[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by David Short
Omega Chess. Rules for commercial chess variant on board with 104 squares. (12x12, Cells: 104) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Slanted Escalator Chess. Chess on an asymmetric board with interesting connectivity. (8x8, Cells: 60) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]gnohmon, you're wrong about a few things. first of all, while black rooks can control double files if they are on the a,b,g, or h files, a white rook on the b-file would control both the a-file and b-file, and likewise a white rook on the g-file controls both the g-file and h-file. Download the ZRF and you'll see. Bishops may seem weak but they may yet have a purpose in the game. It may be true that their ability to penetrate the other side of the board and attack is more difficult, but they'll still be pretty good as stay-at-home defenders. Note however that white bishops at a3 or h3 control very long diagonals (bishop at a3 attacks e8, bishop at h3 attacks d8) and while black may be able to control the outside files with his rooks faster, white should be able to occupy the escalator squares more quickly. In order that white does not get an overwhelming advantage in the game, I gave black the first move. Time will tell if the game is balanced sufficiently or not. Incidentally, if anyone who has ZILLIONS OF GAMES would like to play either SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS, or SPINAL TAP CHESS http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/spinal-tap-chess.html or both, with me by email, drop me a line at [email protected] We can email each other the notation and record and save our games with ZILLIONS. What I really like about SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS is that not only is there interesting connectivity around the board, but that it's going to be a bit challenging for each side to try to navigate the board to get to the other side and get a good attack going. Should make things very interesting!
Double Chess 16 x 8. On 16 by 8 board. (16x8, Cells: 128) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Now that this comments page is up, I'd like to ask the regular readers of www.chessvariants.com to comment on Doublechess. Doublechess is the first chess variant which I invented, and I think it is my best one of all the ones I have created. It is my pride and joy. At the time I submitted it to this site I had learned that I was just a few months too late to enter it into the Large Variants contest that was being held at the time. What a pity! I feel that Doublechess would have been a very strong contender, but by the time I first learned of this site's existence, the deadline for submissions for the contest had passed. Doublechess' page on this site is unique in many ways. You won't find too many other games on this site which have sample games linked to it, and one of the games is annotated in detail. (The link to my 'Doublechess web site' is no longer valid.) Doublechess can be played by email on Richard's Play By Email server, and I frequently conduct Doublechess tournaments on PBM. The next one may be beginning in a few months and I will post an announcement about it here (as I did recently for the forthcoming Omegachess tournament which I will be running on PBM as well) when I am ready to begin it. Doublechess is a very simple variant. Simply lay two 8 by 8 chess boards side by side. Use two chess sets, and replace the second set of kings with a third set of queens. (if one does not have a third set of chess queen pieces handy, substitutes can be used until they are captured. Coins work well, for instance, a penny for a white queen and a nickel for a black queen.) Set up the first army of pieces in the traditional setup (RBNQKBRN) in files E to L and the second army out in the wings (RBNQ, QBNR) in files A to D and M to P. You will notice a few interesting strategic points about Doublechess. Opposing bishops start along the same diagonals as each other, often promting them to be quickly traded off if the opportunity presents itself. If they avoid an early exchange, bishops of like color can double themselves along the same diagonal to form a battery in much the same way that one might double their rooks along the same file in chess. Notice that whereas white begins with two dark squared bishops on the left side of the board, or queenside (in Doublechess terminology, the 'queenside' refers to files A to H, and 'kingside' refers to files I to P, mimicking the same sides of the boards which these terms refer to in regular chess), and black has two light squared bishops on the queenside. Likewise, white has two light squared bishops to start the game on the kingside, and black has two dark squared bishops on each side. Each side can try to exploit the other's weaknesses on light or dark squares on each half of the board. The way the board is set up, as players begin to develop their pieces and pawns, the pieces tend to engage each other on each half of the board in about the same amount of time as they do in regular chess. In the middle game it is often the case where pieces will be interacting with each other and threatening each other on each half of the