Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I hereby withdraw Proposal 2 every 3!

Appreciate the support from all who backed it, but reality shows that it wasn't to be...

While conceding, it isn't the loss that is so bothersome...it's losing to no alternative.

On a serious note, has anyone had any contact from Fergus in the past 5 + weeks?  It seems that the tournament is at a standstill because he hasn't kicked round two into gear.  

If that's because he's busy at work and with the new girlfriend (perhaps even fiance or wife at this point), and with her children (who may be his now as well)...that's outstanding for him, and I support family time over chessvariants time.

What gives me pause is that in the recent past when that was the case he popped in to at least mention it.   I'm hoping to hear from one of you, anyone, that you've been in touch with Fergus and he's well but busy.

Hoping Fergus is busy enjoying his life, and hope to hear from someone that this is the case.

Jeju

Does anyone know how to see the current standings for Game Courier Tournament #3?

Thanks.

jeremy, what happened with that?

if the tournament is indefinitely on hold, is anyone interested in an alternative, less formal tournament in the meantime?  maybe based on one inventor's games?  someone with a bunch of games to choose from - gifford/duniho/lavieri for example.

Hi, Carlos.

Well, Joe Joyce is back and certainly willing to step in but I think we need Fergus Duniho's go ahead. I tried calling him a couple of days ago and got a fax sound. I emailed a few of his email addresses after that. I will try the number again. I will try out a few more ways to get ahold of Fergus Duniho this week. (I would like to get in touch with him anyway to ask him how to disable one of Game Courier's features).

I'm game for your idea of playing in a tournament meanwhile that featured the games of one inventor. That's a great idea. If Courier #3 continues to stall, I think it would be fairest to choose Gifford, partly because he won last year's tournament and partly because he had the most games that gained entry into this Courier #3 tournament.

This could be the first of many inventor themed tournaments. Lavieri's games are very creative and have not gotten the attention they deserve so that would be high on my list too. I would love to play in a Joe Joyce tournament too. And a Christine Bagley-Jones tournament.

As of yesterday, Eric Greenwood and I have plans to sponsor a Courier Chess tournament at some point, possibly using Mod 5. We will likely be announcing that some time in the next three to five months.

Well, it's been a few months since any action on the tournament. Without appropriate access, we can't have the official tournament Fergus has/would have run, but there are more people than myself willing to send out unofficial tournament games, and have a player-recognized, if not fully official, tournament. All games would be rated, and should be tracked. Standard time controls could be used. Or, all games could be assigned at once, with 6 months spare time for each player in each game, and nothing else, so the tournament would have to end in a year. 

There are other problems in continuing the tourney. For example, my first game was against Fergus, who would apparently not be playing anyone else in the rest of the tournament, so how would that game be counted? [Maybe as a tie-breaker?] Similar situations may easily arise during the tournament, where a player drops out without completing his games. We'd need a way to handle them fairly and appropriately. Carlos has offered to run this tourney - anyone else besides me? Carlos? You ready to assign games and figure out how to track them? I'd like to hear some opinions on tourney continuation now and how to work out the problems [& please, say if you're in it or not]. 

I'd also like to see a 'BYO' tourney, where each player brings a game, any CV with a preset here, and plays that game against every other player. Games would be played in pairs, with each player playing 2 games [one of each player's] against every other player. With some expressed interest, I'd run that.

let's do it.

i only just realized you can do it all from the preset page.  i just trialed setting up a new tournament round and then assigning a game between jejujeju-carlos.  seemed to work.  simple. 

what's the word from fergus?  is antoine around?

what are we going to do then?

1/ continue with tournament 3, anyone who doesn't move simply loses on time and that's that.  withdrawals from the tournament also means you lose all your remaining games (only option, isn't it?).  are most people still around?

2/ start a new tournament (established games).

3/ joe's BYO idea.  

i'm willing to assign games.

i vote 1 or 2.  i don't have any games to bring!

A)  I like number 1.

B)  I have no problem with number 2, but imagine it would take a couple
weeks to sort out who's in/who's out and then set up a schedule.

C)  How'd I do in the 'trial match-up' vs. carlos?

Let's play!

I am ready to continue the present tournament - starting new games on Aug. 15, Sept. 15, Oct.15, Nov. 15 and maintaining a schedule of four opponents from that point on. Looks like my next game is with Nasmichael Farris(!) Well, it may be simpler to assign pairings and let some of the games be forfeited.

Speaking of forfeits, no tournament here has ever been 'officially' rated (check the ratings page for Alice Chess). The ratings here are already distorted by time forfeits from players who lost their internet connections, etc. My Ratings List 07 was intended to provide monthly updates on the players still active here.

Hey, Carlos. Glad to hear from you. And if you think you know how to assign tourney games, then go right ahead, you're at least 1 step ahead of me. There's been no word from Fergus, or Antoine. As this has become more and more a user-maintained site, we might as well take the next step and start running the tournaments and such. I'd say to wait a few days to see if we get any response, then send out the next game assignments. Apparently, the games played so far were *not* rated [though I thought they were supposed to be], so the continuation shouldn't be rated.
I'm comfortable with your statement: 'anyone who doesn't move simply loses on time and that's that.  withdrawals from the tournament also means you lose all your remaining games (only option, isn't it?)' - Are there any objections to this?
The BYO tourney is for *any* game you like that has a preset, not specifically for a game you designed. I assumed games like Pocket Mutation and Grand Chess would show up, though I certainly don't expect Mike Nelson or Christian Freeling to play. The idea was that half the tourney games would be one of each person's favorite games. There's nothing to stop 2 people from bringing the same game; then we play it twice.

