Not sure what you want...Options are:

1. You can rename my files to "fit" in your existing sets. I tried to maintain consistent filenames based on the samples from the settings page.

2. You can Send me the complete sets and I will modify with my images and send them back to you (PM me for my email address).

3. Just hold on to them till you get more time.

4. You don't don't have to use them at all. Obviously.



Just trying to help in anyway possible. I just don't want to be distracting you from more important matters...

The set must be consistent. I don't want to mix different graphics.

I didn't do them. Mostly people just didn't like the "Pawn" for the checker pieces. I didn't hear anyone complain too loudly about the King/Queen.

I don't see pictures for kings and queens. Or did I miss something?

Sorry, I've missed the link. Thank you.

The download has all of the required pictures for both black and white. The only pictures it doesn't include are the ones I didn't modify.

No problem to use both sets.
Can you make all requires pictures? I really have no time to make any modifications myself.

Here are some pieces. Feel free to download/modify to suit your needs.

Checker/amazons

BBW I think if you make the circle vector based instead of pixel based it will eliminate that choppy line on yer circle..

Plus just added the "BrainKing" Checker Version - H E R E

If you are looking for "simple", I put together 4 markers (90x90 - which could be shrunk for the other sizes) at:

Here

But I'm not a big checker person, so I'm not sure exactly what would be wanted. Took a look at IYT, and they have 22 different checker markers to choose from (that includes different type of markers and different sizes)

... plus it's not to difficult to put a symble for "parachute", and "queen", or something else if needed.

sounds like a good alternate plan
otherwise, maybe as a screen background instead of the brain ?
LOL

I would have thought the profile would be most logical though

On his bedroom wall I reckon

Where would you want to display these pics?

Can some select people, lets say 10, have bigger pics, lets say 250 x 200
We could all vote on the ones we would like to see bigger.

I would like to vote for ScarletRose Please. She is worthy of a bigger pic :)

Thanks, I went to the settings page and downloaded the orginal images...It will take me a day

35x35, 50x50, 65x65, 90x90. A little bit smaller to make them look nice inside the squares.

Give me the dimensions of the images you want (checkers and amazons) and I will give you some samples to use/modify as you wish.

Good point, i hadn't thought of that. I am not the expert at making images, nor do I play that much checkers, so I don't mind too much if they stay as they are.

I would have thought that our membership fees covered the cost of making images of the pieces?

It's one minute to change. But it's a lot of more time to make really nice looking markers for all kinds of pieces (pawn, king, queen, parachutist). Will you make them? It four sizes? Not just black, white and red circles, of course.

Hear hear. Pawns is silly, should use circular markers of some sort. Surely just a case of changing the images? I can't believe it's more than a few minutes to change?

I have requested this for over a year and have had the same complaints from other players and that is in checker games do not use chess markers I cannot see the reason or problem in this so if there is someone who can rectify this problem you will make a lot of players happier.

Could be a matter of updating, Fencer only recently told the machines to recognise inability to move as a loss.

Fencer,

I have a game of tablut that should be over - by the "cant make a legal move" option. But it's still around. I have also seen another game that has the same issue. Is this a bug?

my game:
http://brainking.com/game/ShowGame?g=382407

Songbird's game:
http://brainking.com/game/ShowGame?g=370514

thanks
friendjosh

Regardless of the corruption, recent world championships have been a set number of games. Typically 24 games or something like that. If the match ends 12-12 extra games (in pairs) are played to determine the winner.

In this case 4 game matches would be a good option. If 2-2 keep playing pairs until a winner is found.

Once again, since some people disagree I suggest it be an option that the tournament organizer can choose, just as when setting up a friendly match.

In November 1911, Capablanca challenged the World champion Lasker. Lasker replied with 17 conditions. Some of these conditions were that the match should be for the 1st player to win six games, draws not counting, and to consist of no more than 30 games in total.
================================================

This one is from a different site. It looks like the tournament debate has been going on for 90 years!

==============================================
The World Chess Federation (FIDE) was founded in 1924. When the reigning World Champion Alexandre Alekhine died in 1946, FIDE took over the function of organizing World Championship matches. Before that time, sitting champions had been somewhat capricious in determining against whom and on what terms they would accept a challenge match. FIDE also assumed the role of awarding the titles Grandmaster and International Master, as well as eventually assigning numerical ratings to players.

