Fencer: So I was wrong when thinking that this agreement would be a temporary solution ; but I don't understand why it could not be that in the same game one of the opponents is using autopass and the other is not.
Apart from that, autopass is a wonderful feature :-)

Fencer: I also don't see why both sides need to agrea to auto pass. On my server it does not let people use auto pass on fisher clock games because of the advantage it would give to the other oponent. And I have only ever found one person that had a problem with autopass keep playing and that player just wrote a message in each play.

I think it is far more useful to have the following rules:
1) Auto pass can not be used on fisher clock games unless both sides agrea to it
2) Each user can chose to enable or disable autopass on any particular game at any time for themselves(Usually near the end of ludo games i like to disable autopass)
3) Any user can decide when creating a game that autopass is not allowed.(this way those people that don't want autopass can still have there way but other wise each user can use it or not at there discresion.)
4) In the settings page every player can set there default mode for each game type.

mctrivia: I find your propositions excellent, maybe the best possible policy. I fully second them !

For a long time I have not been clear on the problem concerning autopass, the necessity, or the proposed solutions. But I THIRD McTrivia's suggestion, just to make the debate over more quickly.

mctrivia: Point three is equivalent with Fencers implementation.

AbigailII: Except that you can allow your opponents to use auto-pass without being forced to use it yourself.

mctrivia: With the POSSIBLE exception of Fischer Clock games, I can't see any good reason whatsoever why anybody should have any say as to whether his opponent uses autopass or not.

pgt: I agree also. The only reason I could think that someone would not want their opponent to use autopass is that they are trying to win on a time-out, and just waiting until their opponent goes off-line to make their move. (Which defeats the purpose of playing games why you try to win by no playing games - but whatever.)

I don't see why it would be a problem on Fischer Clock games - I mean if I make a move, and my opponenet's move is auto-passed back to me - I just make another move. I mean what would be the problem? (Other then if someone was trying to win by timeout which again defeats the whole purpose of "playing" games in my opinion)

As for not using autopass if their is an in-game message - I would even be for an option of "use autopass even if there is a message" - I mean I'm going to read the message the next time I visit the game - what does it matter if it is on move 40 or 52 after 12 auto-passes? I still read it at the same time. Maybe a quick note of "Opponent had not move, so autopassed back to you - so they have not read your message yet." [again, option since some may not like that]

BIG BAD WOLF: I updated my post to stress "good"!

BIG BAD WOLF: The only time I agrea that a message should not stop auto pass is if both users are using autopass and both people will autopass back and forth several times but as soon as one person is no longer being autopassed the other should not be autopassed so they can read the message and reply back.

pgt: The only problem with autopass on fisher is theoretically the game could be played back in 0 secounds to the player several times in a row. If you have little time left that would be a real problem especially if you have other games you need to play also.

mctrivia: I'd say that if you have little time left and you are playing a Fisher game without getting bonus time on each move (otherwise, there's no problem at all), I'd say getting the game back immediately is a benefit. Otherwise you might visit another game or log off or do something else, and lose valuable time (and possibly the game) if your opponent moves when you're not ready to play your next move.

What I don't understand is why the anti-automove people make such a big deal out of it. Most of the time, there's no forced pass anyway. It only effects a relative small number of moves.

I wonder if the following compromise could work:

• Autopass is a player attribute - anyone can determine whether he/she uses autopass, regardless of the preference of the opponent.
  
• By default, if a move can be autopassed, and if the player is online, the autopass is effective immediately. Otherwise, the pass is queued until the player online again. As soon as the player is online again, his/her queued autopasses are being played.
  
• People can set an "play opponents autopasses immediately" setting. If set, and if the opponent uses autopass, and if the opponent must pass, the pass is played immediately, even if the opponent is offline.
  </ul>
  
  This would allow Fencer to go to bed, knowing the autopasses of Big Bad Wolf won't come back to him until BBW is online again. It also allows people trying to win games on the clock to keep trying to win this way. And McTrivia doesn't have to wait for me to log again to move again in a game where I have to pass.

My suggestion on the doubling issue is:

The first move you are trapped you get the opportunity to double.

If you choose not to, it is impossible for your situation to improve, so autopass should take effect.

grenv: Absolutely not!

It is vital that players be allowed to double whenever the rules permit it. If a means is provided to forgo the opportunity, that's fine, but the system must not prevent doubling.

