IMCK - I swear you just like to cause trouble and don't read a darn thing! (Same old IMCK)

You are the only one here thinking I don't want to be listed for some privacy issue. If that was the reason, I would be the first to post it!

What 'good' does it do anybody to have a list of players by who made the most moves in a day? Why not have some sort of agreed apon rating (whatever calculations it turns out to be) that rates players by how 'fast' they move?

The only 'downside' I can see is that players like BBW do not want to be listed with a speed of play rating, for whatever 'privacy' issues they have.

I understand what you are all saying, but it is still my opinion to solve the problem of playing slow players is to play in faster games. To solve the problem of "unforseen problems", an "emergincy vacation" would solve that.

A suggestion which I'm surprised has not happen before - Why not make a fellowship dedicated to "fast players" - you could have your own tournaments, and invite only the fast players you know of. NOTE: I would strongly discourage it becoming a place to be anti-slow players (listing slow players, etc..), and a pro-fast players - list fast players and such.

Exactly!!!!!!

Its BOTH BBW...

We don't want to play slow players, so we play low time limit games, but we dont want to play one, two or three day limits too often, because of unforeseen problems.

The solution is for two 'fast' players to play each other, but use a longer time limit game. I play many people who I know polay often. I don't mind playing them a 7 day game, as often we will finish several games in one sitting anyway. But if it was someone I am not familiar with, a 7 day game could drag out for months.

Both! As it is, if something happens I would just time out and no extra time would be given. The less time from 7 days given, the less response you get in waiting games and tournaments due to similar caution by other players, not because most players only like 1 move per week. Already I am thinking of doing a little research before accepting games or tournaments. In 5-10 minutes I could get an idea about an opponent, of course software could calculate many players in seconds!

I think not wanting to play slow players is the biggest issue. Some unknown circumstance that forces a timeout is not that likely.

My biggest problem is with tournaments that finish except for one player. Then it sits stagnant for ages waiting for that player to finish the games. Tournaments are fun when they move quickly and you can maintain the context, and eventually get a winner.

On tournaments, can I suggest a 6 games match at the end instead of 3 wins. 3 wins can last forever with a game that draws a lot.

So what is the problem again? Is the true problem is that you don't want to play slow players? Or is the problem still that you don't want to play fast games because you might time out because of unforseen events?

As a rook, you already get 30 vacation days - that 1 month! (Add weekends, you already could stay away for about 2 months without playing a game)

If you trully have an emergancy that you may time out on a game, then 1 vacation day probable would not matter to you that much.

Also, possible make it an option where it will not take automatic vacation days for you in case a person does want to time out.

... And if it is something you think you might do often, then I would suggest that you are already playing games with too little time limit, and you should play some with longer time limits.

Exactly!!!!!

Plus isn't it more fruitful to simply avoid certain players before you begin a game with them, then to play games with these people and setting up safegaurds in hind sight to protect yourself?

What if it was seperate from vacation time? What if it was "emergency" time and everyone got 7 days per year? If you encountered unforseen circumstances and used up your time, then you would have to settle for longer limits for the remainder of the year, or risk timing out. As it is, it seems few people accept games with 2 day time limits.

it wouldn't work because the timeout is supposed to be part of the game. If you can't move in 3 days tough luck, start another game.

Another reason: Many players that time out are playing 800 games or so and probably don't care about one or two timeouts and don't want to burn vacation on them.

It's not that I'm against it, but I just think there are easier ways to solve the given problem then to start calculated every users moves and time limits on a server which can barly keep up with what is on it.

The Given problem: "Fast" users don't like players "slow" users. "Fast" users do not want to pick low-time limit games (like 1 day per move, or 2 days per move) in case something happens, and they are not able to play.

Solution: I believe it would just be so much easier to impliment something like auto-vacation day if a time limit is near, then to do all the extra calculations. (I still have not heard that this solution would not work from anyone.)

I disagree. I can't think of an unforeseen circumstance that would keep me out for more than 3 days. On the other hand maybe that's what unforeseen means. Oh well, in cases like that who cares about games.

By the way BBW, I think that time taken to move would be the right stat when taken over a long period of time. Your 12:00 scenario is hardly going to happen all the time, we log in at various times.

I think appeal for the vacation time idea would depend on how much vacation time one had. But it's certainly not a bad idea, as long as I don't run out of vacation time before I actually take my vacation!

Why couldn't it be done in percentages? Ie BBW plays 20 % of his backgammon games on a daily basis on average, or IMupChucKing plays 98% of his checkers games per day on average.

When I play on line poker, there are often several hundred tables playing from which to choose. Before I decide which table to join, I can see the calculated average delay between plays on any given table. This helps indicate what kind of players are at a particular table. If I want to play more expert players, I will choose a table that has a low time per move average, meaning that the players are paying more attention and less likely lally gagging.

All we are saying is some sort of system to help determine like minded players as yourself, would be helpful, and save much aggrivation.

