[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
84 Spaces Contest. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think David's remarks are right on target...a sort of 'guided randomness' to balance the pools is probably in order. Certainly splitting the entries of multiple-entrants is reasonable in round one, and while I hadn't thought about board style or other factors his suggestions are rooted in good thought. Fergus's earlier comment about picking five from each initial pool instead of three is also a good observation.
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?
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.
Well, I've experience judging contests and I'm not competing, so sure!
📝Hans Bodlaender wrote on Fri, Dec 6, 2002 02:12 PM UTC: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.
📝Hans Bodlaender wrote on Wed, Dec 4, 2002 08:02 AM UTC: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
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.
LCC wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 09:53 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★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.
Mike Nelson wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 09:25 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★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!
Mike Nelson wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 09:21 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★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.
Jared wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 03:26 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★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?
📝Hans Bodlaender wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 01:14 PM UTC: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)?
LCC wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 02:17 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★How about a 'Colaborators' Pick' mention, given to an entry that receives most nominations from other participants?
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.
Eric V. Greenwood wrote on Thu, Nov 28, 2002 12:11 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★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? ;)
Anonymous wrote on Fri, Sep 27, 2002 06:38 AM UTC:Well, USA is too far away for me. Someone in Southwest Germany, Eastern France or Luxemburg? Jörg Knappen, Saarbrücken, Saarland, Allemagne.
M. Howe wrote on Wed, Sep 25, 2002 09:42 PM UTC:I'm in Connecticut and would be interested in playing in person some time.
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 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?
How many are interested in meeting up to play some of the submissions every now and then? -=T=-
📝Hans Bodlaender wrote on Tue, Sep 24, 2002 11:16 AM UTC:A few details: you can also now submit games that have not submitted before, just send everything before the end of November. The new contest rules can be read via the link at the top of this page.
Doug, I did. It's been resubmitted, so will probably be up soon. Three players, naturally. :)
Did anybody get inspired to write an Orwellian _1984_-themed entry? Just curious.
📝Hans Bodlaender wrote on Mon, Sep 23, 2002 07:20 AM UTC:The running of the contest will be taken over by me, with help of other editors of the Chess Variant Pages. Please resubmit your games again; they will be added soon. I also decided to extend the deadline for submitting games till November 30, 2002.
<p>
A change is also that we plan to have the contest decided by a qualified judge. Email us if you have questions about the contest.
David has been emailing me at my ZZN email account, and ZZN recently stopped POP3 use for free email accounts. So the email he was sending me was not being downloaded with Eudora. I finally read and replied to some of it tonight when I logged into this email account on the web.
David Howe wrote on Sun, Sep 22, 2002 05:02 PM UTC:I have been attempting to contact Fergus, but it appears as if he is being completely unresponsive. Either that, or he isn't getting my emails. Consequently, we have decided that Hans will run the contest with the rest of the editors helping to publish the submissions.
<p>Anyone who submitted an entry for the contest: <b>please resubmit your entry to our editors email address</b> (which can be found <a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/feedback.html'>here</a>). We will <b>only</b> be accepting entries that were submitted to Fergus by the contest's deadline date.
<p>We apologize for the way this contest was handled and ask your continued patience while we play catch-up and get the contest back on track.
Can anyone at least give us a rough count? Are there about 10 entries, about 20, about 40? Maybe even an exact count?
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=-
I agree. Any departure from the contest format would have to be unanimous.
William Overington wrote on Mon, Sep 16, 2002 06:58 AM UTC: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.
David Howe wrote on Sat, Sep 14, 2002 06:46 PM UTC:I have emailed Fergus and did get a reply. Unfortunately, he cannot put much time at all into running the contest or even keeping contestants informed about his plans. So stay tuned, it may be that someone else will be running the contest.
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.
William Overington wrote on Sat, Sep 14, 2002 10:53 AM UTC: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.
I guess Fergus must be pretty busy, as he would be starting a teaching job, so I'm wondering about possible work-arounds. What would the other contestants say to this: could we all agree to a certain date, and on that date we each go to the Yahoo! Chess Variants group and post a message describing our entry. I suppose we could also upload ZRF's to the file-download section, if we have them (or even HTML's). That way we could all start evaluating the games, and get a headstart for that great day when they appear here.
David Howe wrote on Fri, Sep 6, 2002 02:15 PM UTC:I have been attempting to contact Fergus, but so far I haven't had any response. I will continue trying, so stay tuned.
