NOT a floosie: Slight problem for Pawns with the fellowship idea.

Pedro: I agree, If this Features board can have English language debates(!) then General will get any and all topics.

Summertop: Yet I see the value in a Politics board for those that want it.

nobleheart: Er, these sites do graphs of the BrainKing backgammon and hypergammon ratings, and record my games for me???? ;-)

It would be interesting to see a graph showing the distribution curve of all players' ratings for a given game. The player's own position could be shown. Perhaps, too, anyone in their Friends List.

6 x {Backgammon, no unrated, 2200+, 1 day per move, fixed holidays, alternate colours, normal game, "Nice fast game :-)"}

Save as "playBunny's Backgammon Feast"

Recall when I've digested the previous lot.

reza: Hell of a loss too :-( unless it was a cut and paste job from other sources.

Advice for after the horse has bolted:
I've got into a habit of composing long messages in Notepad or some other editor and only copying them to the BrainKing page when I'm done. This is mainly because the message box size is too small, sometimes it's because I might work on a message in two separate stages. But it also means that I tend not to lose any messages.

AbigailII: I don't remember saying that the per-move checking was a replacement for the periodic checking. The need for the periodic checks is obvious. ;-p

AbigailII: Seems to me that an hour-long Fischer clock game is heading towards the fuzzy edges between live and turn based. While it's not as quick as a live site's 5-10 seconds per move, quite a few of my own games involve spurts of a move per minute. I wonder why the timeouts aren't checked with each move. That way the displayed info may be incorrect but the game action wouldn't.

BIG BAD WOLF: Thanks, that's interesting. We had chess clocks when I was at school but without the increment per move that makes it a Fischer clock. Sounds like a good idea to avoid the 5-mins-left panic.

Fencer: For a Fischer clock game with a length of only an hour or two, shouldn't there be a bonuses in minutes available?

Walter Montego: Ahah, Thanks, Walter. :-)

BIG BAD WOLF: Why isn't it Fencer's clock? ;-)

How about a Moves per time control as well as the Time per move/game? A 6 moves per day game could be more practical for some people than a Move per 4 hours - get the moves over in an hour, say, and have the rest of the day free.

NobleHeart: One variation of your multiplayer backgammon is called Chouette.

Your four colour backgammon sounds like a real challenge to design. It would need a different board and setup (eg, where are the home tables for the extra two players?), but it could be a great game. Extra players means extra possibilities, such as alliances (eg, green and blue could elect to share points which will block black and white). I'd say that Fencer has enough to do with all the existing games, the bug list and wishlist - so what time has he to spend creating a new game? - but if you were to give him a complete and well thought out design, something that can be implemented without any major development being required ... well, it could be the birth of something very special.


Abigail: Indeed, wouldn't a game with such tortoises be a draaaaaag! It's a good thing that time controls are getting more sophisticated. I look forward to the N moves per day option.

"you know who you are": Lol. I suspect some of them deny that reality but we certainly know who they are. One of my opponents has 2000 games going!!


pgt: Abigail's a lady. ;-)

grenv: Yes, the <u> tag works in my browser and I had expected it to work here. It was enough effort putting in the <u>'s; correcting the message was more action than it was worth. Thanks for doing it yourself and making my illustration clearer. :-D

When perusing the players list forwards it's easy to skip 5 pages ahead because the current page is given first:
<u><<</u> <u><</u>   19 <u>20</u> <u>21</u> <u>22</u> <u>23</u> <u>24</u> <u>25</u> <u>26</u> <u>27</u> <u>28</u>   <u>></u> <u>>></u>

When looking at the list from the end and going back, it's not possible to skip several pages:
<u><<</u> <u><</u>   334 <u>335</u> <u>336</u> <u>337</u> <u>338</u> <u>339</u> <u>340</u> <u>341</u> <u>342</u> <u>343</u>   <u>></u> <u>>></u>

If the current page were placed in the centre of the sequence then it would enable page skipping in both directions.

oh, and there's no <u>, it would seem, lol.

Hrqls: Thanks for that explanation and example Matthieu.

