IMupChucKing: Yes, if you have a higher rating that means you are better than me at that game. However, if you will reread my post, I said "Ratings aren't just to determine who is the best and who is better than who." The key word in that sentence being the word "just".

And how do you figure I said it like a robot? Because I used a higher level of vocabulary than you think I should have?

Steve: I have the same right to post on any board I like, just like everyone else (who hasn't been banned) - including you.

he will , once its on its last day , i have some going still after well over a year ;(

Could have played my games too instead of posting on a few boards

What are you talking about Kevin?

If I am more skilled than you at a game, isnt that the same as being better than you?
Its the same thing, only you said it like a robot...

you are right there Bwild :) Im continually being told how stupid i am because i lose one game in every four...who cares, or who should care if I dont ROFLMBO :)

according to some inflated ego's...lower bkr's mean your "weak".Personally...I find pleasure in the game,and encourage folks with lower bkrs to play,learn and have fun.

thx for the update Kevin! LOL:)

Ratings aren't just to determine who is the best and who is better than who. They are mainly to give a numerical representation of that player's skill at that game. This makes it useful to determine the relative skill of everyone, and to find appropriate opponents.

dont forget...the Shooting Fish in a Barrel gothic chess tourny for players with a 1700 bkr or lower.Have fun.

The only time I don't have fun is when I give up a draw :)

Thanks IMupChucKing, I never thought about playing unrated games...... I forgot there was unrated games.

There is a good point about 'fun'... Anyone who says thats all they play for, why dont they just play unrated games? People want to win, for ratings and prestege. For anyone who enjoys competition, winning is the ultimate goal. Again, fun is just a side benefit.

I play two very sweet people over and over in Halma and I win every time, That is one time playing when it is not fun to win. It would kill my rating if I lost by me wanting to loose and I realy dont want to turn down the games from these ladies because they enjoy playing against me.

Thank you for clarifying your position. Perhaps we're closer on this that it seems from reading the posts, just wording it differently.

Winning can also be not fun. Especially games like Chess. Playing a person that's no match for you guarantees a victory, but like you've said it's not as sweet. Losing every game in a tournament sucks, and it'd be hard to see the fun in it. There is still fun though. I doubt if the Chess tournament organizers would let you play the masters without going through some type of qualifying first. Of course if it's an open, you can pay the entry fee and take your lumps. :) I know that it is possible to play the champions of Bridge at certain tournaments.

Maybe the fun in a tournament is of a different kind than a side game for you. To me, on this site, the games all count about the same. It's harder to win a tournament than a single game. Perhaps that's the difference. When a prize is offered, that can make a difference too.

I guess 'fun' may have been a bad choice of words.

I was merly trying to point out that I beleive there is a difference between a 'normal' game and a 'tournament' game.

For example, I know how to play chess, but am terrible at it. I would never consider playing in a masters chess tournament, as I would be totally outmatched, and I would not have a prayer in any games. I do would not consider that being 'fun'. My personal beleif is that I would not play in any tournament where I didn't have at least a chance to do well. The ultimate reason to play in a tournament is to win. Hopefully the challenge is difficult, as that makes the victories that much sweeter.

On the other hand, I can play a 'regular' game, even one I am not very good at, and one where I have no chance at all to win, and still have fun. It is a learning experience, without the pressure, or even the desire to win.

A regular game can be played with fun as the motivation, but a tournament game should be played with winning as the ultimate motivation, IMO. (but fun can also be a secondary motivation and byproduct)

In short.... A standard game has fun as a motivation, and a tournament game has fun as a byproduct.

I disagree with you about having fun in a tournament. As I've said on previous occasions, "The object of a game is to win, but the reason to play a game is to have fun." I have as much fun playing a tournament game as I do a side game. I see little difference between them except for trying to win the championship as an added bonus for a tournament game. I try to win every game that I play. Even if I lose a game, I usually have fun playing it. Depends on how the game went and how well my opponent and I played and if luck was involved or not. I certainly would not play any games if there wasn't any fun in playing them. I mean, what would be the point of playing if they aren't fun? I could find something more enjoyable and rewarding with my time if I thought playing here wasn't fun. No one's paying me, so I must have a reward of fun and pleasure. I suppose even if I was getting paid it might be fun too. That would depend on other things. If this paid me like my job does, I'd quit the job and have a hobby that's fun too.

IMupChucKing 3. July 2004, 12:21:58
Your first paragraph amazes me if you truly believe what you've typed! Haven't you ever watched other people compete and seen the look of happiness on them during and after the game is over? I've watched enough professional sports to know the players are indeed having fun while playing. Sure the pressure to win is immense in pro sports, but the fun is there all the same. Lots of fun in amateur sports too. Yep, I really have trouble understanding your point of view on this subject. I hope you have fun when you play. If not, I would ask why are you playing? Just to torture yourself? There's got to be some fun in it somewhere unless you profit from it in a way that I haven't thought of. Then I could imagine playing without fun because of an ulterior motive.

