BrainKing - Discussion boards (BrainKing.com)

Subject: Re:

MadMonkey: Heh, that's funny.

And it's interesting that nothing like that happened when I was testing byes before releasing them. Well, BrainKing is already too complex and even a small change can cause unexpected problems.

I'll look at it soon.

12. June 2009, 15:00:32

Subject: Re:

MadMonkey: Yeah, that is totally whacky!

It looks like things will sort themselves in the next round.... that nobody will get a bye then, but the pairings of who plays who, make absolutely no sense at all?

Why does the guy rated 1900s get a first round bye anyway?

12. June 2009, 14:32:57

MadMonkey

Subject: Re:

Modified by MadMonkey (12. June 2009, 14:33:38)

AbigailII: Agreed

I knew it was wrong, but wanted to make sure, so i messaged a few people as well

Will be interesting to see what happens after the first round lol

12. June 2009, 13:54:19

AbigailII

Subject: Re:

MadMonkey: That looks very wrong to me. The first tournament has only 8 players - there's shouldn't be any byes to begin with. The second tournament has 10 players - 6 players should have byes, the four remaining players should play the two matches in the first round. Ideally, the two matches should be distributed over both halves of the bracket; that is, if the winners of the first round matches keep winning, they should meet in the final.

If you use the schema below, and fill in the participants in order, then there will not be byes, and first round winners will meet as late as possible.


 1. ------+
          +------+
16. ------+      |
                 +------+
 8. ------+      |      |
          +------+      |
 9. ------+             |
                        |
                        +------+
                        |      |
 5. ------+             |      |
          +------+      |      |
12. ------+      |      |      |
                 +------+      |
 4. ------+      |             |
          +------+             |
13. ------+                    |
                               |
                               +-------
                               |
 3. ------+                    |
          +------+             |
14. ------+      |             |
                 +------+      |
 6. ------+      |      |      |
          +------+      |      |
11. ------+             |      |
                        |      |
                        +------+
                        |
 7. ------+             |
          +------+      |
10. ------+      |      |
                 +------+
 2. ------+      |
          +------+
15. ------+

This also easily generalizes to 32, 64, 128 participants (and to 8).

12. June 2009, 13:01:17

MadMonkey

hmmmmm ok PLEASE someone explain to me this:

Madhouse 2009 - Week 24

Madhouse 2009 - Week 24

Byes take effect in the FIRST round on an Elimination Tournament. Looking at these 2 examples something odd is happening. The only way this can work here is if you are having Byes in the next Round & the next etc..etc.. so you could get a Bye to the Final.

To me using Byes, the first column of games should be 4, 8, 16 etc... where the empty spaces are Byes as such. Other games in the Tournament are fine whether they have 5, 7 or whatever amount of players.

PLEASE tell me this is a bug

11. June 2009, 13:15:13

Mort

Subject: Please Fencer...

About the more boards for fellowships..

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=1&plla=988251

Is it, is it not happening? By this conversation I thought you were going to increase the number of boards that a fellowship can have by 2 or 3.

11. June 2009, 13:10:05

Mort

Subject: Re:

ChessVariant: It's probably the Vegas lot and all other USA based gambling groups moaning about losing business.

And your right, they could easily make it that each gambling site has to have a licence which they must pay for.... and have to renew annually.

And I'd probably guess that the online companies within a heartbeat will say.. "YES".

11. June 2009, 03:50:57

Herlock Sholmes

Subject: Re:

Modified by Herlock Sholmes (11. June 2009, 03:52:00)

alanback:but do you know why ? because those greedy, fat cats do not know how to profit from this gambling ... don't worry, if they could get 40 percent of gambling site income it would be suddenly legal ...

this is what I think about what is legal or illegal in this country ...

11. June 2009, 03:30:08

Subject: Re:

nodnarbo:Internet gambling is illegal in the US.

11. June 2009, 02:05:24

Subject: Re:

alanback: did they say why?

11. June 2009, 01:13:08

Subject: Re:

Czuch:Indeed. One hopes that non-US players weren't affected, but who knows?

11. June 2009, 00:55:02

MidnightMcMedic

11. June 2009, 00:50:07

Subject: Re: U.S. Deals Blow to Online-Poker Players

alanback:

11. June 2009, 00:47:51

Subject: U.S. Deals Blow to Online-Poker Players

In an apparent crackdown on Internet gambling, federal authorities
in New York have frozen or seized bank accounts worth $34 million
belonging to 27,000 online poker players, according to representatives
for the players and account holders.

In an operation that began last week, the office of the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of New York froze or issued seizure
orders for bank accounts in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Arizona held
at Wells Fargo, Citibank, Goldwater Bank and Alliance Bank of Arizona.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office had no comment.

9. June 2009, 22:48:57

Subject: Re: Dan & Kyu

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

9. June 2009, 22:19:01

joshi tm

Subject: Re: Dan & Kyu

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

9. June 2009, 14:14:43

aaru

Subject: Dan & Kyu

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

8. June 2009, 19:12:23

Subject: Re: Congrats Fencer!

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!

8. June 2009, 13:49:14

Mort

Subject: Fencer.....

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???

7. June 2009, 21:16:53

Subject: Re: vacation days

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

7. June 2009, 21:15:22

Pedro Martínez

Subject: Re: vacation days

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

7. June 2009, 21:14:58

Subject: Re: vacation days

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?

7. June 2009, 21:14:45

Herlock Sholmes

Subject: to all Massacre Chess players

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.

7. June 2009, 21:11:41

Subject: vacation days

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?

7. June 2009, 08:37:30

Subject: Re: Congrats Fencer!

Czuch: That's a good start.

7. June 2009, 05:53:50

Subject: Congrats Fencer!

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

6. June 2009, 18:28:03

Subject: Re:

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

6. June 2009, 08:34:17

Subject: Re:

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

6. June 2009, 04:21:30

Subject: Re:

rod03801: Ok so it is just me then

6. June 2009, 04:20:10

Subject: Re:

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

6. June 2009, 04:17:41

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...

1. June 2009, 19:32:14

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?

1. June 2009, 18:51:45

ok, I change my view

1. June 2009, 15:50:20

Subject: Re:

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?

1. June 2009, 04:52:02

Subject: Re:

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

1. June 2009, 04:50:36

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

31. May 2009, 18:41:31

Papa Zoom

Subject: Don't you know what you are doing at that time anyways?

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

31. May 2009, 18:28:19

Subject: Re: last action

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

31. May 2009, 18:12:27

Subject: Re: last action

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.

31. May 2009, 18:07:36

Subject: last action

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?

24. May 2009, 00:49:02

Thanks for the information and confirmation

Haven't create a tournament with this game but in my opinion a good option

23. May 2009, 21:16:44

wetware

Subject: Re:

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.

23. May 2009, 21:00:30

Subject: Re:

rod03801: Your belief is confirmed.

23. May 2009, 20:57:08

Subject: Re:

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.

23. May 2009, 20:12:58

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?

23. May 2009, 10:11:44

pauloaguia

Subject: Re:

Modified by pauloaguia (23. May 2009, 10:13:05)

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...

23. May 2009, 09:01:02

Subject: Re:

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.

23. May 2009, 07:49:14

rabbitoid

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.

23. May 2009, 00:47:34

wetware

Subject: Re: Something odd

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.

23. May 2009, 00:33:13

rabbitoid