Comments by GlennOverby

I apologize for not making the second round vote rules more clear.  There
should have been a third clause: 'Entrants may vote or not vote under the
same rules as all other voters.'

Now I'm glad that I posted the finalists a few days early.  :)

I have no objection to modifying the official Luotuoqi rules to use
king-capture instead of checkmate for victory.  If a majority of
contributors concur, let it be so.

=====

Entrant 3, the second to propose the Separate Realms Rook (under a
different name), has withdrawn that entry in favor of Entrant 2's earlier
independent submission.  I'll make the change in a few minutes.

The eight finalists are now posted to the site.  Congratulations to the
survivors, and a big thanks to all who entered and all who voted.

The finals round of voting runs from 15 July through 15 August.

Glenn

One question, one plea:

Question: Will any two Towers trigger the new promotion rule, or only two
Towers of the same height?  (I recommend the latter.)

Plea:  ZRFers out there, the time is upon us.  We need someone to take up
the formidable challenge of coding The Cube.  Everything else appears to
be moderately straightforward.  If you can code The Cube for an otherwise
standard game of chess, let me know.  We'll beg and plead to let us put
it into a Camel Chess ZRF.  :)

Glenn

Hi, folks.  Thanks for the good suggestions.  I am over my computer
difficulties, and will be back up to speed very soon.

There are three entrants who have not yet voted.  All voters who mentioned
voting in this thread have their ballots in.

I am allowing until midnight CDT on Sunday, July 6th for those voters, or
any others, to get in their ballots.  Existing ballots may also be changed
up to that time.  I'll count votes on the 7th.

Glenn

::waving Hello::  My computer was down temporarily.  I'll be up to speed
Real Soon Now.  Promise.  ;)

Thank you, gentlemen, both for the support and the critique.

The poll results are on the site.  I don't have the link handy, but
clicking on Polls on the sidebar of the What's New page should get you in
the right place.

Any number of voters is more input than simply letting the editors pick. 
Our primary say comes in determining what gets on the ballot from public
suggestions.  We also break ties.

Offhand, I could easily have nominated Tamerlane, Alice, or Hostage
without a second thought.  The field was tough, as was picking ONE to vote
for.

One of the recurring challenges of life, when building up any organization
to fulfill a given purpose, is to build something which will last beyond
the interest or ability of the founder to continue.

Hans has done that, and has in the process established himself as a great
modern contributor to the history of chess.  Well done.

Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention.

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 left the King unpromoted for two reasons.  One was the notorious
difficulty of checkmating more mobile royal pieces.  The other was the
influence of Shogi itself, where the King is one of just two pieces that
cannot promote.

But there are potentials for promoting the King, and a case could be made
that if it survives to get out 7 ranks it deserves to be harder to kill
:)

On the naming of combined leapers: I developed a family of combined leapers
for Beastmaster Chess.  Positing the Horse's move as three squares
including a turn (another way of describing a 1,2 leap), I used pieces
with four, five, and six square moves including a turn.

The colorbound Roc is (1,3) + (2,2), Camel+Elephant.
The colorchanging Pegasus is (1,4) + (2,3), Giraffe+Zebra.
The colorbound Wyvern is (1,5)+(2,4)+(3,3).

None of these names is in =common= use elsewhere.  Pegasus found its way
into ximeracak. as well.

Voting instructions have now been posted above.  Just send an email to the
address listed, listing up to 15 games in order of merit and including
your name.

Entrants MUST vote for at least 10 games, and MUST NOT vote for their own
at this stage.

Glenn

Selecting a royal piece might be an interesting addition to Luotuoqi II.  I
can think of more than a few ideas.  :)

Just two days left for the voters to pick a new Queen!  If you want in on
the remaining three polls (Bishops, the second New Rule, and Rooks) then
send in a suggestion for one or more of them.  :)

I am also starting to look at ideas for how to organize Luotuoqi II,
possibly without the limitation of the standard set.  Given the long
history of chess on somewhat bigger boards, here's my first idea:

The game is for a 10 x 10 board.

First ballot selects three 'doubled' pieces (two of each in setup), and
a fourth- through seventh- choice as possible extras.

Second ballot selects three 'single' pieces (one of each in setup), and
a fourth- and fifth choice as possible extras.

Third ballot selects a pawn to be used, including oddities such as
promotion and multiple step.

Fourth ballot selects three extra rules, with a 100-word limit instead of
50 words.

