BIG BAD WOLF: Yep, I understand that, BBW, but I have to wonder whether it's working. Another possibilty is that a Knight realises that they're so little better off than a Pawn that they might as well be one - and doesn't bother renewing. So Fencer loses the 60% rather than gaining the 40%.

My own subscription was a gift from a friend. I could not even afford to pay for my Knighthood, let alone a Rookhood. And the Sponsor a Pawn schemes (when done out of legitimate motives) are a recognition that money is not an abundant resource for some of the BrainKing customer base.

In the end the answer can only come out of Fencer's records. What are the renewal rates, and the conversion rate of Knights to Rooks, Rooks back to Knights and the like? I suspect that it's too early and the numbers are too low for any reliable conclusion.

In the meantime I make a plea for those who are Knights out of necessity but getting a deal that's out of proportion. Personally I don't care so much about the limits on number of games; as a speed player I only want a few active at a time anyway (thus I get many games completed within a day or so) but the tournament restriction is ridiculous if it means that I can only play one or two per year!

And I would love to be able to create tournaments for other speed players. As a Knight I can't create them myself but I can do it indirectly by asking a Rook to handle the admin. The restriction is thus not a real one, it's just an arbitrary hindrance. Given that creating a popular tournament series (and it would be likely to become so) is a benefit to the site, it could also be seen as a case of "cutting off the Knight in order to spite the site", as it were.


Fencer: I don't want you discussing it at all! It's not complicated, though it may seem that way if you're busy working. I'd like this certainly not minor matter to be given some thought at a later time. If it seems complicated then you don't understand what I'm saying and why. So only when you do, would I care for a response.

For Princess Alison it's simple: Just tell her that she will retrospectively be awarded her Brains when you make the change to the new system.

[Search key added: #Membership Levels#]

Fencer: LOL. Nobody says it's fair. I'm saying the opposite - that it's not fair.

Okay, so you put it in place three years ago when you were first considering the idea. The length of time doesn't mean that you got it right and it doesn't mean that it has to stay that way either.

So I am saying that it should be fair. If you don't like the word 'fair' then how about 'reasonable'. Is it reasonable that a Knight should be unable to play in tournaments because they are stuck in one that is edging along at the speed of treacle on a cold day?

Saying that "if someone doesn't like it they don't have to use it" comes across as disrespectful. If I were a pain in the bum to you and other Knights too, and you wanted to get rid of us, then that's a useful comment as it's likely to make people see you as thoughtless or uncaring and they'd be more likely to leave. But I don't believe it's your intention to discourage people. So to express it as a response to a legitimate issue is disappointing. I'd rather you thought about the issue than posted an immediate gut response.

The fact is that I do have to use the system that you created. Or leave the site. Again, surely that's not what you're suggesting!??

Why did you create the Knight level? Presumably because you recognise that some people are on low incomes, some people are unwilling to commit much money to something until they are sure of it, and yet others recognise that they'll only make limited use of what's on offer and needn't pay for unlimited use. Plenty of reasons, and it's great that there's a more affordable way to be active than having to be a Rook.

Yet I say again - why does the Knight have to be only so little above the Pawn and so crippled compared to the Rook. Pawns may come and go, they may convert to paying members. A Knight, however, is already a paying member and keeping them paying is a good thing. You may see it that a Knight with crippled facilities is more likely to pay for Rookhood on their next update, and that will be true for some. But there are also those who cannot afford that difference - small as it may seem to many people. I believe that if a person can only afford to be a Knight then they're likely to stay as a Knight, yet continue to feel dissatisfied at the perceived value for money.

Finaly, you mentioned to Walter about having limited time to respond. Remember Filip. Today's customers are tomorrow's customers - if you treat them properly. So can I suggest, then, that you make a reply like "You've made some good points and I intend to get back to you as soon as possible" (and mean it) - rather than appearing to throw cold water in people's faces and walking away!

[Search key added: #Membership Levels#]

Pawns get to play upto 20 games. They can play in only a single tournament at a time.

Rooks get to create fellowships and start tournaments.
They get to play 1,000,000 games and join 1,000,000 tournaments.