I'm ok with any of the previously mentioned options, but I think starting a new tournament is preferable to continuing this one, which is on life support at best.  It has gone on so long, that it is almost certain that several players will drop out (if they haven't already,) and then a lot of games being won by default (which is certainly not ideal.)  And a 19-game tournament is pretty long, and we've only completed one game.  And maybe there are new players who didn't get in on this one.  I think it makes sense to reevaluate.

I like the BYO idea with only one reservation - what if an inventor includes one of his own games that is considered incomprehensible by the other players?  I would suggest a second step to curtail this.  After everyone selects the one game they would like to include, there is a brief period in which a player may raise an objection to a game on the basis that it is too difficult or impossible to play.  If someone seconds the motion, it is put to a vote and if 50% or more of the players feel that the game is beyond their capability to play in a reasonable manner, then the game is removed and the person must select another.  This idea is a 2-step process, as the games for this tournament were selected in a 2-step process, (which I think is almost necessary), but this is a much simpler and faster process that the previous method.  And it would be my opinion that a game should not be objected to simply because you don't really like it - you should only object if you feel you cannot play the game, maybe because it has hundreds of pieces, maybe because the rules are 20 pages long, or maybe because it is 6-dimensional and has time travel.

Hey, Greg! All your points are quite valid. One thing I've noticed is that not a lot of the original Tournament #3 players are saying anything now. I'd like to play T#3, but if there are only 7 participants, it makes more sense to cancel it and have another tourney. We need a show of hands here.
 
*All those players who are willing to re-start CV Game Courier Tournament #3, please comment here now.*

I agree with the idea of a vote for the BYO tourney. The intention is to have fun, so we must provide playable games. We could impose board size and piece number restrictions for starters: 8x8 to 12x12 or 12x16, tops;
10 - 32 or 40 pieces per side. What's reasonable, people? 

I also think we should run and score a BYO a little differently. These are my ideas:
For starters, the game you bring you will always play as black. [Provision may be made for the nominal white player to play black instead.]
Victory should be scored differently. There should be 3 winning categories: a best White score, a best Black score, and a best Total score.

*All those players who are willing to re-start CV Game Courier Tournament #3, please
comment here now.*

I'm willing to re-start.

Agree that if only 7 or 9 original players are active, makes more sense to start fresh.

This is the original list of names:
    * Todor Tchervenkov
    * Greg Strong
    * Joe Joyce
    * Antoine Fourrière
    * Fergus Duniho
    * carlos carlos
    * Abdul-Rahman Sibahi
    * John Lewis
    * Adrian Alvarez de la Campa
    * Gary Gifford
    * je ju
    * Sam Trenholme
    * Uri Bruck
    * Calvin Pomerantz
    * Michael Schmahl
    * Nasmichael Farris
    * David Paulowich
    * juan rodriguez
    * Bogot Bogot
    * Jeremy Good

We currently have some definitely in, some probably in who haven't checked in, and some unknowns - okay, so I guessed a lot. Still, it's looking tough right now; would anybody like to change their status? 
    * Todor Tchervenkov   ?
    * Greg Strong   X
    * Joe Joyce   X
    * Antoine Fourrière   ?
    * Fergus Duniho   ??
    * carlos carlos   X
    * Abdul-Rahman Sibahi   X
    * John Lewis   O
    * Adrian Alvarez de la Campa   O
    * Gary Gifford   O
    * je ju   X
    * Sam Trenholme   O
    * Uri Bruck   ?
    * Calvin Pomerantz   ?
    * Michael Schmahl   ?
    * Nasmichael Farris   ?
    * David Paulowich   X
    * juan rodriguez   X
    * Bogot Bogot   O
    * Jeremy Good   X

X - Player has stated willingness to continue now

O - Player has said in past he wants to play, but has not stated that now

? - Player has made no comments at all

This is to the best of *my* knowledge right now. I put it up for 2 reasons: to prompt people to 'sign in' yet again; to get an idea on whether it's worthwhile to continue or not.

Right now, it looks shaky. I'd think we'd need 15 players of the original 20, minimum, if not more, to make it reasonable to continue the same contest. With 15/20 players, 1 out of every 4 games is forfeit at the start, no? That in itself should screw up the ratings a considerable amount. [Not to mention probably causing a mismatch between the games still being played and the remaining players' preferences.] So sign in! If any new people are interested, or not enough are left for T#3, we could probably quickly put together a tourney from those who want to play.

If anyone wants to take the initiative to email the other 0s and ?s, please post that you have done so here so we don't duplicate your efforts.

It's unreasonable to expect that most of them will have checked into this message board and thought they needed to post anything here so the best way of finding out is to try to track them down personally. In a couple of cases, I suspect people will respond to a game invite but nothing else (because of language barriers or what ever)...