Brian1971: Half of your suggestion is already there, it's called "Hidden Users" and can be set on a per-board-basis. These users still can seen your posts, but all of their posts on that specific board are hidden from you.

Fencer: "not designed for mutual autopass (both players are unable to move several times in a row)"

But as this is not completely impossible in Backgammon as well, this has to be taken care of somehow already now?

Fencer: You can buy this as a board game here in Germany with an expanded rule set.

Fencer: That reason would be obsolete if you were to consider an ancient proposal of mine ;-)

nabla: There has to be a history table already, how else would it be possible to show those pretty BKR charts? Probably it currently contains information about player, type of game, date/time, BKR. If you add one more column with the game ID, then you've got it!

This would solve another inconvenience as well: currently it's the date/time of the last move made in a game which constitutes the end of the game. It would be more appropriate to show the date/time of the resignation or draw acceptance, which could deviate some days or even weeks from the last move made.

I think that the proper ratings and end dates should be shown for all games, including those already finished. Some months ago we had a short downtime when all ratings were newly re-calculated. If it's necessary to create that new column then I wouldn't mind another downtime in order to add this more meaningful information.

By the way: then the ratings could be added to the game scores as well. This would make it more easy to decide which games to look at, when you have downloaded hundreds of games from people you don't know.

tonyh: gogul made this proposal only recently, but with not much response ;-) I don't want to repeat that thread, but I would prefer to see the ratings which were used for BKR calculation in all finished games. There are certainly some fluctuations during the course of a long game, but those ratings at least have something to do with that game. On the contrary it makes no sense to show today's ratings for games which were finished years ago.

gogul: I second your proposals. The current BKR is of no significance when shown at games which were played long time ago. Although, of course, the BKR may change often during a long game, it would it more appropriate to use the BKR at the start of the game, or the BKR which is used for rating calculation, instead of permanently showing the current BKR even for finished games. Same goes for tournaments where I would prefer to see the tournament entry rating. If I want to know the current ratings I could look at their profiles ;)

Concerning your first proposal I assume that you just want to hide them from the rating charts? I wouldn't go as far as hiding the first 25 games, but at least the first three games should really be hidden. BK doesn't show your rating within those games, but after you've got your first BKR you suddenly see it in the rating chart, which appears to be some kind of contradiction ;)

Hi,

I've recently played a game where I tried to find a saving move for a couple of days. As I didn't find one I resigned the game. To my surprise the end of game date wasn't the day when I resigned but the day of my opponents last move!

Obviously this is the standard behaviour but it only now came to my attention as this particular game wasn't even in the list of my opponents ten last finished games! In my eyes this is rather irritating.

What makes it even more illogical is that the date which is displayed in the BKR chart is in fact the date of my resignation. I would like it to be more consistent and I would like it to be as in the BKR chart ;)

WhisperzQ: you can see it in the title bar of the browser window

Pioneer54: "it makes sense to give the section or title to the player who has beat the one he tied with"

totally agreed, that's what I suggested in one of my previous posts

"I believe the S-B should remain the standard."

I dare to disagree with this one though, because in larger tournaments the SB does not necessarily honour the one who has beaten the one he tied with. If he has lost against the two runners-up and his adversary has "only" lost against the bottom player, then the SB will be in favour of the one who has lost the direct match.

Of course this is usually not relevant in small tournaments like those played on this site ;)

Addendum: though you can even construct a corresponding six-player-tournament:
R 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pts SB
1 x 0 1 1 1 0 3,0 7,50
2 1 x 0 0 1 1 3,0 7,00
3 0 1 x = = = 2,5 6,25
4 0 1 = x 0 1 2,5 5,75
5 0 0 = 1 x 1 2,5 5,25
6 1 0 = 0 0 x 1,5 4,25

Rather improbable, but still possible...

grenv: just in case that you really have to break the tie (title, qualification) you have to decide in favour of a certain tie break system. In those cases I would prefer the head to head result to SB. Let's see it as an abbreviated separate tie break match, for which you often do not have enough time.

But in cases where you do not necessarily have to break the tie, as on this site, I agree that all tied players should advance.

chessmec: <quote>Sonneborn-Berger [...] is an usual used system.</quote>

yes, it is, but in my eyes it's nonsense. In a round robin you may look at the result(s) between tied players but any other system is just an arbitrary way of breaking ties at all costs.

SB basically honours wins against higher ranked opponents. Agreed: if a player has a better SB then he has scored better against the stronger opponents. But he has also lost more points against the weaker opponents, so what's the sense in granting him the higher rank?