If computers continue to improve as they have been how long will it take for three orders of magnitude to be made up? 15 years?

Moved to Chess variants page.

Walter Montego: I'm taking this to the Chess variants page.

Computers! Maybe it's too much for humans to know all 960 starting position, but that sure doesn't stop a computer. Especially nowadays. For people, that's three orders of magnitude. Almost like making the start of the game an extra one and a half moves to think ahead before the game starts. This will work with people and the Chess will be more on how well you can move the pieces and how they work together, instead by rote and memorization. Computers on the other hand can start with all 960 positions and start working things out way in advance and have nice book ready for when the game starts. With the time it takes on the internet, even more so. This FRC Chess 960 is just a temporary solution for computer aided games, but I think it will work quite well with peple.

Rex Nihilo: He's a lumberjack, and he's OK!

Where's Monty when you need him, Rex?

Fencer: What is it that is different in the Message Box, fencer?

Part of a post from January 6th in this board. It sure is hard to find posts even when you know the date. Would it be possible to number them along with the date? This would be great for when posts are deleted too, since there would be a break in the sequence like when a check is still out on your account. Anyways, the subject was starting the next tournament rounds before all games are played in the current round.

Then there's this case: 2004 Third Quarter Open Dark Chess=====
http://brainking.com/game/Tournaments?trg=4871&tri=14869
Section four has two players tied for the top spot. I've noticed that when two players have won every game against their common opponents and split their game or games between themselves they will finish with identical S-B scores regardless of what anyone else in the section does. Ol' scubabisto was the only one left with games to play four weeks ago. He's down to just two now, but it certainly would've been nice to conitinue the tournament while he's playing his games that won't change the outcome of the section at all. If I'm wrong about the S-B thingy with two players even like this and it is possible for one to outscore the other, may I ask your indulgence and say, "Nevermind" :)

After I posted this, grenv pointed out that a program could try every possible way the games remaining could be won or lost. In the case where the outcome is the same in all cases, he reasoned why not start the next round? I agree, and it seems like this brute force method would be easy to program and implement. You could have it start checking for different outcomes after about 3/4 of a section is finished. It should also be easy enough to put in certain special cases, like the one I site above, or when one player has finished all of his games and won them all.

Dresden: ughaibu:
Thank you both, now I know what the abbreviation stands for and a little about what it's used for. I have no I idea how it is used or what you guys do with it, but atleast I'll understand what you're asking for now. I take it you program the machines yourselves and this is a type of code that they can read. Is it something simular to Sumerian's Smirf program and how it keeps its score and records the moves?

What does PGN stand for, and what does it do?

Thad: This explains the posts for fencer to change it then. What are these pop up windows that you're refering to Thad? Is there a way that I shut off the smileys, or conversely enable the Java?

plaintiger: Almost sounds like a good thing, though I'm not one to say AOL is good at much. So why don't you guys shut off the Java and stop it from being a problem?

plaintiger: Mine doesn't do anything when my cursor is directly on the smiley. So, what's the deal? If I put it on the question mark, the cursor turns into a finger pointing at a link. If I press the link, I am taken to a table with codes for smileys. Whatever causes your problem, isn't a problem on my computer. Perhaps we are using different browsers or internet service providers and that could explain it?
AOL and Microsoft WindowsXP here.

Vikings: Where'd he mention it, on the Fellowship discussion board? A place I've never been to, by the way. I'll get over it eventually. It has little effect upon my enjoyment of this site. I'm just not happy with how it went down.
If not grandfather clauses, paying extra for extra fellowships sure could be an option. How 'bout charging less for membership for those that don't use the fellowships, but use every thing else? Or even have an "A la carte" type membership where you pick and choose the features you want, or go with a package like it is now (Knight or Rook)?

Czuch Chuckers: Both your options are fair. The one with the grandfather clause would give us all some lead time to adjust as our memberships came up for renewal or get us to pay in advance to keep it going. The other one treats us all alike and is fair in that respect. The way it was done was capricious and arbitrary even if I don't avail myself of the fellowship formation option.

pgt: I don't intend to join or form any either, but it still seems like something is being taken from me. Maybe it's just a preception problem on my part. I'm getting penalized for the actions of others. Why not reward us people that don't cause problems instead of lowering the service because of the idiots that make trouble?

