[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
84 Spaces Contest. 84 Spaces Contest begins![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
📝Hans Bodlaender wrote on Tue, Sep 24, 2002 11:16 AM UTC:A few details: you can also now submit games that have not submitted before, just send everything before the end of November. The new contest rules can be read via the link at the top of this page.
How many are interested in meeting up to play some of the submissions every now and then? -=T=-
Maybe. I live in northern New Jersey, USA. Where are you?
i might be interested in meeting to play games. i live in pittsburgh, pa, but will probably move nov 1, possibly to the baltimore / dc area and possibly to lancaster, pa.
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.
M. Howe wrote on Wed, Sep 25, 2002 09:42 PM UTC:I'm in Connecticut and would be interested in playing in person some time.
Anonymous wrote on Fri, Sep 27, 2002 06:38 AM UTC:Well, USA is too far away for me. Someone in Southwest Germany, Eastern France or Luxemburg? Jörg Knappen, Saarbrücken, Saarland, Allemagne.
OK. That's Tony and Mark in Chicago, and Glenn just outside Danville. Any others in driving range? Will the Midwest branch of the US Chess Variant Conglomeration please come to order? ;)
Eric V. Greenwood wrote on Thu, Nov 28, 2002 12:11 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★These games are excellent!! Enough to make me come out of semi-retirement! ;)
There are a lot of promising games in this contest. Would anyone like to play some of them by e-mail? If there are Zillions implementations, we could even arrange a time to play online in real-time, assuming the players aren't behind firewalls that prevent Zillions from connecting. I was able to use Zillions last I checked, though I recently got DSL and don't know whether that will affect it. The judges will have plenty of work ahead of them to give adequate play-testing to all of these. If a lot of us volunteered to play the judges in e-mail games, would that be permissible and helpful? I'm assuming that none of us who entered games would be playing our own entries, and that we would all be good enough sportsmen to play seriously in whatever games we were assigned. Also I'm assuming that there would be at least 5-10 contestants participating in such a program, besides others, so that each judge would have several opponents in any game.
LCC wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 02:17 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★How about a 'Colaborators' Pick' mention, given to an entry that receives most nominations from other participants?
📝Hans Bodlaender wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 01:14 PM UTC:With the not yet processed entries, there will be 33 competing games in this contest. What about the following method for judging:
everyone can volunteer to become part of the team of judges. The games will be split more or less randomly in three groups of 11 games each. Every judge will be assigned to one group - this should be a group without any game he invented himself. The judges of a group select, following some prescribed protocol, the, say, top three games of the group.
<p>
Everyone lucky enough to have a game in the finals is removed from the team of judges, and then the judges select the winners from the nine games in the finals.
<p>
What do you think of this plan? If you like it, would you be willing to be a judge and look to in total 17 games (first 11, then another 6)?
Jared wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 03:26 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★Love Hans' idea! But would this require that the judges play by email with other judges, or would they just pick which ones they like best? Could they playtest with non-judges (i.e. family members, friends, etc.) using Zillions, etc. if PBeM was not a feasible option (like in my case), but was not required to begin with?
Mike Nelson wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 09:21 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★I think Hans' idea is quite good and I would be willing to volunteer as a judge if the amount of work and the time frame are doable for me. It might be good if the the judges' panels will contain a mix of game designers and non-designer CV players to get a more balanced perspective.
Mike Nelson wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 09:25 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★I am giving this rating for the contest entries. The overall quality of the games is very high especially considering the large number of submissions. Great work, everybody!
LCC wrote on Mon, Dec 2, 2002 09:53 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★That was a great idea. Having checked most submissions, given some thought to many and playtested some, I'd sure enjoy being a judge. Time is not really a problem, unless extensive playtesting is needed, which would be slightly more difficult. Anyway, I like the idea.
I would certainly be willing to help judge under the conditions Hans describes (11 games in first round, 6 in finals, no judge evaluates any group including their own design at any time). It seems the best way to manage the rather large field. For the newly-opened 43 squares contest I have gone to a two-round preferential voting system, as the task is getting quite large for one or two judges. This contest was also originally slated for voting, so a jury of the public is a reasonable return to what Fergus originally conceived.
📝Hans Bodlaender wrote on Wed, Dec 4, 2002 08:02 AM UTC:Answering a question below: my idea is that judges should play each game at least once, and may do so, either with Zillions, friends and family members, or against other judges, as they wish.
<p>
Given the positive response to the proposal, I'll make it more detailed very soon.
<p>
Hans
I generally approve of the method of judging Hans has suggested, but I'm concerned that it's not fair in the details. Suppose that the five best games all fall within one grouping of eleven games. Although these would be the games most deserving of first through fifth place, only three of them would make it. My recommendation is that the judges of each group select the five best games in their group. I also recommend three rounds. In the second round, each group of judges would evaluate the ten games chosen by the other two groups. Judges whose games were picked would drop out of this round. Other judges could step in as need be. Each group would rank the top five games, and the five or so games with the best rankings would become the finalists for the last round. In case of ties for fifth place, there could be more than five finalists, or another judge could break the tie. In the final round, any of the judges without games competing in the final round could help decide the final ranking of first through fifth place. This could include first-round judges who had to drop out of the second round.
📝Hans Bodlaender wrote on Fri, Dec 6, 2002 02:12 PM UTC:If you are interested in being in the judges team, then please post a remark here, or send an email to the editors at chessvariants dot com
email address.
<p>
Details on the procedure will follow later, but I lack some time next week.
Well, I've experience judging contests and I'm not competing, so sure!
My usefulness is limited, since I have two entries in my last contest before joining the editorial staff. But I'll judge other games as long as I am eligible.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.