Undertaker.: I must have been dreaming, then. I went back to look at the round, and no, all the games were over.

MrWCF: I would like to see a real example and read more information to be sure about that...

Undertaker.:Yes, I think that's the point we're trying to make to rabbitoid, right?  That a winner is not declared if all of the games are not completed.

grenv, MrWCF: All games of same section must be finished to be declared a winner.

grenv: And likewise, if that were true, wouldn't a winner be declared in this tournament?
Camelot Brains

rabbitoid: if that were true wouldn't section 5 of this tournament be finished?
The first doubling cube tournament

Fencer: hey, I see that what I asked for is already there: A round in a tournament ends, a winner is declared even if not all the games are finished. When was this implemented?

"GERRY": Never.

When is the system here going to change.So that only 1 person win's a game or tournament?

When trying to look at a player's profile for more information about the way he plays Ponds, I could only find the list of Ponds he participated in.
As it is now, it's a simple list of ponds/torunaments that I need to click into each one to get any kind of usefull information at all... the only information I can get from that is if the player has entered a lot of ponds / tournaments or not...

I'd like to make a few suggestions about this matter:
* maybe split ponds and tournaments into different tabs?
* for each Pond add the total number of players, days per round and the round (s)he fell in (if applicable)
* for each tournament add the tournament type (single elimination or normal), starting number of players, round that the player has reached and final position, if it can be calculated (or at least if (s)he won the tournament).

could we have, on team tournaments, the same option there is on "normal" tournaments, to see all the on-going games

MrWCF: Same thing, maybe even more important, for ending rounds.

Perhaps it's of relatively minor importance, but when a player has earned enough points in a tournament so that his/her opponents cannot possibly catch him/her, he/she should be declared the winner, earn the brains award, etc., rather than having to wait for all of the games to eventually be completed, sometimes up to a year later. 

On our Fellowships Matches page we have the following headings:

all(568) open(24)	waiting(0)   running(58)   finished(486)

When you get a moment Fencer any chance you could add a couple of things:

all(568) open(24)	waiting(0)   running(58)   finished(486 - Won 300,Lost 100,Drawn 86)

Or if that is a problem an extra Column:

Name   Opponent    Team size    Game type    Match type   Time control   Creator   Result W/L/D 

Doing it the second way, it would also be nice to then be able to sort by column headings then so WINS / LOSSES / DRAWS would all be grouped

Either of these ways would be so helpful

I used to keep track of Matches and Tournaments to let the Fellowship know how we are doing, but there are so many running now it is getting hard.

The BIG problem is only the Captain knows when one is finished, maybe the BB should get told as well.
It takes so long to sort Teams and encourage people to play in Matches & Tournaments, it would be nice to be able to show them its appreciated

Oh look, me again
Well we need to have reminders now & again, but saying that this is just a small request.

Could we have some sort of search option (or sort by name option) in Fellowships to find a player in the members list. This may be a trivial thing for small Fellowships, but when you have a lot of members it can be quite a task

And thinking about it, how nice a REMOVE button beside each player to remove them from a Fellowship, i must have 30+ that are no longer here.....will take ages the other way

Going back to my games now lol

I am sure this was asked for ages ago, but i will try again as its such a simple thing.

We have a preview button for Discussion Boards & Messages, could we please have one for when editing the top of a Discussion Board.

It would be so useful, rather than having to edit, and come back out to see what its like & then go back in all the time

coan.net: Yes, it's a good solution too and, maybe, more simple. :)

Undertaker.: Or do something similar that is done with games with no vacation, and set weekends - a color dot next to the tournament name - like a blue dot for free prize tournament, and purple dot for entry fee tournament.

That way a quick look can see those tournaments.

In main page, each person can see all their games or choose see all games of a type of game or see all games against an especific player. I suggest add an option to can see all our games by type of tournament: no prize tournaments, free prize tournaments , prize with an entry fee tournaments, normal games and ponds games.

I think that add this option is good, specially because free prize tournaments and prize with an entry fee. Sometimes, people have many games and is playing a game and don't recognize that's a "special" game.

P.S. I'm not sure if "type of tournament" is the best name, but more important, at the moment, is explain my idea. :)

nodnarbo: Was there any response to this request, please?

When I select a game and then see what tournaments I could join, the site shows ALL tornaments, even though where that particular game is 'full'.
It would be very helpful to show only those tournaments where entris for that game are still accepted.

Let me request something very small.

When using the list box that contains achievements, could it me possiblie also the show the number of players who recieved a listed achievement?

Teachme2play:Its very interesting Line4 variant, i would love to play it.

joshi tm: Unfortunately, not. It's because wherever would you place your first piece, I'd win in 3 moves, like this: you E1, I - E8, D8. You C8, F8, Me E7, D7, and you cannot stop me from making a line of four.

Teachme2play: Does in this game the Line 4 gravity rule apply? Sounds pretty cool to me!

Pedro Martínez: Pardon me. I meant five in line, not pente, since there is no capturing in connect6. Forgive me, but I'm not an expert on pente and don't distinguish one game of this type from another instantly.

Teachme2play: Indeed. Connect6 and Pente are definitely much more different.

coan.net: Nah guys you misunderstood me. I played connect6, and played my "2 per turn"
And I can tell you, the difference between pente and connect6 is nowhere near the difference between line4 and 2 per turn

MadMonkey: .... plus it's played on a pente type of board where you can place your piece anywhere... and not a line4 type board where your pieces "falls" to the bottom of each row.

