As a competition it will, like all competitions favour the set of people with more of the right resources. that's what competitions do.

Think of any competition that has an even chance for everyone and you've got yourself a random draw. Are you saying you want this to be more like a lottery? I'd say that's not your intention but it's the reason I suggested that you haven't given enough consideration to the nature of "competition".

In motor sports the team that wins has the money and brainpower to create the fastest cars and put in the best drivers. in sports it's the ones with the best coaches, players, diet, etc, etc.

Here money, technology and expertise are not resources but there are others. This competition will be won by someone who invests a considerable amount if their time into playing games. To amass points you need a fast turnover of moves plus time.

For a Rook one possibility is having hundreds of games. One move per day in 1000 games is, say, 1500 points (assuming some percentage of tourney matches). The players whose BK style is to have hundreds of games will thus have an advantage. How is a 50-match Rook supposed to compete against that? Is this fair? No, the 50-match Rook doesn't stand a chance because they lack one resource that this competition requires.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with 100s of matches to make it fairer to the others?

But Rooks with 100s of games are still only competitive if they spend a lot of time making moves in those games. How is a working Joe who has family and social commitments on several nights a week supposed to compete with those who are home-based or otherwise have plenty of time on their hands? Is this fair? No. These time-restricted people don't stand a chance. They lack another resource that this competition requires.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with time to play to make it fairer to the others?

Rooks without 100s of games can still compete if they have a smaller number of games with high-turnover opponents. In fact it's the only way that they can compete against the 100s-gamers. Fast-playing opponents is another resource in the competition. How can someone with mainly sloth-like opponents compete? Unfair again, surely. Speedy opponents is a resource.

So, would you eliminate or penalise the Rooks with fast opponents to make it fairer to the others?

Now, if these are the resources and some competitors are resourceful enough to gather more of what's needed, is that anti-competitive?

Is it wrong to find and play speedy opponents? What if it's a friend? Does that make it wrong? Friends who are willing to help are another resource. That's unfair to those who canot gather similar support.

So, would you eliminate or penalise those with friends capable of making a contribution, to make it fairer to the others?

If, in finding that speedy opponent, they happens to be another competitor, is that morally out of the spirit of the competition? In the absence of people online who are willing to play fast, what is more natural than to harness a competitor for some mutual points raising?

Notice that this argument has been applied only to Rooks. You want to attack Pawns for some reason but Pawns are essentially Rooks who lack the multiple-games resource that Rooks have. If you're against Pawns then you must be against Rooks, too, for their competition is the same but with one extra resource.

You seem to be saying that the competition's resources are loopholes and you want to close them.

And that's why I say you haven't thought this through.

After all, the best solution would be to remove us pawns from the competition, because due to the limitations they are almost forced to find loopholes, though this is pretty creative moment and I liked the challenge in discussion boards competition :)

This is nice too, but can have bad effects on our health or can result in firing from jobs... Because there is danger of even bigger addiction.

Either way, one who doesn't agree with the purposes it should fill, can stay away. It's clear that the winner will be someone playing bulk moves or moves in games that are commonly played fast with few thinking involved, like ludo or gammons where is no problem to find fast opponent.

TheLamer:  Yes, I agree on a limit.  Unless we don't mind a player with only 2 or three opponents getting in excess of 1500 points a day.  

Well, I mean it's your idea, Groucho, I didn't read everything fully, I just wanted to state this and then forgot to look whether someone already come to the same conclusion.

Groucho: I think it's ok to partner up and play lots of games together, after all the prize is an endurance prize.
Though as a solution I can think about a limit of points that can be accumulated against the same opponent during one day.

playBunny: Anything that has potential for abuse has to be looked at. I believe that the title of this "competition" was "Action Points" I think people have turned it into a competition on a level not intended. The original purpose was circumvented from the start. Even you raised objections to the original structure. I am just adding my two cents.

I think it is abuse when two players can spend all day making moves only against each other and gain the most points. I think people who would like to participate in this "competition" are effectively eliminated because they know that the only way to compete is to partner up with another and do the same. I can't help but believe this is not the original intent Fencer had. I think this loophole needs to be closed as well. Points earned from opponents should be limited per opponent. This way, more points can be earned by playing a multitude of opponents rather than two players playing only each other.

Please explain *why* it is "abuse".

playBunny: But the point system is being abused by those partnering up with others and building up the points. Frankly, I hope pawns are exempt from any prizes. This is my opinion of course but I know I'm not alone in my opinion on it. I suppose there are always those who will find a way to beat the system and hijack the original purpose of anything.

Groucho: Lol. Of course the "grouchy" isn't warrented given how you explained, right from the start, your concerns about slow players being encouraged to play faster and didn't simply launch into an attack on the competitive spirit of those who are ... competing! I stand corrected.

Think about the word "competition", Groucho. You don't appear to have grasped it. (And that's not a dig, though it likely sounds like one, but a sincere observation.)

Now, I'm playing, so .. laters, dude.

playBunny: The Grouchy is not called for. I'm raising a legitimate question.

