[ 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⇩ Earliest⇧ 84 Spaces Contest Jury members. Please consider becoming a judge for the 84 squares contest![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-05-17 UTCTwo groups have finished judging. The third has been corresponding with me about their overall progress, and I expect they will be done this weekend. I would therefore expect the finalists to be posted within a week. Mark Thompson wrote on 2003-05-17 UTCIt's mid-May now, so perhaps the prophesied finals list can be expected shortly? No pressure, just interested. Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-04-29 UTCI have been informed that Group B has also reached a decision. So it looks like a finals list is at least possible by mid-May. Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-04-28 UTCAt least one of the Group C judges has indicated that he expects to finish is evaluations by May 15th, so I would not expect anything from Group C before that time. Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-04-28 UTCThe 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. Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-04-08 UTCI can only speak for the Group A judges, but we have exchanged a couple of rounds of comments. I think the judges are unanimous on three of the four, if I understood my colleagues rightly, and are in the same ballpark on the remaining contenders. Further I cannot go until results are ready. :) Joseph DiMuro wrote on 2003-04-07 UTCI was just wondering: how's the judging for the 84 squares contest progressing? It's been a while since the judges were picked (two months?), so I'd assume a good deal of progress has been made. (Then again, there's 33 entries to judge, 11 by each group, so of course this would take a while. I'm not asking you guys to rush :-D) As far as I'm concerned, two of the 33 games stand out as the best; only time will tell if the judges agree... Michael Nelson wrote on 2003-02-03 UTCI would prefer to remain with Group C, as I have already started playtesting, but I am willing to switch to Group A if you can let me know as soon as possible--I have more playtesting time available this weekend and want ot put it to good use. I am planning to judge the finals if I am eligible to do so, though I'm hoping I can't--I'd rather like to win a prize! John Lawson wrote on 2003-02-03 UTCHans, I noted an email in the editors' mailbox from George Duke volumteering to judge Group C. If he could judge Group A, or Mike Nelson move to Group A, that would give us three judges for each group. That would be great. Completing the first round by March 31st seems a little optimistic, but might be possible with dedicated judges. Then, we need to decide who judges the final pool. Hans Bodlaender wrote on 2003-02-03 UTCThanks to all who volunteer. I've added those who volunteerd to the respective groups. We prefer judges who can play all games. With two jury members in group A, and three for groups B and C, I think we're `in pretty good shape'. Perhaps, still one more volunteer for group A??? <p> Would March 31 be a reasonable date for having the first round judging done?? Ben Good wrote on 2003-02-02 UTC>>but that some of my votes on the games in the group will be based SOLELY on my impressions of the games simply from reading their descriptions, THEN I would be willing to volunteer to judge Group B. Please let me know if this is acceptable. <P> as i stated in my 'thoughts on judging', the first thing i learned when judging is that you can't just read the rules, you have to actually play the games. Uri Bruck wrote on 2003-02-02 UTCI can join the Jury for either group B ro C David Short wrote on 2003-02-02 UTCI've been giving the matter some further thought and I have come to the conclusion that, if you would all be willing to accept me as a judge for Group B with the full understanding that I will likely NOT have time to play-test all of the games against a real person, and will TRY to play-test SOME of the games as my time permits against the zillions computer by myself, but that some of my votes on the games in the group will be based SOLELY on my impressions of the games simply from reading their descriptions, THEN I would be willing to volunteer to judge Group B. Please let me know if this is acceptable. <p>I anticipate starting up a game of INVASION against John Lawson by email soon. <p> Ben Good wrote on 2003-02-01 UTC>>I have resolved to treat any complaints like a baseball umpire: don't explain and don't retract. <P> i wouldn't worry about this. when i did the 40-square contest, i received virtually no feedback - good, bad, or otherwise - about the job i did (except for the editors thanking me for being a judge). <P> judges may be interested in my 'thoughts on judging', which is part of the same page as the contest winners. i just reread it and it holds up pretty well (despite some inexplicable typos, including getting aronson's name wrong, which i regularly did for years until he corrected me on it). although i tossed in a few constructive criticisms, i tried to keep it as positive as possible. originally had considered putting comments for every single entry, until i read that one of the entries was from a 10-yr-old kid. since i didn't necessarily know anything about the rest of the people who entered, i didn't want to risk trashing some kid's game online, which would accomplish nothing other than possibly discouraging him from continuing with chess variants. (i haven't looked at most of the 84-square entries, but based on what i've seen, and the comments of others, it looks like the quality level is very high. in the 40-square contest, there was a lot of good games, but there were few great games and a lot of horrible games - some of which were unplayable - so any honest appraisal of all the games would have contained a lot of negative comments.) <P> i could come up with a list of advice for judges, but most of it is pretty obvious stuff. the one thing that i'll mention here: take notes as you go along. judging will takes months (i think i used a year and a half, since entries were being submitted long before the deadline), written notes will make things a lot easier when it comes time to pick your winners and summarize your thoughts. LCC wrote on 2003-02-01 UTCEh... it appears that I'm judging a group with one of my submissions... must be a small mistake, right? John Lawson wrote on 2003-02-01 UTCMichael, I felt a little funny when I thought I was the only judge for Group B, for much the same reasons. But getting more than three judges per pool may be optimistic, so I'm willing to make do. And, as it stands, it could be just you and me judging the final. However, this contest has been so delayed and formless, I think judging should proceed, even if there is only one judge for a pool. It's at the point where a debatable result is better than no result. I've also looked at all the games, and there won't be any difficulty finding games worthy of the prizes. If some inventors are unhappy, that is the nature of what is an unavoidably subjective process. I have resolved to treat any complaints like a baseball umpire: don't explain and don't retract. David Short wrote on 2003-02-01 UTCI'm sorry but since I work two jobs and about 60 hours a week now I just don't have time to play-test 11 different games, but like I said I will try to find time to play-test my own games with anyone who contacts me at [email protected] Mark Thompson wrote on 2003-02-01 UTCIf there's a list of people who WOULD be willing to judge if the entries were divided into groups of 5 or 6, instead of 11, you can add my name to that list. Judging 11 different chess variants, and giving each one the attention it should get (that is, by playing many games against live opponents), scares me off. Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-02-01 UTCJohn, I'm glad your memory is better than mine. :) Paul E. Newton wrote on 2003-01-31 UTCI am willing to be a judge for group C, since I have entries in the other two groups. I am also willing to help play-test either of my entries (or the two entered by my sons Andrew and Timothy) by e-mail with anyone who is judging those groups. John Lawson wrote on 2003-01-31 UTCI remembered that David Short had *not* volunteered to be a judge. Here is the quote for his comment on the 84-square Contest page: David Short said, on 12/11/2002: '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.' Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-01-31 UTCI believe that David Short had expressed his willingness to judge as well, for whichever group he doesn't have an entry in. Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-01-31 UTCI had withdrawn myself from consideration to judge earlier. Given the shortage of judges I am willing to consider judging Group A if necessary. My pre-deadline involvement with Group A designs is limited to one playtest game of Lions and Dragons Chess with the designer. Hans, feel free to assign me if you need me. Glenn Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-01-31 UTCOf course, now I think about it, I did the same for Glenn's entries, too, to a lesser extent. Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-01-31 UTCI volunteered in the comment system a while ago, but that must have gotten lost. I should probably be placed judging group C, as I provided early feedback to both of Tony's entries. 25 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.