The Knight cannot create even a single fellowship or tournament.
The Knight can play upto 50 games - only 2½ times as many games as a Pawn.
The Knight can participate in only ONE tournament at a time per game type. [In theory that's over 70 tournaments but for a Knight who only plays one type of game that means only one tournament - same as a Pawn. Or if they play two games types, only twice what a Pawn is allowed]

Yet the fee for a Knight is over 60% of the Rook's.
Is this fair?

I'm going to join a tournament to see if I can win a Rook membership. With 125 players it so far and another month before it starts, the chance of several snails and turtles playing is extremely high. So this tournament could last, what, a year?

That means that for the next year, perhaps, I will be unable to play games in any another tournament because I'll mostly be waiting for others to play their games.

The Knight gets on the order of twice what a Pawn gets.
The Rook gets everything possible.

The Pawn pays nothing.
Yet the fee for a Knight is over 60% of the Rook's.
How can this be fair?

I suggest, at the least, that Knights should have a higher limit on games and tournaments. And not per game type but overall. A player who wishes only to play chess variations, or line games, or backgammon types should not be penalised because of that choice.

Fencer: I think what Alison would like to hear (explicitly) is that her existing Knightly referalls will be taken care of when you change the system.

And now on to my own Knightly gripes, lol....

bwildman: I agree. The Brains are a rewards system intended to create more accounts. It undermines its own purpose if it is unrewarding.

Beren the 32nd: It depends on what you mean by "aid". If you mean to help you plan and play your moves then you should only do it with the express permission of your opponent (most will probably say no but a really strong player may not mind). If you mean using a program to explore a game that you've finished playing then there can be no reasonable objection. If you want to analyse moves during a game (but after you play each move, of course) then you must ask yourself whether it helps further your strategy. In Chess (ie. your game area) I would suggest that it does.

If you mean can you find a book or website and study up on an interesting stratagem then again it's a question of conscience: Is it materially helping you in a current game and could mean a win or draw that you would otherwise not have had? Then perhaps it's gaining an unfair advantage. I say "perhaps" because there will be times when you gain some knowledge "inadvertantly" (eg. while learning about a different idea) and you shouldn't be having agonies over it being unfair. There are other reasons for that "perhaps" but I can't express them properly at the moment. I'm for bed!

Have fun!
:-)


Others may disagree. ;-)

ScarletRose: Er, are you sure that was addressed to me? If so, what on Earth are you talking about?

rod03801: Ahah. It was the emphatic NOT that made it seem such a big deal to you.

rod03801: Who's blaming Fencer?

Chessmaster1000: Ah, yes, I understand those reasons.

Chessmaster1000:
It would be a shame to resign your games. If you've been enjoying them so far for the game itself then can that not continue?

I think Fencer's been very patient for a long time with a man who has proved very difficult to get on with. GC = Good Cull from that point of view.

And you can't leave ... who's going to help me improve my backgammon if "one of the best players of Backgammon on Earth" leaves?

What do you think .. Will Capablana Random be a worthy replacement?

nobleheart: Is this board BrainKing issues or chat? I get confused sometimes. ;-)

rtv: Hi rtv, You've already asked this same question and received an answer a couple of hours ago. ;-)

Welcome rtv. :-)

The wins/losses ratio is useful in conjunction with the rating but is not directly comparable. It depends on the ratings of your opponents, so, for example, a high win count against weak players will not achieve a high rating.

Here's the brief BrainKing explanation.

And here are two in depth articles on the formula. It's a chess formula but is used for all games. [so far, hint hint, Filip, lol]
USCF Rating System and Chess ratings.

They're a bit mathematical but have a read of them and see how much sense they make.

:-)

ArtfulDodger: "Raving Mad" and that hair!!

Fencer: I've found that my backgammon rating has gone up by 34 and more. Is that an expected result of the "clearout"? And, out of curiousity, is there any way for me to find where these extra points came from?

BIG BAD WOLF, Fiona: Thanks. Sounds like plenty of options there.

If a Knight, expiring in four months time, buys or wins a Rook 6-month subscription today, how does it work?

As a bonus for paying to use BrainKing more you get the option to ... er, use BrainKing less!

rod03801: In web design you need them if you are conforming to the newer standards (ie., xhtml). It's advisable to use them if there is a space in the url.

I always use them without question so I've not tested that. So, here's a couple of googles with and without:

"Google url": cats and dogs
Google url: cats and dogs

Lol. Brainking takes out the " and dogs" bit in both cases, though the two urls would work diferently in a web page, I reckon.

