Czuch Chuckers: I see a lot of potential in these fee tournaments. I only just started doing tournaments again. I had stopped in 2004. I don't have too many and so far I've only sponsored one of those. 2004 Third Quarter Number 3 Dark Chess. This was the first time I ever lost a tournament of Dark Chess, so maybe I grew disheartened? Anyways, I'm over it and I have started creating a few tournaments again. I'm planning on sponsoring the third quarter Dark Chess one again, but now there's new options. Not all change is an improvement from the start, if ever, though most things on this site always seem to tend toward getting better. Fencer might be a great programmer and he is certainly a responsive site owner, but he might not understand human nature or how to sell products as well as some sales type people do. Most people don't mind paying a cut if they think they're getting a fair shake or if they believe no one is taking advantage of them. Obviously if he put into effect what I said to do it would greatly lower his take of the action. But if it increased the number of tournaments with fees by five times he'd come out way ahead in the long run and people would be happpy or they'd not participate in those types of tournaments as BIG BAD WOLF has pointed out.

Czuch Chuckers: I guess I've been a derelict in my duties as ombudsman, eh?

BIG BAD WOLF: I did not say boycott, nor did I advocate such an action. I think Fencer created this entry business without thoroughly checking out how to implement it for greatest acceptance. I put some ideas into my previous post that I thought would make it a lot better for him and everyone else. Who doesn't like winning a prize for finishing in the money? I don't mind paying a fee if I think I'm getting my money's worth, win or lose. I think if what I recommend was to be put into place, lots more tournaments of the "Entry fee" type would be created. After all, the tournament creator would have a chance to get some BK Brains if he didn't award all the entry fees back into it and Fencer could take a cut out of that, say 30%. In the case of a tournament creator deciding to award all the fees collected, it would be a simple thing for Fencer to charge a nominal tournament creation fee to the creator, wouldn't it?

I just created a couple of tournaments. They're not prize tournaments, but I noticed the entry fee set up on the page for creating new tournaments. How come the prize fund is limited to 70%? I wouldn't mind giving all the the winners the whole amount. What happens to the other 30%? Does the tournament creator get it? Does Fencer get it? Do they share it? 30% seems like a very high piece of the action. Even Keno in Vegas ain't that steep usually. If the creator gets it or a piece of it, I definitely think he should be able to award all of it if he so desires. If Fencer gets all of it I have to question this. We already pay for our memberships, why should we have to fork over 30% of the purse to the site operator? A fair cut should be between 5% and 16%. I favor charging no cut at all unless the creator of the tournament gets a piece of the action then I could see justifying Fencer getting a piece of the action since he is supplying the site for the tournament creator to have his tournament. 30% is a little too much and most people are going to balk at kicking in so much. Least ways, I'll be reluctant to enter, especially if there's not too many people in the tournament. I suppose if 100 people sign up and pay 20 BK Brains each, I wouldn't mind 40% of 2000 Brains if I was to win. I just checked, the minimum appears to be 50 BK Brains. So that'd be 40% of 5000 if the creator set it at 40-20-10. 2000 BK Brains in this example. Of course you'd have 100 opponents and it wouldn't be easy to win such a tournament. Still 30% of the 5000 is 1500 and that'd be taken right off the top. It seems kind of high. Even 10% would be 500 and I don't see any extra service provided for the trouble.

I am planning on sponsoring a tournament in the third quarter. I'll be putting up all the money. This is the way it's been for awhile now. Fencer said I could combine doing that with having an entry fee payout too. The thing is, not everyone has these Brains and they won't be able to enter even though I'm sponsoring the tournament. What is the percentage of current members that have BK Brains? It needs to be near 100%. I assume Pawn members are the least likely to have BK Brains. In my open tournaments I like having Pawn members participate. Invitationals would be different, but even then if I have an invitational some of my invitees might just happen to be Pawn members. How hard is it to acquire these BK Brains? For the longest time I never had any. Then a long time ago friend from IYT decided to join this site and he apparently refered me and now I have 50 Brains. I've heard that one may purchase these Brains. It's easy enough to send money in I suppose. How successful has this been so far? I already bought my membership or have had the good fortune to win a prize tournament. I did these things before this new Brain exchange deal come into effect this month. Does buying a membership now also get the purchaser some BK Brains, or do they have to be purchased or won seperately and put into your account?

