Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Help Forum

Help Forum

  1. Standard member Exy
    Damn fine Clan!
    01 May '04 21:22 / 2 edits
    I've been using this site for some time. I've joined the queues of every siege. It seems to take over 6 months to get to the top of the queue.

    However, what's it all about? I really don't understand what the sieges are or whether they're worth waiting for?!

    Can anybody who's actually played one pitch in here and tell us what the experience is like?

  2. Subscriber Crowley
    Not Aleister
    01 May '04 21:45
    I'm also still waiting in a queue.
    The idea is to see who can 'hold' his/her 'castle' for the longest time (sieges).

    I think
  3. Subscriber Russ
    RHP Code Monkey
    01 May '04 22:20 / 1 edit
    I do intend to add many more boards (castles) soon - those queues are just getting too long at the moment.

    -Russ
  4. Standard member Exy
    Damn fine Clan!
    01 May '04 23:13
    Russ,

    Is there a FAQ about Sieges? "Hold your castle" - we're not talking about Rooks here are we? I'm confused!

    I guess I'm going to have to wait until I finally reach the top of one of these queues and then have a baptism by fire!

  5. 02 May '04 00:55
    Originally posted by Exy

    Is there a FAQ about Sieges?

    There were threads about the Sieges in the forums, but since we can't search by subject I can't hunt them down for you. Anyway, I'm sure a help section about the Sieges is in the admin's planning.

    "Hold your castle" - we're not talking about Rooks here are we? I'm confused!

    No, not Rooks I own the 14-day Yellow Castle, which means I play Black against everyone in the queue until one of them beats me (or draws). Then he or she will own the Castle and begin taking on the attackers in the queue, one by one.
    When you get to the top of a queue, you'll have a game as White against the last winner of that Castle, and if you win or draw you will become the owner of the Castle and have to take on the attackers one by one yourself.
    By the way, I also own the 7-day Green Castle and I'm attacking the 14-day Green one. So if you're in queue for every Castle, we might end up having a few games together
  6. Standard member Natural Science
    blunderer of pawns
    02 May '04 02:22
    Originally posted by huntingbear
    [b]Is there a FAQ about Sieges?

    There were threads about the Sieges in the forums, but since we can't search by subject I can't hunt them down for you. Anyway, I'm sure a help section about the Sieges is in the admin's planning.

    "Hold your castle" - we're not talking about Rooks here are we? I'm confused!

    No, not Rooks I o ...[text shortened]... een one. So if you're in queue for every Castle, we might end up having a few games together [/b]
    Just out of curiosity, why is it that a draw counts as a win for White, and he gets the castle? Typically the player that is happy to draw is Black, not White. With these rules, whoever has White has no real incentive to take some risk and play for a win, when he can just play relatively safe and try for a draw.
  7. 02 May '04 05:33
    Originally posted by Natural Science
    Just out of curiosity, why is it that a draw counts as a win for White, and he gets the castle? Typically the player that is happy to draw is Black, not White. With these rules, whoever has White has no real incentive to take some risk and play for a win, when he can just play relatively safe and try for a draw.
    Once upon a time, there was a big discussion in the forums about that very matter. I happen to agree with you that the draw should keep the castle for Black, so I can't answer your question about why draws go to White.
  8. 02 May '04 08:18
    Because it keeps players from dominating castles. It gives the attacker an advantage so that he/she has more chances to take over the castle. Doesn't that make sense?

    Olav
  9. Standard member Natural Science
    blunderer of pawns
    02 May '04 11:44
    Originally posted by LivingLegend
    Because it keeps players from dominating castles. It gives the attacker an advantage so that he/she has more chances to take over the castle. Doesn't that make sense?

    Olav
    I guess it does. But then we still have the problem of challengers being able to play for the safe draw to take the castle. So why don't we give White to the guy defending the castle, since hes the one who's under the pressure to win. It seems only fair.
  10. Standard member TheMaster37
    Kupikupopo!
    02 May '04 12:43
    Imagine an 1800 player taking over the castle. If you have to win to take over a castle, then only the players of 1700-2200 have a decent chance of taking over the castle. This would result in a high player taking the castle, and no-one being able to kick him out.

    Ig one of the top 10 players would get the castle, the lower players wouldn't even try to take the castle anymore, and it would become a elite-thing.

    Not that adding a draw=lose changes much...
  11. 04 May '04 13:18
    Could I add that I feel Siege games should start automatically. At the moment a siege game is only started ot the winner or the new challenger decide to start. If neither do then the queue is just held up. Take a look at the Green Castle one day time out, Depongo v Gwaihir. It has been waiting for the new game for about a week now.
  12. 04 May '04 17:00
    Originally posted by Paul0
    Could I add that I feel Siege games should start automatically. At the moment a siege game is only started ot the winner or the new challenger decide to start. If neither do then the queue is just held up. Take a look at the Green Castle one day time out, Depongo v Gwaihir. It has been waiting for the new game for about a week now.
    I agree with you absolutely.
    I think it has been longer than a week actually - it is just ridiculous!

  13. 07 May '04 09:31
    Originally posted by Paul0
    Could I add that I feel Siege games should start automatically. At the moment a siege game is only started ot the winner or the new challenger decide to start. If neither do then the queue is just held up. Take a look at the Green Castle one day time out, Depongo v Gwaihir. It has been waiting for the new game for about a week now.
    Russ -

    There has to be a time out of say three days (subject to holiday flags) on getting these games started, otherwise the next player in line gets to take over.

    This particular game has still not started even though there is a 1 day TO

  14. 07 May '04 09:50
    Originally posted by Exy
    It seems to take over 6 months to get to the top of the queue.
    That's quite optimistically actually. It may be true for the 1 day T/O castles, but when you look at the 14 day's, you get a 'worst case scenario' of about 60 years. More realistically is 4 years. You want to wait that long?
  15. 12 May '04 10:05
    Originally posted by Paul0
    Could I add that I feel Siege games should start automatically. At the moment a siege game is only started ot the winner or the new challenger decide to start. If neither do then the queue is just held up. Take a look at the Green Castle one day time out, Depongo v Gwaihir. It has been waiting for the new game for about a week now.
    Russ -

    This particular game has still not started. For how long is this situation going to be allowed to continue? There are 59 people waiting in line to participate in this game and if it is going to take three weeks or more to get each game started then some of us might well have passed on before we reach the head of the queue!!

    Adding more boards will not resolve this issue.