Hi Spirou,

That game says "Time for game (?): Time: 21 days, Bonus: 21 hours, Limit: 21 days, no days off"

You'll notice that on the game page itself the "no days off" is in red. That's what the red dot signifies.

The corresponding green dot occurs when a game has "fixed weekends" and that text will similarly appear in green.

ArtfulDodger: I think wellywales means the magic spells that he's casting to get the right dice. A bit too much frog sweat or powdered spider's web, or a badly drawn symbol, and the dice are off by just a touch. ;o)

Fencer: So I did miss it. Oops, apologies. My bad.

eagle_eye, Purple: in other words, you can pay the BrainKing representative of your country.

Fencer: That link was hard to find. Took me several pages to find that page .. did I miss it or is it obscure? It's only because I knew that it exists somewhere that I went looking. I doubt that eagle eye would find it (except by accident when exploring, which is how I know).

I went via BrainKing Staff at the bottom of this page, then Eriisa (because Purple mentioned her). She has a link "Member of BrainKing.com customer service" on her profile page. From that I tried the Representatives link (not a word that spells money!) and only then did I see the alternative payment method.

There's surely a quicker way to that page but it wasn't from Paid membership which is the most obvious place.

Saruman: Lol. Good for you. One of the secrets of dealing with stress is caring less .. then you get to enjoy more.

Chessmaster1000:

Chessmaster1000: Lol. RNG?? A TLA from the man who doesn't use abbreviations?

Luke Skywalker: Hah! I've been making that mistake for ... ever!! Yes, dancing for 9 rolls is reasonable at 4%. Even a 12-roll dance is not totally unbelievable at 1.25% and staying on the bar for 4, 5 or 6 rolls is almost to be expected at 23.3%, 16.2% and 11.2% respectively.

Thanks for pointing that out, Luke. Lol. I've been playing correctly, according to those figures, but, having made the wrong assumption all that time ago about the maths, my experience of seeing long dances so frequently was at odds with my understanding of the probabilities. When I read your correction it was a real Doh moment.

Grim Reaper: I don't object to pre-rolled dice at all, in fact I'd like it. I'd like to be able to decline a doubling cube and then know what rolls my opponent and I were going to get so that I can sigh with relief or kick myself.


"For example, a chess program that uses a transposition table to store positions that are encountered frequently can actually stuff more positions into the same amount of RAM with a better random number generator used to stamp the tokens used as the masks. Better randomness in these "hash tables" can also allow for faster retrieval of the data in these RAM buffers."

Congratulations - you've achieved a very high technobabble score! .. Getting back to the dice... ;-)


I don't think "Mr Profile"'s objection is to runs of doubles as such. I'd say it probably refers to cases where a couple of doubles during the bearoff (consecutive or not) has made a losing difference. Perhaps he doesn't appreciate that doubles occur, on average, once in every six rolls.

The issue of doubles, and lucky dice in general, is more a function of the mind than of the dice themselves. Fix the rolls in all sorts of ways and there will still be an ever growing selection of people making assertions about their "The dice are fixed" perceptions, not realising that they are cataloging and remembering the rolls inaccurately. Four "consecutive" double sixes, for instance, may have actually occurred with a 3-4 rolled in the middle. The cry that goes up whenever someone complains about unfair dice is always "Don't just say it, show us the record". And rightly so.


It's an interesting idea, tampering with the random sequence. I've never seen 5 consecutive double-sixes, let alone 8, so I wouldn't care about removing those sort of patterns. What I'd be more interested in is not being stuck on the bar when there's an open point. Nine rolls on the trot and I can't get one of the 11/36 rolls that will let me in? That's beyond belief! But it "happens regularly" (), so let's fix that one please.

Saruman: How about grabbing one of the games in the Waiting games area, or creating a few of your own?

You might like to change your profile message too, lol. Glad to see you're back into a bg frame of mind. ;-)

Use <i>italics</i> to get italics and <b>bold</b> to get bold.
You can nest the two <i>it<b>ali</b>cs</i> gives italics

Sorry, I don't know how to get font sizes and colors - the standard html tags are simply converted to text:
Not working:
<span style="font-size: 24px">Big</span>
<font size="24px">Big</font>

ClayNashvilleTn: http://brainking.com/en/Profile?u=1985
http://brainking.com/en/Profile?u=1983

NOT a floosie: LOLOL

I nominate (A..Z) Chessmaster1000, Clay, Nobleheart and Pedro, Walter Montego.

harley: Firstly a period for nominations (including self-nominations) and then the voting stage. People could perhaps pose a question or two along with their nomination.