I hope this new BK Brains tournament entry fee is in a testing stage and some things might be open to change or adoption. As it set up now, I have some problems with it. I think with some slight modifications and more leeway given to the awarding of prizes by the tournament creator could greatly increase the popularity of these types of tournaments. Sharing money not awarded and lowering the percentage kept or even eliminating it if so desired should really be considered.

alanback: Now that you mention it I think it's almost 210 days for the weekends if you and I have different days set.

playBunny: It took me awhile to figure what was going on! September 2005!? Even molasses on a cold day moves faster than that. :)

Fencer Re: can people buy vacation days ? 20. August 2005, 04:48:07
Jason: Well, it wasn't officially announced yet but if you extend your membership by another year, the vacation counter would be reset to the original value (30 for Brain Rooks, etc.) instead of waiting for the 1st January.

How do you guys make those neat links to the exact posting?
Ah, the context button.
http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=1&bscx=382336#382336

This would seem to answer it from the top. It also says that on January 1st all the BrainRook counters get reset to 30 days. Someone asked if you could exceed 30 days and Fencer answered no to that question.

Let's see there's 52 weekend days off. 30 vacation days. Plus a time limit of 7 days. In theory two players could take the whole year to move a couple of times, eh? And I've seen 30 and 21 day limit tournaments. Amazingly, quite a few of them have finished. It gets down to the people involved more so than the rules and parameters.

harley: That indeed does it. I didn't know that was possible. I must've hit both at the same time and didn't realize it. Thanks

Have they changed, or'd something happen to my computer?

Gamek: Sounds like ol' Fencer's been a busy boy adding that feature since I last looked up someone else's games. I'll have to check it out sometime. Thanks for the tip.

There you go Princess Alison, all sorts of ways to find games you might be looking for.

Princess Alison: Go to your own profile and click on the game of your choice. If you want a particular person you go to their profile and choose games played with yourself. If you want to see how someone played against somebody besides yourself, this site doesn't support that directly. You can use the "Find in page" option of your browser to find particular opponents or yourself.

Yes, I've seen some people that have a series of games with one person that numbers in the thousands. I have a few that have more than twenty.

Princess Alison: That's one of the original features of this site. Go to the person in question's profile and view completed games. All of them are there. You may also choose to view just the games this person has played against yourself.

Fencer: I suppose my writing style might have led you to believe I was complaining, but I was questioning the workings of it. It doesn't make sense to me and if I was going to play it I needed that resolved well enough for me to give it a try. Just because you put a lot of time and effort into something doesn't mean that what is created is final, complete, or finished. This site itself is a good example of that, let alone any additions you make to it.

I will save any further questions I have for the "Stairs" feature for that board .

playBunny: But since you're now below him, he can challenge you, but you can't challenge him? I don't understand the reasoning behind this.

Thanks Fencer for explaining that I don't need to play it. I already understand that. Every time you've added something new to the site, there's always been questions about it. Remember when you added Ponds? Lots of people complained or suggested changes. You made a few of them. That's all I was doing by quetioning this "Stairs" deal you've added. You don't want my comments? Fine, I'll keep them to myself.

Pedro Martínez: I did read them. That's why I posted that I disagree with them. I don't even see the point of the whole stairs/ladders deal. Looks like a bunch hoopla for nothing. So you can't decline a challenge and you can't challenge those ahead of you. Why do I want to challenge those under me to move up? What's the point then? And you can only have two games of stairs going at a time. Just what is this list suppose to show?

BIG BAD WOLF: I disagree. It seems reasonable to me to limit the higher climbed player as to how far down the stairs he can challenge, but I see no reason to limit, let alone not allow someone to challenge anyone above them. You are allowed to decline a challenge, aren't you?

Fencer: You say you can challenge people three or less stairs beneath you. How far ahead of yourself can someone be for you to challenge?

plaintiger: Is this in anyway related to the bug of having your reply to accepting a game invitation not appear in the message or show to the person you wrote it for?
Because of this bug, I have stopped writing a reply when I accept a game and wait until my second move or after my opponent's message stays on the page.

