Is there any plans on stopping the clock for games? For the past two days, each time I have had a lot of free time to play games, I kept getting the "server is at it's max" message. Now I have a few days where I have little time to play games, and 188 games that need played! UGH! (Usually I would have them all played in the past 2 days, but with server problems....)

So a message to the other players I'm playing - sorry for the delay in our games - probable be a couple of days until I can sit down and play all my games (unless there are more server problems, and it might be longer... :-( )

This game could be interesting. But would it be not better to use the western pieces?

It really isn't difficult to get used to distinguishing the pieces, three of which in any case have no chess equivalent. Having acclimatised with Xiang Qi it is then easier to learn the pieces for all the shogi variants as well. After all chess symbols themselves have no real meaning, they are just mnemonic pictures.

I like chinese chess and I would like to see it here. But, the problme is that thesame piece looks different for each player, which I find confusing.

I'm not sure what "western pieces" look like, but if using western pieces means both sides would be the same I would be all for that. I'm with Dmitri in that I too find it confusing when the pieces for each player look so different to each other.

there are european simplifications for the original glyphs ...

described in the book 'Xianxi'
( by Budde/Kasperczuk ) for instance

their work is an introduction to the game, but almost
half of the text covers the development from shaturanga
to chess in its branches in 1500 years of history ... ~*~

PS
for those a bit familiar with japanese,
the original pieces are like kanji-signs
while the simplified ones look like hiragana.

I have been asking this for weeks BBW. The worst thing is if you can't get in and timeout, its fine that you can ask for a game to be reistated (must say its too time consuming I have given up even asking) but you don't get your rating points put back on..which is especially cruel with the BKR, as you lose so many points for a loss if you have a high rating, but gain so few for a win.

It would be really nice to get an automated message when a new tourny round starts, also to have that round on the actual game when you go to play it, I keep finding these games appearing on my list and having to refer back to the original tourny page to see what round it is.

Fencer is there any chance you would consider changing the rating system for the gammons over to FIBS? This is the most recognised rating system for these games, and is a much fairer system, it also gives a better indication of player strength than the current. I know it is really frustrating for players to lose such high points for a loss and gain such low ones for a win.

Well if we get Chinese chess, I'll be hoping for the simplified pieces. I think it would make it easier for most to learn as well.

How does FIBS work?

I see little wrong ewith the current format-- whne playing someone rated far below you, of course you are not going to gain much for a win-- if you did gain a lot, then it would not be very hard to gain a high rating.

I do think there are a few glitches with the current rating system, but I do not think it needs to be completely overhauled.

If a player plays soemone who is 400 points lower in rating, he should beat that player 9 out of ten times. So, the amount he gains should be 1/20 of the amount he loses. So, he should gain 3 opints for beating that player but lose 30 points if he loses.

that is close to what happens now at brain King, although I have noticed some oddities.

I think the thing about backgammon is that the luck of the dice means that a weak player can beat a stronger player quite often. This means that playing only players with high ratings would be an advantage. In chess this isn't the case.

I wonder whether any rating systme can be effective for backgammon unless the doubling cube is used? Perhaps the die hard backgammon players can answer that?

Grenv and others -

I am quite familiar with the ratings system that is used here at Brain King. I'm sure that a better rating system can be devised for A FEW of the games here, but for a SINGLE rating system, the one that we have works quite well for MOST games. Let me explain.

In games with a high degree of luck such as Backgammon, the stronger players will 'float' towards the top ratings in a much slower fashion then in 100% skill-based games like Chess. Also the difference between the rating of a top player and a beginner will be MUCH smaller, simply due to the luck factor. That is because the ratings difference effectively reflects an approximate % of time that a player can be expected to beat another player. For the U.S. Chess ratings system that is used here, if a player is rated 200 points above another, he can expect to win 75% of the time. 400 points difference is 90% and 800 points difference is 99%.

It is NOT an advantage to play a higher rated player OR a lower rated player UNLESS you KNOW that player to be over or under-rated. This can happen when one player plays just 2 or 3 other players ONLY over and over.

