Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

This is kind of wishful thinking. Sorry, I'm not convinced. 1. is subjective, you decide what is good, 3. is not so true, see the last discussion with HG, 7. is not "an editor", it is you. Etc.

But, never mind, keep going if you like.

Just a comment. As being the big boss of that process, you should refrain from having your own games in it. Sorry to say, but it's obvious.

1. is subjective

No, it's a matter of whether a page meets standards. It's not like evaluating the aesthetic worth of a painting or a piece of music. For Sac Chess, I brought its page up to standards before featuring it.

3. is not so true, see the last discussion with HG

Can you elaborate or link?

7. is not "an editor", it is you.

I am an editor, and other editors could if they took the initiative.

As being the big boss of that process, you should refrain from having your own games in it. Sorry to say, but it's obvious.

It's not obvious, because it's a multi-tier selection process that is not controlled by a single individual. Like everyone else, I cannot nominate or second my own games, and I have not done that. Also, it would be unfair to the people who did nominate and second my games to disqualify them. In fact, you nominated Gross Chess, and two other people seconded it before I featured it. In selecting games for a particular month, I have also factored in how many people had favorited them, and at that time, Gross Chess was favorited by more people than any other game that had been nominated and seconded. It was on this basis that I featured it ahead of some other games that had also been nominated and seconded. Since then, I have featured other games in the order of how many people have favorited them. The only more favorited game I've featured since then has been Chu Shogi, which had not yet been seconded at the time.

Additionally, because I have been making the final selection, I have been refraining from seconding games, and until recently, I have not nominated any game. Nominating and seconding games as much as others have would give me too much control over the process. So, I normally leave those steps of the process up to others. If I gave myself this power, then I would have seconded and featured Metamachy, but I don't want to diminish the control that others have over the process.

Because the CVP is probably the only common chess variant source, I would like to think of variants being featured just as a sign of recognition, nothing more. If a game is popular enough, and/or has some weight on its own, it can be featured. With repeats being acceptable, that will be the most trivial way of managing this feature.

I would like to think of variants being featured just as a sign of recognition, nothing more.

It's about more than just recognizing a game. It's also about showcasing a well-presented page for a game that has already received some favorable recognition and is available to be played by the person visiting the page.

If a game is popular enough, and/or has some weight on its own, it can be featured. With repeats being acceptable, that will be the most trivial way of managing this feature.

Trivial, but not as participatory. The present system avoids concentrating too much power in the hands of one person. However, if we run out of eligible games that have been nominated and seconded, it would be fair to feature an eligible game that has shown other signs of popularity, such as being favorited or played a lot. In this case, though, I should be restricted from picking one of my own variants. I also suppose that if no games have been seconded, but some have been nominated, I should give priority to those if any are eligible.

There definitely should be quality standards on the presentation here, and it is important there is sufficient suport. If there is no way to play the variant on-line or against an AI, attracting attention to it becomes a pointless exercise.

But this need not be given much weight in the selection process, as it often can be provided easily within days after the selection is made. In this respect the selection process is badly flawed: rather than judging by the support situation as it could be when we make the selection, say, a week in advance, we judge by the situation as it is. This has the unfortunate side effect that it will also never lead to improvement of what we have, just to rejection. If there are 20 variants amongst the candidates that fail to meet the requirement of a computer opponent, there will be no incentive to provide one if there is no guarantee it will be featured.

For games like HectoChess, with no unorthodox rules other than the piece moves, computer opponents that play them can be created in a matter of minutes, with the aid of configurable variant engines like Fairy-Max, Sjaak II, Nebiyu or Fairy-Stockfish. If you use guestimated piece values (as ZoG would do anyway). Creating rule-enforcing GC presets is also only a matter of minutes for such variants, with the aid of the Play-Test Applet.

I think we should seriously consider providing downloads of configuration files for these stronger engines, rather than ZRF files that almost no one can use. That we don't do that for HectoChess is a missed opportunity.

If there are 20 variants amongst the candidates that fail to meet the requirement of a computer opponent, there will be no incentive to provide one if there is no guarantee it will be featured.

