This has already been adressed in http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=1164&utf=GO and I agree that it's not a bug - but it's still an unresolved Problem. (In Go 13x13 (heyo vs. goldhaus) my opponent wants to prove that he just can't loose)
My suggestion to handle this: after the game has ended and players don't agree about dead stones both are forced to place at least one stone befor they may pass again. A player who can't legaly place a stone looses the game.
This may lead to a new problem if the game's ending is slightly in favor for white (only by komi), but would solve the problem that by the rules as they are now nobody can ever win a game of GO if the opponent doesn't agree.

I think it is set up now when a bug you have a message in has a reply, an e-mail is set (which depending on the e-mail, can easly get into bulk/junk boxes to never be seen)

Why not just send a message to the users Message Box when a bug they have a message in has an update? That way it would be a lot easier for them to follow up on a fixed bug, or if a discussion has started about a bug.

Can we have the "Move" button just below the player stats, but just above the message area?

Fencer: Great !

nabla: Yes, it's not a bad idea.

Fencer: Since you seem to be online, any interest in the idea of a feature requests tracker ? It got buried deep in this board, but the thread is here : http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=3&plla=709992

 Fencer:

volant:

Would it be possible to have Waiting Games entered by someone who has not been on site for months automatically removed from WG? For example those by this player who hasn't been online in 7 months.

Fencer: Just the submit button in its own division. I agrea with Abigailll

Fencer: Nothing but the submit button! The board is important, the submit button is. *Most* moves aren't send with a message, and if you're going to take the time to type in a message, an extra scroll is relatively not much extra time.

pauloaguia: Never mind, I got it. It's the question mark... (since I often don't have those pictures in cache, I assumed it was just another flag)

MTC: You can see it on castle style? Where?

on the old style and now on the castle style, there was/is a link to the Languages page, which I use frequently for the translations.
Why is there no link to it on the main page in the simple style?

(I hope I'm posting this in the right place…)

Fencer: Even though this is slightly different then what is being talked about right now, I would love to request (again) a quick submit button above the board - and that is all. Always in the same place.

Then leave a second submit button below the board like normal with the text boxes so if we do need to write something, we can just scroll down and do it like normal.

mctrivia: What exactly should be above a game board? Only the submit buttons or the message text area too?

Fencer: thanks. I tryed cliping the existing form and moving it but then I had no choice other then move to.

mctrivia: I think I'll make it as an option.

On the page were you submit your move could we have an extra form with a submit button in a division that is normally hidden? That way those of us that would like to see it at the top of the page could just make a css change to get it there?

pauloaguia: I would rather have it where it is, but in bold!

You know - for a few days - especially when it would switch back and forth - the new style was annoying - but ive already gotten adjusted to it - im a big fan now - thanks fencer....

pgt: I don't understand. The border of the backgammon board is white here. (That from CBG is the purple used foor Loop Chess)

The old presentation made it obvious which were Backgammon and which were Cloning BG games, The new blue top and bottom borders on both games is a definite confusion. I have just played three Backgammon games as if they were cloning backgammon, because of the top and bottom blue border. Can we PLEASE have some sort of obvious differentiation on these game boards?

Maybe the message subject, on DBs could show up 'below' the commands (like show messages from this user, link, etc).

The way it is right now, the subject gets kind of lost in all that clutter. And maybe a small vertical space befor the subject would help too.
(Using simple mode)

Most people access data like "finished games" when when checking out people's profiles. That information is still easy to access without scrolling down even with the large picture.

On the javascript settings, there is an option for "show large icon on profile page". I always wondered why the large icon was not shown even though I chose the option to show it.

When people want to see a "Description" on the profile page, they would still have to scroll down anyway.

Well, it is an option in Settings. I think it looks better that way, but I have my option in Settings set to have it bigger. If someone thought that it took up too much space, then they could always choose not to have the large image displayed.

emmett: Wouldn't it occupy too much space?

Is it possible to always show the large image on the profile page without having to click on it? It looks much better that way.

Oceans Apart & Pattypoo: Moderation questions do not belong on the discussion board. They belong in PM.

Posts that are clearly off topic will be deleted. This should be assumed. There were no hides or bans in the equation. You would have certainly gotten a message about that. I will not waste time writing PM's every time a post only containing smilies, or just chit-chat back and forth is cleaned up.

This conversation should not need to take place here on this board.

Thanks so much.

pattypoo: I know a couple of my posts disappeared as well. Moderators of boards should inform you by PM why posts have been removed.

AbigailII: Ok, I kind of meant that without being clear. so i see further down in the thread you describe an algorithm that works for the simple case.
So if T=W+D/2 for the leader, and T(n)=W+D/2+U for the others for simplicity

So if you are searching to see if T > T(n) for all n

If it doesn't then you need to see if T=Tn for each value of n. If it does then you would just search through a tree to determine if any combination of results ends up with the leaders S-B score being less than the challengers. That's what I meant by being efficient. You don't need to take into account every possible outcome.

