BIG BAD WOLF: Great, Thanks. But it would be nice to have a filter too?

Also, any suggestions about Ponds? there is no "created by me" link there...

Bry: There is a link near the top of the tournament page which says show tournaments only created by me.

Then if you want to see just certain tournament by certain people, you can change the UserID in the address bar.

For example, here shows all my running tournaments:

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trnst=2&tp=0&submit=Show&u=2560

(2560 is my User number)

In the Tournament section, please could you add a filter to the "game type" and "status" to include "created by"? so I can easily access finished games created by me only, or other tournaments created by other users?

Bry.

nobleheart: that one's out side my genre

ArtfulDodger: AD I was just talking to gwen stefani & the band no doubt.
they have agreed to sing their song, "I'm just a girl" for all of us at BK but they are changing the words to" I'm just a BK pawn".

M132T003C: maybe phpbb can be implemented ... or what about a part as boards.brainking.com with all the boards on a separate page. Maybe IN the board brainking-specific tools except the ursername/password are no needed, e.g. online status and so on.

chessmec: I've been wondering why these boards aren't thread-based already, they are the strangest discussion boards I'v ever seen.

Its likely very comlicated to implement though.

it would be more clearly if the discussion boards can be viewed thread-based. at the main page of the DB showing the threads and only them. clicking on one would expand the choosen thread and only this one.
Note: This would be easier for our moderator "mafia" using their weapon arsenal. ;-)

A similar thing happened to me. In the N-Gammon team tournament I was placed on the top board because I had a 2363 rating based on one game. I did poorly in the tournament because I was very over-rated (but our team won. Yea Untouchables! :)

I suggest that the provisional ratings of unrated players be ignored. I think that they should be treated the same way as players who have not completed any games. "Unrated" should mean unrated.

Purple: I've seen it when the player never even logged in the first time. Don't know if there are other situations...

Fencer: Maybe none is needed. It provides an aura of mystery..the indescribable.

Purple: It signifies I forgot to add a description to that action.

When under Action it says "null" what does that signify? I see it on very rare occasions.

I was creating an invitation to a game so I copied and pasted a name from the rankings page into the opponent search box. The name was exactly correct, of course, but the pasted text had a space at the end. The space wasn't trimmed by the search and it came up empty handed.

Purple: LOLOL. Great idea. I'm off to invite some gooses to my table.
:-DD

Pedro Martínez: If his skill level is way less than his rating then doesn't that just make him a point-rich goose reading for the plucking? LOL.

playBunny: Specifically, my objection is exactly what I wrote in my previous post.

My feature request is to either get rid of or alter the special rating formula (based on first 8 games).

For anyone who doesn't understand what Pedro is saying (which was me until about a minute ago, when it clicked) ... Herman is shown at the top of Section 1 in the tourney which means that he's been valued as the highest rated player in the whole lot - higher, in fact, than Goldarrows whose rating is 2318.

As I understand the formula, a game (May last year, not in this tourney) that Herman played against Moon Knight (rated over 2100) gave him 2100 + 400 = 2500+ points towards his provisional rating. That rating will be the average of the points from his first 4 games (so he's only earned 625+ so far) but, in the absence of any further information about his playing level, the highly tentative value of 2500+ is used for the purposes of distributing the players amongst the tourney sections - and hence Herman gets top billing.

Pedro: What specifically is the objection? Herman being given top billing from just one game (perhaps none should be used until there's at least a real provisional rating)? Or perhaps the value of 2500 that the game gave him? Or do you want more games to be included before the rating is calculated? .. Or .. ?

I find it unbelievable that herman1 has won only 1 game of checkers over a guy with rating in 2100s but has a higher BKR than Goldarrows, i.e. 2318. I would like to see the BKR formula changed in this respect.

It has been taken care of. (At least for now)
Let's get back to requesting features, please.

you are wasting everyones time by leaving your little ghostie posties..

NOT a floosie: Okey Dokey

I'm just a pawn. sniff sniff

Ok, I'm cleaning up this board a little. It's time to get back to feature requests please. Thanks.

django asyl: lol

grenv: he keeps getting banned...so he has to create a new one in order to remain obnoxious.

django asyl: BK member....

