I still think you need special buttons to push, for people like me. :O)

Fencer: The point about the points is that, with our existing system, there is "just" an 1:1-draw after two games.
If we counted the points within one game, it would make clear who won the single game "better".
E.g. in Mancala lets say white wins with 25:23 and in the second game the former black player wins, by the better strategy, with 28:20. Finally, the score of this 1:1-game would be 51:45 and a winner would be determined.

- This may be the fairer variant in some games with a visible advantage for one colour!

diogenysos: Could not of put it better myself

MadMonkey:



maybe we will find out in a while, with more experience, that the black mancala player has all jokers in his hands...

but the idea of counting the points still remains interesting...

That White seems to have an overwhelming advantage in "Mancala" could be that the "no moves" rule was set backwards. Indeed, I always heard that when one player had no stones left in his side of the board, HE captured all of the opponent's pieces. In other word, it is of the player's responsibility to ensure that the opponent can always move.

I wikied Mancala, and although it is a wide game family, the rules played here seem to be the rules of "Oware" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oware) . Here is the part of the rules that deal about having no moves :

<quote>
The proscription against capturing all an opponent's seeds is related to a more general idea, that one ought to make a move that allows the opponent to continue playing. If an opponent's houses are all empty, the current player must make a move that gives the opponent seeds. If no such move is possible, the current player captures all seeds in his/her own territory, ending the game.
</quote>

Not the most enlightening way to write it, but I think it means that the remaining seeds are due to the player who finds himself without a move.

On a more general note, I think that we need a defined procedure for changing the rules of a game. It has been done in the past with new games that had an obvious defect (e.g. Cloning Gammon), but since then Fencer has been very reluctant to make changes, even when there were strong arguments for them (promotions in Recycle Chess come to my mind, but also suggested changes in some unbalanced games).

I am aware that changing game rules doesn't go without short-term problems (mainly, some people won't remember whether they are playing under the old or the new rules), but I think that on the long term the quality of the games offered here is much more important. After all, aren't the games what makes us come here ?

nabla: I wouldn't say that the rules are wrong for Mancala - if there's anything wrong, it would be the name, as Mancala stands for a large family of 'seeding games'. There are probably as many mancala variants as there are chess variants - although in mancala it's not variants of a specific game.

Given the large number of rules (i.e. different amount of pods, different amount of seeds, different rules for reaping, etc), you cannot call it wrong. Although I don't think anyone has found the exact game whose rules are implemented here on any of the lists of mancala games out there. The closest game I have found is the one that is implemented on Nokia phones, and there you also get the seeds in your own pods if the opponent has no moves left.

I'd say, leave the rules as is (or make them the same as in the Nokia game), and add some other Mancala games where white doesn't have the overwhelming advantage.

diogenysos: Winning 28:22 instead of 25:23 doesn't mean you have a better strategy. Mancala isn't about scoring as many points as you can - just more than your opponent. It would make for a totally different game.

I don't think 'counting points' variations work as well for perfect knowledge games like mancala as for games as backgammon where there are unknown factors (die roles for instance).

AbigailII:

well, maybe i didnt come to the exact point by this explanation. just wanted to say that the 1:1 in a two-game-match is of disatvantage for the higher rated player. counting the points could solve this problem. in backgammon, its completely different and not to be compared ;-)

but for example in pah tum, or even in froglet, it could be interesting and fair, too, to count the points. -

maybe it should be offered just as another variant.
we can change time and match-settings, maybe there can be a "counted-points-match" as one more option.

diogenysos: Well, it *should* be a 'disadvantage'. That's the entire point of a rating system; if a higher rated player plays a lower rated player, his expected score is more than 50%. So, if the match ends 1:1, the higher rated player is expected to lose.

Your suggestion could lead to a 2000 rated player playing a 1000 rated player in a 2-game match, where the 2000 rated player winning the first game 26:22, losing the second game 25:23, and still getting his rating adjusted as a win.

That's not to say that I don't think the rating adjustment could not be improved. Currently, the potential of ratings isn't fully taken advantage of. Regardless of the length of a match, for rating adjustment, it's considered a win, a draw, or a loss. But ratings (at least, ELO ratings and their derivatives) predict an outcome. For instance, that the higher rated player ought to win a 10 game match by 7:3. If the higher rated player wins by 6:4, the higher rated player would actually lose points, while the lower rated player wins rating points, despite losing the match (because he did better than he should do according to his ratings).

AbigailII: I disagree. Whatever the name chosen, if you take an existing game (that is known as balanced) and change a rule (making it unbalanced), then the rules are wrong by any definition that I can think of. Mancala games have a very long tradition, and I am sure that there are higher authorities than Nokia about them.
Actually, naming the game Mancala was a clever try by Fencer to avoid all discussion about the game rules. Indeed I wouldn't have dared to protest if the present rules didn't seem to make the game badly unblanced.

nabla: But Nokia didn't invent the rules themselves either. They just picked a well-known instance [*] of a certain subclass of Mancala games (a class that has been well studied, with many instances known to be a win for white).

