Do you miss something on BrainKing.com and would you like to see it here? Post your request into this board! If there is a more specific board for the request, (i.e. game rule changes etc) then it should be posted and discussed on that specific board.
Herlock Sholmes: there are two guys who want to play chess for some stake, and agree that they can raise the stake during the game and if the opponent refuses to accept, game ends and the money belongs to the one who offered the doubling ... could you tell me what is wrong with this scenario
For one, this has no analogy with BK. In BK, you win, draw or lose. There are no other outcomes. There's no "winning by a larger amount". If you play a 10 point match, you get the same reward regardless whether you win 10-9 or 10-0.
Second, that would mean the stronger player would offer to double the stakes at the first move, while the position is still equal, instead of waiting till he has an advantage, in order to maximize his chance of playing for doubled stakes.
Off the top of my head, I'd say the draw problem could perhaps be solved by counting draws as 0 points instead of 0.5. Wouldn't that cancel all speculations about doubling in a drawn position?
Draws are a fundamental part of the game of chess, and very common. Scoring a draw as a loss is a big change of the game. You might as well replace the rooks with diamond aces. It just doesn't make sense.
AbigailII: I have a feeling Abigaill that we talk about two different things ... it's like a poet trying to describe his/her world to a mechanical engineer ... I am talking about having some fun and thrill, you about some robots playing chess ... I can show you millions of chess situations where my doubling cube would make perfect sense ... have you ever studied middle games combinations ? I was studying Alekhine games and believe me, had no idea what this genius was doing until the last two or three killing moves ... If it would be my doubling game scenerio I would offer doubling cube to my opponent after discovering a brilliant combination and he would most likely accept it ... is it so hard to imagine that I would double my score ?
And those who played with him were top players, not brainking masters ... and he wouldn't offer doubling cube after the first move since he also was beaten by others. So, your argument about automaticaly doubling after the first move has no place here ...
Herlock Sholmes: Just because you can think of a few positions where you would like to use a doubling cube doesn't imply it makes sense to have a doubling cube. Having a doubling cube means the cube can be used at any time, not just in the positions of Alekhine games.
If it would be my doubling game scenerio I would offer doubling cube to my opponent after discovering a brilliant combination and he would most likely accept it ... is it so hard to imagine that I would double my score ?
Ah, so, your strategy is "if I double, I've discovered a brilliant move". That would only make your opponent look harder. He's then more likely to find the combination as well, and either refuses the double if he believes the combination to be winning, or taking it if he thinks he can refute the combination.
And those who played with him were top players, not brainking masters ... and he wouldn't offer doubling cube after the first move since he also was beaten by others. So, your argument about automaticaly doubling after the first move has no place here ...
Ah, and since BK is populated by Alekhines and players who have beaten him, your arguments do hold?
You may call me an engineer, but I try to see what the effect is of introducing a new rule. And the situation is that BK isn't a closed tournament whose organizing committee invited a group of closed matched players. Player strength varies on BK. There are many games between players of different strength. In tournaments, you don't get to pick your opponent.
AbigailII: few positions ? many, many position in chess have undiscovered yet better plays ... not just few ... my strategy is opposite to what you think: because I discovered a brilliant idea I WILL DOUBLE, not the other way around. You may created an open tournament for every skill level but you may also restrict weak players, right ? So where is the problem ... Bill Robertie one said (two times backgammon world champion) that an average, very good player would have zero chance with the elite players in the match to 21 points ... these players also can double after the first roll knowing that they will win in the long run ...
AbigailII: Draws are a fundamental part of the game of chess, and very common. Scoring a draw as a loss is a big change of the game. You might as well replace the rooks with diamond aces. It just doesn't make sense.
Giving both players 0 points in case of a draw doesn't equal "scoring a draw as a loss", and if the game is played as part as a match, it doesn't change the game at all. It simply means that draws aren't counted, and the match continues as if this game wasn't played. World championship matches have been played this way (but not with the doubling cube, obviously!).