I sense that you are against that, BBW, because of your anti spying stance?

Rogue - What do you think about the automatic vacation to solve the problem that you have?

Also, I know for myself, and possible others - when my opponents are on-line, I'll sometimes play many many moves in just a few of my games while they are on-line, while not moving in others. Things like that would also give your "false" stats since it could easly look like I move (1 move per day), where in fact I move (many moves per day in a few games), and a lot longer in others.

Anyway, with the problem you said you have - I believe automatic vacations would solve it.

If a player makes 100 moves per day in a particular game when its their turn to move in 200 games, they average 1 move per game, per game type, every 2 days. The player with 5 moves in 5 games averages 1 move per day. That tells me something. Especially if they are playing at a rate of "days per move" rather than "moves per day"!

I just don't think many systems would work.

For example, like grenv said - You may make 100 moves a day, but if you have 200 games, that is not a lot. Then again, you may only make 5 moves per day - and if you only have 5 games, well then that is a lot. But the stats would not show it that way.

Time taken to make a move - that could easly be thrown off also. Lets say I come, move in all my games every day at 12:00. Lets say 90% of my opponenets make their moves at 12:01. Well then it may look like I take a lot of time to move.

I think beter suggestion would be to get a vacation system up that will automaticly put you on vacation if you are about to time out. (Limit a week of automatic vacation at a time). That way, for when Rogue or others put extra days as "just in case time - but not really want to move in that time frame", then they could start playing games at the time frame that they want, plus still have the security there for "unforseen circumstances".

Trying to come up with a system to figure out how fast/slow a player plays would never be accurate, and too much trouble to mess with... in my opinion! :-)

Of course "moves per day" would not tell you much. But "moves per day, per game, per game type when it's their turn to move" would tell you alot. If it was averaged over a 3 month period you would get a fairly good idea of their tendencies. Thus, if someone averages one move every 5 days for the game we want to play I can take a pass instead of getting stuck with a game lasting many months which suits only one of the players just fine.

Excellent point LIon....
I would like to know when BBW says he would not like to see it, if he is against it, or just isn't requesting it?

I think the suggestion to track "Time taken to make a move" is better, if possible.

Moves per day may be 100, but if you're playing 700 games it still takes a week to get to a particular game.

I put 7 days per move as a buffer in case of unforseen circumstances, not because I only want to move once a week! Some indication of move habits would save many of us alot of frustration.

I would not like to see a "moves per day per game per game type", since no matter how it is set up, the information would not be very helpful. I think the best system is make it so you can choose the time limit on each game, and play games with lower/higher time limits based on what your schedule will allow.

Thanks Fencer... (p.s. Any thoughts on the idea for a "moves per day per game per game type"?)

Server would have more to do because of using custom filters. But some of this is already implemented in 2.0.

No, not that. I would like to select the games I'm interested in so when I go to tournaments I don't have to sift through the ones that don't offer the games I play. Same with waiting games. Same with fellowships. Areas that are not games specific could be tailored as well. Server would have less to do. *Bonus*

I'm not sure if I fully understand. Do you want an option to turn off the information on the right status column?

Maybe this is planned for 2.0, but it would be very nice to be able to customize the site with expanded "settings". Select game(s), discussion board(s), fellowship(s) of interest and all else goes away. The site is cleaner, easier to utilize, and server is not used to generate tons of unwanted info. Of course, one click would show all that is hidden. Another click would hide it again.

Of course not. Nobody will be forced to join ladders.

Will this ladder system be compulsory? Pardon my ignorance but ladders are are a new thing to me.

OK, I took all the examples of "ladders" from the different sources, and came up with a plan for BrainKing which I think would work great - taking some of the best from each system, mixing them all together, and making something that BrainKing can call it's own. And the name of this is:

BrainKing Stairs

Here are the details of the BrainKing Stairs (Still a work in progress):
===========================

* Step 1 - Lowest step (rung) - everyone starts at Step 1

* Multiply players can be on the same step

* You are allowed up to 2 games at a time
--- 1 game where you challenge
--- 1 game where someone challenges you

* You can ONLY challenge someone on the same step or within 3 lower as you. (And has not already accepted a challenge from someone else.) Since some better players will be at a higher step then everyone else, they are also allowed to challenge within 3 steps of themselves. (so if they are on step 6, they can challenge anyone from step 6, 5, 4, and 3 only.)

* You can not play the same person for at least 10 days has passed.

* If you win, you move up 1 step

* If you lose, you move down 1 step

* If you draw, you stay of the same step

--- NOTE: Since up to 2 games can be played at the same time, it is possible to end up playing with someone on a different step. The same win/lose rules apply - You move up 1 step for a win, move down 1 step for a lose. (Does not matter if the other person is multiply steps away from you once the game is complete)

* Since it is possible that some people will make it up to a very high step with possible many empty steps in between players, once a month a process will run to “remove” steps which have no players. So if someone is on step 8, and step 7 is empty. Step 7 will be “removed”, and the players on step 8 will now be on step 7.


