BIG BAD WOLF: I like that idea, i put that in my Brainking DB post. There has to be a time limit somewhere before they are removed or retired. I could not possibly challenge on all the Stairs i am in, although i do try to keep up.
I think that Brainking should still run a script once a week to see what ones you are open for a challenge on. Sometimes i finish a game & go to the Stair in question and there is no one to challenge, but who is to say 2 hours later there wont be ?
To save having to check all the time we could have a message sent to us listing what Stairs we can make/except a challenge on.

BIG BAD WOLF: agreed, but in my case, I never challange anyone below me, only equal to me, that does not make me inactive, just in waiting for someone who has earned the privillage of the challange, if someone is above me, then I don't expect them to play me, I have to work myself to their level, ladders in reverse

I don't like the idea of it punishing someone who does not challenge - for example, myself - I'm not challenging anyone until I get my total number of games down, but I will take any challenge.

I think if a person is not on the site for 1 month, then they should be placed in retirement so no one can challenge them. That would be my vote. (And if the person comes back to the site, they can unretire and continue from where they were at.)

Vikings: I understand what you are saying, in that case they would have to be an exception to the rule, but they would still be in-active.
There has to be some sort of rule set i think. Maybe they have to challenge if someone is one step below them & available.
Something would have to be there though to check they still are an active player on Brainking.
Until Fencer gives us his views or what he intends to do with the Stairs(if anything) all we can do is come up with ideas lol

MadMonkey: why should someone at the top have to challange someone 3 steps below them, they have already earned the top spot and only have to defend it when someone reaches them

Vikings: I did put on the Brainking DB earlier that the script could also check if a person does not have anyone to challenge, then it would not effect them, hence if you are at the top, you stay there, but when a person becomes available you should have to challenge someone after a certain time.

pauloaguia: those people tend to run out of vacation days and time out quickly, otherwise they are active and just slow, another problem altogether

Vikings: Or that new people starting on a stair have no option other to battle those that are already inactive (waiting sometimes almost a month before climbing up and maybe playing a game for real).

Also, with all the inactive players pilling up in the first level, the staircase may grow articially longer than it should be...

actually people who are inactive (either from the site or the stair) will take care of themselves over time, they will fall to the lowest step and the stair will grow well past them, the only real problem is the fact that many people don't like cheap wins

Vikings: hence the alternative I proposed...

MadMonkey: Fencer was already going to impliment taking away of empty stairs, I believe he said monthly, but your suggestion punishes the person who makes it to the top and then wants to wait for someone to catch up, he should not have to play until someone proves worthy

MadMonkey: Probably easier to implement:
If you timeout all your games in a match you get automatically thrown out, with a message telling you why.

Only exception - you have already retired from the stairs (to prevent the case that you legitimatelly retired for going on holiday or something but had already a game running that you timed out). In that case you get to stay in the Stairs.

Vikings: Brainking should be able to check each player/step to see if there are people for them to play. Maybe an automated message could be sent to them. If they do not play anyone after a certain time of being available then, either removed from the stairs or dropped a place. It could all be done automatically after Fencer writes the code

Vikings:

King Reza: that can be a little tricky as there are some people who have reached the top of the stairs and are inactive waiting for someone to catch them

MadMonkey:Oh thanks for the offer.  Yeah, I think they should be taken out of stairs after a period of time too.

King Reza: I will join and give you a game King I am not the best Chess player though, just enjoy trying to win a game, especially different versions.

I had the same problem 3 times on Backgammon stairs lately, actually starting games just to watch them time out as they are not here anymore. I think inactive players(say 2 weeks) should be removed, or get automatically set to leaving the stairs (then they could get an Automated warning sent to there message box).

I have entered Fast stairs for loop chess, but on step one, there are only two players none of whom play on BK anymore!  What should I do?

playBunny: I don't think colors are randomly assigned. It looks to me like the challenger always makes the first move.

But random color assignment would be a decent system. Even if a game is tilted heavily in favor of one color (Maharajah chess, anyone?), the combined procedure of first randomly assigning colors to the players and then playing the game is fair.

