Can I suggest a “fast player index”: which would work as follows: (Please read “he or she” for all of the occurrences of “he”)

Every time a player makes a move where his total number of games waiting to move is less than 10% of his total games gets a “fast player” point.

For example, somebody with 1000 concurrent games would get a “fast player point” every time he moved when he had less than 100 games waiting for his move – potentially 100 points if he reduced his backlog of games to zero in the course of a day.

A player who has 50 concurrent games, who plays a move in each of them every day would receive 10 “fast player points” – plus additional points if he makes additional moves in some of the games during the 24-hour monitoring period.

I would suggest that “fast player points” be accumulated for (say) a month – so that only those points earned in the previous month are actually credited to the player’s “fast player” index. This would ensure that somebody who, for whatever reason, cannot maintain “fast player” status.

The “fast player index” could then be used as a criterion for tournament entry, game invitations, and so on. It should be available to review in a player’s profile,

This would not disadvantage players who like to play slower and more relaxed games, but would be of great benefit to players who like to finish games (and tournaments) within a few days or weeks of their starting,

mctrivia: True that normal time control and fisher clock can not be compaired, but maybe one can add something without changing Fishers clock. The normal timecontrol itself would not even change, only the voluntary criteria to join these tournaments and single waiting games with opponents who have somehow similar rythms of moving in games.

Hrqls: here is the problem with average waiting time. There are some players on here that play over 1000 games that are very fast players. You can play a fisher clock game with them and have it done within an hour. But if you have a long time restriction your game goes to the end of there list so they don't play you as often. Such a person would show as a long average time were the oponent is waiting but any time you want to have a quick game they are perfectly capable of doing it.

Hrqls: This is what I suggested first, you put that in much better words.

gogul: i am a fast player (or at least not slow) in some type of games, but i am slower in other types

a way to determine speed of play would be to take the average time a game, after your opponent has moved, has to wait before you move

of course another reason (and probably more important than the timezone difference) for the wait is my sleeping time
(or any other reason why i am not online) .. this reason should be taken into account in the speed of play stat for sure
suppose i sleep 8 hours, work 9 hours (and cant play at work), take shower, dress, have dinner, etc. for another 3 hours, travel to and from work for 1 hour, then i have 3 hours left to play .. i might be a fast player then and move within the minute .. but i might still not be able to make all my moves as i 'only' have 3 hours

the reason for me to make little moves (although i might be fast) is just because of occupations in real life .. but its not of importance to your opponent why you are not there .. its important that you are not there

take the average waiting time for game while its your turn and you will have a decent speed-of-play-stat i think

mctrivia: Problem is that 1 day limit means that some players will play exactly one move each day. This can drag on in itself, especially if most of the tournament is finished in a week, but one player keeps playing for months (which can easily happen if you play only one move a day).

I guess fischer clock set to about a week, with no extra time added, could suffice, as long as there are no vacations as well.

gogul: Only thing I can't answer is if the pool of 'veryfast' players would be big enough for organizing tournaments, maybe the veryfast category should already be the ones who answer all their games once a day in average.

Every new feature deserves a feature request. So, how about a link on the BugTracker to "Show my bugs". That way I wouldn't have to go through all the bugs to find one of mine so I can use "Show all bugs from this user".

Nice additions in the BugTracker, by the way

AbigailII: you could think about categories instead of a rating, like normal, fast, very fast.
Fast would be one move a day (in average), very fast more than one move a day. Even living in a timezone of central China you could reach the veryfast category. I'm sure some really can join BK for a short quarter hour dayly only, I don't blame busy people for not making their moves here, in that case of course you wont reach a fast category. But someone who is here one or two hours almost dayly can easily reach the 'veryfast' category. How? You answer all your games once a day (makes you a fast player), now you have to hope that only one opponent moves back in the same session and answer that back too. From a certain amount of games (I guess 60, but certainly with 300) you'll be sure that this happens, in every timezone you can do this. And once you singed up for a tournament the system doesn't boot you, like you sing in for a tournament for players above 2000 but when it starts you might be below, that doesn't matter.

gogul: Ok, if you believe a fair stat is possible, I like to see how you would do it.

And I'm very curious why you believe it doesn't matter for the number of moves you can make per day/per game whether you're in the same time-zone as your opponent or 9 hours ahead.

AbigailII: It's not a question to bann people from tournaments. You don't ban people from a tournament if you set for BRK higher or lower than something, do you? You set. And a stat which would allow a setting like time move is not thought-out yet, such a stat could be made fair and avoid many wrong conclusions made today (I don't complain). It would allow people who play more than one or two moves a day in average to play tournaments together but can't sing in in one day tournaments who knows why, because you're off the weekend or something. Playing fast has nothing to do with the timezone you live in I believe.