Pedro Martínez: I followed you right to the poolside. Interesting to see how the bidding escalates until famine strikes near at the end. Thanks Pedro.

Now where are those graphics with hopeful faces of the "runners" and the other, poor, half-drowned critters splashing in the pond? lol.

Fencer: Feature request changes to a background colour for the Filter dropdown so that people like me who don't see it, lol, just might. ;-) Even better, perhaps, the title "Ponds to sign up" could have the same background colour to signify that the title comes from the filter. (I use the Ponds page as an example but this idea would be applicable to all pages controlled by a Filter dropdown.)

I'ver clicked the Ponds link and there's a great long list of ponds. I've clicked a pond link and see a great long list of players. I've clicked the show rules link and discovered that I start with 20,000 points which I can "use". There's apparently a poolside and some water to plop into .... but despite all this info I still haven't a clue what this game looks like or how it works. It's important enough to have a link of its own rather than be just one if the games but, but, what's it all about?

The feature request is for something to see, graphics, boards, squelching pondside dwellers, whatever. Even better, to be able to go through a game (as can be done with any other game) so I can see how it all works.

I was creating an invitation to a game so I copied and pasted a name from the rankings page into the opponent search box. The name was exactly correct, of course, but the pasted text had a space at the end. The space wasn't trimmed by the search and it came up empty handed.

Purple: LOLOL. Great idea. I'm off to invite some gooses to my table.
:-DD

For anyone who doesn't understand what Pedro is saying (which was me until about a minute ago, when it clicked) ... Herman is shown at the top of Section 1 in the tourney which means that he's been valued as the highest rated player in the whole lot - higher, in fact, than Goldarrows whose rating is 2318.

As I understand the formula, a game (May last year, not in this tourney) that Herman played against Moon Knight (rated over 2100) gave him 2100 + 400 = 2500+ points towards his provisional rating. That rating will be the average of the points from his first 4 games (so he's only earned 625+ so far) but, in the absence of any further information about his playing level, the highly tentative value of 2500+ is used for the purposes of distributing the players amongst the tourney sections - and hence Herman gets top billing.

Pedro: What specifically is the objection? Herman being given top billing from just one game (perhaps none should be used until there's at least a real provisional rating)? Or perhaps the value of 2500 that the game gave him? Or do you want more games to be included before the rating is calculated? .. Or .. ?

Lamby I: Grenv has some good points. Some people can't even be bothered to read the last ten messages; few will go back to a previous page and precious few will be bothered to do an archive search. Others might like to look up a feature but be unsure of how to specify the search; perhaps they have different words for something, eg. I would never have used autopass or auto pass if I were looking up my request. And then there's view that bringing an old request back might give it new life.

I'd love it if we had a fully searchable feature request archive/tracker with priorities and projected dates and all that, but I expect it ... never. The work that would be required from Fencer to classify and organise the feature requests, filter out the chat (such as this conversation) from the actual requests, etc - that's a hell of a lot of work for little return.

Lamby II: My arrival at the site was at a time when autopass was being discussed. If I recall correctly there were two classes of autopass being put forward: 1) when a player is stuck on the bar and 2) when a player can't move because the destination points are blocked.

This request of mine isn't like the above because the situation occurs before the game has started and the "pass" isn't a real one, it's an artefact produced by the game startup procedure. I don't think it should be classified as an auto-pass request.

pauloaguia: Lolol. Okay, I won't ask why. ;-) Now my request must ask that there be a new option in settings that will do automatic dice rolling (in the contxt already described, and only in ...) for the players that don't like pointless clickery. ;-)

Lol. Step by step we're getting to the right formulation ....

pauloaguia: Ah, that's interesting. Then I must change my request so that the dice are rolled when an invitation is accepted rather than requiring white to go to the page.

Vikings: That's true but it's not central to the issue - it's the fact that I have to go to the page and then click it in order to do nothing. It would be useful if that could happen automatically.

When I accept an invitation the game is sometimes added to my list of games where I have a move, but when I go to the game it's not actually my turn so I'm invited to click the game away. The game record subsequently shows a pass for my move.

