nabla: in chess, what about the player who offers draw in a winning position in order to ensure the match win?

Then he wins the match with a slightly worse adjustment to his/her rating. So what? Ratings are just a measurement of your performance - they aren't the goal.

All the interest of cubed backgammon matches comes from maximizing one's chance to win the whole match, while not caring about what the exact score will be.

Yes, that's a difference between *gammon and most other games. A single chess game will always divide a single point between the two players. And typically, chess players are more interested in winning the overal match than in the difference - that's why chess matches seldomly continue if the winner has been decided. A "12 game" match maybe over after 10 games, ending in a 6.5 - 3.5 score. Which is clearly a better result than 6.5 - 5.5.

Fencer: It worked. Thanks

pauloaguia: Ah, I've found it. It was an interesting bug which showed up only in "full" fellowships (containing teams for all available games). BrainKing knows that there are 105 different games but since your fellowship is having 105 teams, it thought there was nothing else to add and didn't display the form.
And the answer is - there are actually 106 games, if we count the random team too.
It should be fixed now.

AbigailII: any rating system worth its salt should not consider a match won 6-4 to be equivalent to a match won 10-0

That is wrong when cubed backgammon matches are concerned - and similarly might not be true in games that have more than two possible results (in chess, what about the player who offers draw in a winning position in order to ensure the match win?).

All the interest of cubed backgammon matches comes from maximizing one's chance to win the whole match, while not caring about what the exact score will be. For that a the "FIBS" rating system has been devised, which basically uses the Elo formula, but only after multiplicating the rating difference by the square root of the length of the match. That adjustment is said to be perfect for n-point matches with only 1-0 and 0-1 results, but I don't know why.

I have offered quite some time ago to help Fencer implementing the FIBS adjustment on Brainking (which is not a hard thing to do). Perhaps it must be said that Glicko, BKR and FIBS are all enhancements on the Elo system, and that the FIBS adjustement is compatible with either Glicko or BKR.

Fencer: I'm sure that's it...
This may sound silly, but how do I do that? I can't figure out where to do it...

Here's another feature request from long ago - reorganzie the fellowship page

pauloaguia: Have you added a Frog Legs team to the fellowship?

joshi tm: That's it. It's the same as Frog Finder but in a cooperative / competitive sort of way. You must try to find the most frogs while, at the same time, avoid revealing their exact location to your opponent so he can catch them before you do...
The bottom of the New Game page has a summary of the rules.

Fencer: What am I supposed to try? I've gone to my fellowship's torunament page (http://brainking.com/pt/Tournaments?trg=27216) to try and change anything. All I see different is twice the option to delete the tournament at the bottom. When I click the Edit link, at the top, I see no new options.
So... what am I supposed to be trying again?

pauloaguia: How does the game work? Is it (as I see on the board) A cooperative Frog Finder?

pauloaguia: Try it.

In some rating charts the ratings fluctuate heavilly. The top player one week can become 10th or worst in the next... So, would there really be a point in forcing the top player to accept invitations? By the time that game was over, the results of forced games could have changed his rating drastically and the outcome be almost meaningless...

Fencer, its great to have the ability to create our own message Box folders

Do you think (when you have time of course lol) you could create a basic filter for the message box.

e.g. Anyone message heading containing 'XXXXXXXXXX' sent to folder 'XXXXXXXXXXX'

This would be extremely useful and save time, and also would stop a red number showing as a new message when the message maybe something we want sent to Trash or game over etc...

Finally a new game to play with Thanks Fencer.

Just a little request though - when editing a tournament, could we please have the option to change (or at least add) game types? I usually start some tournaments with all game types available, I'd like the possibility to include new games when they show up, not have to wait until the next tournament or delete it and start another one from scratch.

But thanks for the game

nabla: Measuring activity is not easy to do. A Glicko system is better than an ELO system, but both Glicko and ELO assume matches are almost "instantaneous". That's not true for BK. Someone can be quite active (that is, making lots and lots of moves), but lose "activity" (increasing the RD value in Glicko, or disappearing from the rating lists in the current system) because his games are finished yet. In theory, it's even possible for someone finishing just 2 games a year to remain in the rating list, while someone who plays 500 of them each year disappears for months, just because all his games finish in November.

Having said that, Glicko would be an improvement over the current rating system. Its activity measure isn't perfect for a site like BK, but much better than we have now. And any rating system worth its salt should not consider a match won 6-4 to be equivalent to a match won 10-0. (In proper ELO, someone winning a 10 game match 6-4 may lose rating points (the rating difference gives an expectation of what the final score of a match should be; if you do better, you win points, if you do worse, you lose, regardless of the final score)).

