Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

The Inventor's Tournament is a good idea. But how will it work for more than two people? Some options are (A) All participants besides each inventor vote on which of his games to play. (B) One participant has the responsibility of choosing which game to play by another participant. There are multiple ways of choosing who gets to pick whose variant. (1) Who picks whose game is randomly chosen after all participants sign up, according to (a) a completely random pattern, (b) a linked list pattern, or (c) a reciprocal pattern. Since a reciprocal pattern requires an even number of players, the other options are better. A linked list pattern may be best, because it prevents bargaining between participants who get to choose each other's game. (2) Each participant picks the game to be played by the inventor who signed up before him, and when signing up is finished, the first player to sign up picks a game invented by the last player to sign up. This allows most participants to sign up and pick a game immediately, but it forces the first participant to wait until the end to pick a game. (3) Each inventor picks the game of the inventor who signed up after him, and when signing up is finished, the last inventor to sign up picks a game by the first inventor to sign up. This makes everyone wait between signing up and picking a game, but it minimizes how long anyone has to wait.

Of these options, B2 and B3 are natural linked list patterns that help get things going quickly. They give people some knowledge of what games will be played before signing up is finished. The other methods require everyone to sign up before knowing what any of the games in the tournament will be. With B2, all but the first participant have some degree of choice over whose game they pick. With B3, no one signs up knowing whose variants he will be able to pick a game from.

I would suggest the following amendments to this process. (A1) Each participant can exercise one veto on a game chosen by someone else after he has already signed up. Then the person who picked that game has to pick another one by the same inventor. (A2) Each participant may vote against games chosen after he has signed up, and if the majority of people who have already signed up oppose it, the person who picked it has to pick another. These two amendments give people who sign up early some guarantee that they won't be unhappy with the games selected after they sign up. People who sign up late tacitly give their approval to the games already picked.

After posting the preceding, I thought of some other ways to choose who picks whose game. (4) Each participant picks a game by any other inventor in the tournament who hasn't had one of his games picked. (5) Each participant picks a game by any other inventor who signed up after him, and the last person to sign up has to pick a game by the first person. (6) Each participant picks a game by any other inventor who signed up before him, the first person to sign up picking a game by the last person to sign up. (7) Same as 4 with the added provision that no two participants may pick each other's game, which prevents collusion.

Although I thought B7 would work out, methods 4 and 7 both have some problems mathematically. A group of people could create a looped linked list among each other that leaves someone out. Method 7 stops closed pairs from forming, but it doesn't stop closed loops of three or more people. I think methods 5 & 6 may not be subject to this problem, but I haven't worked out the math, and it remains more of a hunch.

This is a lot more complicated than what I had in mind.  The original idea
is natural extensible...  Say you, me, and Joe.  I have two games with Joe,
selected by the method I described.  You have two games with Joe,
independantly selected by the same mathod.  I have two games with you,
again selected independantly...   Now, granted, in even this 3-person case,
it could result in 6 different games.  If four people play, it could be 12
different games.  If five people play, it could be 20 different games... 
But I don't think that this is really a problem.  For one thing, if 10
people play, each player is not likely to have 9 variants, and each
opponent wanting a different one.  And also, if there are lots of different
games played, I'm not sure that's a problem anyway.

Okay, I was working with the assumption that one game by each inventor
would be chosen. If you allow multiple games by the same inventor, then it
works easily. But then it also becomes less of a tournament, because a tournament is normally about people playing the same games, more or less. If different people play different games, then it becomes more the sort of thing people are already doing without playing in tournaments.

Here's a variation on Greg's idea that would work with non-inventors too.
Each participant signs up with a list of games he would care to play in a
tournament. This list may include large, complicated games, but it should
also include something at an entry level, similar enough to Chess that
someone who knows only Chess could still understand and play it with ease.
For each pair of players, each player would pick a game from the other's
list, and they would play each other at each game.

That is true, but I think it would still be fun.  And I think there's a
good chance it will boil down to a small number of games anyway, especially
if people talk about the selections.  Although, I think where you're going
with it is not bad either.  If you wanted to get really crazy, you could
have a vote to select the game from each entrant...