2¢

Good point, I should implement them at last :-D

Wow - 14 teams, 70 players in the first Backgammon Team Tournament (so far)

I'm ready for it to start, is it the 15th yet? :-)

As Monkey says, PM fencer and ask to be withdrawn, he will do it. Its quite common :o)

thanks Mad Monkey. i'm fairly new here and i'm still finding my way around.

paduking: If you are sure you are out of a tournament, you can message Fencer, and he will check to make sure & allow you to enter another :)

*EDIT*
I have checked, and yes you are out that 5 in a Row tourny. I don't know if you will have to wait for all the section to be completed though.
Message Fencer as i say and ask :)

once knocked out of a tourney, can a brainpawn withdraw so that they can join another? if so, how?

Three Checks Chess Championship - expert players
is a tournement for strong players only (above 1700)! Deadline is 16.July 2004 19.00

never mind...it let me do it...I thought edits had to be approved?

ooops...how can I or can I change the start dat on my last tournament?

check out the:
shooting fish in a barrel gothic chess tournament. for all players under 1700 bkr...have fun:)

Thats correct Kevin, that was my idea, no sections, just play everybody. To make it fair, you would have to play two games each player.

The problem is, of having it take up a lot of games, and would limit it for pawns and knights. just imagine trying to do it for all games, for example, or many games. It could get rather long, buthey, what tournaments arent long anyway :)

No, it isn't. I'm just giving my opinion on how I believe it should (and should not) work. If you (or anyone) wants to run it however you like, I won't complain about it.

Thats just picking holes in it really isnt it?

Say there are 10 players. How do you know who is 10th, and who is 9th, and who is 8th...and who is 3rd? You could check the S-B, or point total in each player's section. But first you'd have to make sure all the sections were the same size (not too hard). You'd also have to assume that a player's performance in their section would be identical if they were against different players, which is impossible to assume. The only fair way to do something like that would be to have every player play a game against every other player in every single game.

I dont think it would be too hard. You could do it on a point basis perhaps. ie 1 point for a win, 2 points for second, and so on.... then add up all the points, with the lowest total as the overall winner.

I suppose you could do it manually, and declair a winner. But it wouldnt be official.

How would it work though?

When the tournament first starts, do you play each player in each of the games? Do each game starts as it's own "mini-tournament", with the winners put up against each other with all the games, ????

IMCK: I like that idea :o) Don't know how easy it would be though. I suggest you mention it on Feature Request as well :)

Is there a way to create one tournament with several different game types? I tried, but it came out three seperate tournaments, under one name. I would like to have one overall winner based on overall performance for several different games. Thanks!

ahh! thank you BBW! that info helps!

Right now only Fencer can - basicly because it is still being "tested" and "programmed"

Once things are working, Team Captains/BIG BOSSES should be able to create their own team tournaments.

can someone tell me who starts team tourneys? can anyone and if so how do you define them on he team tourney page?

In a tournament the ultimate goal is to win. It is not to have fun. Fun is mostly a side effect, and for many competitions there is very little fun involved.

There are many ways to have fun on this site. Tournaments are generally not one of them. Unless the description states that it is a tournament for fun only.

Also, I dont think most people realize what they are getting into when they play a 7 day or 30 day tournament, as far as time commitement goes. Especially newer members and pawns. Maybe an overall time guestimate could be included with the move time limit. ie, Backgammon tournament 30 day limit (4.9 years/game) or somwething like that. If I can only play in one backgammon game at a time, I may reconsider this tournament, when I see it spelled out that way.

LongJohn: Pawns will be allowed to post here until it gets to the way it got on BK 1.0 months ago. As of yet no one has said anything wrong, it is a discussion.

If anyone wants to discuss about any subject other than Tournaments, then take it to the General Board please.

LJ - So a pawn post a different opinion then yours and you want to ban pawns from posting here?

Nice, but the option of not letting pawns post here should probable only be used when a pawn(s) and abusing the system, not just posting things that you/anyone disagrees with.

I don't follow you.

BuilderQ:

What is your other memberships nic?

What difference does it make if someone has played the game before to how long they should have for each move? Members of customer service follow the same time limits as everyone else, and why should it be otherwise?

Competition is not the opposite of fun.

Some people cannot access the internet on weekends, very true.

But neither will they time out on a weekend as long as it is a 3 day or more limit. From my experience the people who access the internet from work are the ones who play the most, and generally dont ever hold things up.


I agree with Stevie again.... A tournament is for competition, and fun too, but mostly for competition, to find out the best of the best. Someone playing in a tournament, when they have never even played the game before, and then hold up that tournament because the rules allow them to move at the last minute every time, is simply not right, and especially so when they are a member of customer service. They should first and foremost be concerned with the paying customers whom they supposedly serve, and for their enjoyment over their own.

Why not start a tournament that is just for fun, and not for competition, if thats what they want???

tournaments are tournaments, if they want to play fun games, play normal ones :o)

I disagree. Lots of people cannot access internet during weekends.

I think all tournaments should forget about weekends etc

IMupChucKing: There was no conspiracy, secret plans or whatsoever. The tournament (with all its parameters) was created by Linda, I've just added a payment form to the tournament page top. Everybody who signed up for the tournament knew exactly how the tournaments work, there was no hidden information.
I agree that 30 day tournaments are a problem for some users (I don't say "all users" because I know many people who don't care about days per move and play just for fun, even tournament games). I plan to add a support for fast tournaments where no weekend or vacation days can be used.

Wouldn't you be allowed to finish those tournaments as a pawn?