Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

The editor handling the contest, Fergus Duniho, hasn't been available to
work on it of late.  But there's plenty of time, and it will be caught up
eventually.

I've submitted an entry and I think that perhaps, just perhaps, they should
remove the competing entry that's up there until they start adding new
ones...just to be fair.

Just a thought.

Regards

Tomas Forsman

I am very anxcious about this contest and I am eagerly awaiting it's
opening. Perhaps some of the not so bussy editors could help out and get
the submissions up.
I want to playtest =)

Tomas

We are now closing in on the deadline for submissions on the 84-square
contest. Will it perhaps turn up at that date?
I'm sorry if I sound impatient, I just want to see if people like or
dislike my entry =)

-=Tomas=-

I now know about six entries (yours and mine included) and that probably
means there are a lot more. You could go back to older competitions to see
how many there use to be.
A guess would be 20-25 but it's hard to say.
Could be less since it hasn't been active and no entries have been shown
so people can think 'I can do better then that' ;).
Let's hope for plenty.
If you want someone to playtest them with (using Zillions) give me a shout
at [email protected]

-=T=-

Well, I counted those who had written comments and the one that was up
there for a while.
I only counted one from you so now it's one more.
As you say, can be many more or not. We'll see =)

-=T=-

Don't sweat it Fergus. We all appreciate the work you are putting into the
competition just to get it going.
I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the submissions and I hope that
your move goes well.

-=T=-

Those are good points, I hadn't realized such problems had arisen in the
past. Hopefully the rules as given this time will help. I suppose we have
to figure that any publicly-judged contest will have somewhat limited
significance.
How would this work, for future contests: in order to submit a judgment
you also have to submit the ZSG of one game that you completed (or played
till one side resigned, or till both sides agreed to a draw, as long as
those decisions appear rational). I would consider playing at least one
game to be the minimum effort required for passing a judgment. Or would
others disagree?

Well I disagree a little bit with that.
I will probably play all games that have a zillions file but the rest I
probably wont play but I'll read through the rules and pass my 'judgement'
at all games. I'll have comments for those I haven't played as well based
on my past experiences with similar rules or what I think of the games
inovativeness (if that is a word).
I think that the comment thing helps a lot since it alteast forces the
voter to read through the rules and get a grip about the game.
In my humble opinion I think that judges are better then public voting
though I think that comments from players and testers should influence the
judges as well.

-=T=-

In order to make quality judgements, one does need to attempt to play the
games.  But there are some games that it doesn't take a full game to
realize it's unplayable...and without a Zillions file, there are others
that it is much more difficult to set up and try to play.

It's a nice idea, but not necessarily an enforceable nice idea, although
Mark does try to lay down a way to do it.

Perhaps adding a checkbox (Have played the game x number of times).
Ofcourse this will lead to some lying from voters but with the comment too
I think the rulers can decide the weight of each vote.
Haven't really thought that much about this idea but it's just an idea ;)

-=T=-

I for one am not a programmer.  I bought the full version of Zillions of
Games and I planned to put my entry into a Zillions format.  I ran into
the problem, however, that the learning curve to be able to implement the
game in Zillions format was far too steep for the amount of time I had. 
I, for one, intend to play test the various games before I 'pass
judgement' on them, since I think it is the only way that one can be able
to judge with any fairness at all, even if it means I have to construct a
makeshift board to do so...

Speaking as a fellow entrant: Given the unusual circumstances surrounding
the submission and posting process, I think Tony's request is more than
fair, and suggest that Fergus consider approving it.

Two points.

Firstly, if, and only if, the organizers of the www.chessvariants.com
website agree to a work-around, I am generally agreeable to a work-around,
though subject to my second point.

Secondly, I am unwilling to post details of my two entries to a Yahoo
group as Yahoo groups have rules about intellectual property rights in
postings and what 'you' will be doing with your own intellectual property
rights in posting to a Yahoo group.  I am happy with the rules about
intellectual property rights as stated in the 84 Spaces Contest rules, but
I am certainly not going to post my entries to a Yahoo group.

I wonder why Yahoo groups is suggested at all.  Surely a thread on this
www.chessvariants.com website could be started.  As I feel that the
permission of the organizers of the www.chessvariants.com website should
be a necessary enabling permission of publishing our entries before the
official publication, if that permission were forthcoming then perhaps it
could be accompanied by a permission to post entries in posts to this
website.

Yahoo, here, whatever, I'm just anxious to read about the entries and play
them. I suggest another venue because (presumably) these pages would have
posted them by now if they were able to, and we don't know how long the
wait will be. 

