Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Fergus: What do you think about running a tourney like this?

I think Game Courier should have an annual potluck tournament.

No, when I run a tournament, I will do it my way. If you want a tournament
run your way, then you have to run it yourself. I have been reluctant to
run another tournament, because I think Vitya got mad over my not giving
him special treatment in the last tournament. But my game volume has been
low, and a tournament should fix that. So I might run my own tournament if
neither you nor Joe want to run yours.

A main problem is that people have a tendency to leave the tournament,
despite the fact that this is a serious breach of conduct.
/Mats

Carlos, you and I can certainly manage this. This, to the best of my
knowledge, would be the first tournament with a flat time limit. All games
are played simultaneously. Mats, having been involved in tournaments which
ended with fewer participants than started, and one which never got its
second round assigned, I appreciate very much what you are saying. That's
part of the reason for the structure of this tournament. Once you're in,
you are in. All players will win, lose, draw or time out on all their games
- no exceptions. That's why the line stating 'decisions of the judges are
final'. 

There are obvious problems with this type of tournament, but the main one
is too many players, in which case, we would break the players into 2 or 3
sections. I don't expect that to happen, though. 

The more likely problem is games that can go on too long. A 150 move
masterpiece is unlikely, because both sides would need to play that game at
a pace of 1 move per day, beginning to end, to fit it within the 10 month
time limit. In a sense, this would be a sort of email blitz tournament. The
solution to this starts with careful decisions by the judges about which
games proposed will be played.

I hope that AT LEAST the following players sign up: Fergus, Jose, Vitya, Nick (Wolff), Armin, Mats, Joe and I. Hopefully also Christine Bagley-Jones could participate.

Then, formally judges for this tournament are expecting that those interested let us know which game bring each one. The date scheduled for beginnig it is February 1.

I bring Coherent Chess.

I would be interested, but I do not wish to enter any of my variants.  I
have not created a final preset to WKC III and do not have the time to do
so.  If I may, I'd suggest Smess.  It isn't too long of a game, not
complicated, and not invented by anyone on the site, leaving it fair that
one person doesn't have more than one variant in play.  If you will accept
this condition, I will gladly play.  This time control will also be
workable for me and my demanding work schedule.  Thanks!

Carlos Cetina wrote:

I was not asking or suggesting that Fergus run the tourney, but rather if he would be agree with such an event and would participate in it.

Actually, you were. You wrote 'Fergus: What do you think about running a tourney like this?' Anyway, I would be happy to participate in it. I will select Extra Move Chess, which shouldn't take long to play, because it is a double move variant. I have recently programmed a superior preset for it, and 7 games have been completed on Game Courier. I'll also do what I can to program any games people select for the tournament before it begins.

I'd like to bring Chieftain Chess. While it's a large game, it goes quickly, because it's a multi-move game, like Fergus' entry. It simplifies things like Carlos' choice, also doing away with castling, en passant, and promotion. It too gets rid of pawns and replaces them with men, non-royal kings; it has only 5 piece-types. Basic rules only, no optional pieces or moves, except that I am willing, as black, to pass my first turn, giving white 2 turns to start, to demonstrate there is no first turn advantage whatsoever in this game.

Click on this picture to get the preset and rules.

You are right, Fergus, the direct sense of the question is that, but I
swear my intention was not that. It's hard to explain the case. I only can
say I'm sorry, my mind is confused enough by thinking between Spanish and
English. I'm happy with your participation. Without you this tourney would
be a resounding failure. Extra Move Chess is an excellent choice. By my
part it is accepted.

Nicholas: I'm also very happy with your participation. If Joe has no
objection, Smess also is accepted. Thanks and enjoy!

Chieftain Chess... Wow! I will have to review my library on openning theory
of this game!

OK. We already are 4 contenders. Anyone else?

