joshi tm: emmett makes a very good point. The list of fellowships is cumbersome, and in dire need of revamping. I've tried myself a few times to go through it to find those that might be interesting, but I got very frustrated after a few pages. Many are dormant, if not downright dead, and should be deleted or archived. Sure, it's a big cleanup job, but it should be done for the benefit of the membership.

Listing by size would not be of any particular use. Most of the active ones have enough incentive to swell their ranks as it is, and some are deliberately small yet vibrant.

I'd like to investigate the possibility of establishing "double elimination" tournaments. Eight entrants may be optimal, although any of the multiples available for single elimination would suffice.

Here is a proposal. Each player would start with two game points. Following each round, points are DEDUCTED for results as follows:
WIN -- No points
DRAW -- one-half point
LOSS -- one full point

Players would be eliminated whenever their point total drops to zero. Therefore, each entrant will play in at least the first two rounds.

In the first round, players would be paired normally according to ratings. In the second round, winners play winners and losers play losers, etc. and in successive rounds players are paired against others with point totals equal or within a half-point of theirs, as closely as possible. Also, to balance the opportunity, each player should have roughly the same amount of Blacks as Whites over the course of the tournament.

It may occur that an odd number of players would start a round, which could be resolved by issuing a bye to the lowest rated player with the fewest points, except if the tournament is reduced to three players, a round-robin round should commence until two players remain, and then match play until one is the winner.

There may be other flaws that need to be ironed out, yet the system would produce interesting games and results.

Another good idea that might be considered is CHESKERS, which is a checker variant that combines some elements of chess. Here is a brief description of the rules:

A standard checker set is used, and the rear row of men (on each side) is replaced by (from left to right, in each player's view) a chess Bishop, a checker King, a checker King, and a "Camel" (represented by a chess Knight) which moves three spaces horizontally or vertically, followed by one space at a right angle, for example from e1 to f4. Opposing Bishops are at corners of the board's longest diagonal.

Jumping is compulsory, as in checkers, but capturing (by displacement, as in chess) with the Bishop or Camel is optional. Given a choice of jumping or making a capture, one must by made. Men reaching the last rank can promote to King, Bishop, or Camel. The object of the game is to capture the opponent's Kings.

Some time ago, "International Checkers" was listed here as an item being developed, but then it disappeared. It is a good game, a bit tedious in the opening, but then fascinating positions occur because of strategic subtleties, the forward and rearward jumping, and long range of the Kings. Is this idea still being considered as an addition?

grenv, Thad, kleineme: I disagree with your derision of the S-B system. Whatever else can be said about it (and much has), it makes sense to give the section or title to the player who has beat the one he tied with. I believe the S-B should remain the standard.

Some creative method might be instituted to speed up a 2-player "playoff", meaning any final round with only two in it. One suggestion is to play all games concurrently, and this would be ideal for gammon type games where more chance than skill is involved, but it does not work especially well in other games that start from the same position and are likely to follow the same path longer if played simultaneously. The time control could be accelerated though.

Thad: "MissYourTurn", great shot, that one is really hilarious!! :)) However, the endless round after round until one player wins BOTH games is awfully B-O-R-I-N-G. I deliberately let a few time out in Pente, because I got so tired of facing the same opponent and it was obvious that neither player was ever going to win both without a thrown game.

Fencer: Is it premature to talk about the new tournament system under development? If not, while recognizing you could have already taken these into account, I wish to make three suggestions:

1. In a multi-section event, when a point is reached at which there are clear winners in all the sections, the next round should commence ASAP, or within a day.

2. Pawns and Knights may be given the option to remove themselves from a tournament (sure, it can be done now by messaging you, but that's a hassle for you and the player) if they are already eliminated or have no chance for advancement and have either completed their games or agree to summarily resign those remaining.

3.Pawns may be allowed to enter more than one tournament at a time, say maybe 3 to 5. After all, a lot of them may not feel that it is worthwhile coming here for just a handful of games in a tournament and perhaps a few casual games on the side. And, I dare to wonder, if they get a taste of how enjoyable that is, it could be a stronger incentive to join!