But if you like line games - play a game or 2 of Connect6 - it is a VERY fun game.

Teachme2play: I think wetware means the rules you mention below are the same as out Connect6 rules here. The only difference is you have to make 6 in a row, instead of 4

RULES: Black player starts the game and places one black piece at any intersection on the board. After this initial move is done, each player places two pieces at any empty intersection per move. The meaning of the initial single-piece move of the black player is to reduce the starting player advantage.

wetware: No I did not. Why?

Teachme2play: Have you played Connect6 here?

Teachme2play: Has this game got a name & where have you seen it ?

I would like to check it out

Hello folks!
I've recently seen an extraordinary variant of line4 that combined simplicity of rules and totally different strategy to win (I suppose).
1. It was played on 7x6 board (size is unimportant since every extra row or column brings significant changes to the four in a row strategy)
2. First (white) player begins the game by putting a piece on the board.
3. After white's first move, both players put two pieces a turn.
4. The object is to creat a straight line of 4 or more pieces.

Simple?

Before this question occurs, I give the answer.
Why first player begins with only ONE piece? It grants second player big advantage!

Because if white had TWO pieces on their first move, they would win in 3 moves:
Example:
White: C1, D1
Black: (must block on both sides) B1, E1 - if not white win after A1, B1, or E1, F1
White: C2, D2
Black: (whatever they do, they lose -> if they play C3, D3, white win by B2, E2, if they don't play at C3, or at D3, white win by C3, C4, or in second case D3, D4)

I hope it's not very confusing, and some players will understand me.
Please state your opinion whether you like my idea, or not.

Could it be possible to add some sort of simulation for the score of go (in-game) without having to pass, as if it was a finishing move?

Snoopy: A post should not be removed without the main mod knowing the details:

The Main moderator (the one listed first) is in charge of the board, with the other moderators around to help watch while the main moderator is off-line.

Also, the poster deserves an explanation:

If a post does not fall into the site guidelines, the moderator should:

1. Edit post for content if rest of the post belongs in the board.
2. Remove the post if none of the post belongs in the board.
3. Warn user IN PRIVATE about edited/removed post, and point them to guidelines if needed.


It happens rarely which is likey why it happened to you. At least in my experience, deleting or editing posts is rare these days. A procedural error in this case but easy to fix by reminding all mods to review the procedures. I'm sure I've made the same mistake in the past.

I do like your idea but it will likely depend on the coding requirements and priorities. ;)

after having a post removed on GC AND NOT being informed about it and noone seems to know who removed it

could we please have it so its put on the boards event history
so if it happens again i could go to the main mod and ask why

has it is posts can be removed and noone needs to say it HAS OR WHY

coan.net: If some force majeure can remove my pieces, I am not playing chess.

coan.net: That sounds like a boring game. You still need luck, and it'll create many draws as there will quickly not be enough pieces to mate.

coan.net: I think Moneky's idea is better. If the Behemoth does not like Kings, there will be a llot more draws.

rod03801: I agree that Behemoth Chess seems to be way too reliant on luck - that is my whole strategy in the game is just wait it out - try to quickly make a little room for my king to move around, and try to move it out of a direct line of the "Behemoth" when ever I can.

Having 3 kings on a 10 x 10 board (spread out) might be an interesting idea.

My idea is to keep it the same, but make it so the Behemoth can NOT kill the king - just kill everything else. That way the players STILL has to play chess - still has to try to capture the other players king, but while trying to capture it, your attacking piece might be eaten by the Behemoth so you have to move to a different attacking piece. That is how I would change the game (well make a different variant.) It would put a little more "chess" back into the chess game.

MadMonkey: I think that would be a really fun change to Behemoth chess!!! I'm horrible at regular chess, so adding a bit of luck to the game is great. But Behemoth just seems TOO reliant on luck, and I got bored with it. Making it 10x10 with 3 kings would be cool, I think.

MadMonkey: Oh man... I was planning on creating a 128 player tournament, sign myself up, and start it to get 127 free wins!!!!!

(oh yes, getting a "Bye" should do nothing with ratings or stats - should not count in the system as a win, lose, or even game played. Just kind of "pushes" you to the next space waiting for the next round to start. Of course having games in other rounds start if both players are ready would be another request, but think we should stick with one request at a time. )

Snoopy: Of course not lol, i think that is what pauloaguia meant as well

Fencer: These are the best tournament's here .My last one almost filled.But who care's.But alot of games don't because of lack of interest.Since you changed the system so the creator doesn't get ever game back now.It is fun looking in all the tournaments to find them to try & beat a top player:)))

coan.net: And a few more tricks so that those ghost losses don't mess around with ones BKR...

Fencer: If we could not get 4 people to play, then that would be bad lol

coan.net: I hope nobody would complain if the system still deletes tournaments with less than 4 signed players.

coan.net: oh, but of course

MadMonkey: And I forgot the first thing the system should check. First check if a smaller tournament will work. (So if it was setup as a 128 player tournament, and only 30 players signed up - then scalling down to the 32 player tournament will be the first step. Then second step is to fill with 2 fakes/byes.