board completely independent from what is going on on the other side of the board. In some ways then, Doublechess is like playing two games in one, though one really needs to look at the board as a whole to truly understand and appreciate the game. There are other strategic differences between Doublechess and regular chess which make my variant exciting and unique. It is more common to sacrifice material for attack in Doublechess than it is in regular chess, since one has so much material at one's disposal to attack with. In Doublechess then, obviously king safety becomes extremely important. Thus another axiom of dc is that it is quite possible to win despite a material disadvantage, more often than one can overcome such a deficit in regular chess. As long as one has enough pieces to launch an attack, they can make things interesting. I should also point out that the one rule that is unique and distinctive to Doublechess is the castling rule (see dc's page for full explanation of the castling rule), and the pros and cons of long castling vs. short castling can be long debated. It's another twist to the game which makes it interesting. One advantage that my variant has over other CVs is that it only uses orthodox pieces, so it is very easy to learn how to play. Perhaps more than any other CV, Doublechess has the 'feel' of regular chess. There is a ZRF file available for download at the bottom of Doublechess' page. I urge everyone who has not played it yet who owns ZILLIONS OF GAMES to download Doublechess and try it out. I welcome comments from everyone, pro or con, as to how they would rate Doublechess as a chess variant. What are this variants' strengths and weaknesses? Finally I would say that, although I realize I am very biased in the matter ;-) I feel that Doublechess is such an excellent variant that it deserves consideration as one of this site's 'Recognized Chess Variants' and as inventor of this game I am necessarily disqualified from nominating it to that position. Might someone else who has an equal appreciation for this game take up the gauntlet and nominate it along with an eloquent essay on my game's merits?
Terror Chess. Variant on 11 by 11 board with combination pieces. (11x11, Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It would seem that I am not the first person to create a CV on an 11 by 11 board. (see my SPINAL TAP CHESS) It would be interesting to play a game of TERROR CHESS (for WHITE) vs. SPINAL TAP CHESS (for BLACK) as a game of Chess Between Different Armies !!! PETER ARONSON I challenge you to create a ZRF for such a game IMMEDIATELY!! :-) I could then challenge Brian Wong to a game by email! (if anyone has his address!) (mine is [email protected]) though I suspect that TERROR CHESS has the more powerful army! Then again who can say for sure? TERROR CHESS vs. SPINAL TAP CHESS A game of Chess Between Different Armies created by David Short with thanks to Brian Wong. a b c d e f g h i j k +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 11 |*R*|*S*|*W*|*V*|*Q*|*K*|*M*|*W*|*V*|*S*|*R*| 11 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 10 |*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*Cr|*Cr|*Cr|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*| 10 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 9 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| | 9 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 8 |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| 8 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 7 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| | 7 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 6 |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| 6 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 5 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| | 5 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 4 |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| 4 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 3 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| | 3 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 2 |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| 2 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 1 | R |:B:| N |:C:| A |:K:| Q |:Mr| B |:N:| R | 1 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ a b c d e f g h i j k Diagram index: R- ROOK B- BISHOP N- KNIGHT C- CARDINAL A- AMAZON K- KING Q- QUEEN Mr- MARSHALL P- PAWN Cr- CRAB S- SQUIRE V- VICEROY W- WIZARD M- MINISTER Pawns move 1, 2, or 3 squares on their initial move and the en passant rule is the same as it is in OMEGACHESS. Each side may castle as its game's rules dictate.
It would seem that TERROR CHESS is identical to THE SULTAN'S GAME http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/sultan.html with the exception that the positions of the marshall and cardinal are reversed. THE SULTAN'S GAME pre-dates TERROR CHESS on this web site by three years. Nevertheless I still propose that my idea above for a variant of chess between different armies would be intriguing. Oh and I would suggest variants with and alternately without the 'Battle Move' when programming the ZRF for the above proposed new variant. Players can decide for themselves which they prefer to use.
