jadarite: I just want to move my piece where it was intended.

No one is stopping you from doing so right now under the current set up. You can wait 3 minutes after making your move before hitting "submit".

To be honest if Fencer was still reading these boards he would say that it is a waste of programming time to make the proposed changes.

I would agree with him too; there are much better ways for him to modify this site for the better than changing the site for the worse because someone has poor impulse control.

Thom27: Same counterargument.

rabbitoid, jadarite: What I mean, might be called "delayed submit": If you click submit, the move is not immediately submitted. It is eventually submitted when the delay time elapsed. During the delay, the opponent (or anyone else) sees the position before the move in question, as it is not yet submitted.

jadarite: My 2 cents:
I see nothing wrong in the concept, under condition that the opponent has not looked at the board. (the system knows). Once the opponent looks at the played move, no undo is possible.
In practice, however, it will be impossible to implement - you'd need a programmer to do that, and the only one available seems to be on extended leave.

Thom27: Sorry, I don't understand, me come in peace.

"jadarite: maybe this revert time is not a bad idea (at least in turn based play with long thinking times). Within 3 minutes after submitting a move, the mover can still take it bak, and it is not yet transmitted to the opponent, to avoid a race condition.

Then there is no irreversible action that may be regretted immediately after it is done, while the delay does not force the user to wait for it. The time can be used as one pleases: either think again or go on and forget it."

I just want to move my piece where it was intended.

jadarite: maybe this revert time is not a bad idea (at least in turn based play with long thinking times). Within 3 minutes after submitting a move, the mover can still take it bak, and it is not yet transmitted to the opponent, to avoid a race condition.

Then there is no irreversible action that may be regretted immediately after it is done, while the delay does not force the user to wait for it. The time can be used as one pleases: either think again or go on and forget it.

Walter Montego: I am trying to adjust my eyes to a real board. So, I have the pieces set up to the position on the computer. If I were planning the moves all online, yea you are right. However, I tell myself "Move knight" then walk to the computer room and move a knight. I don't think about the game during this time. I just move the knight. I am not double checking.

So, a draft idea would simply record the move in private and then I would sign back on to double check.

Think of it like this, you spend 20 minutes or so looking at a position and come to a decision. You get a phone call, so you make this "draft" move. Take the phone call, and the come back to the "draft" mode. Ask yourself, "Do you really want to do this?" Instead of "Did you really want to do this?

It gives you time to double check. I don't think putting 2 or 3 buttons on a page serves this purpose. When I clicked move I didn't realize I moved the wrong knight. I came back after clearing my head and then saw the mistake.

It was a clerical mistake at worst, it had nothing to do with the 20 minutes while I spent considering the other knight. It makes a big difference in the game, not so much in computing.

Anyway, the messages can be private, so perhaps we can have a private option to record moves we are thinking about. We could commit to them later.

jadarite: I do not see the need for this since you can check your move before you enter it. Just make the move, look at the board, and then decide to enter the move. I rarely just click, move, enter. Maybe if the move is forced or something, other wise I check the move before I enter it as I too have been burned by clicking the wrong piece and not realizing it. If I do that, I just live with it. And I am glad we cannot ask our opponent to take the move back. Just imagine the headaches from having that option. The games with hidden information, such as Dark Chess or Battleboats would be trouble. For regular Chess, let's say you take the move back. Nah, I don't like. I grew up playing you could touch and move any piece and put it back as long as you didn't take your hand off of it and this exactly how it is done here. So don't take your hand off the piece!

Backgammon has a warning when resigning a game in match play. This is a good idea for backgammon in match play as some positions can be worth two or three times the game point. The warning will ask if you really want to resign and tell you how many game points the resignation will cost you.

This draft idea, would it mean something like a surrogate board that had the game set up and all moves, but wasn't connected to the actual game? I already use the game in progress for this, but it has the dangers we are discussing. I don't know if I see the need for it. I know some people set up a position on a real board to help them think of moves, but I just look at the screen and think of my moves, or I used to take notes and that works too.

jadarite: I guess what I am looking for is a "draft" mode like in email. You can look at it later but you haven't sent it.

You should be allowed to undo a move if your opponent hasn't responded and it's only like 2 minutes. I was using an board offline and then told myself to move like a knight, where there are 2 of them. I didn't realize I moved the wrong one. I just went to the computer and clicked on the other knight by mistake.

I looked at the board 2 minutes later and realized, "That's the wrong piece!!!".

jadarite: Looks like unchecking, refreshing, and then checking again resets things.

I am not getting email notices when my opponent makes a move. I have it checked in settings.