I'm dubious of including games that replace Pawns with Men. They violate an important principle that I described in my article On Designing Good Chess Variants: 'Pawn structure is the soul of Chess. Do not get rid of Pawns unless you can effectively compensate for their loss.' Men aren't like Pawns. They are major pieces, capable of going in any direction, not just forward. Unlike Pawns, Men can easily surround a player's King in a tight defensive formation, making the game much more drawish than Chess. Unlike Cavaliers, which I replaced Pawns with in some games, Men cannot block each other. So Men are not going to form structures like Pawns, which the other pieces must maneuver around. As described in 'Make offense stronger than defense,' the forward-only movement of Pawns is one of the special features of Chess that make it less drawish than it would be otherwise. Men are not restricted from moving backward, and without the reward of promotion, they have no special incentive for moving forward.

i think what Carlos meant to say was ...
'Fergus: What do you think about (this chess variant site) running a
tourney like this?'

I find it interesting about talking about pawns, and i would like the throw
some ideas around. Pawns no doubt are the soul of chess, they keep the game
structured. If the game of chess was just played with pieces alone, the
game would quickly become chaotic. They put a boundary between both armies,
and this is very desireable.

However, within the realm of chess variants, because of the nature and
concept of the games created, sometimes pawns would destroy the chess
variant.

Take for instance, 'The Travelers' by Roberto Lavieri. This is a
brilliant game, but there are no pawns, and there is no place for pawns in
this game, it would destroy the 'nature and concept' of this game
entirely. Also my game 'Sky', pawns would destroy the freedom of movement
of the 
unusually long jumping leapers, and pawns also here would destroy the flow
of the game. These games i think one can easily see how pawns are not
desired.

Lets have a look at Joe Joyce's game (hey Joe) in relation to pawns. Well,
first off, it is played on a very big playing field (16x12). How do pawns
go holding structure on a huge board like this? It must be harder to do
than on a 8x8. Now what is the 'nature and concept' of this game. Joe can
best answer this i'm sure. Just off the top of my head, it is centered on
piece play, and because the board is very big, we wont find the 'chaotic'
nature that would arise on an 8x8 board if this was played just with
pieces. Also, there is a rule in this game that greatly hammpers the
chaotic nature of a game that plays just with pieces ....

'No piece may ever move unless it is activated by a chieftain which has to
be within 3 squares of it at the start of its move'.

Probably also, on this size board, Joe has not put too many pieces in the
game, and lastly, the pieces are short range, and not powerful pieces.

I think a lot of chess variants are 'thinking out of the square' and the
rules that hold to chess or games very 'chess like' cannot be applied to
all chess variants.
 
Anyway, discuss, lol :)

By the way, hi to everyone here at this great site, i've been away for
awhile, busy and stuff. As regards the tournament u are all talking about,
i don't think i can play, but maybe in the future i can get it together
and find time to play in one.

Christine Bagley-Jones writes:

However, within the realm of chess variants, because of the nature and
concept of the games created, sometimes pawns would destroy the chess
variant.

Take for instance, 'The Travelers' by Roberto Lavieri. This is a
brilliant game, but there are no pawns, and there is no place for pawns in
this game, it would destroy the 'nature and concept' of this game
entirely. Also my game 'Sky', pawns would destroy the freedom of movement
of the unusually long jumping leapers, and pawns also here would destroy
the flow of the game. These games i think one can easily see how pawns are
not desired.

Since I haven't played these games, I am not in a position to see this. Turning to my own experience with Pawnless variants, I have replaced Pawns with Cavaliers in Cavalier Chess and in Grand Cavalier Chess, but the Cavalier has some features in common with the Pawn that the Man does not. Cavaliers can block each other, they are not major pieces, and the reward of promotion gives them a reason to move forward.

Also, there is a rule in this game [Chieftain Chess] that greatly hampers
the chaotic nature of a game that plays just with pieces ....

'No piece may ever move unless it is activated by a chieftain which has to
be within 3 squares of it at the start of its move'.

I suspect this feature may also contribute to making the game drawish. Because the pieces have to be near a royal piece to move, it will normally be easier to defend than to attack.

This type of variant, Chieftain Chess, could discourage people from
participating in a tournament like this. It is over-ambitious. Such
variants should only be played in private games, but not be assigned to
tournaments. In fact, I don't think it's a chess variant, it's more of a
war game.
/Mats

Christine: Thanks for the clarification. That was EXACTLY what I meant to
say. I always have believed that women can read the minds of men!