Full Double Chess. 32 pieces each, including all combinations of the basic Chess pieces, on a 16x8 square board. (16x8, Cells: 128) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Gee, now I wonder where he could have gotten the idea for this game, huh? Well, you know what they say, 'immitation is the sincerest form of flattery' so I guess I should be honored, eh? To anyone who is not overly familiar with this web site I suggest you scroll down on this comments page and click on the link for Double Chess below or find it in the alphabetical index (the one with my name next to it). Anyone can create a variant on a 16 by 8 board but it's not going to have the same 'feel' of regular chess like my variant Doublechess does. I have always felt that games with two kings are flawed. Chess should be single-minded. Checkmate one king, period!
Tony, what you say about the added or diminished relative scopes of the knights and bishops in double-board variants is true, just as it is in larger variants to begin with (the knight is an extremely weak piece in 10 by 10 variants) but the beauty of a game like my Doublechess variant which I invented is that the knights still have their roles to play. Like I said before, pieces on each half of the board tend to engage each other at the same rate they do in regular chess. Pawns challenge each other, knights move up to the third (or sixth rank, for black) rank to attack enemy pawns, files open up for rooks and queens, diagonals open up for bishops and queens. I think one point that needs to be made here is that in Full Double Chess, stronger pieces are used, and that's fine, if you are a player who likes new fangled pieces that can do neat little tricks and jump through hoops. My Doublechess is more traditional, uses only orthodox pieces and has the look and feel of traditional regular chess. So whether a game like my Doublechess or the new Full Double Chess appeals to someone is going to be a matter of personal taste, I guess. p.s. I would still like to encourage people to add comments below to my Doublechess variant, for which I began a discussion.
Existentialist Chess. 10x10 board with many different pieces. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think that EXISTENTIALIST CHESS is one of the most intriguing cv's I've ever come up with. Yes, it is complicated, but read through the rules a few times and eventually you'll get the hang of it. One of the things that's fun about this game is all the different combinations you can come up with from confabulating the archer and zednick. Is the archer too powerful a piece? Perhaps. One may be forced to give up one of their own powerful pieces just to get rid of their opponent's archer. A few notes to add that I forgot to mention from the text: A cannon's long jump move is done in a straight line either horizontally or vertically but not diagonally. Though I didn't intend it originally as such when I wrote it, so as to go along with the literal description of the rule as stated, a dazzler may not jump an enemy shield, either with the long cannon-like jump (intended rule) or from 2 squares away (unintended rule). There were a few typos in the text as originally posted, I've sent in an email to the editors of this site pointing them out asking them to correct them. Captain Kirk, you're funny. I know what you mean, but I did not set out to deliberately make a game that was overly complicated. I just wanted to create a game with a lot of different pieces and a lot of possibilities. I think that, by comparison, my game is easier to follow than a game like THE GAME OF NEMOROTH which seems to me to be very hard to play and has pieces conflicting each other all the time. Lastly I would like to add that I welcome anyone to email me at [email protected] if you would like to play EXISTENTIALIST CHESS with me by email. We can submit an ASCII diagram to each other with each move, though I would prefer to play against people who have ZILLIONS OF GAMES and when a zrf file for this game is eventually posted to this page, use it to record the positions of the game and only email each other the moves, and not the diagram too.
Well, since I already posted one comment and rated my game as 'excellent' I won't tip the scales any further with additional comments so I will rate this comment as 'none' I am glad that some typographical errors to the text have been corrected. Also some additional material was added in a place or two. I am surprised that this game has not drawn more attention among the avid enthusiasts of this site since it has been published. I think that this variant is extremely intriguing and exciting. One of the things which makes it so interesting is that it is up for discussion as to what the best strategy to use in this game is, especially as regards the archer and zednick. Do you confabulate them as early as possible and commit yourself to one course of action, or do you wait a while, develop your pieces a bit, let the game get into some rhythmic flow, see which way the wind blows a bit before deciding where to confabulate these pieces? What is the best use for the archer? What is the best use for the zednick? What value does one give the new pieces compared to the traditional ones? How strong can the existentialist be? How can one defend against the archer? It would probably take quite a bit of play-testing, not just one or two games but literally ten or twenty to really begin to get a feel for the game and get an answer to these questions. I do not think this game is overly complicated, it's just that there are so many different possibilities that it may be hard to keep track of all of them.
