I would very much like to see the game of Go at Brainking. Just now I noticed another post about GO. Add mine to it. :)

Salkkuman: I agree, I'd hope those three popular sizes are included. I imagine the hold-up is that writing a Go game implementation is a lot tougher than writing one for chess, since pattern recognition is such a big part of the game. I'd be willing to help, if that's possible :)

reza: No need for an option, you could copy the elements of your profile in the "description" box.

I want to ask for an option that allows us to give others the permision to see our personal info such as birthdate, address and e-mail address. Not that we can have the ability to choose whom we want to be able to see them and whom we don't but that if we want ALL to see it or not.

I want others to be able to see my personal info.

Is it going to be 19x19? For me it is a lot more important than smaller like 9x9 and 13x13. Or all of them. And how you have thought komi the handicap given white?

playBunny: you just go ahead, ,we will see where it gets you

BIG BAD WOLF: I can find compelling reasons refuting each of those points. Good job I'm not feverish to gnaw that bone.

rod03801: I get that now, my mistake.

grenv: It wasn't advertised as being a fast tournament of Espionage. It was a tournament of the game Fast Espionage. (Which is only called "fast" because you get 4 moves per turn, instead of 2.)
22 day time limit is far from fast! lol

grenv: You cannot.

So, I joined a tournament labeled "Fast Espionage" mistakingly thinking ti would be fast, but actually it has an almost unlimited time limit, and nobody has moved in several days. How can i be removed from this tournament?

I would like to be able to delete all the games or something like that.

Fencer's reply:

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=3&ngi=259329

grenv:

grenv:

Marfitalu: What an original idea!

I'll leave it to someone else to explain this one.

chessmec: Thanks!

naughtypawn: http://brainking.com/game/News - 26.08.

When will be ready the Capablanca Chess?

I think there should a accept all or decline all button...

I'd love to be able to play BK on my phone. Currently, though I can load up the main page a log in, the subsequent screen comes up blank. I'd love for this to work, and would certainly help debug and test it.

headius: IYT has it, so you can play there for awhile :)

headius:
I like go also

headius: Yes, there are plans to add GO. :-)

http://brainking.com/game/Board?bc=1&ngi=391153

Are there any plans to add Go/Weiqi to the site? It seems like a major omission given the broad popularity of Go throughout the Asian world (and its growing popularity abroad). Most of the rules are logically simple, though I can appreciate the complexity of pattern recognition required. Brainking does, however, already have working board and piece a la Pente...all that's needed now is the code for Go, which I'm sure could be found in the public domain somewhere.

Are there plans to add Go to the site?

I'm playing a chinese gentleman in a game of Xiangqi, and I know he would prefer using traditional pieces. Unfortunately the current implementation of xiangqi here only has westernized pieces. Perhaps the pieces on wikipedia (GPL-like reuse license) could be added to the system for use on Xiangqi? A good start would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangqi#Pieces, where can be found some attractive piece images.

as a side note, I took advantage of perpetual and hated myself for it. couldn't sleep for a week. Forbidding it will absolve me and save my immortal soul.

Fencer, given the popularity of xiangqi and shogi and their accompanying rules of being forced to break off perpetual check, I think it's high time the lack of perpetual move rule was applied to jungle. It's actually a great game, but it is too easy to draw games even with severe material imbalances. The only reason it doesn't have it is that it is treated as a kids' game in China and kids usually don't have the wherewithal to get pissy about draws like I am getting now.

Walter Montego: I meant that it's a feature that surely should be added. ;-)

Thad: I hope that you are right, but I have the feeling that it is harder to add than that. I suppose it depends on how it is linked back to the previous game. Maybe you're right and it'll just take a little table look up from the old game that is linked through the names already.

Walter Montego: Yes, this is a no-brainer feature to add.

When I've finished a game and my opponent and I are going to play a rematch I would like the game parameters from the just completed game to appear in the "Invite and create new game" page if I used the link from my message box with my opponent's handle for the invitation instead of having the default settings.

furbster: Yes, that was obviously incorrect. Was I typing too late at night? ;-)

Here is a good example of why additional rounds should be played:
http://brainking.com/game/Tournaments?tri=25594

I hate the idea of having two tournament winners listed. If we are both winners, then we should be listed as co-winners. Which means Fencer would have to create a new category, Tournament Co-Wins, and check each player's tourney wins to see which are actually co-wins. Obviously not worth it.

In the tournament above, why not at least have a third round with just me and the opponent I tied with in the previous round? I can understand how some players would prefer not to play a fourth round, if the third should also be a tie, but as long as the next round is not a repeat of the previous, I see no reason why the round should not continue.

