I'd like to know why this happens. I lost and then won against an opponent rated more than 200 points lower than me, yet I ended up better off than before. As did my opponent! ???

here they are

sLaMdAnCe is the winner.

sLaMdAnCe: old BKR = 1725, new BKR = 1760 (+35)
grenv: old BKR = 1992, new BKR = 1975 (-17)

Game type: Hyper Backgammon

You are the winner.

grenv: old BKR = 1975, new BKR = 1994 (+19)
sLaMdAnCe: old BKR = 1760, new BKR = 1727 (-33)

Game type: Hyper Backgammon

In the first instance, you have a rating of 1992, with some built in "uncertainty" about how accurate it is. Your opponent has a rating of 1725 which may be a more accurate representation of his "true rating".

So, your 17 point penalty reflects two things:

1. You lost to someone "far" below you with a more certain estimate of their strength. This reinforces the notion that your "true" rating has not been properly tuned yet. So, there was a larger adjustment.

2. Their rating was a more accurate representation of their performance, so you "should have" been able to win if the 1992 rating was accurate, which the systems stipulates is not the case yet.

Your subsequent win of 19 points reflects the fact that the previous "rating correction" was too aggressive. Your 1975 rating was more accurate than your 1992 rating, based on the information known at the time of that previous event. But now your opponent was more accurately rated at 1760, and you won.

Your opponent was penalized 33 points because his gain from the last game was "too high". He lost to a more accurate rating from a lower rated opponent, so the penalty should not be as great.

Ummm. what? Que?

My opponent seems to have been rated correctly, but I should have lost points by splitting the games against an opponent rated below me. Both our ratings were well established.

The ratings system is not a so-called zero sum.

If you play only against each other, and split every other game, your ratings will oscillate then eventually become equal.

But along the way, the ratings functions will look like a carrier wave enveloping another signal.

You might be -17, +19, -15, +17, -13, +15 ... with an odd-even cancelation kicking in at some point too.

There are 2 numbers per opponent: rating, and rating deviation (rd). The rating number is published, the rd is part of a hidden calculation.

Your rd governs the rate of change of your rating more than the individual combat against another player.

If you lose your first 30 games against the lowest rated people on here, then win 30 games in a row against the highest rated people on here, your rating would still be near the middle of the pack.

If you won your first 30 games against the top players on here, then lost your next 30 games against the lowest rated players on here, your rating would be much higher.

This is turning into a discussion of some sort, please take it to the appropriate board.

I know there aren't any portuguese DB's (yet). But since I've changed my language to portuguese I have only two options: either don't see any DB's at all (since there are no portuguese - yet), or see all language DB's.
Would it be possible to select to see only the DB's in the languages we'd be interested in?

pauloaguia: That's what I mean by the end of the Server News :-) It must be implemented first.

Fencer: I thought so! But thought I reminded you, just in case ;)

The current multi-game tournaments are nothing more than a bit of syntactic sugar to create multiple tournaments with the same settings. For instance, if one were to create a "backgammon variations" tournament, it will give 6 different winners, not a "backgammon variations champion".

I think it would be nice to be able to create tournaments where people played their opponents in all of the selected games.

AbigailII: Excellent idea. I vote for that too.

Is it to hard to implement message forwarding? I've been forwarding quite a few messages this morning and it's getting tiresome, having to copy / paste it over and over again...

pauloaguia: Should be easy.

AbigailII: You have my vote too. For what it's worth.

grenv: And mine. Even though I'm wondering if it would be made available for pawns (with game slot limitations and all - I guess it could happen for 2 or 3 game type tournaments).
Anyway, if not, one more incentive for some pawns to become paying members

I wanna be able to add myself to my friends list.....
I dont often know what I am doing, so it would be nice to stalk myself and see what I am up to LOL

Fencer, Is It Possible To Get The Smileys And The Code In A Printable Version?
http://brainking.com/game/Help?ht=11
I Wanted To Print That Page Out To Use For Reference But Dont Want All The Stuff On The Sides Of the Page.

Arctic Warrior: You could just highlight the area you want to print, then choose to print only the "selection" of what you selected, and not the default of "all"

BIG BAD WOLF:

Hmmm, have never done such a thing.
I've never seen the option to do just a highlighted area. If I just hit my print button it always prints the whole page..

Highlight what you want to print.

Go to File, Print (not the printer icon in the toolbard)

There you should see something about a "Print Range" - where you will have choices like "All", Pages X or X, or "Selection".

Selection will only print what you have highlighted.

(of course this is me writing if for a PC user using any major web browser - IE, Firefox, etc..)

BIG BAD WOLF:
It worked Thanx

Arctic Warrior: Not a bad idea. I could make a printable version of all BK pages.

Maybe this has been apprached before but I cant remember: Is there any plan to start a BKR Penalty for players that refuse invites?

An example being the current leadr on Battle Boats Plus has not played that game since September last year i think, and has had an open invitation for a few days now to play me, with no success. Are there people that just play a few games, get a high BKR and then just sit back and never play again for fear of loosing?