KotDB: Lol. You do agree with me. -- it's not possible (except in backgammon and its variants)

Given that I was prompted to make my posts as a result of getting nowhere on the Ludo 2-games Stairs, and that I otherwise only play Backgammon and its variants, it's nice that you do agree with me. ;-) BBW's objection on behalf of the starter-has-the-advantage games is no problem for me and I agree that 2-wins isn't a flawless solution to the problem there. But in fact I have no idea whether there is a problem perceived by the climbers of those Stairs, so I won't make any claims on their behalf. ;-)

But on the other solutions put forward, I don't see much difference between a single game and a 2-wins match. The starter in a single game has the advantage. More so than in a 2-wins match, surely? I like your paired-games idea. 2-wins of paired games. It could make for a lot of games, though, lol, but at least it would have a winner.

I don't particularly mind what solution was be used, just so that in games where draws are most likely there be some way of playing only for a win. Restricting it to game types where there's some small difference between the who-starts-wins percentages (say 5%) does makes sense although, in the long term, players wouldn't benefit from the advantage given that starting colours are randomly assigned in the Stairs.

playBunny: I have to agree with BIG BAD WOLF (and not only because sharp teeth are more persuasive than floppy ears). With the match types currently available on BrainKing, it's not possible (except in backgammon and its variants) to create a match that is fair to both players and has no possibility of a draw. For my part, I prefer fairness over drawlessness, and I hope the existing stairs will remain as they are.

Having said that, I would have no objection to the creation of additional stairs with single games or 2-win matches or whatever. And maybe you'll have more success than I've had in my attempts to get a set of Fischer-clock stairs with longer time controls.

Another possibility would be the implementation of a new type of match, similar to the n-win matches, but with pairs of games (rather than single games) as the basic building block. Thus after the first two games, if one player has reached some predetermined victory condition, then he wins the match; otherwise they play two more games, etc.

BIG BAD WOLF: MMMM.. true.. good point.

It would be nice if there was at least a way to have the 2 games of the match, be played at the same time (like in tournaments) instead of one after the other.

I do think a set of stairs using "Normal Game" (1 game matches) (fast, standard and slow) would be popular. Yes, you can get them in some fellowships, but they tend to have less people participating.

Fencer did say he would think about it, the last time I asked him about the possibility. :-)

playBunny: A 2 win match would then be unfair for 1 player in the games in which 1 color has an advantage over the other - since 1 player will get the advantage twice.

Of course I agree with you for many of the games - well sort of, for most I would rather see just a 1 game match. I know my 3 day Stairs (no cube) (Sstairs in ◙ The Gammon Cube ◙ Fellowship) are pretty popular with just 1 game matches.

playBunny: I agree completely. I have also been wanting an additional set of "Normal Game" stairs with a decent time limit. (The only set of stairs with "Normal Game" are "Very Fast Fischer Stairs", which for ME personally are too fast! And the Standard Stairs take too long, since the games are played one after the other, instead of at the same time. Plus with so many draws, there isn't enough movement in them.)

Fencer: Might the 2 games matches be changed to 2 wins matches in the Stairs, please? At least that way someone's going to advance. ;-)

is demonviper i am in a backgammon stairs game with him and he hasn't moved and i hate winning due to a timeout

SimpleMind: But maybe I misunderstood you. Now I'm wondering whether you meant truly inactive players such as Ryna from Ohio who has been MIA since last year.

Such players will inevitably get pushed down to the bottom step but, unlike leaf mold on the forest floor they are non-biodegradable, so that step would eventually get cluttered. Such players do provide a free boost up to Step 2 when they timeout but I only rarely enjoy a win of that nature. So I second your recommendation that they be removed at some point.

On the other hand, lol, the above applies to Backgammon, say, but a sparsely populated Stairs like your Line4 one would look even emptier than before and a half empty room has less appeal as a party venue!

SimpleMind: One of the big differences between Fencer's Stairs and the traditional ladders is that the player above does the inviting. Or not! Speaking as a player who's enjoyed being at the top of a couple of Stairs, it's nice to be able to relax and enjoy the view without having to defend my position until someone has made a successful effort to reach me. Of course I'm not always relaxing for there are heads to be pushed down and fingers to be trodden on as people dare to climb up!

