Pioneer54: I've set a max to how many games I'll start so I don't run into that problem.

My players don't usually have to wait for anymore then 2 days for me to move.

Yes, it includes the empty Steps. But the compression once a month would remove them.

Pythagoras: You can only challenge those on your step or the three below** - which places a limit on how magic your carpet is. In the case that the people below get pulled down by those below them and the gap widens, the empties will be whipped away by an angel.

** Fencer: Is that 3 below numerically, ie. including empty Steps or three occupied Steps below?

Fencer: when there are three empty stairs behind the player, he can't challenge anybody, until someone else climbs up. (I don't like the idea of compressing the stairs, if a player is at the top, others will try to reach him, thereby closing the gap.)

Pythagoras: There is no top stair. You can advance as high as you can.

Without following the discussions about stairs, i have a question......
What will happen if someone advances to the top stair and wins X games from there? I guess he won't start floating in the air but he will remain in the top stair But what if he loses 1 game(after he won X games, being already on the top stair)? He will lose one position or not? Or since he won X games being at the top stair already, he has to lose X games also, in order to be removed from the top stair...............?

Jason: http://brainking.com/cz/FAQ?ht=20

can pawns use auto vacation ?

Fencer: ah, so! i think that actually works! i could argue that i'd like to be able to see it before i signed up, but that's not that big a deal. thanks, F. :)

plaintiger: Just find yourself in the Steps and you'll see it.

i'd like to be able to see my BKR in the game in question when i'm on the Stairs pages, so that when i'm choosing an opponent i can see how their BKR compares to mine.

i don't have all my BKRs memorized yet.

Pioneer54: Such players are listed in the "Select one free player to play" combo box. Players which cannot be challenged are filtered out.

When you get into a group, how do you know which players have openings and are eligible to accept a challenge? Must you scour the game list to see?

BIG BAD WOLF: How?? It does not seem likely that many Rooks would become Ns. I did it, to place a restriction on myself and my time, but I'm probably perhaps one of a handful.

Or, a warning message sent when there is one week left of knight membership saying, "In one week you will be limited to one stair. Please resign from the ladders of your choice. If you haven't done that in the week, the system will choose to keep you on the stairs where you are on the highest step".. or something like that..

Pioneer54: ... but at the same time, it might entice some rooks to become knights (read: less euros in BK coffers!!)

Jules: That's a wonderful idea, and actually I once tried it, but invariably started more games than I could play comfortablly, and found myself rushing moves in a lot of them.

However, I would think it a great improvement if the 'one tournament per game type' restriction were removed, and I wonder if that change might entice some pawns to become Knights (read: more euros in BK coffers!!), especially players who are mainly only interested in one game type.

Pioneer54: Buy Rook membership, you don't have to worry about limitations then.

Pioneer54: Yes.

Do the games played on the 'Stairs' count against the total limitations of 20 for pawns and 50 for knights?

playBunny: I think a trap door would be more effective :-)

PlayBunny: lol:)

BIG BAD WOLF: Perhaps there could be four steps into the "cellar" (0, -1, -2, -3). You'd only go down to one of these steps if you timeout on Step 1. So the inactive players would go down a step each time they lost until they were unreachable by the live players above. The cellar could be where the dead bodies are kept.

Eriisa: I'm talking about someone who leaves the site and no longer plays on BrainKing - if they are in a stair, then everyone would just challenge them and get a "free" time-out win against them.

Oh - just found the stairs discussion board - http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=108

BIG BAD WOLF: It looked to me like there is no option to decline a game. Won't that work the same way as keeping them from being inactive?

playBunny: That is a good idea - I was going to say "random", but keeping the "highest" would probable be best. Then again, if the person does not like it, they can always switch it around.

Another thing that needs to be thought of are inactive players. It would be unfair to keep an inactive player in a stair - since everyone would just challenge them to get an easy time-out win.

Maybe some sort of process that runs monthly to remove (retire) players who have been gone for more then a month - or something similar.

BBW: And keeping the one which they've reached the highest in would be the kindest choice, or the top 7 if a Rook becomes a Knight.

Fencer: Maybe it would be best to "force" the player into "retirement" for all but one of the stairs - that way they can complete their games, but not start anything new. (And if they are just a couple of weeks behind in getting a new membership, they will not lose a lot.)

pauloaguia: Nothing happens. But I plan to add some restrictions for expired memberships. For example, if you don't renew within a week, all started games over the limit would be forfeited (for example, 10 games every day).

pauloaguia: If it's like the similar situation with regard to tournaments, you'll be able to continue playing games that have been started but not start any new ones.

