Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Thomas, the contest split into 2 contests, the 45-46 square contest, which is now complete, and a nebulous design contest that actually did die a silent death. There have been discussions about a contest, but they have not actually coalesced into a contest. 

To actually have a contest, you need a few things. One is a decent theme, or a central reference point, for the contest. Another is a workable method of judging the contest. A third is a reasonable number of contestants. 

I am certainly willing to hold contests. But I'm not willing to be reduced to begging for help judging ... again. ;-) The 45-46 square contest started with me being a contestant and ended with me not only being the main judge of the contest but also an editor here. I may be slow but I don't need to get whacked upside the head more than twice to know that the next contest I get involved in is going to have a very different set of groundrules. :-)

That being said, the floor is open to all. What do we do? How can I help?

The other is of a nature yet to be determined but you can fully participate in that determination. It can have lots of restrictions or just one and there are many choices ['dimensional' is just one possible restriction which may or may not be instituted] and choices about how many restrictions as well. I'd like to create a poll for this in the nature of the MAM Condorcet polls.

I must admit I am not clear about this contest.  On one hand I was getting the notion that there was a 45/46 square contest with freedom to design rules and pieces; on the other hand, I see a chess constraints contest which was having dimensional restrictions still being discussed.  

Perhaps there are two different topics going on within the same '2007-2008 Chess Variants Design Contest' heading? 

I made a board in anticipation of a 45/46 squares contest... I've not added pieces or rules because I am very much in the fog as to what is allowed.  Are the 45/46 squares even allowed?  Are there two contests planned?

Joe: You mention lack of constraints and chaos.  But, given the choice of (a) design a chess variant while abiding by numerous restrictions or (b) design a chess-variant - I would pick 'b.'  That is essentially what we have been doing at CV and I do not see the 'chaos' that you mention.

You stated that, 'The contest is to design a sufficiently chess-like variant that it [sic] could be 'the next FIDE chess'.'  I think this is wishful thinking.  There are many excellent Chess-like games, like the Fischer Random Chess, for example... yet Fide Chess just keeps hanging in there.  We can try, of course to create the next evolution of Chess...  But, when the boards are made waxed and polished... when they sit proudly in the sunlight with their pieces casting shadows while waiting for the logic of their masters... well then, we have our game.  But I truly suspect that Chess will remain supreme.  

As a side note, when I played Roberto's Maxima I had a great appreciation of it and could easily picture that game as the chess variant for future generations... yet such a future is far away and likely not to happen.  Time will tell... but as we all know, Fide chess is quite endurable.

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.

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.

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 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.)

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?

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 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.