[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
84 Spaces Contest Jury members. Please consider becoming a judge for the 84 squares contest![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I'm pretty sure Luiz Carlos Campos should be judging Group B, since he has submissions in Groups A and C. Since both Luiz and Mike Nelson have submissions, if theirs are selected for the next round, that will leave the judging to Michael Howe and me, unless we have more volunteers, or a CVP editor wants to get involved at that point.
I volunteered in the comment system a while ago, but that must have gotten
lost. I should probably be placed judging group C, as I provided early
feedback to both of Tony's entries.
Of course, now I think about it, I did the same for Glenn's entries, too,
to a lesser extent.
I had withdrawn myself from consideration to judge earlier. Given the shortage of judges I am willing to consider judging Group A if necessary. My pre-deadline involvement with Group A designs is limited to one playtest game of Lions and Dragons Chess with the designer. Hans, feel free to assign me if you need me. Glenn
I believe that David Short had expressed his willingness to judge as well, for whichever group he doesn't have an entry in.
I remembered that David Short had *not* volunteered to be a judge. Here is the quote for his comment on the 84-square Contest page: David Short said, on 12/11/2002: '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.'
Paul E. Newton wrote on Fri, Jan 31, 2003 05:52 PM UTC:I am willing to be a judge for group C, since I have entries in the other two groups. I am also willing to help play-test either of my entries (or the two entered by my sons Andrew and Timothy) by e-mail with anyone who is judging those groups.
John, I'm glad your memory is better than mine. :)
Mark Thompson wrote on Sat, Feb 1, 2003 01:39 AM UTC:If there's a list of people who WOULD be willing to judge if the entries were divided into groups of 5 or 6, instead of 11, you can add my name to that list. Judging 11 different chess variants, and giving each one the attention it should get (that is, by playing many games against live opponents), scares me off.
David Short wrote on Sat, Feb 1, 2003 01:42 AM UTC:I'm sorry but since I work two jobs and about 60 hours a week now I just don't have time to play-test 11 different games, but like I said I will try to find time to play-test my own games with anyone who contacts me at pbm4dc@hotmail.com
Michael, I felt a little funny when I thought I was the only judge for Group B, for much the same reasons. But getting more than three judges per pool may be optimistic, so I'm willing to make do. And, as it stands, it could be just you and me judging the final. However, this contest has been so delayed and formless, I think judging should proceed, even if there is only one judge for a pool. It's at the point where a debatable result is better than no result. I've also looked at all the games, and there won't be any difficulty finding games worthy of the prizes. If some inventors are unhappy, that is the nature of what is an unavoidably subjective process. I have resolved to treat any complaints like a baseball umpire: don't explain and don't retract.
LCC wrote on Sat, Feb 1, 2003 07:07 PM UTC:Eh... it appears that I'm judging a group with one of my submissions... must be a small mistake, right?
>>I have resolved to treat any complaints like a baseball umpire: don't explain and don't retract. <P>
i wouldn't worry about this. when i did the 40-square contest, i received virtually no feedback - good, bad, or otherwise - about the job i did (except for the editors thanking me for being a judge). <P>
judges may be interested in my 'thoughts on judging', which is part of the same page as the contest winners. i just reread it and it holds up pretty well (despite some inexplicable typos, including getting aronson's name wrong, which i regularly did for years until he corrected me on it). although i tossed in a few constructive criticisms, i tried to keep it as positive as possible. originally had considered putting comments for every single entry, until i read that one of the entries was from a 10-yr-old kid. since i didn't necessarily know anything about the rest of the people who entered, i didn't want to risk trashing some kid's game online, which would accomplish nothing other than possibly discouraging him from continuing with chess variants. (i haven't looked at most of the 84-square entries, but based on what i've seen, and the comments of others, it looks like the quality level is very high. in the 40-square contest, there was a lot of good games, but there were few great games and a lot of horrible games - some of which were unplayable - so any honest appraisal of all the games would have contained a lot of negative comments.) <P>
i could come up with a list of advice for judges, but most of it is pretty obvious stuff. the one thing that i'll mention here: take notes as you go along. judging will takes months (i think i used a year and a half, since entries were being submitted long before the deadline), written notes will make things a lot easier when it comes time to pick your winners and summarize your thoughts.
David Short wrote on Sun, Feb 2, 2003 02:17 AM UTC:I've been giving the matter some further thought and I have come to
the conclusion that, if you would all be willing to accept me as
a judge for Group B with the full understanding that I will likely
NOT have time to play-test all of the games against a real person,
and will TRY to play-test SOME of the games as my time permits
against the zillions computer by myself, but that some of my votes
on the games in the group will be based SOLELY on my impressions of
the games simply from reading their descriptions, THEN I would be
willing to volunteer to judge Group B. Please let me know if this
is acceptable.
<p>I anticipate starting up a game of INVASION against John Lawson
by email soon.
<p>
Uri Bruck wrote on Sun, Feb 2, 2003 05:44 AM UTC:I can join the Jury for either group B ro C
>>but that some of my votes on the games in the group will be based SOLELY on my impressions of the games simply from reading their descriptions, THEN I would be willing to volunteer to judge Group B. Please let me know if this is acceptable. <P>
as i stated in my 'thoughts on judging', the first thing i learned when judging is that you can't just read the rules, you have to actually play the games.
📝Hans Bodlaender wrote on Mon, Feb 3, 2003 09:40 AM UTC:Thanks to all who volunteer. I've added those who volunteerd to the respective groups. We prefer judges who can play all games. With two jury members in group A, and three for groups B and C, I think we're `in pretty good shape'. Perhaps, still one more volunteer for group A???
<p>
Would March 31 be a reasonable date for having the first round judging done??
Hans, I noted an email in the editors' mailbox from George Duke volumteering to judge Group C. If he could judge Group A, or Mike Nelson move to Group A, that would give us three judges for each group. That would be great. Completing the first round by March 31st seems a little optimistic, but might be possible with dedicated judges. Then, we need to decide who judges the final pool.
I would prefer to remain with Group C, as I have already started playtesting, but I am willing to switch to Group A if you can let me know as soon as possible--I have more playtesting time available this weekend and want ot put it to good use. I am planning to judge the finals if I am eligible to do so, though I'm hoping I can't--I'd rather like to win a prize!
Joseph DiMuro wrote on Mon, Apr 7, 2003 05:12 PM UTC:I was just wondering: how's the judging for the 84 squares contest progressing? It's been a while since the judges were picked (two months?), so I'd assume a good deal of progress has been made. (Then again, there's 33 entries to judge, 11 by each group, so of course this would take a while. I'm not asking you guys to rush :-D) As far as I'm concerned, two of the 33 games stand out as the best; only time will tell if the judges agree...
I can only speak for the Group A judges, but we have exchanged a couple of rounds of comments. I think the judges are unanimous on three of the four, if I understood my colleagues rightly, and are in the same ballpark on the remaining contenders. Further I cannot go until results are ready. :)
The judges of Group A have reached a unanimous recommendation on four finalists for that group. I am awaiting permission from Hans or one of the other editors-in-chief before that result is released. They may well wish to wait until all judges from all groups have reported.
At least one of the Group C judges has indicated that he expects to finish
is evaluations by May 15th, so I would not expect anything from Group C
before that time.
I have been informed that Group B has also reached a decision. So it looks like a finals list is at least possible by mid-May.
It's mid-May now, so perhaps the prophesied finals list can be expected shortly? No pressure, just interested.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.