I started moving later than I expected I would, because of delays in the refurbishing of my new apartment. In the meantime, my nephew, Christopher Turner Duniho, was born August 2nd. This kept me preoccupied during the delay. Shortly after that, I began moving stuff into my new apartment while work was still being done on refurbishing it. It is now almost completely refurbished, and I expect to set up my computer desk and move over my computer soon. If there are no more delays in refurbishing the apartment, I should be doing that this evening. I hope to get all the entries up this week after I have my computer up in my new apartment.
Paul E. Newton wrote on Wed, Aug 7, 2002 02:08 PM UTC:Even though no entries were posted, there was never any indication on the page that the contest itself was delayed or postponed. So I agree with Ben, allowing people to submit after the deadline would be unfair to those who have held to the deadline.
I have a slight concern that because nothing about the contest was being posted for so long, some people may have thought that the contest itself was on hold, and hence not sent in their entries. If that is the case, then it would, I think, be unfair to disallow them to submit those entries.
<hr>
As an aside, none of this affects me personally as I decided I've won enough contests here of late, and are only sending in non-competing entries.
I agree with Paul, the entry deadline and when they're posted by fergus afterwards are two completely unrelated issues. and if you're really interested in fairness, to say that extending the deadline for certain people can hardly be considered fair - people who submit later will simply gain extra time to playtest and improve their game, while those of us who made an extra effort to make the deadline may not have been looking at our game for the past week because we considered the deadline closed. my feeling is that if you can't come up with a chess variant in 7 months (the amount of time available to submit), then you can wait til next year's contest. i'm sure there'll be more coming.
Paul E. Newton wrote on Tue, Aug 6, 2002 08:09 PM UTC:I (also an entrant) do not see how the entry deadline has anything to do with getting the entries posted. They are two separate issues altogether. I think we can all understand the difficulties that Fergus has been through (and is currently going through) and I don't think that anyone wants to place any additional pressure on him. If it were suggested that the period for evaluation, comment and judging be extended, based on the delays in getting the entries posted, so that we still have a six-month period for evaluation and voting prior to the final judging, now to me, that would make sense and perhaps take some pressure off of Fergus...
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.
don't worry about not being a programmer. there's enough zillions programmers that the 84 square contest entries should be taken care of w/o much problem. (i'm not a zillions programmer either, unless you count the diagram-maker). for those who don't have zillions, there's a lot of good webpages on chessvariants.com on practical ways to construct your own sets.
Paul E. Newton wrote on Tue, Aug 6, 2002 04:31 PM UTC: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...
Would it be possible to extend the submission deadline?
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=-
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.
the problem with requiring everybody to play at least one game is that you may be forcing people to play games that are so bad as to be nearly unplayable. these are less likely to be submitted as large variants, but it's possible; i had several in the 40-square contest and i admit i either didn't play them or didn't finish a game. <P>
but i still stand by claim i made about judging to 40 square contest - the number one thing i learned from that experience is that you have to play the games. i am highly skeptical of any claim from anybody that they can completely, accurately, and consistently judge games in an objective-as-possible fashion without playing them. not only do you have to play them, you have to play them a lot. playing one game is like doing a national survey of one person - it's often not very meangingful. when i did the 40 square contest i had 'black holes' on 2nd place in my list for a long time; it was only by playing many times - i probably played about 30 games - that i was able to determine that the game was too likely to end in a draw. and realizing that, i then had to give the other games that i had in the top 5 the same treatment to make sure they held up as well.
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=-
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, it's not a big deal, but hiding the inventors' names helps prevent voter bias. to think that this won't occur seems optimistic to me. in addition to people who might deliberately vote for their friends and against anybody they don't like, it's also easy for people to honestly believe that they're not doing it and do it nonetheless without being aware of it, and somehow rationalize the results. when i judged to 40 square contest, there wasn't anybody i didn't like, but i had to constantly remind myself not to go easy on my friends. <P>
there's also the problem that an inventor with a reputation for excellent games may be judged more critically because people expect more from them - any musician or author who has had a bestseller is acutely aware of this problem. <P>
those of you who were around for the large variant contest and read the yahoo board may remember one of the finalists openly admitting that he simply had all his friends and family members vote for his game without even reading the rules. actually, hiding inventors' names wouldn't eliminate this problem, but it makes the point that honest voting does not always occur. <P>
fergus has largely eliminated this problem by requiring voters to vote on more than one game and to put in meaningful comments. it looks like fergus upgraded the comments requirement, possibly in response to the comments from the large chess variants contest. i read through the comments to this contest today and some of them are insightful but some of the commentators obviously couldn't judge their way out of a paper bag and don't understand the concept of objective judging. i looked at the 100 square contest comments too tho and they seem a lot better.
