I want an answer.

What is the difference between using a BKR to filter your game opponent, and a 'speed of play' rating to do the same?

I know you master chess players would not like to play begginers all the time. And begginers do not want to play masters. Why can't slow and fast players have the same options???

save the last dance for me ♪♫ ♪♫ ♪♫ ♪♫ ♪♫ ♪♫

while i bang my head against the wall

What happens if I win my first round section of a tournament, but while waiting for the second round to begin, I fill up all of my available game slots, and the second round begins? Will I be removed from the tournament? Or just allowed to play the extra games? Or will those spots be left open for me by the prgram?

you should be able to carry on even if your slots are full, even if you became a pawn in the meantime you would still be able to carry on i believe ;)

What do you think time limits are actually for?? So you can filter you opponents by speed of play!!

Thats true Ug... but we have determined that those limits are not good enough.

I may play moves in all my games almost every day. even several times a day most of the time. But that does not mean that I can play 1 day games all the time. Playing 5 moves in one game does not give me the luxury of waiting 5 days for the next move. I can play 100 moves in the same game in one day, but would still only have 24 hours to make the next one, and that is not always possible.

Even the fastest players on this site can not be expected to move evry single day or even every 3 days all the time. It is not feesable. The only other solution is to play longer time limits with other fast players, hence the need for a speed rating, or play longer time limits, and take the chance that your game may last several months if you happen to find an opponent who moves only at the last minute.

the way i look at it then if there was a rating for speed and you was away from the pc for 3 days you would see your rating and wouldnt want to play yourself because your rating would be too slow ;)

Jason, it would be an average rating and would not change that drastically in a short period of time.

I am sure that you are aware of that.

If you don't have anything constructive to add, or do not wish to legitimatly answer the questions I have posed, please stay out of this discussion :)

ok we all should enter 7 day tournaments and play lots of moves everyday ...just for you ??

,you cant really expect every body to move every day , like you say you might not be able to get to the pc every day .
so what i suggest is play 3 or 4 day limits just to be on the safe side so you dont time out ., ps i think moaning about people moving slow only makes them move slower (which i think you already know)

what evver ;)

no, I do not want anyone to move faster than they want to. I just want to know who you are and avoid playing with you. I do try to stick to 3 day limits. And to be honest, i do not have much of a problem with slow players, or timing out too often in fster limit games. It is mostly the tournaments which I find a problem. I want to play in a donation tournament to help brainking out, but I could die of old age waiting for round two to begin, much less the end of the tournament!!!! And the real problem lies with one or two people!!!! Why should 2 people get to ruin the pace for 98 people, just because "this is a turn based site"?

What do you care if I have the use of a pace rating to avoid playing with slow players??????
CAN YOU PLEASE ANSWER THAT? What does it hurt anyone to have a pace of play rating????

Start your own tournaments.

hmmm you knew that the time limit was for x amount of days , you seriosly didnt expect everyone to play quick did you , it just doesnt happen . if you find a method of quick games let me know please .

then i can also use it .

IMCK - You said somewhere below that you liked the idea of a fellowship for the "Fast players who like to play in long-time limit games", but expressed that pawns would not be able to be a part of it.

My suggestion is to start making a list within that fellowship of the pawns which are "Fast Players with long time limit" users. That way once one of you find some pawns which play the way you like, you add them to the list and you know of people who you can invite to games (or even tournaments). NOTE: I would discourage any of the "slow player" list since that would only bring negative thoughts about the fellowship, but as long as everything was kept positive, I think a Fellowship would be a good idea.

No, I dont expect everyone to play quick! I think the majority of people here play their games far more often than the time limits allow. If they don't , I want to know, so I can avoid those people. There is a tournament running now where all the sections except for one are completed. But in that one section there is one player who has not completed one game yet! Those are the people do not want to play, and a rating would help me find them.


You still refuse to answer my question?????

