Can we please join two Fellowship teams rather then the one at the moment, some fellowships are having trouble getting a team up, I am sure it can be made that you don't play against yourself in a tournament.

Czuch Czuckers: click box u want, then if you want to cont. with that player ckick next game with that player. and set as game click move or it only takes u to that player the 1st time.click box underneith to take you there the next game or time.

nightmagic: he click the box under also. will take u there. 2 click boxes or it will take u back to pryer setting

Will you please clarify this comment please?

Czuch Czuckers: yes we do need red dot option

Czuch Czuckers: the click the box under also. will take u there. 2 click boxes or it will take u back to pryer setting

A couple of things.... I dont understand the "move and go to the next tournament of this type"? I have played a "normal" game and it will take me to so other game type, neither one a tournament game? What is that one supposed to do exactly?


Also i really want to be able to "move and go to the next red dot game" option, or Fischer game please!!???

Cubs93: i forgot there is Espionage here... i like that game

Fencer: o yes, i forgotten!

Cubs93: Espionage is not good enough for you?

I thought it was very funny to get a game like Stratego in here, but with some other rules, because there is some kind of license at Stratego, so it can't be copied exactly.
So, what do the other people in here think of it?

$ONE$:A very good idea.  I second that.  All invitations and finished games which are private can be shown in red.

hexkid: I don't like to click a game and be show "This game is private and the players do not allow you to see it."
Neither do i! Wasting my time makes me see RED!
[a sentiment apparently shared by many people;] So even though i play the majority of my games in private- i agree with you in principle!

FENCER- could you 'tweak' the listing of private games to be shown in RED?
Then everyone would know RED games are private and they can easily *see* which games of an individual are accessible...

Sarah1980: YEAH ME TOO

ALL I WANT IS SOME NEW SMILIES

Amandakmg365: Hey you should never feel embarrassed about playing any games sweetie, we were all learning at some stage.

Amandakmg365: Its an option the site has while ever its an option you shouldnt have to explain yourself , .

WatfordFC:


Hello: I am not very good at the games but I do like playing them. I have not made many private games but if I do it is because it is sometimes embarassing to have others see the games. I only have one account and do not cheat at the games.

This really is at the point that it needs to go to PM or another board. This is NOT a debate board. Thank you.

nabla: Me neither.  I really didn't mean $ONE$ was a cheater and in fact in my opinion he's  avery good player.  I haven't won him even once.

$ONE$: I never really look at the part in invitations that shows whether it's private or not.  I just won't accept an invitation if I see or notice it's private and I certainly do get mad when I am trying to see a game and see it's a private game. Take a look at this .  As you can see, all the games are private, and played with one player.  I cannot find a better word than cheating for it. 

I guess I'll have to look at the part showing whether a gam eis private or not more often.  I just want everyone to know that if some of my games are private, I haven't delibrately chosen them to be so.  They must hav ebeen invitations that have been chosen to be private by my opponents.

About the private games, I certainly don't want to impose my opinions on anyone.  I won't push that the private games be totally removed from the site, but that something, call it preventive measures, be thought of that causes people from playing games with other accounts they themselves have made.

I know that you're a really tough player and I certainly do enjoy my games with you, though I cannot win them, but I think I will reconsider my thoughts as to whether or not accept your public challenges that are private.  I know how it feels when someone wants to look at a game, but cannot see it for no good reason.

Or maybe there is a reason?  Would mind sharing it with us?  I should very much like to know why people, and you especially, play private games.  maybe you can send me a pm, since it's a public board.

I appologize for any offense my posts may have caused, truely and sincerely.

*BOB*on*Bush*: I just want to make clear that I never meant to imply in any way that you or other people playing private games were probably cheating, and I am sorry if I could be interpreted in this way. Actually I would rather guess that the cheating on BK is rare. Nevertheless, it could easily happen.

hexkid: point of order- I don’t understand the benefits nor motive behind the original question… could you elaborate, assuming ‘invisible‘ = private;?]

rewritten Feature Request: "invisible" games should also be unlisted.
And I don't think I'll use that feature more than a few times every 30 years :)

Are you agreeing that private games be unrated so they can also be unlisted? A permanent change for all for your temporary experiment;?] Surely not!

