pauloaguia: Now, what I'd really like to know would be the average BKR of the player that is ranked in ALL game types.

Ah, you mean the sum of a players BKRs of all the game types, divided by the number of game types? But we already have that. The statistics pages contains a list of players with their BKR sum. Just divide that by the number of games types available.

What I find strange about the average BKR is that it's possible to win five games, and then have your average BKR drop significantly: image the first 20 games you played of a particular game type, you played very bad. So your BKR is low, much lower than your average. But since you only played 20 games, the BKR doesn't count for the average. Now you win five games. Your BKR of that game type will somewhat rise, but it's still below your average. But now it will count in the average, so it will lower your average BKR.

I guess it's somewhat interesting to have a list of average BKRs of a players best N (for some value of N) BKRs. And it would also be interesting to see more than 50 people in the current lists, to see how far you're trailing. Then again, they are just numbers.

hmmmmm maybe pawns should have a diferent thing that shows to them then...maybe instead of our piccy...a general picture that teases them

Stevie: Pawns can see all pictures except smileys.

Can pawns already see our pictures on posts and games Fencer?

Mmmm, it would be a nice teaser.

You meany LOL But I agree to the PT's ;o)

Yes, but at least they have to go looking! We don't want to make it easy on the pawn trawlers do we?

for sure Cariad.
even though they can all see them anyways cant they?

But please make it available to members only.

yeah, thats the one :oD

Stevie: Do you mean a page with all icons which are currently active?

maybe even catagorised to nationality etc

could we have a page that shows all small pictures in use by members?

pauloaguia: Anything can be considered :-)

Fencer: Can you please consider the ability to accept multiple invitations at once when you implement those changes? ;)

Fencer: Excellent - it would be nice to be able to select just the game type(s) of interest.

pgt: I want to make some changes to the Waiting Games page anyway.

Some idiot has filled up about 8 pages full of invitations. (I think I counted 493 invitations, which is completely ludicrous.) Could we have a feature which limits the number of open invitations to some reasonable number - like say 20 or 30? If players really want to play 400 games, they can always enter another 20 or 30 invitations when teh original ones have been accepted.

Okay, gents, enough of what should be allowed as to the 11 different games and whether variants should be included. Good point though. Different people have different opinions and this debate could continue forever, or the length of time it takes for an anti-backgammon game, whichever is sooner.

Fencer will have no doubt noted your opinions so please move the debate to the relevant boards (chess, backgammom etc).

Czuch Chuckers:

On a side note, I think it is mostly chess players who skew these results as there are so many variants of chess that you can make the list without knowing any other game types. This is not the same for a line game player or reversi game player as they have to be good at someother game type other than their "main" game because there just arent 11 different game variants for those games.

I saw this and some other comments about games and their "close cousins", so to speak, and I thought I would chime in on this one.

While I think there are some "portable skills" when you compare games such as Chess and Janus Chess, such as being able to play sound tactics while also have a strategical sense of how to plan, that is really where the similarity ends.

Chess and Janus Chess and Gothic Chess are really very, very different. The first game of Gothic Chess I ever played against a chess Grandmaster, Georgi Kackeshvilli (I am probably butchering the spelling of his name) I was able to win. He has a FIDE chess rating over 2700, placing him in the top 60 or 70 in the world at the time.

I would have NO CHANCE of being able to beat him in chess, even if we played something like 1000 games.

In turn, he really pounded me in the next game, so he adapted very quickly. This does not change the underlying premise: pattern recognition is pivotal in reaching the highest level of play in any game.

Despite having "done well" in Janus on here, I believe I play this game terribly. I just don't understand it. I can pull a rabbit out of my hat on occasion, but the game is "too diagonal" for my tastes, so I will never get really good at it.

I think it would be interesting to show the stats that are being mentioned as a function of the number of different games that are involved.

Who is the best when one game is being used in the sample, 2 games, 3 games, 4 games, etc.

Have a pulldown menu or something.

Some people may never play 11 different games on here, just because that is their personal preference.

pauloaguia: No problem. You get a pass coming from a non-english country. If i see another american spell it that way I'm going to have to call the police.

