Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Thanks.

Fergus, I can playtest Circular Chess preset with you when it will be ready.

RANBQKBNMR

Where A = Knight + Bishop and M = Rook + Knight

It is on an 8x10 board; castling is done by having the king move three squares.

What castling rule is for Modern Carrera's Chess? 3->Rook?

No, the bonus time has not been working right. I was supposed to enter a 1 instead of a 0. I have now manually edited the round file, and we'll see if that fixes it.

Happy Palindrome Day to you too.

I always like to have a link to all the games in the tournament.

Is the bonus time working properly? My opponents and I have exchanged several moves within the 12-hour grace period, and I don't think any of us have received the six-hour bonus.

Oh, and Happy Palindrome Day to one and all!

Fergus, I have an idea. Instead of implementing Circular Chess in a 
hurry, you could make use of my zrf:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/circularchess.htm
In this varant only, you could make an exception and allow the use 
of an analysis engine. This is how they do it in ICCF, where computer 
analysis is permitted. In email chess the whole PGN protocol is 
typically sent. In this case you could send the move part of the ZSG 
file. Just save to file in every move. Then you will also get correct 
rules checking and no misunderstandings can occur. When a move is 
made, the receiving player can copy and paste the moves into his 
ZSG file. There is a point in allowing an analysis engine sometimes, 
if you really want to test how good a variant is. The ZSG protocol 
looks like this:
1. Pawn-ccw sa2 - ec2 White H M1
1. Pawn-cw nd2 - eb2 Black H M2
2. Knight sc3 - wa2
2. Pawn-ccw na2 - wc2 Black H M3
3. Pawn-cw sd3 - wa3
3. Pawn-ccw na3 - wd3
/Mats

Fergus,

Perhaps you can put links on the list of games for the tournament to the individual games' rules pages.

For a tournament targeting beginners sure is a heavyweight line-up of participants!

Can't find a description of or rules for Modern Carrera's Chess ... any help in finding those would be appreciated.

Thanks, and hope everyone rings in the New Year in good health and spirits.

The time controls should meet these goals:

(1) A game should generally take no longer than two months, proceeding at a pace of approximately one turn per day.

(2) Players should be able to take off extended periods of time occasionally.

(3) Games should be allowed to continue for as long as it takes to finish them.

To meet the first two goals, the time controls should encourage those who will be taking off time to move as quickly as they can while able, both before and after taking time off. To encourage making moves before taking time off, making moves should be able to extend the time a player has available to take off. But it should not extend it to the point where a player can take several extended vacations or play very slowly. Using bonus time with a maximum on the time a player has available should accomplish these goals.

To encourage moving afterward, the chance of running out of time should remain. So the bonus time given for moving quickly should not be too generous.

The third goal may be met with grace time, minimum time, or a combination of the two. Grace time gets deducted from the time used. Minimum time extends the time someone has left when his time left falls below the minimum. So if a person has 12 hours of each, they will allow 24 hours to make a move.

With this in mind, I will add bonus time, maximum time, and minimum time values to the time controls I already posted. So here is what I expect to use for time controls:

Spare Time: 2 weeks
Grace Time: 12 hours
Minimum Time: 12 hours
Bonus Time: 6 hours for moving within 1 second (before 12 hours grace time is up)
Maximum Time: 4 weeks

Fergus,

Please use my rated account for these games: nickwolffrated.  Thanks!

'Lol, Fergus, I am often known to take 12 to 24 days to make a move. My typical game
plays with a grace time of 3 weeks and no other time at all.'

I can make a move several months. But this tournament is not for such games. So, you must make moves quicker than usually.

Lol, Fergus, I am often known to take 12 to 24 days to make a move. My typical game plays with a grace time of 3 weeks and no other time at all. 

I'm not complaining, mind you. But I'm going to have to work to keep from giving free games to my opponents. Actually, I'm sure part of the motivation for the tight time controls was the extreme slowness of some of the games in the previous tournaments. And I have to admit my game with David Paulowich was the final one, and it may well have lasted 3 months past the ending of the other games.