It is not all that uncommon that a player may wish to double while stuck on the bar -- maybe he has borne off all but one checker and his opponent has a closed board. In a situation like this you would require him to double at the first opportunity or not at all? But what if he decides not to double at first, or rolls without thinking about doubling, and then later decides he wants to double?

It is not the server's job to assess when someone's position has "improved", or whether doubling would be a good move. It is the server's job to enforce the rules of backgammon.

Furthermore, it is not necessary for one's position to improve in order for doubling to become correct. In the situation I described above, the player may choose not to double because he has gammon chances. After he dances a few times, those gammon chances will be reduced, and he will want to double. He must be allowed to do so.

KotDB: My earlier suggestion in this situation "Autopass until I can make a move" should therefore become "Autopass until I can move again, and I don't want to double from this position"

next to the games there are many ways to be competitive (actionpoints, most moves, having the biggest mouth etc. ). I could also live with a speedometer. F.i. 'on a scale from 1 to 10 your move-speed is rated 7, or 3'.

gogul: How would you calculate a move speed?

Fencer: Some sugestions:
moves per day in the form of a percentile.

I.E. player x is within the botom 20% of players gets a 2

Fencer: From the moment a player gets a game ready to play until he moves, if we had next to the amount of games in eaches profile the average of 'moving speed' given in hours of the say past 7 days. No idea how to compute it but maybe the timecontrol can recognize this as well.
I can not see further as just the information of the average time someone takes to move, I think there is no need to calculate upon a formula to invent containing the amount of games and the time one takes to move, people with a few games have this advantage but thats what fast players are searching for, and with my about 300 games going on I could compete with pawns I think, at least over the time of 7 days in lots of the weeks.

would it be possible to add the 'delete' button to the top of the messages in the inbox

when i receive a message about a tournament game, it includes the tournament section .. which is great! .. but i have to scroll down 1 page to be able to delete the message .. (as the button is at the bottom now)

if the button would be on top of the message i dont have to scroll :)

Can the link conversion system used on DB's be used on PM's as well? I've grown used to having BrainKing automatically convert links for me when I post a message on a DB, so I get confused whenever it doesn't do so on my private messages...

pauloaguia: It should be working there as well. What exactly does not work?

Fencer: Hmm... Then it may have been something different. A bug? Could it be?
Ok, I've used the "Send message to all fellowship members" feature to send a message that went something like: "Foi criado um novo torneio (http://brainking.com/pt/Tournaments?trg=22609)."

The URL didn't get replaced on the message. Then again, this isn't a PM, but a distributed one, so my request was incomplete to begin with

pauloaguia: Hmm... it didn't get replaced here either. So I'd say it probably has something to do with the fact that it's a fellowship tournament...

nabla: Those don't get recognized as URL's. I think the problem is the fact I put the URL in brackets. That's probably messing with the parser... because if I put it alone, like ( Tugas #16 ) it does get replaced ;)

pauloaguia: Ah well thought I knew how to do it. How did you do ? :-)

pauloaguia: Ah yes you certainly need the spaces before and after the link.

nabla: You need to put the "www.brainking.com" before the tournament link, like it appears on the URL (like the message pauloaguia had written before)

gogul: The disadvantage of that is that it makes European players appear to be slower movers. In matches of a European player vs an American, it will usually be the American player moves makes the "last move of the day", just because Americans trail Europeans in time. The European is then punished for the fact there's more time for him to wake up again, as there is for the American to wake up after the European.

I don't see the added value of this statistic - and I think it can lead to false interpretations.

AbigailII: In general, I've encountered the opposite. I often play late in the evenings and often find myself quitting to go to bed as my European (or Australian, or Japanese, or whatever... why're you limiting it to just US vs. EU?) opponent is just starting his/her move day.

jurek: The majority of the people here are from either the US or Europe. Yes, it benefits Europeans playing against Japanese people as well. And yes, there are exceptions of Americans playing very late against Europeans playing early. Although, they still both get punished as they will have little overlap in their playing times, and will only be able to play a move/day, although they are fast players.

AbigailII: Why not simply have a statistic with the average number of days between moves? Fast players willplay at least once a day,no matter the time zone they're in...