BIG BAD WOLF & mctrivia::Private games are good for some things, but I think private games should be unrated also - if a player is going to be getting ratings from a game, then other players who compete for the same ratings should be able to see the games.

grenv::Battleboats has a winning strategy? I think you want them to be private to hide the fact that there is no winning strategy
[Obviously you haven’t found it;] LOL Battleboats 2 0 2 1652
mctrivia::grenv: there are meny strategys to battleboats but the bigest strategy is look up your oponents preivious games and try to find paterns. That is why he wants it.
Exactly! Thank you for making my point not only for battle boats but other games.

grenv::mctrivia: But who would be bothered trying to do that? Get a life people! Lol
Then why are you insisting for the abolition of private games;?] ROFLMAO!

nabla::Agreed, the problem is different with games of incomplete information like Battleboats. Nevertheless, in those games the best strategy is certainly not to play each game in the same way. It is rather the most boring strategy.
Actually it would be stupid;] but then you haven’t even played battleboats this year!
The problems I have with private games :
1) They are often used by the strongest players, so that nobody can learn from seeing their games…
Unless they actually play me- a learning experience for many;] or look at tournament games- probably a better indicator of their best strategies.
2) They can be used to hide cheating, either cheating by use of playing computers, either by pre-arranged games designed to manipulate the rating system….
I didn’t know, although I wasn’t surprised, that there were programs for backgammon until I saw them discussed openly here. Programs are why I rarely play chess. As far as manipulating the rating system, I’ve neither the time nor inclination.
The second option would not be valid if private games were always unrated as have been proposed, but the first one remains.
Of course Fencer can still see the private games, but when cheating occurs it is always the users who spot it in the first place.
Well, if private games were limited to unrated games of incomplete information (Battleboats, Dark Chess, ....) it would already be a good start.
Just because a game is unrated, doesn’t preclude cheating;] Fencer is more than welcome to inspect my games- I don’t use programs and did not know any opponents before I played them, much less collude with them.

grenv::Nonsense, this isn't poker and the analogy shouldn't be drawn. Poker is all about concealing your hand if not called, it's part of the game. Keeping chess games private is not. No more private games please
I can see where playing games in private to conceal your strategy is like poker. Keeping your cards ’close to your vest’ in order to protect not only strategy but your BKR until played. Whether ‘called’ by public or private invitation, or more importantly, until entering and playing in a tournament.

Nonsense is wanting to see someone’s hand without even being in the game.
Nonsense is demanding all games be public yet you wouldn’t look at them anyway.
Nonsense would be eliminating BK Ratings entirely in order to stop cheating.

Let’s just keep things the way they are- please keep the private games option.

[I apologise for the length- but proponents to keep private games unchanged are outnumbered]

Now about that ‘average hours per move wait’ option????;?]

let's not turn this personal, ok?

$ONE$: Nonsense, this isn't poker and the analogy shouldn't be drawn. Poker is all about concealing your hand if not called, it's part of the game. Keeping chess games private is not.

No more private games please.

King Reza: …. But why games such as dark chess or Atomic chess should be private, I don't know!

I consider most of them to be games played by cheaters and with their own duplicate accounts. Of course they want the games to be private so that others cannot see their games and the way they have cheated.

Reza- We’ve played many dark chess games in private when you accepted my public invitations… now that I know how strongly you oppose private games, I’ll attempt to protect your feelings and integrity in the future.

Walter Montego:: …There's been enough scandal and pointing of fingers over cheating. Having the games available for public view makes it more likely that cheating can be detected and it certainly can act as a deterent to cheaters….

