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.
Liste over diskussionsborde
Du har ikke rettigheder til at skrive meddelelser til dette bord, Mindste medlemsskabsniveau nødvendigt for at skrive til dette bord er BrainSpringer.
kleineme: I still don't believe that one game is more important than another in a round robin. Tie breaskers are unnecessary unless you really need to find a winner.
kleineme: I agree, it is an arbitrary rule to break ties that doesn't make much sense. But then again no tie breaker makes sense. Even looking at head to head is flawed for the same reason. Why should one game count more than another?
In my opinion tied players should advance regardless of attempts to break the tie.
WhiteTower: Cariad was pointing out thet 2 games switched colors is the best way to have a fair match. Randomly assigning colors may work for a ladder or something I guess.
While we're on the topic of FRC. I'd like to request Atomic Random Chess. This would avoid the deep knowledge of opening positions and make for an interesting game.
fungame: This is actually played on some sites, though the symmetric rule means you know opponents starting position. Better would be each side random and independent of each other. "Real" dark chess :)
How about threads on the boards so we can have a decent conversation without being told off. It really isn't all that practical to move the conversation since you lose the history.
I think a feature request needs to be debated a little in order for Fencer to assess support for the feature as well as understand the pros and cons before deciding whether to implement it. This is why a threaded discussion board would be better.
As it is responding to feature requests should be encouraged in order to further understanding. Why stifle creative discussion just because you're not interested?
Chessmaster1000: babareza = amirh. He admitted it to me, saying "I am trying to break the ratings record". Also babarezas name is strikingly similar so it's pretty obvious.
Look at the games between the 2. All resigned by Amirh at the same time and all private.
The fact that we can't delete both players from the ratings list is frankly dissappointing. Even if it means eliminating all games involving those players and the resulting change in other players' ratings.
playBunny: I believe that on this site the rating is calculated after the first game. Since it is only one game it is prone to move violently up or down depending on the result.
If they were calculated on the average of the first 4 it would be a slight improvement, but still too few to really mean anything.
In the real world of chess your first 4 games are probably against very established ratings so the results are probably much more accurate than here, particularly in games where luck plays a role (such as backgammon), I believe that is why the call for using a different (standard) system for bg.
Grim Reaper: ai is a south american sloth, my favorite 2 letter word, along with aa (a hawaiian word for lava that slipped into the language somehow).
I think once the dictionary is in place it wouldn't take that long to parse. I wouldn't like to create it though. Of course you'd have to have a version in different languages with different letters etc etc.
I think it should work like real chess clocks, so you have N days to finish the game (or play 40 moves or whatever). Your clock stops counting down after you move and starts again when your opponent moves.
All: you guys really do get caught in the minutia. I think the request was clear and made sense:
Don't have a pass as a first move, go straight to the player whose move it really is.
The only excuse for not implementing it is a technical reason (takes too long to alter the code). Nobody in their right mind is going to complain about not getting to click the stupid button.
Vikings: Yes but I play 20-30 games at a time and not all of the same type. This is because I have other things to do. Some people seem to play 24 hours a day and have 1000 games going. These people have an advantage.
I would prefer that ratings degrade with little or no activity, that would solve the problem you correctly identified.
reza: not only that, Amirh played very slowly in games where I was winning and quickly if he got the upper hand. When I queried him about it he said "I'm trying to break the rating record"
BIG BAD WOLF: I disagree, the calculations aren't that big, especially if you compromise (if each player from 2nd down adds remaining games to current wins and is still short of the leader for instance).
Pedro Martínez: I was putting my support, in a round about way, for free and open debating. I know this is considered radical and dangerous to some though.
(gem) Lyst til et hurtigt spil der garanteret ikke tager mere end to timer? Start et nyt spil af eget valg, vælg tiden for spillet og sæt Tiden til 0 dage / 1 time, Bonus til 0 dage / 0 timer og grænsen til 0 dage / 1 time. (TeamBundy) (vis alle tips)