Jason: I agree, i have alot of games, but still make at least one move on each every day, unless i am not here long LOL

AND i also i agree with snowhugs, some people have too many games & wait till the last day virtually to make a move in a Tournament, so holding it up, BUT then again they are also using the rules laid down. They have a certain time to make a move before they timeout, so why not use it.

Its catch 22 then, some of us want to speed Tournaments up, some dont. Problem is, the ones that dont till always win, as the tournament wont carry on till there game(s) is finished.

imsoaddicted: Number of games is an indication though. Once a day isn't all that fast, players with only 20 games going often play 20 moves per day, which is more like it. :)

I'd rather play 20 moves in one game than one move in 20 games. Much more enjoyable.

Marfitalu: I hope the compare BKRs feature request isn't overlooked. I think it is a great idea.

MadMonkey: I think that the simplest thing to do is to message an opponent or a tournament player if you want them to move faster. More times than not, they will go ahead and move much quicker. I know for me, I might not move in a game every day, because it is too hard to go through and find them. So I might not move too often in games that have a time limit of seven days. But if you message me, I will move quicker and I believe most people do this.

gambler104: It doesnt bother me at all, but i do know quite a few it does annoy. Like i said, when you enter any game or tournament the rules of it are there for you to except, for both/all players.
No one should have to message anyone(maybe the Tournament organiser), though i know it happens. All i would say is that i do think some players should look at the tournaments they are in more, then they would know if they are the only ones left playing games in it.
Maybe if some people used the drop box and goto next Tournament game they may get through them quicker.

MadMonkey: I would agree. If you have all your games left in a tournament and no one else has any, then I think you need to start playing quicker. Aside from that, I don't think that there should be a major problem.

grenv: The number of games you have really has little bearing on how fast you play. I currently have 24 games going and can only make about 1 move per game per week do to internet problems and limitied time yet in the past I have played people with over 3000 games that made a move every day. I also very seldom find people that will play 20 moves a day. If we are both convienently online at the same time ocasionally you get that but usually you miss each other resulting in 1 or 2 moves a day on a game.

If you want fast games keep short time limits this puts you first on there play list.

how about the blackhole version

Request coming from the Spanish forum:

Could it be possible to sort the games in the MainPage list by the online status of our opponents? Or by time of last action?
That way it would be easier to start analysing the games that are most likely to be played soon, instead of having to go through the whole list (especially in the case when I'm displaying 5 games at a time, for instance).

Marfitalu: Oui.

Ever been on a fellowship team in a tournament (or challenge) only to find one of the team mates hasn't been on for 6 months? Then the tournament can take the better part of a DECADE to finish waiting for the dead player to time out.

Or, do you check every player's profile before selecting them to play for the team?

Or, do you find that one of the players on the opposing team is "dead" (hasn't logged on for months)?

It would be nice if, on the team "roster", you could see the player's last action date. Also, it would be nice if you could have a setting when defining tournaments (Team vs. Team challenges) That says something like: Any player who has not accessed brainking for 30 days automatically forfeits.

Summertop: 30 days is a bit harsh, as some people can take long periods while on vacation, for instance.
Besides, games drag on much longer because of active players that play once a month, than because of 'dead' players that will eventually timeout.
That said, I support your request - a team captain should be given as much info as possible to select the best players for the task

Summertop: If you look at a fellowship team on the main fellowship page, players who are not on for 30 days will have a gray background.

Unfortunately I believe that when the captain is picking their player, the gray background does NOT show up. One suggestion would be to make sure the gray background is there also since I know some people don't want to kick others off the team in case they come back, but of course can be confusing how it is now when they are picking players for a challenge because you don't know who is not active in the challenge team picking part of the process.

pauloaguia: Well, I would expect that the 30 days would be definable so you could pick 90, 120,7, or whatever you want. Then team captains could decide whether to join based on that ond other settings.

BIG BAD WOLF: yeah especially if you have more players on the team than can join the tournament.

On the My profile page, can we have the finished games list sorted by BKR ratings from highest to lowest descending?

emmett: Or by number of finished games? Or by tournaments won? Or... ? :)

pauloaguia: Exactly. I didn't want to ask for too much...

Marfitalu: Yes. I often check out opponents' finished games when I size them up before battle. Especially because of the Waiting games arena. I requested the sort because some people have many finished game types. Also, I am a clean, organized person. I like the elements of my profile to be sorted a little more efficiently.

BIG BAD WOLF: I think if we had that active / non-active tag beside there name it would work. One they could set themselves if they just didnt want any more games to play for a while, but it would set it self to non-active if they have not been on Brainking for 30 days for example.
Then the Captain would always know.

MadMonkey: I've posted something over on the Fellowships board so we can continue the discussion over there - since I think we all have some pretty good ideas that we can work on and give Fencer a final description on what we would like.

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=24 - Fellowships Board

I would like to be able to restric type of games a team captain can add me to on my profile by the following criteria. It should also red flag but not stop me from accepting games that don't meet this criteria.

*Only except games over X time limit but under Y time limit
*Will not put my active game list over X games
*Will not put my active game list over X games of that type
*Aponents BKR is unrated
*Vacation days allowed or not

Would alsobe nice of there was a pause tournaments so if an emergency comes up I can push that and if any tournaments I am signed up get to that date I am automatically removed from them before they start and team captains can not put me on a team.

emmett: Could the number of started games have the number of player's turn games also

Ex. 10 games, 2 on player's turn;8 on opponent's turn - This would appear Started Games (2/10)

Does anyone else think it would be great if there could be two jointBigBosses in Fellowships to save keep handing the Fellowship over when one requires a break?