AbigailII: I agrea. Most players here are not specifically fast or slow. Most will play within the time limits no mater how long or short they are. Set a time limit of a move a week and expect to see 1 move per week. Set a time limit of 1 move per day and expect to see a move every day.

Now it would be nice to be able to set time limits in the game filters. My schedual doesn't allow me to play less then 7 day games and I don't want to see any game with a limit of 7 days or be put in a team match of less then 7 days.

AbigailII:

gogul: Well, if you agree that the proposed "how fast does one play" statistics can lead to false conclusions, than you must agree with me that "if there would be a 'move speed rating' as a further setting for tounaments" it would lead to the same wrong conclusions as well. People would be banned from tournaments because they recently played a lot of games againt people in just the wrong timezone. Or people might get frustrated that their tournament isn't fast because it has a mixture of of players from different timezone while the statistics weren't based on that. Or someone might change playing styles for whatever reason.

If you want a tournament with fast play, create one and use whatever time parameters you find acceptable. Don't allow or disallow people to enter because of some statistic that doesn't mean anything.

Thad: Statistics

gogul: Team ratings might be tough due to the changing of team members, but if that can be figured out, why not. ;-)

Thad: Or a common rating for groups of players, next to the teams?

Thad: I wonder who would have the highest BRK for all games at the moment? ;-)

Why are BKRs limited to separate ratings for each type of game? Why not have a BKR for all backgammon variants combined? One for chess, one for Pente, etc. Also why not an overall BKR for each player covering all (rated) games played regardless of game type. Yes, I know this would lead to a bit of apples to oranges comparison, because good chess players are more likely to win consistantly than good backgammon players due to the luck of the dice, but I still think it would be a great addition to this site.

gogul: The idea of move speed is not criticizing "slow" players. Timesetting possibilities along with the vacationdays is ok as conditions to me, only to allow high speed based turned players to have their own games.

AbigailII: I agree, might lead to false interpretations. But what if there would be a 'move speed rating' as a further setting for tounaments (for each games separate?)?. As an organizer you could allow faster player to sign up only (this rating has not to be public info).

AbigailII: The only tome this stat will make you look slower than you actually are is if you finish all your moves and are therefore not moving because you can't.
Perhaps the primary stat could be "%age of time with no moves to make". Anyone with a very low (or zero) score here could be effectively judged by the moves/game/day stat.

AbigailII: If you can move 30 times a day against a fast opponent, yes, I'd want to pick you

pauloaguia: Not to mention that such a statistic doesn't mean much. Suppose I have 35 games going on, in 34 I move once a month, but in the other I move 30 times a day (perhaps because it's against a fast player in the same time-zone, or due to autopass, or because that's a simple game and the others aren't). My average would be more than one move/game/day. But would you want to pick me if you're looking for a fast game?

kaluza: that would depend on your opponent's speed as well. If your opponent moves fast, you may move a dozen times in a game. If your opponent moves really slow, you may move oncea month!

Fencer: How about moves per game per day, averaged over a month?

AbigailII: Why not simply have a statistic with the average number of days between moves? Fast players willplay at least once a day,no matter the time zone they're in...

jurek: The majority of the people here are from either the US or Europe. Yes, it benefits Europeans playing against Japanese people as well. And yes, there are exceptions of Americans playing very late against Europeans playing early. Although, they still both get punished as they will have little overlap in their playing times, and will only be able to play a move/day, although they are fast players.

AbigailII: In general, I've encountered the opposite. I often play late in the evenings and often find myself quitting to go to bed as my European (or Australian, or Japanese, or whatever... why're you limiting it to just US vs. EU?) opponent is just starting his/her move day.

gogul: The disadvantage of that is that it makes European players appear to be slower movers. In matches of a European player vs an American, it will usually be the American player moves makes the "last move of the day", just because Americans trail Europeans in time. The European is then punished for the fact there's more time for him to wake up again, as there is for the American to wake up after the European.

I don't see the added value of this statistic - and I think it can lead to false interpretations.

nabla: You need to put the "www.brainking.com" before the tournament link, like it appears on the URL (like the message pauloaguia had written before)

pauloaguia: Ah yes you certainly need the spaces before and after the link.

pauloaguia: Ah well thought I knew how to do it. How did you do ? :-)

nabla: Those don't get recognized as URL's. I think the problem is the fact I put the URL in brackets. That's probably messing with the parser... because if I put it alone, like ( Tugas #16 ) it does get replaced ;)

pauloaguia: Hmm... it didn't get replaced here either. So I'd say it probably has something to do with the fact that it's a fellowship tournament...

