Do you understand what it is that I'm talking about? Have you looked at a finished game since you converted to the BrainKing 2? Try this one and tell me what you see.

http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=384814

When I go there, all I see is my pieces. I'm trying to understand why my opponent resigned and I have no way to check the game now that it's over. Could you help me out here? This is what my recent posts have been about. You and everyone else should be able to see the whole board. If the whole board is in darkness, it's acting like the game was still in progress. If you can see the whole board, then you're a special case and you need to have someone else check it and show you or look at through my membership account.

Fencer-
Before you changed to Version 2 of BrainKing, a finished game of Dark Chess could be viewed with the whole board shown. Now it is as if you were still playing the game. It's completely dark if two other people were playing the game. I'm not sure about ideas aside from what I posted in the previous post and on the Dark Chess discussion board about the problem and my suggestion for an improvement instead of just making it like it used to be. Which at a minimum would be nice to have as it was, instead of how it is now. Since you asked the question, I have to assume that you didn't purposely change the programming to make the finished games completely dark. That would qualify as a bug, would it not? I also sent you a short e-mail about it, too.

The finished games are staying dark, instead of showing the whole board as they used to. Is this a bug?
I'd like to request it be made the way it was, or improved by showing all three viewpoints of the players with the boards orientated at the viewer's option.

Geez, you guys must be lazy! No wonder everyone seems to abbreviate. Is it that hard to type Good game, or must we all use gg, too?
I type my handle "Walter Montego", hit tab, type my password, hit tab, hit the space bar, I'm logged on. Now just how much trouble is that? Unless you're having to do it for every move, I don't see the problem. I log in once, and as long as I leave atleast one window on the site and don't log out, I never type it in again that session. Perhaps it's a nice convenience for the little amount of time it saves, but it sure isn't that much of a bother to make it sound like it's the end of the world. Considering some of the other bugs I've come across or heard mention of, I'd like Fencer's efforts directed toward them first if the auto log on feature is going to require a lot of programming to fix.

I'd like to have a little history of the games when I check the rules out. Where it's been played, who invented it or how it evolved. With links for more information. You know, anything that might be of interest in playing or learning about a game and its developement.

What made me think of this is when I checked out Janus Chess just now. The game is almost the same game as Gothic Chess. The starting position is slightly different and two Januses instead of the one Arch-Bishop (Same as a Janus I think) plus the Chancellor. I read somewhere, perhaps on the Chess variants site, that Copablanca made up a version of Chess that the Gothic Chess inventor modified to make Gothic Chess. Now I'm curious about these variants that are very simular to each other and how they've developed. The original reason that I even came across IYT and then this site was because of a variant called Ultima. Neither site has it yet, but I've since learned a couple of the variants that they do have. I learned the game Ultima from a book called Abbott's New Card Games! That's right, card games. He put it in at the end of the book. It's not a card game, doesn't have cards in it at all. Played on a chessboard with different pieces, except the King.

Hey, how's 'bout adding Ultima? And Ultichess, which is Ultimamen versus Chessmen.

I suppose the ultimate variation of chess would be to allow the players to choose which pieces to use in the game, how they're set up, the size of the board, and the object of the play.

Yes, the link took me there. Thank you. Apparently I have an open invitation to join it. I'm not sure if I want to join the fellowships. I don't see much need for them, nor do I understand their purpose. The regular discussion boards work well enough. True, the things discussed or debated are limited to the Discussion Board's topic, but that also makes them easy to find and they're usually on subject. Do the fellowship discussion boards work like this board, or is there a difference besides only members of the fellowship being able to read them?

Where is the Debate Board. I am wanting to read the posts in a debate forum and can't find it. Is it a fellowship, or am I looking in the wrong place?

I went there AD. It looks like a lot of this has been discussed before.
The two things you list as arguments against an auto-pass feature (I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with them, you're just pointing them out for me. Thank you). Chatting between moves and confusion over the board position. If those are the main reasons for not having an auto-pass feature, I say those are very weak reasons. A few people have said eloquently enough why those aren't problems at all. I agree with them.

