dream: Okay, and when you are there, click on "back to the list of game types" and there is the button. I know that it is not very intuitive to find it, I will improve it later.

lol...ok I just found it...simply by clicking everything clickable on the page..now I know its there it will be easy...and hopefully everyone else will read this..thanks for your help :-)

You know, when I created the code for the very first tournament, it was designed mostly for myself only because I had to test it. So that's why I perfectly know where to find everything and it can be confusing to normal users :-) I will add some hints to the tournament pages.

LOL...its ok, we appreciate what you are doing! and thanks for the quick response :-)

You are lucky, I've just wanted to disconnect but I've seen the "new posts" sign in the last second ;-)

Signups are open for Fast Backgammon (3) and Fast Nackgammon (2). Games in both are 1 day moves. start Feb 20th and are open to all players!

Hiya everyone, I'm still a few players short for some of the games in my tourney to run. Mainly some of the chess and checkers variants, also anti line four and tank battle.
This tourney starts on Tuesday and I'd like to get as many players as possible (hey, at least four!!) for as many games as possible! So if you haven't signed up already for some of these great games then you only have until Tuesday!! Happy playing!! :o)

er... so does nobody know what this s-b coloumn in the tournament results stands for?

Does anyone know - Do I have to wait for BOTH sections of a tournament to finnish before I can sign up for a new tournament?

Since I'm limited to one tournament, it will not let me sign up for any new tournaments. It keeps saying that I'm playing in a current tournament (even though all MY game are done, and I DO NOT have enough points to go to the next round) - UGH! Do I have to wait for the next round to be finnished also???? THAT WILL STINK if I have to wait that long! UGH!!!!

I am also waiting to find out if a knight can play in a fellowship tourn if they are playing in another tourn of the same type?

if we have to wait for all the rounds to be done to the final winner ..we will only be able to play 1 tourney a year and that sure won't help out the fellowship i'm on ..or am i misunderstanding and its till your elimanated from a tourney ..which still won't be much help either ..it would be nicer if you could just limit how many tourneies instead of one tourney per game ..as for me as i don't play all the games just a few types and i'm sure that there are a lot of people in the same boat ..can we swap lol just joking on that ..the way it stands i'm hurting my fellowship by staying as i can't help them out

macoan: You must wait only for your section to be finished. There is only one game left, it won't take too long. This is the free membership limitation.
rabbitoid: It means Sonne-Born points. It is a total sum of points of your opponents who lost a game with you and a half of points of your opponents who drawn a game with you.
alexlee: See your message box.
mcinturff: Only your section counts, until you are a winner and go to the next round. Once the section is finished, you are free for another tourney of the same game type.

Do the Sonne-Born points have any other meaning regarding who won? If it is a 3 way tie in a section do all 3 go on to the next round?

Actually, S-B is only used when two or more players finish a tournament with the same "normal" points. See The first official BK tourney, Reversi 6x6. There are three winning players from the same section because they have the same both "normal" and "S-B" points.

So what your saying is even if you tie with "normal" points you do not go to the next round if someone else has higher S-B points?
I really do not understand how you can have
S-B points in a spider game?

alexlee, I think it means that if you and one other player get, say, 5 points each, the S-B points will come into consideration.
So the players you beat, THEIR points will be added up (the games they won) and this is the S-B for you.
In other words, if you beat good players and they won most of their other games, you'll have the higher S-B than the other player if the people they beat didn't do so good overall.
Its like a ratings system, so the actual game type doesn't matter.
Does all that make sense?!!

I think so, I thought he meant the points in each game itsself, then it seems like it would be close to impossible to have more then one winner in a section? And if you are a higher rated player then it goes against you? Doesn't seem fair to me! But thanks for explaining it

No, not the points in the actual game.
I dont think it really goes against you, if you beat someone who had won no other games, maybe because they signed up and never came back to the site, but the other player had beat someone who had won all their other games, then they would get a higher S-B than you. That seems fair to me.
And if you both had the same S-B then you would both go through, presumably!
Of course it counts all the games you have won, each player you beat, their games would decide your S-B.
A bit like when deciding your BKR the other players rating is the deciding factor.
When deciding the S-B, the other players games are taken into account.

Is this like a count back situation, which is used in some sporting competition?

ok, I am just used to sites where if you tie you both move to the next round!