BIG BAD WOLF: We joined three days apart almost two years ago. Why should you get a better deal than me? Where's my grandfather clause? Doesn't seem right or fair to me. And you didn't answer my question as to why this is being done. It does sound like it's being done permanently though.

BIG BAD WOLF: Could you explain this limit? I'm not member of any fellowships, but I'd like am explanation of this limit and when it came about. Does it effect how many one can join? Or be the Big Boss of? What happens to people that are already over the limit? Is the limit temporary or permanent? Why was it instituted? When will it be rescinded? Even though I'm not a member of a fellowship, it seems like a lessening of the service if I'm now restricted when I never even used it. Do I get some other thing as compensation?

Hrqls: Any person can already do that, or do you mean to delete from one board and move it to another? Right now I could copy your post and move it to the Gothic Chess board, but I'm not sure what the point of it would be. Why move them? Seems like telling the poster to take it to the correct board is what most moderators do and that works fairly well.

grenv: I always forget about the brute force method. I'm just a paper and pencil kind of guy. Yes, that's an excellent idea grenv. Only so many pidgeons would fit in the holes and once the outcome could only be one way you could advance the round and fill in the blanks of the previous round or rounds as the results come in. That'd keep things moving along and all players would stll get to play their allotted games too.

Jason: furbster:
I agree to, but it won't be as easy as you think to implement. Sometimes the top two players are tied and through with their games and the slow person has a few games going weeks after everyone else moved 47 times in their games and this guy is on move 11. Anyway, with the S-B thingy needing to use every single person's score to determine who wins the section, you just have to wait until all the games are finished. When there's a clear cut victor that the S-B amout won't change, then by all means start the next round.
Then there's this case: 2004 Third Quarter Open Dark Chess=====
http://brainking.com/game/Tournaments?trg=4871&tri=14869
Section four has two players tied for the top spot. I've noticed that when two players have won every game against their common opponents and split their game or games between themselves they will finish with identical S-B scores regardless of what anyone else in the section does. Ol' scubabisto was the only one left with games to play four weeks ago. He's down to just two now, but it certainly would've been nice to conitinue the tournament while he's playing his games that won't change the outcome of the section at all. If I'm wrong about the S-B thingy with two players even like this and it is possible for one to outscore the other, may I ask your indulgence and say, "Nevermind" :)

This "new" version that you're talking about is the only way I've ever played it, not counting playing Battleship Salvo style where you launch five shots at once. Are you guys telling me that Battleboats is played by taking a shot and whether or not you hit something, the turn passes to the opponent? I've never heard of anyone playing it that way when playing it one shot at a time. When I was a kid and before, I think Milton Bradley started marketing Battleship, we'd play the game on pieces of paper. After we got a Battleship game for a present we'd use it to play. The Salvo version is faster. You get a shot for each boat of yours that hasn't been sunk yet. No extra turns for hits though. Another version we'd play is to announce when a ship is sunk, but not what kind of ship it was. With strategic placing of your boats, you could sometime mislead your opponent into thinking he'd sink a different ship and get him to try elsewhere on the ocean.

Perhaps I'll have to check out the Battleboats here and give it a try.

Much as I would like it available, these kind of histrionics will not really help its cause. I still don't know the reason for fencer's objection to having it as a feature, but I do know that he is against it. I asked him to tell me what he has against it, but I haven't received an answer. This happened when I innocently posted to this board right after I started playing Backgammon on this site that I thought an autopass type of feature would improve the play of Backgammon. Little did I know the firestorm that would be unleashed concerning it. Apparently it had been hashed out quite a bit a few months earlier and fencer had grown weary of the subject. Unless he's changed his mind on it, I thought I'd let you and all others out there know that it ain't happening in near future or even the far future.
As I stated after hearing a lot of pros and cons for its inclusion, those that would use it should have access to it. Those that don't like it can create games and tournaments where it wouldn't be allowed. The rest of us could get on with our games and I wouldn't have to come to the page and see that I still have a blot on the bar and my opponent's home base has every point guarded. There's various ways autopass could be implemented too. As an option for yourself, or for your opponent, or both of you. The first time it comes up in an individual game you could be prompted if you want it until you can move. You could just have it on all the time for yourself. The game when created could have it automatically used whenever it happens in the game. It could also be used when after the dice are rolled you can't move, which is different than when before the dice are rolled you can't move. I can think of more ways to use it, but until there's a chance we might actually have it here I'm not going to bother with it. If there's ever a change in its status fencer, please ask around for how those that want it would like it done. I'll put in my 2¢ as will a many others. I'm sure it would take some play and using to get a feel for what would work best. The people that would use it will be the ones to test it out and report on it.

