krybulon: Using a calculator?

Hey all,



I think the game of Cheversi, as great a game it is, is pretty imbalanced

(White wins 27%, Black 67% as for now: http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=93)

I would even say with reasonable play white is chanceless.



I know rule changes suck after  a game has been established, but the way it is,

this imbalance takes a bit of the fun away from that great game.

So I would suggest the rules to be somewhat changed, maybe along the lines of

black being forced to make his first queen move on the rim of the board,

but I assume even that might still not be enough, hard to say without lots of testing.



So another suggestion I would have with games like Cheversi,

that look like they could be a little off balance, would be to introduce them at first

into some sort of sandbox, where they can be played and fine-tuned accordingly

in unrated and uncounted games until some balance has been found.



Just some thoughts that crossed my mind, maybe they all have been thought through already,

but I didnt want to let them go unmentioned ;)



Have fun all.

dresali: Well I think those stats are a little misleading since they also count the games that had the "old" rules - in which black was almost guaranteed a win if they just left the queen for the last. Since the rule changed happened when the game was already released, even games ending now may have been started with the old rules in place.

I'm not sure what the stats are now after the rule change (not sure if Fencer can just get those stats for us) - my guess it is probable closer to 40/60 - with black still having an advantage even when using the queen first - but now has a little more work to get the win. (but that is just a guess)

dresali: As you just beat me i agree

But in all seriousness, its true in what you say. Once a player has got semi-used to playing it, the worst Black should ever do is ret a draw, but a win should be the outcome, no matter how good a player White is.

Like you i think the game is great, but as in other games here on Brainking they can be modified.

Apart from the ideas you have mentioned, how about a Dark version, where all opponents pieces, squares and score are blocked to the opponent. In other words no player would no how the other is doing OR what pieces they have used just what squares have a piece placed on it.

MadMonkey: Two days ago I would have agreed, but after being beaten as black by oliottavio, I say that you need to play better than "reasonably" to win against a top-class opponent.

dresali: I like the idea of a sandbox or a trial status for games. For the first week or two nobody could create rated games. That way, some flaws would naturally arise while no harm was done and they could still easilly be corrected.

And it would allow us to try the games and learn how to play them before falling for stupid mistakes or such. Especially, since these days one must learn how to play the game before the rules are posted, right Fencer?

pauloaguia: I don't mind playing the first games being rated - if there is a flaw, it will most likely affect both players. Best thing to do is if players are worried about new games having flaws or bugs is to simply play only unrated/uncounted game themselves.

BIG BAD WOLF: How about a new game variant known as Dice Cheversi?  Where you have to roll which piece to move out next?

When creating a f/s tournament, BK offers a default name, and if you want to change it, you must change it for each different language. This is quite annoying.

joshi tm: This board is for feature requests, not complaints. You should suggest a solution.

danheg: I think the problem with Cheversi is that having the last move is quite a big advantage. That doesn't go away with rolling a dice, while it gives the player moving first a chance, odds still favour the person moving last. Swap rules have also been proposed, but that won't work either. Swap rules are there to level out the advantage of moving first.

I think Cheversi ought to be played in such a way that both players move simultaneously. Obviously, this requires rules to handle the situation where both players want to move to the same spot (i.e. Both pieces are not placed and out of the game (possibly with the spot turning into a black hole); or both pieces sharing the same spot; or the highest piece wins or the winner of a coin flip gets to place his/her piece (and the other out)).

Fencer: Well, there's at least a couple of possible solutions:

• Have some javascript or whatever update the text name in all the other languages as you type the name in the default language.
  
• Put a button by the default language's name that allows you to copy it to the other languages

AbigailII: Well a swap rule would work as well i guess:
White makes a move, Black makes a move,
White decides if to swap, the game continues normally after the potential swap.
This would perfectly balance the game,
as long as there is a combination of first moves
at all, that gives Black no advantage.
So basically the question is probably, whether 'White King to the center, Black Queen to the corner' still leaves Black with an advantage, which it probably/hopefully doesnt.
.. interesting stuff ;)

The nice thing about this solution would be,
there were no ugly restrictions to any moves,
just the glitch of the swap.
Thinking of it, this might be the most aesthetic
solution ;)

AbigailII: And concerning the simultaneous moving:
Somehow I dislike that idea cause it introduces an element of luck, since it wouldnt be
a game of perfect information anymore:
In a given situation, there is always a best move.
But the best move could lead to an inferiour position, if the opponent luckily chooses a move
that isnt his best move, but 'refutes' my best move.

dresali: The swap rule should be done after Black's 2nd turn.

dresali: If it refutes your best move, how couldn't it be your opponents best move? IMO, you still have perfect information. You know all the pieces your opponent still has in his hand, and you know all the moves he can play. Sure, you won't know what his next move will be, but then, you neither know with go or with chess, do you?

dresali: Sorry, but I don't buy that (the swap rule). Take for instance the following game: On a board with 4 squares, white and black put a marker on a square on each turn. The first person that cannot place a marker loses the game. Obviously, going last is a huge advantage. How's a swap rule going to solve the imbalance?

One's table in Dice Poker is sometimes on the right, and sometimes on the left. My guess is that whether it's on the left or right is determined whether you have 'white' or 'black'. I would like the position where one's table is to be fixed, that is, regardless of your colour your own table is always on the right (or always on the left). Just like in chess games, regardless whether you have black or white, you always play from bottom to top, and with backgammon you always play from upper-right to lower-right. Could the display of Dice Poker (and Triple Dice Poker) be made such that your table is always on the same side?

