Pioneer54: Regarding that 20,000 players value: Go to the Players list and sort it by Last action so that today's action is shown. Then go to about page 85. That shows the players whose last action was about a month ago. There are 50 players shown per page so thats about 4250 players in the last month.

If you examine that page you'll see that there are a lot of Pawns who joined, had a look around and haven't been back since. The number of those decreases as you come further towards the present day. I counted 20 on page 85, 30 on the previous page, 35, 34, 33 on previous pages. On page 70 it was down to 20 non-countables, page 60 had 13... So let's say about 600 players in all. There are those who were active more than a month ago but who will be back sometime, but probably much fewer than the one-peekers. That's then roughly 3700 active players.

Pioneer54: It's very much too early to think that anything has settled down (unless few new players join!) but you're right in thinking that the stairs will stratify. That's the whole point of them! ;-) ("Cliques" isn't quite the right word because there's no collusion or relationship between the players, their positioning is the result of their playing strength.)

Strong new blood will cause a minor stir as that player rises through the ranks but for the players in the regions below their destined destination it will only be a passing excitement. Weaker new blood will reach its level sooner.

I imagine that the Stairs will grow as a kind of pyramid. The players at the top can only go up when there are challengers below and they may be in short supply (either absent because the higher player has climbed too high, or too busy with each other and those below). This limits the absolute growth rate of the Stairs. For each succeeding lower level there will be a wider and wider choice of players. I suspect that those on the uppermost levels will be able to make a complaint about stagnation but I doubt that many players below would.

BerniceC: right - what Fencer said. because Your rating is well higher than SandyH's, the system (quite logically) regards Her drawing a game with You as something of an accomplishment on Her part (and thus something worthy of reward) and conversely it sees Your drawing a game with Her as - shall we say - an incidence of Your not playing up to Your potential (and thus something worthy of demerit). She's rewarded with some points; You're demerited some. and there it is.

BerniceC: Because you've drawn a game with a lower rated player, you lost some points. I see nothing stupid on it.

Isn't there going to come a point in time when the whole 'Stairs' project will become saturated? That is, everyone who is going to join has, and certain game types will end up with cliques of sorts that just keep cycling each other. I wonder if we are near or at that point already. If not, where will new blood come from?

It seems that Rooks are the only ones with options to enter a high number of different stairs. I suppose it could be argued that, with over 20,000 pawns, there are at least that many possible entries into the experiment, but that is not happening, in fact not even on a scale anywhere close to it.

I have just finished a game with SandyH...one game each......she GOT 5 points and I LOST 4 points....it said the game was a draw....why would I lose and why should she gain....this is stupid in my book :(

here are the final results....we both should have stayed where we were :(

The game is a draw.

SandyH: old BKR = 1914, new BKR = 1919 (+5)
BerniceC: old BKR = 1992, new BKR = 1988 (-4)

Game type: Backgammon
Stairs: Fast Stairs

plaintiger: If the players are equally matched, the probability of a split is 50%. So, if you are seeing nothing but splits in a lot of matches, that may indicate a glitch somewhere. However, I can't imagine how a bug like that could work its way into the system, since (among other things) the dice generator must be independent of the match format. So, I suggest that what you are seeing is purely the result of chance. In time, every event that is merely improbable must happen.

Marfitalu: Pardon my grammar, I should have said "each player wins one game."

Eriisa: Yes and yes.

And with that player just below you, if you lose then you effectively swap places. And if you win you open up a gap.

If I am on step 2, and I challange someone on step 1. And I win. Do I still go to step 3? If I lose, do I drop to step 1?

(the stair I am looking at, the only open player is a step below me)

Come to think about it, not instead of... add it as another alternative, since if a player proved a worthy opponent, it's perfectly legit to want to challenge him/her again for another standard game...

