Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Nuno, please consider voting anyway. :) I am a big fan of Wildebeest Chess,
but 11x10 is likely just too big for this tournament.  Notice that only
three games bigger than 9X9 got listed, and nothing bigger than 10x10. 
The same factor kept Omega Chess off the list, and Grand Chess was one of
the last three games to be placed on the list.

I hesitate to blow my own horn, but if you like leapers take a peek at
ximeracak.  And if the age-old battle between leapers and riders
fascinates you, as it did Schmittberger when he balanced leapers and
riders in Wildebeest, try Chigorin Chess.

Thanks for your interest.  I have recorded Wildebeest among the suggested
games, vote or no vote.  :)

I wonder why the bias against large variants?  A year-long PBEM tournament
seems like an ideal way to play large variants.  Even at three turns per
week, a pretty slow pace, even a very large variant should be finished
within the year.  The Chu Shogi sample game in Schmittberger's 'New Rules
for Classic Games' runs 164 moves, and Chu would have to be considered
quite a large variant by any standards.  I personally happen to be a fan
of large and complex variants and would have liked to see more of them on
the list.  Regardless, it's still a good list and should be an interesting
tournament.

There are a couple of factors involved in skewing toward medium-size or
small variants instead of large ones.

One is time; a year is a long time, but some large variants are really
long games.  

One is intimidation; big games are more likely to make people nervous than
small games.  This event has a learning curve to it; for the first time or
two out, we want to monitor just how big that learning curve is.

One is the fact that we have lots of decent under-recognized small
variants, because of our contests, and perhaps not quite so many large
ones.

But the comments and votes are assuredly being noted and logged, and will
tell a story by the time the polling ends.  :)

I've considered the vast majority of the chess variants on these pages,
and, after some study, research, and play-testing, I found a grand total
of two that I feel are worth my time to play: Gothic Chess & Omega Chess,
and neither of them are on the list...

 Glenn said, '...nothing bigger than 10x10. The same factor kept Omega
Chess off the list, and Grand Chess was one of the last three games to be
placed on the list.' A 10x10 board has 100 squares ... Omega Chess has 104
squares ... are you seriously telling me that you're omitting one of the
best Chess variants (IMHO) because it's a mere 4 squares over you
maximum?

 You also mention that you've added Grand Chess to the list. I'm all right
with Grand Chess, but I feel that it's an inferior version of Capablanca's
Chess, and Gothic Chess is simply an improvement on Capablanca's Chess
(the final evolution, if you will), and with other inferior variations
like Modern Chess and Not-Particularly-New Chess, I find myself wondering
why Gothic Chess isn't an option either...

Vincent's comment represents a larger body of opinion.  The only games that
have been suggested multiple times in the suggestion blank on the ballot
are Gothic and Omega.

All the larger variants save one are polling strongly enough (well into
the upper half) that it is obvious that my concerns about size were
worrying about a non-existent problem.  Live and learn.

It should perhaps be clarified that 100 squares was not a magic threshold
which Grand met and Omega did not.  Anything over 64 squares was classed
as large, anything under 64 as small, and the final list reflected 2 small
to 4 standard to 1 large.  The three games larger than 9X9 (Xiangqi,
Glinski Hexagonal, Grand) were all among the last games to be added
because of their size.

I won't make any comments about the relative merits of the games Vincent
has elected to praise and dis, except to say that the case for relative
superiority and inferiority is not nearly as clear as presented.  And I
thank him for making a most pertinent observation.

I must disagree with Vincent about Grand Chess.  While in the technical
sense it is a variation of Capablanca's Chess because it uses the
Capablanca pieces, it is a very different game. The vastly different
starting array with the free space on the back rank and the high mobility
of the Rooks give the game an entirely different feel from Capablanca's
Chess or FIDE Chess. I would not judge Grand as a Capablanca variant--I
belive it is a game in it's own right inspired by Capablanca.

Gothic Chess is a very good game.  I belive it is fair to judge Gothic as
a Capablanca variant (and a superior one) as its starting array is an
improvement but the game has the same feel as Capablanca.

I certainly would be happy to see any of Omega, Gothic, or Grand in the
tournament.

On the machines question: No decision has yet been made on whether or not
to permit machine entries.  I have no personal objection to them, but
understand that others do.  If any likely players feel strongly about this
one way or the other, let me know, either here or by email.

