Fencer: Also, very nice! Not many use Jellyfish anymore, but I know GNU supports it and Snowie will import it.

Thanks!

nabla: Obviously n-1 since everyone (except the winner) loses exactly one match. right?

Fencer: Very nice! Is this just for chess, or all games? If it is for gammon games as well (for say, a proposition - no one has programmed a bot to play Crowded), will we be able to put in any cube adjustments ahead of time, or will we have to keep our own bookkeeping for that?

BIG BAD WOLF: Thanks for spelling it out for me. I understand some of it but not all.:( I think my best way is not have.. all game sign up and just play the popular ones that fill up faster on 16. The others just 4 or 8. That way we can play all games for people to sign up for those that want to play. People seem to like the elimination better. I know I do. Not so long.
Thank you for your answers... BBW and everyone else.
BARB

grenv: But that is what kleineme suggested! The only thing I said is that adding 12 players as an option for creating a single elimination tournament is bogus. It's not bogus to have 12 players, but to say: this tournament is for 12 ;)

BIG BAD WOLF: A nice puzzle is : How many games are played in total in such an elimination tournament of n players (without counting the games vs "ghost players" of course) ?

grenv: I know it's called a bye - but for Fencer to make it easy to program, it might be easier to put an imaginary player into the spot for a second to automatically lose and move the next player on.... plus it may make it easier for others to visualize it.

BIG BAD WOLF: Ghost players???? It's called a bye!! Have a look at a few of the tennis tournaments that have players pull out to see how it works.

Fencer: Very cool, thematic tournaments and .mat backgammon format will be two great new features

xmas is soon: Now I would not think it would be too hard to put some sort of by system to work with less people.

lets say it is a 16 player single elimination tournament, and only 12 sign up.

Round 1: 16 players (with 4 of them "ghost" players which randomly get put into the tournament and automaticly give the person who played against them a free win/by into the next round - of course does not count as a won game - just a win into the next round of the tournament. - so 8 players advance.

Round 2: 8 players start, 4 winners

Round 3: 4 players start, 2 winners

Round 4: 2 players start, 1 winner!

So that is why a single elimination tournament needs to be to the power of 2 (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ...) = and does not work with a multiple of 2. (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, ...)

Edited to add: Of course only do this with the 8 & above single elimination tournaments where at least more then 1/2 of the players sign up. So if you set up a 32 player tournament and only 15 sign up, then it should be reduced to a 16 single elimination tournament with 1 "ghost" player to give a free by.

I don't see why this is an issue, just give byes to people depending on the number.

So with 12 you would have 8 play in round 1, eliminating 4, leaving 8 for round 2.

It's still single elimination (one loss and you're out).

BIG BAD WOLF: ah right, i get you now

xmas is soon: You could not have 12 (without giving someone a free by) and still have it a single elimination tournament.

For example:

Round 1: Start with 12 players, 6 winners
Round 2: Start with 6 players, 3 winners
Round 3: No way to keep it a single elimination without giving someone a free by.)

Mr. Shumway: How can adding 12 be bogus?

xmas is soon: Adding 12 as an option sounds kind of bogus to me. I think there are two reasonable options:

1) Keep the current system. In this case, if you know you won't get 16 players, you'll have to set up a tournament for 8 players. But everybody has the same amount of matches to play.

2) Change it to what kleineme suggested: Every tournament can be started, and if the number of players is not a power of 2, pick those who advance to the second round randomly, let the rest play it out. Or you could even pick them by BKR (if the tournament isn't random, hm )

Pbarb2: Thats a good idea, having 12 as an option

Fencer: Ok I get it now. Is there a way you can put a 12 in there. That seems to be about the number we can get.. 10 to 12. Going from 8 to 16 is to much to fill for my fellowship anyway. Thanks

Fencer: That reason would be obsolete if you were to consider an ancient proposal of mine ;-)

Pbarb2: Yes, there is a reason. The power of 2.

Fencer: I am having problems with the single elimination games. 4 and 8 are not enough and fill up to quickly. Then if you put 16 they do not fill. Is there a reason why you do not have unlimited for the elimination games?
From what I am seeing other fellowships are having the same problem.
Thanks
BARB

Rex Nihilo: MAT format is to be done. "Soon".

Rex Nihilo: Thematic tournaments are already in development.

Since chess players can download the PGN notation for their games, how hard would it be to give backgammon players the ability to download thier games in Snowie, BGBlitz, or GNUBG format?