When a match is finished, a message is sent to both players stating the outcome of the match. An option is also available to send another game invitation to that player, optionally deleting the message.
In Stairs games, instead of "another game with the same player" could there be an option "challange another player in this Stair" or something similar? Maintaining the option to automatically delete the message, of course ;)

speaking of a lot of draws, i know this is far-fetched, but it's happened to me so much that i'm compelled to ask: there isn't some bug or something in the stair code that greatly increases the likeihood of a two-game match ending in a draw, is there? i don't think i've played a single two-game match in any stair that hasn't ended in a draw, and when i commented on that just now to an opponent (with whom i'd just drawn a two-game match), he said he's seen the same thing. whole lotta drawin' goin' on...

rod03801: But in the Fischer's very fast stairs, it is only a single game match!

Hmm... That's going to be alot of draws and non movement.. And with the 2 games being one after another instead of simultaneous, long periods of time between that non-movement..

lol.. oh well.. I'm not going anywhere anyways, so I guess I'm not in any hurry anyhow! :-)

alanback: basicly. It is considered a draw and neither player advances or drops down the stairs.

The standard stairs match is 2 games -- what happens if one player wins each game? Nothing?

Fencer: A wee bug in some player's Show all games Step numbers.


Backgammon alanback (1) BIG BAD WOLF (2) 17. 5 days 23 hours
Backgammon heyblue32 (1) lunedith (2) 14. 5 days 21 hours
Backgammon lunedith (1) AbigailII (2) 12. 5 days 19 hours
Backgammon Spiritstorm (1) chattytea (2) 17. 5 days 19 hours

Step 2, 4 players;
alanback (2266), Spiritstorm (2147), 4evolution (2122), lunedith (2122)

Step 1, 61 players;
playBunny (2372), frolind (2291), arpa (2242), qetutor (2190), basplund (2189), Hrqls (2185), WizardII (2178), Ebru (2169), furbster (2164), Zach (2159), incognito (2158), heyblue32 (2156), Hannelore (2148), BIG BAD WOLF (2134), afella (2132), SueQ (2124), Czechgirl (2120), lovelysharon (2120), LuTze (2117), chattytea (2072), AbigailII (2013), ...

playBunny: I suggest you ask the 'top dice roller" im sure you meet him before i do

Andersp: Lol. That's a cute analogy. Taking it further the kids probably throw their rattle and a lucky throw sometimes get our hero in the eye. I guess the pain of the eye poke must outweigh the gain of the candy. Or maybe these babies just don't have enough candy to steal. It's hard to tell without knowing the thinking of this top player (no name). Are you sure this candy actually relates to BKR and not to the experience of the game itself?

playBunny: A top dice roller (no name!) said to me not long ago "To play 17-1800 rated players is to steal candy from kids"..then i cant understand the fear for losing BKR...can you?

Eriisa: That opponent's Stairs (ie. no fast Stairs for Checkers). If you resign from a Stair your matches continue unless you resign those as well.

Andersp: I thought you'd enjoy a good laugh at this one.

My sympathies to the topplayers (top dice rollers in backgammon) who must play lower rated players. If they should lose (awful thought!!) they could lose some of their so well deserved BKR. If i was a top dice roller i should absolutely restrict myself to not playing any stairs at all

BIG BAD WOLF: Why is his opponent not listed on the Fast Stairs (Checkers)?

S O C R A T E S: My suggestion to anyone who hates to play lower rated players and only want to play same rated players, then stairs may not be the best thing.

Unless you want to stay around long enough to climb the stairs - then once a stairs spread out some and you are near the top, then you will only have to worry about being challenged by players close to you - which most likely will also be higher rated players.

S O C R A T E S: My sympathies indeed and that objection makes a lot of sense. That's why I restrict myself to 5-point Backgammon, at least for now.

As a top checkers player it's certainly disadvantageous for you but, being of that class, you'll most likely be on the top Steps of the Stairs. It's early days yet but in due course you won't find anyone challenging you who hasn't also got a high rating. It's a question of patience and accepting the initial "blood sucking". [Lol. I play at a Vampire site too, hence that analogy.]

