I would like to see 1 Tournament winner.Not 2 or 3.Its a good way of racking up Tournament WINS.When there is only 4 players in the GAME.:)

BIG BAD WOLF:I agree ,but at the same time i know people have print outs of the random choice picks,they try and hide it, but once they hit 2 they know exactly where the other three are,but play stupid until it comes down to were they have to hit and always know exactly where to move.

gogul: I didn't want to make my script public before going over it a few more times. I have a link to its current version at the user scripting fellowship.

Mr. Shumway: ooh! i didn't know it could be moved! thank you for enlightening me! :)

plaintiger: I thought that too first. But now I like having the smiley window opened and placed outside the editor text field (you can move the new window). So it's out of my way, but I can use the smileys while I'm typing.

and while we're on the subject...i think divvying the smilies up on to pages is probably a good idea...it'll be more useful once i memorize which ones are on which page...but i do miss the ability to click anywhere outside the smiley panel to dismiss it. we couldn't possibly get that ability back, could we?

KotDB: there is also the option of changing your mind and deciding you like them and think they're colorful and cute and fun. i did that a year or two ago and there's been one more thing i can enjoy - and one less thing that annoys me - in the world ever since.

KotDB: Why don't you just turn them off? That's what I did. It's in the setting part. Or has this whole discussion been because Pawn members don't have the option? You certainly have pointed out a contradiction. They used to be something for the paying members to "enjoy" and now the smileys are being used to annoy the non-paying members. How'd this sea change come about? I see no reason for there to not be a setting to switch them on or off for every memeber.

On messageboards, when you type in a subject, then start typing in the actual message, then you realize you want to swith to Rich Text (or plain text)...Presto!  All of your text, including the subject, is lost.  Could it be modified so the text is kept when switching?

Summertop: Not really about the rich text editor - since I have mine off unless I need it - since I don't write "fancy" messages often.

But to expand on your #2 - one of my suggestions from a long time ago which I will repeat here is an option to have the submit button ABOVE the game board. On games like battleboats where there are multiply boards, it takes extra scrolling down to find the submit button, and would be much easier if they were also a set above the game board (leaving a set below the game board with the message box in case want to write a message - and of course, just an option since some will not like to see if above the game board)

I have turned the rich text editor off. It takes up too much realestate in the game windows. It would be nice if:
1. The new editor could be turned on for messageboards and off for games, or
2. The submit move button on the games could also be displayed above the message box.

nabla: how does sphere chess work ? wouldnt you get stuck on the borders ? or get too many (or none) options to move to ?

hexkid: The find useful skrips link is not available unfortunately.

Could smileys show the yellow thing with their number when the mouse passes on them?

(Yes! I have a greasemonkey script that does that )

Fencer: Yes that remark was a bit pedantic by mine, but indeed it was slightly confusing as well, because there also exist ways to wrap a board into a sphere (at least I know Spherical Chess), which are just more complicated than building a torus. Of course the confusion disappears when reading the rules carefully.

Fencer: it's not absolutely precise to say absolutely precise when you mean wrong

nabla: Don't be such an orthodox mathematician. "Sphere" is a better known word to an average user although it's not absolutely precise in this case.

I wonder whether this is the right board for this question, but wouldn't Sphere Froglet be better named Torus Froglet ?

Pythagoras: the answer is yes, to both your questions.

Fencer: .
.
.
Well OK.... Although i still insist that i don't think that Rooks would die if Pawns couldn't see their posted smileys immediately(i say immediately since Pawns could see the smileys simply going into this page and replacing instead of X the number of the smile---> http://brainking.com/images/smileys/X.gif)

Anyway it's your choice and although i don't agree i don't find it bad since Pawns always have the chance of migrating to the 1st and 8th row area....

Also it is always nice to show your superiority to Pawns by showing them a couple of smileys that they can only see but can't post!


2 questions: Can Pawns see the latest html code you added? Can Pawns see pictures of the persons in the discussion boards?

Pythagoras: No, you are not right. If you write a smiley and the addressed person can see it or not, it affects you as well.
Anyway, it will remain as it is.

