how do i get out of this tourny so i can join the one with free membership prize

how do you start round 2 of a tourny now?

Kevin... The 'relative skill' is the SAME as who is better!

Ihave said beforwe that you are an intelligent young man. (maybe too smart for your own good) You sometime come across like a computer when you write, thats what I meant by 'robot like'. There is nothing wrong with it at all, except that you said the same thing I did, only with different words.

*yawn*

LMAO

I'll refer to the 4th sentence of my post four posts down.

leaving games till their final hours

To what "silly games" are you referring?

Ill refer to the top line of my last post again then

What do you mean by "deliberately play slow"? Sure I could spend 16 hours a day on here and never have a move wait longer than a few hours between my visits to this site. But I can't see that happening. If you mean that I purposely play slower than I have to just to make people wait, that isn't the case. I am not going to start the discussion re: why I play the speed I play again - you can read all about it on the Brainking.com board.

Why not grow up and stop playing silly games with us.
It is relevant, its tournaments that you are ruining

And I guess that admission is also proof that you deliberately play slow then?

You pestering is in fact not swaying me to play any of my games faster. And the more posts I have to reply to the longer all of my games will wait.

Btw, this is completely unrelated to tournaments.

Just hurry up and finish our games and I wont pester you

IMupChucKing: Yes, if you have a higher rating that means you are better than me at that game. However, if you will reread my post, I said "Ratings aren't just to determine who is the best and who is better than who." The key word in that sentence being the word "just".

And how do you figure I said it like a robot? Because I used a higher level of vocabulary than you think I should have?

Steve: I have the same right to post on any board I like, just like everyone else (who hasn't been banned) - including you.

he will , once its on its last day , i have some going still after well over a year ;(

Could have played my games too instead of posting on a few boards

What are you talking about Kevin?

If I am more skilled than you at a game, isnt that the same as being better than you?
Its the same thing, only you said it like a robot...

you are right there Bwild :) Im continually being told how stupid i am because i lose one game in every four...who cares, or who should care if I dont ROFLMBO :)

according to some inflated ego's...lower bkr's mean your "weak".Personally...I find pleasure in the game,and encourage folks with lower bkrs to play,learn and have fun.

thx for the update Kevin! LOL:)

Ratings aren't just to determine who is the best and who is better than who. They are mainly to give a numerical representation of that player's skill at that game. This makes it useful to determine the relative skill of everyone, and to find appropriate opponents.

dont forget...the Shooting Fish in a Barrel gothic chess tourny for players with a 1700 bkr or lower.Have fun.

The only time I don't have fun is when I give up a draw :)

Thanks IMupChucKing, I never thought about playing unrated games...... I forgot there was unrated games.

There is a good point about 'fun'... Anyone who says thats all they play for, why dont they just play unrated games? People want to win, for ratings and prestege. For anyone who enjoys competition, winning is the ultimate goal. Again, fun is just a side benefit.

I play two very sweet people over and over in Halma and I win every time, That is one time playing when it is not fun to win. It would kill my rating if I lost by me wanting to loose and I realy dont want to turn down the games from these ladies because they enjoy playing against me.

Thank you for clarifying your position. Perhaps we're closer on this that it seems from reading the posts, just wording it differently.

Winning can also be not fun. Especially games like Chess. Playing a person that's no match for you guarantees a victory, but like you've said it's not as sweet. Losing every game in a tournament sucks, and it'd be hard to see the fun in it. There is still fun though. I doubt if the Chess tournament organizers would let you play the masters without going through some type of qualifying first. Of course if it's an open, you can pay the entry fee and take your lumps. :) I know that it is possible to play the champions of Bridge at certain tournaments.

Maybe the fun in a tournament is of a different kind than a side game for you. To me, on this site, the games all count about the same. It's harder to win a tournament than a single game. Perhaps that's the difference. When a prize is offered, that can make a difference too.

I guess 'fun' may have been a bad choice of words.

I was merly trying to point out that I beleive there is a difference between a 'normal' game and a 'tournament' game.

For example, I know how to play chess, but am terrible at it. I would never consider playing in a masters chess tournament, as I would be totally outmatched, and I would not have a prayer in any games. I do would not consider that being 'fun'. My personal beleif is that I would not play in any tournament where I didn't have at least a chance to do well. The ultimate reason to play in a tournament is to win. Hopefully the challenge is difficult, as that makes the victories that much sweeter.