Joe, if each player takes 24 hours after his opponent moves to make a move, then the game will proceed at the pace of one full turn every two days, and spare time will run out in eight weeks. If you move once every day, which is the target pace, the worst case scenario is that your opponent always moves right after you while you move 24 hours after him. This would use up your spare time in about four weeks. In the best case scenario, the game could be kept going at the same pace without any cost of spare time if you both moved 12 hours apart. In the most likely scenario, you will use up less than 12 hours per day while keeping the game going at the pace of one move per day. 
An average of six hours per day would use up your spare time in eight weeks, which is the target time for a game to end, but even after spare time ends, grace time can be used to keep a game going.

Tight time controls. I anticipate having time trouble [of course, I am one of the slowest players] but such is life. To be perfectly clear, we get 2 weeks of slush time, and have 12 hours to make our moves before dipping into our 2 weeks, but we get no extra time for making a move - is this right?

And now for a request. Might I ask the indulgence of people commenting on the games they're playing? I for one am interested in improving my designs, so I am always willing to listen, and, like now, actively solicit comments on my designs, good, bad or indifferent. 

Enjoy.

Fergus,

When is the start of the tournament?

I'd like to sign up, provided the time controls are such that I can safely average 1 to 1.5 moves per game per day.  If I had been in time to suggest a game, I probably would have suggested Extinction Chess.  But the six selections look like a good set of games.

Just in case it's being seriously considered, I'll say that I'm not a fan of Sam Trenholme's proposal for adjudication of long games.  If the point of the tournament for most of us is to try out new games, it would be a shame to be deprived of an interesting endgame.

The preset for Ajax Orthodox Chess is complete and enforces all the rules:
http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DAjax+Orthodox+Chess%26settings%3DAlfaerie1

mirari wrote:

My earlier question about the time control remains unanswered. Is it lenient enough to allow occasional traveling?

I think I'll start the tournament at the beginning of next month, so that travel over Christmas doesn't interfere with anyone starting the tournament. I plan to use time controls that will keep the pace fast enough to finish each round in a timely manner but also allow for time away. But I have not yet decided on what the time controls will be.

Sam, in Russian chess (Fide-chess with Amazon instead of queen), the single Amazon can easily get exchanged, leading to drawish play. Gustav III's Chess is totally different. Why don't you try my Zillions program? Play can be very brutally tactical in the middlegame. One can often sacrifice several pieces since the Amazon has such great mating potential. It's great fun.
/Mats

But the fact that the Amazon can easier achieve mate makes it easier to handle for the amateur. To mate with B + N is another thing, it's for advanced players. The Amazon is more straightforward than the other super-knights. Isn't the Chancellor a rather clumsy piece?
/Mats

My earlier question about the time control remains unanswered. Is it lenient enough to allow occasional traveling?

Fergus: 'I have excluded games with Amazons for the same reason that I don't use Amazons in my own games. The Amazon is too powerful against the King.'

Thanks for explaining, I understand this comes down to your personal taste in chess variants then, and that seems fair enough given that it is your tourney - I do wish this had been made clearer from the start though.

Myself, I enjoy a wide variety of variants, including several with pieces that would be too powerful by your definition - e.g. Chu Shogi with its Lion, Gustav III's with its Amazons and Tripunch with its whole range of insanely powerful pieces. I also disagree with your reasoning - even though one of these pieces can in theory cause chess mate on its own, I find that in practice, an unsupported attack won't succeed, because the king is defended by a team. (On the flip side, I have seen a lone queen occasionally go on a game-deciding rampage on the opponent's back rank... even though it can't deliver the actual checkmate on its own, it is powerful enough to decide the game nonetheless).

Still, I shall hope for other opportunities to play with such powerful pieces, and look forward to playing the variants that will be in the tournament.

Mats, that's not your call.

Je ju, there is room left in the tournament for more players, just not for more games.

I would enjoy playing in the tournament if space is still available.

I'll propose Football Chess be included (but don't really expect it to be).

Look forward to playing again.

We must assume that the players know the rules of check and checkmate. Those rules needn't be programmed. It's the piece movement rules which are important.
/Mats

This preset for Ajax Orthodox Chess is almost complete:
http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DAjax+Orthodox+Chess%26settings%3DAlfaerie1

It enforces all the Ajax movement rules, allows the dropping of Ajax Ministers, castling, en passant, etc.

The only thing that it can't do is tell that the King is in check when attacked by the Ajax Minister.

Fergus (or anyone else), can you please help me fix this final issue?

Thanks.

I think excluding Gustav III's chess because it has Amazons is a very spurious reason - the Amazon is in my experience a very simple piece for chess players to learn to play with - people I've played with have had more difficulties with the Chinese cannon, for example.