CryingLoser: I see your point, but I fully agree with Ceiter's and Abigail's objections. A common practice in challenges for top position is that the leader can choose the type of match ; if he chooses a 21-point match with 14 days per move, it is pretty equivalent to declining as far as a change in ranking positions is concerned. And one should not try to make rankings appear more meaningful that they are. They are not ladders, and they are not even always fair (the problem of multi-points matches has never been addressed). The #1 is not necessarily the strongest player.

Still, you are right that the tendency to sit on a top position (or whatever position) is bad for competition. To avoid that, I would suggest setting as default a ranking list of really active players - that is, lowering the 6 months limits. This does not exclude the keeping of a ranking list of less active players.
As for people keeping artificially active by playing clones, this should be forbidden by the user agreement and people doing that should be rating-banned. I feel that the playing of clones is mostly used for an artificial rating increase anyway.

There is still the possibility of playing only very low-rated people, keeping active at low risk. To avoid that, the answer would be the tried and true Glicko rating system, which keeps a more realistic measure of activity ; in that system, when the rating difference is high, the measure of activity increases by almost nothing.

How about adding Random stairs, this might be possible with random teams in fellowships, but I haven't seen any at least

joshi tm: How about a new stat. Right now we have 2 qualities of BKR. BKR and then the more prestigious and important established BKR. How about a ladder BKR above that. Each user can chose to participate in the ladder BKR.

Each Ladder is made up of 1% increments or n/2(n being number of players) witch ever has less rungs. If you are on the ladder BKR list then if anyone on the same rung or rung below you chalenges you, you must except a challenge.

The challenger can chose a time frame range(so I could say 3-10 days per move with vacation) and the challenged sets the exact values. There would have to be a specific value that must be included as a standard(say 4 days + vacations).

Not so rigid as the actual ladders were you pick one to play on. These all that want to be considered for the ladder BKR would play on them. Also they don't need to accept emediately they have say 2 weeks + vacation(so if I am on vacation I don't need to worry about losing my spot while on the beach in Jamaica.) Also better then forcing them to accept games. I was #1 on ludo for a while but did not take games just because I was sick of playing it after finishing 1000 games. I eventually started playing again though.

Fair bit of programing I bet to add it though.

AbigailII: But then you still have the clone players (and this time I Do not mean Cloning Backgammon)

CryingLoser: Being able to challenge the top position, isn't this what ladders are all about?

Rating lists are just what they are: rating lists. They aren't ladders. We already have ladders. And note that currently, someone cannot hold on to the top position without playing forever - if you haven't finished a game in N months (N == 6 for rooks, less for lower ranks), you disappear from the rating list.

CryingLoser: Interesting idea. It would certainly make the rankings seem more "serious". But is that a good thing or a bad thing? Putting aside that philosophical debate, I do see a couple problems.

It would create a problem for those below rook level, who have a limited number of game slots. What if their slots are full? To solve that problem, I'd recommend making these "title" matches operate outside the normal game limit. So a pawn could play 20 games + any number of title matches.

Timing would also need to be considered. Would there be a standard time structure for these official "title" matches? Some people cannot play quick games. Others (like me), mostly below rook level, don't like to play slow games.

Furthermore, if the new top player really does want to stubbornly hold onto their title, they could just slow the game to a snail's pace. Playing one move a week would take years for a long game like Go, and that would kind of defeat the purpose of forced matches. Enforcing a fast time system hardly seems fair, though.

I can't think of a good way to solve the timing problem. Any ideas?

Why only the #2 rated player should ask that (and not the top 1% +1, should be more fair, but only one challenge a time.)

I know, some top players just sit there and decline everything, except of playing against their clones, in order to keep the Top Rating.

I like very much what you suggest, though, I am just adding my thoughts.

Want to ask to apply the following changes in the rating lists:

(1) If one player gets a rating higher than the FTP (= former top position), then the FTP has the right to invite the NTP (= new top position), and the NTP has either to accept this invitation during the next two months or to resign the game (here is just to change the button "decline" in "resign") If the BKR of the NTP is so high, that even after losing against the FTP he remains at the top, then the FTP may invite him to another game again and again, as long as the NTP is unable to reach a victory or at least a draw against the FTP. In this case, it should be also impossible for the NTP to put the FTP on the blocked user list - of course he can do this after resigning the games against the FTP.
So it should become impossible to take the position of the FTP without fighting with him.

(2) On the other side, a player may not sitting pretty at the top by declining again and again invitations from the SP (=second position) or simply put him on the blocked users list. The SP has the same rights as mentioned in
(1) and may invite the TP again and again as long as the TP cannot reach a victory or at least a draw against the SP.

Would be nice to read comments, please not just
destructive ones ("i don't like what you suggest"), but constructive with the points you want to be changed

AlliumCepa: I second that one and even made a working model way back when my server could directly access BK.