Fencer: Thanks, i never knew that about the 'home' button!

Maybe someone can tell me what I have set wrong, because all that I have is the "reply" option?

BIG BAD WOLF: Actually the easiest solution is to simply send a message to the player who is slowing down the tournament and ask him/her to play faster.

Family Man: The "box" is where it's supposed to be. It never disappeared.
About the "go to the top" link, it's useless. Press the Home button on your keyboard, it does the same trick.

grenv: No. I was discussing the case where the winner will be determined on SB points (the case of a sole winner I have already described - that's both trivial and efficient). For SB points, all games in the tournament are relevant, even of players that have no chance of winning. (Ok, ok, if there are two players A and B that have the most points (and hence their scores are tied) and there are players C and D that both won all their games against A and B, the outcome of the games between C and D doesn't matter for the SB points of A and B).

Remember that the SB of a player i equals Σ s_j P_j, (summing over all opponents j), with s_j the score i got in his game(s) against j, and P_j the total number of points j got.

AbigailII: But there are efficient ways to search the tree. So the leading player will be assumed to lose all his/her games, then you test the 2nd player's games etc... until someone else can win. No need to traverse the whole tree.

I may have missed this being asked, but what happened to the "box" way of replying to a post? Is there any plan to put it back, or is there something I am missing?

I also asked before but never heard anything, we also lost the "go to top of page" link at the bottom of pages

AbigailII:   We can only advance if there is no way for any other player to win.  If the game has to be calculated on SB there is no way to garante that the player has one except in the small case were both players have the same points and neither of them can be beat by anyone else.  But this case only happens if those players games are all finished.

mctrivia: That's basically what I said. However, that doesn't take SB into account - which is what nabla wants.

I don't know of an efficient algorithm that will determine whether there's a winner, even if the winner has to be decided on SB points. Sure, trying all outcomes of a match may work, but that's a lot of combinations. Take for instance a tournament with 6 players, every one playing two games against each other. All games are finished, except for one player, he hasn't finished any game yet. Then there are 7,776 different ways of the 10 games to finish (well, 59,049, but you don't have to consider player A winning one game and losing the other game against player B separately). In a group of 8, there would be 279,936 possibilities (4,782,969 without eliminating symmetries).

nabla:
<b>nabla</b>: The absolute simplest way to calculate absolute winner.

x=0;
do
{
  maylose=false;
  y=0;
  while (y<players && maylose==false)
  {
    if x!=y
    {
      if player[x].points<player[y].points+player[y].notdone
        maylose=true;
    }
    y++;
  }
  x++
} while (x<players && maylose==true)
if maylose==false
{
  //player[x-1] is the winner
}

It works under the principle that if player x loses all his games and every other player wins all there games and he still beats them then he is definetly the winner.

Then maybe you can answer this, for me..Why did what i post yesterday keep disapearing. I wasn't the only one that notice, others came to me and ask what isaid. go figure... I even had a message from Taz7474..

joshi tm: Fair enough, but don't forget to multiply that split second by the number of unfinished groups in all running tournaments !

nabla: Efficient? Well, that cost a computer just one split second more to define!!

BBW: I'm sorry if that wasn't directed at me. It was in my message box, for me to answer... and i did... just like some other questions.

AbigailII: I meant an algorithm including the SB calculation. More convoluted, but definitely possible : a trivial solution is to try all possible results, but that does not sound efficient.

Summertop: My question would be "Why does it need to tell us that they are new posts?" Why doesn't the favourite boards list just have the same style as the Fellowships list and just a red number in brackets. I know the ones on the fellowships list become links to the actual board within the fellowship but the style could be the same couldn't it??? 

I love the new look of BK...But...

The width of the right hand tower (column where "Favourite Boards" is) is much more static. Maybe not, but I notice it more.....

Right now, there is red text added to the end of the board names when there are new messages. This causes some funny word wrapping. Could there be an option to suppress the extra text...i.e "(43 new)". Simply making the text bold or putting a dot instead of the red text would be great. On the board itself, you could put a message saying how many new posts there are.

Same for the "Fellowships" list.

nabla: It's not that hard to write an algorithm that can determine the winner regardless of the outcome of the outstanding matches most of the time isn't too hard:

For each player i, let W_i the number of wins he has, D_i the number of draws, and U_i the number of undecided games. There is a winner if there is an i such that W_i + D_i / 2 > W_j + D_j/2 + U_j, for all j != i. This is trivial to calculate. The only winners you might miss are the winners who finish with the same amount of points as other players, but win on SB.

joshi tm: Actually it is making an excellent case of why a feature requests tracker would be better than this board !

joshi tm: I also second that, even though as CryingLoser said, this would not be enough when one player has not finished any game before all other games in the pool have finished.
But it may be a bit tedious to write the algorithm which checks whether the winner of a section is certain. If someone volunteered to write the Java code for that, it might speed up things :-)