As you pointed out yourself, when draws are scored as 0.5 there's an undesired side effect of the doubling cube: The leading player can double the effect of a draw, thereby bringing himself closer to winning the match. This can be remedied by not scoring draws at all, and I really can't see any serious drawbacks of this solution.
pedestrian: The leading player can double the effect of a draw, thereby bringing himself closer to winning the match. This can be remedied by not scoring draws at all, and I really can't see any serious drawbacks of this solution.
Wait, you do see that the leading player can double the effect of a draw bringing himself closer to winning the match if there's a double, but you cannot see it's beneficial for the trailing player that draws won't count? If I'm trailing in a match, and the current game is likely to be a draw, there shouldn't be any hesitation to double if that means the game effectively won't count, should there?
Of course, you could do something wild like "In the case of a draw, the person holding the cube scores half the count on the cube, the other player gets 0. If no player holds the cube (no doubling has happened) the score is 0.5-0.5". Which means that a score of "1-0" could mean either win by white, or a draw with white having doubled. Non-sensical if you ask me.
Herlock Sholmes: because I discovered a brilliant idea I WILL DOUBLE
Right. So, if that's the only reason you double, it means "if you double, you think you've discovered a brilliant idea". Or are there other reasons that you will double? Reasons that occur often enough for your opponent not to consider "double by Herlock Sholmes means he thinks he has discovered a brilliant idea".
AbigailII: you cannot see it's beneficial for the trailing player that draws won't count?
I think that's a valid point - that's actually how it works without the doubling cube, too. In my defence, I'll say that I covered this possibility when I said that I didn't see any serious drawbacks. Let's take your argument a step further:
If I'm trailing in a match, and the current game is likely to be a draw, there shouldn't be any hesitation to double if that means the game effectively won't count, should there?
Why is that a problem? Most likely, the game is going to end in a draw. In that case, both you and your opponent gets the double of 0, which is 0. So you can double, but it will only have consequences if there are indeed other possible outcomes than a draw. Which I guess was sort of the intention of introducing the doubling cube in the first place. Or, in other words: If there is even the slightest possibilty that you might lose, there should also be a slight hesitation to double. And if there's really no such possibility, then as you say, there shouldn't be any hesitation. I think that is how it should be. I don't see a problem.
AbigailII: no, not only after discovering brilliant ideas ... I would occasionally trick my opponent into thinking I have a killing option ... doubling theory in backgammon has nothing to do with excellent rolls in a row (when doubling is an obvious thing to do)
I would like to be able to find games between top players here (mostly in Chess variants), to replay them and maybe learn something from the moves made. At the moment, players' finished games give little indication of playing strength. Could a rank or rating column be added? Or is there another way to find what I'm looking for?
You can find someone's user number by going to their profile. (ID #)
One way to find the top chess players, would be to choose "Ratings" in the left hand menu, and then click on "Chess"
Choose the people you are interested in, get their ID#'s and insert them in the URL above.
Of course, you may have to click on the different years to find some games. On that screen you will see a list of all game types they have played together. When you click on the game type. You will see the games they played this year. If they haven't, you will have to click on the other years. Unfortunately, the "Last 10 Finished Games" isn't working still.
Argomento: Restrict the number of tournaments created, by each player, per month
Modificato da Undertaker. (20. Febbraio 2010, 15:53:49)
Hi everybody!
There're some people creating many tournaments with same characteristics (all games and same time control) and it's confused for people choose a tournament to play a specific type of game, because some players want play the same type of game, but tournaments don't start, because players are dispersed for some tournaments.
I understand people have a good intention when are creating tournaments, but the result isn't the best and unfortunatelly these persons don't still understand it.
So, would be possible restrict the number of tournaments created, by each player, per month?
Argomento: Re: Restrict the number of tournaments created, by each player, per month
AbigailII: If these tournament creators cannot see for themselves that there is very little demand for their creations, I'm not at all optimistic about the chances of educating them.
