The Chess Variant Pages




[ 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 EarlierEarliest
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Thomas McElmurry wrote on 2005-12-11 UTC

The link on this page to the GCT1 game logs appears to have an incorrect tournament filter, and produces an empty list of logs.

Here is a working link.


Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2004-12-01 UTC
Congratulations to Antoine and Roberto, nicely done!

Antoine Fourrière wrote on 2004-12-01 UTC
Thanks to Fergus for a well thought-out Tournament, and for having devised
Game Courier.

Thanks to Michael and Carlos for their congratulations.

Actually, although I won three of them, my games of Pocket Mutation Chess
(my first choice) against Carlos, of Anti-King Chess (my second choice)
against Roberto, of Alice Chess (my third or fourth choice) against Fergus
and particularly of Chessgi against Michael Madsen were all far from easy,
and could each have ended into a defeat.

As for blunders, I doubt there will be many of them in next year's
Tournament, at least from the players who participated this year.

carlos carlos wrote on 2004-12-01 UTC
thanks to fergus for a brilliant tournament.

congratulations to antoine, roberto and fergus.
.
i too had a great time.  i certainly enjoyed some games more than others
and hope to play them many more times - in particular i enjoyed
familiarising myself (to varying degrees) with ultima, pocket mutation,
grand chess, eurasian chess and takeover chess.  games i have to say i
didn't enjoy were cavalier and hexagonal chess, although perhaps both
might seem better if i played them a few more times.

the only unfortunate thing was that a number of my games were decided one
way or the other by whopping blunders.  i guess that is bound to happen
with games we are fairly unfamiliar with.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2004-11-27 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Thanks to Fergus for all, this was a very nice Tournamant, although perhaps
it could be shorter in time, we can think on how we can make the rules for
the next Tournament in a way it lasts less time, say 4-6 months as much.
Thanks to Michael for his comment, but in reallity I don´t think I could
win, Antoine is very strong and he dominates many variants much more than
me, and, to be sincere, I have not expected being in second position, in
my opinion Fergus have had the merits for the second place, unfortunatelly
he commited a fatal blunder in Eurasian against me, if not, he could win
that game, his position was better than mine before that move, and in
other game, he was not clear on the rules in Anti-King Chess II, and it
was the main cause for being defeated, without deduct merits to Carlos
Carlos, he played well. Perhaps me, as a few other players, have had a
little more time to think on the moves many times, and it could help too.
But I have enjoyed this Tournament a lot, and the results does not matter
a lot to me, I have had a lot of fun with almost all of the games I have
played, and specially in three extremely exciting games: Grand Chess,
against Mc. Elmurry (I won after a complex battle, but all could happen),
AKII, against Fourriere (he won in a complex game full of sacrifices by
both bands, in which two different strategies were confronted), and
Maxima, against Gifford (draw, in an exciting and very well played game by
both bands, and I have to say that this was the first Maxima game that Gary
has played, and he did the things as a strong veteran, incredible good
game, perhaps the best Maxima game I have played). 
What about the rules for the next Tournament?. What games are we going to
consider in the first poll?. How can we do to attract many new players?.
Think on it...

Michael Nelson wrote on 2004-11-27 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
An excellent tournament--well run and well played. Congratulation to
Antoine for his near perfecto: 10.5/11 is very impressive in any
tournament. Congratulations to Roberto for a very solid second with a
score that might well have won had Antoine been less dominating.

I loved playing this tournament in spite of finishing last (of those who
completed the tournament) and in spite of gaining only 1 point over the
board. I did at least chalk up a fairly impressive win at my own Pocket
Mutation Chess.

I hope that the preparation for Mutivariant 2005 will be underway
soon--definetly count me in.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2004-11-27 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Thanks to Fergus for organizing this very enjoyable and well run tournament. I would encourage all to participate in future tournaments. No need to worry about unfamiliar games -- that's the fun of it! This isn't FIDE Chess!

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2004-11-26 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
The First Game Courier Tournament has finished.

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2004-11-14 UTC
I have sent an email asking for permission to make an Omega Chess preset. Assuming I get it, I will make a preset than enforces the rules and uses the official coordinate system.

Greg Strong wrote on 2004-11-13 UTC
<p>Sounds good to me!</p> <p>It would be nice to get GC presets for Wildebeest Chess and Omega Chess available for consideration of inclusion. I have a Wildebeest Chess preset located here:</p> <p><a href='/play/pbm/play.php?game%3DWildebeest+Chess%26settings%3DWildebeest'>/play/pbm/play.php?game%3DWildebeest+Chess%26settings%3DWildebeest</a></p> <p>It does not enforce the rules, though, and has a Giraffe icon for a Wildebeest. Of course, I think of that piece as the GNU, and for all I know a GNU looks much like a Giraffe :) Seriously, though, in the next couple of days I'll try to make a Wildebeest piece that appears to match the other Alfaerie pieces, and submit a new piece set for this game.</p> <p>As for Omega Chess, Ironlance has a preset for it that looks nice, but I don't have the link.</p>

