George Duke wrote on Tue, Dec 22, 2009 10:32 PM UTC:
Not paying attention to the past ratings, I use the substance of
individuals I respect like Betza, Jeremy Good, and many others. My reasons
are in each new comment adding one more nominated CV. For example, at least
trying to re-skim all comments plus re-read text, I just used Paulowich to summarize Fantasy
Grand, because it is less familiar. Most of them someone like Joyce or
Gilman already analysed in comments besides myself. Make up your own mind,
John, to what degree you agree with the hierarchy or recommend a change in
the order so far up or down a notch. Scroll back the 7 threads of
NextChess. The major distinction to draw is Next Chess CV versus novelty
CV, Track One and Track Two. Now I am starting to wrestle in my mind with bifurcators, which look
awfully good, because next up is Venator.
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24303
The summary tomorrow will include not just Venator, but all
several dozen bifurcators. Anyone also can please nominate a #29 and a #30.
There are commercial and other sites emerging that will be interested in
results like this ongoing long-term project ranking by comparison, not impulse. I did not plan this latest format. It happened to start 10 days ago for dealing with the 21 core NextChesses with this comment:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24569
The 21 finished nominees had been sitting there for over a year.