alanback:

joshi tm: There is a table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_ranks_and_ratings#Elo_Ratings_as_used_in_Go

aaru: How are these calculated? Other than the BKR I think as the higher BKR here has a lower dan rating

Go Ceiter 2260 - 2 dan
Go 13x13 ad0 2414 - 4 dan
Go 9x9 Ceiter 2142 - 1 dan

I see that we have dan & kyu in Go.
Nice.

Czuch:To my surprise I found that my first login was on 12 February 2003, so I've been here even longer.  My how time flies!

You mentioned that you might be increasing the number of boards a fellowship can have, by the talk I thought you were going to increase the quantity to maybe 6 boards??

Is it happening???

Pedro Martínez: okay, thats what i was trying to say, I think.... it is not their weekend day for sure.

Czuch: Either Sunday is one of their weekend days or your game was not the first one to "time out" today.

Czuch: So... maybe if you used a vacation day today already on another game that was ready to time out, then again on a different game the same day? The second time (and every other that same day) would only reduce your vacation days left on the first game?

I would like to invite all of you to join my new, highly competitive fellowship ... it's all about Massacre Chess and nothing more ... please join ...
Massacre Chess Club
Andy.

auto vacation.... I had a player who was given an extra 24 hours added to their game, but their vacation days left did not go down?

Someone explain this to me, or show me where to read about this please?

Czuch: That's a good start.

You got me for 6 full years so far!!!

Fencer: That worked, and I see what the problem is...In Plakoto the images which have black and white pieces on the same point aren't supported in the large style pieces

nodnarbo: Switch to small pieces at your Settings / Backgammon game.

rod03801: Ok so it is just me then

nodnarbo: I see them all fine when I click your link

I'm having issues seeing some of the images in this game. Is it just me? I'm not having problems with any other games...

Yeah... and you can still see them on your friends online column, and there is still a green dot beside their name on your list for waiting games, but not on your online users list or your online opponents list?

ok, I change my view

rod03801: Thats right, but you also cant see them on your "opponents online" link, or your "players online" link as well?

Now I wonder.... if you are in a game with them, and you "move and go to the next game with an opponent who is online" would someone who has you blocked still count?

Gouwe gozer: You can visit someone's profile even if they have you blocked

As far as I know/understand, if you're on someone's blocked user (= enemies) list, you can't visit her/his page at all, can't sent messages, etc.

No idea yet about the question, but I've time enough to find out

rod03801: I can honestly say that I often don't know what I'm doing at the time I'm doing it.

rod03801: That might be it then Rod, thanks!

I guess it is one way to find out who has you on blocked or enemies list....

Why should we even have any access to the profile of someone who has you on block then, I wonder?

Also, this issue of ponds, where people who have not been online cannot change their previous play, and people keeping track of this, makes it an advantage/disadvantage when this blocked user function comes into play, seems like this could be improved upon.... I gotta run now, but will have to give this some more thought

Czuch: Yes it is normal not to have this view of yourself. Don't you know what you are doing at that time anyways?

As far as the other question, it may have something to do with either you having them on your blocked user list, or them having you on their blocked user list. Just guessing on that one, but it seems the most logical explanation.

I am noticing that on most profile pages i see a "last action" line, says what time and day a person was here and what they are doing or if they have cloak mode....

But some profiles do not have this line available to see?

How does one have this info removed from their profiles anyway?

Also, I dont see this line on my own profile either, but I have done nothing to exclude it? Is it normal to not have this view for ourselves?

Thanks for the information and confirmation
Haven't create a tournament with this game but in my opinion a good option

Fencer: I seem to recall playing in some tournaments (not here at BK) where that approach was used, and it was a great option.  It works exceptionally well with variants like fischerrandom progressive chess--where you can avoid having an over-analyzed starting position, but at the same time you don't want to give some players far more favorable/inferior positions than other players.

rod03801: Your belief is confirmed.

Gouwe gozer: I believe on the tournaments, it would depend on what the creator chose. There is the option when creating tournaments with games with "random" positions, to have everyone have the same set up or not.

As far as I can see is the same startposition in all my games in the same tournament. That means that my black games are equal in the starting position as my opponents when they play black. The same appears in my white games lol
A quick view in other games, in the same tournament, showed me exactly the same startingposition as well. I'm not sure the position is the same for the whole tournament, but I think yes In that case it's a fair tournament
The tournament I joined is a small one (5 players), it makes me curious for a bigger tournaments, everybody in the same position?

Fencer: On the other hand, I am not sure if I reset the start position if multiple invitations are created at once.
I'd bet on this last one. It has happened to me in several games too... However, I have many different as well and they were created at the same time too...

rabbitoid: Maybe statistically, but it is logically possible.
But you can blame Sun: http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/Collections.html#shuffle(java.util.List)

On the other hand, I am not sure if I reset the start position if multiple invitations are created at once.

Mostly random number generators are fair and pass every statistics test. The problem is that the generator has to be initialized somehow. After all, this is done by a computer. However complex the calculation, if you start with the same data you end with the same results, in this case the same "random" sequence. So what is mostly done is to initialise the generator by reading the system clock. Which works fine, provided you do it only once, maybe at system boot, and not game by game. I'm only guessing as to what might have happened, I have no idea how things are implemented here.

The fact is that two games are identical, which statistically is totally impossible.

rabbitoid: If they're identical, I might feel less hesitant to claim occasional dice rolling weirdness here, too.  But I really hate to move toward that conclusion, as I feel sure that the vast majority of "dice cheating" claims that are made against backgammon sites and (especially) backgammon software are completely groundless.  I do not wish to join the lunatic fringe.

ChessVariant: maybe they got created in the same split second and got the same seed for the random generator. I agree, it shouldn't happen.

rabbitoid: I didn't compare them one by one ... but are they identical ? It "shouldn't" happen, lol ...

I should have played the euro millions lottery, The odds would have been far better...

I created a bunch of 4 chess massacres, look at the starting positions of these two:
Massacre Chess (rabbitoid vs. mangue)
Massacre Chess (rabbitoid vs. Luciano672)

Can someone help poor trepil?? he seems to be caught in a vortex, or frozen in hyperspace

gogul: There could be some truth in that one because the Canadian north is expanding with people:))

Czuch: LMAO & you know what though did don't you:))))

Czuch: stone wheels, my friend. Most was made out of stones. Exept Paypal which worked with shells. Paypal is a very old company rising out of the "Pay Paleontological Corp.". Looks like you'll get booted from the board.

Czuch: No, Gerry is correct. The saying is there since the stone age.

"GERRY": I love this old saying: As Alaska glaciers melt, it's land that's rising.

rabbitoid: No, that's another issue. BrainKing is programmed to be triggered by PayPal (a secure HTTP request) just when the payment is received, so the whole process is fully automatic. However, this is still a PayPal-to-PayPal transaction, so I don't actually have the money yet.
What I am talking about is the PayPal-to-bank transfer (so the PayPal funds are converted to real money) which usually takes 5-7 business days to complete.

Fencer: Just for info: how long did an average paypal transaction take for BK? I ask, because the last time I renewed with paypal (during the easter egg) it was less than a minute between the final click on paypal and the confirmation on BK. I take it that it usually takes a bit longer?

Artful Dodger: Thanks. I think that AlertPay is the best alternative at the moment because we already use it and it had been successfully tested by BrainKing users many times in the past.
Furthermore, they transfer funds to my bank account much faster than PayPal. It usually arrives in the next business day.

Czuch: Don't count the chickens before they hatch.