El Cid: Precisely. Thank you for completing the argument.

grenv: Or if I'm losing for 2 points and there are only 3 games left, I might decide to risk more to try and get a win, since most likely I will lose the match (whereas with all the games in a match played simultaneously I wouldn't do it)

AbigailII: very legitimate in chess. For example, If you're winning by a point with a game to play you may decide to simplify quickly and get a draw. This is part of the game even at world championship level. What's wrong with that??

grenv: Even # of games isn't really a good option, since you can play for the draw late in a series if ahead, but not with this option.

Less opportunity for "playing for the draw" I would find an additional feature.

El Cid: I probably would not know exactly how many games I would get (for instance on a 21 points match with doubling cube)
That would be a single game.

Note that for round robin tournaments, you don't know exactly how many games you get now-a-days either - it will depend on the number of people that are in your section. For elimination tournaments, you will know exactly how many games you get. If it's a 3-game match, you will get 3 games. Not 2. Not 4.

I would end up (at least on what concerns to my plays only) slowing up the games.
Your games might become slower, but your matches will be faster. And the tournament itself as well.

Note also that if we have a tournament "2 games for each 2 players", the games are now already played in parallel.

MadMonkey: If a game in a Tournaemt was first to 5 points for example, at present they get one game at a time, you are suggesting they get 5 at once
Yes.

El Cid: Wouldn't be possible with a doubling cube if you think about it. :)

Even # of games isn't really a good option, since you can play for the draw late in a series if ahead, but not with this option.

How about speeding up tournaments by starting the next round as soon as the contestants are known, this would be far more effective IMO.

AbigailII: Although I agree that it would make tournaments go faster, I don't think I would like to join such tournaments, if multiple games (instead of a single match) were mandatory, because I probably would not know exactly how many games I would get (for instance on a 21 points match with doubling cube), and so I would end up (at least on what concerns to my plays only) slowing up the games.
Besides I like to maintain my game number at a low level, so if it was a 3 match game I probably wouldn't mind, but on a 10 win match I (and maybe a lot more people) most likely would not join the tournament, so make this as an option seems to me as the best option

AbigailII: Well, yes, but in a different sense. If a game in a Tournaemt was first to 5 points for example, at present they get one game at a time, you are suggesting they get 5 at once ? or am i missing something.

BugCafe have a similar thing, when you sign for a Tournament it asks you how many games you would like at once from the Tournament.

MadMonkey: Pawns, Bishops and Knights already have the option to not participate in a tournament that will start many games at once. ;-)

AbigailII: Yes, good idea. Of course there would have to be some way of setting or checking if a player wishes to do that.
Just in case they are a Pawn, Bishop or Knight saving room for another Tournament to start etc...

Here's another way to speed up some tournaments: if the match type is N-game, or N-win, start N games at once, in stead of waiting for 1 game to finish before starting the next. (For N-win matches, start N games at once. Start a new game if a game ends in a draw, or if it's won by the person currently trailing). This would for instance greatly speed up stairs.

El Cid: I understand what you mean, and i am sure Fencer does already, but it is on his list.

The Elimination idea is good as well, that way people who are here regually, and fast, so they finish there games can proceed in a Tournament. This of course would help pawns who play a lot

El Cid: I'm a mathematician and comuter scientist, and I know it would not be too resource consuming. It's not necessary to simulate the outcome of every game, and, it need only be done when a game finishes.

However, I already offered my help (not to this concrete problem, but to the site in general) and it was not welcome, so I won't do it again.

MadMonkey: Actually I meant a manual "before schedule" finish round, so that tournaments where no games (or just a few) have finished wouldn't saturate the system. Of course, if no one noticed a group had already been decided, it would be as it is now.
maybe it could be also considered/added that on single elimination tournament, a round could start game by game, so if games 3 and 4 had finished, the winners would start their next game without having to wait for all the games to end (I know this has problems with fisher clock, but those problems happen to at the moment

El Cid: I will modify the Feature Request list i have for Fencer for things to be included in BrainKing 3. (well, to be considered lol)

That is similar to how Tournaments first were on brainking. Each round had to be started manually, but that was with all results in.