Some games won't get added to the list if you do it by popularity only. Or should some games be removed if they no longer get played much? What about games that few have heard of, but are very good games to those that play them?
Ultima and Jump Checkers come to mind.

I'd like to be able to have the date shown:
Month, Day, Year. Or have the option to put it that way. I must say that I do like the fact that the whole date is shown without any abbreviation.

Vikings:
It has my support! And I have lots of ways that would make it usable and as an option for various games, especially Backgammon.

Wouldn't we all? I asked for that a few months back, right after I played my first game. I even made a few suggestions about it. Like having the 5 incoming blots not placed on the bar, but off to the side. Marking the hit blots, so they look different than the incoming ones. Putting a line to seperate the two kinds of blots on the bar. Having a sentence appear announcing how many hit blots are on the bar. Seems like there was a couple other things thought of too. Anyway, it has so far come to naught. It now seems we'll have to wait until the new year before any more changes will be happening, but I'd certainly like one or more of these ideas implimented to help improve the playability of Crowded Backgammon.

In the meantime, when I'm playing it and I've forgotten if there's any of my opponent's blots that have been hit I look at the move record and can usually tell from that. If my opponent's last move was not moving a blot off the bar, or if one of his moves was not moving a blot off the bar in his last turn, then I know he has no hit blots on the bar. That's usually enough information, but sometimes it happens that none of those is true and I'm forced to play the game backward until I can truly discern if there's a hit blot on the bar and how many of them. Kind of a hassle, so let's hope fencer will try to help us out here.

I hope 2005 is a good year for you Filip! Just a couple of weeks away now. I'd say you've had a good 2004. Lots better than mine.
Thanks for the site and for being here.
May the bugs be minor and the games good ones. :)

I think this has been requested before, but I'm not sure of the outcome.

I'd like the move number along with the time stamp next to the messages. It'd make it lots easier to follow some of the game comments that my opponents and I make during a game. Especially a game that has lots of moves or tricky positions in it.

I'm against it. Since you automatically get your last bet if you don't change, it means we've all picked. Knowing someone has bet or not gives the late betters an advantage. True, this can be mitigated by being able to change one's bet, but I'd rather make my pick and wait for the next round. And not start playing a bunch of oneupsmenship with the people that want to work the system when I've already bet and they know my last bet's amount.

Doesn't grammar have two m's? :)

I have no idea how Czech is spoken, but just from seeing some of the typos on this site I can gather that it puts the verbs in different places like German does. It never ceases to amaze me how many people speak English and us Americans are so oblivious to how hard of a language it is to learn. Especially spelling it. All the words borrowed from different languages. Ever evolving too. Seems like the English I learned a few years ago is different than the one I use nowadays.

I agree that the wording for games being rated or not should be said in a different manner.

Don't forget in darkness or visible for Dark Chess game reviews.

I'd like the numbers in the columns right justified instead of left as they are now. I think it's easier to see numbers when they're lined up in a column with like units stacked above each other.

You obviously don't play Poker do you Bry? The winner always shows his hand if atleast one person called him at the end. Everyone at the table gets to see it if he is called, not just the players that stayed to the end. If you play a draw type game like Jacks or Better, the opener must show his hand when the game is over even if he's not involved in the showdown. This being the case, atleast when I play Poker as you might play it differently, I think you'll need to use another game for your anaolgy in the previous post as the principal is not showing in your argument at all.

http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/freeling.html

OF course, I'm still looking to play Ultima online somewhere. It was searching for Ultima three years ago that led me to It's Your Turn and then to this site. I believe the Chess Variants site has the rules for Ultima. I'll go look right now. Yes, they do have it and looks like they've updated it in the last year or so.
http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/ultima.html

I wish the people at Chess Variants used better graphics to represent the pieces. There's all hard to see and look strange, especially when compared to this site.

