nodnarbo: ok, I got it ... do you think it would be better to collect two squares in the first move ? it would solve this problem, since starting at a1 and moving to b1 (as a one move) will open the door to j1 ...
Andy.

KnightFighter: hm...I'll put it this way, you start with your plow in the bottom left corner, say, we'll call this space a1. you move 2 spaces to the right and you are now on c1, continue moving this way and you will eventually get to i1, but j1 is unreachable, because you can only move one space in that direction.

nodnarbo: you are not stupid, do not say this about yourself... we are learning and trying to invent something ... I honestly do not know how you got this idea about two edges ... but, do we really need to care about this ... look, as a first player you put you plow on any numbered square and collect points from this square ... your opponent does the same. After these two moves any mirrors are removed or, if you stepped on a double you chosen any double to be removed. In your next move you move two places in any chosen direction and collect points for this move. At the same time any two mirrors are removed from the board ... game continue this way until there is no more numbered squares on the board ... when the board is becoming emptier, plows are racing two spaces to get to numbered squares ... in my opinion all the numbered squares can be cleared unless there is a situation I cannot see right now ... but even then it's easy to determine the winner ...
Andy.

KnightFighter: oh, i was not considering diagonal moves, stupid me.

I can see this game working on a board with an odd number of spaces on each side, but with an even number of spaces on each side it leaves 2 edges unavailable to each player...

diogenysos: you wanted to say that plow HAS to remove two numbers ? right ? no matter how long is the path ? I think it's s a trap ... look at the diagonal, for example ... there are two numbered squares at the other end that plow resides ... so the plow has to go along the whole diagonal to get the numbered squares, simply because, empty squares do not count ? No, it wasn't my idea. Plow moves 2 squares no matter what ... thanks for your comments ...
Andy.

nodnarbo:

maybe we solve the problem like this:
the pieces always have to move 2 steps. but an empty square does not count!

mctrivia: Well said

BrainBeast: ROFLMBO .......me too, me too.......

nodnarbo: I'd call keeping players trapped in a tournament FOUR TIMES longer than necessary pretty broken to me!

Thad: nah, I assume he just figures why fix what's not broken

nodnarbo: So he's just not that good at coding?

KnightFighter: oh, 10x10, not 8x8, my bad, now there are 35 spaces that can't be touched, so...the players can choose where their pieces start?

nodnarbo: I am talking about 100 squares board like for Knight Fight ... I think you are trying to play solitaire-like game and go around the board and make some kind of record ... this is not the idea I have in mind ... don't worry how many squares you cover during the game, think about collecting points while you move and if the game stops (for whatever legal reason) ... it stops, compare your points and that's it. They have one piece each, not two ... it's enough problems to solve with one piece on each side.
Andy.

Thad: I believe the management's current argument goes something like this: "every game counts because of the S-B scoring"

this is true when players are tied in points, but when one player has the most points, I agree that the tournament should continue, but good luck convincing Fencer of that. My guess is that the way he has the tournament code set up it would be difficult to handle moving on without all the games being finished, but that's only a guess.

KnightFighter: so with your current rules, each player will be able to land on or move through exactly 40 of the 64 spaces on the board. (if you don't understand why, get out a board and try it.) so depending on the placement of each players pieces, it might be possible for 24 spaces to be 'untouchable'.

What if each player had 2 pieces that start in opposite corners. so one player's pieces would start in the upper left and lower right corners, and the other player's pieces in the upper right and lower left.

Why don't tournaments advance to the next round once the winners are known? Is management trying to keep low tier members locked into tournaments as long as possible so they'll upgrade? That's pretty lame.

nodnarbo: no choice, 2 squares at the time.
It's faster and powerfully strategic. Each and every move not only removes points from the squares Plow goes thru but also cancells mirrors and any chosen double .somewhere on the board. So 4 tiles are stripped from the points after each move... now, the whole idea is to choose the proper direction and not only to collect points from the squares you go thru, but to eliminate points from the opponent's path ...
Andy.

KnightFighter: does it have to move 2 spaces each turn, or can it choose 1 or 2?