Argomento: Re: Restrict the number of tournaments created, by each player, per month
AbigailII: but has someone has signed for every game in every one of your tournaments and we all know she resign these games wouldn't it make more sense to delete these tournaments and start again
Argomento: Re: Restrict the number of tournaments created, by each player, per month
Undertaker.: I think the best solution is to implement better search options, rather than restricting the tournament creators. For example, a search for a specific game type should give you a list of only the relevant sections of each tournament (rather than the current list of tournaments, where you have to click each one and look for your preferred game). That way, you could compare your options more easily. Add to this an option to search for those tournament sections that only need a few players, and I think the problem is more or less solved.
The real problem is not all the empty tournament sections, the real problem is that we can't get rid of them in the search.
Argomento: Re: Restrict the number of tournaments created, by each player, per month
pedestrian: Yes, i think your suggestion is a good help for this problem. In this moment, there're not much search options and if we're trying to select a specific game type to play a tournament, we find many tournaments, because most of them include all games.
Why not someting like that: select a specific game type and then appear the information (about this specific game type only) with the number minimum of players request to start that tournament.
Example: I select "anti chess" game and we have: Tournament A - 2/5 (there're 2 players and we need 5 to start) Tournament B - 4/8 (there're 4 players and we need 8 to start) Tournament C - 14/16 (there're 14 players and we need 16 to start)
I really want a new frog legs game...I'm very frustrated in playing the current one. I will NEVER lose unless people play risky. you can use risky logic and win in this game.. very weak! I would like to see higher risk for a guess that is not proven with logic...( if they guessed). also more frogs (20) on a board at one time will eliminate risky guessing. an example if i see threee 1s in a row i know logically that the frog is inbetween them. but this is not true in all siutations so if they guess and are correct they would only get 1/2 points and if they miss they would loss 10 pts. b/c it was an unfounded guess! Do not reward GUESSES.. and punish them severly.
I have noticed that for Estonians it is better URL in Estonian: http://brainking.com/ee/?refuid=24622 . I think it will be good if we can promote BrainKing with our ID not only in English. We choose our language and then the program can give the URL. I see that my last link don´t work through discussion board. But if you copy and set it manually or through my homepage - it works perfectly.
The forces of the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights were decisively defeated in the battle, but were able to defend their castles and retain most of their territories despite the long-term consequences they suffered as a result of losing the battle. The order never recovered its former power, and the financial burden of the ensuing reparations eventually caused a rebellion of cities and landed gentry.
I decided to commemorate this big event (600 years anniversary) by creating a new chess variant called Grunwald Chess ... The rules are exactly the same as in traditional chess, with the exceptions given below:
1. Knight can move also as pawn (including double move from starting position) 2. Knight can promote as in traditional chess only when they reach 8th or 1st row as a pawn ... 3. En passant is possible as long as knight moves two fields from its starting position as a pawn ... 4. Knight is entitled to move two fields as pawn as many times as it wishes after reaching the 2nd and 7th row on its sites ... Below is the link to my new blog about chess variants. Please visit me and "tell me what is wrong with me, lol"
In some forums you have a timed edit feature. You get a limited about of time to edit a post and after that the edit feature is gone.
Is it possible to implement that feature in the fellowships? It would be nice to have it so that for the poster, the edit feature is timed but for moderators and BB there is no time restrictions. :)
When someone finish to play a espionage game or a logik game, all the pieces of both players are showed. However, in battleboats games, the loser cannot see all opponent boats.
Undertaker.: I think that this has been asked before, yet i am at a loss to think of the answer. I am sure it was something along the lines in that the player might wish to use that set-up again....... which don't make sense as that could apply to any of the games in the Game Editor (Screen Chess, Crazy Screen Chess, Battleboats, Battleboats Plus, Dark Battleboats, Espionage, Small Espionage, Fast Espionage, Open Fast Espionage, Small Fast Espionage or Logik)
In very old posts I found some requests about Chu Shogi and Tori Shogi. Would it be possible to play these games here in the future ? Thank you very much for your attention Nicola
a combination of cribbage scoring and typical dice mechanism:
Equipment: 5 dice
Game play:
there is 10 rounds and who gets more points after the 10th round is finished, is the winner. Draw is when players' score is the same. Player A (let's say white) rolls 4 dice. If the player likes what he/she sees (later about this), he/she rolls the fifth die and start counting points. If the player wants to improve what he/she sees, he/she takes one, two, three or all 4 dice and reroll them. Then he/she rolls the fifth die and start counting.