In 1993, in the middle of a cycle of matches to determine the World Champion, Garry Kasparov and Nigel Short broke with FIDE to organize their own match for the title. They complained of corruption and a lack of professionalism within FIDE, and formed a competing Professional Chess Association. Since then there have been two simultaneous World Champions and World Championships: one extending the Steinitzian lineage in which the current champion plays a challenger in match format (a series of many games); the other following FIDE's new format of a tennis-style elimination--or "Knockout"--tournament with dozens of players competing.
===========================================

If that's the state of it nowadays, I'd say it would be best to leave it to the creator or organizer of the games or tournaments. Sounds like ol' FIDE is still messed up. Maybe that's why I stopped playing Chess 30 years ago. I'll get the links:
http://www.chess-poster.com/great_players/capablanca.htm
http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/c/ch/chess_1.html
There's lots more, but it looks like a history lesson that's still ongoing. I used Google with these words typed in to search.
"six game match" chess tournament
They also talk about IBM's Deep Blue program which also had a six game match involving Kasparov. Though they only played six games, draws counting.
Sounds like both methods work.

An additional option would be a good compromise.

I remember a Chess tournament with Kasparov or the other guy. They played it first one to get 6 wins, drawn games not counting. Chess about 25, 30 years ago was becoming nothing but a bunch of drawn games. I remember them talking about changing the rules to stop it from happening as much. The rules didn't get changed because it was feared that it would change the game to much. Or maybe some ohter reason. One of the proposed rules was to make a stalemate a win. I can't remember any of the others proposed. Perhaps they had to do with time or not allowing draws at all. In any case they didn't change the rules and the draw debate continues still. It seems like the six wins match game took about 24 games. I'm getting curious now, perhaps I'll look for it on the internet and when it happened. Does anybody remember it?

I would not change it Fencer, or if you do make it so the creator of the game has control over it. You can also put a cap on the number of draws and then have them start to count.

If not, I will change it.

About 3 wins/points match in tournaments - well, it's not a bad idea. Does anybody know a reason why the system should remain the same and not to be changed to 3 points match?

Yes, it's a bug.

Would it be possible, that when you come back to a battleboats game (all versions) that your previous shots, and your opponent's last shots be still highlighted? (At least until you take your first shot of your new turn)... I know I can scroll down and look at the move list, but it would just be so much easier, if I could see at a glance what he/she did their last turn, and a reminder for me also.. It seems to me, other games show you right up front on the board what your opponent's last move was..

It would be helpful for lazy peoople like me..
:-)

No, all games work the same.

In an N-win match, only wins and losses are counted - the first to win N games wins the match.

In an N-point match, wins are counted as 1.0 while draws are counted as 0.5 for each player, so two draws is considered the same as a win.

Therefore, it is possible for an N-point match to be a draw overall, while an N-win match can never be a draw.

so it seems that different games work differently. So I repeat: Leave it to the tournament creator.

I have played my share of wins style matches and if there is a draw like in reversi where you have the same number of squares at the end. The game ends and no points are rewarded. It is treated as a nongame though the result of the game is shown. In points or #of games match draws are given .5 points toward the final score of the match.

lol. Ok, let's stop confusing everyone. :)

Are you talking to me?
orry, I wrote that before you edited yours :)

i didn't understand that comment. in the group rounds draws count as 0.5 wins. In any competition in the world a draw counts the same.

Did you mean that's the way it is now? That's what I said.

Except for on brainking when you are not playing for points but for wins...

I think the problem is that in chess such a match is never played. Draws always count 0.5 point in any match.

Except on this site.

So the best solution in my mind is to have tournaments end in a points match, not a wins match.

At least let the tournament creator decide. Does this count as a feature request?
:)

You couldnt win a 3 point match with 6 draws...

But I think Stevie is correct.

Zero points would be correct in a 3 wins match for a draw, since they would not count towards a win.

In a persons profile, we use to be able to sort their complete games by "Event", "Opponent", etc.... Any chance of getting that option back?

draws would count if its a 3 points match, not 3 wins

Well I originally thought that draws don't really count since it is not a win, (3-win match, not 6-draw match) but then again - why does it report the score as 0.0 if a draw would not be worth .5

Guess I'll wait to see what Fencer has to say about that.

So do draws count as a half game, or a non game?

I always took a 3-win match as you keep playing until someone gets 3 wins. If you keep getting draws, then you keep playing - since no one had has 3 wins.

Isn't a 3 wins match the same as a best of 5 series?

If you look at:

Summary Page

You can see in the crosstables for the preliminary sections, the draws "filled in" with 1/2 point scores.

At the 3-wins match level of the finalists, the draw score still show "0.0" in the tally.

Two draws should equal 1.0.

3-wins match, or a 3-game match?

If a player wins the first 2 games of a 3-wins match, then the other player cannot win the match. Does the 3rd game need to be played then? If not, is it possible to have the Match Manager not start the 3rd game?