Thad: ... or be able to have the moves in reverse order with the last move at the top!

How about being able to pick any colours from the standard window colour menu? ... for any boards and/or pieces?

Is there a way to find out who's blocked list you are on? Be interested to know who is winnng that competition ... maybe we could have it Statistics too? :)

emmett: or even for some games, like Maharajah Chess, where there is a distinct bias, the ability to separate stats / graphs.

Walter Montego: Two good posts with great ideas ... I agree wholeheartedly.

playBunny: Cool projector ... does it work with powerpoint?

mctrivia: My comment was regarding the number of tournaments ... a digression under this thread I know ... but I understand and agree with you desire.

tinksbell: Of course this problem is solved by upgrading to a rook membership where the number of tournaments of each type is unlimited .... and there are other benefits too :)

In chess there are a lolt of opening moves which have been names ... I am sure others with greater chess knowledge can give the correct details. I suspect there is the same in checkers too.

It could be that when a game is set up then the opening could be stated too so that people may accept a game already a few (standard) moves into the game.

kleineme: I see that ow you point it out ... I wonder how many others have missed that, which still puts in back in the "it would be nice" category. Just asking :)

Can I ask if, when you define a new game, the type of game can be listed at the top of the screen such as on a page like this.

The reason is that in the chess DBs I want to put a link direct to this page for each game type, but when you go here you are not sure you are actually on the right page. I expect others could use this too.

Cheers WQ :)

I have one group with 6901 uread mesages, guess I might not catch up on all of them. What really astounds me is that there are many who will have read them all!

RL: Agreed ... WQ:)

Just a different perspective Jason ... so long as each is allowed their point of view and noone considers theirs superior to the other we can all be happy!

grenv: again ... my point exactly ... I know you jest but it demonstates that someone may try to use time to pressure the opposition which surely is a very poor way (and I would declare unsportsmanlike) of trying to secure a win ... a win should (at least on a turn based site) be based on ability not on who can trump another's move immediately to force time to be the deciding factor. I guess a vote against this suggestion would place you firmly in that camp.

I have won many games where the other person, for some reason or other, has timed out. I find those very hollow victories and think that it is sad that others would even contemplate conspiring to win in this manner ... but it is their life I guess. At least I can say that if anyone has timed out against me I have always been willing to accept the game back again (and even suggested it), even if I am not in the stronger position as some of you know.

Cheers WQ

That is the point! "A" could have expected to need to make their next move in 4 days time (maximum) if "B" had taken their 2 days to make their move and then there would be another 2 days after that for "A" to respond. Presently, if I play a two day game, make my move NOW then I have to wait up to 2 days before I know the time and date by which I MUST make my next move ... it could be a minimum of 2 days but could also be up to 4 days. This proposal takes away that uncertainty.

Agreed Backoff ... I actually find it daunting when my opponent moves straight away, particularly in 1 day games (one reason why I no longer play them). I tend to play for maybe an hour about the same time each day, if I am early one day, opponent moves and late the next then I have a time out ... now I was hardly tardy.

So I would suggest that a person's time period be two times the stated time frame ... let's go through an example. A two day game ... A moves, B immediately moves (even though they actually have 2 days to make the move) ... now A still has 4 days to make their next move (the two days B could have taken and the two days following that for A to make their move). Vacation days get added, irrespective of whether either party moves during that time (this should answer Caissus' valid problem that he might get timed out on a game that he was expecting to be extended (because the oopponent was on vacation)and wasn't (because they moved). Now I can hear many voices crying "oh no" games will take even longer, but the reality is that they won't, what was a two day game can become a one day game (two days for A to move again), four two and so forth. What it does do is set some certainty for the likes of me as to absolutely when I must move in a game irrespective of an opponents' speed of moving. And, of course, the same principle could be appled to games which might run in hours rather than days.

I was thinking more of the collective noun usage ... a group or gathering of convokers LOL WQ:)

Just so that it can never be stated again that no-one objected to autopass I would like to state that I prefer the current arrangement and hope that it remains the way it is ... and, while I would hope to be considered a "friend of Fencer", I hope that I am not considered to be an integral part of the prior-postings alluded-to convocation.

WQ :)

like Fencer or BK or password or god (oops already had that one first)

I think that is a great idea BBW

Me too Backoff ... I can hold my own for a while against the better players but eventually those who spend days analysing will find me out ... even the variants are getting harder to win as new players arrive and those that are here develop their knowledge of the games ...

As one who never has holidays I use vacation days to releive the stress of the hard games (when they conflict with work) while I still enjoy playing the simpler situations ... so I would be against excluding play during vacation days.

... would be the end of Maharajah Chess.

How about a button or a page to mark multiple (all) DBs and fellowship boards read in one go without having to open each one ... could be like the delete messages from inbox screen.

I would second that idea ... to have a quick reference to who you are playing who is online is a great idea. (Oh no, my secret is out ... late at night I turn into a were-owl ... whoo whoo)

Steve ... you are so vain LOL :) (and yes, I know it is off topic, but I couldn't resist :)

I can see where this would be good but it may reveal "secrets" of a person's success, like piece placements in screen chess and battleships in battleships, and that would be to their disadvantage in future games. Part of the skill, I think, is in the method of play which is not intended to be revealed.