Now let's see what 551 is (you put spaces) :

grenv: Thanks for the spell-checking * 551 *

I'll go with 3: Backgammon, anti-backgammon and hypergammon.

And people:

lose is the opposite of win
loose is the opposite of tight

it is amazing how often they seem to be confused.

grenv: You see? And I think there are at least three very different types of BG here at BK :)

Czuch Chuckers:
- It is possible for a player to loose most of his games against great players and so have a BKR better than a player who wins most of his games against weaker players
- It is possible for a player to make lots of multi-jumps on froglet and still have less moves per day than a player who had lots of forced moves on checkers and needed only half the clicks to get there
- it is possible for a player to throw only double-6 at backgamon and still loose the game
- it is possible for the candidate for president in the USA and other electoral systems to have less votes and still be elected
- ...
- it is possible for a player to have fairly good BKR at most of his 40 ranked game types and still not make it to the list of a player of only plays 11 totally different game types

No matter what you do to make a system fair, there will still be the possibility to skew the results. If you go through that list of top players, you'll find out most of them have games from fairly different types. Different game types have different weights here - and if you consider chess I'd say there's at least 5 or 6 of them. Some games have more variants than others and some just are more biased than others. And no matter what you say, no two games are really alike.
I think the current list is just fine. It will be biased no matter how you rank it... Now, what I'd really like to know would be the average BKR of the player that is ranked in ALL game types. But I guess this list would just go blank whenever a new game type is introduced in BK... which on the other hand, would make the competition to be in that list really interesting :)

P.S: (please read "his or hers games" in all of the above . Girls are good players as well as boys)

Walter Montego: Actually 5-in-line is very different than Pente in my opinion. Also I agree that some chess variants are very different.

Actually i think all the backgammon variants are skewing the results, after all they are all pretty much the same.

Walter Montego: That sounds well thought out... hadnt really given it the kind of thought you did. I just noticed that a good chess player for example could have a high average bkr for 11 or more games without having to play anything but chess. Since I am not really a chess player, I have no idea how similar or different each variation is or isnt. I do know that a god 5 in line player will also be good at swap 5 in line and pro 5 in line. I dont know how others feel about other games? Is it likely that a good reversi 8x8 player will also be good at 6x6, for example? I dont know.

I was not saying I had all the answres, I am just looking for a better way to determine a good overall "gamer" than what we currently have listed in the statistics. (although someone like CaoZ, who is currently at the top of the list, would probably still be there with any new system as he has quite a high ranking in quite a variety of different games)

Czuch Chuckers: I wouldn't consider Dark Chess as a chess game. It really is different in the type of thinking involved to play it even though it has the less rules changed of all the variants (Just two). Games like Janus Chess are the same thing as Chess when it comes to game types and the thinking involved. I can see lumping those kind of variants in a group for the type of rating comparision that you're talking about. Dark Chess is more like Battleship or Stratego played with a Chess set. This is why I'm able to hold my own or win in Dark Chess against some very good players of regular Chess or similar variants where the same person would clean my clock without trying too hard.
And then, what about variants like Atomic Chess? The way capturing is done it that game, and how one attacks and defends his position is nothing like regular Chess and certainly should have its own category. Perhaps you can give it some thought and come up with how to group the games if you agree with me on this? If you think all Chess variants are just playing Chess, I'll say I disagree. Does being good at Pente, make one a good Five in line Player? It would seem so. I'd put those games in one group. There's already a grouping of the games by type on this site. Perhaps it could be used for the rating that you're talking about. The Chess games could be broken into three or four groups and the rest of the games counted as a group. How'd that work for your groups?

Maybe as well as having 11 different games you could also require say 8 (just an example) different game types, that way somebody who only plays chess and variants, for example, would not be included on the list.

On a side note, I think it is mostly chess players who skew these results as there are so many variants of chess that you can make the list without knowing any other game types. This is not the same for a line game player or reversi game player as they have to be good at someother game type other than their "main" game because there just arent 11 different game variants for those games.

