Do you miss something on BrainKing.com and would you like to see it here? Post your request into this board! If there is a more specific board for the request, (i.e. game rule changes etc) then it should be posted and discussed on that specific board.
Zoznam diskusných klubov
Nie je vám dovolené písať správy do tohto klubu. Minimálna úroveň členstva vyžadovaná na písanie v tomto klube je Brain jazdec.
I know that if a tournament has 5 people (meaning 4 games for each person) - and a pawn has 16 games (4 free game slots) - that tournament WILL NOT start.
My question is about the 2-games per person rule & pawns. Lets say the tournament has 5 players again, this time 8 games for each person. Do a pawn have to have 8 free game slots, or 9?
Normally I would say 8, but since there is the above bug - I'm not sure how that will work in this situation.
My thoughts on the "only able to use in next turn rule" were based upon trying to give some evenness and to make this variant significantly different to say Loop Chess. I believe my previous suggestion will require more immediate strategic thought (which, I think, is usually termed "tactics"), rather than being able to store up pieces for a rainy day which is then very like the aforementioned Loop Chess.
Whisperz: It sounds like you've got some good solutions there!
I was thinking that instead of making it optional for a player to place their returned piece, it could be an automatic reflex.
Example: The king is Imposterized, the piece is returned to its owner for immediate placing on the sqaure that is chosen by the opponent.
OR it could be made optional to place the piece immediately after it is Imposterized, and perhaps it could be sent to an "Extra Pieces" pile where the Imposterized pieces could be kept until such time they are used. Like having a secret attack plan!
Now we have a new debate, should the "Piece Return" rule be optional to the player OR automatic?
Okay ... returning the piece to the opposition when used ... there are a couple of rules which need to be defined and they might read:
1. When an opponent's piece is captured (excluding pawns) it is kept by the captor for possible later use in accordance with rule 2. [Explanation: the King can already move as paawn so keeping them is of no value.]
2. A King may escape from check by taking on the movement (imposting) of a captured opponent's piece so long as the move lands the King on a square which is not in check and the King does not pass through any squares on the way which are under threat. On the next move, as their move, the opponent may place the piece imposted in the previous move anywhere on the board except a sqaure which would place the King in check. If the piece is not placed, but another piece is moved instead, the piece remains with the player for later imposting again. [Explanation: There is a heavy penalty for escaping from check by imposting a piece, the opponent gets the opportunity to return it to their ranks, however, this opportunity must be exercised immediately otherwise it is lost. A situation may arise where it is not prudent to replace the piece on the board as this may give the player a "free" move to exercise their own checking manouvers while not being hounded by continuous checking.]
Probably needs a little more tidying up but I think this gives a fair balance and introduces some interesting strategic possibilites.
how about somewhere to save some of our mails , out of our message box , i save some of my mail to check on things as they finnish ect , could we have an option to save these mails to a saved area in our mailbox
I know this has been said before, and I believe Fencer was going to work on it (or at least think about it).
It would be nice when you "close a tournament", that is will start right away (without the extra step of starting it).
I was just looking through my tournaments, and noticed that there was a backgammon tournament that I closed, but never started! I'm not sure how long it has been sitting there (It is my "Fast Start Backgammon #72" - and I'm up to #83 now!)
Anyway, I'm guessing I was trying to start it when the server was overloaded, so I only got half of it done.
Just thought I would post a quick message about it! :-)
I'd like to see the symbols on my list of games to be played by the opponents names,like pawn,rook,knight,king,maharajah to see at a glance what my opponents are.You can tell what they are once you open the game,but it would be nice to see them all at once.Thanks
Whisperz: As Co-Exec of Imposter Chess I ask you for your help in supplying me with ideas for what in your opinion would be the best solution.
There has been a loop-hole discovered in your previous plan to return the piece to the board, where to place it?
So far, Fencer suggested a different approach to the problem of a player using the same captured piece on their King. Instead of returning the piece to its owner, it simply dissapears.
There's obviously a debate here, I'm now awaiting a top-notch version of this rule before I add anything more to the File. Got any ideas?
The new rule of when you look at a person's profile, you now have to click on "Show unfinished games" - almost messed me up!