Fencer, it'd be nice if all the messages pertaining to a game would appear.

plaintiger: On this site the icon that represents the Chancellor is the one that has the horse's head on top of the upside down Rook's top. The Archbishop is the icon that has the strange fill up the square tassled thing. These icons are also used to represent the Cardinal and Marshall of Grand Chess. Though the pieces have different names, they move the same way. Henry Bird made up the modern version of these 8 X 10 games circa 1874. He named the two pieces Guard and Equerry. I'm not sure if Capablanca had firmed up the names to his version of Bird's Chess around 1920, which is called Capablanca Chess. It's identical to Bird's Chess except the Bishops and Guard/Chancellor and Equerry/Archbishop are in different places. Grand Chess was made up in 1972. It uses the same pieces, but has a 10 X 10 board and some different rules.

Guard = Marshall = Chancellor = (Rook+Knight)
Equerry = Cardinal = Archbishop = Janus = (Bishop+Knight)

You have a point in the rules not clearly saying which icon represent which piece. Perhaps a little diagram added to the CRC rules description would clarify it for new players. Janus Chess has its own icon. As for Capablanca Random Chess, I'm not sure why it uses those icons since the inventor of it has his own icons. Perhaps it is easier for Fencer to use the old ones. Fencer still has the notation using A and C in Grand Chess. He said he was going to change them to C and M so that they would fit the game.

Pythagoras: 1½ things a day, wow he gets a lot done. Aside from getting out of bed I rarely get 1 more thing done. :)

playBunny: Yep, that sums it up. You seemed to have explained to me why I don't like this rating system when it's used for Backgammon. I didn't know the particulars of it, just that I don't like it and how it seems unfair to the higher rated players. I guess we'll just have to see how it goes for a few weeks. Your's and alanback's prediction for the lowering of the top people's ratings has come to pass. I too was lowered a little bit in Backgammon, but lost nearly 300 points off my Dark Chess rating! Dark Chess has a little bit of luck in it, but not the amount of Backgammon. I think this new or fixed rating system will be OK for Dark Chess, but it stinks for Backgammon. Fencer has Chess at heart and will get around to Backgammon when he has taken care of his other pressing affairs. Hopefully it is higher on his to do list than the laundry. :)

It used to be when I played someone a game of Backgammon and we were within a few hundred points of each other in rating we'd be playing for 8 rating points. Now there's this sliding scale and I find it completely unfair to the higher rated player. I will never be able to play a higher rated player that cares about his rating on this site because how disadvantageous the odds are now. Someone that's 300 points above me risks 14 rating points to my 2! This is nowhere near the odds of my actual chance of winning. It may not 1 to 1, but it can't be 7 to 1.

Can we please have a ratings system for Backgammon that reflects the odds of winning and keeps in mind that there's luck involved? This disparity will further segegrate the Backgammon playing community or will encourage people to not play rated games at all. I can see having a big difference in the points awarded if we were playing a match to 10 wins or game points, but to have it like this for a single game is ridiculous.

For Horde Chess:

1)Allow the Hordes' Pawns to move one or two steps from any square on their half of the board. As usual, allow "in passing" captures. This small change might be enough to change the balance of power.

2)Adding more Pawns might work as suggested by kkkeeek.

3)How about adding a King to the Horde, but still require the chess set to capture every Pawn and then checkmate the lone King? The King could be checked and captured if not moved out of check, but not checkmated until the last Pawn is captured. If he is checkmated but still has one or more Pawns left of the Horde, it will be a win for the Horde.

I think idea 1 would be the most workable and easiest to impliment. If it proved to give the Horde an advantage it might have to have some modifications made to it, like only allow each Pawn the two step move if they're on the second row or haven't individually been moved if on the third or fourth row. It'd certainly give the Horde some more options just being able to move two steps from the third and fourth row. Would it be enough to offset the chess set's advantage though. How's 'bout some beta testing? Fencer could you set up a section of this site for play testing some of these games or rules changes that people come up with?

Idea 3 would change the nature of the game and probably wouldn't be Horde Chess any more. All the same, how many times would the Horde have prevailed if it just had a little more power on the board to tip the scale a little towards it? The King is the weakest of the chess pieces and still the symbolic leader of the troops. This idea could work also if you just added the King as an extra piece and didn't treat his capture as any different than losing a Pawn and required the chess set to capture all the Pawns and the King in any order. If it isn't enough to tip the power, perhaps two Kings could added? Put them in the space on the back row? Or maybe add a Knight? I'd start with just adding one King and see what happens to the winning statistics, especially if the added King is treated as just another piece on the board. That should be an easy addition to the game.

