Kevin: Thanks, that was the mixup (I just call them listings or ratings that all - must be my english).
But everything else I said still holds :)

Hrqls: There are no active or inactive BKRs. BKR is still a BKR and it will never change. What will be active or inactive are the positions in the charts - if you don't finish a game in six months, you have no position. It doesn't affect anything on the Statistics page.

Maxxina: Lets hope someone doesnt have one game of a type just with a player like Kevin then LOL Its not often a game with him is finished in 6 months LOL

btw..just for the do-gooders etc etc this is meant as a point made but a jest at the same time.

ok :) no reason to shout ;)

i prefer it being changed to 'you have to make at least 1 move each 6 months' ;)

HRQLS - FINISH A GAME

do you need to finish a game each 6 months or make a move in that type of game each 6 months ?

what happens to the overal ratings ? do people still have to have at least 11 active bkrs to get on that list or can inactive bkrs also used for that ?

That will be an excellent idea to add the date and time of players' last moves in each game type. If Fencer does this, there will be no need to make any extra charts or whatever. It itself shows every small detail!

Perhaps one can remain on the chart if he has been playing it or has finished a game, instead of just basing it on finishing a game. Require a certain amount of movement or finshed games per quarter. But even taking the scenario of a game that takes 4 months to finish with the players moving everyday, I think three months is more than adequate. You should have more that just one game going to retain a spot on the chart. Just ekeing out the bare minimum might be enough by the rules, but it sure isn't by the spirit of it. The rankings should be for active players, not people that play one game every six months. I'd go with delisting them until they played regularly. As an option there could be a link that would list all members ratings in an inactive chart of some sort, where a column on that chart could also list the player's last move in the game so rated. In fact, such a dated last move would be a welcome addition to the charts that we have now. How about it fencer, could you put the last time a person moved in the type of game in question on the game ranking page? Just having it public would show who desrves their top ratings. Anybody that sees a top rated player that hasn't moved in the game type of interest in over a year would know at a glance where not to look for a game to play. If you do make it so inactive players are delisted until they play again, it would also alert someone that they might want to get some games going before that happens.

Some very good players are pawns. For whatever reason, they choose not to become Knights or Rooks, but having them on the charts is very important. We all want to see how we rank against **everybody**, especially the best players, whether they are pawns or not.

I like the 6 month time limit for paid members. 1 or 3 months can fly by quickly, and for some longer type games (like anti backgammon), it can take 3-4 months just to complete 1 game (even with both players moving daily.)

It seems Fencer is talking about these charts while pauloaguia is talking about the BKR history and graphs. Yes, pawns do not have access to the history, but (as Fencer said) even guests can see the rating charts. :-)

I must say that I totally agree with Walter Montego. Perhaps I'll decide to stay a pawn after my membership gets finished this time since I really don't like any other kind person to pay for me and I haven't yet received any answers from those Iranians I had asked if they wanted to join as a paying member either. Or shall I say only two have said that they want to join BK as a paying member.

I am now the top rated player in Screen chess, Cylinder chess and Berolina chess and really wish to stay the top rated player. So even if I am a pawn, if I still play those games, I think it is not fair to have me removed from the charts. That's some sort of pushing players to join by money. But, I totally agree that those who have played against four oponents and are no longer playing the game at least with the same ID, are to be removed from the charts. If one is the top rated player, there must be no fear of accepting new invitations to games. I have always admired that of Walter Montego. He playes DARK CHESS with everyone interested. That's how a top rated player must be.

Fencer:
I believe we had a discussion of removing inactive players from the charts before. This is a good idea. That way I wouldn't have look at a game I no longer play on my main page, would I? It'd certainly get those players that won four games, took the top position be virtue of having defeated four players and have never played another game of it, but continue to use this site. If you're going to keep your ranking, then you should have to continue to play to hold it. Besides, you say they keep their rating it just won't show on the ranking list until they start playing and finish some games, right? Though I consider the established rating the important one, it's nice to have a high ranking with an established rating on the provisional chart too. I think I'd cut the time to three months instead of six. A month for a seems kind of short. Though that's an incentive to become a paying member and yet get to see how the site works too.

As for not having Pawn members listed in the rating charts at all. I think this is a bad idea. As long as one is active by the criteria set forth, you should have a rating listed. We're all members of this site, paying or not. For some people 20 games or less is plenty for them. I can see not joining as a paying member if that's all they use it. Why penalize them? Also, as others have argued, I sometimes look through the list for prospective opponents and I am not interested in whether they're paying members or not, but if the game we might play will be a fun or chalenging game to play. The ratings and rankings help in finding opponents.

Agree with Stevie. Remove inactive, keep pawns on the charts.

I like the remove in-active players...but think Pawns should stay on charts etc

I think Paulo Aguia wanted to say graphs, not rantings or charts...

Then I must be making some confusion... what charts are we talking about?

pauloaguia: Nonsense. You can see the ratings and charts even in a guest mode.

Szirak: pawns already can't see any ratings on any charts because they don't have access to them ;)

Which brings me to another suggestion: maybe (just maybe) on the PaidMembership Detail page, there could be a link to a snapshot of the so said charts. So that we pawns know what we're missing (a few of the other functionalities could use some examples or better explanations too).