Counting:
if the player rolls his 4 dice only ones, he (as a bonus) may count pips on the fifth die EITHER on top of the die, OR at the bottom ... so, if, let's say, 5 is at the top, he may use it for counting, or he may use 2, which is exactly opposite to 5 at the bottom od die ... if he chooses to reroll his 4 dice he may use only top number of his 5th die for counting ... how to count ?
1. For each pair - 2 points
2. For the same three dice - 6 points
3. For the same four dice - 12 points
4. For all the same dice - 20 points
5. For a run (sequence) - as many points as many dice make the run (3 minimum)
6. For 15 points on any combination of dice (example follows)
Example: [6] [6] [5] [4] [1] = 12 points total for all the combinations (details below)
[4] [5] [6] = 3 points (first run or sequence ) [4] [5] [6] = 3 points (second run or sequence)
IMPORTANT: in cribbage, as you noticed, cards, or dice in our game may be counted several times in different combinations. This is very important feature in this game.
Hope all the cribbage players and dice games fanatics will find a pleasure playing this game. Perfectly playable head to head.
AbigailII: and I totally agree with you ... I was thinking that this little dice cribbage would be much easier to implement since dice routines are well established here ... besides, dice games are the most popular at brainking and it would be a nice addition to our collection.
joshi tm: thanks for asking ... it'll be my pleasure to explain the whole (really easy) mechanism of this little game. Let's picture this:
- we have a table showing 10 rounds and accumulated points for the players (very similar to Dice Poker)
- below the table we have 4 dice ready to be rolled and 1 separated die (similar to starter card in cribbage)
Scenerio I
- you start always by rolling 4 dice ... you examine the outcome ... do you see any pairs, 15s, runs, etc ? do you want to keep this roll ? do you see any chances to extend it when you roll starter die ? you will have two numbers from the starter die when you accept your roll now... top number or bottom number will contribute to your score ? do you need 6-1, 5-2 or 3-4 on your starter ? let's say you accept your roll of 4 dice and next step is to roll your starter die... now you are ready to count the points and your turn ends ...
Scenerio II
- you didn't like your initial roll of 4 dice ... you hope to get something better ... you take 1, 2, 3 or all 4 dice and RE-ROLL them. Next you roll the starter die and begin your counting ... this time you may use only TOP of your starter die ... this is a penalty for RE-ROLLING your 4 dice ...
OK, this is really funny and fast dice game ... it teaches some cribbage principles and how to manages your luck-skill abilities ... this game is my invention originally published on polish site devoted to dice games ...
here is another invention of mine ... it's based on very popular dice game FARKLE of FARKEL ... there are many versions of this game. They call it the game of guts and luck ... there is one thing that make it very different ... you may roll dice as many times as you want, as long as you manage to get VALID meld every time you roll remaining dice ... let's look at the details:
Equipment: 6 dice
Examples of valid melds and points (with premiums) they bring:
Straight [1][2][3][4][5][6] = 100 Three pairs [1][1][3][3][5][5] = 18 (any three pairs will do) Six of a kind [1][1][1][1][1][1] = 6 + 120 preminum (any six of a kind will do) Five of a kind [4][4][4][4][4] = 20 +50 premium (any five of a kind will do) Four of a kind [5][5][5][5] = 20 + 40 premium (any four of a kind will do) Three of a kind [2][2][2] = 6 + 30 premium (any three of a kind will do) Pair of sixes [6][6] = 12 (ONLY pair of 6s will do) Six [6] = 6 (ONLY single 6 will do) Pair of ones [1][1] = 2 (ONLY pair of 1s will do) One [1] = 1 (ONLY single 1 will do)
Mechanism of play:
1. You start by rolling 6 dice ... examine the outcome ... IF you have any of the above VALID MELDS, you HAVE to put them aside and roll the remaining dice ... You DO NOT HAVE to put aside all the valid melds you got ... VALID MELDS that are put aside are frozen and you cannot add dice to them to increase their point value and they cannot be used in next roll ... example: you rolled 6-6-4-3-1-5 ... you may put aside 6-6, single 6 or single 1 (or combination of them)... assume you put aside 6-6 ... you re-roll remaing dice ... and you got 2-2-1-5 ... you put aside 1 as a valid meld ... roll again 3 dices ... you got 4-4-4 and put them aside (valid meld) ... so what you got so far is 6-6 1 4-4-4 = 55 points ... here is an important TURN ... since you used all 6 dices to get valid melds you HAVE to roll all of them again, but don't worry , your 55 points roll over with you to the next round ... you roll 6 dice again ... and TADA !!! you didn't get any valid melds, for example 5-4-3-3-2-2 ... you LOOSE your 55 points and the next player take his turn ...