If the only game you win is against a player who wins 4 games in the section, your S-B will be 4. But if you also beat someone who wins 2 games in the section, your S-B will now be 6. It is kind of like a more accurate determination of the winner - if 2 players get the same number of wins, but one beats the other, that person should be the winner. This takes that into account :-)

Yes, that would be right IF both players had an equal chance of winning the game. At least in 5-in-line this S-B system only makes an already very unfair system even worse.
As I mentioned earlier, with optimal play the one making the first move should always win in 5-in-line. Now if there are 2 very good players in the section, the one getting to play white against the other already has a really HUGE advantage. If we add S-B points we have a situation in which the other player cannot even compensate his bad luck of having to play black by winning all the other games even if the other good player lost one game against a lesser player.
And of course this 15x15 board (which is the best size, don`t get me wrong about that) compared to IYT`s 13x13 makes the white`s advantage even bigger.
So in this tournament system even the best player needs luck to win a section. For example, I`m not THE best 5-in-line player in the world, but I`d really like my chances against a world champion in a BrainKing 5-in-line tournament. That is, if I got lucky and got white in my game against him.

I agree with Sundance about the S-B being a bit unfair. In the First Official BK tournament, 10 x 10 reversi, both myself and Stromovous have won 5 games each. Yet he will go through to the next round without me because his S-B will work out higher than mine. Would it be so bad to drop the S-B? The later rounds will soon filter out those who may be there more by luck than skill, and it seem much fairer to go through on points (how many games you've won) than by the S-B system.

I will think it over.

How is it unfair? Even though it is just one game against each person, if they beat you they deserve to go on to the next round over you. And if all ties simply by wins were moved to the next round, tournaments in general would last much longer, as more players would go to later rounds. I think the S-B should stay - moving on to the next round should not be based on how many games you win, but also who you win against.

Kevin: Even if they beat you in a game in which the player making the first move always wins if he doesn`t make a mistake?

Kevin, I thought that at first, but then changed my mind. If you look at tournaments theres not many where there are drawn points, and rarely more than two people with the same amount of points. Of course there are a few occasions where there are three people with the same amount of points. But then again there are three people in one tourney with the same S-B! So I really dont think that matters.
What does matter is that people are penalised by the performance of people they win against.
In games like backgammon especially, that really isn't right because a normally good player can have bad dice. No back/nack gammon player has won ALL their games through skill. A certain amount of luck of the dice is involved too.
If you win five games in one section, along with one or two other players then that should be the end of it, you go through to the next round along with the other players.
If you've won those five games against poor players or by timeouts then you'll soon be ousted in the next round.
But the sets are random, you get to play against high rated players, and low rated. You dont get a choice who you play. Someone with a high S-B could have achieved that by luck, and is unfairly going through to the next round leaving behind a better player maybe. No system is perfect, and its very disappointing to win most of your games, the same amount as another person, only to be dropped from the tourney because of a S-B! Especially when theres only one or two S-B points between you and the other player.

sundance: The only way to solve that would be to play 2 games against each opponent, which i would agree with. Even if S-B was eliminated, if they beat you playing first, there's nothing you can do to stop them from winning all their games and winning the section alone.

hrlqns: You're right - no system is perfect. However, in games like backgammon where there is the luck factor, you have a chance of beating anyone, unlike say chess where i'll never beat the top rated players. In fact, the game of backgammon is a lot luck, so everyone who goes to the next round in a backgammon tournament will have some luck. Also, they cannot have a high S-B without winning games. Maybe those games have been won by time-outs, but that's how it works on sites like this. Yes, you're right it's random - you don't choose who you play against. Several times at IYT i have been put in a section with very good players and several times i have been put in sections with quite weak players. But what does that have to do with S-B exactly? :-) And why do you assume players who go on to the next round by time-outs will not go on and win the tournament? :-)

If you played 2 games against each opponent the tourneys would last twice as long!

No, they would not last much longer. If you played one game and then the other when the first one finished, then it would last twice as long. But if they were both started at the same time, they would finish at relatively the same time as well :-)

hrlqns: Not if both games started at the same time, like it is done at IYT.
Kevin: I totally agree: if 2 games, one of each colour, were played it would be fair and S-B points would also be OK.

Well theres a few tournaments where the player has obviously not returned to the site, and timed out on every game. Therefore nobody gets S-B points from them. Which significantly affects the chances of it working fairly to decide who goes to the next round.

And if 2 games were started at the same time for every opponent, that would give everyone double the amount of games to play. How would that work for pawns with a limited amount of slots for games?
I do agree, some games could do with one of each colour being played to make it fair because of the differences in each colour. I just dont see how it could work for players with limited game slots.

Actually, if a player times out in every game in the tournament, every player will get a total of 0 S-B from that player. I would say that's fair :-)
What do you mean it will affect the chances of it working fairly?

