanks a lot, i understand now :-)

speachless: 'Stronger' relates exclusively to the current tournament, and the number of wins the player had in it. So the SB is the sum of the points the opponents you beat had (plus half the drawn opponents). For example, if you have one point because you beat a player that has 4 points, and I have one point because I beat a player that has 5 points, SB considers me ahead - as I beat the 'stronger' player.
Remember that SB comes from live (chess) tournaments, where there is not neccesarily a BKR or any other rating available - people might have never played before publicly, or they might have multiple ratings in different systems.

It is an interesting idea though, to use BKR ratings instead of wins in the current tournament...

speachless: S-B has nothing to do with ratings. I may not be wording it quite right, but it is based on the points of each person's opponent's whom they won against.

I know what I mean...

But yes, those are obviously wrong, in that tournament.

Here is an example of a correct one : Championship world BK 2013
If you scroll down to section 3 of round 1. It was a section that needed the S-B. It correctly made Schoffi the winner. He beat players 3, 4 & 5. Their points added up to 6. Whereas eefke (who tied him in points) beat players 1, 3 & 5. Their points only added up to 4.
Nothing to do with either person's BKR.

happyjuggler0: in the SB FAQ there is written "...and is based on a theory that points earned with a stronger opponent are more valuable than with a weaker one."

--> so I think that the stronger opponent has a higher BKR-Rating, right? But on the specific tournament the BKR Rating of the players are actually the Rating they have today and not the BKR they had at the point when the Sections were ended.

So my question is, how could you calculate the SB today, if you are missing the BKR-Rating the system used to calculate the SB.

I still assume that the SB were calculated right at the point the section ended, cause if it were to 0 then, i ask myself why no one used to claim when the sections ended. Maybe the right calculated SB get missed over the years....?

happyjuggler0: i like the idea of the finals being replayed as they should have been ...

Roberto Silva: +1 :-)

Pedro Martínez: i guess luck played a bigger part in this one than in most backgammon type games ;-)

speachless: After I made my post about not doing math, I quickly checked out who the winners of each section "should have been". If I calculated correctly, then:

Section 1 was correct. (No S-B needed).
Section 2 looks correct for who advanced, but I may have miscalculated S-B. Edit: I was wrong. See the end of my post for details.
Section 3 was very wrong. milionovej kluk, Pedro Martínez, and cardinal all tied on matches won. They all beat players 4-6 with a perfect score. They all finished 1-1 vs each other. Therefore all three of them should have advanced.

Therefore the final section should have had 5 players instead of 3. To answer someone's possibly tongue in cheek question, I don't see how it could possibly make sense to replay the final section with all 5 players, even if Fencer were inclined to find a way to do it, which I doubt he would anyway.

If Pedro wanted to he could invite each of them (and only them) to a tournament with the same time controls, but really what would be the point?

Edit* Aganju looks right, I miscalculated and Hrlqs would not have advanced to roun 2. Instead TC would have advanced because he beat both of the other players who got 3 points.

speachless: no, you can easily recalculate it in the head, and it shows that Hrlqs would have been second place only.
Maybe - and that is just a wild guess - the other players were removed by management for whatever reason. But it seems a strange way to do that, setting there SB to zero.

Pedro Martínez: I think when the sections ended, the SB could have been calculated perfectly right, but over the years the saved SB turned to 0 by a bug. I assume this cause many of this tournament players have a 0 SB, if so : 1 of you would have noticed it and many of them would have claimed very loud for correction. But maybe I'm just wrong...

Roberto Silva: Yeah! Let's make it an 18 year tournament.

happyjuggler0: Does that mean round 2 will have to be reset and replayed?

Make that 12 years then...

Pedro Martínez: Looks like SB wasn't calculated correctly for either section 2 or 3, but perhaps section 1 was. I am not going to do the math.

Looks like an old bug.

Hrqls: And looking at your Section, pal, you would not have made it to Round 2 had the S-B been calculated correctly. :)

BGBedlam: Absolutely... Why was my S-B 0?