Fencer: Hmm... Then it may have been something different. A bug? Could it be?
Ok, I've used the "Send message to all fellowship members" feature to send a message that went something like: "Foi criado um novo torneio (http://brainking.com/pt/Tournaments?trg=22609)."

The URL didn't get replaced on the message. Then again, this isn't a PM, but a distributed one, so my request was incomplete to begin with

pauloaguia: It should be working there as well. What exactly does not work?

Can the link conversion system used on DB's be used on PM's as well? I've grown used to having BrainKing automatically convert links for me when I post a message on a DB, so I get confused whenever it doesn't do so on my private messages...

would it be possible to add the 'delete' button to the top of the messages in the inbox

when i receive a message about a tournament game, it includes the tournament section .. which is great! .. but i have to scroll down 1 page to be able to delete the message .. (as the button is at the bottom now)

if the button would be on top of the message i dont have to scroll :)

Fencer: From the moment a player gets a game ready to play until he moves, if we had next to the amount of games in eaches profile the average of 'moving speed' given in hours of the say past 7 days. No idea how to compute it but maybe the timecontrol can recognize this as well.
I can not see further as just the information of the average time someone takes to move, I think there is no need to calculate upon a formula to invent containing the amount of games and the time one takes to move, people with a few games have this advantage but thats what fast players are searching for, and with my about 300 games going on I could compete with pawns I think, at least over the time of 7 days in lots of the weeks.

Fencer: Some sugestions:
moves per day in the form of a percentile.

I.E. player x is within the botom 20% of players gets a 2

gogul: How would you calculate a move speed?

next to the games there are many ways to be competitive (actionpoints, most moves, having the biggest mouth etc. ). I could also live with a speedometer. F.i. 'on a scale from 1 to 10 your move-speed is rated 7, or 3'.

KotDB: My earlier suggestion in this situation "Autopass until I can make a move" should therefore become "Autopass until I can move again, and I don't want to double from this position"

grenv: Absolutely not!

It is vital that players be allowed to double whenever the rules permit it. If a means is provided to forgo the opportunity, that's fine, but the system must not prevent doubling.

It is not all that uncommon that a player may wish to double while stuck on the bar -- maybe he has borne off all but one checker and his opponent has a closed board. In a situation like this you would require him to double at the first opportunity or not at all? But what if he decides not to double at first, or rolls without thinking about doubling, and then later decides he wants to double?

It is not the server's job to assess when someone's position has "improved", or whether doubling would be a good move. It is the server's job to enforce the rules of backgammon.

Furthermore, it is not necessary for one's position to improve in order for doubling to become correct. In the situation I described above, the player may choose not to double because he has gammon chances. After he dances a few times, those gammon chances will be reduced, and he will want to double. He must be allowed to do so.

My suggestion on the doubling issue is:

The first move you are trapped you get the opportunity to double.

If you choose not to, it is impossible for your situation to improve, so autopass should take effect.

mctrivia: I'd say that if you have little time left and you are playing a Fisher game without getting bonus time on each move (otherwise, there's no problem at all), I'd say getting the game back immediately is a benefit. Otherwise you might visit another game or log off or do something else, and lose valuable time (and possibly the game) if your opponent moves when you're not ready to play your next move.

What I don't understand is why the anti-automove people make such a big deal out of it. Most of the time, there's no forced pass anyway. It only effects a relative small number of moves.

I wonder if the following compromise could work:

• Autopass is a player attribute - anyone can determine whether he/she uses autopass, regardless of the preference of the opponent.
  
• By default, if a move can be autopassed, and if the player is online, the autopass is effective immediately. Otherwise, the pass is queued until the player online again. As soon as the player is online again, his/her queued autopasses are being played.
  
• People can set an "play opponents autopasses immediately" setting. If set, and if the opponent uses autopass, and if the opponent must pass, the pass is played immediately, even if the opponent is offline.
  </ul>
  
  This would allow Fencer to go to bed, knowing the autopasses of Big Bad Wolf won't come back to him until BBW is online again. It also allows people trying to win games on the clock to keep trying to win this way. And McTrivia doesn't have to wait for me to log again to move again in a game where I have to pass.

pgt: The only problem with autopass on fisher is theoretically the game could be played back in 0 secounds to the player several times in a row. If you have little time left that would be a real problem especially if you have other games you need to play also.

BIG BAD WOLF: The only time I agrea that a message should not stop auto pass is if both users are using autopass and both people will autopass back and forth several times but as soon as one person is no longer being autopassed the other should not be autopassed so they can read the message and reply back.

BIG BAD WOLF: I updated my post to stress "good"!