Would it be possible for the game to be sent to my opponent immediately rather than requiring me to look at the starting position and acknowldege that it's not my move?

FriendJosh: This whole topic has arisen because two sets of cheats have just been unearthed and there's little room for doubt. In one case a whole series of games were resigned very shortly after the start of the game in a game (hypergammon) where resignation is very rare. See the backgammon board for details (starting about 40 messages back with ArtfulDodger: "Wouldn't it be odd").

In the other case the guy had two nicks playing each other. One from his first names and one with his surname. And his profiles spelled it out. Doh! See this board (about 60 messages back).

Fencer: I'd like to request that Pawns be given the ability to edit their posts.

I don't think it's a privilege to be able to correct and clarify your postings. FriendJosh, by posting a correction, has done us a service by making his message more meaningful. Would it not be good to make it tidier and easier for Pawns to do that?


Spirou: :-))) Sometimes I'm wise. Some would say I'm just a wiseass. Sometimes I'm just an ass. Hee hee hee.

ScarletRose: You were too quick to fly away there, oh scarlet , and failed the comprehension test. I said that you were not jealous.

Strangely enough, I consider conversations on discussion boards to be part of the real world.

Lolol. Any more slurs that you'd like to cast? ;-p

AbigailII: Lolol. So he did. I got the 14 bit but didn't like the whole idea and forgot the bit about the year.

Hrqls: My sympathies. :-) I hate laptop keyboards too.

It depends what you want ratings to be. It's surely very unlikely but it's possible that a small group of players would want to play for ratings only between themselves. If they stick to playing within their own group then the ratings will be accurate and useful - for them. That seems a reasonable usage of the rating system as it adds value to their experience of this site.

Those ratings will appear within the game pool, of course, yet be unrelated to any outside their own group. That, from the point of view of the entire ratings/rankings list, is a bad thing (though many individual players may not care two hoots). I, being interested in my standing within the pool, would care. You too, it would seem. I'd prefer that ratings were as accurate as possible** and would wish that sub-groups couldn't affect the mainstream ratings pool. But then I'd also like the players who play only a few games, get a high rating and then stay at the top of the board by not playing, to also be "adjusted" for (or compelled to play, lol). It comes back to the idea in my earlier post about "choppy seas". There are many influences in the rating system that make it imperfect. Which areas, if any, should be addressed can only be decided as a matter of site policy.

** Accurate ratings would be better served in backgammon by using the correct backgammon formula ... ah, but that's a different feature request, lol.

George: Totally agree. ;-)
(ps. Make a move! ;-p)

Spirou, ScarletRose: I don't know why but it never fails to impress me when someone's sole contribution is to say "I don't understand your viewpoint therefore it's rubbish". Now that's what I call childish. For me, and probably many high-rated players, the rating aspect is part of the fun. I enjoy playing, I enjoy chatting and I enjoy the attempt to get my rating high. A high rating demonstrates mastery and guess what, that's a nice thing to do if you are lucky enough to have the talent and have worked at it. For students of the game, striving to improve, the rating history provides a visualisation of their progress. You guys want to call it lame? Then I'll call you jealous - and we'll all be wrong.

AbigailII: N games per year? I'm not sure where that idea came from. Are you referring back to anything I should know about? Either way I agree; it's not useful to impose any such condition.

As for restricting the influence of a pair's large number of games? Horrors, that's the last thing I'd want (if these are legitimate games). Any of the various playing patterns: two people playing a lot against each other, a group playing a lot between themselves, high-level players only playing other high-level players, lower ratings only playing lower ratings, etc - these all do their bit to make the flat lake of perfect ratings/rankings into a somewhat choppy sea. Removing the cheats who cause waves is a good thing but to control any of the other winds and currents .. is it necessary?

But if it is, I reckon the only fair way to ensure the accuracy of all BKRs is to force every player to play every other player in the same number of games within a given time frame. To ensure that last condition, slow players would have their moves made for them by an artificial intelligence whose playing level exactly matches the players style and BKR.

I think it's great that the message box can now have its size specified. Unfortunately its the same size in all contexts and on the game boards I find that more than 4 lines is too big (given that I mostly don't use it), while on the discussion boards 4 lines is too small. Going back and forth to the Change message area size is a cumbersome workaround.