Pedro Martínez: isn't it because the S-B was higher than the rest?

Hrqls: Can somebody please tell me why Section 3 in Round 1 had only 1 winner?

Hrqls:

crosseyed:

Hrqls: Well done and for sticking it out.

i have to say: it feels great to win a tournament for which you worked so hard for for more than 9 years! :)

The first doubling cube tournament

Gabriel Almeida: thanks! great posts!

mal4inara: I hear you. I've been participating in this same debate for years now. Unfortunately, some people won't accept the reality of a turn based game site, and will attack people who don't play the way they would like. It's just the reality of it. It is really better to just let it pass, because some won't accept that its on them TOO for joining games that don't meet the ideal time constraints.
And I don't mean anyone who is participating in THIS current, civil, conversation.

rod03801:thank you both, Rod and jo, for your comprehenion. In fact, i dont want to offend. And honestly the discussion about slow or fast playing, compared with the possibility of someone that is playing fairly and nice as you both are, is nothing.

rod03801:it's ok, I wasn't offended, just really didn't like being singled out for playing within time limits, which some see as slow play.

I don't join many tournies now, only ones I am really interested in.  Or team tournies in games I like.

Anyway, the comment just caught me at a bad time, and I am sorry I over-reacted.

Jo

mal4inara: Please don't take offense. Gabriel Almeida is a good guy, and I am sure he really didn't mean to offend you.

I don't take offense by the comments. My response would really be the same as yours. I play in order of time out. If a tourney has crazy long time constraints, then they do take longer with me. As with you, if anyone looks at my profile, they would see I've BARELY touched MY vacation time too.

I've stopped joining new tournies, (unless they realllllly interest me), in an effort to get my number of games down enough to the point that I can hopefully make a move in every game, every day.

Like you, it is NOT my plan to hold things up, but I have seemingly done so. I don't join tournies with long time constraints anymore. I am also more than happy to concentrate on the older tournies, but it isn't always possible.

My main point is that I hope you won't be offended. There may be SOME people who purposefully hold things up, but I know it's not me, and I'm sure it's not you either.

I don't want to be in long, never ending tournies either. That's why I only join ones with VERY short time constraints, to FORCE me to keep up. As my # of games get down further, it will be less of an issue anyway.

ThunderGr:
Well said.

mal4inara: Hey, do not get discouraged like that! Playing games is for fun! No need to let some random comment spoil your fun.

Just because something is a fact, it does not mean it is an accusation, you know .

mal4inara: ir was not my intention to offend, mal. If i did, i am sorry and retry what i said!

mal4inara: Sorry you fill that way. You try regular games?

Gabriel Almeida:sigh, I am a slow player but I don't purposely slow down tournaments.  I play within time limits, and if you look at my profile, I have used less than 2 vacation days this year.  You won't find me using vacation days to extend a tournament.

I play games in order of remaining time, so if a tournament has a long time limit, it will take longer to play.  But I have a life outside of BK, and a part-time job now as well as a family.

I am actually getting to the point where it is not worth playing here anymore, more negative than positive. And this sort of post is almost the last straw.......

rabbitoid: lol i am in that tournament as well .. although i cant make it to the next round anymore as i end as 2md in my section

the matches which havent finished yet are all between active players ... so hopefully it will proceed to the next round next year ? .. hmm maybe in this case (cloning gammon) inactive players would lose sooner due to timeout as thats much faster than finishing the game itself :)

Hrqls: Clo(w)ning backgammon is a special case. When it was first introduced, the rule for win was different. I don't quite recall how it went, but it took into account the number of stones. Under that rule starting 15, 21-point games made sense, and I entered 2 of those. Shortly after, the rules were changed to the present form, unfortunately also for tournaments that were already started. Some of those tournaments will outlive me. So indeed, I see no problem with the system...