I don't see why we'd need anyone's permission to post material we wrote
ourselves. Nor would posting it on Yahoo compromise our right to our work,
since Yahoo can't legally claim proprietary rights over material that
someone else composed. Copyright doesn't work like that. You can REGISTER
a copyright on someone else's work -- sure, the copyright office will be
glad to take your registration fee and put your material on file -- but if
the author can prove it's his work, your copyright would have no force.

I write to respond to some of the comments made by Mark Thompson.

>I don't see why we'd need anyone's permission to post material we wrote
ourselves.

My thinking was that such publication, if done without permission, could
possibly lead to disqualification from the 84 Spaces Contest.

>Nor would posting it on Yahoo compromise our right to our work,
since Yahoo can't legally claim proprietary rights over material that
someone else composed.

My concern with the rules of Yahoo groups is that those rules, in the
Terms of Service document, state that posting grants an intellectual
property rights license to Yahoo.  The wording is complicated.  In the
event of my wishing to license some intellectual property rights of
something which I have invented to a manufacturer or to a magazine, I do
not wish to have the complication of licences to Yahoo being part of the
equation, so I will not post my ideas to a Yahoo group.

I am, however, entirely willing to post my entries in this forum if the
owners of the www.chessvariants.com website, who are holding the contest,
agree that all entrants may post their entries in this forum.

However, that is my own view.  It is entirely possible that some entrants
might feel that they do not wish to post their entry or entries anywhere
prior to their entry or entries being published by the organizer of the
competition.  Indeed, some of them might feel that such prior publication
of other entries would be unfair.  This is, I suggest, not a matter of a
majority of entrants deciding the issue, for even if a majority agree to
something I feel that it should not be done if that agreement would
violate the rights under the rules of the contest of even one person.

I wish that someone else within chessvariants.com could take it upon
him(her)self to publish the games. Once that is done there ain't much work
with the contest for quite some time.
The rest of the site are very active and new material comes up every now
and then, I really whish part would be as active.
I understand Fergus, sometimes one just doesn't have the time, strenght´or
motivation to follow some things through and sometimes it's just plain
impossible. I just wish that someone could help him out.

-=Tomas=-

Doug, I did.  It's been resubmitted, so will probably be up soon.  Three
players, naturally.  :)

How many are interested in meeting up to play some of the submissions every
now and then?
-=T=-

Looks like I'm too far west...I live almost on the Illinois/Indiana border,
a couple of hours south of Chicago and around 90 minutes west of
Indianapolis.

I'm in Connecticut and would be interested in playing in person some time.

Well, USA is too far away for me. Someone in Southwest Germany, 
Eastern France or Luxemburg?

Jörg Knappen, Saarbrücken, Saarland, Allemagne.

There are a lot of promising games in this contest. Would anyone like to
play some of them by e-mail? If there are Zillions implementations, we
could even arrange a time to play online in real-time, assuming the
players aren't behind firewalls that prevent Zillions from connecting. I
was able to use Zillions last I checked, though I recently got DSL and
don't know whether that will affect it.

The judges will have plenty of work ahead of them to give adequate
play-testing to all of these. If a lot of us volunteered to play the
judges in e-mail games, would that be permissible and helpful? I'm
assuming that none of us who entered games would be playing our own
entries, and that we would all be good enough sportsmen to play seriously
in whatever games we were assigned. Also I'm assuming that there would be
at least 5-10 contestants participating in such a program, besides others,
so that each judge would have several opponents in any game.

I would certainly be willing to help judge under the conditions Hans
describes (11 games in first round, 6 in finals, no judge evaluates any
group including their own design at any time).  It seems the best way to
manage the rather large field.

For the newly-opened 43 squares contest I have gone to a two-round
preferential voting system, as the task is getting quite large for one or
two judges.  This contest was also originally slated for voting, so a jury
of the public is a reasonable return to what Fergus originally conceived.

My usefulness is limited, since I have two entries in my last contest
before joining the editorial staff.  But I'll judge other games as long as
I am eligible.

I agree with David Short's suggestions. It would be best to split games by
the same person into two different groups. This will better allow each
game to be judged on its own merits. Besides the scenarios he mentions,
another is that a judge, in an attempt to be fair to all contestants, will
let himself favor only one game by the same person, even though both may
be deserving of ranking among the highest. Suppose that one author has two
games that are really better than the others. If all the judges like these
two games more than the others, but out of a sense of fairness let
themselves favor only one or the other, they could be split on which one
they favor. This could then result in neither game by that person placing
among the highest ranked games.