Large Variant 99 Contest Index Page. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Isn't it about time that www.chessvariants.com run another Large Variants contest? I submit that every variant of 65 squares or more which wasn't in the first contest which has been published on this site since the original contest in 1999 ended (as well as any new submissions) should be eligible. I submitted my variant Doublechess (on a 16 by 8 board) just a couple of months after the deadline for entries for the first contest. I had not been aware of the existence of this site before then. David, Hans, Peter, what say you? When are we going to get a new Large Variants contest on this site??
Feudal. Chesslike game of wellknown game company.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The game is no longer manufactured, but you can often find someone selling their copy of the game on Ebay http://www.ebay.com I think I'll go bid on one now!
Existentialist Chess. 10x10 board with many different pieces. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I know that there are quite a few people who regularly visit this site who have written ZRF files for new variants which are posted on this site, so my question is directed to them. Has anyone had any luck yet creating a ZRF for Existentialist Chess? Please update us on your progress!
Schizophrenic Chess. Game on 12x7 board with Left and Right Schizzys, Bobbers, Teleporters and other exotic pieces. (12x7, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Sorry about the redundancy in the teleporter rules. At first I was only going to let the teleporter go back to the corner squares if they were occupied by an enemy piece and let it explode, removing both the teleporter and the enemy piece, and later decided to extend that to any square on the player's own first rank occupied by an enemy piece. I won't give myself a grade here because obviously I am biased. No one else has a comment for my game? I think I've created some rather interesting and unique pieces here, don't you think? Bobber, Schizzies, Teleporters, Crabs. It amazes me how few entries in this contest actually went for the most obvious configuration of either a 7 by 12 board, or a 12 by 7 board. I look forward to reading other comments to my game.
Ultra Slanted Escalator Chess. Game on an asymmetrical board of 84 squares with Crabs and Ultras. (10x9, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]As long as I'm fishing for comments (hopefully mostly positive)
on Schizophrenic Chess, let me also make the same request for feedback
on ULTRA SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS. I would like to remind potential
judges of this game not to get too hung up on asking themselves which is
a better implimentation of the 'interesting connectivity' of the escalator
squares, this variant or its predecessor SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS, and
simply try to evaluate this game on its own merits.
<p>One thing I think I should point out to readers who look at the diagram
of the board and think to themselves, 'Gee, it looks like it's going to
be harder to get one's own pieces to the other side of the board to
mount an attack!' that THAT IS THE POINT OF THE GAME! (sorry for shouting!)
The challenge is to try to navigate through the available 9 files to
get to the other side of the board and launch an attack.
To me the game has a similar feel to it as OMEGACHESS, with the
CHAMPION-like pieces next to the rooks.
<p>Other general comments: Bishops have greater mobility and range if
they are fianchettoed. Knights are obviously weaker on this larger board,
and while it is tempting to try to advance them out onto the board so
that they can take advantage of their ability to leap the barriers,
they're probably better off being used as 'stay at home' defenders.
Using crabs instead of pawns was absolutely necessary as pawns would
tend to get locked up with enemy pawns, but crabs have the ability to
make sidesteps to adjacent files with non-capturing moves, thus they
cannot be blockaded so easily.
<p>I welcome comments and reaction from readers to this game.
Invasion. A military inspired Chess variant played on an 84-squares board. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This game has some potential. It shows originality and creativity.
The rules are not overly complicated. My only gripe is that it is
too dis-similar from traditional chess variants and familiar pieces
but that is just my preference for CVs with more traditional chess-like
pieces. All in all though i wanted to say nice job. I don't have time
to volunteer my services as a judge for the contest but I will give
positive feedback on all games in the contest I hope get favorable
responses.
