The site has moved to a new server, and there are now some issues to fix. Please report anything needing fixing with a comment to the homepage.



The Chess Variant Pages




[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order Later
[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Antoine Fourrière wrote on 2008-03-21 UTC
Some creations may interest no one except their creator, so I would suggest to keep the current format. For games which might attract some interest if given enough visibility, how about reviving Invent-and-Play between (or parallelly to) GC Tournaments?

Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-03-22 UTC
There is also no need to make this next tourney CV Tournament #4. I, too,
have considered a 'bring-your-own' tournament. We could certainly offer
a variety of formats, and having several kinds of tournaments might well
bring out people who wouldn't normally play. There's also a fair chance
some of the top players might not want to play in a number of tournaments
in a row, or all of those going on at the same time, or of unusual types.
This also could encourage more entrants. What did you have in mind? Lets
see if we can come up with something enough people like to hold another
tournament.

As far as invent and play, that could be revived if people show enough
interest. There are a number of new designers that are undoubtedly dying
to get their games played. This would be a great venue for playtesting. 

Say the word. Get some people together. I'll help.

Finally, I need to ask about contests. The 45-46 Square Contest is down to
one judge, me. I need at least one other person to play the games with, and
would prefer 2. Ideally, we could play face-to-face [I live in the NYC
metro area], but beggars can't be choosers. Anyone interested, please
contact me. 

Joe

je ju wrote on 2008-03-22 UTC
Absolutely correct, no need to make it the GC tourney 4.

I suggest/propose...

8 players, 8 games.

Each player designates a game they want to have in the tournament.

Once the 8 players and games are known, there will be a one week period in
which any participant may veto a suggested game.  That game will be
replaced by any other game chosen by the person who orignally chose the
game that got vetoed.  The replacement may not be vetoed by anyone.

Once the games and players are known, the players will be put into two
groups of 4.  The groups will be determined by current rankings.  Among
the 8 participants, pool A will include the players with the 1st, 3rd, 5th
and 7th rankings.  Pool B will have 2,4,6,8.

Player 1 will play Player 3, Player 5 and Player 7 in the game Player 1
brought to the tourney, as well as the game their opponent brought to the
tourney.  Same format for Pool B.  Each player will be involved in 6
tournament games simultaneously.  Time setting will be a pace of 4 moves
per week, same as the GC Tournament 3.  

1 point for a win, 0 for a loss, .5 for a draw.

At the conclusion of the round robin, top 2 from each pool will create a
winners pool, and the bottom 2 from each pool will form a losers pool.

The same format for round 2.

After that, the top two in the winners pool will each nominate 2 of the
games that were brought to the tournament and play each other in those
four games to determine the champion.  This could also be done between the
bottom 2 of the winners pool, the top two of the losers pool and the bottom
two of the losers pool.

The total number of entrants need not be restricted to 8, and any multiple
of 4 would be fine with this format.  If the number were 10, pools of 5
possible but that has each player playing 8 games at the same time and
that could be a bit much.

If there is any interest in this sort of tournament I'd be happy to
organize it, but would need someone to do the tech bits (assigning games,
putting up charts and stats and that sort of thing.


ex:

Player              Game

Elvis               Alice Chess
Aretha              Time Travel Chess
Ray                 Omega Chess
Janis               Janus Chess
Karen               Korean Chess
Snowman             Falcon Chess
Horse               Crazyhouse
Joe Joyce           Anti-King Chess

Aretha uses veto to eliminate Janus Chess.  Janus replaces it with Cannons
of Chesstonia.

Player              Game

Elvis               Alice Chess
Aretha              Time Travel Chess
Ray                 Omega Chess
Janis               Cannons of Chesstonia (replacing Janus)
Karen               Korean Chess
Snowman             Falcon Chess
Horse               Crazyhouse
Joe Joyce           Anti-King Chess

With the help of David Paulowich, it is determined that over the past 365
days, the players rankings fall in this order:

1 Joe Joyce, 2 Elvis, 3 Ray, 4 Horse, 5 Karen, 6 Snowman, 7 Aretha and 8
Janus

Pool A is

Joe       Ray              Karen           Aretha

Pool B is 

Elvis     Horse            Snowman           Janus

Joe vs Ray   Anti-King
Joe vs Ray    Omega Chess

Joe vs Karen  Anti-King
Joe vs Karen   Korean

Joe vs Aretha  Anti-King
Joe vs Aretha  Time Travel

Similarly designed schedule for each player.

End of round one:

Name             wins          losses          draws        points

Joe              5              0               1             5.5
Karen            4              2               0             4
Aretha           2              4               0             2
Ray              0              5               1             .5


Joe and Karen go onto winner's pool, Aretha and Ray onto the loser's
pool.

End of winner's pool:

Name             wins          losses          draws        points

Joe              5              0               1             5.5
Janus            4              2               0             4
Elvis           2              4               0             2
Karen            0              5               1             .5

Joe will choose two of the games, Janus will choose two of the games, and
they will play each other once in each game.

Overall winner is champion.  In the event that they split the four games,
they each then choose one more game and play those two...and continue as
necessary until there is a winner.

Any thoughts?

Gary Gifford wrote on 2008-03-22 UTC
je ju's idea has merit, but I disagree with the game selection aspect that states [a first vetoed game] 'will be replaced by any other game chosen by the person who originally chose the game that got vetoed. The replacement may not be vetoed by anyone.'

The reason I think that is bad is that the person might have two very bad games. He can submit his least dreadful game first, if it gets vetoed he can then submit his more dreadful game. If he is the only one that likes those games; well, it hardly seems to be a good thing.