Clay: I've never heard of the Flame Pit. We can't discuss it without knowing what it is, what's going on, etc.

Wish me luck ..... I'm going in. ;-)

Spirou: C'est l'Accord d'Utilisateur - il y a un lien au même fond de chaque page. French AU

It's the User Agreement - there's a link at the very bottom of each page. English UA

bwildman: 1) I wouldn't have reposted those messages here myself, but George (ChessM1000) wanted to protest the fact that he received them as spam. (I did, in fact, send him a message recommending that he delete that post as it gives extra exposure to the Danofool but in the meantime Fencer responded and it became a moot point.)

2) Do you think the UA should protect people who have been banned?

As an aside, I think the use of the word "guidelines" in the User Agreement weakens it. Users must ".. agree to the following guidelines:". That tells me that judgement is required and that not following a guideline is an option. A rule is definite and can be obeyed or broken (or bent if you want to allow that). A guideline is either followed or not, but it is a choice. Perhaps it should be changed to "rules".

Spirou: Yes, I like Clay's idea too, and it's by far the easiest to put in place, but I wonder whether the boards would lose more than they gain (especially the Jokes board!).

bwildman: Lol. That's the rule, of course, but ... that was a PM consisting entirely of messages posted on a public discussion board (last night, before they were deleted). And the rights of a disruptive person who's got himself banned ... ?

ClayNashvilleTn: Could guest players be prevented from doing anything but playing games? Is that a good idea? They could only post msg or send PM's after purchasing a memebership?

Or perhaps after an established player (a paying member or a good Pawn) has vouched for them - as judged from sane and friendly game messages (which should always be allowed) or by already being friends from elsewhere. Maybe it could require 2 or 3 or more people's vouching, or perhaps the vouching player could be deemed the "responsible adult" and therefore suffer consequences if the new pawn is disruptive enough to require banning. That last idea is to help prevent frivolous vouching and, especially, self-vouching of multiple nicks.

The scheme used on the FIBS forums is that new players can't post messages until they have played 50 games. That's an easy strategy to implement but I quickly discovered the drawback. I had trouble creating my account on FIBS and wanted to send a bug report - but wasn't allowed to until I had reached my 50. Duh? But that problem's easy to deal with: Pawns could be allowed to post bug reports and send messages to the moderators right from the start.

nobleheart: No worries on my account, o noble one, you've just informed me about Google's currency converter which saves me having to go to xe.com. :-)

Chessmaster1000: lbs. That's pounds weight. 2.2 pounds = 1 kg.

Google's quite good for conversions: 1 kg in lbs

wayney: Lolol. Thanks to the W in your name (which gets sorted to the top), danoshootfirstaskquestionsnever will now get to see your name in his hidden-users list at the top of the discussion board!

chupacabraVS2: Aye, I know all that stuff. I had a friend like that a long time ago. The best thing I did was walk away . . . . The LAUGHS section in that left-hand panel is good.

Czuch Chuckers: Money, membership? Spell? Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Are you talking about me?

Mind you, lolol, now that you mention pictures. I have to admit (and sorry if this causes offense, ;-)) but whenever I see your piccie it makes me think of Bill Clinton. You look very, er, presidential.

ScarletRose, Rose: Lolol. I thought it was a hoot as well. :-DD

lol. Here's a guy to invest in - if you can believe it.

Purple: Does a 6 foot tall guy with beer belly and wobbly butt** qualify as as statuesque and curvesome? Lolol.

** Not me!

Purple: Yep. Currency converter 1.24700, 0.801928. :-)

There was talk a while back about having configurable pages here. That would be a major job and must be waaaay down the list. Someone said, however, that they'd written a program that would parse pages and rediddle them and the like .. and it would work as long as Fencer didn't change the layout, lol. I can't remember who it was but I'm curious and interested.

ClayNashvilleTn: Congratulations, Clay, on all your postings. I like your friendly smiley photo too. :-)))

In lieu of Fencer's recognition - have some peer praise.
;-)

Fencer: Thankee :-)