Czuch: Yep. I quite agree. Only one hour ago an opponent of mine sent me a message informing me that he had just accepted my double by mistake! Colour-coded buttons and a nice checkbox. Dead easy!

Czuch, does WebTV handle javascript, do you know?

playBunny: Its just that for something like deleting a fellowship you must check 4 boxes, because it cant be undone. Well this is no different, and although I am not an idiot, its just a matter of sometimes clicking before my curser moves, I just dont know why in this case it is a huge joke to some and in other instances where it is already used, it is just fine? I have already lost one match where wanted to decline an offer but clicked the other button by mistake and then I got skunked on top of it all! UGGGG! hat woul;d it hurt to offer these form us 'idiots" and let the BBWs of the world choose to not have them shown?

txaggie: "He could easily spend all his time doing that, and not get to the other features and new game ideas that people are asking for."

I think that would be a seriously difficult challenge. lolol. But you're right, do this one thing and it's the start of a slippery slope that ....

How about a confirmation page that says: "Are you sure you want to leave a blot there?"

txaggie: Well I personally don't need a checkmark, or anything - even though I may make mistakes and hit a button too quick - I can just as easly check a box and click too fast, or scrool through 2 pages and click buttons too quickly also. So for me, I would rather just keep things how they are.

BUT if anything is done, I would rather see a checkmark confirmation box next to the button rather then see a whole new page saying "Are you sure..."

txaggie: some people more often than others

Hrqls: LOL. No I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when I made the comment. I think we all could fit into that category at one time or another .

txaggie: a site which is me-proof ??? no way! not possible ;)

BIG BAD WOLF: So you're talking about a checkmark you enter before pushing the button, like the one that asks you to confirm a challenge match on the Stairs before it will create? I would agree this sounds like a better option than a whole new page.
But there also has to be point at which Fencer says he cannot make the site idiot-proof and declines additional fail-safe mechanisms. He could easily spend all his time doing that, and not get to the other features and new game ideas that people are asking for.

BIG BAD WOLF: Yep, I'd go for the checkmark. I don't like a whole new dialogue/page for confirmations.

I would rather see a checkmark option next to the buttons then another whole page loading to ask me the same question again.

Or better yet, make it an option to have the checkmark's there for the players who like the site to protect them from their own mistakes. :-)

Most sites that I know of either have an automatic "are you sure" mechanism, or one that can be toggled on and off. It is a convenience that I highly recommend. Blather all you like about reading before you click, if you have a hundred games going here and a life, you are going to make a few mistakes. It would be a thoughtful and useful gesture on Fencer's part to provide the same consideration here as is provided elsewhere.

Czuch Chuckers: You can use a remote keyboard with a computer as well, and a large flat monitor is not all that expensive.
Viruses and spyware are overrated, just install some software and forget about it. I recommend using Firefox or Opera instead of IE.

grenv: LOL.... its not more trouble than its worth because it aint worth very much!

When I bought it, it was $100 compared to a computer in the $1000s. But computers are so cheap these days, I even know people who say they will give me their old one. But if they dont want it anymore, neither do i! But I have gotten used to some things about webtv. I like sitting on my couch and typing on a remote keyboard and using a 24 inch tv screen as my monitor. Plus I am wary of all of the anti virus and spyware stuff etc that I would have to understand in order to use a computer. on the converse, webtv isnt cheap to use either at 25 bucks a month! I will soon shed my fears and buy a computer though, maybe this christmas! Mabe Fencer will give out new computers to all webtv people who upgrade their memberships?

grenv: LOL. No, no, that's not what I meant!

playBunny: LOL. I agree!
Getting a computer that can run a browser should cost about $50 on ebay I imagine. Some ISPs are as little as $10/Mo. So I didn't consider "nothing" to be the alternative.

grenv: WebTV .... Nothing .... WebTV .... Nothing .... ?

Aye, you're right. Best to do without.

Hrqls: MS Rules! Waahaayy. Actually, I prefer image and colour coding - like Borland programs, or GnuBg. In GnuBg I don't read "Decline", I hit the red cross. I don't read the text "Accept", I hit the green tick. That's much simpler for a brain to learn.

Czuch Ahah. I know where you're coming from. Makes sense to me. I have a similar problem with a dodgy keyboard in as much as I "know" I've typed correctly but my shifts haven't and my programs fail because of syntax errors which shouldn't be there.

I really don't get webTV, sounds like more effort than it's worth.

grenv: and play bunny.... yes, we are click happy, but the color code would not help. Like I said, its not a matter of reading, or understanding which one we want. For example when I amke a move in backgammon have to scroll down once and then click the right arrow twice then the enter/return key. It becomes automatic, but sometimes we do click so fast that the curser ends up somewhere else but we still automaticaly hit the return key anyway. Most of the time it is not a big problem. I end up hitting the change dice or something like that by accident and just hit the back button and try again. But with this, there is no going back, it is final und unchangeable, even when I reralize it the milisecond I do it. Mabe I will just have to slow down, but like I said, it becomes so automatic what to click to highlight where we want to go, but sometimes we just come up short one or two clicks, and again, its usually not a big problem to just try again.