Of course you will gain more by beating a higher rated player and less for beating a lower rated player, but that is because it is harder to beat them. I'll give an example. Let's say in Backgammon with the doubling cube, you would normally beat another player 90% of the time. That means that you would gain 3.2 points for winning and lose 28.8 points for losing (if both players have established ratings). But because the doubling cube is NOT used, you are only able to beat them 75% of the time, due to the luck factor. That means that you would gain 8 points for winning but lose 24 points for losing. What that means is that your rating will eventually settle at about 200 points higher than the other player without the cube, whereas it would be 400 higher WITH the cube.

So the fact that there is luck involved just means that there will be more upsets in the tournaments, but does NOT mean that it is an advantage or a disadvantage to play a high or low rated player. It also means that the range of ratings from the top player to the lowest player will be much smaller than in 100% skill-based games.


Gary

grenv, you said "I think the thing about backgammon is that the luck of the dice means that a weak player can beat a stronger player quite often."

seems to me that the easy solution would be to not play games that are based on luck.

"I think the thing about backgammon is that the luck of the dice means that a weak player can beat a stronger player quite often."

Backgammon is not a game based on luck. It's a game based on both luck and skill. Pick up any backgammon game book and it's easy to see why there are consistent top rated players in the world and 2- and 3-time world champions. They understand the game on a deeper level.

As for my skill.....I obviously don't know much about the game and at my level, luck has more to do with it perhaps. But just like chess, there is an element of skill and knowledge and once one masters even the basics, your game will improve. If a backgammon players can understand the the elements of probability and odds, the "luck" factor is diminished.

I see. I admit I know veyr little about backgammon, when grenv stated that a weak player can beat a strong player based on the luck of the die I figured that could be a problem.

Dream: when i had some of my games automatically time out due to the bug from changing your days off (details found on brainking.info), i asked Fencer if my ratings would be automatically changed back. He said a record was not kept, but if i remembered them he would manually adjust them. (So if you keep a record somewhere of your ratings - like i have made a screenshot of my AllBKR page - he will restore them for you).

i was wondering about that, i timed out because the site was down, and my rating was never readjusted, and i don't remember what they were. i also think that gammon games should have the fibs rating.

Gary Barnes is correct mathematically, assuming that the ratings are established and accurate. Here there have not been enough games to guarantee that of course.

I think there is a bug in the ratings. every single drawn match I've been involved in has resulted in no change to my rating, up or down. This doesn't make sense. Most recently I drew with a player 200 points lower than me, both established. No change. Fencer or others, what is the expected behaviour here?

On Net-chess.com, exclusively for playing turn-based chess games, making a move is very simple. You click on a piece; click the square to move to; then click on move. All on the same screen, all within one action.
Could that be possible here?

Tony: It is probably done by JavaScript which is not available for WebTV, I would say. I can make it as an option, later.

Gary:

"... but does NOT mean that it is an advantage or a disadvantage to play a high or low rated player. It also means that the range of ratings from the top player to the lowest player will be much smaller than in 100% skill-based games."

Sorry I don't agree with this. The problem with playing lower rated players at backgammon with the USCF rating system is the reward/penalty favours the lower-rated player. You risk around 30 points to gain 2 when his chances of winning are say 40% - it just is not worth the risk. We were in this situation at Gold Token and in the end the top players refused to play the bottom players for this reason.

i agree, i hate refusing invites, but i don't want to play low rated players cause i've lost way more than 30 points when i lose. i guess the best way to go in the gammons here, is just to play ppl with ratings similar to yours, and play the low rated players at the other sites, i never refuse an invite at gt or dg, no matter what their rating is.

I guess Iplay for fun as much as ratings. I track my ratings and try to get them as high as I can. I usually try playing players that roughly within 300 points of my rating either above or below. I know i have been able to build up my rating by playing higher rated players and try to give lower rated players a chance to do the same. If I lose, I lose. That is my attitude in all games I play. I figure I am good enough to regain my rating points if I should lose to someone under me. I just enjoy playing. I feel higher rated players who refuse to play lower rated players are cowardly because they are afraid to lose rating points. Remember that it was higher rated players that accepted games against you when you started out that gave you an opportunity to gain your position. So why not give someone else the same chance.