MadMonkey:
I dont feel understood... (or my knowledge of the english language is too poor here?!)

you ask for "the point" in offering a larger variety of time limits?

So you do not see the point - the beauty of a "countdown within one move" or a quick 10-minute-chess match?

Hmmm

As there seem to be many players here who love fast games
and as there are many players surfing with high speed
and as the BK-servers seem to be stable ;-)  - 

why couldnt we have more options setting the time-limits for our games?
A nice chess-game with an overall-time-limit of 10 _minutes_ 
- or a "three-minute-countdown" (per move, in this case, and sure after clicking on a game
with a certain game-time-limit) for logik-games...
and even a 10-second-countdown e.g. for making a decision in backgammon-games!

 Could give us a nice larger variety of thrills within some games...

would it be possible to put the "bugfix-insect"-button somewhere else???

its near the "go to the main page"-link and if i am fully involved in the deeeep thinking about my games and therefore a little bad at klicking (or, sometimes, maybe tired or drunk or not of this world ), i am often lead to the bugfix-page instead of the main page

(of course, this is a serious request... im not kidding ;-) )

Good morning:

could be a nice lil feature, especially in dice poker and its variants (and some other games orientated on points),
to watch a statistic of the highest score ever reached by a certain user.

nodnarbo:

maybe we solve the problem like this:
the pieces always have to move 2 steps. but an empty square does not count!

Marfitalu:
very good idea - well, i dont think a poll would show a surprise - as many of us like the thrill of playing against other "flexible" people... ;-))

wouldnt it be nice being able to create invitations for a random-game?

ChessVariant:

yes, yore almost right... ,-)

at least it could be set and opened like fisher random shess.

hey fencer, lets call it fisher random dice chess and give it a try!!!

dicepro: hyper-ludo with doubling-cube ;-)))

hello - how about this tiny little change in ludo-rules:
it would be nice to have three rolls again if all your pieces are out and the pieces you already moved to your home-base are all at the "top" - e.g. if you moved two pieces out and they are at position 1 and 3 you will have only one roll - but as soon as you roll another "1" to move the second piece inside the homebase to position 2, youll get three... ;-)

in ice-age-chess, pieces are removed from the board after move 20 - 40 - 60... when not surrounded by any other piece.

it would be good to have those pieces displayed as "being captured" like in normal chess.
right now, players do not get any information like that!

a feature request:
highlighting the moderators names in a different colour
in order to avoid such misunderstandings... ;.-)))

tazman7474:

please allow some chaos... .
changing the group would normally mean to kill the issue.

and - you may know - discussing about changing the board is not a relevant issue for this board either ;-)))

emmett:

in the late 70s, some scientific students ruined a couple of casinos after studying and exploring the chaos-theory very successfully... . - its said that at least determining the speed of the marble thrown by the croupier and the speed of the wheel as well may increase your possibilities to win in roulette. - of course, this ain't possible with a "virtual croupier"...



@tazman: which board do you prefer?

wetware:

people have written even whole books about roulette-strategies...

rod03801: and/or how about the "computers"-board? a whole bunch of experts may await you to solve any-spyware-prob... ;-))

pauloaguia:
i agree completely with this request!
had the same idea quite a while ago and its imho definitely an important feature!

THe discussion with jadarite reminds me that i was feeling a little misplaced here a couple of hours/days ago either:

asked for a feature to count single points instead of just wins and losses. fencer answered only shortly but i received a lot of contradictory words from a couple of members here... . i didnt want some advice either ;-), just needed to tell my opinion on the existing system and some possible "improvements"..

but its good.
if we didnt discuss those issues in public, especially all the "experienced" brainking.-users, the boss of this site would have to work until his death just fulfilling our requests. so our discussion here is worth a lot, but finally all those advice could lead into a wrong direction, too - and the requestor easily feels misunderstood.

in my case, the discussion about counting single points in some games came to an end in the swamp and i still feel not being accepted and/or understood by all those people who talked about "my" issue.

 -  maybe we should talk about a special moderation for this forum, or maybe about a final word of the site's owner after a certain while?!

Family Man:

jadarite: ;-)  -  some days ago, someone invited me to a mancala game as blkack player. i didnt want to play him, explained him why and pushed the "accept"-button, without wanting it (i just got used to click on that button).

i am here for more than 3 years now and - well - as long as i am here for fun and - not only - to improve my ratings or so, it simply does not affect me to click the wrong button. - same happened quite often when accepting a draw-ofer that i wanted to decline... ;-)))

jadarite: well - now i know at least a little more what you want.
how about creating non-BKR-games? if you resign them, they do not affect pointage or something else. and all people who want to play for more thrill wont accept those invitations.

now i am offering one more OTHER option, but i feel its because we are talking about sport here - and just cancelling games isnt that sporty. i am sure brainking is already offering a lot of nice - and easy to handle - opportunities to fulfill your needs! all the best...

jadarite: sorry to ask you once again: dont you think it may be "unsporty" to cancel a game once youve started it? you may tell people before if you preferred a special opening or so - but cancelling after accepting???

i imagine in real life: sitting in a cafe, with a chessboard. you come to my table, sit down,  i make my first move. you stand up and say "sorry, but thats not my opening" or "sorry, i have to go now"...

jadarite: but if you decide to play a game, why should it be necessary to cancel it afterwards?

jadarite: this feature was used @ itsyourturn.com and some people misused it by picking up waiting-room-games of one person and immediately deleting them afterwards. - cancelling tournament-games wouldnt be useful, too...

well - anyway - i would still like to ask for the discussed  feature., as we have a new counting system for backgammon, which offers us a new kind of thrill competing, it would be nice to offer the mentioned system for other games, too!