Fencer: LMAO! No, I a not kidding! Are you???? I mean we have so many other times on this site where we go to a new page only to be asked if we "are sure?"... whats so funny about it here then. hy dont you just eliminate all of them and tell everyone to read more carefully? Jeez whiz!

Let me explain for you a little though.... it is not a reading or understanding problem for me. With webtv (I know you really dont like having to deal with us) its not a mouse system but we direct a cursor which highlights a box arund what we want to click on.... so we have to move this "highlight box" over many different choices before it highlights the one we want to click on. In this example we end up highlighting several choices before we get to the "do not accept this double offer", and we also end up highlighting the "accept this double offer" right before we use the right arrow button to move the highlight to the "do not accept this double offer" choice. Well sometimes we get goping so fast that we think we hit the right arrow to change the highlight to the "do not accept" but it ends up staying on the "accept" choice by accident and then we click the "return/enter" key before we realize that our curser has not moved to the correct choice yet, but by then it is too late, and we end up accepting the wrong choice by accident!

Maybe it is only concern for webtv, but then, why is it used in other places on this site? Anyway, it would help with those of us on webtv, and can be a common problem because we typically get our fingers moving to fast to try to make up for our already very slow process.

please dont tell me to get acomputer, I am going to son, but that is not the issue. here are obviuously a lot of paid users who use webtv, and it is important to sometoimes do things that help us out. (as I know you already do)

grenv: they are just used to microsoft programs :)

giving me an extra message wont help .. it will be an automatic click soon enough .. so if i dont read the first message then i wont read the second one either .. just like with my microsoft programs :)

YOu guys must be really click happy. Unlike Fencer I recommend reading at least once before clicking, twice if necessary. Unless you're running out of time for the move or something, lol.

Fencer, Czuch: I know what I want to do with the cube but I still have to read twice before clicking and do the "Am I sure this is the right button?" routine. What harm in compromising and shading those buttons in green and red?

Czuch Chuckers: Are you kidding? I recommend to read twice before clicking.

When we are asked to accept or reject a double offer in cube games, could we go to a new screen which asks us if we are sure or not? I have accidently clicked on the wrong one before and there is no going back! We already have many places on this site where we have to confirm our choices, would like this to be another as well. Thanks!

playBunny: I'd say Dark Chess is different enough from Chess and most of the variants. It takes different skills to play it well. As different as Atomic Chess is from regular Chess, Atomic Chess still requires the same skills to play it well. I don't like Anti-Chess, but it seems like it requires the same skills as regular Chess, you just have to apply them differently. Shogi Chess and Loop Chess might be different enough too. Dropping pieces back on the board is a whole different kind of play. I would certainly put Janus Chess, Grand Chess, Gothic Chess, Los Alamos Chess, soon to be added Embassy Chess, CRC, Fischer Random Chess, Corner Chess, Fortress Chess, and the other games that have the same object but a different set up or board and pieces all in the same category.

I agree with Alan that Hyper is different enough in the game itself to be excluded from the average from certain aspects (eg, that it doesn't have the structural game play of the other variants) but for completeness and ease I think it should be included in any group measurement. Otherwise we'd have to examine each game to see whether it belonged with its fellows or was an outsider within its own clan. Which chess variants are not quite truly chess? The only exceptions I'd have are the anti- games which I think are almost an abomination under the eyes of Great Bunny.

Hauling out the old stats that I posted a while back...

Game ........... #1 ........... #20 ....... Average ....... Range ...... Players
Hyper ........ 2188 .......... 2120 ..........1960 ..........160 ........... 536
Back .......... 2431 ..........2210 ..........2002 ..........210 ........... 882
Nack ......... 2011 ...........1881 ..........1696 ..........185 ........... 257
Crowded .... 2081 .......... 1853 ..........1690 ..........163 ........... 202
Race .......... 2026 ..........1911 ..........1688 ..........223 ........... 234

You can see from the ratings of the #20 and the average rating that Nack, Crowded and Race are somwhat similar but not in terms of the range. Backgammon and Hyper are in their own camps. any average which was only an average would be skewed by the Backgammon rating. The only meaningful ways to produce a representative value are the ones that normalise the raw ratings before combining them, for example calculating the standard deviations of a player's ratings, averaging them and then multiplying by some factor to make it look like a rating again. I don't know the maths well enough to know whether that can be done incrementally after each match. It could be difficult keeping them up to date.


Just out of interest, here are the same figures now that we're two weeks into the new BKRs. The range for Hypergammon has shrunk by 7.5% and those for Crowded and Race expanded by about 6%, and Nack has expanded by over 8%.

