Isn't a 3 wins match the same as a best of 5 series?

Just dont pick it down to the bone, Rod... LOL

Right Steve. Except It would be one tournament, with one winner, and would be official. ie you wouldnt have to manually add up a score and announce who won, and the winner of one game type would not get a tournament win, only the overall winner.

EXACTLY!

Is it possible to create a tournament where each player plays several different game types, and the tournament winner is the person who does the best, overall, for all the games types? It could be based on toal points, where you get 1 point for winning and 2 points for second etc. with the lowest point total being the winner, perhaps? Some peple are good at chess, for example, but only average at reversi, and visa versa. It would be nice to find out who is really good at many different games, and perhaps the best overall gamer.

Is there anything in BK2 that helps orgainize saved messages?

Is there any good reason that we have to recieve a message when we have resigned a game?

I do agree with you that it would be a nice feature to be able to see the critereor(sp) used to make the game. I actually thought that all that info was already there, but I guess not.

BTW.... there must be some way to find that info, since you were somehow able to find out :)

Just a quick defense... When I first began with making invitations for backgammon players with a higher BKR than myself (I was at close to 2100) I did so to try to find out if these higher ranked players were really that good, and to find out how I stacked up against the best. (I did this early on playing reversi also, playing the sites top reated players) My bKR went down to almost 1900, really fsat, and has since climbed back to around 1060 or so. So there has been no real advantage, since I went from about 1500 to almost 2100 playing mostly those rated around me or lower. Plus, under your theory, those higher ranked players are not really better, but just luckier or they only play other high ranking players as not to risk losing to lower ranked players who get lucky. I personally think that if I wanted to build my bkr, I would pull out the can of whoop ass on a lot of low ranked players, and it wouldnt take long to get my ranking right up there. maybe I will try out that theory :)

Sorry Bernice.... I had usecd that nik temporarily last Friday, as a kind of celebration for BK 2.0, and I did change it as soon as I was able to get on after all the problems. Although that decision was not based on any of those problems, just nobody knew who I was. Good thing I am not in an obstinent mood today, or I would change it back :)~

...or maybe even have a link on the game page that says 'move and go to friends online'
or somehow mark your 'list of next games to be played' so that we know which opponents are online?

If you have many games to play, and you want to start with your opponents who are currently online, couldn't there be a link on your "friends online" page for any games where it is your turn?

Easier than going to the page, and making a list and then finding the games on your main page.

Maybe there is already an easier way to accomplish this, that I am not aware of?

* Smiling from ear to ear *

Off to work, but will join later, thanks!

You know... I don't really have any problems with slow players, except for the occassional frustration waiting for a tournament to continue.

I got on this one basically because BBW was against it, without good cause, in my opinion, and I thought he was being a hypocrit since he was recently upset about others not supporting his recent feature request, without logical merit.

The rest of my ranting have merly been in respense to the illogical responses of others :)

Good idea Harley, much easier than what ogue just did, from the suggestion of Jason....

I'm done on this subject, as long as I dont have to keep defending my stance against idiotic, and ilogical objections...

I am not a system administrator, are you trying to belittle me? ;)~

This system already keeps track of when the last time to move in a game is, and it already keeps track of when a move is made, so those are not extra calculations, therefore not more taxing on the servers, If you read my suggestion below, you will see I merly advocated for a weekly calculation for this rating. I disagree that using the server capacity as a reason for not using this rating is invalid. nd since you have given no legitimate reason for being against it. I will presume that you don't have any other objections.


As far as the list goes, I guess you don't have a logical explaination for your stating that it would somehow be a negative thing to be on this list, since it is perfectly legitimate to play this way, why would a list recognizing this be negative?
I think there are rules, and there are a spirit of the rules. The rules state that you have x amount of time to move, period. The vast majority of people play consistently much faster than the rules allow. You know it and I know it... thats why you think it is negative to be on a list of these players, and thats why you agree with me, but you just won't let yourself admit it. Otherwise defend your stance on the list of slow players making someone feel bad...

Oh yeah... why would 'slow players' be offended for being on a list of such??? They all seem to have no problems defending their play, why would they be offended for being recognized for something they are supposedly so proud of??

