I believe it will show you the last action I did. (or went through the system)

So for example, sometimes I may want to look at someone's profile but do not want them to know I'm looking, so I will open that person's profile, and very quickly make a move in another window - that way if they look, my last action was making a move, even though I'm back at the original window looking at their profile. :-)

it should show what ever he clicked on last ;)

BBW, I know you usually use multiple windows, what I ment was where will it tell me you are at If I see your name on the Who is on-line?

It will always show yourself as viewing on-line players (since that is the last/current activity you are doing when you envoke that command) :-)

smart "rear end"

524 pounds LOL

at the moment about 900 to 1000 dollars I think

If a person uses more than one window at a time here, where would the view on-line players say you were at? What ever you did last?

wow...google tells me 2 of them are expensive :(

one at 2800mhz ( whatever that means) 524 english pounds.....STEVE whats that worth

bwildman: A new database server will be purchased. Liquid had defined the cheapest configuration, still powerful enough to solve all current and possible future performance problems. I don't know all details but it would contain two Xeon CPU's and some other nice features.

So far i have only gotten 4 entries - one with three-letter words, two with five-letter words and one with eight-letter words.

There is just under a month left to enter, but the more entrants the more winners, so go ahead and enter!

The details of this competition can be found at This page or message#87012 on this board.

You can go to the "Players List", and sort by last action - so you can see who has done what recently. (That is where I got the number of 2,300 in the last month, and 1,700 in the past few days)

There are a total of 414 people that has above a "pawn" membership (Can be seen on the "Paid Membership" page) I know some paid members do not play here no more, and I don't have the time to go through the 2,300 to count all who activly play, so that is why I estimated 360-390 paid members are still active here - but again, that part is just an estimate.)

maybe some of the payng members have multiple id's?

What do you mean? I figured it was because of their game limits and cause they've no fellowships to visit.

couldnt be a coinsidence could there?

Interestingly even though there are more pawns than pieces logged on the majority of players engaged in a BrainKing activity are pieces.

At the moment about 60% of the first page of online players are pawns.

Why do you guess such a small proportion?

I am not sure how the statistics were gathered but they make interesting reading... It bears out the snapshot that suggests that at any given time a third of players online are paying members... surely giving the paying members priority (ie in overload disconnect longest pawns on then the problem is solved. people who are enjoying the site free can hardly complain and the people who fund the site get value for money...

Fencer please explain why not?

I would still like to know what this raised money will be purchasing...and will it fix the problem?

Just as a side note, I did some calculating on Febuary 17th, and here are a few numbers I came up with.

During the past month, only 2,300 users were active (Total Rook + Knight + Pawns)

During the past few days, only 1,700 total were active (Rooks + Knights + pawns)

(now my guessing part) - Out of those numbers, I would guess around 360-390 are paid members, with the rest pawns.

now THAT is a good idea...for the $5 - give them 30 games, allow them to join 5-10 fellowships, still calling them pawns but with a star next to their name or some such thing...Good one Lythande...but then on 2nd thoughts, if they can afford $5 for the game then Lindas tourney should have 1000 people in it and it isnt looking as healthy as that at the moment. But then they do have till the end of March to sign up so things could change :)

"If as it seems possible to accept $5 entry fees without penalty... WHY NOT LEVY A SIMILAR CHARGE ON THE PAWNS?
Is it seriously being suggested that there are not at least 1000 of these people able and willing to make such a payment? "

Maybe 1000 are, but how do you choose 1000 to levy the charge on? Even if 5000 are able does not mean every pawn is able (&& can justify the personal cost/value ratio).

i think the idea was not to display there ratings , they would still have one but they couldnt see it unless they paid membership

if pawns only could play in unrated games, I personally would avoid playing all pawns!!! I prefer rated games. A change of this sort would limit potential opponents greatly for me...

Thank you Steve R for your offer with your tournament. I am going to be doing good to squeeze in the backgammon prize tourney. If I have some room I might do the reversi thing too.. Reversi is not my strong suit but it is for a good cause.

Ughaibu:You are right,I like this site and I am here despite the serverproblems too.
Even so the site would be better without serverproblems, am I wrong? And I think this would sure not change the "nature" of the site.

thxs :)

Fixed.

http://www.brainking.com/game/Tournaments?trg=2214&tri=7247

can you look at this Fencer it is a four way tie in Section 1 ;)

Quite but those who like the site need to exercise care with ideas that might alter it's nature, ie behaving as other sites do.

If someone does not like the site, why would they be here?