BuilderQ: I guess I was misunderstood what I meant... I dont mind using variants, I am just looking for a way to find out who truely is the most versital gamer on site. I dont think being good at 5 in line and pro 5 in line and swap 5 in line and dark 5 in line, and never playing any other games besides 5 in line, makes you anything but a good 5 in line player. am looking for a good "all around" player. Someone who can play, for example, chess and battleboats and reversi and checkers and spiderline 4 etc...

I think the attempt in adding a statistic for average bkr for 11 games or more was to give a list of players who are good at multiple types of games, but as it is it falls short and is misleading (at times) I am only asking for something that gives us a more broad example of a good overall "gamer".

I disagree. Most of the games on this site are variants, and some "true gamers" only play variants and not the "regular" versions.

I was just scanning the statistics page. i noticed how misleading the column for average bkr for 11 or more games is. It seems like it would give a good representation of who is really good at all different kinds of games..... then I noticed someone like Caissus who is only really good at chess and its variations, no other game types at all. Chess, corner chess, dark chess, this chess, and that chess.
I would like to see a similar list but not use all of the game variations, to maybe get a representative of who is good at different kinds of ghames. I mean who is going to be good at 5 in line and not be good at pro 5 in line, for example?
How about a list that only includes different games without their variations? It would give us an idea who the true "gamers" are on this site!

Purple: Yes, the outbox contains only a copy to the last person in the fellowship member list.

I used the feature to send a PM to the entire FS and they all recieved it but my outbox shows it was only sent to one member apparently selected at random by the BK computer. Is this to be expected?

i think it would be nice if, when a tournament ended, the system sent PMs to all participants telling them it's ended and who won.

the algorithm would have to take into account the possiblity of a tie...

BerniceC: i agree that that would be very handy.

Fencer: thanks Fencer...I wasnt actually talking fellowships tho :(...just generally to 3-4 players...

BerniceC: You already can send the same message to all members of your fellowship.

how difficult would it be to be able to send the same message to multiple users?

Czuch Chuckers: true,I never thought of that.i guess any way you set it up,bad people would find a way to manipulate it to their perverse purposes.

While we are changing Enemies to "People blocked", maybe Friends should be changed to "people I'm spying on"
LOL

nobleheart: The age designation has also been brought up before and denied as it would inform perverts to who are the minors to harrass...

It sounds like a nazi ghetto to me.

nobleheart: That doesn't work unfortunately.. they have the rating system at IYT.. and all it takes is a group of peeps standing up for the leader.. to ruin someone by ratings..

BuilderQ: is this a good or a weird idea.
I really hate to label people,but to solve a few problems.we could colour code members login names.
maybe a color to designate someone under 16.
as a visual reminder that we should remember to keep it clean,a youth is present.
also we could,I stress only for the purpose of discouraging people who argue,bait or harass repeatedly.decide that if they get X number of complaints,their login name colour goes red for a designated amount of time.

plaintiger: I concur. Thanks Filip & hello plaintiger.

Sort games by last move time, ascending, cycles through your games. Came in handy when I came back after a 5 day leave the other day. And I've kept it there, so the games with longer time limits aren't neglected.

Daniel Snyder: You can. Check your settings page and look for the below. It will play your "next Game" by the oldest date of last move (I think)

Sort next games by - last move time - ascending/ descending

I suggest adding a "Goto to next game with a non-online game"... When trying to keep up with some games I go nowhere because it goes to the next player online...

adversary, agent, antagonist, archenemy, asperser, assailant, assassin, attacker, backbiter, bad guy, bandit, betrayer, calumniator, competitor, contender, criminal, crip, defamer, defiler, detractor, disputant, emulator, falsifier, fifth column, foe, guerrilla, informer, inquisitor, invader, meat, murderer, opponent, opposition, other side, prosecutor, rebel, revolutionary, rival, saboteur, seditionist, slanderer, spy, terrorist, traducer, traitor, vilifier, villain
Courtesy of Thesaurus.com.
But I think this is getting... what's the number...