What would be really handy is an extra javascript capability - a button to immediately (but temporarily) resize the message box. Or for it to expand to a designated size when it gets focus, or when there's a subject in the subject box (which would encourage people to actually provide a subject) .. or some other such big-only-when-required mechanism.

NOT a floosie: I know you were addressing some naughty rooks down below but if it's pawns who you find straying from the path, they might not understand it when you plant a *109* for their attention.
;-)

Hrqls: I'm not sure that players should feel obliged to play anyone but those they choose.

The meaning of "rating" is the relative difference in success (as opposed to skill) between a player and her/his opponents. If two people only play each other then their ratings will completely accurately reflect this difference between them. It wouldn't be possible, however, for those ratings to be meaningfully compared with any other rating within the ranks of that game type. The same applies but to a diluted degree if a player restricts themselves to a small group of opponents who may pr may not play more widely themselves. That's the issue that I think Fencer is looking at and it's a fair one from the game pool/rankings perspective.

But I still feel that a player's choice of opponents ought to be governed solely by personal criteria.

Hrqls: To assign any penalties you'd have to detect the situation first. Having made such a detection I think a human judge should be notified to decide whether cheating is occurring - and the penalty should be death. (Er, that's of the account, not the cheat, lol). Automated penalties, unless very complex, are prone to being found arbitrary and unfair, and may cause more general distress than relief of the problem that they address.

Fencer: Quote: "I'll improve the BKR formula by adding some penalties for repeated games between the same players". He he, shouldn't that be "change" the formula? I'm not sure about that word "improve". ;-)

I echo Walter's words. Some people's style of playing is to play all and sundry, perhaps playing mostly tournaments, or just inviting a wide range of people to games. Others' style is to find a few partners who are a pleasure to play and chat with - and then stick with them by and large. These people would be penalised by this proposed formula change.

We were discussing this issue on the backgammon board. "The simple pattern seems to be a pair who play together with a very unbalanced win/lose ratio brought about by a suspicious amount of resigning and with one or both having high ratings. As more nicks are brought into the scam, detection would become increasingly difficult but a significant level of resignations would still be a good indicator. It would ease the server burden if checking were restricted to the top X% of players."

I think detection is a better system for the site, though it's obviously a lot more work for you to program. One solution would be to keep an eye on resignations, as these seem key to the cheating method (perhaps in conjunction with the number of moves made). These could then be brought to the attention of a special moderator who would look into the matter. To avoid detection the cheats would have to stop resigning the games and play them through to a conclusion. They could still fix the outcome, of course, but it would be a lot more work.

BIG BAD WOLF: That's the one. Thanks BBW. :-))

1. Would it be possible to add an example to the S-B help page; add a bit of concrete to the abstract. BBW very nicely, and painstakingly, demonstrated/explained S-B for someone on the backgammon(?) board but that's now history [and I can't find it :-(].

2. It would be handy if the S-B points were calculated and shown as a tourney progresses rather than only at the end.

:-)

Walter: One time I would consider the reporting of hidden messages as a bug is when I go to the board and there's nothing to see. I wouldn't mind if there were fewer messages than reported but I'd be annoyed by none. But even so, it strikes me as untidy.

gekrompen hoofd: Having moderator-banned and hidden users reported at the top of a board is a major no-no for me. I'm not really interested and it would just be more clutter. I think it should have a place as a sub-section/page of Blocked Users.

I also think that member-hidden posters should be displayed there as well, rather than at the top of the board as is done at present. Having hidden someone I don't want to be reminded of them each time I come to a board.

WhiteTower: Do you mean the array of flags? Someone mentioned earlier this month that they could be moved to the settings page. Fencer vetoed the idea; he likes them. I reckon they look like medals of honour and he's rightly proud to wear them on his "chest", lol.

Hrqls: Aye indeed. I put a request in a while back for an English board after some interest was generated in English usage and grammar. Widening it to other languages and requests for translations, or anything else that will encourage international communication - makes good sense to me. :-))

And for the list: Veel danken :-DD

nobleheart: You're an iso browser, too, eh? Lol.
Thanks for the meta translation page, I've not seen that one.