Maharajah Chess

1) Adding a second Maharjah seems like giving to much power to the Maharajah's side. Especially if the Maharajah side can continue on in the game after losing one of the Maharajahs. I suppose it'd need testing. If it proves too powerful, a weaker piece could be tried. I'm amazed the Maharajah wins almost 30% percent of the games here. It obviously is a strong piece that can checkmate by itself without back up. Just adding a Rook to its side might be more than enough to balance its chances out. It could lose the Rook and continue on, but the Maharajah would be like the King and lose the game if checkmated.

2) How about adding a row of Pawns to the Maharjah's side? That should help slow down the advance of the chess set's pieces. And, as with the Chess Set's side, no promotions.

2¢

Fencer: Perhaps the Knights could be allowed to enter up to 10 tournaments of any type or just remove the tournament game type restriction completely instead of limiting them to 1 of each type. Seeing how they are limited to 50 going games total, that should be plenty of tournament admissions. I also fail to see why a Knight is limited by what type of game the tournament is. The total number of games going should be the limiting factor. If someone only wants to play Backgammon, why not let them?

Another thing that can be done, would be to lower the fee for a Knight membership while leaving the restrictions in place and the create a new membership category priced at or near the current Knight membership that would have the restrictions removed and increase the number of going games to 80 or 100. It could be called a Bishop membership and would fit right into the scheme of things. This would give people an extra choice to choose the membership that best suits their needs.

playBunny: I believe that a member is allowed to pay the difference of the price of a Knight member to a Rook membership prorated for the remainder of the Knight membership and get the upgrade in membership. The difference between the two is about 10 euros for a whole year, isn't it? Maybe you can check into that. It doesn't seem like it would cost you much more and your friend's gift would still bare most of the cost.

Fencer: You're probably right about the endless discussion, but I think you could've chosen your words a little better to help alleviate their concerns. There's often times unintended consequnces caused from even the best of intentions.
May your work go well.

Fencer: I think that you're missing the point of their complaints. The system appears to have logical inconsistancies and is applied in an abitrary way. Even you say that you're going to change it, so that would appear to me that you have problems with how it is set up also. You are being rather secretive about how you'll change it. I, for one, will take it on faith that you'll improve this Brains business, but I think Princess Alison would just like a reassurance that when the new system is in place she'll get something for helping to recruit some new members that she got to sign up recently. After reading her posts, it doesn't make much sense to me that a refered member if they join as a Knight will earn someone some Brains, but won't earn them any Brains if the referal pays more and joins as a Rook? This doesn't seem logical to me and I'm sure that's all she's talking about.

Grim Reaper: I believe way back in February or March of this year, he changed all mention of you in the rules and description. A few weeks later he put your name back in the rules. No later than April as I recall. Now it's August and you're just now complaining about it? Isn't there something about speed being important in all these laws you keep quoting? I certainly do recall a lot of discussion about your leaving this site at the end of March of this year. Ain't it a bit pass that now? Whatever it is between you and him, has not improved in that time. Perhaps you should just cut your losses and be gratefull for how well things are going for you now.

Sumerian: Welcome back!

The castling is the same, the King moves three squares towards the Rook and the Rook is placed on the other side of the King. Maybe for your program it is a problem since your Capablanca Random Chess set up will pretend the Kings are on the "f" file so that in CRC the castlings will go as defined by that game. I suppose your mirror image game is the same as far as that goes. Perhaps you could just add Embassy Chess to your program as you did for Janus, Bird's, and Capablanca Chess?

Pioneer54: Yes. You must have misplace a slash somewhere. Check around the 'b" or in the < >

I've been wanting to play Grand Chess since reading about it a few years back. I have some games waiting if you'd like play a few. Also, the Marshall and Cardinal in Grand Chess are placed as in Embassy Chess were it not for the two extra rows. I have yet to have a game get to where promotion might happen, but it will be interesting when the time comes. I have the feeling it'll be a lot more common of a thing than in regular Chess or the other 8 X 10 variants.

I think one problem with the random set up version of some games is just that, they're random! This might be fine for some people, but quite a few others like having the board set up the same each game and can then concentrate on how each game goes knowing that the pieces will be where they expect them to be. I doubt if I'd like a random version of Japanese Shogi Chess and I only just learned that game. I'm all for adding the Capablanca Random Chess, but I'd like a game similiar to Gothic, Bird's, or Capablanca's Chess that would have the same set up each time. I would again like to suggest Embassy Chess. The set up of the pieces is identical to Gothic Chess except that the Kings and Chancellors are switched in position. The Chancellor is called the Marshall and the Archbishop is called the Cardinal. The same names as in Grand Chess. The pieces are identical in all ways except the names. This board and set up are not patented and were proposed months ago when this patenting and licensing stuff first came to a head.