===========================
BrainKing Rules:

* All games are 3 day games. (If enough interest, at a later date make different BK stairs for faster/slower players?)

* All games are 2 point matches (one of each color)

* Pawns are allowed to enter only 1 BK Stair. (2 games DO count towards the 20 game limit.)

* Knights are allowed to enter 7 BK Stairs. (Games DO count towards the total game limit.)

* Rooks are allowed to enter unlimited BK Stairs.

===========================
Retirement Rules:

* Sometimes you want to take a break from games, and you don't want to start back at the bottom step. This is where Retirement can be used.

* You can "retire" from the stairs.

* When you retire, you still have to finish any current games (win/lose still count)

* Your step position will be HIDDEN from public view.

* You must stay retired for AT LEAST 1 WEEK

* You may come out of retirement and resume the same step on the stairs as when you left. Once you come back, you will not be able to retire again for at least another week.

* If you membership lowers, you will automatically be put into retirement on some ladders to get you down to your limit. You will still be able to finish any current games, and your step value will be kept hidden in case you renew your membership, where you will be able to start where you left off from.

* Possible make an option to complete quit a ladder also, but if they were to ever rejoin, they will have to start at step 1 again.

= = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = =

OK, that is all for now - my 1st draft of the BK Stairs. Please feel free to give me any comments/suggestions either here, or in my private message box.
… My 2nd draft was done October 2005 when I updated and changed a couple of things.

ummm ugh, don't you have like a 4500 rating at tablut :)

My quick calculation gives you 63% success with white and 56% success with black at tablut, a 7% difference but I make you favourite with either colour.

LOL, o.k. let's play! :-)

And I think the lower rated player should have an advantage. Like in chess the higher rated player on gets 1 rook and 1 knight, no pawns or queens..:)

j/k

One-game matches would be unfair in checkers also.

I agree...

Fencer, I agree with that. In some games (Tablut for instance), which side you are on makes a huge difference.
RL, the system we use in the CC is fine for the small number of people we have, however, as seen at IYT, that systems isn't too good for large numbers of people.

Just what we do in the context of a small group with chess being the only game. A little food for thought.

It should be a rung system with 2-point matches. One game matches would be unfair in unbalanced games like Five in Line etc.

I still think the rung system is better than the ranked ladder system (i.e. the one we use in the chess club). Mabye we could fire up the poll link and see what all the members think?

Here is the ladder system as it appears in our fellowship:

01. Players may challenge any one of the 3 players directly above their current position.
02. The challenge must be registered on the club notice board before play commences.
03. A player must accept a challenge unless he/she is already playing another challenger.
04. A player may only issue one challenge at a time.
05. Challenges are a 2 point match, challenger starting with white and then colours alternating.
06. The games must be counted and rated and have 3 day move timeout.
07. A challenge is over once one player has two points. (1 point win ½ point draw).
08. The result is to be posted on the club notice board to allow table to be updated.
09. If the challenger wins he/she advances 1 "rung" above the losing player.
10. If the challenger loses he/she drops 1 "rung" below their current position.
11. Ties result in no changes to the current ladder positions.
12. The challenger may not challenge the same player twice in a row for a period of one month.
13. New members start at the bottom of the ladder.

The following are changes that may better suit a large number of participants:

01. Players may challenge any one of the 20 players directly above their current position.
02. N/A
03. A player must accept a challenge unless he/she is already playing 2 challengers .
04. A player may have no more than 2 challenges running concurrently.
05. Challenges are a normal game, visible to the public . Challenger has the white pieces.
06. The games must be counted and rated and have 3 day move timeout.
07. N/A
08. N/A
09. If the challenger wins he/she advances 1 "rung" above the losing player.
10. If the challenger loses he/she drops 1 "rung" below their current position.
11. Ties result in no changes to the current ladder positions.
12. The challenger may not challenge the same player twice in a row. period.
13. New members start at the bottom of the ladder.

Rogue - For us not in the Chess Club, could you share how the ladder's work for you?

grenv : I agree with that too!

Fencer : At The Chess Club fellowship we have a ladder system that has been refined by the members. It is in the News Archives and may have ideas you would be interested in, many of which have been expressed here.

it's not just challenging down, it's winning against someone lower when they challenge you.

I agree that challenges should not be allowed downward. That makes no sense. However, I would not like to be obligated to more than a couple games in any ladder system (I'm sure most pawns would agree). If there was a tight limit, say 3 days, things would move quick enough IMHO.

How about this?

Only one challenge is allowed at a time, but you must accept up to 4 challenges from others.

No moving up unless you beat someone ranked higher than you.

What sucks about iyt is moving up when you beat someone below you. That just means that those that play quickly and often will rise to the top, rather than those that play well.

For example if you're number 2 and you beat number 100, is it justified that you move up to number 1? I think not!