Blackadder Mr K:
They don`t respond to mail so you can`t know why they don`t play the game.
In that case you wouldn't grant the time extension... the original request was for "possibility to give an opponent more time for a move", not to abolish them all together.

tonyh:
They may be few but you do remember them when you meet them,,,,
No I havn`t talked to Fencer about this because I think ( hope ) thay they do have a good reason to act the way they do,,,,

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!

El Cid:
I don`t like the idea that a player should have the chance to get time extension because thr biggest problem is that there are so many slow players and players that start games and then make one move and the next thing you know is that the game is over due to time out.
They don`t respond to mail so you can`t know why they don`t play the game.
That`s a greater problem.

How about if in tournaments the time extension had to be approved by someone out of the game, like the crator of the tournament.
He could then analize fastness or slowlyness of the player who is being offered the time extension and decide if it could be done or not.
Of course that in that case there would have to be a way, of kbowing the exact time of each play

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!!?

tonyh: But how would the computer know who is the "slowest" 1 week into a tournament? Towards the end of a tournament, it is easy to see who is playing slower then others - but what if on day 1, a couple people decide to mess up everyone else and they give each other 30+ days extra for a move. Again, just looking at worse case.

Unless you start to "brand" players as slow/fast, which is misleading since everyone currently plays within their time limits so would be unfair in my opinion.

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!

BIG BAD WOLF: I agree. That's why I added the limitation.

tonyh: The only problem with doing that for tournaments is you will get those people who purposly take a lot of time, and a friend of theirs to give them even more time. In my opinion, for tournaments, the time limit that starts should be the same time limit throughout.

Private, non-tournament games - then if both players agree, then I see no problem with it.

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.

I'd like to have the possibility to give an opponent more time for a move. This could be useful in friendly games, when the opponent is about to timeout due to exceptional circumstances. Or simply if he asked you for it and you feel generous, or are not interested in a win by a simple timeout.

This feature, of course should not be enabled for tournament games, because it would affect also the other people in the round.

I am all in on this idea !!!
Please dear Fencer,,,,

May we have Ambiguous Chess in Stairs, please

I had posted this:
"anyone like yatzee?
painted yatzee?"
--
got some links,if our fearless leader is to ever condider yatzee,please consider these 3 versions:
painted yatzee:
comment:
Painted Yahtzee is a dice game of a different color - challenging you to score according to number =and= color combinations! Multi-colored dice - blue, red, purple, green, and yellow - let you score dazzling combinations like 4 of a Color, a Painted House, a Rainbow, a Palette. Plus, there are number combinations, just as in Classic Yahtzee.
links:
http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/gamezone/html/reviews/ultimate_yahtzee.htm
http://www.download-free-games.com/board_game_download/yahtzee.htm
http://www.games2download.com/free-board-games/yahtzee.htm
---
triple yatzee:
comment:
3 games(3 Yahtzee scoring pads at once between 2 players,great strategy)
links:
http://scv.bu.edu/aarondf/java/quintzee.html
http://www.wildherps.com/me/yahtzee.html
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/8944
---
of course we could stick with simply yatzee,but make it for from 2 to 8 players instead.this would be a great multi-player game.
links:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=yahtzee&btnG=Search
http://www.rekenwonder.com/yahtzee.htm
http://www.bodo.com/Applets/Yahtzee/
--
was told this:
"it is my understanding you would have to use the rules of YACHT, as the name and rules for YAHTZEE are copyrighted."
anyone know?

KotDB: Yes, that solution works pretty well on fics. Also, important change would be, established rating is not dependent upon number of completed games, but upon RD. So one would not gain established rating after 25 games like now but after his RD drops to some number, fics used 80 if I remember correctly.

mctrivia: You've correctly pointed out a weakness of the Elo rating system, which is used here and in many other places. This system treats all players' ratings as equally precise, even though some have played many games and others have played few.

The Glicko rating system addresses this issue by introducing a ratings deviation (RD), which estimates the uncertainty in a player's rating. A very active player will have a very low RD, indicating that his rating is very reliable; someone who has played only a few games, or who has not played in a long time, will have a very high RD, indicating that very little is known about his true skill level. When new ratings are calculated after a game, both player's RDs are taken into account. If your RD is low and your opponent's is high, the change in your rating will be small.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Glicko system implemented here, as I believe it is superior to the Elo system. If other changes are made, I hope they are based on careful mathematical reasoning. Introducing ad hoc rules and drawing lines arbitrarily are, in my opinion, as likely to make the system worse as better.

grenv: I agrea with that. At the minimum unrated players should have no effect. If Fencer is fealing generus then there should be a ramp in effect from playing players from rated to established.

mctrivia: How many games constitutes rated really? There is a guy on top of the Dark Chess list after 4 games and a rating above 2100, yet he beat players rated only 1200 - 1600 in that time. Playing him would be a good way to boost ratings but it wouldn't be fair.

Perhaps any game against a player without an established rating wouldn't count?

Instead there should be a weighting where the less established the opponents rating, the less effect the result has on yours.

mctrivia: I like the idea that ratings should only be affected for the unrated person.... We have no way of knowing how good an unrated player is, it could be their first game, yet they could be a master of that game.

grenv: I though of another reason to why the BK rating score should be ajust. I am now in a rated game with an unrated player becouse of a team match. I can't refuse the game because the team leadet makes the games but it will effect my BKR. Now in this particular game my BKR is so low that I don't care but it is just another reason why BKR in a rated vs unrated game should only affect the unrated player.

