AbigailII: But there are efficient ways to search the tree. So the leading player will be assumed to lose all his/her games, then you test the 2nd player's games etc... until someone else can win. No need to traverse the whole tree.

emmett: I don't think that family members should play online for ratings anyway.

What? You know this is a fun games site, right? No money or titles are on the line.

Fencer: I think if the buttons were at the top the problem wouldn't occur, now images loading can move the buttons as you click them.

mctrivia: Well even with the fisher games the player who can move just moves several times until the opponent *can* move. Then it's back on their clock.

Which reminds me, can fisher games which add fewer than 12 hours per move be shown in some bright yellow color or something? Too easy to manipulate the game and force a timeout otherwise.

pauloaguia: I know. I was just kind of replying to "what if your opponent doesn't want you to use it?". To me that's like, "what if my opponent doesn't wnat me to use Internet Explorer?" They should be completely ambivalent.

Fencer: So far I've not heard anyone object to other people using Autopass. In fact, as stated, the opponent wouldn't even notice.

As long as a player is not forced to use it themselves I don't see a rational reason for not implementing it. Can you, or anyone else, provide one?

AbigailII: If you don't use IE, Firefox or Opera, then you probably won't find people accommodating your needs. Firefox works will on Linux and Opera is good on Mac, so I'm assuming you could use one of these if you wanted to, no?

harmy: My formula is quite close to your suggestion actually if you pay close attention.

AbigailII: I actually agree, this doesn't quite compute mathematically. I would instead propose the following:

moves made in the last month / hours in last month with at least one move to make / total current games

I think this would get close to what we would need to decide who moves quickly... I'm open to any slight modifications though

I propose the following rule:

If a tournament is in the state where all the remaining games belong to one player, that player shall suffer punishment of crushing.

mctrivia: Problem is that 1 day limit means that some players will play exactly one move each day. This can drag on in itself, especially if most of the tournament is finished in a week, but one player keeps playing for months (which can easily happen if you play only one move a day).

I guess fischer clock set to about a week, with no extra time added, could suffice, as long as there are no vacations as well.

AbigailII: The only tome this stat will make you look slower than you actually are is if you finish all your moves and are therefore not moving because you can't.
Perhaps the primary stat could be "%age of time with no moves to make". Anyone with a very low (or zero) score here could be effectively judged by the moves/game/day stat.

My suggestion on the doubling issue is:

The first move you are trapped you get the opportunity to double.

If you choose not to, it is impossible for your situation to improve, so autopass should take effect.

AbigailII: Problem is AutoVac kicks in even if the player is NOT on vacation. Meaning that they can still log in and make moves, chat etc... yet the games they don't move in still don't time out.

I can't believe anyone could reasonably object to an opponent using autopass any more than they could object to their opponent moving quickly.

If doubling is an option, at least the options should be "double" and "pass" which would at least skip the step of rolling.

pgt: No, my general rule is that if you have cloak on you are not a friend.

Vikings: Personally I do have the other person's score next to mine when I play at home. And I don't shade the page either.

plaintiger: Should create a new user though, or ratings should be reset.

Fencer: Don't worry, there was no mention of the vote actually carrying weight. More like a poll really.

BIG BAD WOLF: But when you click on the game to play, don't you know what game your clicking on? When you see the position, don't you remember your strategy from the last move?

jurek: I think the problem with online scrabble is that it's too easy to look up words. When playing scrabble it's fine to put ogrism if you thought of it yourself with no help from a dictionary.

MadMonkey: I learned this the hard way as well by entering a tournament and losing every game, despite the fact that i play every day.

Simple answer for me is to not use the fischer clock, or if you have to then at least add a day per move (which can make the game drag on).

BIG BAD WOLF: I think my point is the following:

This game has been played a lot. I've played it a lot, and it's one of my favourites.

Games that are already play tested are usually better than brand new made up rules with no testing.

Try playing it if you're not sure. :)

BIG BAD WOLF: Actually it works great with the random piece placement. Here are the rules from SchemingMind.com:

SunTzu Chess

Inspired by the great war philosopher SunTzu, this variant combines three previous variants into one game that simulates the fog of war.

The first thing you will notice is that your pieces are (likely) not in the normal chess configuration. The pieces are set up according to Fischer Random rules, however unlike Fischer Random Chess, black and white have different starting positions.

The second thing you will notice is that you can only see your half of the board when you start. That is because you can only see your opponents pieces when they are in your 'searchlight' (you can see which pieces you have taken). Your opponents moves are displayed as question marks, however these will still be appended with '+' and '#' for check and mate.