But that pause for relaxation can occur half way up a Stairs if there is a gap of empty steps above, and it's equally nice to relax there too.

Thus to remove non-active players would potentially mean removing the top player and those having a rest in the upper ranks.

The problem you face in your Line4 Stairs isn't having inactive players so much as it's having too few players. There are 12 players and no games going at all. Removing the inactive ones .. that would empty the whole Stairs! ;o)

If I might suggest doing a marketing campaign targetting a selection of active players in the Line4 ranks. Check people's game sheets and see who's got a reasonable interest level (a handful or more games, perhaps) and then write a short note to remind them about the existance of the Stairs and invite them to the challenge.

In the ratings charts, non-active players disappear after rules as can be read in the FAQ. The argument for this is to keep the charts more accurate, and I think that works fine. This does not happen in the stairs, which means, that in-active players (in this case Line4 games) "fill up" the stairs, which makes it impossible for some players to invite or be invited. In some cases it seems that the stairs are "dead" with many steps occupied by inactive players or players too far apart to invite or be invited. Can the rules for the rating charts and in-active players, be applied to the stairs?
I think we would get much more competition, and more games played in that section

regards john

tonyh: If you're talking about a page like this, the number behind a name tells you what step the player is on within the stair.

tonyh: i think you are talking about their bkr ?

When you look at the current games in progress, what do the figures in brackets after the player's name mean?

BIG BAD WOLF: Nothing yet. Stairs improvements are to be done after more important things.

Czuch Chuckers: That is a good question. I remember suggesting if that happened, then first send user a warning to get out of some, then if they don't "randomly" put them into "retirement" in all but 1..... where if they do renew their membership at some point, they can start from where they left off from.

But I'm not sure what Fencer ever did or if something like that is in place.

Fencer?

What happens when some in many different stairs becomes a pawn? Since pawns are only allowed to enter 1 stair..... how is it determined which stair they stay in and how long can they remain on the leader board in stairs that they are no longer able to play in?

Czuch Chuckers: I don't think there is a "list" anywhere, but if you know the person, you can go to their profile, click on the "Stairs" page.

In the "Step (your/max)" column, if it shows like "-/2", that means they are on retirement from that stair. If nothing shows up, it means they quit the stairs (but just finishing up their current games). For example, in my profile - I'm retired from a few stairs like the the swap 5-in-line stairs and such.

Vikings: Well, this one only has/had 3 people in the whole stairs, now only two of us...

Czuch Chuckers: I come across that quite a bit also, sometimes there are too many people on one step to list all there names and you have to click on a "..." to see the rest of the list

I am playing a stairs game with someone who is not listed on the main stairs page. I do not know if they have left the stairs after starting a game or if they have started a retirement or if it is a bug?

Can we have a way to see who is on retirement and who has left the stairs all together please?

Why are there no Standard Fischer's Stairs? Maybe I don't have time to make a move every three hours, but it would still be nice to know that a game will eventually have an end.

Marfitalu:

Ok Ty so much

Marfitalu:

The one listed
http://brainking.com/en/Stairs?tri=776

A quick question...
On the stairs here:
http://brainking.com/en/Stairs?tri=776

I'm #6 but only have the option of challenging #4 aledates.
If I lose do I fall to #5 or #4 ?

Thanx in Advance

ouspensky: ok I'm on standard stairs

skipinnz: Got it. I signed up for backgammon, which I'm pretty good at if you'd like to play

ouspensky: Yes, I actually reversed the order you select. If you click on stairs then say on standard you will then see a list of games and you can then select the game you want.

skipinnz: thanks. i take it i must select one of the games that is listed there.

ouspensky: Select the "stairs" option on left hand side down from main page select type of game you wish to play eg backgammon then select fast/ standard etc. hope this helps, also note you can only enter 1 stairs. Good luck

hi. can anybody tell me how to get on this? thanks.

tenuki: there have to be played 2 moves in a game to make it count for the rating, it still counts as a win/loss though

when the timed out game is in a tournament, then its still used to calculate the winner of the tournament.

the only thing that doesnt change is the rating of both players

(or the timed out game might be part of a multiple game match which isnt finished until all games are finished/timed out)