Regarding time controls - how does that work with holidays, etc.?  I am traveling abroad now and then (about every second or third month), which means up to a couple of weeks with limited possibilities to keep up with games.  Also, I am away for a long time this year over Christmas and New Year - from the 16th of December up to 10th of January - if either of those would cause a trouble with the time controls for the tournament, then it is perhaps best if I withdraw before the start rather than failing to live up to my commitment and forfeiting games once the tournament is under way.

To program Circular Chess, I have begun to develop support for logical directions, similar to how Zillions of Games handles directions.

Regarding time controls, I am thinking of adding options for minimum time and maximum time. After each move, anyone's time that dropped below the minimum would be raised to the minimum. This would be an alternative to using grace time. Maximum time would put a cap on the amount of time that could be accumulated with extra time or bonus time.

I'm thinking of giving each player 14 days of spare time and 24 hours of grace time. Rounds with different games may overlap if players haven't yet finished some games. I also have some other ideas regarding modifications I want to make to the time controls.

When the site goes down, I account for the lost time by hardcoding it into Game Courier.

As Mats said: 'If it's an introductory tournament to chess variants then one should perhaps have fewer rounds. It's easier for people to sign up if it's not that time-demanding.' I agree with this.

'if anyone doesn’t like the games, or what not, they are free to withdraw from the tournament.'

I think it's not your problem.

I also think there’s nothing wrong with having both Modern Carrera Chess and Euchess.

The important thing is to go forward with this tournament. Bickering about the games or tournament structure goes against this; if anyone doesn’t like the games, or what not, they are free to withdraw from the tournament.

'18 rounds is very ambitious. If it's an introductory tournament to chess variants
then one should perhaps have fewer rounds. It's easier for people to sign up if it's
not that time-demanding.'

Agree. 12 looks better.

'I change my choice for Euchess since it also can be useful as an introductory variant.'

Hm... What sense to play two variants with chancellors and cardinals only? (Capa variant and Euchess). Both are large variants. Yes, Euchess is larger, but main idea is the same.
Symmetric chess was interesting because of introducing bishop-conversion rule.

18 rounds is very ambitious. If it's an introductory tournament to chess variants then one should perhaps have fewer rounds. It's easier for people to sign up if it's not that time-demanding.
/Mats

What I personally like about Euchess is that it is even closer to Gross Chess than Grand Chess is. Gross Chess is basically Euchess + Eurasian Chess + Omega Chess on a larger board.

Euchess is an easy game to program. It can be done easily enough by slightly modifying the code for Victorian Chess. All you have to do is copy the code for that game to a Euchess preset and modify the code in the Pre-Game section that identifies the locations of the Kings (used for spotting check) and the flags on the spaces for the Kings and Rooks (used for castling).

OK, no problem; I change my choice for Euchess since it also can be useful as an introductory variant.

Regarding the enforcement of the rules, I don't know how to do it. If you or any other could help me, receive thousand thanks beforhand.

The preset is here.

So far, Joe Joyce, Vitya Makov, Nicolas Wolff, Carlos Cetina, mirari, Jose Carillo, Sam Trenholme, and myself are the only ones to explicitly state our intention to sign up for the tournament. So the list of games to be played looks like this:

1. Eurasian Chess (Fergus Duniho)
2. Modern Carrera's Chess (Sam Trenholme)
3. HyperModern Shatranj (Joe Joyce)
4. Circular Chess (Vitya Makov)
5. Symmetric Chess (Carlos Cetina)
6. Ajax Orthodox Chess (Jose Carillo)

This changes three of the games from the previous list. Note that Symmetric Chess is also described in my Experiments in Symmetry article, where it gets called Bigamous Chess. Regarding Symmetric Chess, I am concerned about its similarity to a commercial game. So if someone will suggest another game, and either sign up or already be signed up for this tournament, I will consider it. Regarding other suggestions, Nicholas Wolff's multi-move suggestions were rejected, but he could get another suggestion in. Mirari's suggestion of Gustav III's Chess is rejected for including Amazons. If M. Winther cares to sign up, a variant featuring one of his original pieces might be worth including in the tournament.

Is there such a shortage of enforced presets? All my presets are rule-enforced, as Gustav III's Chess, Mastodon Chess, etc., etc., etc., etc...
/Mats

'...and it should be programmed on Game Courier before the start of the tournament. I am able to program the rules for games you may not be able to, but if I can't do it, and no one else can, then the game won't make it.'

