Luke Skywalker: I don't know about the numbers adding up, but can you imagine how long that list is, once people are on 20 steps or more?

which leads to the question, why do the numbers not add up?

The stairs page shows the number of players for each game type, e.g. on the page http://brainking.com/en/Stairs?trg=1 you can see Backgammon (55). It would be nicer if this info contained the number of players on each step, e.g. Backgammon (55: 38/9/6/1)

The request has been noted. Please continue this conversation over on the Stairs Discussion Board.

Thanks! :-)

playBunny: well i would have liked the new stair system to have had a separate way of counting wins and losses like a percentage of wins , so that it was a separate system altogether . in my opinion it would have been alot more fun that way and anybody who was concerned about bkr ect would have no worries

I've become a shogi fan in the few games I've played, and recently found that there are many smaller and larger Shogi variants that look extremely intriguing to play. They range from the absurdly small (4x4 "nana" shogi) to the absurdly large (taikyoku shogi on a 36x36 board with 402 pieces per player). I'd be interested in both ends of the spectrum and all those in between, but there are a few that are especially intriguing:

Chu Shogi (12x12) - a good size, I think, and has an active following worldwide
Dai Shogi (15x15) - very large, but perhaps playable in a few hours
Daidai and Maka Daidai Shogi (17x17 and 19x19, respectively) and Tai shogi (25x25). some of the smaller variants sound interesting as well, and they range from 4x4 up to 9x9.

Would there be interest in getting more Shogi variants on BK? I'd vote for Chu and Dai immediately.

Czuch Chuckers: I think the ratings are being manipulated by players that refuse to play certain games, while others are willing to play anyone. Therefore they are being rendered meaningless.
At least if you were forced to play random people from time to time that would be somewhat addressed.

grenv: The point is that stairs were introduced as an alternative to the BKR or tournaments, it should therefore be seprate. If you dont care about ratings, then why do you bother slaming my request? If I were to play all my backgammon games with all lower bkr players where I would only gain a point or maybe none, my bkr would obviously go down. I Know because backgammon has so much of a luck element to it that people dont consider the bkr to mean that much anyway, but there are reasons to want to maintain a higher bkr anyway.

Maybe I will amend my request to only include single match stairs....

1) True. The right formula allows anyone to play anyone else equitably.

2) Too black and white. It means that the game (chase the ratings) is flawed, not that it's invalid.

3) I disagree. If some match results are fair and others are not then accuracy is compromised.

I'm not saying that Stairs matches shouldn't count towards ratings. I'm glad that they do, in fact. But I will stay away from the single-match Stairs (and also tournaments) until the day we get a proper Backgammon formula. And I'll keep pushing for that periodically despite everyone getting tired of it, me included.

playBunny:

If the ratings work properly it shouldn't matter how lowly the opponent is rated.

If the ratings don't work properly (as may be in backgammon) then it shouldn't matter what your rating is.

Either way I think the ratings will be more accurate and therefore more meaningful if EVERY competitive game played is counted.

Dryznik: This is actually the wrong board to be making such a request, as it's not about additions or changes to how the site works - the main topic of this board. However it's strangely appropriate because of the timing and the current topic, lol.

I'd recommend that you join all the Halma Stairs. That way you get to choose matches with the highest player available and they can't refuse. Stairs are a great way for a strong new player to get a high rating!

Welcome to BrainKing, Dryznik. I think you'll find that it's an experience way beyond what you're used to at the other sites.

I recently joined this site, therefore I am a low rated player. My favorite game is Halma 10; I had beaten some of the best Halma and Halma 10 players on IYT before dropping that site. I very much liked the way their Halma 10 tournaments were set up-most fair and challenging and all in the open. I'm holding my own here in my Halma games and have won most of my Halma and Halma 10 games on Goldtoken site, which I also recently joined. "Do I have any challengers for Halma 10?" The best are welcome in single or tournament play to take on this low rated player! ;~)

grenv: LOL.

Tired, sure, but I imagine you understand the point of view, even if it's not one that's matters to you.

For me the ratings are important because they are another game, and one that I can be keenly competitive about. Stairs is a new competition, also great fun. In these "meta-games" the actual matches are simply moves in the outer competition. This tiring discussion is about whether the resulting moves are appropriate. Naturally it's of no importance to those who don't care about the game and don't play it. ;-)

grenv: Speaking of ratings, I'm back at number 1 again. You up for a couple games? :)

playBunny: If I jump around happily will that help?



