fismoluni: You are right, but IMHO the point is that one month is a little short.
I don't care that I sometimes disappear of the rankings, and if I would care, as Jason points out, all I would need is to pay the subscription.
But I do care that other top players disappear of the rankings, because when I want to challenge someone strong to a game, I have no way of finding those "not-that-inactive" players again. Not really a big issue, but I now realize that it is penalizing for all users, not only for pawns.

fismoluni: paying members get 6 months before they drop of the list ;)

Hi, I find it ok that inactive players vanish from the rating list, but I think that players who are playing games at the moment should still stay in the rating lists, as a game can take more than a month and I think its wrong to say that a player who is currently playing a game is inactive, even if he hasnt finished a game in the last month. If you understand what I mean.

friendly greetings,
fismoluni

alanback: Well you should win 3 points for each time out - so for a 21 point game, you will only have to wait for them to time out 7 times!

I just noticed that a time-out in a multiple-game match does not forfeit the match, but only the current game. This is arguably a good thing, since it reduces the penalty for inadvertently allowing the clock to run out. However, it may impose a hardship on other players in situations where the person timing out has no intention of continuing the match. The situation just came up in the first game of a 21 point backgammon match; assuming my opponent has left the site or just lost interest in backgammon, is it really necessary for me to wait for him to time out 21 times before recording a win? Maybe this should be a user-settable option or, at least, one that tournament directors can modify.

Oh, wait; I just did some further investigating. The system awarded me a backgammon when he timed out! So this only has to happen 7 times in order for me to win the match ;-)

I notice he has lost quite a few matches in this way lately.

SwirlyShirley: No.

can players that I have on my "blocked users" list join games that I have posted on the "waiting games" list?

bumble: shush

Mirjam: That would be Me!!

Why not make a poll about who is the best player...i cant see what that discussion has to do with "Brainking itself, its structure, features and future

02i: There has been extended discussion on this matter on the Chess Variants (8x8) Board over the past few years. Although there a lot of messages there and the ones regarding Maharajah Chess are somewhat intermingled, you might like to read through them to see what some others have suggested to possibly even out the game.

Cheers WQ:)

Mirjam: Bruno Jesus. At least is the ugliest... LOL

Mirjam: Jason.

Mirjam: that wouldnt be very nice if anyone answerd your question .

And who is the worst player of BK? Who is that persistent struggler?

:) no problem. im glad i got a response from you . ill post again if i have something else to report. take it easy.

02i: That's right what you said. Improving the site. The site is not just one game. There are currently 76 game types and if a small number of them are not balanced, it's not a big problem. There are more important things to solve.

i thought the blog was about improving the site through thoughtful insight. if you want to let things be , your the king after all. ciao.

02i: If you don't like it, don't play it :-)

dear fencer, i am new to the game of maharaja chess. i read the rules of the game and noticed that many players complained that black had huge advantage. i decided to test the game myself. i played both black and white and won as both but i came up with a way playing as black that i will end up winning EVERY TIME. we all know black has an advantage but what im talking about is 100% victory. i play a million games , i win them all using the exact same moves till the end!!!!!! many may argue that move combos in chess are infinite and since i wont control whites movement , what i say is preposterous. to make my point clear then i challenge any and everyone who reads this to a game against me and after the game they will know what i mean. infact i hope that you , fencer accept my challenge/request , see the eternal flaw in the game and remove it from the site or modify it to give white a fighting chance. i have suggestion for that too but thats for after you see what im talking about.

plaintiger: its just that their are so many image fiel types.I am familiar with:
.jpg
.jpeg
.gif
.ipx
.png
.tar
.bmp

.wal
.wd
.pdf
.wp
.tiff

alanback: Thanks all and that's not a bad idea about color coding LOL...again THANKS!.






Fencer this is the No#1 site for those of us who are here the majority of the time.

And there are a lot of us them they those...LOLOLOLOL

Artful Dodger: Hey cutie monkey with the pink bow... I got me some pink gloves last night.. they are nice and fuzzy warm.. :)

ScarletRose:

: Alternatively, "as far as I'm concerned".

Mirjam: tankies

as far as I consider:)

Artful Dodger: Okay.. what's afaic??

playBunny: hahaha.. I just have too many other things on my list of to do's I suppose.. Heck.. I just wing out my play with little thought.. haha.. and it shows in my stats.. hahahaha.. but it is all in fun for me!! LOL

Marfitalu: I checked you out bud.. such a fine profile.. and I see you are strong at Backgammon and Hyper.. care to play someone who is also fast?

ScarletRose: It's all about winning in my book. And winning is fun. :) So yes, I play for fun. But it's all about competition afaic. ;)

ScarletRose: "sits and dwells on a game for 3 days " and " I wonder how many games I can win tonight against my opponents.."