Didn't see your last post.  I considered this also, and think it's also
workable.  Each person brings a list of one or more games, their choice,
with the caveat that at least one must be a traditional chess variant
(e.g., 2-dimensional, one royal king, chess pawns, no time travel, etc...)

I have never seen so much drama regarding chess variants!  Oy!  Anyways, I
am personally one of those chaotic players, taking up the challenge on
almost any type of variant out there, even if it is less variant-like than
most.  With that being said, I'll stand by Joe and Carlos' tournament
idea, unless they change it.  As far as themed variants go, I try to shy
away from those.  I like variety.  Nothing against it, and I still may
join, but its not my 'cup of tea'.  The inventor's tournament was a good
idea with a flaw that Fergus corrected.  For instance, I really have one
variant that I have created that I would even deem worthy of a tournament;
however, I don't even have a working preset for it and the rules were
still up in the air on a few parts for it.  Thus, I would be out of the
running.  If we did a selection of games, though, we can STILL run into the
issue that started this all.  Joe, I am not singling you out, but I want to
use you as an example.  Joe (and I, coincidently) seem to be avid players
of chaotic variants.  Joe has proven this with his 'Hypers', his
'Chieftains', etc. etc.  (Jeremy Good was one, too, I believe).  I like
the bigger variants too (Taikyoku Shogi, etc).  If Joe (or I, or Jeremy)
came up with a list that looked like Taikyoku Shogi, HyperChess, 3D Hyper
Shatranj, Chieftain Chess, then Fergus or Mats or everyone for that matter
would be forced to play one of those anyways.  Back to square one.  I guess
I'm on stand by until this all gets resolved.  I'd love to play in a
tournament, but my schedule can only handle one.  Hope we can all decide
together though.  I love competition and a tournament with 4 players
sometimes doesn't provide enough.

When you go to a potluck dinner, you don't have to eat everything other people bring. For example, if someone brings a meat dish to a potluck, vegetarians are free to skip it and eat something else. If this tournament is to be true to the description of potluck, it should offer the same kind of flexibility to people who enter. To that end, I propose that each entrant include one or more substitute games with the provision that one substitute should be an entry level game that differs from Chess only in some small way, not in some radical way (such as getting rid of Pawns) or in numerous ways. This is to accommodate entrants whose comfort level does not rise to the pet interests of other entrants. Or if your comfort level is more conservative, I recommend including one game at the far end of your comfort level, which would better accommodate those who enjoy more advanced or more unorthodox games. If there is enough disparity between these two games, I also recommend including a second substitute at an intermediate level. This would allow other entrants to find a comfort level and an interest level that comes closer to your own. For myself, I would go with Extra Move Chess as my entry level game, Storm the Ivory Tower as an esoteric game that interests me but may not appeal to everybody, and Gross Chess as an intermediate level game, since I know some of the others here like large variants, and this one pushes my own comfort levels regarding size. By requiring entrants to give options, instead of making it all take it or leave it, entrants don't have to choose between submitting an obscure game they really want to play or a more orthodox game that won't scare off as many people, and more people will feel comfortable signing up, knowing that they will be able to play games at their comfort level. Meanwhile, it will still afford people the opportunity to try a wide variety of different games.

Joe: What is your position regarding the issue that Fergus and Greg have been raising? 

The mine is that we should follow with our original idea. I see this type
of tourneys like a forum where certain kind of inventors could show theirs
exotic variants, those that nobody or few people would want to play.

I agree at all with Nicholas, save in one point: 'a tournament with 4
players sometimes doesn't provide enough'. Given the unpopular stuff we
are trying, a tournament with 4 players is a resounding success!

Hey, Carlos. Sorry for letting this go on so long without commenting - was
away for the weekend. [Grin, on business! It was a game designers and
developers workshop I've participated in a few times - Spielbany, by
Albany, New York. But it put me way, way behind here, and I've still got
sleep to make up!] Actually, I think all 3 ideas proposed from you, Greg,
and Fergus are decent, and would make workable tournaments. Greg did point
out the weakness in the 'bring a [short] list' idea, but a certain amount
of good will and negotiating should smooth out most problems there. 