I cannot enter in a detailed discussion about the perform of pawns in a
game; only would like to say that the name of this tourney, Free4All (=Free
For All), mean that everybody (inventor or user) may enter if the game
chosen fulfil these three MINIMUM/FEW conditions:
1)must be playable,
2)have their rules posted online, and 
3)have at least 1 complete game score available.

The reserve time of 5 months per player is for that players that cannot are
on line dayly also could participate. The flat time limit of 10 months is
because Joe and I have in mind to run a tourney like this every year: from
February 1 to November 30. We can devote December of each year to analyse
our performance in the tourney, and January of each year to open the sign
ups for the following tourney.

Hello all!  Haven't posted in a while, but I lurk from time-to-time, and I
like the idea of this tournament a lot and would like to participate, and
promise to stick around for the duration ...

Cheers,
Greg

Carlos Cetina wrote:

I ... only would like to say that the name of this tourney, Free4All (=Free
For All), mean that everybody (inventor or user) may enter if the game
chosen fulfil these three MINIMUM/FEW conditions:
1)must be playable,
2)have their rules posted online, and 
3)have at least 1 complete game score available.

Then I shall drop out of this tournament. I do not want to participate in a tournament that has such minimal quality control on its selection of variants. If it's the only way to get a good tournament going, I shall run one that uses nominations, screening and ranked ballot voting to select the variants played. I believe it is best to allow all participants to democratically select the games they will play in a tournament. Potlucks are more about compromise, agreeing to play games you're uninterested in just to get one of your more esoteric games played. I'm more interested in finding a consensus than I am in making compromises. So I shall bow out of any Free4All Potluck tournament.

Wow.  What changed?

I am inclined to agree with Fergus. I don't want to devote many hours of
my time to variants that I find unattractive. I could accept playing one or
two unattractive variants, but in this form of tournament I could be forced
to play most games in variants that I don't like.
/Mats

Wow! this topic has generated not only discussion, but controversy! I'm
impressed. People are dropping in and dropping out. We've got discussions
on players and pawns and what makes a chess game chess all going on. People
are bringing their own points of view, and mixing it up rather well. It
seems the title of this topic was more apt than I realized...

Hi, Christine! Hi, Greg! Welcome back. Nick, Greg, glad to have you in.
Christine, Fergus, Mats, sorry you're not. Maybe next time, maybe not.

What chamged? Control. Some people like more, some less. I confess I don't
see the problem in playing a game I like half the games, and seeing what
other people like, one game at a time. I find it fascinating that people
feel they will play more games they like, and fewer they don't, in a
standard-format chessvariants tournament. Most of the games I played in
tournaments have been new to me. The only time I've ever played Extinction
or Janus or several other games has been in a tournament. To each his own.

I'd planned to post a comment saying that I would let Carlos and someone
else decide whether or not Chieftain should be played. I understand how new
or unusual games can intimidate people. But I was slow in getting this
comment up, and there has been a considerable response to my suggesting
this one game. In light of this, I am uninclined to change my offering, but
I will still abide by Carlos' decision. I would suggest Greg and Nick,
since they have said they're in, also weigh in with Carlos, giving 3 votes
for Chieftain's inclusion or exclusion. I tend to be flexible, but slow
[as Fergus can attest, in our present game.] Should I have suggested a
purely traditional CV, like Hyperchess?

A lot of good topics have been brought up for discussion. Those I'm
interested in. One question is what makes a chess variant. Are pawns
required for a game to be chess? The general consensus is/has been that the
real requirement for a game to be a chess variant is that it must have a
royal piece. There was extensive discussion on this in the CVwiki a while
ago. While some of the comments are mine, there are some comments readers
may find interesting or enlightening. And the comments are not closed - for
those of you who have a view, please join in. Always happy to have more
participants.