Walter- I was unaware that there is a lot of cheating or alleged cheating going. However demonizing someone for standing up for what they believe… how republican. I miss our monthly dark chess games, none of which I won, so one would think you can hardly be accusing me of cheating. But then… Believe it or not, there are people that won't play me Dark Chess because of my not playing privately and yet these same people will enter Dark Chess tournaments and those games are always available for viewing when the game is complete! certainly describes me!

I haven’t bothered you with any more invitations since you made your position clear. I gave you the poker analogy below, apparently to no avail.

*BOB*on*Bush*:: you want to see my strategy? play me privately or in a tournament;]

I, of course, concur wholeheartedly! Playing in private is like playing poker. If you want to see my hand or hole card, call my bet. But sadly, just like in poker, there are those who rudely whine to see my cards without paying. [UNRATED]

Where I come from, calling someone a cheater, or even inferring they are cheating- are ‘fighting words’ - questioning my honor - akin to questioning my lady’s honor.

KEEP PRIVATE GAMES OPTION AS IS

King Reza: What about having a private button made in the settings... So that a person can make all his game private or not...

WatfordFC:Well, some games, such as battle boat variations, Crazy screen chess and Screen chess which need the players to set the starting position of the board are mostly played as private games so that a player doesn't have to change the start position so often.  But why games such as dark chess or Atomic chess should be private, I don't know!

I consider most of them to be games played by cheaters and with their own duplicate accounts.  Of course they want the games to be private so that others cannot see their games and the way they have cheated.

King Reza: Why do people have games in private anyway, i dont understand the need for it either.

Walter Montego:I support removal of private games too.  I just hate it when I click on a game a player has played too eagerly see what has happened and suddenly see that message "The players do not allow you to see the game" or something like that.  Yes, Private until complete is a good option.

I ALSO HAD A REQUEST ABOUT A YEAR AGO!

I want to have the option of choosing whether or not people with provisional, not established, BKR can choose my public invitations.

It has happened a lot that a player with a BKR of 1600 picks my invitation and when our game is over he/she is surprisingly possessing  a BKR of 2000+ !

nabla: I'm against private games, especially in Dark Chess. That is why I almost always decline invitations to play Dark Chess privately. Sure, you can follow my games and figure my plans, good for you. Hmm, maybe that's why I've dropped so far lately? :) Dark Chess is completely hidden while the game is in progress. If I play privately, I can't easily share the game with someone else when the game is over. Believe it or not, there are people that won't play me Dark Chess because of my not playing privately and yet these same people will enter Dark Chess tournaments and those games are always available for viewing when the game is complete!

I request the end of private games too. nabla's two reasons are good ones. Especially for rated games. There's been enough scandal and pointing of fingers over cheating. Having the games available for public view makes it more likely that cheating can be detected and it certainly can act as a deterent to cheaters.

One option would be to have the games private until they are complete. This would help cut down on outside help for a game in progress. Add that as a third option when creating an individual game: private, public, and private until complete.

*BOB*on*Bush*: Agreed, the problem is different with games of incomplete information like Battleboats. Nevertheless, in those games the best strategy is certainly not to play each game in the same way. It is rather the most boring strategy.

The problems I have with private games :
1) They are often used by the strongest players, so that nobody can learn from seeing their games. I have nothing personal against those who do that, after all it is allowed by the system and gives them an advantage. But in my opinion BK is scoring an autogoal by allowing that.

2) They can be used to hide cheating, either cheating by use of playing computers, either by pre-arranged games designed to manipulate the rating system. The second option would not be valid if private games were always unrated as have been proposed, but the first one remains.
Of course Fencer can still see the private games, but when cheating occurs it is always the users who spot it in the first place.

Well, if private games were limited to unrated games of incomplete information (Battleboats, Dark Chess, ....) it would already be a good start.

mctrivia: But who would be bothered trying to do that? Get a life people! lol

grenv: there are meny strategys to battleboats but the bigest strategy is look up your oponents preivious games and try to find paterns. That is why he wants it.

*BOB*on*Bush*: Battleboats has a winning strategy?

