Comments by GlennOverby

This one won't be in anybody's pool (more's the pity) as it would have been
Tony's third entry.  Also, Peter has been in semiretirement from
contests.

;)

I didn't bother to write a no computers rule because I dislike setting
rules that are by nature unenforceable.  (Would that lawmakers felt this
way!)

Peter also makes a good point...the availability of competent engines for
several of these games is limited to non-existent.  That's one advantage
of a multivariant event with widely different stuff.

Douglas, that's a problem that can't be solved easily.  The best answer I
can give is simply to enjoy each game for what you get from it, and know
that those who rely on a computer to win are cheating themselves.

Also, playing variants helps (yes, I know that you're still new to regular
chess), because many of the programs available are a lot weaker.

Next, don't always trust everything you hear over IM--I've seen my share
of false accusations in my time.

Finally, over time you can find opponents you can trust.

Good luck to you!

Glenn Overby
CVP Competitions Editor

I absolutely agree.  But I note several practical difficulties.

1) Which variants?  This also invites subquestions...how is a variant
recognized for official play, how is the list determined for a
championship series, how do we develop laws which cover the wide realm of
variants...
2) Should games such as shogi and xiangqi (or Western chess!), with their
own firmly established organizations, be considered as variants?
3) Should tournaments utilizing only one variant be counted, or only
events involving two or more?
4) How does one balance the variants in issuing ratings, given that player
proficiency is certain to vary across the spectrum of games?
5) Is there enough of an audience of variantists (who play more than one
or two games with some proficiency) to be credible or worthwhile?

Certainly as the contest guy here, I'm keenly interested in the idea you
raise.  But we'd have quite a road in front of us...

Glenn Overby

The deadline has passed.  Unless David has a last-minute entry that has not
been forwarded (the entries route to him because of the fee), my pairings
are complete and will be emailed this weekend.

Good luck, gentlemen.

I prefer Marshal (one l, Freeling's usage notwithstanding) in part because
there are a lot of piece-names that start with C and I often strive for
unambiguous English notation.  I also tend to use Archbishop instead of
Cardinal for the same reason.

I'm not sure there is a consensus for Chancellor or Marshal, but I would
use neither name for any other piece-move.  Both names seem to be strongly
associated with the specific R+N combination.

Zillions also overvalues dramatically the Teleporter in my ABChess.  That's
a divergent piece which can move anywhere (outside Xiangqi-like
fortresses) to a space of the opposite color, but captures only as a Wazir
(including into or within a fortress).  ZoG makes it worth about 1.5
Queens on an 11x11 board.  I figure it for perhaps half that, and that may
still be high.

I haven't settled on nominating another game yet, but Hostage Chess is
quite possible.  It's an outstanding modification of the idea of drops to
fit a standard chess set.  David Pritchard called it the variant of the
decade for the 1990s; he may well be right.

I think the solution is education and encouragement, not some sort of
unenforceable faux compulsion.

To this end, I think that encouraging the use of a slightly tightened
Betza notation on a widespread basis has clear merit.

I also think that designers for their part would be well-served by some
modest research before they jump to publication--and their games are in
fact better served by forging their links to the family tree with good
naming.

Okay, I put up a page.  We can continue the discussion over here.  :)

Question: How would some of you try to unambiguously describe the Horse of
Xiangqi in Betza notation?  nN is not perfect, because the Horse can be
blocked on the orthogonal but not the diagonal.  It's a question that has
likely been solved, since the notation provides for things like p for the
cannon.  But I have not run across the answer.