I would like to see titles here. I think it is a good idea that some players who have achieve a good ranking in specific tournaments and have a minimum rating get a title, similar to FIDE, but it can be different. For example "BK master" or something like that.

Mousetrap: I think it is on the "to-do-list" about a possible "Little Boss" - who can do things like invite players, assign captains, start tournaments - almost anything the BIG BOSS can do except they can not delete the fellowship.

But yes, I second the request - it would make a nice addition to fellowships.

Mousetrap: Yes i agree, i will be diseappering for a while soon, and it would be good if i had somebody to look after the fellowship for me, even though i know i can jsut had it over, but it would be nice to see the "Little Boss"" status.

BIG BAD WOLF: and xmas is soon. If it is on the to do list, that is fantastic! It is certainly needed.

emmett: this is a bad idea for 2 basic reason,there are others:

1-many users use public library,university or community center computers,thus many on one IP address.this would unfaily block many users.
it is surprising how many there are.take a poll fencer just for curiousity.

2-this unfortunely will NOT stop advanced cheating methods..there are many,I reframe from doing so.
but many dont care that cheating is a hollow victory.
to make yourself feel like you have acheived something by cheating,is the calling card of an insecure,dysunctional personality.

nobleheart: bout time someone said that one!coffee houses are the same,

nobleheart:

I would like to propose some improvements in the game Maharajah Chess:
(1) The player who plays with the Maharajah must do only one click on destination square, not onto the Maharajah
(2) In the rules of the game, i think it should to be explained in normal circumstances the black player always should win and the target of the game just consists of practising and teaching the movements of the chess-pieces to the beginners.

pabloca: Wow, number 1 seems so obvious I'm wondering how nobody ever thought about it :)
It would sure take 1 click away of every move.

Just not sure if the current game engine supports that. But I support this request !

I am sure No 1 was brought up a long time ago, just cant think why it was never used, seems so obvious.

pabloca:
(1) can certainly be supported by the game engine, it works like that in Ambiguous Chess !
(2) I agree with that too. It would be fairer for newcomers who get white-challenged by rating-hungry people.

nabla: very well

MadMonkey: very well you too

I see here are some unequal games where I regard necessary to have 2 games between players.
Then if I cheese Tournament type: two games (switched colors) for each two players,
I cannot change it. But now I understand what it means: if a pawn wants
to play and there are 8 players in a section then he/she must have 14
empty slots!
Then it is better to Define new tournament: one game for each two players and Match type: 2 games match. In this case the 2nd game begins after the 1st is finished and a player needed only 7 empty slots. Is it right?
Is it a reason why there are very few signed up players in the  *** Estonia! *** despite my announcement http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=22&u=24622 and very user-friendly Fischer`s clock?
Other soft changes (decrease minimum of players, set beginning  some hours later, descriptions...) I see are possible?

Jaak: Yes, certain things you can change before the tournament starts, and certain things you can't change.

I think if you send Fencer a message, he will change that for you.

Your other option, if there aren't many people signed up, is to delete it, and create another one, and send messages to those people who had signed up.

Jaak: Oh, and I believe that pawns only need 10 open slots for 2 game per player tournaments, and 5 open slots for 1 game per 2 player tournaments. (Regardless of the size of the sections)

rod03801: Thank you for good answers! And I am sure, Fencer will answer me soon!

I suggest that the default colour for gammon game invitations should be "your colour - black". The player who gets to make the initial move is determined by the dice, and if one accepts an invitation, it would be good to be able to make a move - or "pass" as the dice determines - without possibly waiting two or three days to make an initial move. There is no tactical or strategic advantage in being black or white.

pgt: It´s a good idea but could it be an advantage getting an double in the first move? I want to mean the first player has a better probability for starting the game (21/36 against 15/36) Is this a little and real advantage?

Matarilevich: I generally only play cube games - a double SHOULD double the cube value and then the dice should be re-thrown, but I don't think it is implemented - or if it is I have not seen it. Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing a double in a "normal" game either. So I don't believe that the probabilities actually arise in the BK implementation.

Matarilevich: I don't understand how one player has more chance of moving first in any implementaion. It's 50-50. Can you explain better?

grenv: Sure! Maybe i am wrong, well, the possibilities are 36:
30 of them are no double, in 15 of these starts the white and in the other 15 starts the black
the rest are the 6 doubles [[1-1]..[6-6]] and in these cases with rules of BrainKing the white player moves the first.

Matarilevich: On the very first roll that is used on backgammon, each player rolls 1 dice - the higher of the 2 goes first. If it is a double, I believe the system automaticly re-rolls until it can be determined who goes first - so it should be a 50/50 chance of which color goes first. (which white always goes first, but will "pass" to black if they lose the roll

Matarilevich: I see nothing about that in the game rules, but for sure no game starts with a double. In a over-the-board game, when both opponents roll the same die at the beginning of the game, they throw the dices again.
pgt's idea sounds good.

nabla: But i think the rules of BrainKing about Backgammon don´t explain how works the first roll.
I didn´t know this rule so i thought it was possible getting a double in the first roll.
Backgammon isn´t a popular game in Spain.

Matarilevich: Ok. I wouldn't occur to me to allow white to move on a double. In fact why wouldn't the computer just randomly determine the start, no need to "roll dice" to determine.

In over the table games you just keep re-rolling until someone gets a higher number, as nabla said. The idea of doubling the game stakes is just a variation played by some, but not in any official rules.