If there were the same number of players in the section, pawns and knights would need twice as many open game slots to join the tournament. But think of it this way - what if Fencer introduced tournaments with 2 games against each opponent? People wouldn't complain, even though they would now if it was changed to that. Besides, Fencer said he was going to introduce more formats for tournaments later. I'm not sure how high on his TODO list it is though :-)

Well, if theres 7 players in one section, and two of those timed out on every game, that would leave 5 players.
So you would only have 4 opponents to make up your S-B.
Its similar to the ratings in that the more games you play the more accurate your rating. So it follows that the more people you have as opponents, the more accurate your S-B.
I think people would complain if they suddenly needed 14 empty slots to enter a tournament instead of 7!! Pawns are limited to 20 slots so they would have to have only 6 normal games going to enter a tournament.
There must be another option.

I have never struck SB before, when playing tournaments on other sites. I can see how it will upset people (and perhaps already has) With the current tournament format the rounds will rarely go beyond 3. I would prefer to see players with equal points go into the next round, ir makes for more competition that way. In other tournament formats the SB would be totally uncalled for anyway, not needed in single or double elimination or swiss, and IYT has run round robins very successfully without it. This current format is one I have never seen, I am not sure if it is common in other game types ie: chess, perhaps this will sort itself out when Fencer introduces new tournament types and players can choose their preference?

hrlqns: Ok. Assuming those 2 players timed out in every game, that would leave each and every one of the other remaining 5 players with 4 games to make up the S-B. Each player still has the 4 games. No one has more games then others to get more S-B. Those 2 games that were timed out will award the 5 remaining players with a grand total of 0 S-B. No advantage to anyone.

Also, that is what i said - they would complain now, but if it was originally introduced with 2 games against each opponent, i doubt many of them would complain then. Besides, it isn't a right to be able to play in tournaments for free. The pawns get a lot for free, why do they need more? :-)

If you don't agree with me about the S-B (which you quite obviously don't) that's fine. We are not the ones to make the final decision anyways. I think we have both argued our point, and i will let Fencer decide for himself.

dream: Yes, i have only seen it at one other site, which is littlegolem, so people are not used to it. Even if tournaments never go passed the 3rd round for a while (and i'm sure they will eventually with more people at this site), that doesn't make it just to advance everyone who has won the same number of games, especially with time-outs (if a player doesn't time out against everyone). I am not saying tournaments will not work without S-B, but i'm saying the winner will more often be deserved this way.

I'm not saying it would give anyone an advantage, just maybe not a true S-B.
I'm quite happy to agree to disagree! We have different opinions, no big deal :o)

Kevin: Sorry I don't agree but have to say this.
I think its wise to look towards the sites with the most success and emulate their good points, especially for a new site with quite a bit of competition out there for membership money.
The most successful tournament systems I have seen is Cases leagues (which offers a variety of formats and is used by most of the online gaming sites for all games) and IYT neither of them use S-B, both have over 1,000,000 members.
If players don't like something then they won't support it in the long term. And it is finding what makes people the happiest which brings in the money. :-)

That's ok if you don't agree with me...everyone can have their opinions. But we can argue and argue here all we want and neither of us get anywhere, so i'm not going to argue about this any more - i have voiced my opinion, and will leave it at that :-)
We will see what Fencer decides (and i image a very difficult decision!)

I personally would like to see the old fashioned double elimination style tournament tried here. One-on-One, with random draws. With all the matches being played at once i would think it would shorten the length of a tournament significantly. With 5-in-Line being the only game here (far as i know) where the draw of color can be an advantage, youd have to make it a race to 3 match or something like that. All other games could be one game matches. Win, and move on, lose and go to the losers bracket for a second chance.

Hmm...there's actually a few games where colour is a big difference! Horde Chess is a big white advantage, Maharajah is a big black advantage, Tablut seems to be a white advantage, and Spider Line4 is a relatively small white advantage. (that's all i can think of right now).

However, Fencer did mention implementing more tournament formats later. Be patient...he has a lot to do :-)

Atomic chess probably has an advantage for white. I prefer the swiss system with 2 game matches myself.

I love the new game. How can we get some tournaments started with that game?

Tournament started! A week to sign up, have fun!

rabbit's blitz tournament available, with a timeout of one day.
this is well suited to people who have limited tournament participation: not to get stuck in rounds which never end
need some more signups to make it interresting.

Sorry if players tried to sign up for this tourny. It's up again,and anyone can enter.

I have created my second Spider Line4 tournament. You will be able to sign up until the end of Febryary. 3 day time limit. Good luck to everyone :-)

Is open to the first 16 players... Sign up now and try to be the Ultimate Survivor!