I think you want them to be private to hide the fact that there is no winning strategy

nabla- et al: I think that grenv does not like the "feature" of setting a game private, and I fully agree with him.
Actually, I am hereby making a feature request for the abolition of private games

i disagree strongly-
some games like battleboats, you don't want to give away a winning strategy for nothing... for that matter, in any game.

you want to see my strategy? play me privately or in a tournament;]

BIG BAD WOLF: i agrea private games should be unrated and all my private games are unrated.

nabla: Ok, ok. Let me rewrite my feature request...

rewritten Feature Request: "invisible" games should also be unlisted.

And I don't think I'll use that feature more than a few times every 30 years :)

mctrivia: Private games are good for some things, but I think private games should be unrated also - if a player is going to be getting ratings from a game, then other players who compete for the same ratings should be able to see the games.

nabla: private games are usefull for testing out things with friends. Otherwise there is no reason for it

hexkid: I think that grenv does not like the "feature" of setting a game private, and I fully agree with him.
Actually, I am hereby making a feature request for the abolition of private games

grenv: I'm not really trying to hide anything.
The fact that invisible games are unexpectedly listed, prompted me to post this feature request.

Check your private messages :)

hexkid: What are you trying to hide exactly?

I'm trying to make a script for BrainKing, and for testing purposes I started a few games "invisible to other players". What I thought this would create was games that wouldn't show up on the list of games I'm playing, but it shows the games; it just doesn't show the moves.

Can we have "invisible moves", "unlisted game", and "game will be deleted from database when it's over" option when creating a game?

mctrivia: except?

srntyChutes and Ladders is the same game.

Fencer: I always hated snakes and laters as a kid because I had no control over anything. Snakes and laters with auto pass would be really fun. You accept the game then see who wins.

Nirvana: In the USA it's "Chutes & Ladders", wonder if there's any difference in how you play??

Fencer:

this was the best I could find:
Snakes and ladders
but I reckon you could do it better!

Coming soon?   

Walter Montego: I hope we'll have the option of using either kanji or directionally marked pieces. I personally prefer the kanji; they take a little while to learn, but before long they seem perfectly natural. In fact (and I know this sounds weird) I find it more difficult to play Shogi with the directionally marked pieces.

Of course different players will have different preferences. The directionally marked pieces will probably be easier for most newcomers to the game, while many experienced players (and a few oddballs like me) will prefer the kanji. So I hope we'll have both options, just as we currently do for Shogi.

Fencer: Cool. :) As wild a Chu Shogi can look, it's not the wildest one, nor the largest one of the Shogi variants. I've never played any of the other games, but I've read about them. I think I'll just stick to Shogi and Chu Shogi. Chu Shogi is a fairly large and complicated game. The pieces seem fairly balanced for the board, though the starting placement of them can make it take a lot of moves to get the back row pieces into action.. I've only played three games and have seven going at the moment. When you add the games, could you have the directionally marked pieces? Just like you've done for Shogi with the two choices of game displays, kanji or directionally marked? The kanji, symbolic, or pictorial ones that I've seen are too much trouble for me. I suppose Japanese players might like the kanji marked ones, but I can't make head nor tail of that writing. Especially for the much larger Chu Shogi with its many more pieces. I'm not sure who would like the other kind of markings though, but there might be some that do. Are you familiar with Richard's PBM Server? He has a few of the Shogi games on his site. Here's the link.
http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv/gamerz.php
It looks like he only has three Shogi variants, Shogi, Chu Shogi, and Tenjiku Shogi. I've heard of Dai Shogi, Dai-Dai Shogi, and Small Shogi. I bet there's more. Anyways, I'd go with Chu Shogi. His Tenjiku Shogi doesn't have the directionally marked pieces, just kanji and pictorial, so that's probably why I haven't played it. Tenjiku Shogi has fire breathing monsters in it that can kill the opponent's pieces even when it's the opponent's turn! It doesn't sound balanced, but I won't know until I get a chance to play it.

Walter Montego: I want to add Shogi variants as well.