Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Aug 10, 2007 10:38 PM UTC:There are four different types of kings Peter Aronson lists in one of his comments about Anti-King Chess. An interesting contest would be to design a game where all four kings play a role.
Here is another idea for a contest: In 2004, Robert Abbott, inventor of Ultima, posted a comment to our section on Rococo, suggesting two new pieces he calls 'triangulators' which coordinate with each other to capture any pieces that reach the apexes of triangles formed by diagonals that trace through them. He suggests adding them to Rococo. Peter Aronson, co-inventor of Rococo, responded to Abbott's suggestion that the proposed new pieces, applied to Rococo, 'don't pass the clarity test' and they have the limitation that they couldn't capture pieces near or at the corners.
A diamond shaped board such as this or this would empower these triangulators. It would be a good idea to have a contest to see who could design the best game using Edward Abbott's triangulator pieces.
Frequently, for me, the value of a game doesn't become clear until the third or fourth time playing it. I noted that Gary Gifford didn't enjoy his first game of Tripunch but did decide he liked Tripunch very much after playing it twice. I think we should make a requirement that each person judging a game play two versions of it, one as black and one as white.
Of course you do have your occasional variant that is not even meant to be played, but the inventor should specify that he doesn't care whether the game gets played before being judged.
I think this phenomenon of judging games without playing them is usually mostly unfair, like someone who says they don't like chess itself at all, but has never even bothered to learn the rules or play any games of it. A lot of people don't learn to like chess itself until a year or two of trying to figure out how to play it. Like my 8 year old daughter. It's a process.
Frequently, for me, the value of a game doesn't become clear until the third or fourth time playing it. I noted that Gary Gifford didn't enjoy his first game of Tripunch but did decide he liked Tripunch very much after playing it twice. I think we should make a requirement that each person judging a game play two versions of it, one as black and one as white.When Tony and I judged the 42-Square Design Contest, we played each game at least twice, and would liked to have played them at least four times each (except we would have gone stark, raving mad, to the distress of our wives and children). I do think it takes at least two plays at a minimum to reasonably evaluate a game.
How about having 'played on a board of 45-47 squares' and/or 'pseudo-historical' and/or love themed maybe with a short or medium overall range 'Cupid' piece, that is, a 'Cupid' piece with no or very few unlimited range moves as the theme of the contest. That way we could have a 48-50 square contest next year.
Mr. Joyce, I like the idea of a cupid that prevents an adjacent piece from capturing other pieces when exiting its influence, but your suggestion for its movement capability (at least that of the queen) is way too generous considering that love is fickle. However, if you really want a piece that symbolizes the true power of love, I'll say that the variant may include an 'Aphrodite' or 'Erato' piece the movement capability of which is only limited by reason.
Two weeks ago I proposed a 45-46 SQUARES CONTEST, to make up for lost time in the small board category, perhaps followed by a 47-48 SQUARES CONTEST next year. Another reason to hold these contests with pairs of numbers is that some numbers are more suitable for chess boards. The number 47 is prime, while on the other hand, 48 gives us both an 8x6 board and a 7x7 board with a missing central square.
I think it would be a shame to let go of the tradition of squares. Now, I'm a little confused by some of the comments that have been made here on that subject. Was there a 45 square contest that was initiated and then dropped midway? If so what happened to the entries? Or has there never been a 45 square contest initiated?
Joe Joyce suggested having two tournaments, one a continuation of the consecutive sets of squares contest and one another type or combination of types. I like that idea too.
Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Aug 25, 2007 11:03 PM UTC:Jeremy, there never was a 45 square contest; Hans stopped having birthdays, apparently. Be that as it may [if he managed it, I'm jealous!], a number of people have expressed some interest in such a contest. I, too, like David's idea: run a 45/46 squares contest. I'd say run this contest - the 45/46 Square Contest - now, while we're trying to figure out which contest[s] to run. This'll give you practice, and everyone a chance to get their contest muscles toned. Work out the details as we get the entries - email me, I'll help. As far as judging, if we can't scrounge up a qualified panel of judges, maybe we could use a work-around. If we could post all the entries anonymously, the entrants could judge everyone else's stuff without knowing whose work it was, theoretically. Or you could split the entries into 2 parts, and let the players from each group judge the other. The 2 winners would be judged by all the remaining entrants. Surely we could manage something that would be reasonably fair, in the absence of a panel of judges, who would also, ideally, get the entries anonymously [might want to have a format for the entries to help erase obvious personal styles]. That's about it, Jeremy. Just declare it open, and we're off! ;-)
Send entries to chessvariants@gmail.com.
I will post them on the site as anonymous entries (and I'll help anyone who requests help with anything I can.)
[Or maybe not, but I'll post 'em.]
I hope we can decide on the other design contest by October First.
Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Aug 25, 2007 11:58 PM UTC:I think Joe's idea of splitting the entries into two groups and letting the groups judge the other is a fine idea. The 10th anaversary tournament was that way (but with 4 groups, and you picked your favorite game of each of the other three groups.) I don't like the anonymous games idea. For one thing, you couldn't post your own works, and for another, we could well guess some of the author's works as their styles are quite distinctive. But, if you go the judge route, I'm happy to be a judge. I don't feel any particular need to sumbit an entry.
Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, Aug 26, 2007 02:48 AM UTC:I second the nomination of Greg. Thanks, Greg, for volunteering. The reason for anonymity? To attempt to rule out personalities. The best judges in the world would be subconsciously biased toward friends and against those disliked. It's easier to be objective with anonymity, is all. It's certainly not required for objectivity, though. It's just easier. And it reduces after-the-fact emotions; it's much harder for someone to say relationships played a part in the judging. In my opinion, it's more professional and it reduces the possibilities of strange occurrences. With a little work, telltale styles can be pretty much eliminated. First, create a simple format, and a simple form to go with it. A board picture showing initial setup, standard piece icons and basic movement descriptions, a telegraphic [sparse] listing of rules, the minimum info required to play the game correctly is all the judge needs. The designer can follow games being played, and contact Jeremy if there's a problem. Or not. ;-) Enjoy!
I take it that, in line with previous n-square design contests, the term square is to be interpreted as meaning cell, and is not meant to exclude, for example, hex, trig or multi-dimension based boards?
Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Aug 26, 2007 05:02 PM UTC:Joe says:
With a little work, telltale styles can be pretty much eliminated. First, create a simple format, and a simple form to go with it. A board picture showing initial setup, standard piece icons and basic movement descriptions, a telegraphic [sparse] listing of rules, the minimum info required to play the game correctly is all the judge needs.
I'm not sure I agree with this. For one thing, is not the presentation part of what is being judged? Also, authors often put information about the philosophy behind the design, which helps one to judge the game. For example, in my games I usually talk about how I've attempted to balance the values of as many different piece types as possible, or at least tried to make their relative values difficult to determine. This would be a telltale sign of one of my games, but it isn't fair to eliminate that information. Finally, I think most designers want to present their works in a particular way. I know for myself that if the rules of the tournament required a uniform, bland, minimilist presentation, that would guarantee that I would not be placing an entry.
And if we go the judge route, I hope there would be at least 2 other judges. I would hate to have to pick the winner by myself. I have preferences in the type of game I like to play and it would be difficult to look beyond those. A judge panel, each rating each game based on several criteria, numerically, and ruling based on mathematical total, would seem to be the most fair (as in figure skating.)
When is the deadline for submission to your 45/46 contest?
Jeremy, previous contests seem to have had about a 5-month submission period. As this is a 'pre-contest' contest I would suggest a 3-month period - a deadline of 30-November.
This should give sufficient time for the 'contest' contest details to be decided, which could then have a 5-month submission period running from 01-Dec to 30-April
Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Sep 1, 2007 03:18 AM UTC:I'm going to sneak in just under the wire, starting this after 11:00 pm 8/31. I'd like to propose a serious contest to design a classical chess variant, specifically the one George W. Duke and I discussed briefly in recent comments. I doubt we will find the 'next chess', but it's quite a worthwhile contesy and many people here are very chess oriented. From my 8/27 comment to George on just what 'the next chess' should look like: 'George, what are your criteria for games that are sufficiently chesslike to be in contention? Does the board size range from 8x8 to 10x10, or only 8x10? Must all the FIDE pieces be maintained totally intact under any circumstances? Is there a minimum and maximum number of pieces? Of pawns? I certainly have no objection to discussing, assisting with, or designing some games under these constraints; in a sense, it's a contest. Many of us like contests. Lay out the rules, and some of us will enter.' His answer was: 'Constraints of Joe Joyce remind us of over-four-years-ago Luotuoqi nominations and the game that was designed on 8x8. That effort was whimsical. JJoyce's proposed contest could be instead a group effort at a serious '10x10' that nobody really seems to get right. Do it by Committee, like Luotuoqi, answering each JJoyce question in turn, and once three or four agree, that will be the form approved: (1) Minimum # pieces (2) FIDE or not, and so on, as in Joyce 27.Aug.07' So I propose the entrants first must vote on the specific parameters of the contest, then all have some limited time to design and enter a game.
Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Sep 1, 2007 05:01 PM UTC:Ah, Jeremy, I was away when the time was extended. Now I have a chance to expand a bit on the contest idea. Gary, great to have you back. Been agreeing with everyone, got nobody to argue with, so thanks! ;-) Great line you posted! 'With enough constraints, a design no longer is a design, but a mandate.' My counterargument could be that without constraints, there is no design, only chaos, but instead I'll just lay out boundaries to the idea, and we'll see if they're tight enough to give all the designs a coherent theme, but loose enough to prevent everyone from being forced to design the same game [like we don't design the same games over and over again without anyone forcing us to... :-) ] The contest is to design a sufficiently chesslike variant that it could be 'the next FIDE chess'. Examples of reasonable contenders in this category would be Fisher Random, Carrera/Capablanca Random, Grand Chess and Falcon Chess; shogi, shatranj, large variants, multi-movers and such are not. Specific constraints that could be decided: * board size - 8x8, 8x10 and 10x10, or only 10x10? * must all the FIDE pieces be maintained totally intact? * is there a minimum and maximum number of pieces? Of pawns? I think this would provide a reasonable balance between freedom and constraint.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
A chess variant the can not end in a draw, and that does not give the first player (nor second player) any noticeable advantage
The idea is this: One complaint people have about FIDE Chess is that the game has too many draws. Another complaint is that white has too much of an advantage. My proposed category is to design a chess variant where draws are impossible, and where the inventor of the variant demonstrates that their variant does not seem to give either player an advantage.
This is a little tougher category to invent for than to, say, invent a 56-square variant, so more creativity is needed with the inventors.
I propose another category:
A variant that computers can not be programmed to play well
In this category, the inventor has to make a variant that they can demonstrate is difficult for computers to play. Multimove variants and other variants where there is a high branching factor are obvious candidates, as are variants where it is not easy to calculate who is ahead (Can this be done?)
What do people think of these categories?
- Sam