You know you are wrong BBW, when you say we don't like people who play within the rules. It is not intended to be a negative thing when someone plays all their turns consistently at the end of their limits. It is no more negative than playing most of your turns near the begining of their limits.
Alst is a list, it is what it is, if anyone feels bad about being on a list, it is their own guilt maybe, but not the fault of the list itself.


You still have not answered my question.... Why would it be more taxing on the servers to create a pace of play rating, than it is to create a BKR, as you have suggested this new rating would over burden the servers???? Did you just make this up, or do you have some facts to back up your claim? Why are you against a rating for pace of play besides your "server" reason?

Everyone who defends players who are 'slow' say it is their right to play however they want to, and if it is a 7 day limit, then hey have 7 days, period. ell, if you agree with that, and I am sure you do, why then would it be a "negative" thing to be on a list of these players, or to have a high rating on the "slow meter" ???? If there is nothing wrong with playing slow, why would it be a negative thing to be on a list??
Also, why do you feel it is okay to make a list nof fast playing pawns????? when you don't like lists of slow players???


It seems you will defend a persons right to play slow, but still find it a negativwe trait?

No, I dont expect everyone to play quick! I think the majority of people here play their games far more often than the time limits allow. If they don't , I want to know, so I can avoid those people. There is a tournament running now where all the sections except for one are completed. But in that one section there is one player who has not completed one game yet! Those are the people do not want to play, and a rating would help me find them.


You still refuse to answer my question?????

no, I do not want anyone to move faster than they want to. I just want to know who you are and avoid playing with you. I do try to stick to 3 day limits. And to be honest, i do not have much of a problem with slow players, or timing out too often in fster limit games. It is mostly the tournaments which I find a problem. I want to play in a donation tournament to help brainking out, but I could die of old age waiting for round two to begin, much less the end of the tournament!!!! And the real problem lies with one or two people!!!! Why should 2 people get to ruin the pace for 98 people, just because "this is a turn based site"?

What do you care if I have the use of a pace rating to avoid playing with slow players??????
CAN YOU PLEASE ANSWER THAT? What does it hurt anyone to have a pace of play rating????

Jason, it would be an average rating and would not change that drastically in a short period of time.

I am sure that you are aware of that.

If you don't have anything constructive to add, or do not wish to legitimatly answer the questions I have posed, please stay out of this discussion :)

Thats true Ug... but we have determined that those limits are not good enough.

I may play moves in all my games almost every day. even several times a day most of the time. But that does not mean that I can play 1 day games all the time. Playing 5 moves in one game does not give me the luxury of waiting 5 days for the next move. I can play 100 moves in the same game in one day, but would still only have 24 hours to make the next one, and that is not always possible.

Even the fastest players on this site can not be expected to move evry single day or even every 3 days all the time. It is not feesable. The only other solution is to play longer time limits with other fast players, hence the need for a speed rating, or play longer time limits, and take the chance that your game may last several months if you happen to find an opponent who moves only at the last minute.

What happens if I win my first round section of a tournament, but while waiting for the second round to begin, I fill up all of my available game slots, and the second round begins? Will I be removed from the tournament? Or just allowed to play the extra games? Or will those spots be left open for me by the prgram?

I want an answer.

What is the difference between using a BKR to filter your game opponent, and a 'speed of play' rating to do the same?

I know you master chess players would not like to play begginers all the time. And begginers do not want to play masters. Why can't slow and fast players have the same options???

Harley, I hardly think that you need to use the feature request board to get anything you want...;)~

That solution sounds simple to you???
Is that how you start all of your games? By making personal invitations? What, am I suppossed to go through the list of all the thousands of players and their profiles just to find a compatable player????

NO!

Starting an open game makes way more sense. We just want one more filter option when starting a new open game...... You have not yet told me what is so bad about that request???

Answer this question Ug, or anyone.....

What is the substantive difference between an 'ability' rating and a 'speed of play' rating?

