[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier 1st World Open Chess Variant PBEM Championship. Tournament proposal open for public comment before creation.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-05-29 UTC<p>No, this idea hasn't died. A revision to the selection criteria has been floated to the staff for comments. The remark of Antoine Fourriere here is particularly on point, that a player ought not be able to win this by knowing only four games.</p> <p>I seek inputs on a different issue:</p> <blockquote> If you were going to recommend up to five variants for listing in a championship tournament, <b>other than Recognized Variants</b>, what would you recommend and why? </blockquote> <p>I don't have five on the tip of my tongue, although reflection might give me two dozen. But <i>Hostage Chess</i>, <i>Rococo</i>, and <i>Alice Chess</i> strike me as three good starting points.</p> <p>(I expect the revised selection method to involve lists dominated by Recognized Variants, with a few others mixed in for variety.)</p> Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2003-05-16 UTCWith regard to the use of ZRFs. ZRFs have been used in previous tournaments. The settings are made to be 'human-human'. Both players share the convenience of Zillions' features, such as convenient graphics, game recording, and, yes, 'the little green dots'. The dots do inform a player about what moves are possible, without advising about which move to make. This implication should be clear to all (or at least both) players from the outset. Of course, it is also possible to create ZRFs that do not enforce any rules, but are simply 'game editors'. This has been done for complicated games, for example. If this is the players' preference, for simplicity's sake I would refer them to the PBeM system on this web site. On the PBeM system it is very simple to create a 'preset' for most Chess variants, including hexagonal variants. It sends e-mail messages with graphics, records logs, allows messaging, provides very nice graphics selection, links to rules, but provides no rules enforcement--try it! John Lawson wrote on 2003-05-16 UTCIt occurs to me that the wording could be a little more precise on the selection options. It could be wrongly interpreted in such a way that a contrary registrant could try to select the same variant for all three options. BTW, if either Christian Freeling, Ralph Betza, or Wayne Schmittberger registered, and chose a game he invented as his option 1 game, would you require option three to be one they did not invent? Or would we be so pleased, we wouldn't care? Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-05-16 UTC<p><i>John wrote: The selection for options 2 and 3 should be limited to variants posted at the time the contest is announced.</i> <p>I concur, for the reasons you stated. <p><i>Antoine wrote: I would suggest to draw randomly the games for 'choice 1' among all the recognized variants.</i> <p>I think that some recognized variants are clearly superior for purposes of the competition, and others clearly less than suitable. But a random draw between 20 or so games <i>might</i> be OK. <p><i>Antoine also wrote: I don't believe a player should have to be skilled in only four variants to win the Championship.</i> <p>I agree. But I also believe that as we <i>require</i> each player to know a greater number of games, we also reduce the number of players who may be willing to enter. <p><i>And Antoine asked: 'No player may use a machine for active assistance in analysis.' Does this mean we cannot use Zillions at all, or simply that we may not have Zillions search the better move...</i> <p>You can use Zillions as a record keeper. You cannot use Zillions as an advisor. (Enforcing this, as with all rules about outside aid in correspondence play, is of course largely a matter of honour.) Antoine Fourrière wrote on 2003-05-16 UTC'No player may use a machine for active assistance in analysis.' Does this mean we cannot use Zillions at all, or simply that we may not have Zillions search the better move, but are allowed to enter all moves manually for both sides, and if so, only the moves effectively played to see the current situation, or also the moves we intend to play or believe our opponent will play, as we would with a physical chessboard in correspondence play (but then, Zillions could tell us that a move we wrongly foresee would be illegal, unless we write a zrf which would allow each piece to go anywhere on the board and has no winning condition)? Antoine Fourrière wrote on 2003-05-16 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I would suggest to draw randomly the games for 'choice 1' among all the recognized variants. (I feel strongly about that.) I would also suggest a draw of six recognized variants. Thus, if Marseillais Chess and Italian Progressive Chess, or Hostage Chess and Chessgi are both recognized and selected, so be it. Besides, I don't believe a player should have to be skilled in only four variants to win the Championship. (But if there are only four variants, maybe once Marseillais [Chessgi] is drawn, Italian Progressive Chess [Hostage Chess] cannot be drawn.) John Lawson wrote on 2003-05-16 UTCThe selection for options 2 and 3 should be limited to variants posted at the time the contest is announced. Otherwise you have a moving target, with the later registrants having slightly more choices, and even the possibility of a contestant submitting a variant with an unobvious second player win, and then choosing it for his third option. An acceptable way of 'gaming' the choices, if a contestant were very strong at one of the option 1 games, would be to choose option 2 and 3 games that no one would want to play. Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-05-15 UTCWilliam: I have no objection to an entry fee of zero. However, it is perhaps appropriate to note that open championships in virtually every competitive discipline routinely charge entry fees. Roberto: The choice of games for list 1 is certainly something I would want discussed. I would not want to see list 1 larger than three or four games, as one of the perceived difficulties with the multivariant concept is being =required= to learn a whole bunch of variants to compete. On the list 1 suggestions: I looked for games that broadly sample the different directions of chess variants, while being recognized for excellence in their own right. CWDA brings many different pieces into play. Extinction provides a different way to win. Grand is a modern great or extended chess, a thousand-year tradition. Progressive is the quickest multiple-move variant. There are certainly other candidates. On the philosophical question of Shogi and Xiangqi as variants: I would avoid both on list 1, but would look at variants of either. (Five-Minute Poppy Shogi comes to mind.) As for a player listing Shogi, Xiangqi, or Western chess on their personal list...that's fine with me. Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2003-05-15 UTCWhy the list of games for 'choice 1' includes only the games listed?. Perhaps 'Omega Chess', 'Capablanca´s chess', 'Ultima' and/or 'Kinglet' should be included...Perhaps other games have credentials enough for being included too.. Other games like Shogi, Korean and Chinese chess and Glisnky´s hexagonal may be in the list too, but there is a philosophical question: are they variants, or is FIDE CHESS also a variant of a meta-concept called 'chess' ?. What are the decision rules for variants choice in list 1?. I don´t disagree with the names in the list, but it may be incomplete for some people... Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2003-05-15 UTCWilliam, the 'question mark in a ring' means that you have not registered as a chessvariants.com member, that's all. If you wish, you can go to your name information page to register. William Overington wrote on 2003-05-14 UTCWhy has this system inserted a question mark within a ring? It was not in the preview. William Overington 14 May 2003 William Overington wrote on 2003-05-14 UTCIf it is 'open' then no fees should be charged, for charging a fee is an entry qualification for someone to find the fee and to arrange its payment, and thus the championship is not then 'open'. Having a fee fixed in monetary terms simply disregards the varying effects the specified sum has on individual entrants according to their different circumstances, circumstances which are nothing to do with ability to play. William Overington 14 May 2003 12 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.