Black's side of the board.
8 RNBQKMCBNR
7 PPPPPPPPPP
6 ----------
5 ----------
4 ----------
3 ----------
2 PPPPPPPPPP
1 RNBQKMCBNR
--abcdefghij
White's side of the board.
M = Marshall - a piece that moves as a Rook or Knight
C = Cardinal - a piece that moves as a Bishop or Knight

This set up has the King and Queen together, all Pawns guarded, Bishops positioned for fianchetto placement, has the most Chesslike appearence of the four games in question, is not patented, does not require licensing, the Marshall and Cardinal may both move as Knights at the start of the game without blocking each other (compare to the Chancellor and Archbishop of Gothic Chess). These all seem like good reasons to have the game here. The opening theory should be very similiar to Gothic Chess. Embassy Chess will not have the drawbacks that Ed Trice has expounded upon in Bird's and Capablanca's set ups in his essay about how he decided to place the pieces for Gothic Chess and will have all the benefits of Gothic Chess, plus those I mention here.

Fencer: Yes, I'd like that too. That's make four options, right? Active Provisional, Active Established, Inactive Provisional, and Inactive Established?

ScarletRose: They still make those? From what I gather, most women will say there hasn't any to be found for years now.

People in hell want ice water, too.

I'd like a million dollars.

Luke Skywalker: And include an off switch so I won't have to turn my speakers off for other uses.

ClayNashvilleTn: I fail to see what your problem is Clay. The title of that particular fellowship clearly states what it is about. No censorship is one thing, but I assume that it is still moderated. Standoff said you left the fellowship, so that's the end of that.

As for all your worries, I can't imagine that obscure fellowship having any effect on anyone. If you don't like it, then don't join it. I can't say if I'd like it or not as I'm not joining it anyways. Let's assume for the sake of argument that someone in there is badmouthing me. I have to ask, so what? I'm not a member, so I don't read the post. If I was a member the very nature of that particular fellowship allows me to lash out if I want to, or just rebut the nasty post concerning myself. I could also leave the fellowship if I was a member and grew tired of such things. Since you've left the fellowship, why are you trying to impose your moral judgment on those that remain or restrict someone that might actually have fun and enjoy such a wide open and ranging fellowship? Judging from the number of posts in the short time since I asked if you were a member of said fellowship, I'd say you've struck a nerve with the members of that fellowship. I agree with Pedro, and in fact think that such a fellowship probably brings in more members that it might cause to leave. It certainly can't hurt to have a place to vent one's anger at the system and could indirectly lead to positive change in some cases. Even though I doubt if I'd be offended by the carrying ons of the fellowship, those that are can do just as I have, don't join it.

ClayNashvilleTn: Are you a member of that fellowship?

Fencer: 25¢ per day or a $1.00 a week. I'd still limit it to around two extra weeks maximum per six months. If my prices seem kind of low, it's because one would be paying to not use the service. As for the limit, I think it'd get to be too much if you had a lot of people just buy the whole year off and not have to make a move at all. If you're going to allow someone to do it without limitation, then I think you'll need to make it so the game or tournament can also be created to have a limit on vacation days. The way it is now, it's either the old way where you can use your vacation until it's used up or the new way where you can't use any vacation at all. It'd be nice to be able to allow a choice for the creator to make a limit of say 8 vacation days in a game or tournament. That way, a vacation could be taken, but someone in the tournament couldn't go for six weeks and leave everyone else hanging until the get back and play. Have the spread go from no vacation days all the way to available vacation days and anything in between.

2¢

Jules: Libel and slander? They have those things in Czech Republic? And they would apply to someone, say me, if I posted a review of various features of different game sites here? I think that's a real stretch. If anything, Fencer's main problem would come from someone badmouthing another site on this site and then letting it become an issue between the two sites. Which is something I'm not proposing to do.

I don't want to see a bunch of swear words and racial epitats all over the discussion boards, but I also don't like what I and others feel is overmoderation and control of the conversation either. Perhaps the solution is simple and just seeing another way of doing it will inspire someone to come up with a better way to do things.