Another reason is that a person might have a game that everyone thinks is fantastic. Then 1 player vetoes it... thus disappointing 7 players. Better I think, would be a veto of 4. A game is submitted, but it would take 4 players to reject it, not 1. If half the players don't like a game, then that seems to be good reason to offer a replacement.


je ju wrote on 2008-03-22 UTC
Gary, excellent suggestion.  

Let me clarify that in my proposal the games that the participants
'bring' to the tournament do not have to be games they designed...and I
considered stipulating that they can't be games they designed, but opted
to leave that option open for now.  If anyone believes that one shouldn't
be able to bring self-invented games, feel free to chime in.

We are now at March 22nd...if this plan draws interest, I'd like to start
a thread for this tournament, which for the time being will be called the
'First Official Game Courier Pot Luck Tournament', or FOGaCoPoLuTo for
short.

The thread will start April 1st and will invite interested players to sign
up.  Entries will be on a first come, first serve basis, in multiples of 4.
 First four in are in, next four in are in, if four more sign up, in.

April 8th would be the cut date for entries.


April 15th the deadline for nominating a game.

April 22nd the deadline for vetoing a game (currently based on Gary's
suggestion)

May first start date...

Gary Gifford wrote on 2008-03-22 UTC
I think a player should be allowed to nominate one of his(or her) own games, or nominate a game of another instead. Being allowed to nominate one's own game opens interest up to players who may have invented a long forgotten (or overlooked game)... and, unless it happens to get 4 vetoes it sees the light of day.

To see an event with, for example, 8 players, each of who have brought 1 game to the table of their own design would be interesting, I think.


Charles Daniel wrote on 2008-03-22 UTC
My suggestion may sound more radical ..

I suggest that for every pairing: e.g Player A vs B they play two games .
First Player A chooses ANY game (it can be his own), then Player B chooses
his. Player B shall play white (or have the option to play first) in player
A's game, and Player A plays white in Player B game. 
We can restrict it so that no player can choose to play the same game more
than twice for the whole tournament. Also, the rules of the particular game
chosen must be clear to the opponent. 
To me, this makes more sense because every player gets to play his/her own
game as well as opponents game. 
And there will be  a larger amount of game types being played, with the
added benefit that players can playtest their own games.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-03-23 UTC
Okay, shall we say that each player brings a game of their own or anyone
else's design, and puts it in the pool? Now we can do 2 things, depending
on games and players. If we have enough people, we do a tourney. If we only
have a few, we do invent-and-play or a double-game tourney, with people
playing 2 games at a time against each other. Games for tourney to be
decided by vote; a simple 50% thumbs down removes a game. Games for invent
and play are of one's own design, and what we do here is tough. Since this
is playtesting, the games are not expected to be 'perfect', but they need
to be readily understandable and playable. So I suggest any game in this
category be written up, with a preset [help is available - ask],
adequately enough to be posted as is. If all the I&P games are good, that
is, readily playable or fixable and then playable, we could do a
round-robin tourney, with each player playing their own and the other
player's game. As we see who's willing, we can make firmer plans. 
This is a very sketchy outline, but we have very sketchy participation
now.  If enough people are interested, I will revive Invent and Play
regardless of what tourney activity may happen.

je ju wrote on 2008-03-24 UTC
Appreciate the input.

As a non-inventor (to date), I don't want to restrict this to invent and
play.  I think an invent and play tourney is a great idea in addition to this one being discussed, but not instead of this one.

I have no problem with participants being inventors and bringing their
inventions.

I'm intrigued by the more radical suggestion of bringing a different game
for each match-up, none of which can be brought more than twice by the same
player during the course of the tournament, but have concern that waiting
for players to designate what game they want to play each round, the wait to see how many veto votes are cast, any replacement time for vetoed games... might slow
things down, and as things slow down, players lose interest and we end up
with a situation similar to the Game Courier Tournament #3, into about its
22nd month with a 50 % participation rate.

To allow more variety, however, in each pool round-robin, in which each
player plays 3 of their own games (as black), each player may bring one
(play it vs each other player in pool), two (play one game once, the other
twice) or three games (each game once).  The player will not, however, be
able to choose which game vs which opponent.  That will be done randomly.

At each level, when pools are reassigned (winner's pool;loser's pool),
there will be a one week period in which participants can change the games
they bring.

Still looking at an April first kick-off for signing up.

Any more input is very welcome.

carlos carlos wrote on 2008-03-25 UTC
i can help assigning the games.  i'll also play.

juan rodriguez wrote on 2008-03-27 UTC
I like the idea as originally conceived, each player brings one game, any
working game, self invented or not.  I'm definetly in on those terms, or
any other reasonable ones, but like Je Ju, i've never invented so can't
bring an original to the table.  Sorry for the late chime in, this tourney
idea will keep me more glued to the site now. So, Yes I'm in!

Had an idea though, for another tournament to take place AFTER this one. 
Since there are several inventors out there who are versed in creating
games and then a smattering of us that have no clue where to begin, I'd
like to suggest an Inventor/Apprentice opportunity.  The way it would work
(and please feel free to add or change, or disregard entirely) is that each
non-inventor would be paired with an inventor.  This could be done
randomly, alphabetically, or by choice, i don't so much care one way or
another.  Once the pairs are made, each pair would hit the drawing board,
bouncing ideas back an forth to create a game.  The non-inventor could
provide keen ideas and tactical support while the inventor could provide
keener ideas and technical support.  There would be a time limit, of
course, perhaps 2 weeks, one month, i'm really not sure how long this
sort of thing takes.  At the completion of that time period however, a
tournament would commence involving games that each team has just
completed and brought.  Each team playing as individuals and as a team, in
the manner of pooling points. 

Like I said, this would have to take place, AFTER the tournament suggested
but I think its a good way to recruit more inventors and more interest to
the whole CV site.

Good Luck all!

11 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.