Tree garden chess. Large chess variant on 10 by 10 board with 4 by 4 area missing from the middle. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Here is another game I would rate as 'good' I don't give any style points
for coming up with new pieces, these have all been used before.
I am concerned that the mobility of the pieces will be restricted by
the 4 by 4 gap in the middle of the board. This game is not the only
game to use the idea of a 10 by 10 board with the middle 16 square field
a gap which cannot be used to hold pieces, sometimes can be jumped by
pieces but in this game cannot be jumped. Still, any game which I don't
find overly confusing about how to play it I have to at least grade as
'good'
<p>
84 Spaces Contest. 84 Spaces Contest begins![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Excellent contest, guys!!
<p>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.
All we have to do is email each other the algebraic notation of the
move we are playing, and use ZILLIONS to record and save the position
of our game. I will play one game of ULTRA SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS
and/or SCHIZOPHRENIC CHESS with any bonafide judge in the contest.
If you wish to set up a match email me at [email protected]
if it bounces back as undeliverable (often happens when I am over my
storage limit) try me at [email protected]
I will play one game of each or if preferred only one game of one of
those two with any judge, and I will defer the choice of color
allocation to the person who challenges me.
btw I suggest that other people who have
entries in the contest and are willing to play-test their games with
the judges in this contest by email in much the same way I am describing
here, post their email addresses on this comments page and solicit
challenges from judges.
btw might I suggest that no judge views both games from the same person
this might help give a fresh perspective-- I am not the only person
who has 2 entries in the contest--- what do you guys think?
Is it a big deal if the same judge views both entries by the same
player or should they be broken up between 2 different judges?
5 people submitted two games apiece: myself, Glenn Overby, Luiz Carlos
Campos, William Overington, and Antoine Fourriere. Then there are
four entries submitted by three members of the Newton family:
Paul, Andrew and Timothy. Splitting the two games submitted by one person
into two different judging groups would be easy enough to do. For the
four entries by the Newtons, i would suggest that OUTBACK CHESS by
Timothy and TRANSPORTER CHESS by Andrew be in the same group and the
other two, one apiece in each of the other two groups. I just think it
helps prevent any bias (either positive or negative) that a judge's
review of one game should not let him color his predisposition to the
other game by the same entrant. Ya know what I mean? At least not initially.
In later rounds if both games from a single entrant have advanced beyond
the first round of judging it may be unavoidable to prevent the same
judge from looking at both games if they are asked to review all remaining
games still in the running. But at least initially let's try to avoid
someone saying 'Wow this game is great, I bet the other game he entered
must be equally good, lemme take a look, this guy is really sharp and
seems to know what he is doing when it comes to designing a good CV'
or 'Wow this game is terrible. I bet the other game he entered must
be equally bad, lemme take a look, this guy really has no clue about
what he is doing when it comes to trying to design a good CV'
No review of one game can in any way influence his perception of the
other game. That's just me; I would like to know if anyone else thinks
it is a good idea to try to avoid situations like this or if it is
really ultimately not a big deal. If you wish to make it truly random
in determining which games go into which judging groups then don't
thinker with it. Otherwise, deliberately assign the games by entrants
with multiple entries into specific groups and all of the other games
by people with only one entry into their groups randomly and then
randomly assign judges to groups once they have been laid out.
Also if I might make a further suggestion, you may also want to
further try to seperate and to some minor degree pre-determine which
games go into which groups, by making sure that you don't put all
of the 7 by 12 or 12 by 7 boards into the same group but try to
equally distribute them among the 3 preliminary round groups.
The same thing could be said for the games on 10 by 10 boards with
the 4 by 4 16-square grid in the center a 'no entry zone'--games
into different groups as well. This will further prevent judges who
either have a preference or dislike for that type of layout from
judging all of the games with that design. Finally, someone like
Hans or Fergus should try to pick the 3 games in this contest which
they feel are the most complicated or confusing, and/or the ones which
they anticipate will take the longest to complete a play-test game
(take a long time to achieve victory) and make sure to assign them
into different groups as well, so that no judge gets all the 'easy'
games while someone else is burdened with all the 'hard' games.