I'm willing to judge. I may find time to playtest the games in a group
during the winter break. I probably don't have time for email games that
could carry into the next semester, but I should be able to find time to
play against Zillions.

I've taken the time to identify which games in the contest have certain
commonalities between them, specifically, the board layout design. 
These games, I feel, should be seperated into seperate inital 11-game
groups as much as possible. The ones where four games are listed should
be broken down into a 2-1-1 ration and the ones where three games are
listed
should be broken down into a 1-1-1 ration. 

12 FILES, 7 RANKS: Herb Garden Chess, Schizophrenic Chess, Viking Chess

7 FILES, 12 RANKS: Delegating Chess, Orwell Chess, Wizard Chess, Ryu
Shogi

10 BY 10 BOARD WITH 16-SQUARE 'NO-ENTRY ZONE' IN CENTER: Invasion, Tree
Garden Chess, Seenschach, The Pit.

Finally, I nominate the three games which, to me, seem to be the most
complicated. Certainly there may be one or two others which others might
feel should go into this 'top three' list more than one or two of the
ones
I am listing here, but I certainly wouldn't want to be the judge which 
has to play any of these three games, and therefore I feel each of the
following games should be split up among the three different groups,
one apiece: Ramayana Chess, Tetrahedal Chess, Unconventional Warefare
Chess

Further input and voting should be taken among the judges to come up
with that final 3 'most complicated' list and seperate them into the 
three different groups.

Thirteen entrants (16 designs) have participated in prior contests.  A
rough familiarity factor, computed by adding the number of prior entries
to the number of judge recognitions (prize or special mention), shows: 
Aikin 6, Neto 6, Quintanilla 5, Overby 4, Bell 3, Cazaux 3, McComb 3,
Short 3, Thompson 3, Bruck 2, VanDeventer 2, Forsman 1, Greenwood 1. 
Messrs. Cazaux and Greenwood certainly are well-known for other
contributions as well.

Ten entrants (18 designs, including two joint-entries) have two games. 
These are Campos, Fourriere, Knappen, A Newton (1 joint), P Newton (2
joint), T Newton (1 joint), Overby, Overington, Quintanilla, Short.

> Please note that I did not take into account the 'newcomer vs. veteran'
criteria when I made the above groupings ....
 
Excellent.  That is, I feel, how it should be.
 
I feel that each entry should be judged on the entry itself, with
absolutely no facet of the assessment process being based on whether the
author is an experienced author of chess variant games or is a newcomer.

It may, however, be that the experience of people who will be acting as
judges should be taken into account in assigning judges to each of the
various groups of games.  That, however, is not at all the same as
assigning a game based upon its author's experience.
 
I seem to remember that the first rules of the 84 Spaces Contest seemed to
imply that each entrant was required to participate in the judging.  That
then went when the rules were changed.  Now that the rules have
effectively been changed again so as to involve entrants in the judging,
could there please be, for the avoidance of doubt, a clear statement as to
whether an entrant is once again now required to participate in the
judging or if participating in the judging is optional.

I hope that the chess variants pages do not slip into that awful practice
of the news media and some magazines of referring to a person by just his
or her surname rather than stating either a first name or a formal style
in front of the surname.

There have been so many points made here I cannot comment on them all, but
I will mention some that have drawn my attention.

FYI, I have also volunteered to be a judge.  Am I to be classified as a
newcomer or a veteran?  It seems the proposed critia are based mainly on
contributions to the CVP.  I am not blessed with that sort of creativity,
but I have been a regular visitor and commentor for five years, and I have
been interested in chess variants for 40 years.  Furthermore, I seem to be
of approximately average playing strength among variantists.

There are two good ideas that are mutually exclusive.  One is Fergus's
idea that the top five games advance in each of the three pools of eleven.
 The other is Mark's suggestion that the pools are too large, and six or
seven games per pool would be better.  Perhaps the protocol should be left
to Hans in this case, because it depends on how many judges are
available.

When it comes to dividing up the games, there are several ideas.  I like
David's idea of balancing out the pools by format of game.  I think it is
a good idea to separate both contributions by the same person into
different pools.  Of course any contributor who also judges should not be
allowed to judge their own game.  I emphatically think it is NOT a good
idea to segregate the games designed by 'novices' and 'veterans'.  It
seems clear to me that a pool of 'veteran's' games would be more
competitive than a pool of 'novices's' games, and would result in skewed
first round results.