If this site didn't use bkr, imagine the fits you would have trying to find a chess game with someone of your caliber. Imagine getting stuck playing with someone like me all the time, because you didn't have the ability to filter you games with opponents of a certain bkr level???You would be complaining relentlessly, and you would not appreciate me telling you to go through everyones profiles and look at their past games to determine for yourself how good they are at chess, and whether they are worthy of a game!

I think, contrary to what you are claiming, that the MAJORITY of people on this site want to play this way, not a minority.

The problem really is, especially in tournaments, that it is the MINORITY that can ruin it for everyone else. Since a tournament only moves as fast as its slowest players.

We already have the ability to start games with only players of a certain bkr, or even filter people by there level of membership, or to limit them to only being able to accept one challenge.... why not be able to start a new game with certain "speed of play" ratings as well???? It really is no different than these other filters already in use!

You say that in jest, I know, but it really isn't funny. That is exactly what we are saying. Why does it pain you so much just to stay out of it if it doesn't relate to you in any way?

We basically want to play games where we can remember all the moves by the time the game is finished, and hopefully be able to learn from our successes and mistakes. A two year game does not do much for my learning curve.

We DO NOT expect to play all of our games in break neck speed. And we don't want to be forced into having to move every day or two ourselves all the time. We want the occassional luxury of a 3 or 7 day game, without having to play someone who will only move at the last possible day for every single turn!!!! Why is that so wrong?????

The one problem with a fellowship is that pawns are excluded.

hen I first came to this site as a pawn, I was interested in learning how to play Reversi. The best way to learn was to play games as quick as possible, so could actually see the results of my actions, and make adjustments. If I had started 800 Reversi games with 30 day limits, I would still have not finished any games, and would basically be playing terrible in 800 games at once, instead of really learning anything.

I already do play at 4 different sites. But I don't know how that helps in the least bit in playing a fast game??????

I am not interested in playing one move in 800 games a day. I (and others) want to play complete games in shorter times.

A real time site would work, except I am using webtv, which is not compatable with those sites. I do play 'real' time games on here with some people. (start to finish in one sitting) Maybe a fellowship with interested players like this would help us find each other, when we are interested in a really fast game.

Bernice makes a great point about tournaments.... How long is Lindas 100 person backgammon going to last????? Well past my subscription time, for sure, and possibly many years!!!!!!! Some people may be content playing one move in 800 different games. I personally dont see the satisfaction in that, but hey, its their life. I personally get more out of playing fewer games in a faster period of time. Just trying to figure out how to avoid the previous.

Bernice..... why dont you set us up a fellowship, and we can discuss it there?

Ug, I can see what you are bgetting at, but really... If it were 'ratings' I was worried about, would play unrated games

Its not losing the rating that so much worries me when I time out...it is losing a fun game where many moves have already been completed, and having it wasted for no good reason.

So your suggestion really is irrelevant and not a viable solution, but thanks!

Any other great ideas?

I agree Rogue... What do you people have against those of us wishing to play faster games from having a tool that allows us to choose opponents who will accomplish this desire???

You already have the option to play games as long as you desire... nobody wants to take that away from you. All we want is the ability to play games with faster players, without the threat of accidently timing out.

We can coexist, we are not hindering your ability to do anything on this site. If it doesn't affect you, why are you so against it?

Maybe, like BBW said, someone should start a fellowship.... That sounds simple enough. Maybe we could put a monikker after our names like IMupChucKingC, C = speed of light, thats pretty fast! :)~

Or another option could be to have available the ability to start a new game with a short time limit, but no time out? I am thinking out loud right now, and I know it sounds silly, but the game could be posted with a "suggested" 1 day move, for example, but not time out.....

Anywho, I like the fellowship idea, but that excludes all the pawns, but we could have all the pawns put a 'C' after their name or something if they want to be included.

A simple, 'you are wrong about my motivation, IMCK', would have been more convincing, than your hypersensative diotribe...

You said you were against the rating sysdtem because it would be too taxing on the servers.

Any further comment?

And again, you are the only person who thinks it is better to keep the problem and try to fix it afterwards, than to simply avoid the problem in the first place.

ewwwww.... I hit a nerve......