Fifth and final ballot selects a setup.  This would include three to seven
'doubled' pieces, three to five 'single' pieces, a king, and the row
of pawns (which may be staggered on more than one rank, or have holes). 
Assuming a full row of 10 pawns...which is not mandated, although it is
likely...this makes for 20 to 30 pieces per side according to voter
preference.

Your comments are invited.

The judges of Group A have reached a unanimous recommendation on four
finalists for that group.  I am awaiting permission from Hans or one of
the other editors-in-chief before that result is released.  They may well
wish to wait until all judges from all groups have reported.

Comments about the Queens (11 days to vote!)

Fiend: It might work on the 12x12 board for which it was designed, but
that long leap for an Immobilizer on 8x8 may have problems.

Killer Immobilizer: This feels like too many rules.

Tower of Hanoi: The objection to this creative piece is its use of sixteen
checkers in addition to the usual pieces.  But the idea has worthwhile
potential anyway.

Queen+Lame Camel: Does Camel Chess need a camel?  If so, this is a
reasonable choice.

Queckers: A multi-moving Queen scares me.  :)

Ancestral Dragon: Knowing what a simple knight relay does, the relay power
of this piece seems over the top.

The S~Pawn~ing Queen: I wish the proposal had not allowed for up to 12
pawns on a side.  That's a lot.

I'm not sure which way to go.  But I'm looking forward to the Bishops
next month, which have some really cool ideas.

That's also how I would interpret the proposal...one of the eight squares
adjacent to a S~pawning Queen would need to be vacant to receive the
created Pawn.

I would like to thank my fellow staff members for picking up the slack for
me during a time of recent personal upheaval.  I believe that all entries
which have been submitted are now posted and linked.

Contestants, thank you for your patience.  The voting instructions will be
posted soon after the April 15th entry deadline, but after the last of any
last-minute entries is posted.  I'm enjoying your creativity so far.

Five of the fifteen tournament games have finished.  Standings are:

Peter Aronson 2.0/3
Michael Howe 1.0/1
John Lawson 1.0/3
Michael Nelson 1.0/3
Tony Quintanilla 0.0/0

All players are playing six games.

Aronson defeated Nelson at ximeracak. and Lawson at Rococo.
Howe defeated Nelson at Cavalier Chess.
Lawson defeated Aronson at Grand Chess.
Nelson defeated Lawson at Chess on a Longer Board.

Glenn

Mr. Martin:

We have received your Diplomat Chess entry.

We are experiencing problems with mail forwarding at the moment; if the
situation is not cleared up in 48 hours or so I will mail you an alternate
address for your submission.

Glenn Overby
CVP Competitions Editor

Comments on the field of Pawns:

Eaglet -- Straightforward yet novel.
Novice -- Curious.  Is it stronger or weaker than a standard pawn?
Left/Right Pawns -- Possibly tough to track.
Rapid Pawn -- Another straightforward and appealing entry.
Checkers -- These could be quite powerful.  Is this hybrid good?
Militia -- Rifle-pieces always introduce questions.
Nickel -- Imaginative.
Piece of Eight -- Alone, not so hot...if the Tower of Hanoi wins, :)

John, I'm glad your memory is better than mine.  :)

I have votes from seven of the nine entrants as of January 1.  The four new
people will be eligible to vote in the remaining 6 polls beginning in a
couple of days.

The new rules section will re-open for suggestions on Saturday, after the
deadline for the current voting passes.  The list for Pawns will close for
good at that time, as the February poll will pick the Pawn.

Also, two more suggestions have been posted.

Ow.  Zillions did that to me once in a test game.  :)  Like the fool's mate
in orthochess, once you've seen it you avoid it in the future.

Thanks for the compliment.  'Beautifully treacherous' almost sounds like
ad copy.

Thanks for the catch.  I did get it backwards.  It is fixed now; the
notation on the page is really the Crab.  :)

An excellent summary, indeed.

Just to establish the futility of trying to get a standard name out of all
this, I noticed that my Thronschach calls the piece a Cardinal, and my
ABChess later the same year calls it an Archbishop.  :)  History is on
both sides, and for Princess as well.

But I also like Fergus's reasoning for Paladin.

I think that outward is the default usage within square brackets; the Rhino
is simply z[WF].

I don't know about [nWF] for the Horse.  Does nW make sense?

I'm still mulling over how to define a long leap, short of using up more
of the alphabet.  The curly brackets are possible.  Or parentheses.  And I
think the comma would be optional in that context.