I think maybe once or twice a day an automatic check to see if anyone (or a Team) has already qualified for the next round of a Tournament could run.........that should be sufficient.

It has been asked many times, that the tournaments would start their next round before every game is finished, and it has always been answered that it would consume to much resources to calculate every tournament at every hour.
How about something like a way for the creator or any player could manually submit an "unfinished" tournament or section to that calculation (maybe limited to once a day/per tournament, so it would prevent a player from forcing the system to calculate the tournaments positions recursively, making the system near a crash). There would still be the need that the system could calculate the maximum number of points a player could still get, but I don't think anyone would try it (specially if it was independent for each section), if most of the games wouldn't be already finished and the final positions were almost obvious (or at least the winner of the section)

Hope it's not to confusing

MadMonkey: thanks now i feel stupid

Snoopy: If i get what you mean...... goto Fellowship, pick any Team , and then Single Elimination as you do.

Then when the Tournament set-up screen is there, scroll to the TOP of the drop box, it the 1st choice in the box

when you create an all game tournament in normal tournaments
we have an option to include all the games
but when creating one in fellowships that option isnt there so ppl have to click on every other game
can we please have this option to include every game

or if im missing seeing it could someone tell me how its done

It would be nice if some of the games created by Mark Steere got implemented here on Brainking.
http://www.marksteeregames.com/

Can Dots and Boxes added to the site?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_and_Boxes

For East Asian players the fact that Japanese and Chess notation is only of western style is really inconvenient.

Japanese chess notation style does not even has longer chess-style notation such as P7g-7f for short P-7f. Longer style is used for some of the Japanese chess softwares for non-Japanese. Also Chinese Chess and Japanese chess should have Kanji notation now that Japanese and Chinese localization have been released.

My fellow, tenuki has just chipped in an idea: neutral discs could dissappear when they create a line of 4, making all discs above them fall down.

Another idea:

How about rhombus-shaped 10x10 board. Discs fall down diagonally (from either left or right side) and can block making part of the board unplayable and stick to other discs.

I've been thinking how to "refresh" line4 games here. I have searched the internet for some unusual variants of line4, and reported to Fencer as soon as I had found something interesting. Now, after holidays, I'm full of new ideas that I want to share with other players:

*** A mix of line4 and connect6. It combines line4's board, gravity and goal, and connect6's number of placed discs.
*** Same as above, but the goal is opposite (like in anti line4). The rule "do not put in the same column your opponent did in last move" is not applied.

I've been thinking about some additional features, because putting 2 discs a turn is much more challenging and tricky.
In order to balance chances there are two things that could be done:
*** A player, instead of putting his two discs, puts one disc of his color and is allowed to destroy any other (his or his opponent's) disc that is on the top of a particular column. Beacuse this feature enables 3-fold repetition, when the same situation occurs for the third time, the game is a draw.
Example: White starts by playing e1. Black plays c1 and destroys white's disc in e1. The c1 disc is the only one on the board now.
*** A player, instead of putting his two discs, puts one disc of his color, and is allowed to put two NEUTRAL discs (both in the same column) in a column of his choice. These neutral discs are just blockers, they don't belong to any player, and they cannot be used to create a line of 4 discs.

Of course those blockers should be limited by adding the tetris feature, and:
*** to 2 uses/player/game;
*** no more frequently than once in 5 moves.

TC: And the game number by the way (like 5th game in the match)

It would be nice if we have in our game list:

My points-Opponent's points/Match points

It is not so hard to implement in programm, and see immediately!

Thanks

Since this is feature requests, I will request what I would like to see with the tournament list.

1. Having 20 "fee" prize tournaments at the top of the list is a pain, having to scroll down through. I would like to see either (A) be able to close that box to not see it at all, or (B) limit it to 5... and next to the title "Top entry fee prize tournaments" add a (see all) which will filter and show all of them if clicked.