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2004-11-13 UTC
I'll get on organizing a second tournament in a while. But first, I want
to update the Item Name fields of preset pages to match the names used for
games by Game Courier. As I did last time, I will do an approval poll
first, followed by a ranked poll. I suggest that we automatically place
the ten most popular games from the approval poll into the ranked poll, no
matter whether we played any in the last tournament, and then fill the
remaining spots only with games that were not played in the previous
tournament. We could cap it at about 20, including any games that tie for
20th place and were not played in the previous tournament. This method, or
one like it, would allow the tournament to retain some of the most popular
games without ruling them out for being played last time, and it would
help make the list of games for this tournament different from the list
used for the last tournament. And if there are any particular games you do
not want in two tournaments in a row, you could avoid voting for them.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2004-11-13 UTC
I agree,I prefer an enterely new list of games in the new Tournamant 2, but if the procedure is democratic, as it must be, there are not a priori reasons for exclusions. In fact, excluding in an executive way some oriental variants, like Shogi, should be not a good idea if we want a good participation, if we see the number of Shogi LOGS. I like the idea of the possibility of change an assigned game by mutual accordance between the players to any other in the final list if it is not going to be played by any of both players in any other game in the Tournament

Greg Strong wrote on 2004-11-13 UTC
Well, I'm certainly happy to have an entirely new list of games, and
RL blocks.

George Duke wrote on 2004-11-13 UTC
With 2000 games within CVP I think a tournament could evolve from a list of wholly new games, no duplications necessary at all. I don't see Modern FIDE Ch. on anyone's list, so why Shogi, Xiangqi, Alice again? This is supposed CV Page not orthodox. I like Antoine's extension of RL's blocks for moves, even if spacings stretch out to month, six, seven weeks for one game.

Greg Strong wrote on 2004-11-13 UTC
Bug report:  When I click on 'View Entire' on Antoine's comment on this
page immediately before this one, I get a 404 Page Not Found error, so I
can only see part of his comments.

Game Courier Tournament #2:  Yes!  I'm eager to get in on the next GC
tournament...  I have enough free time that I can I could deal with more
ambitious time controls, but I understand that most people don't, and I
think the priority should be on maximizing participation.  As for game
selection, I favor a democratic approach.  From what I see from the logs,
game selection was conducted in a very impressive way last time, and I
would like to see that process repeated.  The only change I can think of
that should be considered is a rule to preclude inclusion of the same game
in consecutive tournaments.  My suggestion: exclude games from this
tournament that were played in the last one except those that are
Recognized Variants.  This way, GC tournament #2 can still include Shogi,
Xiang Qi, Ultima, Alice Chess, Grand Chess, and Glinski's Hex Chess, but
other games won't be available again until GC tournament #3.  Otherwise,
I'm afraid we won't get enough variation...

Antoine Fourrière wrote on 2004-11-11 UTC
Thanks again for the congratulations, Roberto, but there is little doubt
that having one hour for each move reflected in the outcome, especially
when I ended up sacrificing my Rook in our game of Anti-King Chess. Most
participants (and non-participants) had several other things to do, such
as work, family, studying or maintaining this site. 
In my view, the only fair equalizing methods are
1) to give all players enough time to think between each move, that is,
allowing them a pace of only one move per week at times in a given game.
For next year, I would suggest a January to June round-robin of six or
eight games, and a seven-player September to November final of six games
because these seven players might have enough time. (I would also allow
two players to replace their assigned game with any game that has been
played in any yearly tournament such as this one or last year's
tournament.) And I think you need a more lenient pace at the beginning of
the games, not merely to avoid blunders, but also to assess the possible
strategies, and because after twenty moves, half the games are already
more or less decided and you can drop them anyway if you're losing.
2) to play each game in four hours, or by slices of ten moves by hour with
one player playing a secret move at the end of the slice, like in
FIDE-Chess. Of course you need to have both players connected at the same
time (probably feasible on Saturdays and Sundays), but there is also the
problem of your Internet connection. It is one thing to lose an
independent game because of a technical problem, but I wouldn't like to
lose a Tournament that way. (Now, the penalty for not playing within the
clock in the middle of a ten-move slice in a given game could be the piece
of your choice (unless your opponent doesn't want it) the first time, that
same piece to drop for your opponent the second time and loss of the match
the third time. But it sounds overly complicated.)
Nevertheless, the implementation of that kind of device might be useful.

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2004-11-11 UTC
Roberto's suggestion seems too complex to implement, and it seems too
difficult to enforce. Since it would require the cooperation of both
players, it could not be enforced simply by exacting time penalties for
noncompliance. It would be more practical to just enforce stricter time
controls that would be too hard to meet without coordinated sessions. 

But even putting aside the logistical questions of how coordinated
sessions could be enforced, enforcing them just doesn't work out well
when two players have very different schedules. Roberto and I have been
able to rapidly play games in sessions of moves, because, despite living
thousands of miles apart, it is mainly north-south distance, and we live
in the same time zone. But it would be more difficult for someone in
California and someone in eastern Europe to find the time for coordinated
sessions with each other. If we had a tournament with time controls such
as this, we would probably have to limit it to people within a certain
range of time zones.