I have committed to this potluck. Were I to propose an alternate game to
Chieftain, of my games, it would be Great Shatranj. Were I to bring a list,
including other designers, I would add Opulent Lemurian Shatranj, by David
Paulowich. As a 4th and 5th game, I would offer Hyperchess - now
Hyperchess4 to avoid any legalisms - and very likely Grand Shatranj. [And
speaking of people dropping by, it was nice to see Christian Freeling
(Grand Chess) making a comment recently.] There is a problem here, however.
Chieftain is the simplest, most straightforward and most obvious of the
games I have listed. And if people wanted to make an issue of new pieces,
all the games listed use several new pieces, except Hype, which uses the
standard chesspieces and pawns, bishops and pawns being modified for a
limited 4D game. 

I ask, in all honesty, if this list of 5 games would provide an acceptable
game for everyone. I consider all of these serious chess variants, games
which examine what I believe are little looked-at areas of chess.

Chieftain
Great Shatranj
Opulent Lemurian Shatranj
Hyperchess
Grand Shatranj

I'm comfortable with the Shatranj variants.

Joe: Please don't worry by the time. I'm quite pleased by viewing you
full occupied in business and similar things. Don't forget to send me
the rules of 'Merchant Princes and Space Pirates'. I'm very interested
in pirate you this game and to sell it here in Mexico!!! :)))) 

I insist in to run the original format of this tourney. I'm not against
to
change it. But, if Nicholas and I are the only guys interested in it, I
would suggest to close this item/topic and to open another new one
(perhaps) called 'Potluck Only4Vegetarians'. Enjoy!

I was eventually planning on doing a Green Eggs and Ham Potluck, which is apparently what you really intended for this tournament to be. I think I can get Extra Move Chess played in some other tournament. But if I'm to play some of the games entered into this tournament, I'll use it as an opportunity to get all of you to play Storm the Ivory Tower, preferably Version 3, which I regard as an improvement over previous versions.

Carlos, the Potluch Only4Vegetarians was already having been done in
the Hot Potato,
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=18565, three years ago to the day.

George, they're not the same thing at all. The Hot Potato thing you
described appears to be a Chess variant, not a style of tournament.

Joe: I think we all have already gotten an agreement. There are five persons interested in this tourney each one bringin thus:

1)Fergus: Storm the Ivory Tower (Version 3),
2)Greg: Cataclysm,
3)Nicholas: Smess,
4)Joe: Chieftain Chess,
5)Carlos: Coherent Chess.

Nicholas: Please feel free to change your choice by any other variant you like; for instance, Dimension X, Holy Grail or Wild Kingdom Chess.

Carlos, 

If it would be alright, I'd like to change my submission to Wildest
Kingdom Chess.  I took some time today to re-create my preset, adding the
new porcupine graphics (Fergus, could you please upload those so I can
complete the preset?), updating the rules page to reflect the porcupine. 
This game has been tested/played on several occasions on the site, just not
with an official preset. It might be too difficult for Fergus to program,
but I think my rules page makes everything really clear.  Once the
porcupine pieces are uploaded, I'll post the preset.  For now, you can
review the rules at wildestkingdomchess.webs.com.  Thanks!

David Paulowich: How are you? I have been thinking that with the relaxed time control of 5 months per player perhaps you could participate in this. You have a lot of very interesting games and it would be fantastic to see you here joining us and bringing (say) Rose Chess XII!

Nicholas, since you want your piece images added to the Alfaerie Many set,
you need to contact whoever it is that maintains it. It is not me. 

Does anyone know who Nicholas should contact to add pieces to the Alfaerie
Many set?

I understand that Antoine Fourriere is who have been doing such a kind of
things.

Carlos: The original version is too unbalanced and doesn't really allow
for movement for all of the pieces.  My preset is complete, except for the
upload of the pieces.  Once those are done, I can add them and be finished.
 2 minutes of work is all that I have left.  Once that is done, I'll post
the game.  Here is the link for the rules.  I may have mistyped it:
http://wildestkingdomchess.webs.com/.  It adds the porcupine (as
invented/suggested by yourself) and I think it is pretty solid.  Of course,
I will take any questions there are.  

When is the start of this tournament?
I emailed Antoine, so I hope he is the one to upload.

I don't know the latest chessvariants password. Could David or Fergus
email it?