Well, your only reason I have read so far, is that it would be too much for the server to calculate a speed rating. Ithink you made that one up, and would like to hear the facts which support that thesis. It wouldnt have to be an ongoing process, that is updated evry minute. A rating could be calculated once a week or whatever, just to give us a generalized Idea about who we may want to play or not play against.

You are hell bent on having slow players play people they dont really want to play, and 'fix' the problem after the fact. Yet everyone else posting on the subject so far, thinks it would be better to solve the problem before getting involved in the game.

What exactly are your objections other than an unfounded beleif that it will be too taxing on the servers?

What 'good' does it do anybody to have a list of players by who made the most moves in a day? Why not have some sort of agreed apon rating (whatever calculations it turns out to be) that rates players by how 'fast' they move?

The only 'downside' I can see is that players like BBW do not want to be listed with a speed of play rating, for whatever 'privacy' issues they have.

Its BOTH BBW...

We don't want to play slow players, so we play low time limit games, but we dont want to play one, two or three day limits too often, because of unforeseen problems.

The solution is for two 'fast' players to play each other, but use a longer time limit game. I play many people who I know polay often. I don't mind playing them a 7 day game, as often we will finish several games in one sitting anyway. But if it was someone I am not familiar with, a 7 day game could drag out for months.

Plus isn't it more fruitful to simply avoid certain players before you begin a game with them, then to play games with these people and setting up safegaurds in hind sight to protect yourself?

Why couldn't it be done in percentages? Ie BBW plays 20 % of his backgammon games on a daily basis on average, or IMupChucKing plays 98% of his checkers games per day on average.

When I play on line poker, there are often several hundred tables playing from which to choose. Before I decide which table to join, I can see the calculated average delay between plays on any given table. This helps indicate what kind of players are at a particular table. If I want to play more expert players, I will choose a table that has a low time per move average, meaning that the players are paying more attention and less likely lally gagging.

All we are saying is some sort of system to help determine like minded players as yourself, would be helpful, and save much aggrivation.

I sense that you are against that, BBW, because of your anti spying stance?

Excellent point LIon....
I would like to know when BBW says he would not like to see it, if he is against it, or just isn't requesting it?

I like that idea too Ug... Stay in the games waiting after accepting an open invitation...

One other thing that does make the fellowship boards different from the public boards is that since they are private, the strict guidlines which govern the public boards are often slackened somewhat, allowing for a more colorful or creative posting and overall discussion.

BBW has correctly pointed out that Fencer has said no before and changed his mind.... So it is not the end of the story...

WQ... why can't it be both????
It can stay the same for you, and auto pass for others. What rational person could object?
You would never even have to know it exists... Thats what people do not understand...

I seem to remember BBW.... It centered mostly around people not wanting to miss out on chatting between every move. But there were definitly people against the auto pass.

Kinda on those lines... It would be nice, when you use the 'play this game later' option, for that game not to keep coming back up before the rest of your games... maybe could already change this, but I dont know how. But it is frustrating if I am trying to go through my games, all except one or two, for them to keep coming back to the top of my list. Does this make any sense?

One point.... If I am in a quick game with you, lets say a 1 or 2 day game, and You tell me you are on a vacation for 5 days, and the rest of my games have a longer limit, I may choose to not be on site for a couple of days myself, thinking I am safe. But then you come on anyway and make a move I don't know about, and I get timed out thinking you were not around... Just an example, and may not be all that relevant to most situations....

Maybe, If you are on vacation, and therefore cannot be timed out of any games, then neither should your opponents be timed out in your games while you are on vacation either? Just a thought.

Good point! That has happened many timjes to me too. I either have to go change my refresh status, or try to type my message really, really fast LOL... Sometimes I've tried 3 or 4 times before I get it all typed in time!

Oh yeah.... tried to play a word "ruth" for 39 points, the scramble gave me the word, but when I played it. it got denied, so I go5t frustrated and gave up, I will go move right now.

I thought you said you wanted to time out and not play?

Anywho, to keep this on topic.... Maybe someone could start a fellowship here for those of us that like to play scrabble??

Or maybe this is still off topic??