As for the time contols used for the tournament, they were chosen to be
flexible enough for people in different parts of the world with very
different schedules who may occassionally have emergencies when they would
have to stop playing for a while. Even given this, some people dropped out
because they didn't have enough time to play.

Nevertheless, given the experience I have now had with these time
controls, I would now consider tweaking them. I might make the spare time
two weeks instead of one and reduce by half the amount of extra time and
bonus time given after each move. This would prevent reserve time from
amassing as much, as well as give players some more time for emergencies
at the beginning of rounds.

George Duke wrote on 2004-11-11 UTC
That last suggestion, Roberto, sounds right without its being 'Rapid Tournament'. Just controls in hours on specified day(or two), one game at a time. Not so limited time as orthodox chess today since CVs have not established openings, but like Chess tournaments 30 and 100 yrs. ago where a single game may take even two days. Then also there is more interest to view one in progress.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2004-11-11 UTC
Other idea may be a RAPID Tournament: In each week, players accord the day and hour they decided to play the assigned game. In this session each player has up to 1 hour to make a number of moves, say 10, 15 or 20. If the game has not finished, it must be continued with the same time rules in other session, at most a week after.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2004-11-11 UTC
George, your reasons are partially right, but you must consider that if time controls are very strict, we can´t expect a massive participation, to the contrary, I bet the number of players must be reduced. Perhaps a good tool must be implement sessions of moves, say at least 5 timed moves in one session, and there must be at least two sessions in a week. Details must be refined. Other suggestions?.

George Duke wrote on 2004-11-10 UTC
Disagreeing with implied point of RLavieri, I am glad I decided at last minute not to participate in first tournament because of ridiculous way time controls worked out. I think a game should somehow be completed in couple weeks or month at most. Relatedly some non-tournament recreational GC games become unpleasant when an opponent makes several moves a day, then disappears for weeks. In other venues for Chess, games finish the same day. I have no idea who is 1st/2nd in your Tourn.#1, but not to be impressive when pace is slower than slow Correspondence Chess. No doubt there are other rewards for having participated, but such is perspective on Time Controls.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2004-11-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I think all the players have enjoyed this First Game Courier Tournament a
lot. The last game to be played in it is ongoing now (Maxima,
Gifford-Lavieri), a game of high quality to the present (it is my
subjective appretiation), and in move 30 both teams may have more or less
equal chances in a very complex end. See and feel!.
We can START THINKING on ideas for the next Tournament. What about
ORIENTAL VARIANTS Tournament?. Can it attract a lot of players?. I think
it is very possible!. Other ideas?. Little boards Tournament?. Unusual
shapes?. Democratic selection as in the First Tournament?...
By the way, Antoine Fourriere is going to be in a clear first place in the
First Game Courier Tournament (as I expected, I know how strong he is!).
Congratulations!. And Congratulations to all the other players by the
moments we have lived in this Tournament, I expect all of them, as me,
have enjoyed it a lot!. Music to the soul!.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2004-09-20 UTC
I´ll get Carlos Carlos suggestion and I´m not going to add more. The PMC
game has not finished yet, oficially. Please, accept my excuses, for my
part, about some of my out of place comments, if it is the case, I feel
bad with it. 
Fergus, forget it. My humour is sometimes acid, and additionally I spoke
in a language 'close to English', not in Italian or Spanish, so you
could not understand what I said completely, but I tried a joke. There was
not an additional motivation in your comments on the rules, very probably, 
I only think the result is of interest for you and some players in the
Tournament.

carlos carlos wrote on 2004-09-20 UTC
uhm. <p>perhaps it looked odd or inept to other people that i have repeated moves. <p>can people please hold themselves back from offering opinions on the state of the game? it's not that big a deal, but i wish i hadn't read a couple of the comments here. <p>i haven't actually wanted to end the game for sure myself yet. i am aware that i can make it a draw if i choose so (and have been able to for the last 6 or however many moves). i have been very pressed for time lately, and because this is my only game left in this round and is obviously an important one in the overall tournament standings (although not for me) i want to get as much as i can out of this game (not in terms of length! but in terms of win/draw/loss). i have defaulted one game on time already, and have been repeating moves to keep myself alive on time while at the same time trying to analyse the position. <p>also: start the third round anytime. don't hold play up for me.

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2004-09-20 UTC
<P>Roberto writes:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> Fergus, I have said that it was, perhaps, an additional reason for alerting a drawn condition in the PMC game, but I´m not cathegorical on this, it was only a bad thought expressed with some class of humour, if you can consider it as some class of humour. </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Roberto, when I said I didn't understand the motivation you suggested I had, I meant that I didn't understand what you were saying, not that I didn't understand why you said it. I just don't know what motivation you were suggesting I had, because I didn't understand what you wrote.</P>

25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.