I have written a summary of the notation as it stands, including the
extension introduced for the Rhino.  It is a bit more organized than
Ralph's earlier notes, but probably could use some enhancement.  It will
be up soon.

I didn't intend to start an animated debate, and I apologize for doing
so.

I think the solution is education and encouragement, not some sort of
unenforceable faux compulsion.

To this end, I think that encouraging the use of a slightly tightened
Betza notation on a widespread basis has clear merit.

I also think that designers for their part would be well-served by some
modest research before they jump to publication--and their games are in
fact better served by forging their links to the family tree with good
naming.

I haven't settled on nominating another game yet, but Hostage Chess is
quite possible.  It's an outstanding modification of the idea of drops to
fit a standard chess set.  David Pritchard called it the variant of the
decade for the 1990s; he may well be right.

Zillions also overvalues dramatically the Teleporter in my ABChess.  That's
a divergent piece which can move anywhere (outside Xiangqi-like
fortresses) to a space of the opposite color, but captures only as a Wazir
(including into or within a fortress).  ZoG makes it worth about 1.5
Queens on an 11x11 board.  I figure it for perhaps half that, and that may
still be high.

I prefer Marshal (one l, Freeling's usage notwithstanding) in part because
there are a lot of piece-names that start with C and I often strive for
unambiguous English notation.  I also tend to use Archbishop instead of
Cardinal for the same reason.

I'm not sure there is a consensus for Chancellor or Marshal, but I would
use neither name for any other piece-move.  Both names seem to be strongly
associated with the specific R+N combination.

The deadline has passed.  Unless David has a last-minute entry that has not
been forwarded (the entries route to him because of the fee), my pairings
are complete and will be emailed this weekend.

Good luck, gentlemen.

I absolutely agree.  But I note several practical difficulties.

1) Which variants?  This also invites subquestions...how is a variant
recognized for official play, how is the list determined for a
championship series, how do we develop laws which cover the wide realm of
variants...
2) Should games such as shogi and xiangqi (or Western chess!), with their
own firmly established organizations, be considered as variants?
3) Should tournaments utilizing only one variant be counted, or only
events involving two or more?
4) How does one balance the variants in issuing ratings, given that player
proficiency is certain to vary across the spectrum of games?
5) Is there enough of an audience of variantists (who play more than one
or two games with some proficiency) to be credible or worthwhile?

Certainly as the contest guy here, I'm keenly interested in the idea you
raise.  But we'd have quite a road in front of us...

Glenn Overby

Douglas, that's a problem that can't be solved easily.  The best answer I
can give is simply to enjoy each game for what you get from it, and know
that those who rely on a computer to win are cheating themselves.

Also, playing variants helps (yes, I know that you're still new to regular
chess), because many of the programs available are a lot weaker.

Next, don't always trust everything you hear over IM--I've seen my share
of false accusations in my time.

Finally, over time you can find opponents you can trust.

Good luck to you!

Glenn Overby
CVP Competitions Editor

Robert:

I sent email to each entrant on 2 January outlining how polls are
conducted.  (Only entrants are eligible to vote.)  Each month I will send
email to my list of all entrants with the current month's polling
instructions.  The following is excerpted from that email.

---begin excerpt---
To vote:  Send me an email ([email protected]) voting for as many or
as few nominees below as you wish, in order of preference.  I will use
Single Transferable Vote counting to establish the winner.

While you have all of January to vote, if I hear from all nine entrants
sooner I will announce the result ASAP.
---end excerpt---

Also included was the text from the webpage recounting the nominees.

If you or anyone else was an entrant as of January 1, and did not get this
email from me, please confirm your email address to me.  Anyone who has
entered for the first time in January, as well as prior entrants, should
hear from me around February 2.

Glenn

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.

This one won't be in anybody's pool (more's the pity) as it would have been
Tony's third entry.  Also, Peter has been in semiretirement from
contests.

;)

I have designs in Groups B and C, and am a credited playtester on a game in
Group A.  A simple playtest credit would not ordinarily keep me from
judging, but given my multiple status as a new editor of the CVP and an
entrant as well I am being extra-cautious.  I have notified Hans that I
cannot judge.

But the system seems reasonable to me.