Anyways, there's my games to add wish list.
Still no Ultima, but I've learned lots of new games in the meantime. :)

The second thing you ask for, "search in posts for a certain piece of text", is on my computer. It has nothing to do with BrainKing. It's part of the edit function. I'm using AOL and if I click the Edit button a window drops down and shows me at the bottom of a list of options; "Find in top window". If I click that, a little window appears and I can type in the text I'm searching for and then the find next button and search all the way through the top window. I'd be willing to bet that whatever operating system that you are using has this feature.

As for a particular person messages, I don't have that feature. I could use the edit feature I just told you about and put their handle as the text. Then it would find each message by them, plus any time someone else correctly typed that handle in one of their posts.

I suppose that'd work for me as I have just a few games going, but for someone that carries a hundred or more, they might want to choose a particular person amongst two or three that are online instead of just taking the next one in line or always taking the same person.

Thanks for the tip, I might see if I like that way.

I am thinking having the green dot or something simular show in the drop down for one's games would be handy for keeping a game going. Or maybe a second drop down for current online opponents.

It was just an idea off the top of my head. I suppose it'd be too much the hassle to make such a change, even if everything worked the same for the existing games. Even something as simple as having a check box for changing Chess, Janus, or Gothic into Dark, Extinction, Loop, or regular play would be kind of neat. It wouldn't have to be that big chart that I tried to make it into.

It'd easy enough to not have ratings for lessor played variants, or lump them together with simular games. As for fellowships and tournaments, how would that matter or be an objection? You couldn't have either if no one joined your game, so it'd not be a problem.
I'm just saying that it'd be nice to play any game that could be played without having to have a seperate program and category for it.

Or if it's necessary for each variant to have its own management of ratings, tournaments, and fellowships, so? Don't join them unless you want to. I'm not a member of any fellowship, and I only join a tournament that I have an interest in. Same thing for individual games in public waiting area. If you don't like a version, you don't play. Just as it is now. How does that take away from your game playing experience?

I hadn't thought about the ratings. I play games to play games, not to get ratings. All the same, the ratings have uses and are something to try to get high in or use to find opponents and tournament brackets. If what I proposed was implemented, the mainstrean variants would certainly still have their ratings. I suppose an overall Chess variant rating could be made up, even as it stands now that could be done. As for each individual type of game picked and kept track of, it'd be an obscure type of rating and I'd leave it in the back pages somewhere until the game created crossed a certain threshold of enough players and games played to make listing a rating meaningful. Kind of like how the provisional rating becomes established for a person, it could be done for each variant selected. As a popular variant got played more, they would join the list of mainstream variants.
Unrated works as you've said. Just being able to try a game out or play an obscure variant would be neat in itself.

I mean to be able to have it possible to play all variants. It wouldn't matter if a combination of choices was never picked, it would be possible to play it is all. Like I said, I don't know the particulars of computer programming, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose amongst features and rules of a game to make versions to play. My example of Extinction Janus Chess comes to mind. If the options could be checked and the game implimented through my picks, then I have a game to play with a like minded individual. This would be better than programming each and every Chess variant that is or has a following. There'd be nothing pointless about it and it would only need to be programmed once to enable all the combinations to be played instead having to make a program for each version. If something new comes up, you could add the feature to the main page and then all the others would have it automatically.

I'd like to try playing Janus Chess with Extinction Chess rules. Seems like it'd be a lot of fun and a fast game too. I suppose it could be programmed anew and have its own category like the other versions of Chess, but I was thinking more of having the whole of Chess type games on this site merged into one page and have the game creator check boxes for the version he'd like to create and play.
Something along these lines.