I was checking pawn that had signed up for my "first 5" tournaments and WOW - they all did not have any games going! (until I looked closer and now have an extra step to see if they have any other unfinished games)
Is there a way to put something like this in a person's profile:
Number of unfinished games: 14
It would make it easier to check if pawns have enough room to play in tournaments or not. :-)
fencer ,
has anyone ever asked for a differnt main page before?
if so forget this idea
what im thinking is where we have one long list of games now both tournaments and normal games ,could there be two separate lists one for tournaments then one below for normal games , maybe its something you have already thought about for when you get the new server ;))
From the chair of the co-exec to Grenv (but to be ratified by the inventor) ...
1. We will need to think about this one. Initial thoughts are that the King can impost another piece to get out of check so long as the King leaves the checked square and lands on an unchecked square without crossing another square which is also checked, a little like not being able to castle. Knight moves may be made with only the landing square required to be not checked.
2. No, as the pawn double square move is the first move that a pawn makes, for the King to get to the second ran he must already have moved.
3. No, as the impost move is only to get out of check not for placing a check.
Some questions about this variant:
1. If you can make this switch in check, then I would think it could be used to escape checkmate as well, thus changing the definition of checkmate.
2. If the king is on the second rank can he move 2 squares forward if an enemy pawn has been captured?
3. If the kings are a knights move away from each other and both players have lost a knoght, does that mean that check is impossible, since the checked king could move like a knight and capture the enemy king?
I had another look at chessvariants.com and it has some pretty strict rules for new contributors. For instance, the rule that the Inventor or the friend of the Inventorcannot submit new Chess Variants to them. And that one saying the game must be around for at least a year is a real monkey-deal as well -- though I understand their reasons.
I guess me and my Co-Exec will just have to find another way for Imposter Chess to take flight. Perhaps Fencer could consider adding it on BK in the future? Of course we would make sure to have all the proper rules in place before it got that far -- but it's a nice dream.
How about, if a player uses a piece to escape check then the piece is returned to its original owner for placement at their very next turn as that turn, otherwise the imposting King can keep the piece and use it again?
So if you capture the queen and a knight, it would probably be almost impossible to checkmate - that would allow it to move like a maharajah - and it's hard enough to checkmate a maharajah by itself, let alone with the rest of the chess set-up there! :-)
"Once the king has moved as that piece to get out of check, can that same piece be used to get out of check again, or would they have to have another knight (or whatever piece it was)?"
The answer is yes, that captured piece could be used to Imposterize your King again.
As expected, this would make it very difficult for your opponent to Checkmate you! Of course there still could be some things to work out. I'm always open to suggestions for this new game idea, so feel free to speak your mind :·)
"Also, i'm assuming the king could only move like this when in check?"
Not bad, but I'd rather have the engineer work on fixing the rules rather than give the users a manual fix.
Fencer, what's the scope of work for fixing backgammon? All you need to do is test all the possible moves to see if a 2 move option is available, and if not if a move involving the larger of the two dice.
pictures: Why not let users link to pictures that are hosted elsewhere - then it does not take any server space?
.... and possible a paid member only option. (If you open it to pawn, you will probable start to get many unappropriate pictures - which you may get some from members, but not as many as you would by pawns.)
There has been some discussion in the BrainKing DB about the rules of Backgammon. There may come a time when someone who is not aware of the correct rules wishes to, in fairness to and in agreement with their opponent, retract an incorrect move and play something differemt. The same may occur in other games, although I haven't seen any such discussion.
Or another scenario is when friends (chess purists block your ears or close your eyes) play they may, by mutual consent, agree to one player playing differently.
I think you get my drift ... an undo move would be good.
You're quite right, Caissas. Paul is the owner of the yahoo group, and he's done a great job but there are still not as many pics there as we'd like. Hopefully it will build, theres new pics going there all the time, most are 'real' and a few are just for fun.
I agree it would be better to have pictures here on our profiles, but as an alternative the yahoo group is open for everyone.
Thx harley, I have been joined in the yahoogroup, but I find it better here in BK.In the yahoogroup are only a few members and some pics are only nonsense, they should be deleted.And the playing here could be lesser anonymous.
Not a bad idea, CaissasDream! You are fortunate to be blessed with good looks. However our maker saw fit (probably for a bet) to give me a face like a smacked bulldog's bum.
I suspect there are others like me. *looks over nervously at Kevin*
Of course Kevin isn't one of those unfortunate to languish with anguish in the latter category I'm sure.
It could prove beneficial for me though. It could throw my opponents off their game and I could nip in and clinch victory while they're groping for the bucket (which, like coffee, would become a pre-requisite for gaming on brainking).