BerniceC: I am afraid Sinay doesn't read this board, you should PM her instead :-)

BerniceC: Is it really so difficult to understand that I could have more important things to do than to make a move in a pond?

BerniceC: You should read the rules first, before complaining.

Everything's correct.

Doesn't matter.

Hey, this is a pond which was finished before the fix was applied. Such ponds must be fixed manually in the database, of course.

Read the rules, paragraph 5).

Mely: The formula has been fixed a while ago.

Bry: The basic idea is to take a pond as a tournament. Your final position is used to determine your "wins" and "loses", compared to final positions of other players.

The rating system for the pond games is still in a test mode. I'll try to do some experiments next week.
Anyway, no results will be lost and everything will be calculated from the very beginning.

EdTrice: Just to be exact, you are not a paying member, you won the membership in my prize tournament.

Thad: 1) No. 2) No.

EdTrice: Because you cannot eliminate the human factor. Why don't you play one or two ponds to prove your theory?

No good.

No. I didn't want to.

No, the "discussion" cannot be changed.

No private conversation is expected in the pond game messages. So it's perfectly okay to make it visible for everyone.

Yes.

I like BBW's (Bry's) proposal:

Starting point Value: Choose between 1,000 - 20,000 (Maybe choices like 1,000, 2,500, 5,000, 7,500, 10,000, 12,500, 15,000, 17,500, 20,000)

Bonus Points: Choice between 0 = 500 (maybe choices like 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500)

So the most "unbalanced" game would be start with 1,000 points, and can get up to 500 bonus points - which is how many games will be towards the end of the game anyway!

There is no need to make it more complicated.

Thad: I don;'t follow you. What should be minimum of zero?

There was an idea to have an option to set the starting points and the bonus value during the pond definition.
Anyway, it should be assured that no future pond game becomes unbalanced because of badly chosen parameters (e.g. starting with 50 points and bonus 5000). That's why this proposal has been created:

x = starting points (multiple of 40)
x/40 = bonus

The current parameters (20000, 500) follow this rule as well.

Mely: Sounds interesting :-)

The main reason was the BKR and history regeneration.

Heh :-)

Stevie: Yes but there is nothing to rate until at least one pond is finished.

Heh :-)

Mely: Yes. It is planned.

Hrqls: That's right.

Vikings: The red number next to the Main page link informs you about it.

Vikings: Now it's like for Tournaments link, the number shows how many ponds in sign-up status are listed on that page.

Anyway, it's interesting that even though almost everybody complained about the long runs caused by too many players, there are 6 new ponds with unlimited number of participants :-)

Who cares? The problem is already fixed.

Wait. There was a small bug in the generator. I used resultCode1 instead of resultCode3. Funny, eh? :-D

furbster: Sorry, I forgot. Doing it now :-)

Czuch Chuckers: Bad Bishop (and many other Czech players) played this game for several years and I simply trust him that the rules are balanced well.

furbster: Yes.

Stevie: Bad Bishop already explained why it doesn't matter.

I've resolved the bug with automatic moves. It should be correct in the next round (or the round after the next round).

Bad Bishop: Yes, it can be added later. Not now.

He will continue with default moves.

Uhm mhm hm.

It's just a visual bug, not a glitch in the game.

Jason: Yes. After I finish some other things.

Czuch Chuckers: But it could make problems for people who expect a regular deadline and couldn't make it in time to submit a new move.

Czuch Chuckers: It always waits.

What graphs?

Yes, something like that.

Now you can edit your move before the round is finished. Some more statistics will follow soon.

BBW: Yes, this bug has been brought to my attention by Pedro Martinez several hours ago :-) It's already fixed and the next round should be correct.