I think that we're all just glad Fergus is OK, and when the entries get posted they get posted. :) I also agree with Mark in that I see no need to hide the designers' names.
I vote for 'no pressure on Fergus' regarding deadlines. My experience is that the first year of teaching (really the first few years) is VERY time consuming. You'll be doing very well if you can keep up with the Art Bell show. But as for keeping the authorship of the entries secret -- er, I didn't see any reason to keep the game I submitted secret, and haven't done so ... If there's a decision that we should, I don't see how I could follow it now. Also, I don't think I see the purpose of such a rule.
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=-
i notice that if you go to the contest rules page, it says that all voters will be anonymous, but it doesn't say that the designers of the games will be kept anonymous during the voting period. i think this would definitely be a good idea.
There will continue to be some delays in getting the entries up, but I expect to be able to have everything up by next week. When I ran last year's contest, hardly anything in my life changed during the whole year. The biggest thing was finishing my Ph.D., but I remained in the same place and continued my graduate student lifestyle. This year, everything has changed, and this has created several distractions and obstacles to keep from working on this contest as much as I worked on the last one. In early April, I accepted a job offer to teach at SUNY Plattsburgh, and a couple days later, my father died. Between grieving for my father, going to his memorial service, and choosing textbooks for my courses, I had no time for this contest. During the middle of May from I moved from Rochester to Plattsburgh, into an apartment above my mother's bookstore. To save money, I have been borrowing a phone line from her store to get on-line, but it is available to me only when the store is closed. On top of that, I have been working for her in her record store across the street. So my mornings are busy getting ready for work, my days are spent working, I'm sometimes tired when I finish work, and I'm even more tired when I can finally get on-line at 9:00 PM. Besides all this, I learned of a radio program called Coast-to-Coast AM, a.k.a. the Art Bell show, and I have been listening to this regularly. It airs for 4 hours 7 nights a week, and I record it each night on my VCR. Trying to keep up with this show takes up a lot of my time. This weekend, I will be moving again. My mother wants to rent the apartment I'm in now to 3 college students, and I will be moving across the street. As far as this contest goes, the significant thing about this move is that I will have to get my own phone, because I will no longer be able to borrow a line from my mother's store. Once I have my own phone, I will be able to get on-line at more reasonable hours, and I will more easily be able to get the entries up.
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=-
Tomas, do you have one or two entries? Add Mark's, Jean-Louis's, two from me...did I miss any who have announced? Oh, and Tony Quintanilla's got one in the works too. Six or seven, anyway. Might be a lot more, might not.
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=-
Can anyone tell me how many entries there are? I just submitted one, and I'm curious how busy I'm going to be with evaluating the others. I mean, if there are 3 others that's very different from if there are 30 others.
David Howe wrote on Wed, Jul 17, 2002 12:08 AM UTC:I have contacted Fergus. He indicates he will resume working on the contest in July sometime. So it should be two weeks from now (at most).
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=-
David Howe wrote on Mon, Jul 1, 2002 02:16 PM UTC:I have emailed Fergus. Please be patient and we'll see what the situation is in a week or two. Thanks.
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
David Howe wrote on Tue, May 21, 2002 02:58 PM UTC:Sorry about the lack of response. I have unlisted the one existing entry. Hopefully Fergus will publish the submitted entries in the near future.
The ignored contestant is right.
If the moderator of the contest has insufficient time to handle the contest, then he should remove himself, replace himself with someone who can.
Tomas wrote on Mon, May 20, 2002 03:44 AM UTC:Good ★★★★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
Anonymous wrote on Fri, May 3, 2002 03:38 PM UTC:Good ★★★★I know of three other entries that have been submitted, and one more in playtest. I presume that Fergus is simply backed up for now.
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.
Anonymous wrote on Thu, May 2, 2002 12:26 AM UTC:Looks like Invasion is currently in the lead. :-) Are people preparing entries for this contest?
78 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.