You need to read more attentive. Nobody told that we'll play presets without rules enforcement. Question is who will program the rules?! As I understand Fergus can do this.

Fergus,

I sent you an email with the include file for Ajax Orthodox Chess. Can you please upload it so that I can start testing the preset?

Thanks.

Vitya, I have played against my Circular Chess program and I can tell you
that it seems to works fine without the 'en passant' rule. One cannot
easily create a pawn blockade anyway. In Circular Chess the pieces have
different values. Firstly, the rook is more valuable, probably it's worth
more than two light pieces. The light pieces seem to be worth less than
three pawns. Probably a light piece can, at times, be exchanged for two
pawns. This means that a pawn blockade can often be removed by exchanging 
a piece for two pawns. The situation on the circular board is more 
unstable than on the standard board, and there is no sufficient hideaway
for the king. I don't think you have to worry about cowardly drawish 
play, using pawn blockades. After all, reasonably strong players have
tested this variant in the yearly Lincoln tournament. It works.
/Mats

On Circular Chess.

'Also, there is no en-passant capture. (This was because the inventor didn't like this rule.)' http://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/circular.html

Ha-ha! Lol! En-passant is a important thing in chess. In Circular Chess where row of pawn is 4 not eight it's more important thing against drawish wall of pawns.
There is no problem do you like it or not. It's an important rule.
So, I cannot agree with the inventor of Circular Chess.

But it's not a big problem. We can play it without en-passant or with it... It's playable.

I am all for the inclusion of Circular Chess. I am curious about the British version. I made a Zillion program of it, which I believe, is quite strong:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/circularchess.htm

It should be implemented in Game Courier. Remember that rules do not include en-passant.
/Mats

Sam Trenholme wrote:

Balanced Capablanca Chess (a.k.a “Capablanca Chess, Aberg setup” or “Duniho’s Capablanca Variant”)

When I programmed Aberg's Capablanca Variation for Zillions in 1999, I understood that he put the Chancellor on the Queen's side and the Archbishop on the King's side, whereas my variant switched these two pieces around from Aberg's. Yet the page for Aberg's made in 2003 uses the setup for Duniho's Capablanca Variation. So I went to archive.org to see what information I was using on Aberg's back in 1999. Here is what Aberg wrote: 'I think that one should perhaps put the piece that can move both as a rook and a knight on the queen's side. The reason is that this piece will be weaker than the one that moves as a rook and a bishop, and the queen's side already has more material than the king's side. One might still call the queen's side piece the archbishop and the king's side piece the chancellor, though.' Aberg switched the meanings of Chancellor and Archbishop, and the diagram that follows uses these switched piece names. In the 2003 page, Aberg has switched the pieces around, so that his setup now matches the one from Duniho's Capablanca Variation, and he now states, in agreement with the reason I switched the position of the pieces for my variant, that the Chancellor is more powerful than the Archbishop.

Regarding the name of the game, I would favor using Carrera's name instead of Capablanca's, because the setup is mathematically equivalent (or even identical) to the one from his game, and he preceded Capablanca by centuries. It is the reverse of Carrera's setup if we take our own page on Carrera's Chess as the authority, but another page I've seen (http://www.worldchesslinks.net/ezi01.html) shows Carrera's setup to be the same as it is for what you're calling Balanced Capablanca Chess. So I suggest using the name Modern Carrera's Chess, since it is Carrera's setup played with Capablanca's more modern rules.

'Anyhow, I thought Jose proposed Modern Chess a while ago.'

He proposed Ajax Chess or Ajax Random Chess.

'Vitya: Modern chess was suggested in this posting.'

It was said about Shatranj. Modern Shatranj.

'I think it’s perfectly fair to demand anyone who wants their variant played here to either make a full rules-enforcing game courier preset'

I'm not a programmer. It's not a big problem for Fergus, I hope.

Hey Sam, you said: '[I]f you want your variant in this tournament, you need to figure out how to program game courier to play the variant.' Lol, you're safe from my games, then. I'm lucky I can make basic, non-rules-checking presets. :)

Vitya - oops! Wondered about that. Anyhow, I thought Jose proposed Modern Chess a while ago.