If that's true, then it's a wonder how anyone has previously found the incentive to program any game at all. Yet we somehow have almost a 1000 pages featuring games programmed for Zillions-of-Games, not to mention various other programs and Interactive Diagrams for playing various Chess variants. Clearly, interest in playing a game has sometimes provided people with the incentive to provide computer opponents. And, in fact, the availability of a computer opponent serves as a sign of interest in the peer-review process. So, if someone would be motivated to program a game only if it were guaranteed to be featured, that does not seem to suggest much interest in the game. I would think that if someone wished a game to be featured, he would also be interested in having it programmed, regardless of whether we featured it. Also, it should be evident that making a computer opponent available takes a game one step closer to being eligible, and once a game is eligible, it has a better chance of being featured than it previously had.

For games like HectoChess, with no unorthodox rules other than the piece moves, computer opponents that play them can be created in a matter of minutes, with the aid of configurable variant engines like Fairy-Max, Sjaak II, Nebiyu or Fairy-Stockfish. If you use guestimated piece values (as ZoG would do anyway). Creating rule-enforcing GC presets is also only a matter of minutes for such variants, with the aid of the Play-Test Applet.

One of the main reasons behind our lack of support for Duck Chess is that it is a multi-move variant, and these are trickier to program on Game Courier. Nevertheless, I have programmed multi-move variants for it before, and I have a tutorial on How to Program Multi-Move Variants for Game Courier. Someone with sufficient interest in Duck Chess should be able to follow the tutorial and program the game. Although it would be easy to program for Zillions-of-Games, it would seem that the people who are most interested in it do not use Zillions-of-Games. You have hinted that you don't use it, and Duck Chess is mainly available on other platforms.

I think we should seriously consider providing downloads of configuration files for these stronger engines, rather than ZRF files that almost no one can use

There is no need to do one instead of the other when we can do both. Personally, I have no experience creating configuration files for stronger engines. But if others are able to do it, we can allow them to. Many people use Zillions-of-Games, and even if you don't, the ZRF files are for those who do.

I can follow your reasoning.

I personally have a clear interest in being able to play my variants on Game Courier, or to make them available. But what happens if the author can't manage the programming?

I would like to play 'Conquer' and my interest is to see how potential opponents cope with the variant. I'm not interested in being nominated for 'Featured Chess Variants', but there is still a certain challenge.

What can you tell candidates like me about it?

But what happens if the author can't manage the programming?

Then it is a point in favor of a game if someone else takes enough interest in it to program it. If the inventor cannot program himself, he can try to get a programmer interested in his game. It also helps to describe the rules in precise and exacting detail in a manner that covers every contingency, because a programmer has to account for everything that could happen in a game even when it doesn't happen.

Sounds good, but it doesn't help much.

If I see it right, it all comes down to a certain amount of randomness.

There are some who can do everything, so to speak, and others who try to get by. Somewhat distributed chances, in my opinion.

Perhaps also an aspect of the selection for 'Featured Chess Variants'.

I have created a details section on the page about nominations and seconds. It's at the bottom, and you have to click on it to view it. I went through the comments and listed the games I found nominated or seconded, and I linked people's names to their comments. I used ibid to refer back to the same comment instead of repeating the link. I also added information on who nominated or seconded each of the featured games. Contrary to what I recently said, I did second one game early in the process.

If I see it right, it all comes down to a certain amount of randomness.

There are some who can do everything, so to speak, and others who try to get by. Somewhat distributed chances, in my opinion.

That's a part of life. We don't all have the same capabilities or inclinations. Personally, I'm not skilled at PR, I don't play my games as much as other people play theirs, and I've never written a game engine.

That's a part of life. We don't all have the same capabilities or inclinations. 

Well, I am old enough to have come to the same realization.  But unequal opportunities can't mean losing the goal. Your opinion was that you had to interest an editor or programmer to get an internet-based solution. With my last variants, this was possible on my own thanks to H.G.'s 'Pay Test Applet' - also regarding the implementation in Game Courier. But in the case of Conquer, H.G. wrote:

The XBetza notation does support 'unloading' the captured piece there with the aid of the u modifier, but there is no provision for flipping its color. So additional JavaScript embedded in the page was needed for that, and this cannot be converted to GAME code by the Applet (even if it would have been pasted into it, which it is not).