Helping Brainking Tourney
Stevie's Dollar Donation per player Reversi

Hi all, for every player who enters this tourney ,I will donate 1 dollar to Brainking. So more pawns and Knights can join in, I have set 1 game each and max 5 slots needed (means 2 games each colour too). If less than 15 players, I will donate 2 Dollars per player. Have fun and enjoy the games :o)

Would be nice if I could find 1 or more players who are willing to donate the same amount, to double or treble the money etc :o)

This site is both a good games site and excellent social experience.
The memberships of all levels wish the site to retain its flavour.
The current server troubles are a major source of grievance and need resolving.
What is needed is sufficient revenue to allow the hardware upgrade.
The only point of dissention appears to be how this is achieved.
Options
1) Get more from those who already support.
2) Get more paying members.
3) Get those who currently do not pay to contribute.

Have I missed anything?

I see you here often when I'm here despite the server problems, I think you like this site, am I wrong?

Ughaibu : the remarkable feature of this site is especially,that it is often down and it needs more money for a new server.
Pioneer: I am sure some pawns will leave, but I am sure too that some others will buy a small membership and than the site has more money to buy a new server and we,the paying members have a site with a better technique.
Other ideas are welcome too, I think.

Caissus writes:
"Playing only unrated games after some time for non-paying members is the most used restricton on other chessservers"

But how, assuming it's factual, does this translate in net revenue production? What chess playing pawn is going to be compelled to buy a membership here because of the simple prospect of losing his rating status? Rather, it seems more likely he'd just go find another of the hundreds of free chess sites already on the internet.

The remarkable feature of this site is member involvement but the members are separate from the business angle. To maintain the present nature of the sight we (the members) need to support the business side without it over-running the social.

..and they mostly must have the opinion to get more paying members with this mode.

Commonality is no guarantee of apposition, rather the converse in my experience.

I'm not worried about how they feel about their ratings, ratings are a convenience for prospective opponents. Fine in the example at 2.5 percent it's clear, but this depends on their opposition, it's also at an extreme, there can be medium level payers with quite disparate percentages or the opposite effect can also pertain.

Playing only unrated games after some time for non-paying members is the most used restricton on other chessservers..

I believe you could still judge their suitability as opponents by looking at their win/lose stat. If they lost 200 chess games, and won 5 - well you could easly tell that they are probable not too good at Chess.

"People dont play to get a rating" - well some do, or they would not cheat to try to get their ratings higher. The way they cheat is by using free pawn accounts, and this would just take that away.

And if they are playing just for fun, then they don't need their ratings anyway! :-)

I like ratings - I try my best to keep my ratings good while at the same time have fun!

If a Pawn can afford $5 to join a prize tourney then they can afford a $5 membership.
If a viable collection method exists then why cant it be used to levy revenue.
In fact why not make a one off registration fee for pawns now .. never to be charged again...?

What's the point? People dont play to get a rating, they play because it's fun. If pawns dont have ratings how are we meant to judge their suitability as opponents unless we trawl through all their finished games. I think it's a looney idea, you might just as well get rid of ratings all together.

But a only small amount for pawns makes sense, therewith we do not lose too many players.
If only the half of the pawns pay 6 € in the year we have no more problems..

OR, how about all pawn non-tournament games be unrated (not counting towards rating for either player)

For tournaments, let the games against Pawns count towards ratings, but just don't "show" the pawns rating in any list. Let it add up in the background, and if someday that pawn become a paid member, then those tournament games that were already played could then be included in the ratings list.

A pawn would still be able to play their games here, but without paying, they will not know how they stack up!.

(Downside is when joinging tournament for a range of rated players - for example, under 1500 tournament)

Good side - A person could not create a pawn account and just play private games with them to help their ratings.

Playing only unrated games for pawns is not a bad idea.

I agree with you Noho, a problem is perhaps the fees for small amounts?
But I think too a free account is a very nice thing,but if there is no money for a new technique it is bad for us all! I am for a small amount for pawns, for instance 6 € in the year,or they should can play only unrated games after an half year.

One of the reasons oft quoted for not persuading the thousands of people who currently use this site free to contribute, was the innability to accept small amounts (costing more to collect than their value).
If as it seems possible to accept $5 entry fees without penalty... WHY NOT LEVY A SIMILAR CHARGE ON THE PAWNS?
Is it seriously being suggested that there are not at least 1000 of these people able and willing to make such a payment?
Once again those who pay are getting a sub standard service. I have limited time now so when I do have time, access would be nice.
Again I say ... restrict the capabilities of those who dont pay to allow those who do to get value for money.
It might also persuade those who freeload (can pay, wont pay) to either depart or shell out.

Questions are good Niki, it gets answers for everyone :o)
Well if theres enough interest in a 5 in line one, I could do it cos I like that game too LOL