I think I'll not say any more on this subject until Fencer weighs in on it. You guys keep expressing concern for his site's wellbeing. Let's see if he shares your fears about it.

harley: It's hard to imagine someone's opinion causing the owner of a site trouble for allowing it to be read by others. Isn't that what blogs are?

harley: After all, the both of them are comparing how discussion boards on run. Her post seems rather incredulous to me and I would certainly like to check up on it while giving her the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to strengthen her position. If what she says it right, I'd certainly like to see it in action and make sure that that system is something I'm not a part of. If she's just overselling her point, but still has some valid issues with how they do it at IYT, I'll keep it in mind. And if I go to there and find I completely disagree with how she has stated it and there's anything to CrankyFranky's viewpoint, I'd certainly like to report back here that Fencer might want to incorporate some their way of doing it here.

I have the feeling that the reality lies between the two ways that they're looking at it, though Jules seems to lean lots more toward baudrillard's view. If you'd rather she not post a reply to my question on this board then I hope she'll send me the places to visit in a message. I think this is on topic. Which is better, BrainKing or It's Your Turn? I like the games and how they're run here better, but I've been having my concerns left unaddressed about the discussion boards. Hmm, I shouldn't say unaddressed, a few people do write to me or post where I may view their thoughts, but that doesn't mean I've been happy with how things are going here and I think it can be improved. From what I've seen posted in recent days, I'm not the only one.

baudrillard: Wow! After reading this post, you've really raised my curiosity about the discussion boards on IYT. It's hard to imagine them being as extreme as you make them out to be baudrillard, but I won't know for myself until I get other there and see. How many of them do they have? Which ones should I visit to see examples of this attacking, screaming, swearing, homophobic, racist, people that you speak of?

ClayNashvilleTn: I didn't see this post that you're talking about. Could you direct me to it? And what is CrankyFranky talking about? What are you talking about? Code of honor? Right, now there's something to think about. When do I get to be a Global Moderator?

I still think that moderators that aren't global moderators that are appointed by Fencer should not be able to be removed by a global moderator, but Fencer seems happy to have it this way. I know I'd not run my site like that. Perhaps that's why his site is successful though. A little delegation of power can work if done right. I just think he's ceded too much, though as benevolent dictator he can at any time reassert his control and do what he thinks is best. Maybe that's what spurs me on in my hopes, that such a thing will happen.

Cranky Franky: You've been a member here longer than me though until just recently I don't recall ever seeing your handle in the discussion boards that I usually read and post to. I know the feeling about this place of late. I posted quite extensively about what I thought were the moderations problems to this site on this very board back on April 8th and a day or so afterwards. I'm not familiar with you or whatever happened to you in whatever discussion board you're talking about, but I have the feeling there's some merit to what you're typing just from how I've seen things change around here since mid-February.

As for It's Your Turn, I haven't been there in some time. I didn't realize they had discussion boards, or I have forgotten that they had them. I check that site from time to time, but I haven't used my account to play a game there in more than a year. I like this site better than IYT. I'm hoping the discussion boards and how they're moderated is changed soon, but if not I can still play games on this site and just deal with the extracurriculal activities by not engaging in them. I'm not a member of any fellowships, and though I really like typing to these boards I will stop eventually if changes aren't made to how they're moderated. This will still leave me the ability to play games, which is my primary thing to do here. The secondary stuff is important to me too, but some of it has been taken from me. For the most part I have likable opponents that play their games well and are usually good sports. When I do come across someone that doesn't like playing me, we have a simple solution; we don't play any more games together.

Anyways, take care. At least hang out for a few more weeks to see if things get changed or perhaps worked on. I'm not sure if things can be made better for you, but if any of the things that I thought to do are put into place it will take some programming and trial and error to test out. I have yet to get any response from Fencer, which in a lot of ways is forcing me to guess what he's thinking and put my hopes on nothing but speculation. As you say it's his baby. I said as much in different words, but that is what it comes down to.