That still leaves the question of how the system will determine which Stairs have to be dropped when reducing to the lower membership's 7 or 1.

1) Stairs can be created for all types of games on BrainKing. Your membership level determines how many Stairs you can enter:

Brain Pawn - 1 Stairs
Brain Knight - 7 Stairs
Brain Rook or higher - unlimited

So, what happens when a knight becomes a pawn, for instance? And what happens to the stairs games (s)he's playing?

gringo: The BKR changes at the end of a match according to the result of the match as a whole. The results of the individual games don't matter as far as the BKR is concerned.

One question: Does is make a difference in relation to my BKR, if I win a 2-games match 2:0 or 1,5:0,5?

I'm afraid I've been sucked into the 'discussion board zone'.

Either that or I have the 'discussion board syndrome' I have this terrible walleye to the right, and can't see a darn thing straight in front of me!

grin

lol the bright green goes past unnoticable? tis the first thing i see when they appear!

LOL. I am so terrible about reading Fencer's announcements !!!! LOL. Seems I always find out from the boards, as I scratch my head, thinking 'eh?? whut??? what stairs?'

LOL, now this sounds like FUN!

Fencer: Lol. Okay. Hmmmm, I'll have a ponder on that one.

playBunny: It means "if you want to play the best, you must deserve it first" :-)

Fencer: Thanks.

Another qustion, about Rule 5:
You can only challenge another player (who is not already challenged by someone else) on the same Step or within 3 lower as you. For example, if you stay on the Step 6, you send challenge players from Step 6, 5, 4 or 3.

That means you can only challenge those equal or weaker than yourself stairswise? No challenges to those above? I understand the opposite, namely where you can challenge those equal to or upto three steps above oneself. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I can't figure out the reasoning behind only being able to challenge those under you.

playBunny: Er, yes, BKR.

Fencer: I was going to reply 1) Super and 2) Super, but on reflection it's 1) Er, "Yes, BKR" or "Yes, outside BKR"? and 2) Super.

playBunny: 1) Yes. 2) Yes.

Fencer: Cooool. I like.

Couple of questions:
1) Do Stairs games count towards BKR or are they outside that system completely?
2) Can we have Backgammon with cube stairs please? I'd prefer 5-point matches myself. 3-pointers would be nice as well.

BIG BAD WOLF: Second forfeit recorded, 5 to go :)

fismoluni: I appreciate your points, but I think that the rankings on this site should reflect players who are active on this site. We don't include all the world's chess grandmasters in our chess rankings, nor all the backgammon champions in the world in our backgammon rankings. Just being a good player shouldn't be enough -- the player should have earned the ranking in games played on this site, and should be required to maintain a certain minimum level of activity on this site in order to retain that ranking. This is not disrespectful of anyone's ability. It just reflects the fair principle that a high ranking player should defend his status regularly.

fismoluni: The suggestion you make about a player only needing to be playing a game to remain in the ratings has been made before. The problem is that a game, on a turn based site such as this, might take a long time. I have had one game which went for about 2 years and the move number was up in the 70s or 80s. With up to 30 days per move and games which can last many moves, this is going to be a recurring issue.

alanback: hi, I am agreeing that it should not happen like you say, that people just sit on their big rating. But I think that is only one side of the story. Just to tell, I am still in the ranking, its not that what made me write this. But for example Tipau was not in the list now (he will be today again as we finished a game just now), and he one of the world strongest atomic players (if not the strongest) and takes a lot of time to play his games. but he always plays games and i am sure he is the last one who wants to sit on his rating. So my point is, that it makes the rating lists not very accurate if such players are not on it.
I can also understand, that one just has to pay the membership and there is no problem anymore, but I thought this site would also be for people who are content with the free features and I dont know if I like this players to be somehow punished. In the end I dont care that much about rating lists, but on the other hand, if there are rating lists, they should be more accurate than at the moment, where people appear and disappear all the time.

A compromise would maybe be, that only players who are not playing a game at all in a certain variation for a month should be removed, but people who are actually playing games should stay on it. But reading most comments to my post, I think you dont like that compromise as you still fear there are players just playing to stay there. And maybe you hope players will pay just to stay on the rating list.

friendly greetings,
fismoluni

BerniceC:

is it just me or is the site a bit slow today?

basplund: Provisional rating is not important.