KnightFighter: one more thing: remember, that many squares will be cleared by the rules of mirrors and doubles ... so there will not be a need to touch every square and not even required.
Andy.

nodnarbo: please note, there will be two players, and you can move in any direction including empty spaces ... I think it's possible to cover all the squares unless blocked by the opponent. In case moves are blocked, the player with more points wins the game ... I do not see this as a problem, since this is not a solitaire game with the objective to touch every square ... thanks for your comment.
Andy.

KnightFighter: er...if it moved 2 spaces at a time it wouldn't be possible to hit all the spaces on the board...that looks like an initial problem...

people like to destroy, smash, push etc ... how about a game based on Knight Fight layout ... this time, instead of Knight, the main character would be a plough (or american plow) ... Plow would move two squares in any directions combing all the points it goes thru ... game would continue until the last tile is taken ... plows can run thru an empty squares as well, but cannot be placed within the reach of the enemy plow ... all the rules, mirrors, doubles behavior from Knight Fight apply ...
what do you think ? something tells me this game has a potential to be a great hit ...
Regards,
Andy.

Fencer: BTW, o days 2 hours doesnt work too well... you would have to be online for at least 15 straight hours to win one like that, more preferable would be a way to make a whole game finish in less than 1 hour or so

Fencer: While you are in the mood... how about a BKR setting for ponds as well, please?

Nirvana: 0 days 2 hours doesn't work?

Fencer:

would it be possible to be able to set Ponds move time limits in hours rather than days so that an entire Pond could be played faster, like we can with the other games?

fencer since you can define a rating range for tourneys... Why not ponds... It would be a nice thing to have...

Do we have any place to keep track of the polls we have already made? Besides the link at the top of the main fellowship page that says 'polls'? This one doesnt really do it for me, for several reasons.

Dots and Boxes
7x7, 14x14, 21x21

In our Profile, under Tournaments, it at present shows site Normal and Team ones

Could it show Team challenge Matches we are in as well please

AbigailII, coan.net: I agree 100%. I would ask for the following generalization (if I didn't already ask) :

In all games, all relevant information that the rules make available to the players should be visible on the board as far as reasonably feasible. Keeping notes and tracking game scores are definite setbacks to the playing experience.

This includes the long awaited distinction between "race checkers" and "checkers on bar" in Cloning, Race and Crowded backgammon. There are probably other instances in games that I don't play.

AbigailII: Frog Finder & Frog Legs (along with 2 other games) is the only reason I have to keep my move list visable in ALL of my games - which when the game site is loading slow... the less I have to load the better.

What I would like to see is if someone guesses a spot where there is no frog, then mark that square with a small red "g" - with the possibility for someone to still shot that square if needed.

(I would also like Ice Age Chess to show what move you are on so you know when the next ice age is coming without having to have your move list open - plus in the boat games, I would like to know the last spaces I shot in the turn before so I know what "boat" or area I'm working on.... again, without having to have the move list visible.

rod03801: Oh, sure it can done using notes, or post-its, or using a legal pad.

But that 1) requires to have a notes entry field, which I rather keep as tiny as possible (or rather, not show at all), as it takes up valuable screen estate on the games I don't need to keep notes; 2) requires one to consult the notes each and every time; 3) make the mental adjustment between algebraic notation and the game field; 4) have to do work which is better done by computes (and didn't Fencer write once on his blog he doesn't like to do work that could easily be done by computers?).

My request isn't that it's impossible to keep track of guessed squares. But that game play would be so much more enjoyable if it was shown on the field. (Considering that there's little to gain to guess again on an already guessed field, Fencer may even go the extra step and make an already guessed square unclickable).

AbigailII: Personally, whenever I or my opponent guess a square where there isn't a frog, I mark it in Notes. (I started doing this when I realized sometimes I was Guessing the same square multiple times! LOL)

Usually it doesn't need to stay in Notes very long, as something will happen on the board that makes it obvious there can't be a frog in that space anyways.

Fencer: What makes you think "Frog Legs" can't be played OTB? You'd just do what they did when they played "Kriegspiel" long before computers where common place.