I suppose we could decide to make uu mean color-flipped unload in XBetza. But that would then have to be implemented in the ID, as well as in the GAME-code include file. It is unlikely this will be done any time soon.

I don't think it would be possible to implement the function performed by the additional JavaScript in the generated GAME code by post-editing the latter.

I think his description has rather less to do with unequal chances. Keeping a captured piece in play on the square from which the capturer came from with simultaneous color reversal doesn't seem to have played a role in implementing the feature by default so far.

Well, as I said, it is perfectly possible to create a Game Courier preset through which people can play the game on line without any programming. The only minor shortcoming in that case would be that it doesn't enforce rules, and thus cannot be used by players that are bent on cheating. I believe that most GC presets are actually of this type.

The problem with the uu proposal is that in the script for the Interactive Diagram I am running out of bits for indicating the properties of the leg of a move, so that it would require a rather large redesign. I could implement a temporary non-general fix in GAME-code include file, though: define a parameter that could be set to force color flipping on all unloads. Since unloading hardly ever occurs in any variant, putting some extra complexity in the part of the code that handles it would not cause any slowdown of other presets.

In that case one could simply generate GAME code from an ID that defined the XBetza moves with a single u for unloading the captured piece in the original color, and set this extra parameter to 1 in the Pre-Game code.

[Edit] Since there is no checking rule in Conquer, it seems simpler to automate it through the Play-Test Applet just like it is normal Chess, and set the parameter checkrule to 0 at the end of the Pre-Game section. And then add a few lines of custom code at the end of the Post-Move sections for automatically placing the color-flipped capture victim on the square of origin.

it is perfectly possible to create a Game Courier preset through which people can play the game on line without any programming.

Someone may certainly do that to meet the requirement that the game has a demonstrable history of being played.

Someone may certainly do that to meet the requirement that the game has a demonstrable history of being played.

From the point of view of a user who considers himself lucky when professionals help him to play a variant online, the comment is difficult to understand.

From the point of view of a user who considers himself lucky when professionals help him to play a variant online, the comment is difficult to understand.

Game Courier can be used simply as an online set of equipment without any rule enforcement programmed into it. This allows people to play a game as they would with physical equipment if they were playing face-to-face, meaning it is up to them to know and abide by the rules themselves. This makes Game Courier useful for playing games that cannot be programmed, and it allows non-programmers to play their games without getting them programmed. For the purposes of building a demonstrable history of people playing the game, having the game programmed for Game Courier is not required. However, it is still desirable to have a game programmed.

So that it is easier to evaluate games that have been nominated, I have added links for pages that have them. You will find these in the Nominations & Seconds details section at the bottom of this page. If you nominated any games without giving the links for them, please check that the links match the game you nominated.

The announcement on some pages (including the Featured Variants page) uses black font in the black box, which doesn't make it very readable.

This is a problem with pages that use /g/globalindex.css instead of /g/global.css. In examining the two files, the relevant CSS seems to be the same. And when using Web Developer Tools in Firefox to examine the actual CSS in use, the page with /g/globalindex.css says the color is rgb(0, 0, 0), and the one that works right says the color is rgb(245, 245, 220). When I double-click on each color value, I get the same results with just a difference in file name and line numbers. Each says that the best match is beige for .blackbox, and the parent match is plum for .notice. When I added an !important to the plum color in notice, it said the best match was plum in .notice, but it still displayed the text as black. So, I don't know why it is displaying the text as black. While switching pages to /g/global.css would fix the problem on a page-by-page level, I would like to fix it in the CSS file, which I don't know how to do short of making both files identical.

I got rid of the table, and that fixed the problem. For some reason I could not identify, the table was throwing off the CSS.

I second Metamachy. It is a solid game with some interesting and rather unique twists on the normal Chess rules.

I also second Tenjiku Shogi. This game is a perfect example of the craziness that particularly imaginative authors can come up with, while still being fun to play.

Time to nominate sth? I think it'd be great to feature Seiregi!

Remember to link to nominations.

This one. One of the very first variants that I tried to play.

Remember to also name the variant you are nominating. Don't just say this one with a link.