Do you miss something on BrainKing.com and would you like to see it here? Post your request into this board! If there is a more specific board for the request, (i.e. game rule changes etc) then it should be posted and discussed on that specific board.
Lista de boletines
No tienes autorización para escribir mensajes en este boletín. Para escribir mensajes en este boletín se require un nivel mínimo de membresía de Brain Caballo.
It has been asked many times, that the tournaments would start their next round before every game is finished, and it has always been answered that it would consume to much resources to calculate every tournament at every hour. How about something like a way for the creator or any player could manually submit an "unfinished" tournament or section to that calculation (maybe limited to once a day/per tournament, so it would prevent a player from forcing the system to calculate the tournaments positions recursively, making the system near a crash). There would still be the need that the system could calculate the maximum number of points a player could still get, but I don't think anyone would try it (specially if it was independent for each section), if most of the games wouldn't be already finished and the final positions were almost obvious (or at least the winner of the section)
Modificado por MadMonkey (25. Octubre 2009, 02:13:16)
El Cid: I will modify the Feature Request list i have for Fencer for things to be included in BrainKing 3. (well, to be considered lol)
That is similar to how Tournaments first were on brainking. Each round had to be started manually, but that was with all results in.
I think maybe once or twice a day an automatic check to see if anyone (or a Team) has already qualified for the next round of a Tournament could run.........that should be sufficient.
MadMonkey: Actually I meant a manual "before schedule" finish round, so that tournaments where no games (or just a few) have finished wouldn't saturate the system. Of course, if no one noticed a group had already been decided, it would be as it is now. maybe it could be also considered/added that on single elimination tournament, a round could start game by game, so if games 3 and 4 had finished, the winners would start their next game without having to wait for all the games to end (I know this has problems with fisher clock, but those problems happen to at the moment
El Cid: I understand what you mean, and i am sure Fencer does already, but it is on his list.
The Elimination idea is good as well, that way people who are here regually, and fast, so they finish there games can proceed in a Tournament. This of course would help pawns who play a lot
Here's another way to speed up some tournaments: if the match type is N-game, or N-win, start N games at once, in stead of waiting for 1 game to finish before starting the next. (For N-win matches, start N games at once. Start a new game if a game ends in a draw, or if it's won by the person currently trailing). This would for instance greatly speed up stairs.
AbigailII: Yes, good idea. Of course there would have to be some way of setting or checking if a player wishes to do that. Just in case they are a Pawn, Bishop or Knight saving room for another Tournament to start etc...
AbigailII: Well, yes, but in a different sense. If a game in a Tournaemt was first to 5 points for example, at present they get one game at a time, you are suggesting they get 5 at once ? or am i missing something.
BugCafe have a similar thing, when you sign for a Tournament it asks you how many games you would like at once from the Tournament.
MadMonkey: If a game in a Tournaemt was first to 5 points for example, at present they get one game at a time, you are suggesting they get 5 at once Yes.
AbigailII: Although I agree that it would make tournaments go faster, I don't think I would like to join such tournaments, if multiple games (instead of a single match) were mandatory, because I probably would not know exactly how many games I would get (for instance on a 21 points match with doubling cube), and so I would end up (at least on what concerns to my plays only) slowing up the games. Besides I like to maintain my game number at a low level, so if it was a 3 match game I probably wouldn't mind, but on a 10 win match I (and maybe a lot more people) most likely would not join the tournament, so make this as an option seems to me as the best option
AbigailII: very legitimate in chess. For example, If you're winning by a point with a game to play you may decide to simplify quickly and get a draw. This is part of the game even at world championship level. What's wrong with that??
grenv: Or if I'm losing for 2 points and there are only 3 games left, I might decide to risk more to try and get a win, since most likely I will lose the match (whereas with all the games in a match played simultaneously I wouldn't do it)
El Cid: I probably would not know exactly how many games I would get (for instance on a 21 points match with doubling cube) That would be a single game.
Note that for round robin tournaments, you don't know exactly how many games you get now-a-days either - it will depend on the number of people that are in your section. For elimination tournaments, you will know exactly how many games you get. If it's a 3-game match, you will get 3 games. Not 2. Not 4.
I would end up (at least on what concerns to my plays only) slowing up the games. Your games might become slower, but your matches will be faster. And the tournament itself as well.
Note also that if we have a tournament "2 games for each 2 players", the games are now already played in parallel.
El Cid: I'm a mathematician and comuter scientist, and I know it would not be too resource consuming. It's not necessary to simulate the outcome of every game, and, it need only be done when a game finishes.
However, I already offered my help (not to this concrete problem, but to the site in general) and it was not welcome, so I won't do it again.