Finally, Mats, for what it's worth, HyperModern Shatranj may not have been played as such yet at all. I honestly don't remember. So you may technically get your wish if it's played in the tourney. However, as George has just commented on another thread, it's more of a shuffling in and out of pieces and a rearrangement of the rules than an actual variant. The only reason I actually posted it as a separate game is that people kept coming up with it and saying 'put it in the shatranj games', so I did. And someone else posted a very similar game a week later. You'll see 4 names in my write-up.

George is very right about the minor fudging of pieces and/or places in the initial setup not being actual variants. They are 'merely' games, many quite good, of a variant or variant class. Of course, a good game is never 'mere', but changing one thing doesn't make for a new variant necessarily. A number of my games feature alternate piece sets, and some prefer different versions. HG Muller uses the DWAF instead of the WF as the default Great Shatranj game in his software. Christine Bagley-Jones did Capablanca Shatranj, which uses some long range pieces. 

Maybe it comes down to knowing how the game will play by reading the rules [because you've played so many similar games] before you ever need to push pieces. That's why they're called modest variants - they are close enough to the well-known that the quality of the game can be evaluated reasonably well without actually playing it.

'Looking at this list, the next three people who make a game courier preset enforcing the rules will get their game in this tournament.'

Ha-ha! :))) LOL!!!

M. Winther wrote:

In this tournament I propose that we only have variants which have never been tried before.

This is an introductory tournament, targeted at beginners, and beginners should start with games already known to be good. I plan to follow this tournament with tournaments of other themes. Three ideas I have are an intermediate level Chess variant tournament, a large Chess variant tournament, and a Green Eggs & Ham tournament. Sam may be able to explain that reference to anyone who doesn't get it. The Green Eggs & Ham tournament is the one closest to what you have in mind.

'The reason is that it is too easy to force the amazons to get traded off early on, and then you find yourself playing what amounts to a standard chess position with queens traded off.'

We can play it and I can show you that is not easy to force...

'Mirari, looks like you not a beginner in chess variants. :)'

I guess not :) During the past year, me and my irl chess playing partner have tried up towards a hundred different variants, many of them from these pages.

'Mirari, am I right that Amazon Chess is played at BrainKing?'

Yes, you are correct, and I do not find Amazon chess a very good variant. The reason is that it is too easy to force the amazons to get traded off early on, and then you find yourself playing what amounts to a standard chess position with queens traded off.

In my very limited experience with Gustav III's chess, this is not the case there, for three reasons:
*/ The amazons start out in the extra corner squares, they are much less exposed to early attacks by opposing amazons.
*/ You have two of them - so it is not enough to trade off just one pair to get rid off them.
*/ You still have the normal Queen in the normal spot, which leads to threats to trade a queen for an amazon.

Also, even if both pairs get traded off, one is at least still not, due to the extra corner squares, reduced to playing a standard chess position.

Mirari, looks like you not a beginner in chess variants. :) 

If I understand correct Fergus idea is not in originality of variants, but as introduction to chessvariants... to main ideas of many variants.

'Vitya, if you know chess then you should understand that the Amazon is less wild in a cramped board situation. On a big board, however, it would have enormous scope.'

Cannot agree with you. Amazons knight move works fine on a smaller board.

Of course, it is up to the other participants to make their own choices, but my opinion is that the tournament is better served by offering variants one can't play competitively at other sites. (I know of Brainking and Scheming Minds which both offer several variants... for example, here are stats from Brainking.

Knightmate: 62 games in progress
Loop Chess (which is between CrazyHouse and ChessGi): 219 games in progress
Fischer Random Chess: 109 games in progress
Embassy Chess: 104 games in progress

... my impression is that this is a larger and more active community for the games supported than what game courier has, and that it therefore makes no sense to foster competition between chess variants sites by arranging tournaments in the same variants.

What has tempted me to sign up for Game Courier is instead all the variants not available elsewhere - both the above mentioned sites have, compred with Game Courier, a rather limited selection of variants (a fact which they do make up for with having a much larger playerbase for those variants).

So, to tempt people to come here, it would from my view make more sense to play to Game Courier's strength, i.e. the large number of variants supported here that is not available elsewhere.

Me, Nick, Jeremy and Carlos are test all variants by playing its in alphabetical order.
We've played 007 Chess. Now we plays 10 Directional... But many of these games is not for a such tournament for beginners.

