The moderator here is perfectly capable of deciding for herself what will be allowed without unsolicited expert guidance.

in his post below. I thought it was clear that those types of posts were to be avoided. Even if what ML stated about cheating is true, it's not germane to the BKR discussion.

I agree with that MM. I don't so much worry about the lower rated players in backgammon. I prefer playing higher rated players because they typically offer a more challenging game but I play in lots of tourneys and play on both sides of the curve.

I agree, I dont mind playing lower BKR's to myself, but some do.
I was simply pointing out a fact. Some higher BKR's do in fact avoid playing lower BKR's for this reason.

Why would it discourage any higher rated player if they are good at a game, UNLESS as has happened before when the 'KM crowd' were about they like to play against themselves (still here just a different name now).
Most normal game players on this site would not worry about it, to them a game is a challenge.
Sadly, to some it is not - its a cheat !!

one thing I have definately noticed with the ratings system is that it definately discourages the high BKR's to NOT play against the lower ratings as they have little or nothing to gain and much to lose. Consequently, when they set up a game in the waiting room, they will set the required rating so high that the lower ratings wont even see the waiting games and cannot join.
Although this is fine, these people come unstuck when they play in tourneys and have no control who they play.

I do however find it interesting why someone who is a known (by admission) program user would start questioning ratings systems etc. Maybe it would be fairer to have Fencer reset your BKR Chessmaster so that you can start out playing fairly all the time.
Do you still use programs?

...I was refering to was a checkers game I had with CaOz. I was about 2200 at the time, he was 2400+, the game was a draw, and no points were exchanged.

There should have been a +12 gain for me and a loss of 12 points for him given a 200 point disparity in ratings.

Recall a 400 point difference means the higher rated player would win a very, very large percentage of your contested games.

From Jason: "I think what Chessmaster1000 wanted to know was that if the same method was used for all types of games on here ."

Yes this AND what is the method for the calculations....

every site i play on all has differnt ways of doing the ratings , some based on bkr or just a winning percentage , one i like is if you win you can get a maximum of 16 points for a win , or 16 points(maximum) taken away for a loss , all depends on the opponents rating as to how much taken away or gained . (this could be simmilar to here not sure never managed to work it out here ,).
i think what Chessmaster1000 wanted to know was that if the same method was used for all types of games on here .

Taken from the FAQ page...

Although I had finished a game, my BKR did not change! Is that an error?
No, this is not an error. There are several situations which can be a reason of that:

Both players did not perform at least two moves. It can happen when one player loses the game by a timeout at the very beginning.
You won a game with an opponent whose BKR is significantly smaller than yours. If we would apply the formula exactly, your BKR would have to drop. But BrainKing.com uses the rule that your BKR cannot drop after you win the game, therefore it remains unchanged. The similar rule applies if you lose a game with an opponent whose BKR is significantly higher than yours.
The game have been defined as "unrated game". Such game is not calculated for BKR.
The game is a part of a match which is not finished yet. The match is treated as a single game which consists of several sub-games. The statistics (number of won, drawn and lost games) and BKR of both players is changed after the whole match is finished and the result is based on the match result itself, not on the results of its sub-games.

Fencer wanted to avoid a situation where very high rated players were afraid to play low rated players in case their rating dropped drastically (in the event of the lower rated person winning).

"Lower rated players will gain points when drawing a higher rated opponent, and the higher rated player would lose points if drawing a lower rated one. "

Ive had this happen to me , but it was when there was a very large gap between the oponent and myself, they were 800 or 900 and I was about 1000 higher at least

I lost about 50bkr

I posed the very same question on more than one occasion. As I worked with Mark Glickman on a few projects, and he created the most-recent version of the system for the United States Chess Federation, I assured Fencer his rating calculations were not correct.

The BKR for the provisional period is off by orders of magnitude. The handling of draws is also incorrect.

Fencer uses the "parallel" Glicko calculation for
"many results" being rated at the same time during the provisional period, and Mark Glickman later retracted this method.

If you are interested in a high BKR, all you have to do is win a few games against strong opponents during your provision BKR stage, then just gets draws once you have 25+ games. Your rating will never go down.

This is not the way the rest of the world operates.

Lower rated players will gain points when drawing a higher rated opponent, and the higher rated player would lose points if drawing a lower rated one.

I have not seen an example of that here.

Well i didn't know where to post this question, so forgive me if this is off topic.
I want to ask for the complete method for calculating the BKR in the games of Chess, Gothic Chess and Backgammon. I know that it's the same with that of the US Chess Federation formula, but calculating it this way, the results are not the same. So something must be different. Can a knowledgeable (Fencer or anyone else...) person solve my question?

Thanks.

