grenv: and if the opponent rejects the 'claim win' (and subsequently loses), then he loses twice as much rating as he would have done!!
How about that? Quite like doubling up at Backgammon!

pauloaguia: Also, there surely must be a difference just playing idiot moves, when one has a totally lost game - and playing moves in a new game, where one is trying to win!
Or don't the Action Point enthusiasts care one way or the other?

pauloaguia: Paying members get only one point for a non-tournament game.

King Reza: My point was that, re Action Points, you get 2 points just for making a move!! So that means that games will go on even longer than they do now!

alanback: That's why I am attempting to improve the 'silly action points system'!! What proposals do you have?

I am playing two games og Go, against the current Action Points leader; he is hopelessly lost in both games and I guess the only reason he continues is because he gets 2 points a move!
I would like to suggest that, instead of points per move, each winner awards points to the loser on a scale of 1 to 5. Clearly, a loser who has played quickly and maybe resigned early, will stand a chance of being awarded more points by a grateful winner. A loser who has been slow or played on unnecessarily (as in Backgammon) will get zero points.
Thus, we award points to players who directly contribute to the well-being of Brainking!!!

Walter Montego: I know it's not French - but you have 'zugswang' and 'swischenzug'!!

Fencer: Well done!!! That might make for interesting reading!

pgt: I am all in favour of awarding Action Points, based upon how quickly players make their moves. And in any formula, vacation days should be deducted.

Fencer: That's all I needed to know, about adding to your TODO list. More than happy to be patient, I know how busy you are.

Fencer, where should I go with this idea?
Have you taken it on board or do I need to drum up much more support from other players?

nabla: Surely the extra storage space is negligible, compared with everything else that is stored.
I definitely think it is worth it, for the reasons you state; it would give a lot of satisfaction.

kleineme: Thank you for that insight and the very valuable comment. As you say, whatever rating was used in the calculation of the new one, let that rating stay with the finished game forever. i think that covers fencer's point about which rating needs to stay with the game.
Excellent.

Jason: It's not quite what I meant; I just want to see the final rating as it was when the game ended.
You have a fair point, though and I know of another game site where the original ratings are used to calculate the new rating. Anyone know what happens in correspondence games?

Fencer: That's a fair question! But I think the rating as it was when the game finished. If I wanted to see what the rating was when the game began, I guess I could look at another of my past games and look for a similar date.
I suggested this, because I would guess that the programming involved is not too arduous.

I'm sure this has been discussed before!
When we look back at past games, could the ratings shown be the ratings as they were when we played those games? I would find it interesting to see how much I might have improved (or not!)

gambler104: As I understood rabbitoid's original suggestion, the increase in time was purely temporary, to enable a player to get over a sudden problem,(like a PC blowing up!!)

Blackadder Mr K: Does Fencer have any statistics on the number of slow players and how much they hold up tournaments?
In my experience, there are very few!

BIG BAD WOLF: You are using a one in a thousand possibilty to argue against a perfectly reasonable benefit. So be it. Happens all the time in real life, so wht not on a website!!?

BIG BAD WOLF: If, as you say, the relaxation could be misused, then the slowest player in a tournament would not be allowed to have this benefit - and possibly the second slowest as well.
In my view, slow tournament players present much more of a problem than this very welcome 'gift' of extra time!

rabbitoid: I support this request. And I would consider tournament games, too, if the player normally makes their moves quickly.
In any tournament, there is always one player who takes the full time limit; so, if your opponent is NOT that player, let him have extra time.

May we have Ambiguous Chess in Stairs, please

Eriisa: That sounds reasonable; it'll take quite a time to go from 127 to 20 games!!!
I think it fairer to tell the other guy why I'm not accepting, though.

I cannot accept invites, because I have too many games going.
Would it not be simpler to tell this fact to the player inviting me (and then he need not send out the invitation); save a bit of time and trouble!

Fencer: how much difference does that make in actual rating points? In other words, does it really matter?

Please may I suggest that our ratings are re-calculated when we fall, rather than wait until the pond finishes.
Then our ratings will be more up-to-date!

emmett: I like this idea.

When you are totally blocked from getting back onto the board, it is a bit of a pain having to roll the dice.
Could you fix it so that we just press 'Submit' instead, please?

grenv: 'gameknot (for just chess) has introduced conditional moves. in games like pente, they would save a lot of boring moves.

BIG BAD WOLF: and could we do a search for a particular game, please?

pauloaguia: Right after you sign up for at least one game, because you will have looked at the remainder and taken your decision.

When you display Tournament sign-ups at the top of our current games, please could you omit those:
a) where it is invitation only;
b) where we have already signed up?

Caissus: What a great idea! Yes! Let's keep Discussion boards for their original topic.

Peacepickle; I took the liberty of looking at your profile and see that you play only Backgammon. This is a game where you can have remarkable turn-rounds, even when everything looks hopeless. And you have a super rating, which means that you lose rarely!
A game like chess, though, can be totally won; getting the win quickly can take ages!
When I play games for chat and fun and I was in a lost position, I would suggest that I resign and start another with the same opponent.
But a game like chess

Sharon - why do you like seeing games thru to the end? If you are hopelessly lost, what are you hoping for? That the opponent will time out? give up in disgust? die?

Lovely Sharon - I agree that resignation isn't the only reason but it's a good one!
Kitti - please describe a 'little chance to win'? What would your guy be waiting for? A blunder?

I posted a message on the Gammon Discussion Board, asking for doubling to hasten resignations!!

It occurs to me that a double feature could work for any number of games, where guys in totally lost positions just go on and on. Halma and Reversi are good examples.

by all means let them play on - but the possibility that they could lose 'two' games (with the consequent effect on their ratings) could make a resignation decision very easy!

When a player makes a move and offers a draw (by clicking in the little box), could you put the Draw Offer in BIG letters, in RED, above the opponent's game board, so that he/she cannot miss it, please.

I was thinking about the moderator; it would have been fruitful to have Truth's message deleted right from the start.

What happened to the Delete option?

Heck, grenv, if yr opponent takes 5 days to make a move, you are going to get annoyed anyway, whether you autopass or not. And probably you are losing anyway, so where's the rush?
I still favour an option.

Harley, I think you may be comapring apples (resignations) with pears (autopass).

What I hate about guys who won't resign is that I am forced to make a number of pointless moves.

With autopass, the 'mover' still makes exactly the moves he will make in any case; it's just a quicker process. My guess is that most guys won't bother too much if the BG position doesn't come back immediately (they probably have another 100 games to play anyway).

Possibly, could fencer give us the option of having that automatic facility or not?

Now that we'll have played each other a fair number of times, I'd like to see the results against an opponent displayed alongside a current game. So if I am playing Atomic Chess v Whisperz, I'd like to see how I've done against him, gruesome though it is.

BBW that's what I do with pencil & eraser!! Bit of a pain. Would prefer on-line facility.

Kevin; I'd need an analysis board for each game I have; it would be so much easier than keeping notes or using pencil & eraser!!

Fencer: I meant could we have a Dark Chess analysis board in Games Editor, so that we can set up where we think the opponent's pieces might be.
Kevin: does that answer your question?

Please, could Dark chess be added? I'm assuming that the position I might input stays there until it is changed next time?

On Net-chess.com, exclusively for playing turn-based chess games, making a move is very simple. You click on a piece; click the square to move to; then click on move. All on the same screen, all within one action.
Could that be possible here?

I agree with Big Bad Wolf; love to see an editing feature. I use Notes a lot when playing Dark chess and an edit facility would be VERY useful.