I think when a person that is in the top 20 refuses to play a rated game they should loose some BKR........any views???

Aragon: Player, who didn't played a rated game for a year, should be removed from the rating list. If he/she plays again, the old rating is used and the player appears on the rating list again. This is how FIDE does for ELO chess ratings.

A year is a bit long is it not? Maybe not? Just seems weird to get yourself so high and then not want to:

a) improve your position
b) defend your position

fencer plans to implement it that way. he posted something this a little time ago .. i think he wanted to make it 6 months (or even 3?)

Hrqls: 3 months for pawns, 6 months for paying members. Or something like that. It's written in my TODO list somewhere ...

Fencer: ah ok .. thats why i had both numbers in my head :) thanks :)

I would just like to add something to the equation here. I get pulled into a great many "3 wins" matches in the finals sections of tournaments. If you look at my profile, it looks like I have only 1 completed game of Gothic Chess for the whole year, when in fact I have some games wrapped up in the envelope of 3-wins matches that have not "counted" yet.

I would like to think that any such completed game, even though not yet "known" to the outside world, should be able to reset such a timer countdown.

I mention this because some of these 3-wins matches are very, very long.

Yes.

I think any BKR relevant action should count here, i.e. any move from the 3rd on in a rated game

ON the subject of final rounds, I would like to be able to choose the method. For instance 3 wins is unfair to black in some games, so here 2 or 4 games may be fairer, or play consecutive games with a split leading to another round (much quicker to play the games concurrently).

What if player A copies the moves of player B?

Fencer: Thanks for the improvement to the Fellowship news time limit.

Fencer: Probably on your "to-do" list, but have you plans to make it so when you click in the red numbers next to the discussion boards, you are taken straight to the oldest "new" post?, rather than having to scroll down when there are 100+ posts that are new?

Bry: Yes.

Bry: That would be a good one. Some boards go back two pages (on webtv) overnight.

Purple: Yes, it's the same on PC too.

Fencer - Great - thanks.

I dont know about anyone else, but i've noticed some really great minor improvements to the site over the past week or so...

reza: I also am for that type of tournament. Best of 3 variants--like a triathlon, or maybe more events can be included. "Strategy Champion".

Fencer: I have noticed some little adjustments to options, such as sending messages to all members of a fellowship at the same time, checking progress over months' time in a particular kind of gameplay (chess progress, for example, over a year's time in a graph), direct messaging, length, and some others I may have overlooked for the purpose for this message. Liquid and Fencer, for all that you have done, and all you continue to do, I thank you from the great state of Georgia. I just renewed my membership again, and I have been well pleased with your work.

By the way, are "ladders" that are mentioned in the feature request competition ladders or is it a game of some sort?

... and speaking of Ladders, i would love to see other tournament options.

For example, a ladder system.

I would also love to see "bracket" type tournaments as an option, in addition to our round-robin type of tournaments. (For example a 4 person bracket - player 1 plays player 3, and player 2 plays player 4 - the winners of those 2 games then go on and play each other. (4,8,16,32, or 64 player tournaments - or with a little work, make it with "odd" amount of players, but give random people passes into the next round.)

BIG BAD WOLF: Good idea, except that normally 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3.

BIG BAD WOLF: You could have a seeded single elimination type tournament as tennis is done. If the number of people at the start isn't a power of two it's no problem. The seeding could be based on the rating of each player. Say you had 13 people sign up. The top three seeds would get a bye round, 4 vs. 13, 5 vs. 12, 6 vs. 11, 7 vs. 10, and 8 vs. 9. The second round could be reseeded as hockey does, or the brackets could be kept the same as basketball and tennis do. 1 vs. winner of 8-9, 2 vs. winner of 7-10, 3 vs. winner 6-11, winner of 4-13 vs. winner of 5-12. I would think a double elimination tournament could also be set up along similiar lines.

grenv & Walter Montego: Yes and Yes.

One of the best features of this site is that users can create their own tournaments - so to have options of more different types of tournaments would be a great addition.

Walter Montego: The only seeding hockey is doing at the moment is in their back yard.

grenv: Ain't that the truth? :)
Funny things is I got the day off and stopped at a nursery on the way home. I got some yellow hot peppers and tomatillos and just planted them too!

I didn't read all the conversation (i will....) but i think you speak about adding new ways/systems of playing tournaments. I would like to see a ladder system but most of all i would love to see a knock-out system alone or mixed with groups, something like CHAMPIONS LEAGUE.......
It will bring new life to Brainking tournaments.....!

grenv: Good idea, except that normally 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3.

It depends. In the US Chess Federation, out of a pool of 100, 1 would play 51, 2 would play 52, 3 would play 53.... and 50 would play 100.

The rational is that the relative "rating difference" among the participants would be more or less constant.

Did anyone here every play on Playsite.com? They use to have realtime elimination tournaments that were scheduled in advance on the site, it would be quite a large draw at times.

Is that another suggested feature?