Everyone who defends players who are 'slow' say it is their right to play however they want to, and if it is a 7 day limit, then hey have 7 days, period. ell, if you agree with that, and I am sure you do, why then would it be a "negative" thing to be on a list of these players, or to have a high rating on the "slow meter" ???? If there is nothing wrong with playing slow, why would it be a negative thing to be on a list??
Also, why do you feel it is okay to make a list nof fast playing pawns????? when you don't like lists of slow players???


It seems you will defend a persons right to play slow, but still find it a negativwe trait?

Perhaps Fencer could post two lists on which members with strong preferences enter their own names, a fast list and a slow list.

IMCK: Why do I think it is OK to list fast playing players and not make a list of people who play within the time limit? Because you will upset people if you make a "slow" player list, and I do not think it would upset many people to be included in a "fast" player list.

And yes, I will defend any persons right to play within the time limit of the rules. I understand that you and others don't like this, which is why I'm trying to make some "EASY" suggestions on ways to help.

You know you are wrong BBW, when you say we don't like people who play within the rules. It is not intended to be a negative thing when someone plays all their turns consistently at the end of their limits. It is no more negative than playing most of your turns near the begining of their limits.
Alst is a list, it is what it is, if anyone feels bad about being on a list, it is their own guilt maybe, but not the fault of the list itself.


You still have not answered my question.... Why would it be more taxing on the servers to create a pace of play rating, than it is to create a BKR, as you have suggested this new rating would over burden the servers???? Did you just make this up, or do you have some facts to back up your claim? Why are you against a rating for pace of play besides your "server" reason?

Oh yeah... why would 'slow players' be offended for being on a list of such??? They all seem to have no problems defending their play, why would they be offended for being recognized for something they are supposedly so proud of??

HUH? I know you are just trying to bait me again, so I'll try to make this my last post.

Please read below - you and others posted many times about how some tournaments are held up by one player who is playing (within the rules), yet playing too slow for your liking. You don't like to play these people, correct?

Why would it be more taxing on the servers? Well right now the site servers are being taxed to their fullist, and to start making a calculation after every move for every players, and do those calculations against the last time played, how much time is left, and how long the time limit is left for every players on every move - well I have been a system administrator for over 6 years, so I yes - i'm just "guessing" that all those extra calculations would tax the server even more. So maybe Fencer has some "special" server that I've never heard of which could handle all those extra calculations without taxing the servers anymore, and if so - I appoligize. (Even though i don't think Fencer has any magical servers - that is just my opinion)

The calculation for the BKR's do tax the servers a little, but those only happen at the end of every game, so that would be a lot less then after every turn of every game! (again, just my guessing using simple math).

Isn't this getting a little heated for a feature request?
The request was made, it has been discussed at length and Fencer will make the decision of whether to implement this feature or not.

O.k. I printed the ratings page and started going through games of potential opponents to determine their rate of play. It is very time consuming and the list will need to be updated regularly as people come and go and ratings change. Then I will send out invitations after checking to see which of my suitable opponents are online. These invitations will be sent one at a time so I do not get more games than I want or have to uninvite people. Then I will wait till they accept or decline. If they decline I will start the process over. Lucky are those players who may simply use the games waiting to find a suitable opponent, even if the opponent doesn't think so.

I am not a system administrator, are you trying to belittle me? ;)~

This system already keeps track of when the last time to move in a game is, and it already keeps track of when a move is made, so those are not extra calculations, therefore not more taxing on the servers, If you read my suggestion below, you will see I merly advocated for a weekly calculation for this rating. I disagree that using the server capacity as a reason for not using this rating is invalid. nd since you have given no legitimate reason for being against it. I will presume that you don't have any other objections.


As far as the list goes, I guess you don't have a logical explaination for your stating that it would somehow be a negative thing to be on this list, since it is perfectly legitimate to play this way, why would a list recognizing this be negative?
I think there are rules, and there are a spirit of the rules. The rules state that you have x amount of time to move, period. The vast majority of people play consistently much faster than the rules allow. You know it and I know it... thats why you think it is negative to be on a list of these players, and thats why you agree with me, but you just won't let yourself admit it. Otherwise defend your stance on the list of slow players making someone feel bad...