Why must there be so many different variants? If each player brings a
variant, and the variants contain many strange pieces, then its beyond my
capacity to comprehend all these variants. Why not create a tournament with
one variant, or two, or perhaps three? 
/Mats

Why don't you separate tournaments, whenever they start, to some space
where non-participants can follow them, to have something to build on.  A
tournament can be low-grade and a tournament can be high-grade.  Both are
interesting potentially.  Low- or high- can be because of the players'
ranks and because of the cvs chosen not so great or well-selected.  Once
they start though, you people are gone for 6 or 10 months without really an
audience. Instead tournaments should get highlighted and the regular
everyday games for nothing shoved out of the way. Now it isn't even
noticed who is ahead until they announce at the end, maybe the next year. [Also this is the 22nd comment.  If Joe and Carlos care for quality, they would split this thread right now, which cuts off at 25, so this topic is accessible later, as in tomorrow, sun.  and mon. and tuesday, by anyone other than the same 4 or 8 of them.]

Joe Joyce wrote:

I find it fascinating that people feel they will play more games they like, and fewer they don't, in a standard-format chessvariants tournament.

One of the main differences between my proposed selection method and yours is that mine is actually designed to maximize the number of variants each participant will like, and yours is not. And it does this by giving all participants a say on all games played, whereas your method gives each participant a say on only one game. What I have done in the past and propose doing again follows a maximin strategy, which tries to maximize the minimum satisfaction felt for any game in the tournament. It is along the same lines as John Rawls' Theory of Justice. This selection strategy is designed to minimize the dissatisfaction the participants have with the selection of games, thereby allowing the selection of games to appeal to a larger number of participants. The selection method you and Carlos have proposed is designed to maximize satisfaction in only one selection, leaving it up to chance whether you will like any of the rest. You might be the sort of person who will like most any variant, in which case your selection method will work for you. But even if it works for you, I don't think it will have broad appeal.

My thinking on potlucks is that they will have more appeal when they are themed, as the potluck tournament I ran was. This allows those with an interest in the same kind of games to each pick one they like, and it gives a greater guarantee that other games will be similar in appeal to yours. Chieftain Chess might be suitable in a potluck whose theme is huge, complicated variants.

Hi Greg, pleased to meet you and welcome back! What would be the game you
bring?

George: I like your idea of '...separate tournaments, whenever they start,
to some space where non-participants can follow them,...'. Of course, this
is something that only Fergus and maybe David Howe can make. But first we
need to get an agreement on the kind of tournament we will play. By the
way, I would be very happy if you would participate in it!

Talking about democracy and justice, I think the method that Joe and I are
proposing is quite democratic because we are giving to the people
practically ABSOLUTE liberty to make theirs choice; it's understandable
that each one will choose his/her favorite game. The fair here consists in
the principle 'give for receiving': to I receive/get the pleasure of
playing my favorite game I have to give to my adversary the pleasure of
playing his favorite game.

Naturally, it is perfectly possible to run several tourneys of diverse
kinds at the same time: by theme and even by any particular variant. For
instance, I have in mind to run in a next future a mini tourney playing
Seirawan Chess. Of course, only the fonds of this great variant will
participate in it.

What about to carry out at the same time both ideas: the original of Joe/I
and that of Fergus/Mats?

Let's pospone a while the issue about to vote if Chieftain is accepted or
not.

Greg Strong wrote:

Wow. What changed?

My awareness of the consequences of participating in this kind of tournament changed. This kind of tournament can work when the participants all choose games they think will appeal to a larger group, as I did when I chose Extra Move Chess. But when participants use this kind of tournament to choose games with very narrow appeal, as Joe has egregiously done with Chieftain Chess, and Carlos has done to a lesser degree with Coherent Chess, it will not work well. Since I first agreed to participate, I took a closer look at Coherent Chess, and I realized it was a flawed game. Then before I found the time to complain about that, Joe chose Chieftain Chess, which is too large, too complicated, and still has other flaws. When I complained about these games being in the tournament, Carlos simply chose to reassert what he had in mind for a Potluck Free4All. That's when I decided to drop out. As long as this tournament is going to be used to push flawed variants I would otherwise have no interest in playing, I'm not interested in participating in it. Note that while I'm not opposed to playing games I'm not seriously interested in, as I did in the last tournament, I would rather not play games that are seriously flawed, as these two games are.