Comments by GlennOverby

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.  :)

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.  :)

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.  :)

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.

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.

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, [email protected].

(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.)

Looks like I'm too far west...I live almost on the Illinois/Indiana border,
a couple of hours south of Chicago and around 90 minutes west of
Indianapolis.

I wondered how long it would take someone to say that.  :(

Seriously, I apologize to anyone in Ben Good's position.  It was simply
the feeling after extended discussion that reducing the size of the list
would encourage more refined consideration of the remaining listed games,
and that sufficient voter input had been received to make a preliminary
adjustment.

The ultimate responsibility was mine.  I regret any bad feelings it may
have caused.  (It's hard to start something like this from scratch, and
know how it will best proceed.)  Thank you for your comment; I urge you to
make your opinion count in round two between now and 1 November.

The results are in.  The voting was very, very close.

Registration for the tournament opens in not quite two weeks.

Responding to several comments at once...

Nightriders: The Yeomen on third rank, on the 11x11 board, do help in
slowing down the Nightriders.

Link: It's fixed; thank you for pointing it out.

Pawns and lettering: There were two reasons why I gave the Yeomen a
letter.  One was thematic consistency in my eyes...26 letters, 26 pieces. 
The other was the lack of suitable 'Y' pieces out there--I tried to avoid
inventing pieces or stretching too far for names, preferring instead to
draw from a rich variety of existing concepts.

Thanks for the feedback!

Jackman is what Holzman morphs into when you've been staring at a screen
for too long today and start writing from faulty memory.  :)

Glenn