If what you say is the purpose, a team effort, a competition only, then yes, you are right. But if the purpose was to encourage others to make moves and earn points (encourage slow moves to make moves more frequently) then I have made an important point. It is unlikely under the current system that slow moves will see any advantage to moving any faster. Under the current system, the race is narrowed to those that choose to live online and play play play. If that's the point Fencer wants, then I stand corrected.

Why assume multi-nic? What about friends. You have those, Grouchy? People who will help you out in a copmpetition? Make a team effort of it? The player's win is the team's win? Ah, you probably don't know what I'm talking about... ;-P

furbster: IP addresses are often shared as I understand.

King Reza: You're making my point for me. ;)

furbster: And if a multi-nic account is playing against another player....and the multi-nic wins.... I think restrictions for same opponent points will help.

King Reza: yeh but surely it can be found out some way by the IP address?

Groucho:So far as the system doesn't track down duplicate accounts, cheating is easy.

furbster:Which can happen easily and frequently!

playBunny: I think we both have a valid point. I am pointing out a legitimate downside to this. Perhaps a limit of points earned each day when playing against the same opponents.

Groucho: yes and everyone has the same chance to make their moves, so whats the problem, the problem with the baords is that some people found a loophole which others didnt knwo about, with making moves there is no loophole, the onyl way cheating can really be suggested is if there are two accounts by the same player moving against each other

play all day"

playing - that's the key word. Well done, man, now you're geting the picture. ;-)

furbster: making a move earns points right?

Stevie: Not only that, but two pawn accounts can partner up, play all day, and add up their points. Not bad unless the pawn account is a dup or something. As you can see from my stats, and the fact that I'm a black rook, any membership prizes won't matter. I just think that those who find the loopholes spoil the fun.

Begrudge me not. I'm playing to win. Every game. And I'm having a lot of fun as well. ;-)

Utter rubbish, everyone has the same chance to play fast with another player, it takes loads of pateince and concentration to carry on playing.

Groucho: i agree - the point is to track "action" not set up dummy games that you dont care about - just to make moves....

Aye, you're right. And only playing fast games is bad, too. Everybody should play chess and halma.

Groucho: I agree :o(

playBunny: It seems to me to defeat the real purpose. It's artificial.

playBunny:Absolutely nothing!

What's wrong with teamwork, alliances and partnerships?

anastasia: It happened yesterday. A lot of people were complaining about it because there was a loophole so Fencer removed it.

furbster: I agree taking the boards off the point system was a good idea.

I understand why the win points are only counted once a day...but if you are playing 5 tourney games with the same person,and win them all the same day (not that I would be so lucky,LMAO!!) but that SHOULD be counted.You have no control over who you are matched with in a tourney..private games yes,not tourneys though.

anastasia: not sure yesterday perhaps, i perosnally think its a much better idea, and it keeps things a lot fairer.

furbster: when did THAT change? I missed that one.I understand that this is a test month and so on but to keep changing things on a whim seems a bit ridiculios.

furbster:Thanks:)Maybe some of theses CHATTERS will play there games LOL he he :)

CRY ME A RIVER: You no longer get points for reading boards, its points for winning games now.

There seem,s to be a problem with your new points system Fencer.When you change over from day to day and total points.I do not get any points when i read boards.It does not bother me any,but if others are having this problem it might:) Keep coming up with new ideas it is a GREAT SITE :)

6. - 10. place: 6 month Brain Knight membership?

I realize that it is double the 200 brains- but could have added future benefits…

Kudos to Fencer for-
1. The Action Points idea
2. The prizes
3. Being able to adjust on the fly…

I am so happy that I don’t have to ‘read’ anymore for those inflated points…
[Although I did actually find some interesting posts/threads;]

I plan on continuing to play as I’ve done in the past, tweaking to rid myself of slower players…

Shortly after I’d joined IYT a couple of years ago~ burst appendix cost me ~100 games…
Have appointment later this month… plan to join BK AFTER/IF I get clean bill of health…

Again- thank you Fencer! [Best overall site;]

On the other side, implementing of AFK check would be probably lost time, because it would catch only those really greedy ones, because classical way of switching to interactive mode when AFK check encounter would be sufficient as prevention in most cases.

Although the proof would be almost impossible if the action would be within the limits, with bigger and non-constant intervals between moves, there is no way to discover that, except some AFK check where user would have to reply within some reasonable time to some sophisticated question in a human way while playing. But the decision when to generate such question and what is a reasonable reply regarding to content and reaction time would be not easy.

nabla: Sure, that would probably result in a ban, because a proof would be pretty easy, though the whole idea might be used for broadcasting games here instead of replaying them or sending to site creator for publishing at least then.

TheLamer: At least this would be clearly against the User Agreement (no computer help when playing), so any punishing measure could be taken against the people who would abuse the system in that way.

Fencer: OK, thanx.

pawnme: Resigns are counted too. All kinds of wins are eligible.

Okay, I need clarification. If I resign, then my opponent will NOT get points?

nightmagic: hope this doesn't take the fun out of the games i play, i don't think it will. i play for fun here, not to win any extra but yes it's nice but here to play games win or lose, don't think i'll not know your her for the points and there is a way around that...

gl 2 all grabbers

nightmagic: you got me wound up,,,,

TheLamer: lol, even with slow speed some are able to keep up setting settings to 10 sec. fefresh