Do you guys like these suggestions or do you think it should be
TOTALLY random and just live with whatever way it comes out??
I've taken the time to identify which games in the contest have certain commonalities between them, specifically, the board layout design. These games, I feel, should be seperated into seperate inital 11-game groups as much as possible. The ones where four games are listed should be broken down into a 2-1-1 ration and the ones where three games are listed should be broken down into a 1-1-1 ration. 12 FILES, 7 RANKS: Herb Garden Chess, Schizophrenic Chess, Viking Chess 7 FILES, 12 RANKS: Delegating Chess, Orwell Chess, Wizard Chess, Ryu Shogi 10 BY 10 BOARD WITH 16-SQUARE 'NO-ENTRY ZONE' IN CENTER: Invasion, Tree Garden Chess, Seenschach, The Pit. Finally, I nominate the three games which, to me, seem to be the most complicated. Certainly there may be one or two others which others might feel should go into this 'top three' list more than one or two of the ones I am listing here, but I certainly wouldn't want to be the judge which has to play any of these three games, and therefore I feel each of the following games should be split up among the three different groups, one apiece: Ramayana Chess, Tetrahedal Chess, Unconventional Warefare Chess Further input and voting should be taken among the judges to come up with that final 3 'most complicated' list and seperate them into the three different groups.
I'm not sure that the 'newcomer vs. veteran' thing is that important,
but if you guys feel strongly about it, I'm not going to argue too
strenuously about it. While I don't have time to be a full fledged
judge, I am willing to give my input as a veteran CV designer on the
judging process, so that it will be handled fairly and equitably. I am
also willing to play-test my own two entries in the contest against
any judge by email (see earlier comment). I have a few more ideas:
Perhaps you should break the judging into groups of four rather than
three: three with eight games each and one with nine. Eleven games apiece
seems like an awful lot to me, and depending on how many judges you can
get you may be able to distribute things a little easier this way.
(Just how many games should come out of each group into the second
round of judging is something you can all decide for yourselves.)
I am
assuming that you will have more than one judge giving their input on a
particular group. For example, if you have 12 preliminary round judges
to cover the four groups, you have three judges per group. (Another
advantage of going with four inital groups rather than three is,
as I have already pointed out, there are four different games using
7 files and 12 ranks, four different games using a 10 by 10 board with
the middle 16 squares as a 'no-entry zone', and four games submitted
by members of the Newton family, and each of the four games for each
of the aforementioned subsets could be put into the four different
preliminary round groups.) It makes sense to have two judges from the same group play-test the same games with each other, either by email or in real-time. (With internet communication what it is today, moves can be sent in algebraic notation via instant message, using ZILLIONS to record the game, if the direct interactive ZILLIONS in-game link cannot [for whatever reason] be used.) I would also hope that each judge play-test each game they are responsible for at least TWICE. One time does not necessarily give one a good feel for a game, and often once a game has been played for the first time one might begin to pick up on certain strategies once they get into the flow of the game that had not occurred to them simply from reading the rules
page and looking at the initial setup, which they will then be better
prepared to use (either for attack, or to defend against) during the
second time around. After that, if someone wants to play-test it even
further than that, that's up to them based on how much free time they
have on their hands. I also think that it's always helpful whenever a
game's inventor can volunteer to play-test his own game with a judge
(as I have offered), since who else has a better initial feel for a game
than the creator itself, and I hope that as time goes by more entrants
will come forward to volunteer to play-test their own games with judges.