I think I want one of these sites for myself. I just wonder how I can get more than three poeple to visit it? :)

playBunny: Thank you for this detailed explanation of Backgammon playing machines. I'm not going to bother with all that to get better at playing. I'll keep doing what I've been doing, winging it and seeing what works. Then trying to remember it if a similar situation comes up in a different game. I saw a game between sko and Rex a few months back. After watching how it was played with going amazement, I decided to change my style too. It has worked as I stopped my downward slide in the ratings and have cracked the top ten a couple times in the last few weeks. Plus the games are much more fun for me with my new plans and style, though it has led to me getting spanked very bad on occasion from leaving them blots about the board as I sometime do. Recognizing when not to do that is now what I have to work on. :)

Last year when my truck was broke down in Bishop, I bought two old Backgammon books at a used book store. The authors of both of them are the Jacoby and Crawford that are mentioned from time to time. Plus a Barclay guy and one other gentleman whose name escapes me right now. I'd be willing to bet these guys would play well against the programs you write of. I can also imagine that because of how computers find out things, some of those cherished older plans would hurt these old experts in play agains these programs. I've never used the doubling cube, so when it becomes available, I'll have to start up another learning slope. From some of the examples in one of my books, this doubling cube and how to figure out the odds (Especially at the end of a game when both players just have a few more men to bear off) would really be something that a computer program would excel at. At least on a turn based site when someone doubles me, I'll have the time to count on my fingers (and toes if necessary) and figure out the odds once I understand how the cube affects decisions. These guys that wrote my books were obviously into playing it for high stakes and that definitely is different than playing it for free or a buck a game.

Andersp: Why resign? Why not play the game to its conclusion and then not play that person again if you feel they have hurt you in some way? You might as well use the game as a learninng experience, even if you were tricked into playing a machine with false pretenses. Remember, it's not the machines that are cheating, but the people that employ them without telling you in advance. One thing about a machine, it won't get impatient. You don't need to resign, no matter how far behind you are in the game. I've used this to help me understand how the various pieces move in Janus Chess. If I was playing a person in some of those games, I would've resigned out of respect to them when I losing with no chance of winning. A machine doesn't care about that kind of stuff. It just makes the moves that it calculates are best. It has no emotions or ego for you to worry about. Plus, the person that's using the machine will get impatient with you for not resigning a lost position. That'll serve them right for using a machine against you and not informing you in advance.

Summertop: Yes, those are reasons for someone to have. In the case of Example 2, which is the less likely of these two reasons, there is such a person on this site. Sumerian. He is very up front about his program that he wrote that plays Janus Chess and other Chess variants. He told me in advance and it is in his profile. His machine has gotten betten over the months that I've been playing it. He says it plays better than him, so when he tries to improve its play he has to test out its play against stronger players. I'm not a strong enough player to beat it any more, but I still play the S.M.I.R.F. I've won 5 and lost 20 against it. It has a long win streak going on me now. I've improved my play of Janus Chess from playing against it, but the machine keeps beating me. The last time in 8 moves without a capture. Yes, I made a careless move, but you can't do that when you play machines. To beat them at Chess type games you have to have a long range plan or a thematic plan based on positioning. These machines are really good at leaving things that look unguarded, but aren't. You take the bait and you'll almost always be in a world of hurt shortly.

I didn't come on this site to play machines. I make an exception for Sumerian's Smirf. I've learned about programs and Janus Chess, plus he's a nice guy and honest about the program. If I only cared about winning every game and how high my rating was, I'd go about my business of playing different to acheive those goals. I like winning, but as one gets better at a game and wants to play with the best and have a chance of beating the best, there is a cost to it. Lots of study, work, and thinking. Some will make the sacrifice and deserve their championships and renown. Others will take shortcuts or cheat and think they're one of the big boys. They will say, "Look, I've won all these tournaments or I have the highest rating. I am the best." They're just fooling themselves, but that's human nature.

Because it's almost impossible to verify if you're playing a machine or not when playing the game on this site, most people look at these kinds of records with a grain of salt. Real championships are held in ways that eliminate or make it very hard to cheat. Even the ones that allow or require programs would not use this format for a serious championship. Though there just might be a correspondence or internet championship out there. If so, then that's the place for these machine to play, not here against someone that they haven't even informed them of. This machine problem is one reason I don't play Chess on this site. As far as I know no one here uses a machine to play Dark Chess. I had thought of Backgammon as being another such game, but I've learned differently from reading the discussion board and giving it some thought. Since there's luck in it, a person can still beat a machine at Backgammon. As I'm in the top 20 of ratings currently, I must be playing a decent game of Backgammon or am lucky or both. I don't know if any of my opponents have used a machine to play their moves or advise them. I'm not going to worry about it. If they tell me I'm playing a machine, I'll have the choice of playing or not. If they keep it a secret, I still get to play the game.

