Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Adam, I find this process more frustrating than anything else. I see that people start now to suggest their own games, which is against the rules, understandbly.

Hectochess has not been selected because it is "descendent" from Gross Chess. Apparently, this reason was not a problem to feature Gross Chess after Eurasian Chess.

I have had a similar experience with my games. Shako had been featured, then someone proposed Metamachy and Metamachy was rejected because it is in the same "category" than Shako.

But I smiled when I read that "I'll make Expanded Chess the featured variant for September, 2023. It is the most favorited of games that have been nominated and seconded, and it has a good web page." Expanded Chess is a very good game indeed, but it is favored 10 times while Metamachy is favored 14 times.

14 is a fair score, but it is not enough to be featured. Why? Because it has been nominated but not SECONDED! Look, I am the one who had proposed Hectochess. Actually I had proposed Hectochess along with a list of 8 or 9 games, all those (not authored by me) that I had selected for my book More Chess and More Than Chess. So Hectochess, Opulent Chess, Expanded Chess, Gross Chess, Eurasian Chess, Elven Chess, etc. All belonging to the same "category".

I had been generous doing that. Unfortunately for me, nobody has returned me the courtesy. So only 1 person has nominated Metamachy and it would be necessary to have another one (if you are among the 14 who had favored Metamachy, maybe you could consider to nominate it too, just for fun!)

This is a bit childish. HG has tried to propose another direction, that we distinguish between nomination, feature, etc. Why not? I think it could be good. But, it doesn't work like this for the moment, partly by my fault because by proposing my long list, I have inserted a list of games which all belong to the same category. So, only 1 single other voice is enough to have 1 of these games seconded, while any others (including mines) need 2 voices at least. And there are not many voices speaking for someone else's games.

Hectochess and Metamachy have not been rejected. They have simply not been featured yet. Each month, we feature only one variant, and relations to what we have recently featured can factor into deciding which variant to feature for a particular month. Not being featured one month does not mean that a variant will never be featured. If a game has already been nominated and seconded, and it meets the requirements, it's likely to eventually make it to being featured.

Since my biggest worry about the featured-variants program is diversity, I will refrain from seconding any "Chess with Alternative Armies" variants until we have featured a fair amount of variants from other categories. No matter how much I like Metamachy, which I think would indeed be the most deserving of the CwAA category. Sorry about that, Jean-Louis.

It is disappointing (and indeed childish) that inventors abuse the programs that are intended for guiding novices in the field of chess variants merely to promote their own inventions. The 'favorites' mechanism is corrupted in the same way. There is something to be said for allowing inventors to favorite some of their own games, to indicate what they consider their best inventions. But with a crowd as childish as what we are dealing with, it only seems to lead to most inventors shamelessly favoriting all of their inventions, just to get them higher on the list of favorites. This is no doubt fuelled by the thought "his invention passed mine because of a self vote, so I must retaliate by self-voting too". So in practice allowing to favorite your own games does more harm than good.

Another flaw in the favorites system is that some people have a much lower threshold for favoriting something than others. Being favorited by someone that has hundreds of favorites doesn't mean all that much, and definitely a lot less than being favorited by someone with only 10 favorites. And since most of the votes are of course from people that vote most, this makes the favorites score pretty insignificant, dominated by votes from people that don't really care. To cure these flaws the system should impose a maximum on the number of variants you can favorite, and in addition a maximum on the number of your own inventions you can favorite. Even making the latter a percentage, to not disadvantaging prolific inventors too much, could be dangerous. Because I foresee the situation where childish inventors would create a massive number of garbage variants just to create voting power to use for promoting their serious inventions. After all, "it only takes 10 sec to invent a new chess variant"...

To preclude that the number of your own games that you can favorite could be made a percentage of the number of inventions you have that are favorited by others.

That being said, I second the nomination of Shatranj of Troy.

I apologize for nominating my own game. I have just wanted to say that my variants fulfill all the criteria besides being nominated. Anyway I'm working at new versions for them, so I don't care that much about 2 games I consider deprecated. As not even chessV will support them, I'm writing my own AI to play them and that takes time.

Also HG, I have raised the matter about unlimited favoriting myself a few years back.

I have made Hectochess the featured variant for November. Hectochess is playable with Game Courier, ChessV, Ai Ai, and the Interactive Diagram on its page.

Now that I've fixed up the Ultima page and have cited official sources on its rules, I would like to nominate Ultima.

