Ratings & Comments

Time limits are the headache of correspondence chess.  Sigh.  I, too, am
spoiled by Richard's PBEM server.  The Omega Chess tournament there is at
G/180 days (30 days vacation with notice allowed), and that G/180 gets
counted to the minute and second by the central server.

Obviously we don't have that option.

Suggestions for how to best count a G/XX time limit are welcome.  I'd like
to see a year maximum on the games, and expect to see more small variants
than large for that reason (and the fact that we've had a lot of small
variant design contests!).

An absolute time limit of Y days for any individual move, with one warning
and a notice provision for vacations, might also work in lieu of the
above.

I think I like Glenn's idea of X days per move, with one warning before
forfeiture, and suspension upon proper notice of vacation, illness,
personal matters, etc.  Since this tournament should be viewed as a
friendly one between like-minded variant players, the rules shouldn't be
too restrictive.  I think 3 days per player-move should cover most
situations other than the aforementioned major ones, and it means that in
a year all games that take less than 60 full moves will be finished.  In
reality, games even much longer can probably be finished since players
will in most cases not take 3 days for every move.  For some games, and on
some days, I know that I will be able to play several moves if my opponent
is agreeable.

Obviously, the ten games should be Chess with Different Armies, Feeble
Chess, Tripunch Chess, Half Chess, Amontillado Chess, Progressive
Cambiamarce DemiChess, Torus Peacebump Punch Chess, Cloud Chess, All Go
Together Chess, Nemoroth, and Alice's Chessgi.

I tend to pick from games i'm more familiar with....

I'm afraid I don't recognize some of those.  :)

Maybe we have to do a Ralph Betza tournament some time.  Then a Peter
Aronson tournament the following year.  Maybe Parton or Schmittberger or
Freeling the year after that.

There is no such rule.  The maximum allowable number of moves in such a
position is 50, with certain conditions. (See the laws for more details
about the fifty move rule.)

The figure thirteen probably comes from end game studies. If I remember
correctly, King and Rook vs bare King can mate in 13 moves or less
starting from any legal, non-stalemated position.  I belive the
corresponding figures are 8 for King and Queen vs bare King, 14 for King
and 2 Bishops (on opposite colors) vs bare King, and 49 for King, Bishop,
and Knight vs bare King. [Someone please correct me if my memory is
faulty.]

But all the numbers I quoted assume perfect play--the laws do not require
perfect play. (Except in the last case, but truthfully I don't know how to
force mate with a Bishop and Knight in 1000 moves, nor has anyone ever
done it to me.)

I prefer regular-sized or large variants to small ones, so I'd not like to
see the contest limited to games of 38-41 squares, though I'd certainly
not object to some of those games being included.   I'd rather see the
slate of games for any given year be eclectic -- some small, some
normal-sized, some large, and from a variety of inventors or sources.  You
get to experience more interesting games that way, I think, and no one
gets left out because all of the games in a given year are not to his/her
taste.

It looks like I'll be the editor in charge of the first tournament.  Right
now I have compiled, with plenty of suggestions, a list of 42 games to
pick from.  They break down around 50% regular board size, 33% smaller,
16% larger.

I am constructing a poll to allow folks to vote on any of those games they
would like to see in, and indeed to suggest others.  The set of games to
be used _in 2003_ will be picked by the staff here guided by the polls. 
We want a mix of old, new, big, small, etc.  Variety is key the first time
out.

When and if the first tourney succeeds, I'd love to see 'thematics' later,
much as we have held a variety of design contests.  The linchpin issue is
simply whether we can get players.  I'd be happy with 10, but would love
20 or more.  And picking good games is a prerequisite to getting players.

And I agree with the comment that there are so many good games it's hard
to get agreement on a list.  That's why I suggested this; lots of good
games languishing in obscurity.

Please keep the feedback coming...

i see quite a few things have been posted on this subject while i was out
of town this weekend.  i would also caution against too many large
variants for the same reason that they take much longer to play.  in a
previous comment i listed a bunch of larger variants as possibilities, but
i wasn't suggested we play all of them, just that they were all good
possibilities.  i would also be careful about small variants that are
chosen.  as both a game designer and judge, i know that designing a small
chess variant is much more difficult than designing a medium or large one.
 i found very very few small variants that i was truly impressed with, and
even fewer that were so well designed that they would not have been
improved if the ideas had been extended to a larger game.  even some of
the games that ranked high in some of the contests i found to be quite
weak.

Wonderful idea! As far as the timing, either the 3 days per move or the
total day limit idea would work, I think. Total days used could be tracked
manually with each PBEM exchange. As far as a list of games, here's some
ideas:
- Chaturanga (worthy grandad of Chess)
- Jumping Chess (interesting capturing mechanic)
- Glinski's Hexagonal Chess (hex mechanics)
- Makruk (wonderful old and contemporary variant)
- Take Over Chess (I'm partial to it!)
- Chess on a Longer Board (its that Wall)
- Xiangqi (another worthy variant)
- Mulligan Stew Chess (crazy but fun)

I need to play with this.  It's quite an idea.

I wonder if the King shouldn't be like any other piece, even in check; if
you're in check, have no card to move the King, and can't defeat the check
otherwise it is mate.

The concept will map with interesting results to a lot of variants that
use the ordinary 8x8 and 32 pieces.  The cards might even work best with a
form other than orthochess.

Peter, you think too much!  :)

Just had another thought...a 10-card version with five cards each for King
and Pawn, two cards each for others, with the Wild card.  Or 9 without the
Wild card.  The optimum card mix, as you astutely noted, may not yet be
known.

KQ KB KN KR KP PQ PB PN PR (Wild)

Does castling require one card, or two, as you see it?  I vote one, a King
card, since officially castling has long been viewed as a move of the
King.  But I could go either way.

A 19-card set sounds like a plan...White with nine, Black with nine plus
the Wild card, no card used on White's first move.

I can see some potential for endgame draws, where mating material is
hindered by a lack of sufficient cards to make the moves.  :)

Castling as a King move is a good idea, I think.  The endgame.  Hmm.  A K +
Q vs K endgame could be stymied by the player with the bare King holding
on to the KQ, PQ and (Wild) cards.  I wonder if some additional mechanism
is called for.  Of course, it needs to be seen if this game comes down to
situations like that.  Pawns are relatively mobile, and because there are
many cards that let Pawns move, they defend each other with greater
effectiveness than other pieces.  It seems to indicate that Pawnless
endgames may not be as common as in usual Chess.

Peter,

It seems like another new game is about to be born in the comments system.
 It looks like a very good one.  If drawishness is a problem because of
hoarding cards as you suggest it may be, perhaps the answer is to use a
stronger than FIDE army to compensate for the difficulites of moving.

K and Amazon vs K should be more winnable than K and Q vs K as fewer moves
are needed=card hoarding is less effective. But I would really prefer the
FIDE army if the game is playable with it.

Perhaps you might consider buying an Omega Chess set
(http://www.omegachess.com), which uses a 10x10 board with extra corner
squares which could be ignored for the 10x10 gaes you want to play.