[*] The instances vary with the number of pods (6 each in this case), and the number of intial seeds (4 in this case). I think I've posted links to pages about this variant a while ago.

AbigailII: Hmm, I stand corrected, when I reread the rules of Oware, they are indeed not the same as our "Mancala". Does the latter indeed come from the Nokia phones ? That would be a real pity. And I insist that being unbalanced is a major defect in a game.
Probably I am a bit of a nitpicker on this, but I would also like if the game rules stated a reference of where they come from.

AbigailII: And apart from the Nokia phone, did you ever see one of those instances where the player without move lost all remaining seeds ?

nabla: I certainly agree the game is unbalanced. But we have other games with the same problem: Maharajah chess, Horde chess, Pah Tum, Five in Line, etc.

nabla: I am certainly not a Mancala expert, but the first link I tried, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oware says:

If an opponent's houses are all empty, the current player must make a move that gives the opponent seeds. If no such move is possible, the current player captures all seeds in his/her own territory, ending the game.

AbigailII: Yes, that is exactly what I quoted, and you are right that it reads as if when I can't make my opponent play (and only in that case), I take all remaining seeds. But that does not seem to make sense with the two previous paragraphs on the subject, which explain that you must always ensure that your opponent can play. At first I saw it as a clumsy phrasing, now it looks more than a mistake.

Maybe this Wiki text is indeed where the error (if it is one) comes from. I admit that it would require someone more expert than me to judge this.

AbigailII: My feeling is reinforced by the mention in the same article that Oware has been solved and that perfect play leads... to a draw !

nabla: The quote says that you only get the seeds in your own pods if you cannot make a move that gives your opponent a move to make. For instance, all you have (as white) is 3 seeds in a1 and 2 seeds in b1. No possible move will give your opponent a seed.

Note that Oware is quite different from the Mancale game we play here. Oware doesn't have a collection pod, you can only score seeds with captures, which you do by ending your sow in an opponents pod that contains 2 or 3 stones (after seeding).

Another Oware link

AbigailII:

i totally agree on that idea that the higher rated player is expected to win more than 50%. its just too easy to get a draw in some games. this is why i'd prefer a finer counting-system for some games, at least as an option.

and, sure the 2000BKR-player wins against the 1000er even by one point. he wont increase his BKR too much, this is guaranteed by the existing BKR-calculation-system!!

It seems this Mancala discussion would be better at this point on the Mancala discussion board That way other people playing the game could chime in more easilly. (People looking to discuss this may not look on this board for that) Thanks!

rod03801: Ok, I am sorry that I started it, I did not remember that there was a Mancala board...

All games have their own board.. For future references to those that are new to the site as well. You can pick up tips and ask questions about games from each individual game discussion board

nabla: There's never anything wrong with starting it! It is hard to decide when to move it to the game-specific board, isn't it.

well - anyway - i would still like to ask for the discussed  feature., as we have a new counting system for backgammon, which offers us a new kind of thrill competing, it would be nice to offer the mentioned system for other games, too!

Could there be a better way to remove someone from a number of teams in a fellowship without having to go through each team?
I just pasted the same URL 100 times only to find out I somehow removed that player from the fellowship in the process which is exactly what I was trying to avoid in the first place.

Without giving it much though, I think a cool way could be to add in the players profile a check box by each team. Then, clicking on a button to remove from selected teams would do the trick.
This feature would only show up on our own profile or by the teams you are a captain or Big Boss of (so you could remove other players from your teams quickly).

But of course, this is just a suggestion. It can be implemented any other way - as long as it is less boring than the way there is(n't) right now.

As a new pawn (previously and maybe future rook) i just noticed that I can't join a tournament because I'm already playing another tournament.

However...

I finished playing that tournament months ago and it is held up by incredibly slow players.

I suggest tournaments where pawns have finished don't count against them in this regard.

grenv: This has cropped up a few times.
I think if you let Fencer know and there is no chance in you carry on in that Tournament, you can get round it

grenv: Monkey's right. Just send Fencer a PM.

Could we have something on the game page of a Triple Gammon game to remind us that it is a Triple Gammon game.
I imagine people will play these versions differently, as in attacking more to go for gammons & backgammons.
I think something on the page to show it is a Triple Gammon game would be useful.

MadMonkey: If you are using style sheets, you can do something like:

b + a[href="Tournaments?tri=206948#1"] {       
    position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 200px;
    height: 30px; width: 250px; background: yellow 
}    

Which puts a large yellow bar on the top of the page with a link to the tournament. Unfortunally, you'd need have to list each tournament separately.

Butt ugly, but at least I won't make a costly mistake.