Regarding squares and size: Ben is of course right that squares are an
inexact way at best to classify a game.  But number of squares will still
correlate to a certain degree with size and speed.

About voting in general: We have a respectable number of votes in, and the
pack is spreading out.  We also have three unlisted games now which have
significant support for inclusion.  How would those who have voted or are
considering voting feel about cutting the list to 20 or so for a second
round of polls?  Evaluating 42 at once has always been chancy...although
given the huge universe we're drawing from, it was inevitable.  But a
follow-up round might allow for more considered judgements.  We want a
good range of good games as the foundation of a good tournament.

Paring the list to 20 and voting again is fine with me.  As far as Gothic
Chess and Omega Chess, I think they're both fine games, though I have a
problem with Omega Chess's extra 4 squares and the fact that they create
some situations where a player with superior material, who should win,
cannot.  My main objection to including them is that they each have their
own dedicated organizations and websites, and players who want to play
them can go to those sites.  Including them will therefore exclude two
other games that need the attention and exposure and cannot get it
anywhere else.

In the original statement about the contest, Glenn Overby said:
'The goal is to get some of the better new or
obscure variants more play and exposure (although there will be room for
more usual games as well).'

Since one of the goals is exposure, I would not like to see XiangQi or
Shogi, but wouldn't mind variants such as Gothic, Omega, or Grand Chess. 
These are widely played, but not played by millions.

In my opinion, machines are out.  One can play against ZoG or other
programs anytime one wants, and it is not satisfying to me.

A revote on a winnowed list makes sense.  It would be OK to add games that
were written in on the first vote.  If the participation of machine
players is disputed, add that to the second round vote.  Finally, consider
playing only games that were voted for by the people who enter the
contest.  If some variant gets 100 votes, but no one who voted for it
enters, throw it out.

Of course you're right: there is no way to enforce a ban on machines, or
even detect them, so why even make a rule.
All the same, I prefer playing people (OTB if possible), not computers.  A
game against a [known] computer does not feel 'real' to me.

There was an earlier discussion of time limits.  I post the following for
comments, as preparations continue.

Proposed time regulations for the Multivariant Tournament:

1.  The clock starts at noon Eastern Standard Time (GMT-5) on February 1,
2003.

2.  You must move within five days of receipt of your opponent's most
recent move to avoid using time units.

3.  A move requiring 120 hours or more to make costs time units:

	120:00 to 239:59 (5 to <10 days)....1 unit
	240:00 to 359:59 (10 to <15 days)...2 units
	360:00 to 479:59 (15 to <20 days)...3 units
	480:00 to 599:59 (20 to <25 days)...4 units
	600:00 to 719:59 (25 to <30 days)...5 units
	720:00 to 839:59 (30 to <35 days)...6 units
	840:00 or more......................forfeiture

4.  If you use more than six time units in a game, you forfeit the game.

5.  You should promptly notify your opponent if you do not receive a reply
within 10 days of sending your last move, with a copy to the Tournament
Director.  This notice should be repeated after 20 days, and after 30
days.

6.  If your opponent uses time units for a move, you must confirm the
number of time units used for that move with your reply.

7.  If a disagreement arises concerning time units or a time-forfeit, both
players are expected to notify the Tournament Director immediately, and
comply with his directions.

8.  The Tournament Director may, in extraordinary circumstances, and with
or without specific application by the players, add one or more time units
to both players' available units in any game.

9.  The Tournament Director is Glenn Overby II, glenn@chessvariants.com.

(NOTE: This is the approximate equivalent of a rigid 5-day-maximum per
move with 30-days flexible leave, and without prior notice requirements
for leave.)

Sounds very reasonable and should cover all eventualities.  I vote yes.

These limits are very agreeable.  While as a matter of courtesy I qould
give advance notice if I could nott reply in five days, I can concieve of
circumstances that would make this difficult or impossible.  I think it's
good that if someone misses a deadline for some emergency and they didn't
have a chance to give notice, they won't be unduly penalized.

I assume that there will need to be an overall limit for completion of the
games.  Will there be provision for adjudication of unfinished games? Two
cases come to mind:

1. A player can demonstrate a forced win that cannot be completed within
the overall limit.  This should be adjudicated to be a win.

2. At the expiration of the overall limit, a player cannot demonstrate a
forced win but has a very superior game. Should this also be adjudicated
to be a win?

It might be useful to consider the rules set up by the International
Correspondence Chess Federation (see http://www.iccf.com/) for their email
tournaments.