Good fortune!

playBunny: All of a sudden I'm playing a mandatory game and if I win I get 0 points, if I lose, I lose 30 points. Ladders(stairs) should not include rating :)

S O C R A T E S: Because....?

I don't think BKR should be affected in stairs....

Fencer: How about an indicator on the page where you can view all the stairs you are currently playing in, that would allow you to see which ones you have to wait before you can challenge in? That way you wouldn't have to go to the individual page for each to find out if you can issue a new challenge - you'd be able to tell at a glance from the "show your stairs only" page.

(which is not, of course)

I think it's too early to blame the system. Until more steps are generated, it's pointless to say the system is bad.

estanto: Well that is one thing I like about BrainKing's stairs - they did not just copy another system, but tried to do a few things different to try to make it different for the site.

I'm sure if problems arise where players are unable to challenge people, and such and something like being able to challenge above would fix it, Fencer would look into doing that. But right now, the system is working great how it is. My opinion is to try it how the system is now, and once (if) something does not work, then would be the time to start thinking about being able to challenge above yourself - but since when someone loses, I believe there will always be people at the bottome and near enough to you to always be able to challenge people at the same (or below) your level to earn your way up to play the top players. (instead of skipping the same level people and jumping up to challenge the top players right away.)

BIG BAD WOLF: Ok, the stronger players should be protected to be bothered by challenges of the weakest, I agree. But it would be very normally to allow a challenge in a certain range. That range could be normally +1, 0, -1, but at the top down to -2 and at the bottom up to +2. That's the way a ladder normally works. I cannot see, what should be better with that stairs.
Btw, I would also prefer to allow empty steps with the interpretation to challenge to the next not empty step.

Walter Montego posted about not liking the idea of not being able to challenge people on higher steps on the BrainKing.com board, so I will expand an answer here.

The point of the stairs is that the best players will sooner or later raise to the top steps. If a new person joins a stair, they have to EARN the right to challenge the top player - they need to play people on their own step and slowly climb to earn the right to play the top players.

The purpose of letting people challenge people in the steps right below them is so that will allow the top players to hopefully have someone to challenge so they can at least keep some games going, and not just jump to the top with no games to play. (Then again they do not have to challenge if they do not want to.)

WhisperzQ: the only problem with that is that there are people here that I know of that would slow down in a game that they are losing in to the point that the other game would finish and a new one start and then they would finish the new one still before the original game just to have better odds of wining a second game

I know it probably too late, but I would have preferred to see the standard lenght set at 3 days rather than 4 days. (And yes, I know you can play faster, but if I only take the games from the top of my time sorted list they do not get there as fast.)

It seems as though most of the games (maybe Backgammon excluded, I don't play it) are set up a two game matches, but these are by nature sequential. Is it possible to set up a new style which are two game matches where both games are played at once. This would not need to be restricted to use in stairs but could be an alternative two game, and two win matches, they could be called "paired" games for instance.

The reason to ask is to have the result of the game resolved quicker. A "four day" game (the standard length) may last for a long time and for it to be followed by another it might be a year before a result is known ... this might well slow up the stepping considerably.

Just a thought.

What about this?

Could the Stairs Show games list (and any others) be sortable please? If not with re-sort links, could they be ordered by challenger name rather than game id?

Also, could the player viewing the list be highlighted as with ratings list?

Dryznik:

http://brainking.com/en/Stairs?trg=2&tri=109

Where and how do I enter Halma 10 stairs?

ellieoop:
I agree
Awesome job Fencer

Fencer: ok... thanks Fencer...

lovelysharon: No, the Retirement is the same for all types of Stairs. It has nothing to do with days per move/game.

I have a question on these very fast Fischer stairs... when it says no days off.. does that also include no "Retirement"?.

these stairs sound much better then the ones at gt and iyt. good job again fencer:)

Luke Skywalker: and, most importantly, the players' steps

thanks for quickly implementing my requests. In the list of games could you display some more info, like on the main page, e.g. move number, whose turn it is, time until timeout, online indicator