Fencer: How about moves per game per day, averaged over a month?

kaluza: that would depend on your opponent's speed as well. If your opponent moves fast, you may move a dozen times in a game. If your opponent moves really slow, you may move oncea month!

pauloaguia: Not to mention that such a statistic doesn't mean much. Suppose I have 35 games going on, in 34 I move once a month, but in the other I move 30 times a day (perhaps because it's against a fast player in the same time-zone, or due to autopass, or because that's a simple game and the others aren't). My average would be more than one move/game/day. But would you want to pick me if you're looking for a fast game?

AbigailII: If you can move 30 times a day against a fast opponent, yes, I'd want to pick you

AbigailII: The only tome this stat will make you look slower than you actually are is if you finish all your moves and are therefore not moving because you can't.
Perhaps the primary stat could be "%age of time with no moves to make". Anyone with a very low (or zero) score here could be effectively judged by the moves/game/day stat.

AbigailII: I agree, might lead to false interpretations. But what if there would be a 'move speed rating' as a further setting for tounaments (for each games separate?)?. As an organizer you could allow faster player to sign up only (this rating has not to be public info).

gogul: The idea of move speed is not criticizing "slow" players. Timesetting possibilities along with the vacationdays is ok as conditions to me, only to allow high speed based turned players to have their own games.

Why are BKRs limited to separate ratings for each type of game? Why not have a BKR for all backgammon variants combined? One for chess, one for Pente, etc. Also why not an overall BKR for each player covering all (rated) games played regardless of game type. Yes, I know this would lead to a bit of apples to oranges comparison, because good chess players are more likely to win consistantly than good backgammon players due to the luck of the dice, but I still think it would be a great addition to this site.

Thad: I wonder who would have the highest BRK for all games at the moment? ;-)

Thad: Or a common rating for groups of players, next to the teams?

gogul: Team ratings might be tough due to the changing of team members, but if that can be figured out, why not. ;-)

Thad: Statistics

gogul: Well, if you agree that the proposed "how fast does one play" statistics can lead to false conclusions, than you must agree with me that "if there would be a 'move speed rating' as a further setting for tounaments" it would lead to the same wrong conclusions as well. People would be banned from tournaments because they recently played a lot of games againt people in just the wrong timezone. Or people might get frustrated that their tournament isn't fast because it has a mixture of of players from different timezone while the statistics weren't based on that. Or someone might change playing styles for whatever reason.

If you want a tournament with fast play, create one and use whatever time parameters you find acceptable. Don't allow or disallow people to enter because of some statistic that doesn't mean anything.

AbigailII:

AbigailII: I agrea. Most players here are not specifically fast or slow. Most will play within the time limits no mater how long or short they are. Set a time limit of a move a week and expect to see 1 move per week. Set a time limit of 1 move per day and expect to see a move every day.

Now it would be nice to be able to set time limits in the game filters. My schedual doesn't allow me to play less then 7 day games and I don't want to see any game with a limit of 7 days or be put in a team match of less then 7 days.

AbigailII: It's not a question to bann people from tournaments. You don't ban people from a tournament if you set for BRK higher or lower than something, do you? You set. And a stat which would allow a setting like time move is not thought-out yet, such a stat could be made fair and avoid many wrong conclusions made today (I don't complain). It would allow people who play more than one or two moves a day in average to play tournaments together but can't sing in in one day tournaments who knows why, because you're off the weekend or something. Playing fast has nothing to do with the timezone you live in I believe.

gogul: Ok, if you believe a fair stat is possible, I like to see how you would do it.

And I'm very curious why you believe it doesn't matter for the number of moves you can make per day/per game whether you're in the same time-zone as your opponent or 9 hours ahead.

AbigailII: you could think about categories instead of a rating, like normal, fast, very fast.
Fast would be one move a day (in average), very fast more than one move a day. Even living in a timezone of central China you could reach the veryfast category. I'm sure some really can join BK for a short quarter hour dayly only, I don't blame busy people for not making their moves here, in that case of course you wont reach a fast category. But someone who is here one or two hours almost dayly can easily reach the 'veryfast' category. How? You answer all your games once a day (makes you a fast player), now you have to hope that only one opponent moves back in the same session and answer that back too. From a certain amount of games (I guess 60, but certainly with 300) you'll be sure that this happens, in every timezone you can do this. And once you singed up for a tournament the system doesn't boot you, like you sing in for a tournament for players above 2000 but when it starts you might be below, that doesn't matter.