Board size []8 X 8 []8 X 10 [] 10 X 10 []Other

Pieces) []Traditional []Bird's []Grand []Ultima []Janus []Other []Extra []Players with same pieces [] Or different pieces opposed (As say Ultimamen versus Chessmen)

Set up) []Traditional []Gothic []Player defined []Screen []Random

Rules) []Traditional []Extinction []Dark []Loop []etc

King captures) []Not allowed []Allowed []Other

Pawn promotions) []Allowed []None []Restricted

Wins) []Checkmate []Stalemate []King captured []No Moves available, not stalemated []Other []Players with different objectives to win (This option would be important for opposing sides if selected earlier, though it might be good to handicap one player if so agreed between the two people)

Draws) []Stalemate []Agreed []Insufficient forces []Repeated position []No moves available, not stalemated []Other

That should cover just about every version of Chess on this site and quite a few that aren't. If such a deal is workable, I think it'd greatly add to people's experimentation and enjoyment with Chess type games. Not being a programmer, I can't tell if this would be worth the trouble, or if it's just eqasier to add games as is how it's done now. Since Ultima isn't on this site, nor are a lot of other variants, there'd be a lot of programming to do in any case. It'd still be nice just to check a box with an opponent that I've had a long series of games with and easily change the game format to Extinction play without having to have a special category for it on the site. The page could have regular Chess as the default game. If certain combinations are chosen that are the same as a game commonly played it could be announced to the game creator that these choices will make the game Screen Chess or whatever it might be. Or a list of the games and the corresponding checkmarks on the selections could be shown. Making it easy for the game creator to decide if he wants change some rule or play the game in the traditional way. This happens in Dark Chess as there is more than way to display the board and captured pieces during the game. IYT's way is slightly different than here at BrainKing and it can make a big difference in the game when it happens.

Hey, just a thought. What do you think?

I see little wrong with swear words, in and of themselves. It's the context of their use that can deem them profane or appropriate. I rarely use them while talking, and even less when writing. To me they're generally used by people that have feeble minds and say them because of a limited vocabulary. Especially those people that use them in every sentence. They just don't get it. The words completely lose any possible impact they might have and just become filler.
The best cussing and swearing that I've seen is the kind where not one swear word is used. It's become a lost art, but when you come up against someone that knows this kind of talking you can be amazed at the words that spew forth with nary a bad word amongst them.
I side with grenv on this. No filters, besides ain't that what the moderators are for?

As for moderators being too arbitrary and capricious, we do need a mechanism for helping their removal and replacement. If more than a few complain about a moderator as some of you have been doing on this board about the Music board, it certainly must take some looking into. You know that's right Fencer, or you wouldn't have installed me as moderator of the Gothic Chess board. You have the power to do it, but not the time or resources to police each board and still run this site.
Perhaps some sort of polling device, or a complaints registry. We all know if you do a good job, no one will say anything. But screw up just once, and they're on you like flies on fecal matter. This is certainly the case for baseball umpires! :) If they do a good job, you don't remember them. One bad call, and that's the main topic of discussion after the game most of the time.

The other thing is sharing the job, or letting others do it after you've served for awhile as moderator. As has been proven through the course of history, power is rarely ceded or given up freely. No matter how bad a leader is, it usually takes a very bad one before the masses will rise up to do something about it. Even something as inconsequential as being a moderator in an obscure message board of a game site seems to bring out the worst in a good percentage of people. They get a little power, and it goes right to their heads.

Suppose I want to moderate a board, and the current occupant doesn't want to step down or share it. What can I do? Are we in for life, or do newcomers have any rights? How do others complain when they think a moderator is overstepping their authority? They obviously need a public forum. Looks like posting to a different board trying to drum up support is their best option. That's why people have been posting here Fencer. Same thing as to the Gothic Chess board. CothicInventor's one major mistake, and obviously the people in the Music board haven't made it yet, was to make Fencer mad. Oops!

You created the other boards Fencer. Why, I don't know, but they're here. They have nothing to do with games, but people use them. Now the monster is getting a life of its own and will take over your site if you're not ever vigilant. Short of just deleting the non-game related boards, you're going to have to come up with a solution to this soon. Poll a few of the people that care about it, including the ones that people complain about and see if they have any ideas for you. I'd make it easy for a current modrator to advice people of a board that he wanted to step down. Such as a check box at the top of the page. As for someone the wants the job, or wants a new moderator but not themselves inhis place, you need to have a way to change them or atleast let the challenger compete for the job. Perhaps he shouldn't take over as the present person is doing a good job for the rest of the people of the board. I'm not going to suggest an election or something of the sort, but you can think of something. If any of the boards are really that important to someone, let him pay for the position. A challenger could outbid him for the job. Negative comments could also be factored in. Hey, a free market for moderators! :) Such a system could work for the people that get mad at a moderator. They could pool their money by all chipping in a few bucks each and buy it out from under him since it would cost too much for himself to maintain. Most of the boards will remain as they are. Forums for like minded people.