Hyper ........ 2313 .......... 2122 ......... 1974 ......... 148 ........... 532
Back .......... 2441 ......... 2216 ......... 2008 ......... 208 ........... 898
Nack ......... 2108 .......... 1893 ......... 1693 ......... 200 ........... 252
Crowded .... 2086 .......... 1865 ......... 1693 ......... 172 ........... 198
Race .......... 2043 ......... 1932 ......... 1696 ......... 236 ........... 233

grenv:

Hrqls: Don't forget to square the hypotenuse before integrating the logarithm, otherwise you might get a result with an uncertainty an order of magnitude higher then optimal.

alanback: you mean a combined rating would calculate all games in all subtypes as 1 total rating ? so when i play a game of nackgammon it would calculate into my nackgammon rating and also into my average combined gammon rating ? if i play a game of hyper gammon it would calculate into my hyper rating .. and also into my combined rating ?

that would be a better 'average' indeed :)

the list posted below could show something different as well if calculated as a combined rating .. we mere mortals cant that though .. the formula would have to be run through the whole data set as it was done with the last change in the rating formula .. that means quite some more work than just an averaging .. but would be much more accurate :)

Hrqls: It is important to distinguish between an average rating and a combined rating. An average rating would be less volatile and separate ratings would be maintained for each sub-type. However, an average rating could be misleading for players with little experience in one or more sub-types. A combined rating would compute the effect of each match on a single overall rating, regardless of which sub-type was played.

WhiteTower: in the past we had separate boards for each backgammon type (for every gane type) .... when a user posted a message the rating of that user was shown next to his/her name ... this could be used as an indication of the knowledge (although the rating doesnt have to 100% accurate)

when the boards were combined to have 1 board per main game type i suggested to show the average rating for the all the game types for which the board was dedicated ... i think fencer wasnt against it .. but appearently neither strongly favored it (as it isnt there yet ;))

i would love such a average rating per main game type

but what would you do with the average rating of players who dont play all subtypes ? like playbunny who only plays normal and hyper backgammon

alanback: i have a bit more problems with nackgammon than with backgammon ... i also tend to have more problems with crowded backgammon than with race backgammon .. but i agree they are somewhat similar.

i do like the average rating over all games of this site (as long as you have more than 11 established ratings) which you can see on the statistics page. its an indication of someones general game knowledge (although it doesnt mean much when someone concentrates on just a few game types .. like me .. i wouldnt want to add many chesslike games to established average :))

WhiteTower: I have discovered that my ratings in the 4 backgammon games mentioned are very close, except for regular backgammon where ratings are higher for some reason -- possibly just because more games have been played, possibly because the makeup of the player pool is different. But when I played backgammon and nackgammon under separate names on a different server, I found the ratings were so close that I decided to give up the idea of separate accounts for different games. I think the 4 games mentioned have essentially the same strategy, and there would be no harm in computing a single rating for all 4. The question, of course, is whether it is meaningful to combine the ratings (you probably wouldn't want to combine backgammon with chess), and I think that it is meaningful to combine those 4 games. With due respect to my carrot-loving and procreative furry friend, I think that Hypergammon and Anti-backgammon are sufficiently different from the 4 I play to make them truly different games, and to make a combined rating less informative than separate ratings.

Has anyone ever thought of suggesting to Fencer to introduce game GROUP ratings? For example, one rating system for Chess games, another for Backgammons, another for Lines games etc. I mean, we already differentiate between them when creating them, so this means they are essentially different entities and should not have a unified rating system - who can disagree with that? (Fencer - too much work involved?)

Remember, some game groups may still share the same rating system (until the frequent players there start complaining about it etc.!)

alanback: If Backgammon ratings were not that close, I would be in that list.

I have a 2120 rating for 151st place - but 50th place is only at a 2171 - not too much of a difference.

A little more work, I can be on that list. (1935.5 avg for the 4 games)

playBunny: To be honest I forgot all about Hypergammon, while I deliberately excluded anti. It's also true that I only considered the games that I play regularly. If someone else is interested in other games, they are free to investigate them -- but the results won't interest me

playBunny: hey! its weekend .. i am lazy ;)

Hrqls: Lolol.

Well the pages are there. All it takes is a bit of detective work (ie of the shoe leather variety).... I look forward to seeing your results. ;o)))

playBunny: dont be that nasty! :) there is something to the factor of luck in hypergammon

i would be very curious to the same list for all 5 positive gammon types

as well as the same list for all 6 gammon types :)

BB: Alan only ranks #422 in Hypergammon so that one's not a real gammon and doesn't count.

I thought there was 5 "positive" gammon games

Backgammon

Nackgammon

Hypergammon

Crowded Backgammon

Backgammon Race

alanback: lol :)

alanback: I read this somewhere: "In addition, if your self-esteem depends upon achieving a high rating on this server, you really need to reconsider your goals."

Hrqls: I left it out because I don't play it ;-)

alanback: woohoo! i made it :) thanks for the table ... interesting

why did you leave out antibackgammon ? i guess not everyone plays that version as well ? or its too different ?

No, it wasn't

As of this afternoon there were only 12 players who were in the top 50 in all 4 "positive" gammon games. Here we are:

Name/Avg. Rating/Avg. Rank
arpa/2072/6.50
alanback/2049/5.00
frolind/2018/13.25
jelly/2015/18.75
qusar/2012/12.50
Pedro Martínez/1995/14.75
mrbugs001/1990/18.00
Hrqls/1987/20.00
Brian1971/1962/27.75
cindsman/1961/29.50
Zach/1936/37.50

Thanks for all your help