Many would argue that Pawns contribute nothing, and so ought to be satisfied with what they get for free, but I strongly disagree. Even though they don't pay, Pawns are the bulk of the player base here, which provides much greater entertainment for those who want to buy more games and privileges. And, lest we forget, we were all Pawns in the origin, and many became members, but the future members to be are out there among the vast array of Pawns, so shouldn't we try to make it as interesting for them as possible? The more you get involved in something and the more you are given a chance to participate, the more you will want to and the harder it is to walk away from it.

WhiteTower: That would also be a good idea.

Walter Montego: This change should be made to avoid confusion since the letter "C" is used in both variants. The grandchess rules here denote "Marshal" and "Cardinal", but the graphics are probably appropriated from the gothic set. Filip will most likely make the letter change in due time.

Grim Reaper:

Interesting statistics! I believe that Glinski's is by far the best of the genus of hexagonal chesses, and would like to see it here.

The graphics may be somewhat problematic to program, although Game Courier has a nice preset.

pgt: Thanks for the note. I am sure you have a valid point, and I figured this might be the case. As grenv says, he made the same suggestion before. Is there anything you can recall from those previous discussions that could be used to motivate players who want only to have reasonable time limits respected to join with us and voice their support?

So far, a handful of us have expressed at least some lack of satisfaction with the current system. If, in fact, there are many more of us who are displeased with the status quo than those who are taking advantage of the system, do we not have a legitimate grievance? Now, I don't wish to engage in an "us versus them" argument--this site is far too magnificent for that--nor do I want to isolate the slower moving players. Just have them get off of their dead butts and make those moves!!! .... However, it is not realistic to suppose this will happen without a healthy bit of, shall we say, "arm-twisting", for there are many people (and please, I hope no one will take this as some kind of personal indictment, it's just human nature) who either cannot or will not properly regulate themselves and their time; and in the absence of their accommodation, I purport that we have no choice other than to band together in as large a group as possible, and then politely ask Filip (in the name of fairness, among perhaps other nouns) for a modification of the auto-vac policy in order to curtail these delays.

playBunny: We're thinking along much the same lines. I've finished with my games in quite a few tourneys, but will not be able to enter another like event until a delinquent player relying on the auto-vac to keep from timing out finishes their games!?

These players would eventually run out of vacation days to use, although that could still take weeks or months.

ArtfulDodger: An organizer can "red dot" a tournament, which means absolutely no days off. Lately, I'm glad to say, more of these offerings are showing up on the tournament listings, I suspect to attract the players who move in a timely fashion while discouraging those who don't. It is a grand idea, since just one slow player can really drag down an entire tournament.

However, even this will not entirely alleviate the larger problem, and while I don't expect any radical action to be taken in the near future, it is a situation that will need reckoning at some point. The fact that it is now under discussion is a successful beginning.

I have a serious reservation about the Automatic Vacation option. While I believe it is great in principle, in practice it is being abused by some players here to indefinitely delay many of the hundreds more games they have in progress than they can reasonably handle! I know of a few here (and there are perhaps numerous others) who have well over 1,000 games going. It's not that they aren't entitled, it just isn't sensible. Even if you have nothing to do all day but log on to BK, you cannot possibly keep up with that many games.

My suggested remedy is to revamp the automatic vacation system so that it only activates on days when a player DOES NOT log on to the site. After all, should it not be to protect a player from timing out when the computer crashes, power outages, etc., or there arises some personal emergency? The time limits arranged in tournaments are plenty gracious.

What do other members think of this situation?

Stormerne:

Please note that I am not too terribly concerned with ratings. To the strong and diligent, the ratings and rankings will eventually come..... However, and I hope you'll pardon this if it seems strident, but I find your proposal arbitrary, a bit goofy, seemingly very tedious to implement, complicated to understand for many players, and overall just generally not worth the while.