Of course, if you allow both players to advance from this round, I think you must do it in early rounds also for the sake of fairness.

As others have said better than I, we should only use tiebreakers when there is a specific reason, before a deadline or something like that. None of wich we really have here at BrainKing.

Thad

kleineme: I still don't believe that one game is more important than another in a round robin. Tie breaskers are unnecessary unless you really need to find a winner.

Pioneer54: "it makes sense to give the section or title to the player who has beat the one he tied with"

totally agreed, that's what I suggested in one of my previous posts

"I believe the S-B should remain the standard."

I dare to disagree with this one though, because in larger tournaments the SB does not necessarily honour the one who has beaten the one he tied with. If he has lost against the two runners-up and his adversary has "only" lost against the bottom player, then the SB will be in favour of the one who has lost the direct match.

Of course this is usually not relevant in small tournaments like those played on this site ;)

Addendum: though you can even construct a corresponding six-player-tournament:
R 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pts SB
1 x 0 1 1 1 0 3,0 7,50
2 1 x 0 0 1 1 3,0 7,00
3 0 1 x = = = 2,5 6,25
4 0 1 = x 0 1 2,5 5,75
5 0 0 = 1 x 1 2,5 5,25
6 1 0 = 0 0 x 1,5 4,25

Rather improbable, but still possible...

Thad: one section, and both players didn't play each other? Hmmmmmm!!

Can we get a different color boarder for this chess game also since the pieces move different then regular chess.

grenv, Thad, kleineme: I disagree with your derision of the S-B system. Whatever else can be said about it (and much has), it makes sense to give the section or title to the player who has beat the one he tied with. I believe the S-B should remain the standard.

Some creative method might be instituted to speed up a 2-player "playoff", meaning any final round with only two in it. One suggestion is to play all games concurrently, and this would be ideal for gammon type games where more chance than skill is involved, but it does not work especially well in other games that start from the same position and are likely to follow the same path longer if played simultaneously. The time control could be accelerated though.

Thad: "MissYourTurn", great shot, that one is really hilarious!! :)) However, the endless round after round until one player wins BOTH games is awfully B-O-R-I-N-G. I deliberately let a few time out in Pente, because I got so tired of facing the same opponent and it was obvious that neither player was ever going to win both without a thrown game.

If the final round is only 1 section, how could 2 players in that section never have played each other?

eagle eye: Actually, it's worse than that. If there are more than two people in the final round (any round with only one section), then, if there is a tie for that section, there are two tournament winners, even though those two players never faced each other!

eagle eye: When only 2 players are playing in a final section, there are now actually different options that a tournament creator can pick.

(X number) wins match
(X number) points match
(X number) games match

Which of course for this, the SB does not really do anything. Only in sections with more then 2 people does the SB really do anything.

Thad: Indeed, with 2 players in the final round SB won't work if they tie.I guess here (on BK) both will be winners, am I right?

kleineme: When I used to play at MissYourTurn.com, I had several tournaments get down to just me and another player. Sometimes it would take us more than four rounds to determine a winner. Whether I won or lost, those were great finishes and the way they should be played!

grenv: just in case that you really have to break the tie (title, qualification) you have to decide in favour of a certain tie break system. In those cases I would prefer the head to head result to SB. Let's see it as an abbreviated separate tie break match, for which you often do not have enough time.

But in cases where you do not necessarily have to break the tie, as on this site, I agree that all tied players should advance.

grenv: Right!

kleineme: I agree, it is an arbitrary rule to break ties that doesn't make much sense. But then again no tie breaker makes sense. Even looking at head to head is flawed for the same reason. Why should one game count more than another?

In my opinion tied players should advance regardless of attempts to break the tie.

chessmec: <quote>Sonneborn-Berger [...] is an usual used system.</quote>

yes, it is, but in my eyes it's nonsense. In a round robin you may look at the result(s) between tied players but any other system is just an arbitrary way of breaking ties at all costs.

SB basically honours wins against higher ranked opponents. Agreed: if a player has a better SB then he has scored better against the stronger opponents. But he has also lost more points against the weaker opponents, so what's the sense in granting him the higher rank?

would it be possible to show the online status of players in tournament tables? E.g. using a green dot as on the main page.

chessmec: After logging in, I can visit that front page and THEN the background image isn't visible - the gray background is on at that time. I believe that to be a result of the relevant cookie read by the website, except it's not read before I log in.

WhiteTower: Now, what about blocking this one and only image with your browser?

Fencer: Tell us a bit more, please :)