Even the games which do not yet have a ZILLIONS OF GAMES zrf file
available can be play-tested by email, by including an ASCII diagram
with each move transmitted, altered by hand in each reply to reflect
the new position that occurs with the move that is being sent. (btw
that might also be another initial criteria to use to seperate games
into different preliminary round groups: those games which do not have
ZILLIONS OF GAMES zrf files available for them, should be equally
distributed amongst the groups).
<p>Finally I was wondering if anyone was going to make any suggestions
as to what criteria judges should use to when evaluating games in
the contest. I don't mean to say that I think anything would be
written in stone, that anyone MUST use certain criteria when evaluating
games, because I would think that judges should be allowed a certain
amount of flexibility and freedom in deciding which criteria they
feel are most important, and obviously different judges will probably
weigh different criteria with different importance, but I wonder if
anyone will come out and state POSSIBLE criteria that could be used,
or if you would prefer that judges figure that out for themselves
without any outside influence. I would certainly be willing and able
to give my two cents worth in this forum as to which criteria should
be used in evaluating games if I am asked to, but for now will keep
my mouth shut in case you'd all rather everyone be silent about that
topic. Please let me know. I'll tell you this much though: If you ask
me to state the various criteria I think are important in evaluating
games, I'll tell you which ones I think are more important than others,
but I won't try to come up with any kind of elaborate points-scoring
system to give games grades or scores. To me that's a bit too scientific
and it's not going to be appropriate or userful for different judges
who may personally disagree that a particular criteria I stated should
be more (or less) important than the emphasis I would seem to give it.
One other quick comment I forgot to add to my previous remarks:
How exactly to you determine who is a 'veteran' ? You shouldn't
necessarily only go by how many times someone has entered previous
contests. I've entered a few (41 squares, 42 squares, 100 squares),
but I have several other CVs published on this site. Someone who has
never entered a contest on this site before may actually have had a
few other games published here, so they don't necessarily qualify as
a newcomer, do they?? I therefore think that the best criteria in
judging the 'newcomer vs. veteran' arguement is to look at the total
number of CVs they have had published on this site (including their
entry or entries for this contest) and rank them from most to least,
and make the deliniation somewhere in the middle, or in quarters.
Top quarter most experienced evaluates bottom quarter least experienced,
second quarter most experienced evaluates second quarter least experienced,
and vice versa. The problem is that you can't have it both ways.
You can't break the contest down along those 'newcomer vs. veteran'
lines AND break them down into the subsets I was suggesting earlier,
in which certain types of game designs are equally distributed into
different starting groups. The best you can do is start out with my
suggestions, dividing all the 12 by 7s, 7 by 12s, and 10 by 10 -16s,
and the 4 Newton submissions, and from there, rank the remaining
games and randomly distribute them.
<p>
The problem is that after a while we start making this more complicated
than it really needs to be. Here, I've just come up with a proposed
breakdown of the 32 published games so far into 4 groups of 8 games
each. What my groupings below accomplish is to make sure that all
games are equally divided according to the parameters I suggested in
my previous comments. That is to say, I've successfully managed in
the groupings below to equally seperate all 4 '7 file 12 rank' games,
all 4 '10 by 10 -16' games, all 3 '12 file 7 rank' games, distribute
one Newton family submission into each of the 4 groups, and make sure
that no group contains two entries by the same person. I've also
divided the 3 most complicated games (as per my earlier suggestion)
into different groups. Those can be found in groups #s 1, 2, and 3,
and so therefore I suggest that the 33rd and final (and as yet unpublished)
entry into the contest go into group # 4 below, which would be the
largest and yet be one without any of the other 3 most complicated games,
thus somewhat offsetting the imbalance. After breaking the games into
different groups according to the criteria above, I then sorted the
remaining games simply according to the order in which they were first
published (earliest into one, next earliest into the next, next earliest
into the next) and so on. The results of my efforts (and mind you are
all free to come up with your own groupings, this is just my suggestion):