Eriisa: An archive with some organized system of QandA makes more sense than random searches.

Lamby I: Grenv has some good points. Some people can't even be bothered to read the last ten messages; few will go back to a previous page and precious few will be bothered to do an archive search. Others might like to look up a feature but be unsure of how to specify the search; perhaps they have different words for something, eg. I would never have used autopass or auto pass if I were looking up my request. And then there's view that bringing an old request back might give it new life.

I'd love it if we had a fully searchable feature request archive/tracker with priorities and projected dates and all that, but I expect it ... never. The work that would be required from Fencer to classify and organise the feature requests, filter out the chat (such as this conversation) from the actual requests, etc - that's a hell of a lot of work for little return.

Lamby II: My arrival at the site was at a time when autopass was being discussed. If I recall correctly there were two classes of autopass being put forward: 1) when a player is stuck on the bar and 2) when a player can't move because the destination points are blocked.

This request of mine isn't like the above because the situation occurs before the game has started and the "pass" isn't a real one, it's an artefact produced by the game startup procedure. I don't think it should be classified as an auto-pass request.

<We have the 'Search in Posts' feature ------>

so what difference would an archive make?

Lamby: It's work to put together but it is a good idea.

ArtfulDodger: just some way of archiving popular categories I think would be much easier to use.
(just to be clear aswell, Im not upset by repeated question asking I was just mearly making a feature request to the very subject of it)

Lamby: Some would, some would not. It wouldn't hurt to have a FAQ that covers the repeated questions as long as no one gets upset if people still ask. Many like to answer the same questions even if over and over.

We could have a "Questions and Answers" DB that people could post questions to.....and even the same question is welcomed over and over.. :) People like to help.

I would read an archive before asking, and maybe others who dont like to ask questions on public boards would also?

Also nobody's going to read an archive when they can just post a question.

And if it's asked for over and over perhaps it could be implemented?

grenv: Well if there was an archive on such a subject I would be able to point you straight to it Im sure :oD
Fencer may be able to answer if this has definately been discussed.....Im pretty sure it has (or I could of dreamt it lol)

Lamby: Boldly spoken, but I'm sure this hasn't been requested, could you point us to the request, perhaps who requested it etc.

Not to be confused with automatically passing subsequent moves, this was only in reference to the first move.

Sorry but Im sure all of this has been discussed before......therefore my feature request would be 'an archive of feature request questions & answers'.
Any new people to the site could then click on that category to read the outcome instead of it being requested over & over :o)

All: you guys really do get caught in the minutia. I think the request was clear and made sense:

Don't have a pass as a first move, go straight to the player whose move it really is.

The only excuse for not implementing it is a technical reason (takes too long to alter the code). Nobody in their right mind is going to complain about not getting to click the stupid button.

pauloaguia: Lolol. Okay, I won't ask why. ;-) Now my request must ask that there be a new option in settings that will do automatic dice rolling (in the contxt already described, and only in ...) for the players that don't like pointless clickery. ;-)

Lol. Step by step we're getting to the right formulation ....

playBunny: You're relativelly new to the site, so you probably don't know how many people would be upset if the dice rolled whitout them triggering it (hey, don't ask me why, but there are really quite a few).

pauloaguia: Ah, that's interesting. Then I must change my request so that the dice are rolled when an invitation is accepted rather than requiring white to go to the page.

and we don't want to say the "a***p***" word

pauloaguia: thats worded better

playBunny: The dice won't roll until you load the game page. And without a dice roll, there's no way to know if it will be your turn or not.

Vikings: That's true but it's not central to the issue - it's the fact that I have to go to the page and then click it in order to do nothing. It would be useful if that could happen automatically.

playBunny: white always moves first, then it just depends on the roll of the dice as to whether or not you have to pass or play

When I accept an invitation the game is sometimes added to my list of games where I have a move, but when I go to the game it's not actually my turn so I'm invited to click the game away. The game record subsequently shows a pass for my move.

Would it be possible for the game to be sent to my opponent immediately rather than requiring me to look at the starting position and acknowldege that it's not my move?

maybe they will watch what they are saying a little more, it's worked more than not

Vikings: So, it's more important to catch a throw-away account then have the post containing the trouble be removed? Sounds odd to me.