I believe that two amazons gives big advantage for White. And any chessmaster know how to win this game. On our level it is more playable game. But Amazon is exotic piece, that can be played without tournament. Cardinal and Chancellor is used in more variants than Amazon. I've played Gustav III and won it.

If there is a problem which variant to choose: Capa or Gustav, lets vote. I vote for Capa. 

I'm not a fan of Fisher Random or Crazyhouse. But these games can give popularity for tournament. And then beginners will play 007, 008, Grand Amazon and many others on Game Courier.

According to Fergus' post: 

'So far, Joe Joyce, Vitya Makov, Nicolas Wolff, Carlos Cetina, mirari, and myself are the only ones to explicitly state our intention to sign up for the tournament.'

... therefore, I think I am entitled to choose a variant, and my choice is Gustav III's Chess by Mats Winther.

Vitya, if you know chess then you should understand that the Amazon is less wild in a cramped board situation. On a big board, however, it would have enormous scope. Gustav III's chessboard might be just the right environment for the Amazon. This could be a good variant and should not be rejected off-hand. I think it's wrong that the tournament activity on the Chess Variants pages misses the opportunity to test variants, but instead includes already played variants.
/Mats

Hypermodern Shatranj
Eurasian Chess
Circular Chess (or Hex Chess)
Ajax Chess 
Capa variant

I offer to change Knightmate for Fisher Random or Crazyhouse. It is most popular chessvariants in russian community. With such variants I hope my future advertising will work. With Knightmate and without Fisher Random or Crazyhouse it wouldn't work. 99%.

Also do H. G. Muller participate in tournament?!

Lol @ everyone.

Everyone keeps making suggestions to modify the tournament.  Fergus has already made known the specifications to this tournament.  I think it is a great idea and he is doing a damn fine job of making it.  

Lets run this tournament how the creator is intending it to run it and we'll save the other tournament suggestions for later.  For instance, I love the idea of playing variants that haven't been played on the server, yet.  Maybe that can be the next tournament.  Please keep in mind, however, that Fergus is intending to make sure those games have rule enforcement.  

I also like how the previous tournaments where.  Many games and everyone could choose what ones they were going to play.  

But for now, lets make it easy on Fergus and just go with what he has annotated, saving the other ideas for later.  Just a thought :)

'Gustav III's Chess is a good example.'

In my opinion it's a bad example. Two powerful Amazons on such board.... Hmm.

'Is it a good piece or not?'

Maybe it is a good piece, but not for 64 or 68 squares, and not two.

'There are thousands of variants that have never been tried.'

These variants can be played without tournament. There are no thousands of variants that match the criteria for this tournament's theme.

'In this tournament I propose that we only have variants which have never been tried
before.'

I cannot agree with such criteria.

'Hexagonal Chess has the advantage that
hexagonal variants are more common and more popular than circular variants.'

Yes, but some people have problem with piece moving on hex board. I had this problem with knights. Also Hex Bishop is problematic piece. Circular Chess is more simple and I think two fronts of attack gives to this game interesting possibilities.

'That leaves Knightmate, which may at least be a good introduction to having a royal
piece that is not a King.'

All variants are good. But is knightmate better than Crazyhouse? I don't think so. By playing Crazyhouse you can learn to drop.

In this tournament I propose that we only have variants which have never been tried before. There are thousands of variants that have never been tried. Why pick up variants that are played on other servers and have been played here before? This organization should promote new variants, and not keep to already played ones. Other servers already play many chess variants regularly. Chess Variant pages should always try new ideas. Gustav III's Chess is a good example. In this way the debate about the pros and cons of the Amazon can reach a decision. Is it a good piece or not? How does this historical game work? In this way, also, we avoid the problem that many people have already played certain variants and thus have an advantage.
/Mats

Sam,

You have just reinvented Duniho's Capablanca Variant. It appeared in my original Chess,_Large.zrf file, and I later removed it because I realized it just mirrored Carrera's Chess. Well, it's gratifying to know that thousands of computerized trials with different setups have led you to recreate a game I created 11 years ago when I was just starting out inventing Chess variants. :) Here's what I wrote about it in that ZRF: 'I agree with Hans Aberg about placing the Knights toward the center, but I disagree with his estimation that the Rook-Knight piece is weaker than the the Bishop-Knight piece. So I think his suggestions would lead to a less balanced placement of pieces. In this variation, Knights are closer to the center, and the Archbishop and Marshall begin on the same sides Capablanca began them on.'