On the other hand, I can play a 'regular' game, even one I am not very good at, and one where I have no chance at all to win, and still have fun. It is a learning experience, without the pressure, or even the desire to win.

A regular game can be played with fun as the motivation, but a tournament game should be played with winning as the ultimate motivation, IMO. (but fun can also be a secondary motivation and byproduct)

In short.... A standard game has fun as a motivation, and a tournament game has fun as a byproduct.

I disagree with you about having fun in a tournament. As I've said on previous occasions, "The object of a game is to win, but the reason to play a game is to have fun." I have as much fun playing a tournament game as I do a side game. I see little difference between them except for trying to win the championship as an added bonus for a tournament game. I try to win every game that I play. Even if I lose a game, I usually have fun playing it. Depends on how the game went and how well my opponent and I played and if luck was involved or not. I certainly would not play any games if there wasn't any fun in playing them. I mean, what would be the point of playing if they aren't fun? I could find something more enjoyable and rewarding with my time if I thought playing here wasn't fun. No one's paying me, so I must have a reward of fun and pleasure. I suppose even if I was getting paid it might be fun too. That would depend on other things. If this paid me like my job does, I'd quit the job and have a hobby that's fun too.

IMupChucKing 3. July 2004, 12:21:58
Your first paragraph amazes me if you truly believe what you've typed! Haven't you ever watched other people compete and seen the look of happiness on them during and after the game is over? I've watched enough professional sports to know the players are indeed having fun while playing. Sure the pressure to win is immense in pro sports, but the fun is there all the same. Lots of fun in amateur sports too. Yep, I really have trouble understanding your point of view on this subject. I hope you have fun when you play. If not, I would ask why are you playing? Just to torture yourself? There's got to be some fun in it somewhere unless you profit from it in a way that I haven't thought of. Then I could imagine playing without fun because of an ulterior motive.

2¢

Good point, I should implement them at last :-D

Wow - 14 teams, 70 players in the first Backgammon Team Tournament (so far)

I'm ready for it to start, is it the 15th yet? :-)

As Monkey says, PM fencer and ask to be withdrawn, he will do it. Its quite common :o)

thanks Mad Monkey. i'm fairly new here and i'm still finding my way around.

paduking: If you are sure you are out of a tournament, you can message Fencer, and he will check to make sure & allow you to enter another :)

*EDIT*
I have checked, and yes you are out that 5 in a Row tourny. I don't know if you will have to wait for all the section to be completed though.
Message Fencer as i say and ask :)

once knocked out of a tourney, can a brainpawn withdraw so that they can join another? if so, how?

Three Checks Chess Championship - expert players
is a tournement for strong players only (above 1700)! Deadline is 16.July 2004 19.00

never mind...it let me do it...I thought edits had to be approved?

ooops...how can I or can I change the start dat on my last tournament?

check out the:
shooting fish in a barrel gothic chess tournament. for all players under 1700 bkr...have fun:)

Thats correct Kevin, that was my idea, no sections, just play everybody. To make it fair, you would have to play two games each player.

The problem is, of having it take up a lot of games, and would limit it for pawns and knights. just imagine trying to do it for all games, for example, or many games. It could get rather long, buthey, what tournaments arent long anyway :)

No, it isn't. I'm just giving my opinion on how I believe it should (and should not) work. If you (or anyone) wants to run it however you like, I won't complain about it.

Thats just picking holes in it really isnt it?

Say there are 10 players. How do you know who is 10th, and who is 9th, and who is 8th...and who is 3rd? You could check the S-B, or point total in each player's section. But first you'd have to make sure all the sections were the same size (not too hard). You'd also have to assume that a player's performance in their section would be identical if they were against different players, which is impossible to assume. The only fair way to do something like that would be to have every player play a game against every other player in every single game.

I dont think it would be too hard. You could do it on a point basis perhaps. ie 1 point for a win, 2 points for second, and so on.... then add up all the points, with the lowest total as the overall winner.

I suppose you could do it manually, and declair a winner. But it wouldnt be official.

How would it work though?

When the tournament first starts, do you play each player in each of the games? Do each game starts as it's own "mini-tournament", with the winners put up against each other with all the games, ????

IMCK: I like that idea :o) Don't know how easy it would be though. I suggest you mention it on Feature Request as well :)

Is there a way to create one tournament with several different game types? I tried, but it came out three seperate tournaments, under one name. I would like to have one overall winner based on overall performance for several different games. Thanks!

ahh! thank you BBW! that info helps!