I like to start games by saying hello and good luck to people in their own language. I use a Translator but it doesn't handle Czech, Dutch. FIBS has a version of an International BG Phrase Book. I think it would be great to have one here.

Things that I say:
• Hi
• Hello
• Greetings
• Howdy

- these might seem to translate to the same thing but I'd hope not. I'm sure all the other languages have different greetings for different moods and outlooks. It would be nice to have more than just a formal hello. But if there are variations then a bit of explanation would be handy. Having said that, though, how to explain the differences between "greetings" and "howdy" doesn't spring to mind, lol.

Others
• Good luck
• That was an interesting game
• Aaaggghh!
• Noooooooooo!
• Phew!
• That was lucky
• Dice Gods
• I need a 6, give me a 6!
• Race ya!
• The race is on
• Thanks
• Thank you for the match
• Would you like to play another?
• Another?

BIG BAD WOLF: Thanks BBW. :-) When I looked at the page it showed whitecobra and Ryan with 3.0 each but no SB or Order values. I guess I was looking too soon after the tourney and misunderstood what Final match type for two player section: 3 wins match meant - I thought those players would have a head-to-head to decide it.

(Interesting that the winning order was almost the opposite of the rating order, lol.)

Abigail: God forbid! lolol.

As a Knight I can only play in one tournament per game type at a time and that's fair enough. But in the hyper tourney that I joined, I've finished all my games and will not be able to progress to the next round, which is a face-off between the tied leaders. As I can't start a new tourney while this one's still running, I'm forced to wait as a non-participant until these players finish a three wins match. :-((

Please sir, can I be excused?
;-)

When a player is hidden on a message board, it's presumably because they are a pain in the neck. So to have their name then prominently dispayed in the "Remove" list at the top of the message board is rather adding insult to injury.

A workaround is to block someone innocuous whose name is lower in the alphabet (it sorts with Z at the top for some reason) and their's will be the one visible.

But better, I reckon, would be for that Remove list to be at the foot of the message board, or, perhaps more logically, on the Blocked users pages.

Czuch Chuckers: Lol. Aye, that was the first question that I put to HerculesBeast (he who runs the Quick Players Club). It makes good sense until reminded that Pawns, who we would certainly want to welcome into the fellowship, can't join fellowships. Ah!

I like your new tourney. With my Knight's restrictions I can't join it until I've finished the one I'm in. That could take weeks, lolol.

You might want to think about making it a private tournament and giving players a big "You're welcome to join by sending me a message" spiel in the comment area. Then you can vet players against the QPC list, inviting non-QPers to join it first.

Time zones matter. Or rather playing zones, lol.

Perhaps we could have [6pm GMT .. 12pm GMT] style tournaments which are only open to those whose playing times overlap those hours.

More sensibly, perhaps, some statistics about when and how often a player logs in and makes moves could be gathered. I would show as logging in intermittently throughout the day and making several moves in all of the few games that I play (opponent permitting as Abigail points out). Others might show as making a bunch of moves in a subset of their several hundred once a day, or something like that. Abigail would show as giving her games good attention.

But I reckon that more than a few people would be iffy about having their playing patterns noted, so it's not an idea that's likely to go very far.

AbigailII: That's cool Abigail. :-) I wish it were typical of the mega-multi-gamers but I fear that many bite off more than they can chew. Some players have 500, 700, 900 games going and, at perhaps 5 seconds per move and maybe 4 times a day, that would be loadsaplaying. I certainly couldn't do it, lol. It's a shame that they've tarnished your reputation, as it were.

grenv: Some people I like. Some people I like to condescend to. Looks like you've talked yourself into that tiny minority. How did you do that, grenv? Mwaahaahaahaaaaaaa.

I know, I know .. hee hee.

Talking about fast movers: Walter's just informed me about the Quick Player's Club

Walter Montego: That's an excellent idea Walter. Lolol.

grenv: You're not just a waste of space after all, are you mate? ;-p Your playing-speed statistic could actually be a useful one.