As a judge, I would expect some guidance on the criteria I would be using
to rate.  I expect to play, as David suggested, at least two of each game
(ideally more, if the nature of the game was eluding me).  I assume I
would play with the other judges of my pool, or with the inventor, if he
makes himself available as David has.  As the prospect of playing 22 large
and complex variant games simultaneously is daunting, I am already
beginning to extricate myself from my other gaming activities to make
time.

I'm shaking my head in bemusement.  Had the contest run by its original
plan, before Life intervened for its organizer, we'd be less than three
weeks from being done.  (Albeit with many fewer entries, and that includes
some good ones.)  Now, with the prospect of two or even three rounds of
judging by a pool still unknown, we may be looking at June.

I suppose this is partly the price of success...33 entries is really quite
a fine turnout for this contest.

My suggestion is to slow the pace of suggestions, and let Hans work
through what he wants to do.

By veteran, I meant anyone who has entered a previous Chess variant contest
at this site. By newcomer, I meant anyone for whom this is their first
time entering a Chess variant contest at this site. Using Glen Overby's
figures, I estimate that there are 13 veterans and 11 newcomers. 

I do not at all understand John Lawson's objections to segrating games by
veterans and newcomers. I do not understand how he thinks results would be
skewed. 

My main concern is that judges avoid, as far as they can, judging games by
people whose games they're already familiar with. Of course, this is
feasible only if a good number of the judges are new enough to be
unfamiliar with previous games by those who have already entered contests.
Assuming we have that, I propose that 11 newcomer games be put into one
group, and the rest be split into the other groups. Those judges who
already have favorite or least favorite games by veteran contestants can
then judge the group of games entirely by newcomers.

> Assuming we have that, I propose that 11 newcomer games be put into one
group, and the rest be split into the other groups.
 
The current rules of the 84 Spaces Contest state as follows.
 
quote
 
Judges
 
The contest will be judged by one or two qualified judges. It will be
announced later who these judges are. 
 
end quote
 
Now, the rules appear to have, in practice, been changed so that lots of
people, including entrants, judge the contest.  That change, however,
seems to be going back more towards the original rules of the 84 Spaces
Contest.
 
The distinction of some games being designated newcomer games would, I
feel, be unfair.  That was not in the rules at the start and should not
become part of the rules now.
 
David Short suggested four groups of eight.  Once Flipworld is added into
group 4, as he suggests, would those groups be suitable?  Is there any
reason not to use those groups?

I don't think the newcomer x veteran idea makes much sense, because it's
based on the false concept of familiarity - that veterans have extensive
knowledge of their fellows' previous submissions and that newcomers have
none. I seriously doubt it. I am a relatively new visitor to this site yet
I have checked *all* submissions to the previous contests, and playtested
some, including all previous winners. This may, of course, affect my
decisions - 'oh, this guy didn't do as well as in that other contest...
it's good but I'll send him a message by voting low' (of course, effect
exagerated) and there is no simple way to oppose this - adding me to the
list of veteran judges? On the other hand, some 'veterans' may have had
little contact with other submissions, and even forgotten who authored
what. It's doubtful they will have any more 'twisted' reactions than
newcomers.

On a more serious issue, most volunteered judges, including me, are
participants in the contest. Will judging be limited to us, or any
volunteer will be accepted? If the latter is correct, how will 'foul play'
be controlled? While I am all in favor of trusting people's gamesmanship,
the idea of ficticious judges voting alike to benefit someone isn't so
farfetched as to be dismissed.

The 12 finalists have been announced.  I do not have entries in
competition, so I will probably be putting my competitions editor hat back
on to organize the finals jury.  A further announcement may be expected in
a couple of days.

Good luck to the finalists!

The finals jury will be Glenn Overby, John Lawson, and Peter Aronson.  This
provides one judge from each preliminary group, and all judges from the
CVP staff.

To the judges of the preliminaries:  Thank you for stepping forward at a
difficult time to ensure that the contest could go on.

I would like to make clear that my comments about games in the 84 Spaces
Contest are absolutely in no way intended as crticism of the judges.
Having judged Group A with Glenn Overby and Michael Howe, I am well aware
of how difficult the judging task is and how diligently the judges do
their work.  No doubt some will disagree with our decisions as well. Given
the overall high quality of the entries, not all of the worthy games can
make the finals. I am also quite sure that many of the decisions were very
close ones.  

It's been a pleasure to be part of this contest, both as an entrant and a
judge.

So now the twelve finalists are going to be judged as a single group?  Is
that it?  Maybe someone oughta make a 'Round 2' page.

--Jared

The finals judges are playing a bunch of games, concentrating especially on
those each judge did not judge in round one.  I wouldn't be surprised to
see a final decision in a few weeks.