The third thing you will notice, and this will come as a real surprise if you haven't read these rules, is that pieces you capture become yours to use as you wish on a future turn (and vice versa for your opponent). You can "drop" them anywhere on the board including checking the King. Pawns cannot be dropped on the 1st or 8th rank, and if a promoted pawn is captured, it reverts back to a pawn, so be sure you know which Queen you are hunting!

One special note, after you capture your first piece, you'll be able to see all the free squares available to place a piece. This is a large tactical advantage because it gives you the terrain. However you still have very little idea which of the dark squares represent which enemy pieces!

diogenes: Dark loop chess is played on other sites. Actually on Schemingmind there is a variant of random, dark loop chess (each side sets up pieces randomly and asymmetrically behind the pawns).

The main difference is that if you have a piece that can be put down you need to see all the possible squares it could be put, making it a little easier to find the opponents pieces (but not necessarily which is which).

nabla: Obviously n-1 since everyone (except the winner) loses exactly one match. right?

BIG BAD WOLF: Ghost players???? It's called a bye!! Have a look at a few of the tennis tournaments that have players pull out to see how it works.

I don't see why this is an issue, just give byes to people depending on the number.

So with 12 you would have 8 play in round 1, eliminating 4, leaving 8 for round 2.

It's still single elimination (one loss and you're out).

pauloaguia: It's much more likely to be a programming prioritization issue. Mathematical calculations are not much of a strain on the server, it's what computers are designed to do.

Fencer: He may mean highest BKR rating achieved?

Matarilevich: Ok. I wouldn't occur to me to allow white to move on a double. In fact why wouldn't the computer just randomly determine the start, no need to "roll dice" to determine.

In over the table games you just keep re-rolling until someone gets a higher number, as nabla said. The idea of doubling the game stakes is just a variation played by some, but not in any official rules.

Matarilevich: I don't understand how one player has more chance of moving first in any implementaion. It's 50-50. Can you explain better?

imsoaddicted: Number of games is an indication though. Once a day isn't all that fast, players with only 20 games going often play 20 moves per day, which is more like it. :)

I'd rather play 20 moves in one game than one move in 20 games. Much more enjoyable.

All confused people: Grinning because I remember asking for something similar. I'm sick of playing people with 800 games going that never move.

Flummoxed:

mctrivia: Good suggestion on the options, except that the third option is "send anyway" ;)

Rose: Well in this case it's even more confusing since the note was a real request for some feedback on a recent tournament, so I assume the user was not expecting me to be blocked.

pauloaguia: ok, better warning messages would work as well. I notice you use "enemies" rather than "blocked users". "Enemy" is a better description :)

pauloaguia: That's easy to avoid, just put a time limit. Any response within a week gets through.

Any other potential problems? If not I think we have a working set of requirements. :)

Someone sent me a rather long message with several questions, to which I spent time responding only to find that the user has me on their blocked user list. (why, I wonder?)

I request that any response to a message ignore the blocks.

emmett: I disagree, most of the time cheating is extremely obvious, and easily achieved without usinng the same IP.
Preventing "law-abiding" players from doing this is about as useful as preventing me from boarding a plane without any liquids..

BIG BAD WOLF: It fixed itself upon restarting the browser. Not sure why... sorry for the false alarm, but this was the only site exhibiting the issue.

Did you do something to the fonts? If so can you undo it?

gambler104: I think that was a joke.

joshi tm: This is a little silly, you should only resign if it's mathematically impossible to win, not just a miniscule chance.

And I AM a rook and absolutely hate games dragging on. I'm not interested in playing lots of games at once.

tonyh: Agreed, you never play on in real life, even though it would take only a minute. Here it can waste weeks when slow players make it even slower by continuing to roll meaningless dice.

The argument "I clicked too quickly" doesn't hold either because you can resign after rolling dice (and I often do - if I needed a double and didn't get it for instance).

rod03801: Actually the discussion was about a feature request to have backgammon and other games auto-win once the game is essentially over.

How about a button that says "claim win"? This could go to the opponent to accept the defeat or not as they choose.

Chaosu: You are incorrect, since white can win 5-in-line if black makes an error.

However in Backgammon situations arise where no matter how the dice are played it is impossible for one player to win. This is the case when you should resign.

For instance if you have borne off one piece and your opponent has 6 pieces on point 1 then you cannot possibly win no matter what, so there is no reason whatsoever to make another move... just resign and move on to the next game or start another.

tonyh: Agreed. There is nothing ruder in my opinion than playing on when the result is 100% known. Resignation is the only honorable path.

Having said that, if the site can calculate such a position and end the game immediately all the better! I second (or third) the suggestion.

alanback: Which is also easy, just click the arrow next to "back" and choose which page to go to, or just click 4 times quickly.