YES! both fried and steamed! with mushrooms, please

anyone like yatzee?
painted yatzee?

That's a nice addition, Fencer! I hope plaintiger's happy, too.

plaintiger: Okay if you say so. Easy things can be done quickly. Check it now.

Baked Alaskan: No answer means there is no time to do it now.

Baked Alaskan:

A bump since there was no answer yet  

Jason: ah - good idea. thank you.

(that doesn't mean i wouldn't still like the capacity for notes, Fencer! )

plaintiger: As a workaround add thier id number to the reason why they are there in your blocked user list in your notepad , they can change the name but the id will always be the same .

i still would like to see the ability to add notes on blocked users. i have blocked users on my list from years ago now and i have no idea why i blocked them because the blocked users list has no capacity for the addition of notes.

i've started listing my reasons for blocking people in a note in my notepad, but that's a workaround, not a fix, and if a user changes their username, my note in the notepad won't tell me who they are or why i blocked them any more.

i find the ability to add notes to friends less useful - if they're my friends, i'm reminded why they're my friends every time i see them - but we have that ability. the more useful ability to add notes to blocked users we don't have.

someday, maybe?

hexkid: All FAQ entries will be updated soon. It's not a trivial thing when it must be done in 15 languages.

As I understand it, smileys are now visible to everybody, but the Smileys FAQ is not updated. I suggest the removal of the text "Smileys are visible for paying members only." from it.

Pythagoras: Problem was I joined a stupid tournament and didn't read the rules properly. But even if I entered knowingly it would be impossible to play out the game if someone decides to wait till i sleep before moving. And someone actually admitted they were trying to win that way by the way.

grenv: .
.
.
This is bloody ridiculous behaviour.

This is not bloody ridiculous behaviour since this is inside Brainking's legal rules....
Also i should say to your suggestion of "I request that these silly time limits where I end up with 3 hours to make a move don't time out while I'm asleep." that again:
If you don't like this time control don't choose games or tournaments with it!

I should note that i agree with you 100% that this time controls are somewhat ridiculous and they don't even let you sleep if you don't want to lose, but since we have the choice of playing or not then i don't see any problem.....

[Edited: "I should note" instead of the stupid "i should not"]

Fencer: Too bad. Maybe Ed bought some shares.

BIG BAD WOLF: I know that now. I have noticed that certain players are deliberately playing such games and then waiting for the right time to move. This is bloody ridiculous behaviour.

grenv: that would be hard since everyone is in a different time zone.

The best thing to do is since some people likes those types of time limits is do what I do - and that is make sure you never play a game/tournament which does not have at least 1 day bonus - that way you will at least always have 1 day to play the game from when the other person plays.

I request that these silly time limits where I end up with 3 hours to make a move don't time out while I'm asleep. In other words don't count hourly time limits from midnight to 6am or something.

Be careful entering a tournament or ladder where you only get an addition 3 hours per move, since you will lose if your opponent waits to move until just after you go to sleep.

rabbitoid: Yes, I did, many times (Mattel). No response at all.

Fencer: Have you tried to contact the owners? Not all owners are Eds. Maybe a reasonable arrangement can be negociated, for example ads in exchange for use. I'm sure people here wouldn't mind ads under such circumstances.

Fencer: thats way cool Fencer

Fencer: .
.
.
Does anybody knows the line that divides to legal and not legal(due to Scrabble licence) two Scrabble variations....?
I mean how many modificitions does someone has to make to the default Scrabble in order this to be different from a point of view that no one can sue you.....?
Is a small change enough, does it have to be 3 major changes, etc, and generally when the violation of the licence stops? Is the quantity of
changes that matters is the ......what?

BIG BAD WOLF: A word game will be created but due to the Scrabble licence, the name must be changed. Scrabrain, for example. And the rules must be slightly modified as well.

If you copy "Scrabble" exactly, then you may be in tradmark trouble - but it's so simple to change it just a little and make it your own "game" to get around the trouble, and that is what you see on many other sites - while a few do try to copy scrabble but fly under the radar.

I'm not sure if Fencer's ideas have changed, but if I remember when the idea was brought up before (years ago), Fencer did not like the idea of a word game on this site..... Again, maybe I have a bad memory but I think I remember him giving that opinion.

they have it on It's Your Turn they just call it Jamble

alanback: I don't know if this means much but I found a freeware version of Scrabble called NetWordz at http://www.freewarefind.com/archives/board_games.html

wetware: I'm a tax lawyer not an IP lawyer. However, I am certain that websites may not use trademarks without permission of the trademark owner, which means paying a royalty. Some elements of a game may be patented or copyrighted also. This is why you don't see a proliferation of trademarked games on the Web, and why they are available generally only through paying sites.

gogul: Not sure but I think copyright is good for 50 years.(again I am not a lawyer)

mctrivia: For music royalities have to be paid till 50 year after the composter passed over.

wetware: Not a lawyer but I know patents are only good for 20 years. Not sure about anything else.