1) Chatting, especially on this site, isn't a problem at all. All previous chat messages are displayed, and one can read them back and put the current message in context.
Let's say I send a blot to the bar and have all of the homebase's points covered. With auto-pass and the way I play the next few moves, I'm able to keep my opponent from moving for six turns. Then I leave a point open and my opponent now gets a turn. Who missed a chat chance? I don't see it. To my opponent, it would appear that I'd made my regular move and now he can send a chat message if so inclined. I suppose I could send a message for each of the six turns, but why would I talk to myself? If either of us really needed to chat to the other, I for one, wouldn't use a game's messaging for it anyway. I'd send a message through the message box. "grenv" made a valid point about the turn itself that I agree with. My time to make my move should continue to run until my opponent has a chance to move. That way I can't take over the game and purposely delay it for as long as I can.

2) The abrupt change of position resulting from turns being passed. A very minor problem in a game of Backgammon. I haven't played Reversi on this site, but I did play it on It's Your Turn. Seems to me that site has the auto-pass feature as the only way to play. (Opposite of this site, where it is not a way to play. Yes, I'd like to have the option as the player on both sites). Anyway, I remember my opponent being able to keep me from moving. Seems to happen near the end of the game and it's not always to your disadvantage when it happens. It'd come back to my turn and all my pieces had been flipped over. Wow, that's a drag, even if I saw it coming when I made my previous move. I still don't see a problem. Believe me, a couple times when it'd happened, I'd hit the "prev" button and see just how it came down. What confusion are we talking about? If the position is that bad, this helped get the game over and we could start a new one, or hey, I didn't have to play it any more and I could try my luck against a new opponent.

So it gets down to Fencer being against it. It obviously can be programmed since IYT has it. If that's the way it is Fencer, then that's the way it is. Some costumer service, is all I can say sarcasticly. What gives, bud? You seem so accomodating in almost all other things on this site. Considering that you don't play much Backgammon, why even take a position on it and just keep the overwhelming majority of players happy and make it a feature? As we say in America, "It's my ball, and I'm going home".
To quote Fencer. "No auto-pass. Accept it." and "There is a difference between listening and making a decision.". Yes, there is. But good decisions are usually made by listening, even if you do stick to your guns and go it your own way. I think it's a bad decision not to have the auto-pass available, but that's all I have is my oppinion. As this is a minor aggrevation in the few games when it comes up, I'll just deal with it at the time and am not going to say much if anything more on the subject.
I would like to say thank you all for hearing me out on this and had I known how much was said earlier on the subject, I might not have even made my original post concerning it.

Until recently, I have only played Dark Chess, Extinction Chess, and eight games of Keryo Pente. All of these games cannot have a position with an opponent not moving or the game is over. I obviously missed on the debate about the auto-pass feature. Now that I've started to play Backgammon, and have been able to lock up my homebase while my opponent has a blot or two on the bar, I've found that this site doesn't have the feature. That was why I posted my earlier comment. I feel it would improve the play of any game, as I stated in the first post. You seem quite arbitrary in your refusal, Fencer. It will surely improve the play and enjoyment of a game that has it. That's how you play if you were playing the game face to face. For some reason, you're against it. The only problem that I can see it causing for this site, is for those people that are hung up on having their moves for the day counted and broadcast to the world. Who cares how many moves one makes? Let them tally as if they had moved. Delaying a game for no reason seems bad to me.
From reading the posts just now, it looks unanimous minus two for the feature. Why don't you want it Fencer? A reason I can understand, even if I disagree with it, will atleast let me know your thinking on it and can calm the emotions of those that feel unlistened to. As it has been said, it is your site. You can do what you please and if I don't like it, I can go elsewhere or put up with it and stay. I know if one of my opponents blocks me from moving, I'd just as soon have the option of letting him make all of his moves until I have a chance to move. Why tease me with meaningless rolls of the dice?
Couldn't it be set up in the original parameters of a game? Or have it as an option during the game? If you don't like it in your games, you never agree to the option as you can have the default with no auto-pass. The rest of us can hit the button and keep the game moving.

In games where it's possible to block your opponent from moving, but the game continues and your opponent has to wait until he's able to move, I'd like to have the game stay at the person who can move turn. As an example, in Backgammon when I've sent a blot to the bar and have all the points covered in my home base, why have the turn go to my opponent? Why have him roll the dice? He can't move, it might as well stay my turn until a point opens up. Seems like this can happen in Reversi, too. It would certainly speed up a game letting the player keep the turn any time it happens during a game. Plus it wouldn't tease the blocked opponent who knows he can't move.