Are you saying that that's not fun? Or that you don't understand those for whom it is? To someone deep into chess theory those three days (so short a time, lol) could be most satisfying. Not my cup of tea, I must admit. I'd rather spend those three days on 20 different backgammon analyses.

Andre Faria: I looked at the top players of that list and only reported on those that had played a wide enough range of games. Nuno and Ferjo have good scores but only in a small selection.

Marfitalu: a little competition is one thing.. and yes.. it can be fun.. let's face it I would rather play against someone a bit more stronger than myself to learn different perspectives and plays.. but I am not the type that sits and dwells on a game for 3 days as to where I am going to place my next move.. and I do know some that do.. and to the point that the game ends up setting their moods.. they also have attitudes that they are godlike.. To me.. these are games.. they are placed online to entertain.. and challenge a bit.. as well as offer a gathering for others with similar interests to meet and converse.. a social place.. That is why I enjoy stopping in here to Brainking.. it isn't for the.. Oh.. I wonder how many games I can win tonight against my opponents..

Fencer: hahahaha.. I thought you did so cause you enjoyed the games??
and the smilies of course!

ScarletRose: It's one of the reasons why I created BrainKing.

why is it men have to be so gosh darn competitive on who is the best?? In this case.. it isn't earning anything .. it doesn't pay the bills.. ??? So why sit and analyze this.. ?? LMCAO!!

Marfitalu: In that case, Fencer would be the best (and the only) to be at that list... :)

Maybe Pedro will comlete 25 matches in all sort of games soon...

Marfitalu: I think that this list is the best way of determining the best player on BK. But I also think that 11 games is not enough for that purpose. Someone can be very strong at checkers/chess ant its variants, and being a disaster in the others.

Maybe 20 games minimum to determine the best player...

Marfitalu: Nuno Miguel. N.º 3 in statistics...

He is from Belenenses, not Benfica... LOL

playBunny: don´t forget Ferjo and Nuno...

Ferjo is one of the best players in checkers I ever seen. in all variants. And he don´t use any software to assist him...

Nuno is very strong in any game and he will be climbing to the top very soon...

"i assumed that i was on the GCB till i just read that i was on the BKB"

Perhaps the boards could have different colours for the background to the messages. That will help people know when they're not on the general chat board.

Marfitalu: It's an interesting question.

Any qualification has to include a range of games. A player specialising in one area cannot be the best all-round player by definition. (Though this leads to the idea of best players within the different categories - the best chess, checkers, line games, gammons, boats and pond players).

BKR is of no use in judging because a BKR in one game is incomparable with any other. (The Top 50 Average BKR list is practically meaningless). Using the standard deviation of BKRs would be possible but wouldn't be readily understandable to many people. (Try explaining it in one simple sentence).

Ranking is of some use but a rank of 22 in a field of 52 players is hardly special. This suggests relative position - a player's score for a game would be the percentage of the playing population below them in rank. Only the rankings of established players should be considered. It may even be prudent to only count those with, say, 50 matches under their belt.

The best all-rounder has to have played games in all categories (or maybe all but one) and I would suggest that the top three/four/five percentages be taken from a category. This would allow the evaluation to concentrate on a person's strengths, eg their 5 best chesses scores, their 3 best checkers, 5 lines, 3 gammons, etc.

All these scores (percentages) would be summed and averaged giving the player an overall score.

I haven't looked at many player's finished games lists but Pedro Martínez strikes me as a strong contender. He has only one ranking not within the top 100! and plenty of rankings within the top 20. In chess he's got a 1, a 4, 6, 10 and 11; in checkers he's got a 2, 3 and 4; in gammons he's got 16, 17 and 25 (a bit more work there Pedro, lol). Line games give him 6, 9, 9, 9 and 11; in boats it's 1, 6 and 10 and in miscellaneous he's got 3, 5, 7, 11 and 14. All very impressive.

Those are raw rankings. I haven't converted any of them to percentages (too much work, lol - perhaps you can do it Pedro?), so maybe some of those rankings aren't as valuable as might seem but it's got to be a high overall score.

Another strong contender is oliottavio. He's very strong in chess but under-represented in checkers (only two variants played) and weaker in backgammon. Like Pedro he's got plenty of top 20 rankings.

Another possibility is Matarilevich. He's the top man in ponds, strong in chess, only two variants of checkers (and that's why dropping one category should be allowed), but weak in backgammon and boats.

You're old enough to know. You've been here long enough to know.

ScarletRose:

only one me ;)

Artful Dodger: cannotbees.. it requires a sense of humor.. and a special person fills that shoe.

ScarletRose: wannabees ;)

Artful Dodger: Oh my!! they are so fond of ya dear.. that they try to be just like ya!

Antje: It's AD. But which one? There is three of us now!!

Name First login
Artful Dodger 30. September 2005
ArtfulDodger 19. September 2005
Artful Dodger 7. March 2004, 23:04:53

Marfitalu: definately me!