2. I never understood why a tournament can go 30 days past start date - that is just WAY too long. YES - it is nice that it goes past the start date, but 5 days should be plenty. Within those 5 days, it will give the tournament creator time to change the start date if needed if they want to extend the time, or just let it go.

3. I think there should be a limit of 20 public tournaments to sign up for from 1 person. 20 may sound high, but 20 would be a good number - I know for myself when I was created a lot of the "Fast Start - First 5" tournaments, I could easily get 10-15 tournament up on the page, which wasn't too much since for the most part, all of them would start within 1-3 days (before even reaching the date since it was set to start when full) - So a limit of 20 public tournaments I think would be good. (With fellowships being unlimited as it is now.)

AbigailII: Thought it might have been helpful to those prolific tournament creators, and you're right, i don't look beyond the first couple of pages.

rod03801: Yes, that would explain it.

SL-Mark: I create tournaments with start dates month or even a year in advance. The reason is that that way, I don't have to remember when to create new tournaments. And it's not that you have to wade through them. Tournaments are sorted by start date. If you're not interested in a tournament that starts in the far future, don't go to the last pages.

SL-Mark: My guess would be that maybe if a tournament consists of 10 different game types, that tournament is 10, and if one contains only one game type it is just 1? Just a thought.

El Cid: No, I have the same too, and it's not because it's adding in the fellowship tournaments, nor having a creator on block either. Perhaps they were created by someone who has since been banned from the site

SL-Mark: Is it just me, or the counter is wrong. I have 50 tournaments on the first page (with all the default filters - every game; every type of tournament; every type of prize). It shows me 21 pages (1029/50=20,6). However, the last page that shows tournaments is page 11, with 33 tournaments (10x50=500; 500+33=533), so there are almost 500 ghost tournaments

Snoopy: And what's the point of posting tournaments starting in a years time? Who cares. People are interested in signing up for tournaments that will start in a few days or weeks.

cd power: only another 31 to go to hit the thousand mark
and who in there right mind wants to wade thou 1000 tournaments to find one they want

Snoopy: I agree... it is silly and annoying - the amount of tourneys created by one person

furbster: since i wrote my first post less than 10 mins ago over 100 more have been created

Snoopy: I agree, the unique ones often gets lost amongst the ones that flood the room!

its getting really crazy now 818 and counting... to choose from alot of them created by one player
we have a limit on how many games we can have in the waiting area
can we please have some control on how many tournaments one player can create at a time

i know its been mentioned on more than one occasion

Rainbow Road: These are the tourneys created by you, for example. :)

is there a way to have a search tourney by creator?

... are supposed to warn me if it's a gammon or backgammon position (so I don't give up double or triple points without realizing).

However, it also warns me if the game has been doubled, but it's not a gammon or backgammon position. I believe this is unnecessary... no?

Pason69: "go to the next game of similar type"

Pason69: Well, it isn't exactly what you are asking for, but there is the option of using "Move and go to next game of this type", which we already have.

Sometimes I want to play Chess-games only, or BG-games only since I have the thoughtprocess in chess (or whatever group). Would be nice to sort the games on a group of games. Today, BG, Nackgammon and crowded are impossible (?) to get in a row if you have many games. Either predetermined groups (chess, bg, checkers etc) or userdefined groups (max x groups to decide in the settings)

I've recently learned about this game, and it seems to be a nice game, so I'd like to see it on BrainKing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gess

pauloaguia: Wow, you think starting 1 live pond every hour would be too many - Heck, I was expecting to hear complaints about it not being enough - that people would be done with their pond at 10 minutes past the hour, and have to wait 50 more minutes for the next live pond to start.

Yes - A Optional Pop-up to remind you to play would be great. Not sure if a pop up to put your bid in would help much since you would probable want to go to the page and take a quick look at past bids & totals left & such to make a good educated bid.

pauloaguia: Yeah, the pop up idea would be good. I was about to comment that I think 1 minute is too short, because personally, I doubt I would just sit there waiting. I would probably make a move in a game or 2 and come back.

A pop up would solve that though. Especially if you could make your bid right on that pop up!