How about if pawns just can't see their ratings on the chart!?

BIG BAD WOLF: An option of showing ALL ratings [including the disabled ones] should do the trick.

I like the idea of removing inactive players from the charts. I will just have to remember to play a game of each game type every 6 months.

= = = = =

Removal of pawns from charts. I kind of like the idea - give another prevledge to paid members.

But another negative to that is some paid members like to find like-rated players to play, and it would then not make it easy to find them if they are pawns. For example, *IF* I was the best ranked on the ratings board in Backgammon, I would want to know if a pawn has a higher rank then I do to challenge that person to a game. But if they do not show up on the ratings board, it would be hard for me to find them.

That's fine :-)

Purple: Inactivity has nothing to do with payment. If they don't want to play a certain game type, then that surelly means they probably don't bother their rating in that game either.
Take a look at Fencer's profile. It's been ages since his last Horde Chess game so, naturally, he'd fall off the ratings. He probably doesn't bother that much since he's only playeda few games anyway.
Besides, you can allways come back to the ratings as soon as you finish another game of that type, nomatter how much time there is left in your membership.

(Sorry to use your profile Fencer, but Purple had no suitable example in his )

pauloaguia: That could be a problem if Rooks had time remaining on their paid membership..unless they notify Fencer they are not returning.

Purple: I think it goes for inactive dormant rooks as well

Yes. Remove inactive, dormant pawns.

Fencer, I don't think removing pawns from the ratings listings is good for the site. It diminishes the competitiveness, especially for the fringe games. However, the inactive proposal is excellent and well overdue!

Fencer: Agreed, but I think 30 days for pawns is too short. Maybe 3 months ould be more acceptable, and for sure it will remove all those palyers who have left the site.

Fencer: 30 days for pawns? No more playing with slow movers then
Anyway, excelent idea! That'll boost some of my ratings for sure (especially when some players constantly refuse to play to keep their first position safe in the chart)

Fencer: Great to remove inactive players from the charts.

bumble: if i ever took that long to move i would retire ;) .

Jason: That's you, you fool!

hey ..im playing some games where people only make a move every 21 days or so lol

sounds nice :)

great move

There is another thing with charts which will be implemented soon. A player who does not finish a rated game within 30 days (pawns) or 6 months (paying members) after his last finished rated game of the same type, will be temporarily removed from the charts (keeping the BKR, of course). He will reappear there after finishing a rated game again.
The purpose is obvious - to avoid occupying chart positions by inactive players or the ones who already left the site.

I just thing that this is a bad idea! Just my humble opinion.........

like paulo said, I would rather see my position against all players.

Fencer; you will know (probably) how many Pawns will disappear, who might otherwise have taken up Paid membership. To me, this is the only downside.
How about asking top-rated Pawns to see what they might do (but bear in mind you probably won't get a true answer!!!)

hmm ... what about splitting the rating table in 2 ?? or would that just increase the load ? ;)

I believe they will still have thier own rating still ,which they can see ....but just not on a table ? . if thats the case all pawns can still see what position they have on a table ..just that they wont be visible on the table , this is a good idea (in my opinion ) there are alot of pawns that will never upgrade no matter ,but as soon as any pawn upgrades they would appear on the list .

thats why we are discussing .. instead of

As I said, it's just a proposal, not a definitive conclusion. Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time with a discussion.

*nod* i was a pawn not too long ago (oh time flies! ;)) ... i love rankings .. not just the points but the position compared to other players .. i am not sure if i would like a game site without a ranking

but i also love a fast database :) .. and the fee isnt that high ...

There is one thing I'm not sure I got: pawns already don't have access to charts. When you say remove us from the charts you mean remove us our rating position with relation to others. We just get to keep a ranking, not a rating, is that it?

Pawns will also loose some competitiveness. Comparing yourself to others is a very big incentive to try to play better. So you'll risk diminishing the number of pawns on this site that are here just for the competition and that usually make good opponents.
Also, I bet some paying members would prefer to compare their position in a universe of 10000 players rather than in one of 1000.

Another thing: what will happen when a paying member stops paying? disappear from the charts? Or when a pawn that has already an established ranking finally decides to become a paying member? Suddenly show up?
Ratings might become a bit more unstable then what they are already today...

Of course, it would also diminish the time I spend on the rating listings, comparing myself to others ;)

Fencer:

yes: as a negative consequence, a lot of high rated pawns getting disgusted with the site too early ( = before making the decision to go "paid") and going elsewhere. the internet is big.

Phew, everybody knows this most popular BK page.

Yes. You forgot a link to 'Paid Membership'.

There was an idea of removing all non-paying members from the charts. They will be allowed to have BKRs but they won't be calculated for chart positions.

Positive consequences:

• Significantly decreased number of position cheaters.
• Another reason why to pay :-)
• Decreasing the database server overload.
• Significant improving of chart positions of paying members :-D

Negative consequences:

• My message box flooded by complaints from pawns.
• Shorter charts.

Did I forget something?