*For some reason my ISP did not like the 5000 moves every 5 min I was making and blocked me. I wounder why??*

pauloaguia: Well, if you combine your and MadMonkey's ideas, we should ask Fencer to make his To-Do list public and combine it with a Priority system (similar to the one we have on Bug Trcker) and let users vote there. He might not take this "poll" results into account, but at least people will have a place to express their wishes there.

MadMonkey: Ah, but by constantly repeating the same requests over and over, Fencer sometimes reviews their priority

coan.net:

hence we still need a board or similar so we know what Fencer is working on, or at least on his notepad(to-do list), then people would not feel the need 2 repeat themselves

MadMonkey: BK Tip #47: It does not matter who asks about a site enhancement, it matters when it is asked. (And since Fencer had been doing other small BK fixes here and there, it could mean he is in the "programming" mood and hence - a good time to ask)

BK Tips brought to you by the former BIG BAD WOLF now known as coan.net

coan.net:Asked for it nearly a year ago HERE, but never got any joy

The same with Preview button on messages, has been requested many times, but

Maybe now a Glob has asked, we may get

MadMonkey: On the subject of Message Box - I LOVE the different folders in my notepad - I finally had time recently to "clean" up my notepad - and now I have things separate in different folders so I can find things really quickly.

I would LOVE to see something like that in the message box - the ability to add some folders so I can archive things in different folder.

Fencer: aahhh now, never seen that before, though you wouldn't unless you opened an Archived message

Could have that option at the bottom of the Archive page, then just tick the boxes , and Restore them back

Nice Feature anyway

MadMonkey: Have you tried "Restore" and "Archive"?
Don't be lazy to do one more click.

Its great to have a Trash bin now

Could we please have an Archive option at the bottom of the Trash bin, as i deleted something i should not have and want to Archive it for future reference, but there is no way to get it out the Trash bin

TheCrazyPuppy: If, for instance, people sign up for a tournament with 9 days per move time control and then the creator changes it to 4 hours per move, they won't be too happy.

I like the idea of having each color also represented by a number, not so much to make moves faster but because I'm colorblind and can't always distinguish between the colors. I have seen where each color dot has a number in the center of it, so that you have both colors and numbers at the same time

Ceiter: You are right, it would be very useful. Using the numbers (24764) is another entry possibility.

pyssso: Agreed, i asked for an Archive and Next Button ages ago.

I normally Archive all messages saying Tournament is finished, then once every couple of weeks go through them and post all the winners together.

pyssso: There is a "delete and next" button.

After any Message Box operation (delete, archive, etc.) we need an option to continue navigation, like the button "PLAY AND ...", instead of just staying inside. This could be like: "DELETE AND...".

I've just started playing Logik, and I've noticed that it takes an awfully long time to play each move, since it takes 10 full page refreshes (click on peg color, click empty space, repeat for all 5 spaces). It takes me about 30-40 seconds to enter a complete move.

I'd love to see a text-entry field that would allow me to enter my turn all at once, by typing it. After submitting that, I'd be taken to a page with all those pegs placed, where I could finalize my move or play around with it like normal. (It shouldn't replace the current method, just be there as an option.)

The text format could either be full color names (e.g., "red blue green yellow white") or individual letters (RBGYW). (Since we have three colors starting with B, you could use K for black and N for brown.) I realize this might be hard to localize, though. If so, perhaps numbers could be associated with each color and shown underneath them, and we could just enter the numbers.

Honestly, the details aren't that important to me. Whatever the format, I'm sure I could get used to it, and I'm sure it would make things much speedier.

AbigailII: Yes, that would be possible.

AbigailII: I love the idea.  I also would love the option to search for just those backgammon tournaments that will use the doubling cube.

Just like the little green icon next to a player indicating that s/he is online, I'd like to see a mark next to any game on the main games page where my opponent is actually playing (or looking at) that game.

AbigailII: Great idea.

Would it be possible to have "autopass" tournaments? What I mean by that is, if you create a (gammon) tournament, you not only get set the time controls, scoring method and number of participants, there's also a tick box that, if selected, means all the games are played with autopass enabled.

This allows autopass lovers to play in tournaments knowing all their games will be autopassed, and those who don't want to play with autopass select another tournament to play.

Can we have a tick box on your own stairs, so we can do a vacation / end vacation or deletion in one go ....

redfrog: Great point, but I dont think it allows auto pass, even in those situations?

Fencer: Perfect!!  ..Thanks!

Andersp: Something like this?

Fencer:  I love autopass so i prefer to challenge players who does tha same (in stairs).  Same as when people with hig BKR avoid players with a lot lower BKR.  They can see a players BKR,  so why shouldnt we autopass lovers be able to see if a player is using autopass?

Andersp: What is the point of that?