Two questions:

1.  May a piece which promoted move out of a citadel, move back in on a
later turn, and promote again?  There are three possibilities for this:

Firzan--Eagle--Queen
Vizier--Lion--Warlord
Guard--Champion--Supercav

2.  Let's see if I understand promotion zones:

A.  Either citadel on the enemy side may be used by any piece which has a
level to which to promote.

B.  A bishop may also promote on the square orthogonally adjacent to an
enemy citadel.  (In other words, a colourbound bishop still has two
promotion spaces.)

C.  A pawn may also promote on b2(b7) or k2(k7).

3.  The ZRF is barely started, but if you want to send me your email addy
(mine is on the feedback page) I can send you a screenshot or two of the
graphics I did for this.  I went with an unchequered board to supplement
your historical feel.

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.

Robert's idea makes sense.  As each rule/piece is adopted, it supersedes
any previously adopted proposal to the extent of any conflict.

When it's all over I expect to edit the whole as a consistent rule set in
any case (standardizing description formats, clarifying conflicts, etc.).

They're working hard on making everyone whole.  This is a brief excerpt
from a long explanatory message apparently sent to subscribers in
general...

---begin excerpt---
Any timed-out tournament and non-tournament games since midnight Thursday
will be restored automatically. Also, we will suspend tournament timeouts
until midnight on Tuesday. 

If you are a current member, we will add 2 days to your membership. Please
email [email protected] from the email address registered on your
account, and we will take care of this for you. Please allow a few days
for us to get to this request, since we are frantically trying to address
all the issues relating to this downtime.
---end excerpt---

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'm as much in the dark as Ken is...I play a few games there (ItsYourTurn),
and have had no trouble until this extended outage.  If I hear anything
reliable I'll mention it here.

Glenn Overby
Editor

The key in answering Daniel's question is that the King may be left en
prise--you don't have to move out of check.  So any time a King is
'checked' but not 'mated' by traditional rules, that King could be lost by
simply failing/forgetting/declining to protect it.

There are some mild tactical potentials as well, since the capture of a
vulnerable King is mandatory...

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.

Thanks for the information.  A 'false friend' possibility is exactly what I
was wondering about.  Ah, well.

It took me a while (and a fudge or two) to get an English list that fit.

Luotuoqi is intended to be playable with an ordinary board and pieces.  I
don't see a big deal with entries that differentiate one
rook/knight/bishop from the other.  It will be up to the polling to see if
others have issues.

A similar situation applies with rules like proposal 3, The Cube.  It
introduces something other than the basic 32 pieces and a board.  Only the
voting will tell if this places the rule beyond the pale.

The minor tweaks I added should answer your questions.  (Yes, you can
spread out your official suggestions.  Yes, you can make a split
nomination for a piece.)

Thanks for asking!

Both.  I will update the list of entrants every so often, <b>and</b> the
ultimate pairings will be a surprise.  :)

Thank you for the insights.  The game will require a lot more play before I
go monkeying too much with it.  The piece values are very, very hard to
tie down.  I don't see occasional unbalanced matchups as a problem, since
experimenting with new armies is what it's all about.  But a piece,
especially a higher-priced piece, that is markedly over- or under- priced
will be a Bad Thing in the long run.

The Teleporter was picked in part because of that anti-positional nature. 
It made a very different, divergent piece, which in my version is also a
color-changer like the orthodox knight.  (And pieces starting with T are
not commonplace.)  Zillions finds it hard to handle, but the astonishing
mobility has its uses.  Its price is, frankly, the most likely to change
with experience.

I finished a Zillions-vs-Zillions round-robin between the eight armies
supplied in the ZRF.  A crosstable and notes will be up in the next few
days.  Marshal Immobilizer and Varan Unicorn armies tied for first at 5-2;
last place was 2-5.  White scored 15.5-12.5.

MI army: XSEMZ-IAZWS

VU army: VHEDD-JJEHU

Jackman is what Holzman morphs into when you've been staring at a screen
for too long today and start writing from faulty memory.  :)

Glenn

Responding to several comments at once...

Nightriders: The Yeomen on third rank, on the 11x11 board, do help in
slowing down the Nightriders.

Link: It's fixed; thank you for pointing it out.

Pawns and lettering: There were two reasons why I gave the Yeomen a
letter.  One was thematic consistency in my eyes...26 letters, 26 pieces. 
The other was the lack of suitable 'Y' pieces out there--I tried to avoid
inventing pieces or stretching too far for names, preferring instead to
draw from a rich variety of existing concepts.

Thanks for the feedback!