I posted the following on the discussion board of Play Cloning Gammon for a prize. in January 2010:
Happy 3rd birthday!!
Please engrave on my tomb:
STILL playing Cloning Gammon for a prize.

It's soon the 8th birthday. We are still in round 1. No problem at all.

Gabriel Almeida: i agree, he would probably not have predicted this :) and neither would some (or any) of the participants have thought of that

we all didnt have any experience with cloning gammon yet, and didnt know it can be a very long game

some players might even got bored of it and stopped playing, others might have left the site as there can happen in a lot in real life in 8 years

when i joined the tournament i just was together with my gf, we just rented a house, had no kids, and had plenty of spare time .... 8 years later our jobs got busier, we own a house, and have 2 kids, and little spare time ...... and i think i am not that extreme, i can imagine other to have a much larger change in life

some might not have joined, others might still have joined as they liked the game and will just await the outcome as it wont hinder them in any aspect




ooohhh the memories .... great evenings of playing board games and computer games seemingly without limit :)

Gabriel Almeida: The fact is that you have no idea when a tournament will finish. If players play at time limit, due to other games and RL obligations, even an 1 day/move tournament can take years to finish, depending on the game.

Certain backgammon variations and some games can have hundreds of moves. Multiply by time limit and number of different games. It is unavoidable.

Hrqls:hi, my friend, i accept your point of view, of course. Some of the slowest players in bk are people i really like. My point is: fencer, when he created the tournament, was thinking in a 8 years tournament? And players that joined in, were they thinking in that? Would they all joined if they knew that?

ThunderGr: You can say that again! Keeping things in perspective though, storm in a teacup springs to mind.

Dice Cheater: Ah, I see...Tough luck, I guess. It does give a good incentive to think twice before clicking on that "send" button, though ;)

ThunderGr: Hi, no I do not have the 'edit' link next to 'reply' because I'm only a pawn. Same thing for the 'delete' link, I do not have that either, for the same reason. Trust me, I would have used these! Note to self, never play on a mobile phone again!

could we get back to the subjects about brainking itself please instead of attacking specific players

if you have any grounded comments/remarks/.. about a specific player, please send a pm to Fencer as he is the only one who can do handle player accounts

Dice Cheater: By the Way, the site *does* give you the option to edit a post. Can you not see the "edit" link right to (reply) on your posts? I do.

EDIT: There is also a "delete" link at the far right, just in case you missed that, as well.

Justaminute: Hypocrisy, really? Keep your shirt on, dude.

Dice Finger:
Always have time to expose hypocrisy.

Justaminute: You've got way too much time on your hands :)

Gabriel Almeida:


first : it's a tournament of cloning backgammon which can take a long time to finish (2 games of le club that still have to be finished are from me, while i and my opponent do play actively)

second : why would it be a problem that a teamtournament takes this long to finish ?

Moist Cheater:

All very interesting but multi nics are against the rules of the site.

You wanted to delete DC? Then why do you have active games in both names. It doesn’t seem you are trying so hard.

And I just love this post:
moistfinger (hide)
all posts | show thread | link
Subject: Re: Tumble weed rolls through...
Dice Cheater: Yep, I second that.

Probably gave you a good laugh at the time, but makes you look a bit second rate now.

speachless: Hi, I always enjoy your snidy remarks. Unsure, ensure, insure; it's all so confusing but here's a fun one for you: Please trawl through my games and find matches where DC plays MF. Will you find one? Will you find 100? Will you find 1000? You appear to like backgammon and so do I, why not play a 5 or 7 points match with me, see if I need any help to ensure my rating. I started a second account on BK because I felt there was something wrong with the dice here and I wanted to check out a theory. I know of plenty of people with 2 accounts on BK, mostly active players. I'm not going to name names but imagine for a moment that all our accounts are cancelled or frozen? A game site can't function properly with only 20 active players online at any one time. For the record, I wanted to delete DC but Brainking doesn't give that option, just as it doesn't give the option to edit a post.

Aganju: Maybe, but what about an opponent that is both? :P