Regarding the Shatranj of Troy nomination and second, this game has an uncoded Game Courier preset, and as far as know, it is not supported by any program for playing it. Those who are interested in seeing it featured may do something about this.

To be honest, I didn't expect to see Hectochess featured this soon, but it is nice to see my efforts recognized, at least in a small way, so thank you. When I made my case for the game, I thought of it as less of a nomination and more of a a comment pointing out that Hectochess met the requirements (sans being seconded) for being featured. I expected it to be swept under the rug.

That being said, it seems that the featured variants system is garnering some serious debate among the more senior members. Especially Jean-Louis Cazaux is frustrated by this process of featuring variants. Perhaps during the holiday months we could step back and make some improvements to this system rather than feature a variant through the current system.

No voting system is flawless, but given what some are saying about the voting system, improving the voting system for featured variants, even in a small way, would be a good idea.

That being said. I might make a case for Seireigi in the future, once it gets a few more years under its belt.

I didn't expect to see Hectochess featured this soon

We're running low on eligible games that have been nominated and seconded. If more are not nominated and seconded in the future, I may start featuring games that have already been featured.

Especially Jean-Louis Cazaux is frustrated by this process of featuring variants.

Inventors can understandably get frustrated with their own games not being featured soon enough, but games are not being featured just to please inventors. They are being featured to provide visitors with curated options.

Perhaps during the holiday months we could step back and make some improvements to this system rather than feature a variant through the current system.

It seems fine the way it is. We mainly need more participation in nominating and seconding games and more work taken toward making games eligible that are not yet eligible.

No voting system is flawless, but given what some are saying about the voting system, improving the voting system for featured variants, even in a small way, would be a good idea.

Requiring a nomination and a second is already a very lax voting system. The main reason this is not stricter is that games also have to meet eligibility requirements, and this involves people putting in the work to support the games on multiple platforms.

That being said. I might make a case for Seireigi in the future, once it gets a few more years under its belt.

As the inventor, you won't be able to nominate it, but you can work on promoting it. Although I didn't initially find anything in the Play menu or the tags about it being playable, I updated the database to show the Game Courier preset in the Play menu, and I added a Ludii tag to the page to show it can be played on Ludii.

Are there any conditions for participating in 'Featured Chess Variants'? Certainly yes! Which ones, where?

Are there any conditions for participating in 'Featured Chess Variants'?

You have to be a member to nominate or second a game, and you can't nominate or second your own games. Games have to meet eligibility requirements, which are already described on this page.

We're running low on eligible games that have been nominated and seconded. If more are not nominated and seconded in the future, I may start featuring games that have already been featured.

Duck Chess has been nominated and seconded. It has an Interactive Diagram, there are several engines that can act as computer opponents, it can be (and is) played on-line on chess.com... But as long as 'eligible' appears to mean that you should be "familiar with the variant", nominating and seconding doesn't seem to achieve much. So no, I wouldn't say the existing system is fine, and the fact that you consider featuring variants a second time should be a very convincing indication of that.

as long as 'eligible' appears to mean that you should be "familiar with the variant", nominating and seconding doesn't seem to achieve much.

I have never played Expanded Chess or Hectochess. So, my familiarity with a game has not been the barrier you seem to think it is.

You have some good points. Not having enough variants to feature is quite concerning indeed. However, the system is still quite young, so it needs time to garner more variants.

As the inventor, you won't be able to nominate it, but you can work on promoting it. Although I didn't initially find anything in the Play menu or the tags about it being playable, I updated the database to show the Game Courier preset in the Play menu, and I added a Ludii tag to the page to show it can be played on Ludii.

Can authors add tags to their articles as well?

Edit: I answered my own question. Yes, authors can add tags to their pages.

I have never played Expanded Chess or Hectochess. So, my familiarity with a game has not been the barrier you seem to think it is.

I am not really thinking anything. It was the reason you gave for rejecting the Duck Chess nomination.

Can authors add tags to their articles as well?

Yes, any member can tag any page that can be tagged.

It was the reason you gave for rejecting the Duck Chess nomination.

You are selectively remembering what I wrote and drawing the wrong interpretation. Here is what I wrote in comment 48184:

Because we have not provided much support for this game on the Chess Variant Pages, I would like to hold off on that. I am completely unfamiliar with this game, and I have not found any record of games played. In the meantime, there are some other games that have received a nomination and a second.