You twice imply (but don't actually state) that "rankings" should be based on what you term "adjusted BKR", and you'd penalize those who came to this site earlier, and reward those who came later, for doing nothing!!? Tough luck! More players come in over time, both this includes both strong and weak opponents, so who is to say that any given time frame was easier than another to achieve a high rating? Furthermore, inactivity does not serve as a justification for demoting a player's rating.

Ratings are never more than an inexact science at best anyway, and your system would exacerbate this inherent flaw. The remedy for those who are worried about raising their ratings is to improve their game.

When will the suspension of game times be removed? Some unscrupulous players have taken advantage of this situation by NOT moving by the time they should have, and they still have the game listed in progress on their game page, but with '0 mins' in red.

That is a great idea, C.D.! I have been wondering for quite some time why this (separate board for CV) has not already been established.

I have previously talked with a few others about CV, once on the 'chess' board, then other places, but never quite sure where they should go.

Today, I have gotten the "temporarily down" page about every other try!? It's getting progressively worse.

Why not put a freeze on new registrations for a while? Every day, the number of "registered users" goes up, which must keep putting higher demands on the server's hardware. But, this doesn't get BK a penny closer to a new machine, or whatever is needed. (In reality, most pawns never intend to join anyhow.)

There will always be plenty of time (in fact, an indefinite amount) to fish for new recruits when the site's operations become more sound.

This seems superfluous! Too many options are cluttering up the game pages already, and there are plenty to work with. Would it not be more practical for any given player to make a written or mental note of which opponents are currently on line?

I believe the rationale for not implementing an "auto-pass" is that a player must go on and actually make the move, whether it be a pass in backgammon or a forced move, such as in chess. It is frustrating in some situations, but why should the system make an automatic move for a player who is out to lunch? This would also require extra programming.

I have just noticed that on some of my game boards, my opponent's current activity (such as viewing a particular game or browsing discussion boards) shows up under his name! This is a real nuisance that isn't needed! Whatever brought about this ANNOYING CHANGE, I hope it is PROMPTLY REMOVED!!!

If anyone wants to look at it, they can use the 'profile' option

What happened to 'international checkers' in development? I believe it was formerly on the list here above, then dropped. Just wondering...

Also, what is 'honey checkers'?

I was wondering if a "hide" option could be implemented, like on 'Tip of the day'.

Is there any way to suppress the announcement of the gothic tmt. on the main page? I've seen it, I'm not interested, but every time I go to the main page I have to scroll down beyond it to get to the games.

Dmitri,

Apparently, the entire meaning of both the second and third paragraphs in my earlier message went right over your head!! I did not question the legitimacy of combining variants; I just state that they are usually not feasible in a practical sense. And your insidious reference to the pente discussions has nothing to do with the subject matter here.

There are hundreds of chess variants in the world, including many which are mundane (even frivilous) but also including some which are great game concepts!

However, the notion of 'combining' two separate concepts together (such as "dark janus chess") has as shown from time to time by enthusiasts not been quite as practical as the theories suggest.

Also, offerings and other things can quickly get complicated and the real meaning of basic ideas lost from a perpetual spiral of combinations.

Interesting opinions. What I really had in mind was posting a pair of games to the waiting area (as opposed to two separate games with different colors, or a 2-game consecutively played match that only counts as one game point). However, it would also be handy to be able to challenge a specific user to a 2-game match, but as conditions are now, we cannot even do that!

Why isn't there an option to set up a 2-game match (separately rated games each) against the same opponent with games to be played concurrently?

Very nicely done!!

I think not only should each game type have a separate list of tmt. winners, but after many of them an exclusive list should be initiated showing the most prolific winners in each game type, and maybe one including ALL tmts. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to arrange.... I made a similar proposal to IYT some time ago, but (as usual) they ignored it

Fencer, have you considered putting on grandchess? It is similar to gothic, which is already here, but IMO better than gothic. Rules and details can be obtained at mindsports.net