coan.net: Brilliant; thank you very much; I have already made use of them.

Any chance of getting Notes, like we do for Dark Chess; it would be very useful.

If I am away on vacation, I can usually get on to the Internet about once a week. Therefore, creating Ponds with 7 day time limits makes a lot of sense to me. There is nothing more frustrating than having to drop out of a Pond because you cannot get on-line.
If we had enough 7 day Ponds, then they would pop up with the same frequency as 1 day Ponds!
What do you guys think?

tonyh: Yes, it does!!! Now I know!! Thanks, marfitalu.

Does that work?

furbster: How? furbster?

Marfitalu: When I right click, it doesn't say anything about 'copy URL of the link'; it says 'copy shortcut'; is that the same thing?

I want to ask players to compete in my ponds; how do I copy the Pond title so that players may go direct to the two ponds?

Pedro Martínez: Aha!!! So if I don't want you guys to see when I have NOT made a move, all I have to do is make you all enemies?!

Pbarb2: My comment on you and Pedro making the same bid was definitely not a 'cheating' barb!! I was just totally amazed at two guys getting the same high (and effective) bid. threw me right off course.
Re players taking advantage of guys who haven't made a move; do we have to have data re the time we last visited the site? What good does that do anyone?SKYking, for example, does not have it on his profile. Fencer????

There is no-one who is speaking up for/supporting the present ratings system. It is patently useless, because it penalises players who are without internet access for a short time.
Most of us want a ratings system that rewards finishing in high places (say, 1st thru 5th).
may we not try this out or at least, have a ratings system based on final positions alongside?

Thad: Well said, Thad; Walter is definitely making a huge mountain; no need for messages; just carry on playing!

I am packing up Ponds, because I think that applyiong ratings is unsuitable for Ponds. A points system (say, 4 for a win, 2 for 2nd, 3 for 3rd) would be much better.
Because we all need to play mostly daily, ratings unfairly penalise guys who cannot always play their moves on time.
also, ratings reward players who are just staying in to get to the last 6 players (which is not difficult). There needs to be much more reward for winning outright.

ClayNashvilleTn: Good on you, Clay and Grenv!! So far, three are for it, none against.

How about that idea, just like all our other games?
When all the players make their moves in a round, the Pond gets ready for the next round.

When you have more than one Pond awaiting your move, they are in Pond No sequence, lowest pond numbers first.
Please could they be sequenced according to amount of time remaining, with least times first?

grenv: It is interesting that, since the introduction of grading, guys are making higher bids, particularly art the start of each game. And that is good, because it reduces the 'lottery' element later on.

Maxxina: Easy!!! Both of you bid 5661!!

Pedro Martínez: I see what you mean (Pbarb collected two 500 point bonuses in the 1st 2 rounds) - but why?
The system credits me with a bonus as soon as I get it.
How may the rest of us bet against someone with hidden bonuses?

Pedro Martínez: Do you really see 8612 points????

Fencer: As i see it, with 2 rounds to go, Pbarb2 had 4612 left but managed to bet 6612, giving a plus total of 2000 - but am I reading it wrong?

Fencer; please have a look at the closing two rounds of this Pond. Something whacky happened to pbarb2's score.

In games with 16, usually when there are 8 players left, we all have around 18,500 total points to bet with. So the next 3/4 rounds are something of a total lottery.
I wonder whether the Tournament setter could change the starting total to, say, 15,000?

I think something curious happened here; Irish Rose went from 2900 in round 9 to 5000 in round 10!!!! what happened, Fencer?

Good on you, lindaw4; you sure know when to go for the big move!