Notice how "hold off on that" does not mean rejected. Notice how I give two other reasons besides my unfamiliarity with the game for holding off on it. These are:

• we have not provided much support for this game on the Chess Variant Pages

• I have not found any record of games played

So where did you look for these games played? AFAIK there does not even exist a GC preset for it here. Did you look on chess.com? Even if there was a preset here people would probably not use it, as the chess.com interface is so much better. The requirements for featuring regarding on-line play used to say "preferably on GC". Should we read that as "exclusively on GC"?

Why would it matter anyway whether the support is on CVP or elsewhere? We are not featuring variants with the purpose of promoting the site, right? The purpose is to promote the variant.

I am no more an editor (I used to be) but as I was here at the earliest times (which were more friendly) I dare to give my opinion. Again. For me this Featured Chess Variant is either to 1) shine a light on some original CV that we want to advise. Or, and it is a completely different goal, 2) award a special recognition to a variant which is attracting success.

If it is 1), no need to have this completely arbitrary process with nomination, seconding, etc. Why not requesting a third or a fourth nomination btw? In such a case I completely agree with HG, almost all featured games so far are from the same category (and I can't complain as it is the category I love) and it is a pity that Duck Chess, Shatranj of Troy, and more, cannot be elected because of this or that.

If it is 2) then this process is bringing nothing more valuable than two other lists we have already, that ranking the CV by games played on GC and that ranking the CV by number of favorite hearts (with or without the complex computation that you recently elaborated, which brings nothing relevant btw).

From my perspective what we have is a sort of 2). Whatever Fergus says, it is an opaque process. We know the list of criteria, but we don't know the list of pretending games and their position versus the criteria. The criterias are quite discutable but they have never been discussed for approval by anyone. We understand that it is not cristal clear for a nomination, as at the end, or better say every 1st of the month, we are looking to see what has been democratically elected.

As a joke, I propose Janggi, in its Northern set-up, for the next one.

For me this Featured Chess Variant is either to 1) shine a light on some original CV that we want to advise. Or, and it is a completely different goal, 2) award a special recognition to a variant which is attracting success.

It is neither. It is about showcasing some of the best and best-supported games on our site. While some people will be more interested in featuring original games, that is up to them, and this system is not here specifically for showcasing original games. This system is also not here for the purpose of awarding games. Inventors might see it as a kind of award, but it is mainly about directing visitors to some high-quality content before they poke around and find some of our inferior web pages.

Why not make featuring last longer? Instead of 1 month, it could be 3 or 4.

It is about showcasing some of the best and best-supported games on our site.

This sentence is slightly ambiguous, as it is not clear whether the requirement is that the game should be presented on our site and have the best conceivable support in general (to which our presentation then refers), or whether it is only the support on our site that counts. The latter is not really compatible with the description that is now on the Featured Variants page:

• The game should have a history of being played, even if only on Game Courier. Concept games that even the inventor hasn't played will not be accepted.
• It should be playable by online correspondence and with a computer program, generally meaning that it should be programmed for Game Courier and Zillions of Games, but being available on other sites or with other programs will do. Basically, if we're going to draw attention to a game, we should also provide opportunities to play it.

It seems that "even if only on GC" should be replaced by "on GC", and that we'd better delete the emphasized phrase in the 2nd requirement.

BTW, it is strange that special status is given here to ZoG, which is a commercial program, that most readers will not have. While free programs often exist that do the same job far better (e.g. in terms of playing strength). Offering a ZRF file here through a download link, but requiring people to buy ZoG from another site is not really an improvement over requiring them to download something from another website for free.

So I'd rather say here that "free programs to play it should be available, but being programmed for ZoG will do"...

Some anomalies:

• I tried to upload a small image for dressing up the featured-variant announcement to the /membergraphics/MShectochess directory through ftp, but got a 'permissuon denied' error. (I know there are other ways for an editor to upload image files there, but in other cases the ftp worked without problems.)
• The announcement on some pages (including the Featured Variants page) uses black font in the black box, which doesn't make it very readable.

Why not make featuring last longer? Instead of 1 month, it could be 3 or 4.

Why would we do that? There are so many high-quality pages here that deserve to be visited.

@Fergus: sorry, but your answer does not clarify at all. It seems clear in your mind, but it is not in mine. I don't catch the nuance. If the criteria is "best" and "best-supported", these are subjective by nature.

Of course, if a "Featured CV" is considered as "best", I don't see how the inventor could not see it as an honorable distinction. I understand the goal, but the full process is too opaque and lies almost only in your hands.