I think if you haven't moved a piece, in whatever game, you should be allowed to cancel it.

jadarite: this feature was used @ itsyourturn.com and some people misused it by picking up waiting-room-games of one person and immediately deleting them afterwards. - cancelling tournament-games wouldnt be useful, too...

jadarite: Well, if you want to cancel a game in the first move:
Options
-1: Become a paying member
-2: Just resign, for that won't cost any BKR.

Now the auto pass feature is working, can the feature also be implemented for ludo games?

If you resign, the system counts it as a loss. I don't see the significance in this. I think if it must be there, we should be able to type a reason then why that game was ended on the first move. Personally, I am not into this wins/loses, ratings. I just want to play to play.

jadarite: but if you decide to play a game, why should it be necessary to cancel it afterwards?

diogenysos: sometimes you have the bad luck of accepting an open invitation of someone that has left the site in the meantime...

I went to make a screenshot. I am new to this, so I opened up a board, and in doing so, someone accepted. All I wanted to do was make a screenshot so I could redesign Shogi (Japanese Chess) pieces.

Another reason would be if you started up 4 or 5 games, and then 2 accepted. You might want to concentrate on those 2 games. Why make 4 or 5 in the first place? Because you don't know who would be interested. Instead of waiting for 1 person to accept in one kind of game, you sent out multiple invites and see who bites. Then you play. In that case, it would be useful to cancel a game. Even if a person didn't use this option the right way as mentioned before, they can still do it. If all they want to do is mess with the system, why would they care if the system credited them with a loss? They are just messing with the system. People in my case and the second example I outlined would have that loss carry with them when it really shouldn't.

jadarite: As joshi_tm pointed out already: you have the opportunity to delete games if you become a paying member.

I don't quite see the logic in that. Pay to not play?

jadarite: No - pay for a variety of exclusive features, deleting already started games being one of them.

jadarite: for screen shots you can open and see anyone's game. Just go to someone's profile and check their "current games" or "finished games".

You can delete an invitation that has not yet been ccepted. On your home page, on the bottom there is a list with all your invitations that have not yet been accepted. You can choose which ones you want to widthraw. Once someone starts the game you have no longer such option.

I understand there are "OTHER" options, I understand I can do all this "OTHER" stuff. What I would like to do is be able to cancel games if I haven't made a single move. Please don't try to convince me OTHERwise with some OTHER way of thinking. Trust me, I know what I like. This is one of them, I like that option. If you don't want to play, you just click what would be a cancel button, it gets erased from the system.

This has a lot of advantages. If you are playing chess, you could invite someone to a game with the King's Indian and see if they want it. You could invite them to an opening with the Sicilian, whatever. I don't see why a resign has to be the solution. It doesn't make sense to me, it won't make sense to me, so don't try to convince me "OTHERwise" folks. Just accept the fact, that's what I would like to see. If it gets implemented, great, if not, oh well. I voiced my opinion and it will stand. See you perhaps on the board someday.

jadarite: sorry to ask you once again: dont you think it may be "unsporty" to cancel a game once youve started it? you may tell people before if you preferred a special opening or so - but cancelling after accepting???

i imagine in real life: sitting in a cafe, with a chessboard. you come to my table, sit down,  i make my first move. you stand up and say "sorry, but thats not my opening" or "sorry, i have to go now"...

jadarite: chill out on the defensive factor please. the other people were just explaining other options to you.

If I made a move, then yes, there is no computer task that I know of that would require me to sign on to Brain King and make a move. However, if I clicked the accept link on accident, and I never wanted to play to begin with, I don't see this as a moral issue.

Furthermore, if 2 friends are just practicing openings. Perhaps one is a grandmaster, the other never moved a piece, the beginner would want more time to make moves than say 2 grandmasters. In that case, this would be a perfect solution. You let the beginner practice their openings. After 10 moves, cancel, start over.

There are uses beyond what I see. To prevent people doing this deliberately, you could put in a limitation so that they could only cancel 1 game a day. This would allow those that legitimately don't want to play the ability to cancel and prevent a disruptor from doing it en masse.

Which do you want from me, a response that addresses something else? What did you eat for breakfast today? Where are going shopping tomorrow?

Or, do you want me to address the statement head on? Well, Jessica, I don't need to be convinced of the "other" ways. I stated a feature request. I wasn't asking for support.

jadarite: well - now i know at least a little more what you want.
how about creating non-BKR-games? if you resign them, they do not affect pointage or something else. and all people who want to play for more thrill wont accept those invitations.

now i am offering one more OTHER option, but i feel its because we are talking about sport here - and just cancelling games isnt that sporty. i am sure brainking is already offering a lot of nice - and easy to handle - opportunities to fulfill your needs! all the best...

jadarite: i just meant that you are and were coming across majorly rude and there are better ways of saying things than insulting people who are just trying to offer help.