Pedro Martínez: hahahahaha.....correct

Justaminute: I think the word "life" in your post is quite unnecessary. :)

Bernice: I think Brainking is a great site, but given Fencer's posts that basically amount to "i don't care about Brainking anymore", anyone buying life membership now would need their head examining

Bernice:  Where is that dang Like Button!! LOL

Thad: I dont know about comparisons but I do know there are ONE HELL OF A LOT of players that are no longer playing here for one reason or another :( and some of them are life members as well

Roberto Silva: It's a weird rule and as far as I know only GT uses it. It's optional, games can be set up as timeout=loss of turn or =loss of game. It has several unforeseen consequences.

Does anyone know how the number of Brain King paying members today compares with the numbers from years back? Are there more today? Or fewer?

Aganju: well your opponent can then time out as well, and so on. Not sure if there's a limit or not.

rabbitoid: timeout = loss of turn? So if you get in 'Zugzwang', you simply time out, and it is your opponent's turn? That should blow up many games.

rabbitoid: Madness

ketchuplover: No, still ongoing. http://www.goldtoken.com/games/play?g=115447

The statistics are interesting. It's a 15-day game. For both players it's their only ongoing game. It started on 24 Oct 2001 when Goldtoken was barely 2 years old. , Only 254 moves so far.

Goldtoken shows think time (Fencer! PLEASE!!). The clocks read:
NLStardust : 432 days = about 1 year 2 months.
3334: 2219 days = about 10 years 7 months.
The last piece taken was on move 167, which was played in 2008.

Please note that the game is played under Glodtoken's queer "timeout = loss of turn" rule. 3334 timed out twice so far.

Purple:

3334 "won" that game

coan.net: Or that group game you suggested a while back. I think that would be fun.

Marshmud: That is why I keep mentioning it every once and awhile - I know he is busy with real life, but you never know when he might feel like sitting down for awhile and doing a little programming of a new game. Something like this, or maybe a 6 color logik game variant would be something he can do some-what easily.

Pedro Martínez: ROFL
................Pedro

Marshmud: I'm sure it would… If… :))

coan.net: On August 23 2010 you asked Fencer to implement that game and he said it would be easy.

coan.net: That would be a far more interesting version of Ludo.

coan.net:I like the idea of making a more interesting Game of Ludo although it surely would create a much longer version with more strategy involved.

crosseyed: I would love to see Fencer add Express Ludo to the site - the same game setup, with the following changes:

You can take a piece out of your home area with a 1 or 6

You roll 2 die EVERY TURN, and only 2 die - doesn't matter if you get a 6 and get an extra roll - just 2 roll each turn.

You can also use the 2 rolls like gammon - can use each die for different pieces, or same piece, in any order (but like gammon - have to use both if possible).

For Ludo being one of the most popular games on the site - and people liking games that are quicker - think it would be a very popular variant (and hopefully not very much extra programming.)

Artful Dodger: Think it is never right to have so many passes. And that is what puts me off play Ludo in here.

crosseyed: I got out a couple of times but kept getting sent back in. I had 53 moves, 35 of which were passes. Only 3 times did I roll a 6. Each piece was knocked back in. I think it's likely rare as it's never happened to me before. But it would be interesting to calculate the odds!

Artful Dodger: I kept saying that game had a bug.
So I won't play it now.

Aganju: I should get some sort of achievement recognition for that. Oh Fencer!!!

Aganju: I should have quit when I was behind!

Artful Dodger: sometimes you need to accept superior strategy. You are just not up to that level of play... ;-)

Check out this game. Yeah, I lost. Ludo (Artful Dodger vs. Wilhelmina)

Walter Montego: me too!

Walter Montego: Like you this site is worth lots to me too. I think it's a great site to play in when all is working as it should. Long may this site continue to run.

Walter Montego: agreed Walter...the GLOBS as they aare/were called for short have a lot to answer for don't they....strange how people know that but dont say it....thanks very much for confirming what I (and others) have been saying for years.

This site is worth lots to me. I wish Fencer was more active like he was eight years ago, but it's still a great site. I too am a lot less active on this site than I was back then, but I blame that on the creation of the global moderators and some of the things that happened at the beginning of that period. In fact, it was a link by you Pedro that tricked me into ending my personal embargo of this discussion board.

Heluvagi: I don't think he can be arsed. He has stated several times that BK is no longer one of his priorities. This and the deterioration of this site I (and actually, we all) have been experiencing is also making me believe that BK is not worth much for the time being.

Heluvagi: he is probably laughing himself to death as he holidays in some foreign location LOL

I wonder what fencer's making of all this.

Pedro Martínez: Really? I have no idea what the site is worth (nor do I know why anyone really cares), but it seems pretty apparent that those sites are automatically calculating revenue based on a site's ad revenue potential. I doubt there's any automated website that calculates a site's paid membership revenues. 

Currency of Thailand.
Looks like it take 31 of them to make 1 U.S. dollar.

XE has all the currencies:
http://www.xe.com/currency/thb-thai-baht?r=1

Bernice: what is baht?