<p>GROUP # 1: Invasion, Herb Garden Chess, Delegating Chess, Arabian Chess,
Ramayana Chess, Ultra Slanted Escalator Chess, Tandem 84, Excelsior
<p>GROUP # 2: The Pit, Schizophrenic Chess, Ryu Shogi, Transporter Chess,
Unconventional Warfare Chess, Lions and Dragons Chess, Round Table Chess 84, Cross Eyed Chess
<p>GROUP # 3: Tree Garden Chess, Quintessential Chess, Wizard Chess, Tetrahedal Chess, Jacks and Witches 84, Beastmaster Chess, Influence Chess, Tamerspiel
<p>GROUP # 4: Seenschach, Viking Chess, Orwell Chess, Outback Chess,
Chessma 84, Heros Hexagonal Chess, Battle Cheiftain Chess, Wizard's War
<p>
You're all welcome to tinker with the above list here or there if you
come up with some subtle criteria I have overlooked, but I think I've
done most of the work for you right here, I can't see too many ways
on improving on this. To me, any further alterations to the above
will be 'six of one, half dozen of the other' that is to say, not have
much practical differences from my suggestion. Please note that there
were only 8 games which did not fall into any of my previously suggested
categories (board size, contributors) which needed to be specifically
seperated, and those were: Tandem84, Round Table Chess 84, Battle
Cheiftan Chess, Influence Chess, Wizard's War, Excelsior, Cross Eyed
Chess, and Tamerspiel, and of those I just listed, the last 3 do not
currently have ZRF files available for them. I have distributed them
into groups 1, 2, and 3, so once again the 33rd and final entry which
I will also assume does not as of yet have a ZRF ready for it should go
into Group # 4, thus balancing out that disparity as well. (Please note
that I did not take into account the 'newcomer vs. veteran' criteria
when I made the above groupings, but as I have just pointed out,
only Tandem84, Round Table Chess 84, Battle Cheiftan Chess, Influence Chess, and Wizard's War have any flexibility to be moved around. The other 27
games, I would think, need to be locked into place, otherwise you start
conflicting with the seperation criterias we have spoken of before.)
84 Spaces Contest. Information/proposal on judgement of the contest.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would like to remind all judges that you can challenge me to play-test
my entries with me by email, contact me at [email protected]
<p>Also I want to make a suggestion. After each group has advanced four
games into the next round, all judges should submit votes on all of
the remaining games (regardless of whether it was in their group or not)
to distinguish the three best games that they think deserve consideration
in the finals, even though they may not have been among the best four
in their own group. Which games deserve the most honorable mention?
Nominate three games, from most deserving on down. Nominate one game
to receive three points, another to receive two points and one game
to receive one point. After all emails from judges are collected, whichever
one single game which did not previously advance to the finals
receives the most points, will
receive one 'wild-card' entry into the finals, thus creating 13 games
in the finals. It is to be understood, of course, that the games
that are being nominated for a wild-card spot may not have been play
tested by the judges that are nominating them, but instead they are simply
going by their impressions of them by reading their rules descriptions.
This will help ensure that if there seems to be some glaring oversight
and a lot of judges from other groups say to themselves 'How did that
game not make it into the finals?' they will have a chance to nominate
it by this points scoring system and if it receives more points than
any of the other runner-up games it will indeed make the finals as one
last 'wild-card' entry. What do you all think of the idea? (Obviously,
the only restriction being that a judge cannot nominate his own game.)
Existentialist Chess. 10x10 board with many different pieces. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]After doing some more play-testing with John Lawson, we agreed that another rule change is in order: The dazzler is the only piece that is completely immune from the effects of a hyena. By making this rule change, one can try to use their dazzler to get near a hyena, and on a subsequent move, jump it and force it to move, force it to release its spell on any and all pieces it was immobilizing. This is an important counter-balance rule to prevent the hyena from becoming overly powerful. Incidentally I am accepting all challenges to play Existentialist Chess thru the following link: http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/presets/existentialistchesspreset.html This link will soon be added to the PBeM system of this web site. My email for receiving challenges: [email protected] my userid: davidnyjfan
23 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.