AbigailII:

i totally agree on that idea that the higher rated player is expected to win more than 50%. its just too easy to get a draw in some games. this is why i'd prefer a finer counting-system for some games, at least as an option.

and, sure the 2000BKR-player wins against the 1000er even by one point. he wont increase his BKR too much, this is guaranteed by the existing BKR-calculation-system!!

AbigailII:

well, maybe i didnt come to the exact point by this explanation. just wanted to say that the 1:1 in a two-game-match is of disatvantage for the higher rated player. counting the points could solve this problem. in backgammon, its completely different and not to be compared ;-)

but for example in pah tum, or even in froglet, it could be interesting and fair, too, to count the points. -

maybe it should be offered just as another variant.
we can change time and match-settings, maybe there can be a "counted-points-match" as one more option.

MadMonkey:



maybe we will find out in a while, with more experience, that the black mancala player has all jokers in his hands...

but the idea of counting the points still remains interesting...

Fencer: The point about the points is that, with our existing system, there is "just" an 1:1-draw after two games.
If we counted the points within one game, it would make clear who won the single game "better".
E.g. in Mancala lets say white wins with 25:23 and in the second game the former black player wins, by the better strategy, with 28:20. Finally, the score of this 1:1-game would be 51:45 and a winner would be determined.

- This may be the fairer variant in some games with a visible advantage for one colour!

MadMonkey: yes.
Fencer - is this possible? 

as there is an advantage for one colour in a couple of games (mancala, pah tum) it would be interesting to not just count the wins in a two-game-match (1:1 is always a loss for the higher rated player) but the points... ;-)))

how about that feature in the new-games-room and especially for the stairs matches which are mostly two-game-matches?

can it be realized by our  high-level-programmers...??? *g*

BIG BAD WOLF:

grenv: Maybe there should be the rule that in dark loop chess, you can only place a pieces in a space that you can see is free (not all available free spaces) - since I would think that would give up too much information.

well, this could be a very good choice. the space you can see is covered by at least one of your own pieces, so the placed piece is saved at least a little bit.

After playing an interesting position with walter montego in dark chess, where he wasnt able to determine where my "third rook" was from, we were thinking about increasing the chaos with this chess-variant calles "dark loop chess". sure it could be wonderful and surprising... - it should be possible, eh?

lukulus: this would mean fencer will always win...
... but yes: here is the special september-action: everyone who buys a black rook receives 10 "free-rolls" every year: the member will have 10 opportunities to decide himself how the dice are rolling. as an equivalent in chess and other games which do not depend on luck, this member will have the chance to make 10 illegal moves...

btw.: after a real desastrous finish in my last 2 backgammon-games this morning i was wondering whether it could be implemented something like a bonus for the experienced BK-players which helps to throw more doubles and better rolls at the end of games. according to the number of playes games, number of action-points, years on BK.........

ah, allright, i understand now. yes, it is like that.

*BOB*on*Bush*: but it is always 1 vs 2 in the 2nd round, isnt it?

grenv: as far as i know its always the same system that defines who is playing against who, so always 1 vs 2 in the 2nd round.

anyway, your suggestion behind that question is right: it should be at least randomly seeded and not necessarily like i mentioned it before!

well, the best-rated players meet very soon in the elimination-tourneys. e.g. the best rated will meet the second best rated in the second round (if they both win their first match). as we all know from tennis and other sports, normally the first seeded is placed on the top, the second seeded at the bottom, third seeded at the top of the bottom half, fourth seeded at the bottom of the top half and so on...

could this be possible in order to "honour" the best seeded ones and to make a big final between them a little more possible??

in backgammon, you still have to roll the dice even if there is no possibility to get in (when all places from "1" to "6" are occupied by at least two pieces of the opponent.

Maybe it could be possible to save at least that click? player still can write a message, still watches the current situation on the board, but does not have to be dissapointed by rolling the dice (and perhaps watching a good roll) before passing anyway...

hm, what do you think? or did you all discuss even this change before???

playBunny: (Er, can we have Sphere Backgammon, please? []
[] )

seems soon we all have to implement a new thinking-dimension into our playing...

Fencer: (Well, actually I started to implement it just after the post of diogenes, otherwise I would postpone it to January, at least. [] ) -

how i would loooove to see zylinder- (or sphere-)froglet here... . it would add that wonderful chaos to this game... fencer, plz tell me - wouldnt that be possible???

Dryznik: my "new" idea was to build up an alternative to those "round-robin"-games. to increase the thrill by the need to win each single game in order to head into the next round.... >;-B

hello, now we have "normal games", "tournaments" and "stairs"... . how about classical knock-out-tourneys where the winner heads into the next round and the one who loses is eliminated. with quarterfinals, semifinals, finals and so on? this would be a special thrill for some special tournaments! ;-)

well, there are some people i am playing and talking with, who sometimes make their moves while confusing their opponents in order to make them think longer. if those people win a short game by timeout, its part of their strategy... . sometimes, even with "-6min" their opponents are still playing. hot to stop that? it means, if someone times out after "zero" he has to lose the match!

Fencer: and... ahm...ahm... (offtopic) - how about my super-old wish to bring this powerful and highly confusing version of froglet called "cylinder-froglet"??? ;-)

pleeeeease...

Fencer: good ;-)

hello altogether,
imagine two people starting a game with one hour time per move, thinking to be able to finish that game within some hours. later they realize they cannot finish it and want to set a different time-control. if both agreed, it would be fine to have that option: one player asks the other for a change, and if the other agrees, it would be possible on another form to set the changes...

Summertop: thanks for that powerful link... ;-))