[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Multivariant Tournament 2003. 2003 Multivariant PBEM tournament headquarters page.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Vincent wrote on Sun, Sep 8, 2002 08:17 PM UTC:I agree with Glenn's proposed time structure. I also agree that re-voting on a select subset of games (including the most requested write-in games) would add more focus to the set of games chosen. The idea of using only games voted for by players is also a good idea. I would also support not worrying about size too much. I bet that the tourney will proceed faster than anticipated--especially if the most-favored games are being played! Thanks to Glenn for all his work!
If it is decided to play only the games voted on by participants, there is actually no reason to hold a second separate poll. The entry process could include voting, and we wouldn't know for sure what we were playing until all the entries were in. That might be fun.
Tony Gardner wrote on Sat, Sep 14, 2002 02:08 AM UTC:Good ★★★★I believe it would be a sound idea, at some point, to present a 'revised list' of games, that would include those which have received votes, whether or not they were on the original list. If any that were on the original list have not at that time received any votes, they may be deleted. There was a prior mention that a list of this sort should be held to 20 suggestions, but I don't understand why. Wouldn't it make more sense to have an expanded list of popular games, and simply play (in the tournament) the ones with the most votes at the end? Those games that received at least some votes but not enough for the tournament threshold could be played casually by the interested parties, via e-mail. Also, in my view, the use of machines should be discouraged.
As you can see, a second round of polling has begun. It includes every game save one which received multiple suggestions in the suggestion box, plus the top dozen from the original poll after the top four (which had a huge lead) were skimmed off and declared in. Many of these games polled pretty close together, and hopefully looking at only 15 at this stage will enable careful considerations. Thanks to the many who have voted so far (yes, you may vote again in round two). Your response gives me additional hope for a successful event.
i never got to vote in the first round because it said votes were being taken til november first.
I wondered how long it would take someone to say that. :( Seriously, I apologize to anyone in Ben Good's position. It was simply the feeling after extended discussion that reducing the size of the list would encourage more refined consideration of the remaining listed games, and that sufficient voter input had been received to make a preliminary adjustment. The ultimate responsibility was mine. I regret any bad feelings it may have caused. (It's hard to start something like this from scratch, and know how it will best proceed.) Thank you for your comment; I urge you to make your opinion count in round two between now and 1 November.
Eric V. Greenwood wrote on Thu, Oct 17, 2002 08:05 PM UTC:Good ★★★★I have a comment/plea: please add Renniassance Chess to the available
choices. I know the category *few extra pieces* includes it; however, i
am doing some serious recruiting to the cause, and I hope i can get enough
people to vote.
Actually, i had no idea this was here-i just was fortunate enough to
stumble onto it!
EricEric: I'll be happy to put Renniassance Chess on the poll the next time we do a tournament of this style. The polling process is too far advanced to tamper with it for this tournament. I have only recently become familiar with RennChess, after Ben Good did the updated page a short time ago. It certainly falls into a style of variant that seems to resonate with the voters. In fact, a large-variants theme is under active consideration for a future PBEM tourney.
Joseph DiMuro wrote on Sat, Nov 2, 2002 06:35 PM UTC:So, which games are going to be in the tournament? Which ones? Which ones? Which ones? :-D Please don't prolong the suspense! I can't take it much longer!! :-D
The results are in. The voting was very, very close. Registration for the tournament opens in not quite two weeks.
The Zillions file is now available with all the tournament games (except Extinction, which comes with Zillions) in a single ZIP file.
Registration is open at last, a few hours early, and the first entrant is already signed up...
Will you occasionally post the entrants as registration proceeds, or will the pairings come as an utter surprise?
Both. I will update the list of entrants every so often, <b>and</b> the ultimate pairings will be a surprise. :)
Great! The tournament should be very interesting. Thanks!
I'd like to put in a pitch for this excellent tournament! Interested players, please register!
Anonymous wrote on Tue, Dec 24, 2002 04:48 PM UTC:Good ★★★★Interested players, register by January 15th!!
ctsg wrote on Mon, Jan 6, 2003 05:00 PM UTC:Good ★★★★Overload@planetunrea wrote on Tue, Jan 7, 2003 04:45 AM UTC:What prevents people from using an engine to make their moves?
Joseph DiMuro wrote on Tue, Jan 7, 2003 05:11 AM UTC:Other than conscience, not much...
Not to mention ego. And for that matter, the only engine available for most of these games, Zillions of Games, plays several of the games on this list fairly weakly (Rococo and Chess on a Longer Board with a few Pieces Added come to mind).
I didn't bother to write a no computers rule because I dislike setting rules that are by nature unenforceable. (Would that lawmakers felt this way!) Peter also makes a good point...the availability of competent engines for several of these games is limited to non-existent. That's one advantage of a multivariant event with widely different stuff.
2404 wrote on Tue, Jan 14, 2003 04:13 PM UTC:Good ★★★★25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.