In the case of Frog Legs, all you need is three people and some scraps of paper. One referee that will assign the frogs and call out the hits/number of adjacent frogs, and two players.

But since this is a feature board, here's my frog legs/finder feature request: can squares that have been "guessed" (but don't contain a frog) marked in some way? With players that do one shot/week consistently (hi coan!) games take several months to finish, and it's impossible to remember which squares have been guessed before, and rather awkward to scan to move list.

AbigailII: The problem is, where to test the games before they are implemented? Especially those ones which cannot be played OTB.

coan.net: ....even though it is a much funner game when it is not played that way

Yeah, and some people think chess is a much funnier game if you let capture you queen.

With frog legs, revealing anything may cost you the game. Which is why I prefer to play moves that do not reveal anything. I agree that this is incredibly boring, but that, IMO, just shows games shouldn't be added to this site without proper testing.

coan.net: I think I need to try that game then

ahhh I see, I just read the rules. Obviously it was created insufficiently by the creator. Shame on him LOL.

Seriously though, I would like to challenge the creator if thats ok with you Michael

MadMonkey: One solution would be if both players agree not to "waste" shots - where their shot will not at least uncover something new.

Myself, I never try to waste shots UNLESS my opponent does first... and then i just follow suit. I hate that part of the game, but if my opponents want to play that way.... then I will play that way..... even though it is a much funner game when it is not played that way.

Just a thought about Frogs Legs. Those who play the game a lot will know that after a bit it comes to a stage of filling in squares that have no use, VERY time consuming

How about an option similar to Pass this move (in Go), as in if both players agree, all squares that will not disclose any Frog, get marked in, and the next proper move is taken by who's ever go it would of been if both players had made these moves

Would certainly speed up the game , of course BOTH players must agree before it can happen

paully: does that mean you like to play HIDE & SEEK

Hi Fencer,

I love the option to hide Ponds and Opponents Turn games, but I would also enjoy the option to hide my
Waiting Invitations too.  

Would this be at all possible please?

rod03801& AlliumCepa : This also was brought up before and hexkid (miss that guy) used to have it in his grease monkey script. Sadly the script does not work since BrainKing has changed and hexkid is not about to mend it

You could flag particular games, and once opponent had played, the game would also show up in a separate section of the drop box at the top, as well as in its normal place, so you could go straight to it if you wanted to without having to search for it

AlliumCepa: Yeah, I'd like to be able to "flag" certain games, and have an option to "Move and go to next flagged game"

rod03801: "Or is that not what you mean?"

No, it's not what I mean. When I want to play with another player, I don't mind if they are online. It's different than an offline opponent.

"play later" also isn't good enough if I need to skip 20 games.

---

Here is another idea: Giving our opponents "priority": Normal (default), High, Low, Above Normal, Below Normal.... or something similar. Let me say it advance - it's not like "next game with a friend". Just a way to meet some people more often than others and vice versa.

MadMonkey: Yes, I remember you mentioning it.

There of course is the other option of clicking "play later" on an individual game, and it will skip that game when using the "move and go to" menu. That's what I usually do in that situation, as I'm too lazy to go to settings and add the other one to the menu.. lol.

rod03801: I used to use that a lot, was my favourite, but have not for ages now as it does not work as i envisage it should

Since the 'Cloak Mode' was introduced, it still picked up those players, which to me seemed pointless, i wanted to play games with people NOT here so i could get the game count down. I mentioned it often but was told there was nothing wrong so i gave up with it and not used it since.

It may well work now, but who knows

AlliumCepa: Actually, there is already an option for: "go to the next game with offline player"

Or is that not what you mean?

Can we have the following option?

Settings --> Submit move actions --> go to the next game with another player

Sometimes I realize that I play with the same player over and over (because we are both online). I'd like to play against someone else for a change.

Is it possible to hide that table of current tournament that we see every time a game is over? Only a link to the corresponding tournament should be enough. I am talking about at least BrainKing's "light" version. We can only have the table when the entire match is over.
<img>