As I remember a lot of us had a very good conversation a few months back about this very thing concerning the moral of it or whether or not it is cheating. Plus the fact that it is just about impossible to police. I was under the impression that it's more or less allowed though it's frowned upon. Is that how it is?

Purple: Yes, this is what I do in fact. We call it the big bet. I and any of my friends that want in on it, pool our money and put it all on the Pass Line for two games of Craps. If it wins, we pick up the money and go celebrate at the bar. If it loses, we spin on our heel and head to the bar to console our loss. :)

I tell people that playing games in a casino is just throwing money away. It's one reason I haven't been to Las Vegas to gamble in 8 years and I can drive there in 4 hours. I was in the Normandy Casino Saturday night. I didn't play any games there either. I was there to see a concert. They had some strange games there. Black Jack where busting didn't mean you automatically lost! I'm sure some of the rules are because of Califonia laws covering so called "Games of Chance". These very laws used to make Stud Poker against the law in California and Draw Poker legal! This has changed, but the house still isn't allowed to bank the games like they do in Nevada. I haven't been to any of the Indian casinos which have a different mandate from the state and they just might be able to. I'd check it, but I've really lost my enthusiasm for casino type gambling. I think the next time I go, I'll head to the sportsbook, find a game that'll be shown shortly, make the big bet on it, sit in the chair and have a few cocktails while enjoying the game.

I remember being in downtown Las Vegas years ago, not far from Binion's and was just strolling along the sidewalk and came across some graffiti sprayed on a wall.

"CROOKED GAMES"

Now, there was one smart vandal! :)

philip: Actually that's not true except in certain cases while playing one particular game: Black Jack. It is perfectly fair to count cards in Poker and you'd be fool not to act on what you learn from the showing cards in Stud Poker variants. If you mean the card counnting system of Thorpe's, I have heard of people being barred from a casino when the management catches wind of it. I have sat at the table playing Black Jack and have said outloud at a volume the dealer and any players at the table could hear said, "Let's see that's two Aces, means there's two left." I've never had any pit boss or dealer tell me that I was doing anything wrong. Has that been your experience? I've also watched numerous people count the numbers in roulette, but that's similar to counting the dice in Craps. Black Jack is different because the cards that have gone by so far will affect the odds on the hands to be dealt next from the deck. Some casinos even hand out little Basic Strategy charts for players to follow! Why a casino would want a smarter gambler is beyond me, but I have seen the charts. Very much the same a Thorpe's Basic chart. Telling you when to hit, stand, double down and stuff. The card counting can be used to change your play, but Thorpe was a big proponent of adjusting one's wager. When the odds were in the player's favor, he bet big. It takes a long run for his system to work and a lot of studying and thinking on the fly. It really is work. I still have the original hard cover book, but I never wanted to trouble myself with all that stuff. Easier to drink beer and whiskey while playing the dealer for a ten in the hole and assume he'd hit a ten too. As simple as this strategy is, some people will still bust when the dealer has a five for his up card.

ClayNashvilleTn: Oh, there's plenty of odds to the dice, but there's lots more to Backgammon than that. If you don't see that, you'll not advance to the top of the list any time soon. I'm a Craps player from way back, and what I know about odds has helped me make a decision on a move from time to time, but the important things about Backgammon and what seperate it from a game of pure chance such as Craps, that Jules was talking about will determine who's the better player over the long run. Anybody can get lucky at rolling the dice, but in Craps it only matters for each game or roll depending on how you're betting. In Backgammon there's planning involved and sometimes one's plans change because of good or bad fortune during the game. In Craps, the important thing is to get lucky and proper money management. There's no planning gamewise, unless you call taking odds on the shooter's point planning, that is. :)

Now, as far as a program helping one play Backgammon, what is so hard to understand about that? If you play just one move ahead without thinking further into the game, you're not going to do well when you play me. I'm sure a computer could be designed to pretend every roll possible for a few turns and then use some sort of decision table to pick the best course of action considering the roll that it has on the turn at that moment. That's what I'd do.<>>>>

AS I'm typing this I see that you've done some research on it. Would you like some mashed potatoes with that crow? I hate when that happens to me, but it helps me learn things. :)