KotDB: Still, I find this change confusing. Yesterday, seeing smileys was a privilege reserved for paying members. Today, not seeing smileys is a privilege reserved for paying members. Why? This change affects only pawns, yet it was implemented suddenly at the request of a handful of rooks.

Yes that's odd! That's really odd!
If the change has been suggested by Rooks as you say i find it somewhat ridiculous.... Why Rooks should care about what Pawns can see or not? It's simply none of their(our) business what Pawns should see or not.....
AND the only logical reason i can think of for what happened(Rooks requested that feature), is some Pawns to have requested from some of their Rook friends to say on this board this request because as Rooks will get more attention....



Fencer: I've just followed a request of paying members which is, of course, more important than a complaint of non-paying members.

Yes but don't you find it odd that Rooks request a feature that doesn't affect them at all but only affects Pawns?
For example if i and 8-9 more Rooks ask as a request that Pawns should see their page with negative colors then you should do it?
OK you would say this is not a logical request, but what i'm trying to say is that every request of a Rook that affects ONLY Pawns and not them is not logical! And can be explained only by a Pawn's intervention to the Rook to make the request since he will receive more attention....

KotDB: when i am playing from work smileys can be bad as well .. a site with just text (when i am reading the boards) doesnt attract all attention ... smileys attract a bit more :)

(the games boards though attract most attention .. it would be nice to have them in text form as well ;))

KotDB:

I cant imagine that the smileys are such a problem unless your opponent is sending hundreds at a time during a game move.

I love'em and BK is the only turn based game site with these. (Added more recently ) TY

KotDB: Sure, of course, it's your right. It wouldn't be wise to expect that everyone on this site would purchase a membership. It's not possible to create a site which is suitable for everybody.

KotDB:

Fencer: I realize that, and that's one of my reasons for not purchasing a membership.

KotDB: No, I don't expect you to purchase anything. I've just followed a request of paying members which is, of course, more important than a complaint of non-paying members. That's how it works here.

Fencer: Thank you for the reply, which I take to mean that my feature request has been denied. Fair enough; it's your site.

Still, I find this change confusing. Yesterday, seeing smileys was a privilege reserved for paying members. Today, not seeing smileys is a privilege reserved for paying members. Why? This change affects only pawns, yet it was implemented suddenly at the request of a handful of rooks, and it remains undocumented here, here, and here.

To my knowledge the other advantages you refer to have not changed since yesterday. So if I have not yet purchased a paying membership, why would you expect me to do so now, simply for the right not to see smileys? There are easier and cheaper ways not to see smileys on BrainKing.

KotDB: Well, I know I repeat myself but it cannot make any harm. The cheapest membership is for 20 Euro a year. It means, uh, about 5 cents a day. Not much. Who doesn't like smileys and wants to use many other advantages of a paid membership, should be able to afford it.

hexkid: I don't use Firefox, but I think I could do something similar in Opera. Your suggestion is much better than the others I've heard. Still, I'm nearly certain that I'm not the only pawn who prefers not to be deluged by smileys, so I think it would be good for BK to provide the option of disabling them.

Hrqls: i have so much coffee and not enough mugs to hold it in.... help us fencer!!

KotDB: Do you use Firefox? With greasemonkey?

If so, you can use this greasemonkey script that replaces the smileys with their previous text representation.
Save the following in a file named "unfoistSmileys.user.js" and then open it in Firefox to install.

(function() {

unfoistSmileys();

function unfoistSmileys() {
  var b = document.getElementsByTagName('body');
  var r = /<img src="\/images\/smileys\/(\d+)\.gif">/g
  b[0].innerHTML = b[0].innerHTML.replace(r, "*$1*");
}

})();

KotDB: Buy a membership. Black rook is only 150 Euro for today only. Well it is 2 for 1 so you need to find someone to split it with.

mctrivia: No, I'm not kiding. I'm not kidding, either. And for me, at least, it's nothing to do with bandwidth; I simply dislike being distracted by all the colors and animations and assorted mayhem from the exchange of ideas which is the purpose of the discussion boards.