Could we please have another option in the "move" area which was "move and close window". I find, when I have a number of games with a shortish period to go that I keep one browser open and sequentially "open in new window" the games in order (or near order). This would stop me having to open the new window; make the move; go back to the main page; close the browser window; move on to the next. If others do this too it might save a little database search time too :)

Just more work for you ... that's all ... but to quote the master "Stability and good performance is always more important than new features" ... so this can wait (so far as I am concerned) for BK2.01 :)

I guess there could be three options (sorry Fencer more work for you) when the tournament director starts a tournment to have "seeding" (a la tennis etc), anti-seeding (as just described) or random ... go to it my man (when you have time :)

Anotehr option would be to rank order on BKR and the first 4 go in the first section, secondin second and so on. May end up more tahn 200BKR or less, but atleast they would be the closest matches. Sort of anti-seeding!

Just made the last the move in a tournament which Fencer won. Now, I think it would be nice to stroke his ego if he were to receive a message in his in-box saying that "such-and-such-a-tournament" had finished and he was the winner. This could even be extended to all participants to let them know the tournament was complete and how they did ... could even be an automated link to the standing table ... what do you think winner (congrats :)

Que Sera ... Sera

Proabably been put up before but here it is again ... Kitti suggested, on the tournament board, that when a Tournament Section is absolutely decided that the tournament creator could be able to "declare" that section so that the competition can move on ... good idea Kitti :)

One thing I would like is the ability for me to add (private) notes tied to another person's profile. This might be an address they have sent me, or some clippings from a discussion we have had. PRobably pretty low on the list but an idea just the same W:)

crawling cariad ... crawling

Interesting though this discussion about chess and its variants may be, there are boards specifically dedicated to these discussions so please use them :)

Generally I find tabs are esasier to negotiate than the taskbar as I already have a lot of other things in my taskbar and even with a big screen they can take a while to find.

Also, I think another advantage with alesh's suggestion is that opening the one page would automatically open all the individual files which had be preset ... something similar to some text editors which have "projects" of related files ... open the project and it opens all the individual files.

There seems to be a lot of people changing their nicks ... some, like BIG BAD ?, are easy to follow but others are not and I am easily confused. Would it be possible to have in each person's profile a list of the names that they have used in previous lifetimes (not talking about multiIDs here).

The only games which should contribute to a decathalon rating would be games against other decathaletes.

Thanks Ug ... review my performance any time you like :)

As a suggestion ... remove the ability for pawns to edit or delete their posts so that it will prevent psuedo signups and logons which aim to bait other members and then delete their posts, or maybe they can only edit or delete after maybe a month or so, or making so many moves, just to make it harder ...

Great thinking Caissus with one caveat ... you would need to put a limitation on time accumulation though, say, a maximum of 3y days to complete their next next move otherwise someone with a lot of extra time up their sleeve and losing could still be a pain! (For example someone with 2m/5d game might make 10 moves in one day but would never be able to accumulate more than 15 days between moves even if the accumulation effect might have given them
25 days.)

Great minds, Vikings, ...

Firstly, I choose not to play in 1 or 2 day limit games because I cannot guarantee that I can make it onto here every two days (I usually do but the day will come ... :) and if I enter a game or tournament with a longer time frame so be it, I have accepted it. If some wish to play quicker then they may set up their games and/or tounaments that way.
Secondly, I guess the x moves/y days option would have separate time clocks for each party so that if you were losing you could not wait until there was perhaps 5 seconds to go then make your next move (doesn't matter how many moves you have to go) and, voila, your opponent times out, a win from a lose. So the 10/30 could still take 60 days for the first 10 pairs of moves just like say a 3 days/move game.

I might be a lone voice here, but I am happy with the time frame options we currently have here. I can also see merit in Caissus's (that a lot of esses) suggestions but would hope that they would be additional options and not replace the ones we already have.

It is supposed to make a difference but I am not sure that it ever does. What is does effect though is the count for wins, losses and draws. Someone like Dano takes some pride in being over 80% wins.

Some info on BKRs can be found here. The formula is supposed to be:
new BKR = ((old_BKR*Number of Games Played)+ OpponentsBKR + x)/(Number of Games played + 1) where x = +400 for a win / 0 for a draw / -400 for a loss with a failsafe to ensure that winning against a much lower opponent does not decrease BKR. Hope that helps.

Fencer, I am not sure if you still have this in your "to do" list or whether it was lost, but a previous suggestion was to add another game ending option whereby players would be able to delete a game by mutual consent and have it not be recorded as a game (won, lost or drawn) or effect their BKR. This option might solve some problems which are currently arising where players cannot remember whether they won or lost and do not really wish to continue the game. Of course, this will never happen again ... but .... W:)

Ughaibu: I would not have thought you had any use for your suggestion but I guess others playing you might LOL :)

Sounds like an offer grenv :)