Fergus,

I am joining the tournament too.

Jose

Sam,

One rule I'm sticking to is that a game must be programmed for the tournament. I am willing to relax the first-come first-served rule if you guys want to work on a consensus. But I'm going to leave the power to decide on the games in the hands of the people whose choices I've already listed (or their successors if anyone drops out). My job will be to make sure that the games match the criteria for this tournament's theme.

I notice that H.G. hasn't actually stated his intention to sign up, but he isn't the only one. So far, Joe Joyce, Vitya Makov, Nicolas Wolff, Carlos Cetina, mirari, and myself are the only ones to explicitly state our intention to sign up for the tournament. Others, including yourself, have only suggested games. I am presently assuming that they intend to play in the tournament, but I will need confirmation of this to know whether I should include their picks in the tournament.

Vitya,

I think I have played Circular Chess before and didn't think much of it. From the perspective of preparing people for other variants, which seems to be something you have on your mind in making your list, Hexagonal Chess has the advantage that hexagonal variants are more common and more popular than circular variants. My experience with Glinski's Hexagonal Chess in a previous tournament is that it is a good game. Other than that, it looks like a good list.

Given the list we already have, I think Ajax Orthodox Chess is worth keeping. I continue to stand by my pick of Eurasian Chess, and it looks like Sam may give us a Capa variant. A weak pieces variant is on the list with Joe's Hypermodern Shatranj. That leaves Knightmate, which may at least be a good introduction to having a royal piece that is not a King.

Sam Trenholme said:
>>OK, based on Fergus’ “first come first serve”, and only allowing a 
>>person to choose one variant (the first one they mention), here are the 
>>variants proposed (links to the proposals in this thread):

Joe Joyce proposed both Great Shatranj and Modern chess.

I want to describe what I want to see, not as a offer (I offered Circular
Chess), but as I want to see for beginners. 'The theme is a game that
is good for introducing Chess players to Chess variants.':

Fisher Random. It is a most well known chess variant.

Crazyhouse - also popular. Dropping ability can be very useful to
understand Shogi and other variants.

Weak pieces variant (Heavy Gravity Chess or Modern Shatranj or Hypermodern
Shatranj).

Eurasian Chess. It is a good way to understand cannons.

Circular or Hex chess (different type of board).

Capa Chess. Cardinals and Chancellors are used in many chessvariants.
Amazons are too strong and I don't like it, but it's only my preference.

In my opinion, such variants can give some popularity for tournament. If
another, tournament will be played by habitues of Game Courier, not by
beginners. Maybe I'm wrong.

The Hakku (White Horse) in the 15x15 variant Dai Shogi moves the same as the W-Flyer in Sam Trenholme's [2009-12-03] Comment. The Keigei (Whale) has the reverse Bishop movement. Neither of these pieces are found in WHALE SHOGI.

Unfortunately, I cannot find the time to play in a major tournament in 2010. Good luck to all of you!

Yes, I prefer Circular Chess. And I think that Carlos Cetina choice 'Symmetric Chess' looks better than many other choices. I don't think that who is first is right. Who gives interesting variants and who will play this games in tournament must have right to choose variants.

I want to advertise this tournament on some russian sites. So variants must be interesting for players, not for inventors. Inventors likes their variants and has problems with critics on its. What I offer is not variant of mine (like Cardinal Chess), but interesting and original variant.

Among Vitya's suggestions, I preferred Embassy Chess, because I wanted a Capablanca variant in this tournament, and it was the only one mentioned. Since I don't play on the other sites, it is more new to me than some of the others that have been played more here. I will look into programming Circular Chess if that is what you prefer. Glinski's Hexagonal Chess is already programmed, and McCooey's shouldn't be too difficult to program, but Circular Chess may need some new operations added to the GAME Code language.

When I thought of this tournament, I didn't specifically have modest variants in mind. Note that my own pick is not a modest variant. If you picked a modest variant but would actually prefer some other game that fits the criteria, it is alright to change it.

If some of you want to change your choices or defer your choices to someone else, do so soon. I would like the games to be played settled on by the end of the weekend. Then I will modify the page to mention the games we'll be playing, and if 16 haven't signed up yet, I'll put a notice in Game Courier to draw more attention to the tournament.

'no big differencies'

Not big, but no interesting differencies.