*keeping eyes peeled, just been told that someone is going to copy our database and take it with them*

Have we got any users on BrainKing that use an NTL connection here in the UK. If so could you contact myself or rod03801 please.

MM

<Hmm.. GPEMTNSU, please. ;> (Gets paid even more to never show up)

in Chicago

Ah what the heck, he's got my vote. Just remember the little people down here in Florida when you win. I'd like the position of Sec. of GPATDN (get's paid alot to do nothing) please.

Sounds like a new poll question - Should AD be President. Yes or No. :-)

chad...chad...where for art thou, chad...

in Florida, no doubt

I have connections. I can make it happen. :)

(last election my mother was able to vote for me three times!)

Unfortunatelly I cannot vote :-)

can I count on your vote in Novemeber or will you still be mad at me?

:) j/k

Suffixes after a name are not illegal in general.

is it fair to ask if tags after one's name is now ok? I and a few others am under the impression that it is not but there seems to be some confusion in the matter.

Thanks

This board is not for personal attacks. Anybody who tries to continue in it will be blocked for posting.

I must learn to type faster LOL

Thanks MadMonkey!

Cole: When you choose what game you want (e.g. Crowded Backgammon), then who you are playing (or leave that open for the Waiting room) you have the screen entitled 'Select this game parameters'. On the right hand side you will see a box asking how many games you want to create.
Hope that helps :o)

HOW??
I set up i game...then I have to go in and set up another...then again and again...what am I missing?

Never mind....I really never saw that option before...

To do list:

1) Change name to 'duh'....

2) Buy stronger glasses...or rather wear glasses while playing.....

Thsnks, ughaibu...if you hadn't written that, I'd still not have seen it..

Who cares, I give kickbacks :)

President of what? The "AD Fellowship"? :-)

lol OK, forget that. Can I count on your vote in November?

I'll pick "what?!!"

Hello, am I invisible here or what?!!

space is space - What space? A name and an account take up very little space. I still have not heard a good reason on why inactive accounts should be removed - other then you think they should.

A few reasons they should not be:

1 - more work for Fencer to code and remove account

2 - Have to make sure old games, and game results, and tournament results don't get deleted.

3 - If an account is removed, and their games/results are left, then you have to put some kind of "name" in there - and I would hate to see it like IYT - where they have something like ID11782718 as names for players that were removed from the site.

4 - Having an inactive account takes up very little disk space.

I take it you didn't like my idea. :)

Nice idea but space is space and an "inactive list" takes up space. I can understand having an "inactive list" for those who have not played for 6 months. There may be very good reasons why they haven't. THERE IS NO EXCUSE for those who have registered on this site over two years ago, maybe played a game or two and have not been seen or heard from since. Those are the users who need to be eliminated from the Brainking Player List....non-active players up until May 8, 2002 (No active move for two years.) Don't get me wrong on this...I played as a pawn on this site for over a year before I parted with a buck and joined. Part of my reason was all the problems I had accessing this site using a Webtv Plus during the infancy of Brainking. I still have some problems, but this site has made such wonderful inprovements. I finally parted with my buck, and I haven't been sorry since!!!

old accounts not used should die also and be buried...AMEN!

Why not have their names removed from the master list and moved to an "inactive" list after 6 months of inactivity? Let inactive accounts that have played games stay but take them off the main list and put them on the inactive. If they play again, they can move automatically to active.

One of the strongest tablut players is Skalpone, due to the situation at his university lodgings he has no internet access for at least this year. Why should he be deleted on account of this circumstance that's out of his control? And I definitely want to keep the eight or so games that I've played with him.

Star - Why? What is the harm of an in-active account sitting there?

I mean it is not losing the site money - it is not taking away the game play of current players. They are just names sitting there.

But will we lose their games?

Go down the list and see how many pawns registered on this site one day, played one day and left two years ago. Those are the players I feel should be eliminated from this site's "player list"

I dont want to lose from my records games that I've played, even if the opponent has only ever played one game, I dont want that game deleted.

If you are playing a non-paying member and their games are current....No, you will not lose their games. I'm talking about getting the "deadbeats" off the player list....those who registered, maybe played one game or so and never returned to this site under the same ID

I don't see any harm on leaving in-active accounts on the site (Other then one of them might have a good "name" that another user might want - but if that is the case, i'm sure Fencer could fix that.)

Otherwise, if you start to delete account, you then have to check to see if they had played any games - make sure not to delete the games or the results for other players.

They take up very little disk space, and would probable (in my opinion) be more work to delete them, then there would be to just keep them there.

But will that mean we lose their games?

I know Fencer knows who supports this site, but play isn't counting for a whole lot unless those who registered became paying members. Fencer knows all of this, but maybe it's time us paying members started a boycott and play only paying members after say.....a six month period of registration, which each member would have to check out every once in a while by clicking on a player's profile!