Rogue Lion, I believe when you place a game in the waiting room, its possible to leave a message on the game that people can read before accepting? You could add a note saying that you would prefer faster moving players.

Thanks Harley. I have been doing that very thing for some time now. My success rate is about 50/50.
I guess half either don't read the message or just want to play the Lion! :-)

Good idea Harley, much easier than what ogue just did, from the suggestion of Jason....

I'm done on this subject, as long as I dont have to keep defending my stance against idiotic, and ilogical objections...

Well I always said you were irresistable, Lion :oD

IMupChuc, you might get a better success rate than Lion if you try it, I think most people are now aware of how you feel! :o)

You know... I don't really have any problems with slow players, except for the occassional frustration waiting for a tournament to continue.

I got on this one basically because BBW was against it, without good cause, in my opinion, and I thought he was being a hypocrit since he was recently upset about others not supporting his recent feature request, without logical merit.

The rest of my ranting have merly been in respense to the illogical responses of others :)

IMCK - AGAIN, I'm not against the idea - I just think that there are easier ways to solve the problem. Idea's are great - they help make the site grow. You know me, I'll give advantages and disadvantages for each system. There was a lot giving "advantages" to the system, I pointed out disadvantages to teh system. If you don't agree with them, fine. But please stop trying to put words and thoughts in my mouth. You know I hate when you do that... which is why I think you do it.

harley: I already asked Fencer for News board option to stay until change (more than 14 days). He did say he would sort something out.
I have a list like that, but he has been busy :o)

Sorry MadMonkey, didn't mean to step on your toes :o)

Please... Can subsequent rounds start automatically. On many occasions recently the tournament organizer has not started the next round because it's been a while and was forgotten.

Will you wait a week for the 2.0 version?

sure, didn't realize that was one of the features. Is there a list somewhere of what's included in 2.0?

is only 1 week from now??! C:):)l :o)))

I have just checked out the BK Fund Raiser :)

WHat a great tourney, BUT

I notice on quite a few of the sections that the winner is already determined, and they are waiting for slower players to finish their turns to be able to go on to the next round....as are all the section winners.....
would it not be appropriate in this case to award the win to the obvious winner and let the tournament carry on?
The ones im talking of are where the games still being played will not effect the overall winner of that section.

Another question here is.....Does Fencer already have his money? and if so why cant this be done?

it will shorten the tournament considerably :)

I see the woman that i quoted below is also one of them that CANT win but she insists on taking the game to the limit :(

Has there ever been any thought about adding Pro Checkers?(3 Move) sure would be nice to see it on the best site.

In case someone invites to a lot of games would it be possible to have a feature "Accept all selected games" (as "delete selected messages")

I guess not

or just check boxes to select the games you want or decline the ones you don't.

yes, especially when the site is in "stuck mode".
Fencer was here but he didnt answer so i suppose i have to accept a no...again :(

Anders, if Fencer replied to EVERY post he'd ever get anything done! He writes it all down though, all requests are read and noted.

Thanks Harley, im not surprised YOU answered LOL
But i saw Fencer was reading this board after i had posted my question, a no or yes hadnt taken so long time to type.
Wonder if he had ignored the question if you or for example Bumble had asked it..what do you think? :)

I think that he didn't ignore you, but that he noted the request. The same as he would have done if it had been made by myself or Bumble. In fact, I made a request myself further down the page that didn't receive a reply.
Fencer has stated many times that he reads and notes ALL requests. Imagine if he had to reply to every single one? And sometimes he can't say yes or no straight away because they need to be thought about, and considered how difficult it may or may not be to implement.

I think the point is, you dont necesarily need a yes or no instantly, but just acknowledgement would be nice :o)

Well...he seems to have plenty of time to post on
Home fellowship's board :)

Correct Steve...he could have said "ill come back"

Here Anders, that was quite well put and non agressive for me for a change wasnt it LOL

Actually I think the point is more that this is a feature request board. Imagine if every request was followed by an acknowledgement from Fencer. We would log on to twice as many posts, most of them unnecessary - just to say 'ok I read that request'. He has said he reads EVERY request, are individual acknowledgements really necessary?