Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

5 people submitted two games apiece: myself, Glenn Overby, Luiz Carlos Campos, William Overington, and Antoine Fourriere. Then there are four entries submitted by three members of the Newton family: Paul, Andrew and Timothy. Splitting the two games submitted by one person into two different judging groups would be easy enough to do. For the four entries by the Newtons, i would suggest that OUTBACK CHESS by Timothy and TRANSPORTER CHESS by Andrew be in the same group and the other two, one apiece in each of the other two groups. I just think it helps prevent any bias (either positive or negative) that a judge's review of one game should not let him color his predisposition to the other game by the same entrant. Ya know what I mean? At least not initially. In later rounds if both games from a single entrant have advanced beyond the first round of judging it may be unavoidable to prevent the same judge from looking at both games if they are asked to review all remaining games still in the running. But at least initially let's try to avoid someone saying 'Wow this game is great, I bet the other game he entered must be equally good, lemme take a look, this guy is really sharp and seems to know what he is doing when it comes to designing a good CV' or 'Wow this game is terrible. I bet the other game he entered must be equally bad, lemme take a look, this guy really has no clue about what he is doing when it comes to trying to design a good CV' No review of one game can in any way influence his perception of the other game. That's just me; I would like to know if anyone else thinks it is a good idea to try to avoid situations like this or if it is really ultimately not a big deal. If you wish to make it truly random in determining which games go into which judging groups then don't thinker with it. Otherwise, deliberately assign the games by entrants with multiple entries into specific groups and all of the other games by people with only one entry into their groups randomly and then randomly assign judges to groups once they have been laid out. Also if I might make a further suggestion, you may also want to further try to seperate and to some minor degree pre-determine which games go into which groups, by making sure that you don't put all of the 7 by 12 or 12 by 7 boards into the same group but try to equally distribute them among the 3 preliminary round groups. The same thing could be said for the games on 10 by 10 boards with the 4 by 4 16-square grid in the center a 'no entry zone'--games into different groups as well. This will further prevent judges who either have a preference or dislike for that type of layout from judging all of the games with that design. Finally, someone like Hans or Fergus should try to pick the 3 games in this contest which they feel are the most complicated or confusing, and/or the ones which they anticipate will take the longest to complete a play-test game (take a long time to achieve victory) and make sure to assign them into different groups as well, so that no judge gets all the 'easy' games while someone else is burdened with all the 'hard' games. Do you guys like these suggestions or do you think it should be TOTALLY random and just live with whatever way it comes out??

Excellent contest, guys!! <p>While I am too busy to offer my services as a judge for the contest itself, I am willing to play-test my entries with any judge in the contest. I am willing to play by email with anyone who has ZILLIONS OF GAMES. All we have to do is email each other the algebraic notation of the move we are playing, and use ZILLIONS to record and save the position of our game. I will play one game of ULTRA SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS and/or SCHIZOPHRENIC CHESS with any bonafide judge in the contest. If you wish to set up a match email me at [email protected] if it bounces back as undeliverable (often happens when I am over my storage limit) try me at [email protected] I will play one game of each or if preferred only one game of one of those two with any judge, and I will defer the choice of color allocation to the person who challenges me. btw I suggest that other people who have entries in the contest and are willing to play-test their games with the judges in this contest by email in much the same way I am describing here, post their email addresses on this comments page and solicit challenges from judges. btw might I suggest that no judge views both games from the same person this might help give a fresh perspective-- I am not the only person who has 2 entries in the contest--- what do you guys think? Is it a big deal if the same judge views both entries by the same player or should they be broken up between 2 different judges?

Well, I've experience judging contests and I'm not competing, so sure!

If you are interested in being in the judges team, then please post a remark here, or send an email to the editors at chessvariants dot com email address. <p> Details on the procedure will follow later, but I lack some time next week.

I generally approve of the method of judging Hans has suggested, but I'm concerned that it's not fair in the details. Suppose that the five best games all fall within one grouping of eleven games. Although these would be the games most deserving of first through fifth place, only three of them would make it. My recommendation is that the judges of each group select the five best games in their group. I also recommend three rounds. In the second round, each group of judges would evaluate the ten games chosen by the other two groups. Judges whose games were picked would drop out of this round. Other judges could step in as need be. Each group would rank the top five games, and the five or so games with the best rankings would become the finalists for the last round. In case of ties for fifth place, there could be more than five finalists, or another judge could break the tie. In the final round, any of the judges without games competing in the final round could help decide the final ranking of first through fifth place. This could include first-round judges who had to drop out of the second round.

Answering a question below: my idea is that judges should play each game at least once, and may do so, either with Zillions, friends and family members, or against other judges, as they wish. <p> Given the positive response to the proposal, I'll make it more detailed very soon. <p> Hans

That was a great idea. Having checked most submissions, given some thought to many and playtested some, I'd sure enjoy being a judge. Time is not really a problem, unless extensive playtesting is needed, which would be slightly more difficult. Anyway, I like the idea.

I am giving this rating for the contest entries. The overall quality of the games is very high especially considering the large number of submissions. Great work, everybody!

I think Hans' idea is quite good and I would be willing to volunteer as a judge if the amount of work and the time frame are doable for me. It might be good if the the judges' panels will contain a mix of game designers and non-designer CV players to get a more balanced perspective.

Love Hans' idea! But would this require that the judges play by email with other judges, or would they just pick which ones they like best? Could they playtest with non-judges (i.e. family members, friends, etc.) using Zillions, etc. if PBeM was not a feasible option (like in my case), but was not required to begin with?

With the not yet processed entries, there will be 33 competing games in this contest. What about the following method for judging: everyone can volunteer to become part of the team of judges. The games will be split more or less randomly in three groups of 11 games each. Every judge will be assigned to one group - this should be a group without any game he invented himself. The judges of a group select, following some prescribed protocol, the, say, top three games of the group. <p> Everyone lucky enough to have a game in the finals is removed from the team of judges, and then the judges select the winners from the nine games in the finals. <p> What do you think of this plan? If you like it, would you be willing to be a judge and look to in total 17 games (first 11, then another 6)?

How about a 'Colaborators' Pick' mention, given to an entry that receives most nominations from other participants?

These games are excellent!! Enough to make me come out of semi-retirement! ;)

OK. That's Tony and Mark in Chicago, and Glenn just outside Danville. Any others in driving range? Will the Midwest branch of the US Chess Variant Conglomeration please come to order? ;)

I'm in Chicago.

Glenn, I live in Chicago.

i might be interested in meeting to play games. i live in pittsburgh, pa, but will probably move nov 1, possibly to the baltimore / dc area and possibly to lancaster, pa.

Maybe. I live in northern New Jersey, USA. Where are you?