KotDB: If you get a paid membership, you can disable the smileys. but, who knows. Maybe Fencer will publish that option to pawns.

KotDB: Are you kiding. I can see it being usefull to have a minimal bandwidth option for those people on limited or pay per byte connections.

Now that smileys have been foisted on us pawns, can we have the option of disabling them? I'm not sure this site is worth it if I have to put up with all this visual nonsense.

Nickel: yes!! i second that!
i am a collector of coffee mugs .. of places where i have been .. and which i got as presents

at brainking .. well ... been there .. ;)

gogul: I second your proposals. The current BKR is of no significance when shown at games which were played long time ago. Although, of course, the BKR may change often during a long game, it would it more appropriate to use the BKR at the start of the game, or the BKR which is used for rating calculation, instead of permanently showing the current BKR even for finished games. Same goes for tournaments where I would prefer to see the tournament entry rating. If I want to know the current ratings I could look at their profiles ;)

Concerning your first proposal I assume that you just want to hide them from the rating charts? I wouldn't go as far as hiding the first 25 games, but at least the first three games should really be hidden. BK doesn't show your rating within those games, but after you've got your first BKR you suddenly see it in the rating chart, which appears to be some kind of contradiction ;)

Nickel: Not a coffie drinker but I will take a set of 6 if they look good and are reasonably priced.

In a game, the message archive includes the time a message was sent. I think it'd be nice for it to also include the move number, as for example in:

player: (2006/05/06, 05:06:05; W10) message 2 ...
opponent: (2006/05/04, 03:02:01; B9) message 1 ...


Or, maybe even better, have some setting where each player could specify how to format and what to include in the message archive.

Hey? Nice tee-shirts! But I'm a bit troubled... What I want to know is... Where are the BK COFFEE MUGS???? I'm thinking there are a great number of us that could use one of those, early mornings, or very late at night! (or somewhere in the middle) I know I can't be the only one here that's a great friend of coffee! Whatcha say?

gogul: Why would you want to hide the first 25 games? What is different about them, aside from the fact they were played first? I don't think it's appropriate to assume that a player is inexperienced in his first 25 games, at least not if it is a game that is played elsewhere. If that is the case, then the first 25 games should be no different from the last 25 games.

I´ve talked with a friend tonight about the rating and there are some points that we want to suggest as an idea:
- After maybe hundred rated games the first 25 games that determinated the provisorial rating could be hided.
- to compare the players and their strategy in rising in BKR it could be possible to show the rating before a past game started. This means that if you go to finished games, you can see the rating at this moment of time, not only the courent one.
- to observe the BKR in comparisation with the success of a player, the little squares on the graphs that marks an accomplished game could link to the game itself.
I hope I did get that in this language ;)

Instead of going to the main page when there are no games with an online player, the action [ Move ] and "go to next game with online player" could go to the next game.

Or maybe a new action could be added to do that:
[ Move ] and "go to next game with precedence for online player"

Daniel Snyder: I very much agree with this.
Maybe the sequence could be that after two passes and the marking of dead stones, the other player has an option to remark differently (rather than reject) or accept and finish the game. In case of remark, the first player can now accept and the game is over, or, both players are forced to play a stone on their next move after which the game proceeds normally.

When a Player Passes and then chooses what pieces to make dead stone and the other player rejects the dead stones.... This could go on for ever... They should have a way after 2 rejections to determine who the winner is... Some players will not accept the dead stone, so there is a stalemate... There should be a better rule statement for Go...

I should probably have posted this here, rather than on the "Chess variants (8x8)" board.

I'd like to see Compromise Chess added. It seems to me to be a close cousin (or maybe just an older aunt or uncle) of Ambiguous Chess.

Rules summary: player to move proffers 2 candidate moves (except in cases of forced or "only" moves--which are directly made); the other player decides which of the 2 candidate moves is actually played. (That's why it's a compromise: both players help determine what's actually played.)

Where things get really interesting: captures, checks, and responses to them.

Fencer, see, that's why we all like you...