AbigailII: Why?

Fencer: I agree with AbigailII here. For example I play a game where my side of the table is on the right, i then finish that game and move to the next game of dice poker, i automically look to the side i was on the previous go and roll the dice for that side. I then realise i have got a really bad score due to the fact i've been rolling for my opponents table side.

It would just make things a little more convenient thats all.

furbster: I don't agree.

AbigailII:
I think we're getting slightly off topic, so allow myself to move this discussion to
http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=6

Fencer: I agree with Furbster - this is a new relatively new game, and I have already made that mistake twice!

pgt: I still don't agree.

Fencer: Because it's less confusing. With the table as it is, and the dice under the table, I can't see the dice and the names above the table. If my score was always displayed on the right (or always on the left), I can easier see what my score is (because it's always on the same side).

Let me ask you this, what's the advantage of half of your games having your score on the right, and half of the games having your score on the left?

AbigailII: I like it, that's the advantage. And I don't want to change it, that's the reason.

AbigailII: How about adding a colour to the side of the board of the persons who go it is, or shading the opponents side, would that be better ?

and i still think there should be a bonus in Dice poker, coz thats the rules of the normal game

Fencer: LOL, like that answer

Fencer: Ok then. I'll buy you a beer next time I'm in Prague. Will that sway you?

MadMonkey: It doesn't matter. Fencer likes it the way it is and isn't going to change it. Oh well.

AbigailII: He said the same thing about auto pass as well ;)

i'd like something to make it more obvious which column(s) are mine on the single and triple dice poker forms. my attention is focused on the dice below the form, and i raise my eyes to look at the columns, but i don't tend to raise them high enough to read the names at the top and i can wind up making mistakes about which column(s) are mine. i just wasted a turn shooting for a large or small straight when in fact i already had both...i just thought my column was my opponent's and vice-versa.

this is especially problematic since one's own column is not always on the same side of the form. i play a game or two where my column's on the right and then when i get to my next game i assume my column's on the right there too, but it may not be.

i'm thinking it would be great if my opponent's column was shaded gray during my turn so i could still read my opponent's column but could also tell at a glance which column was mine without having to read the names at the top. and making one's own column always appear to be on the same side of the form would be helpful too.

many thanks, Filip.

Fencer: do you like having your pieces sometimes displayed on the top side of the board and sometimes displayed on the bottom side of the board when you play chess?

Fencer: and when your "i run the site - i don't have to be reasonable!" attitude goes too far for my tastes, i can sell my black rook membership to someone else, right?

MadMonkey: Something like this screenshot? :)

hexkid: On the ball as normal hex, great stuff.

I think maybe hatching/shading the opponents side out would be better, but so you can till see there scores

Just add to your Greasemonkey script

hexkid: Ooh my mum seems all famous now lol

Fencer: but isn't it the same way in backgammon , chess, ludo, and etc.  that the starting postion of the pieces are the same?  Wouldn't this be consistent with the rest of the games?

plaintiger, furbster and anyone: else who wants it to show a difference, talk to hexkid and join his Fellowship then you could have a Dice Poker game like this (or any colour/shade you wish)

MadMonkey: sounds good, as far as it goes...but then what about all my dice poker games outside the fellowship? will i be able to modify those too?

furbster:

I concur, but would also like my dice on top, not on the bottom as I have to scrool all the way down just to see them.  

plaintiger: Is that a joke? I hope so, because:

• I don't like threats and it sounds like one.
• Memberships are not refundable, you know that.
• When you purchased it, there was no dice poker at all, so you cannot use it as a reason of your attitude.
• The table of points highlights your available cells with a black border, so it's impossible not to recognize which columns are yours.
• If it is really important for some people, I can make the borders pink or with a flashing red arrow poiting to them. But it would be a waste of my time, more like.

Back to the serious work.

plaintiger: hexkids grease monkey script is not limited only to games within the fellowship. He just does not advertise were to get the script to anyone outside the fellowship

Could we have some sort of voting system as they do on Gold Token......it could consist of General and BK issues, it makes for interesting reading.....I suggest if Fencer agrees, it is on the main page with one vote per paying member, we could have one issue per week.....

WellyWales: VOTING? Sounds like a democracy. Don't frighten me.

Fencer: Well you have one here Filip, that has never been updated.. http://brainking.info/

Fencer:

If it is really important for some people, I can make the borders pink or with a flashing red arrow poiting to them.

Sometimes the distinction between the borders seem to blur on my computer and it does seem to mix up at times.  I know that this is not occurring on your end and is not really your fault, but if you could highlight it with a different color,  it would greatly be appreciated.

Fencer: Don't worry, there was no mention of the vote actually carrying weight. More like a poll really.

This may have been brought up before.... In the waiting games section, where it says "normal game", I dont see it as being "normal" if the game is uncounted or unrated. To me a normal game should include the fact that it counts in the ratings as well! It can be frustrating to be looking for a game, and have to accept one before we find out that the game is not rated!

I would like to see some sort of notation on the main games waiting page that tells us if the games are not rated too. Thanks!

Czuch Czuckers: Or even a filter! Wouldn't that be great?

jurek: A filter would be great... something like we use to set up new game invitations! We could use a form to search for ludo games that are rated and the opponent has at least a 1500 bkr with a time limit of 5 days or less, for example! The way it is now, its frustrating just trying to figure out what page a game invitation MAY be located!