Any opinions?

edit:content

A feature I would like to see implemented would be the ability to start a game from a predetermined position. Practical uses of this would include:

1. Thematic tournements (for chess and go varients)
2. Backgammon "propositions" -- which have fallen out of favor with the advent of the bots, but can can still be used for instructional purposes.
3. Instructional aids for people teaching the game to someone.

The interface is there for Espionage and Screen Chess, and I think would be very well received.

Any other opinions on this?

edit:typo

WellyWales: but only if the BB agrees

plaintiger: tiger that game idea IS NOT scrabble,too bad u did not read or comprehend well.
one letter at a time place anywere...turn based...the strategy idea to make words but avoid helping your opponent...turn based..you get the drift yet?

NOT scrabble,because as as most know,hasbro has the copyrights & freaksout at even "scrabble clones" by other names.

"Snoopy": You can get over it by asking the big boss of the fellowship to remove you. That way no one will lose

BORNTOBEWILD30: it be nice if youve already uploaded pics to able to swap and change at your choice without having to get them approved everytime

grenv: I agree with you. Although a computer, no matter how "smart", will only be as smart as its (human) programmer.

I would like to see a few more of the features hexkid implemented on his greasemonkey script. The shortening game list was a good start.

Mousetrap: Yes me to it's getting some nice features lately.

Take care Mouse

heavenlyemma: Hiya Emma! I am likeing Brainking more and more.
Stay well!

Mousetrap: Sounds like a great idea to me to

BORNTOBEWILD30: That would be cool! I mean does anyone actually read those things? It would be nice to know if they did lol!

srnity: I am not sure that you are worried about BKR or not but wouldn't the games be still counted for it?

Would also be nice if when randomly "booted" from a fellowship you didn't have to keep playing games for a team (or teams) that you really don't want to be involved with anymore since they didn't feel you were worth having there - talk about purgatory

pauloaguia: It's much more likely to be a programming prioritization issue. Mathematical calculations are not much of a strain on the server, it's what computers are designed to do.

Tripod Tom: You can always aggree with your opponent on the outcome and one of you resigns the game or aggree on a draw, if that's the case.
I suppose having the computer automatically check these situations would be computationally hard to do on every turn, and a big strain on the server (just think of how many moves are played each day by hundreds of players).

But I have a request for this and other situations - what if one of the players could call uppon such an algorithm manually? Take chess, for instance - it has precise rules about draws. Over a number of moves without capture anything, or repeating 3 times the same position. This puts a strain on the server if checked for every game, but if there was an option to call such algorithms at player's request, it would allow to quickly and automatically solve those games that now require a lot of explaining to do for beginner opponents or sometimes an administrator's intervention when you end up with a stubborn opponent that doesn't want to finish a lost or drawn game...

I've been playing a few games of Pah Tum lately. As a recent game was nearing the end (there were no more scoring possibilities, just about 7 or 8 spots left to be filled)and it seemed light a big waste of time. Neither player had any more possible combinations of earning any more points. It was mathematically impossible. But as per the rules of the game, play continues until all spaces on the board are filled.
What are the chances of getting the computer to automatically end the game when there's no longer a chance of any more points being scored? Therefore, when the game is technically, it will also become physically and officially over.

"Snoopy": I agree as well. Perhaps we could call it fellowship purgatory . Before we can exit the fellowship we sit in a waiting status until the games finish. (Could be like the retirement on Stairs.)

Daniel Snyder: the only way to have a high rating in ponds is to play quite a few and finish high in most of them. I am not saying your request is a bad one, I would like to see settings on the ratings also but it's not easy getting some of the ponds to start as it is

boop2004: Yes i think alot of people take on more than they can chew.

"Snoopy": Yeah I agree, it can be a pain in the bum.

xmas is soon: Maybe the lesson is to think these things through BEFORE joining anything... .

I think they should have a rating setting for ponds... At a game of 2300+ ratings... There are always somebody way lower on getting in the game
to try and get in the deadline before someone sees this... People have earned those high ratings for a reason...

"Snoopy": Yes i agree with you.

be nice to be able to leave a fellowship without having to finish every single game which can take more than a year in some cases

Tripod Tom: One day, that's a good proposal.

Fencer: I like Thad's idea. Are you suggesting that it's already a "work in progress" and a feature that we will have (just as soon as it is programed)one day?