let's say you rolled 5-5-5 1-1 4 ... you put aside 5-5-5 and re-rolled 3 dice ... and you got 2 3 5 ... again, you lost your turn since 2 3 5 are not valid melds and instead of collecting 45 points for 5-5-5 (15 +30 premium) you got nothing ... BUT WAIT, in Farkelek you may stop rolling any time you want ... and in our case you may collect 45 points for 5-5-5 and stop rolling ...
Important:
1. You stop rolling whenever you want and collect points (with the exception when you used all 6 dice for valid melds)
2. You keep rolling as long as you want, providing you are getting valid melds in each and every roll
3. In case of 1s and 6s you cannot extend your frozen melds to get a premium ... example: you put aside 6-6 for 12 points and in the next roll you got another 6-6 ... you cannot combine this two valid melds into one and get 40 points premium ... the same applies to other numbers ... when you get 4-4-4 in first roll you cannot combine with it another 4-4-4 from the next roll to get the highest premium of 120 points for 6 in a row ... your points will be in this case only 84 points (4-4-4=12+30=42 plus another 42 points for the second set of 4-4-4) ...
4. Game of FARKELEK can be played to 1000, 2000 or more points.
5. When the first player (the one who started the game) reaches the goal of 1000 points, the other player has ONE MORE turn ... this is very important feature in the farkle family of games ...
Hope you like it ... it's a very exciting game ... therer are many, many home based rules and you may read about them on the internet:
Undertaker.: That would be possible, of course. However, the Main Page will be completely redesigned and best BKR box either removed or moved to another location, so I would like to keep this issue open until I have something live to show.
I was always curious why nobody plays backgammon for points ... we have 15 checkers and eventualy we get them all home, leaving opponent with some of his/her checkers in the field. Score can be anything from 15:0 to 15:14 ... game can be played to 30, 45, 60 or more points ... or if we take only net points, the goal should be lower ... 15:0 can be counted as double points giving 30 points for the winner ... doubling cube can be easily incorporated into this system of scoring ... I think it can be more exciting to play for points rather than for won game only, since every checker would count toward the final score ...
Herlock Sholmes: I like the idea a lot. We play a version of this on another site. The number of checkers remaining on the board in the final position count toward computing the "value" of a victory/loss, but there are some other multipliers counted as well: (1) the distance of the farthest checker back, ranging from 1 for being in their inner board up to 5 for still being on the bar, (2) 2x or 3x for gammons or backgammons, plus some additional multipliers that kick in in later rounds of tournaments, further raising the stakes.
So the games can range in value from just 1 in early rounds, on up through several hundred. Tournament participants begin with 100 units/points/chips. Players who suffer losses that cost all of their remaining units are eliminated from the event. To me, at least, the event has a poker-like feel, as the field is reduced in size, and relatively enormous sums change hands.
(nascondi) Quando muovi in una partita puoi scegliere con quale partita continuare selezionando l'opzione adatta nella lista vicino al bottone MUOVI. (pauloaguia) (mostra tutti i suggerimenti)