2¢

Or as they say,

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Is the ratings thing working correctly? I've noticed that it seems rather arbitrary with the points it gives and takes. If I'm 300 points ahead of my opponent, shouldn't he gain more than me if he wins? And lose less the me if he loses?
Also, I'm rated in Crowded Backgammon, even though I've only played three games. Mely is not listed on the provisional Dark Chess list even thugh he's played nine games and has a rating of 2284.
The 300 difference question comes from two game that "grenv" and I just finished.
Oh, is this the right posting board for these types of questions?

That sounds like it'd work Fencer. We just need something to tip us off. Though I'd like to know how many blots my opponent has on the bar that must come off as soon as they can too. Helps one form a strategy about which move to make sometimes. It'd be a lot quicker than running the game backwards and trying to figure out what happened using the game graphics. That's why I mentioned using colors, or place captured blots slightly different. Perhaps it'd be easier to have the initial blots start with a different color or position and put the captured blots in their usual place or with their usual color. You could tag them somehow, and then remove the tag after they've been brought into play.

I would like the blots to be placed differently or mark or colored different. As the game goes along and my opponent sends me to the bar, it just heaps them altogether. Only thing is, they play differently. Some can kick it, while the new arrivals have to get off the bar right away. Can be very annoying not being able to easily tell one from the other. Is this just me, or does anyone else have a problem with the drunk blots pestering the sober ones?

In November 1911, Capablanca challenged the World champion Lasker. Lasker replied with 17 conditions. Some of these conditions were that the match should be for the 1st player to win six games, draws not counting, and to consist of no more than 30 games in total.
================================================

This one is from a different site. It looks like the tournament debate has been going on for 90 years!

==============================================
The World Chess Federation (FIDE) was founded in 1924. When the reigning World Champion Alexandre Alekhine died in 1946, FIDE took over the function of organizing World Championship matches. Before that time, sitting champions had been somewhat capricious in determining against whom and on what terms they would accept a challenge match. FIDE also assumed the role of awarding the titles Grandmaster and International Master, as well as eventually assigning numerical ratings to players.

In 1993, in the middle of a cycle of matches to determine the World Champion, Garry Kasparov and Nigel Short broke with FIDE to organize their own match for the title. They complained of corruption and a lack of professionalism within FIDE, and formed a competing Professional Chess Association. Since then there have been two simultaneous World Champions and World Championships: one extending the Steinitzian lineage in which the current champion plays a challenger in match format (a series of many games); the other following FIDE's new format of a tennis-style elimination--or "Knockout"--tournament with dozens of players competing.
===========================================

If that's the state of it nowadays, I'd say it would be best to leave it to the creator or organizer of the games or tournaments. Sounds like ol' FIDE is still messed up. Maybe that's why I stopped playing Chess 30 years ago. I'll get the links:
http://www.chess-poster.com/great_players/capablanca.htm
http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/c/ch/chess_1.html
There's lots more, but it looks like a history lesson that's still ongoing. I used Google with these words typed in to search.
"six game match" chess tournament
They also talk about IBM's Deep Blue program which also had a six game match involving Kasparov. Though they only played six games, draws counting.
Sounds like both methods work.

I remember a Chess tournament with Kasparov or the other guy. They played it first one to get 6 wins, drawn games not counting. Chess about 25, 30 years ago was becoming nothing but a bunch of drawn games. I remember them talking about changing the rules to stop it from happening as much. The rules didn't get changed because it was feared that it would change the game to much. Or maybe some ohter reason. One of the proposed rules was to make a stalemate a win. I can't remember any of the others proposed. Perhaps they had to do with time or not allowing draws at all. In any case they didn't change the rules and the draw debate continues still. It seems like the six wins match game took about 24 games. I'm getting curious now, perhaps I'll look for it on the internet and when it happened. Does anybody remember it?

I would not change it Fencer, or if you do make it so the creator of the game has control over it. You can also put a cap on the number of draws and then have them start to count.

It works like it used to Thank you for fixing it, Fencer. Those Bishops did him in, all right. :) He said in his resignation note that he was checkmated, now I can see that he is.
Thanks again for fixing it.