I'm just tired of people complaining about playing players with low ratings. I play all sorts of lower rated players without too much affect on my oh so important rating.

grenv: Wow, grenv, you sound so angry! Lighten up dude.

playBunny: Or how about the idea that the ratings actually mean something that has a material impact on your life and choose your opponents accordingly. Relax, it's just a game. Nobody cares what your stupid rating is.

grenv: Low rated players may not be bad players, just new to Brain King

grenv: I've got a worse idea! Let's use a Chess rating formula for Backgammon and other games with luck in them. That way the ratings can be unfair and wrong at the same time!

grenv: he must be joking :)

Czuch Chuckers: I think that's the worst idea I ever heard. If you play a competitive game it shouhld be rated. If you play a low rated player try beating them, that won't affect your rating.

Czuch Chuckers: Why dont you suggest that your games against higher rated players are rated and the games against lower (not worth) players are not rated...then you dont risk anything?

alanback: It would also be nice if the current score (Ex: pauloaguia: 5pts - alanback 6 pts) would also appear in the message sent when each game ends...

Since the stair system is supposed to be an alternative methode from BKR or tournaments to determine a ranking of players, doesn't it make sense to have all stairs games played unrated? There are some people with low ratings who it is not worth me playing when BKR is involved, since I will gain 1point if I win and lose 12 if I lose, for example. And in a game like backgammon with a lot of luck involved, it just isnt worth the risk to play someone with a low rating in a normal game. But we sometimes have to play these players in a stairs match as we dont have contreoll over who challenges us.

So I would like to have the stairs games unrated!
Thanks.

In multipoint backgammon matches, since not all games are worth the same, it would be helpful to provide more information in the match history table. Best would be to add columns showing the value of the game (single, gammon, backgammon or 1x, 2x, 3x), the ending value of the cube (i.e. the value after the last accepted double), and the total point value of the game (which would be the product of the first two columns). It would be nice to see the running match score also. I recognize this is asking for a lot of information.

In addition, would it be possible to display the match history table every time the board is displayed, rather than just once per turn?

I would like an option to "move and then go to the next fischers clock game".....

Thanks!

Hi,

It should be good, if we can see the user ratings like 1., 2., 3. etc. and total count of players on the profiles without to click on it.

Thad: Indeed, I used the HTML reference "title=..." - I wonder if Fencer ever reads his own website's source :P Just kidding ;)

Fencer: I think be title element, he means tool tip.

WhiteTower: Huh?

Could the current action of all online opponents be added as a title element, for checking by hovering the mouse pointer over their username in the game list? Or do we always have to click on Online Opponents to see that?

BIG BAD WOLF: Right, but in the case in question the opponent has no auto vacation days remaining.

alanback: Also auto-vacations will not show up since those are taken at the "last minute"

Fencer: Thanks :)

alanback: Yes, it's the last day of her vacation.

Fencer: I see it there, but there is no such information on the profile page for my opponent mentioned before. Of course, it is possible that today is the last day of her vacation.

alanback: Look at this profile, for example.

Fencer: I don't see any link to check vacation days on the profile page.

alanback: On the player's profile.

Fencer: And how is that done?

alanback: Only the vacation for the future days. Not today or in the past.

Is there any way to view an opponent's vacation table? I.e., to determine what days the opponent has marked as vacation? If not, I think there should be.

Fencer: Nice to see those *s. :-D

Dice can also not be deduced when you can only move one number because you are blocked on the other, and on bearing off when you don't use the ecact roll. The latter one is only strictly necessary if doing analysis on the dice rolls themselves - an unlikely need with games played here, lol.

There are two reasons why I'd like to see the dice rolls. One is that when I go through a game I want to look at the dice and then see what I would do with the roll before I see the move itself. Having to work out the dice from the move (which is not an at-a-glance operation anyway) makes this impossible. The second reason is that I have a program to download the moves list into a file for analysis but without the dice values it's unreadable by the analyser. I've made it so that the download program reads every game page for the missing (non deducable) dice rolls, which makes it a pretty bandwidth intensive operation.

pauloaguia: Okay, that's an exception.

Fencer: you cannot always deduce dice roll from a (pass).
But then again, what do I know about game notations?

Luke Skywalker: The dice rolled can be deducted from the notation. For example 12-11, 9-3 means 1-6 roll.

excellent! The only thing missing is now the dice rolled. (and then to make it downloadable)

Like this?

playBunny: That is good as well as long it is there :)

TJuTZu: Yep. The standard notation is an asterisk. 12/11*