Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I agree with David Short's suggestions. It would be best to split games by
the same person into two different groups. This will better allow each
game to be judged on its own merits. Besides the scenarios he mentions,
another is that a judge, in an attempt to be fair to all contestants, will
let himself favor only one game by the same person, even though both may
be deserving of ranking among the highest. Suppose that one author has two
games that are really better than the others. If all the judges like these
two games more than the others, but out of a sense of fairness let
themselves favor only one or the other, they could be split on which one
they favor. This could then result in neither game by that person placing
among the highest ranked games.

I'm willing to judge. I may find time to playtest the games in a group
during the winter break. I probably don't have time for email games that
could carry into the next semester, but I should be able to find time to
play against Zillions.

I've taken the time to identify which games in the contest have certain
commonalities between them, specifically, the board layout design. 
These games, I feel, should be seperated into seperate inital 11-game
groups as much as possible. The ones where four games are listed should
be broken down into a 2-1-1 ration and the ones where three games are
listed
should be broken down into a 1-1-1 ration. 

12 FILES, 7 RANKS: Herb Garden Chess, Schizophrenic Chess, Viking Chess

7 FILES, 12 RANKS: Delegating Chess, Orwell Chess, Wizard Chess, Ryu
Shogi

10 BY 10 BOARD WITH 16-SQUARE 'NO-ENTRY ZONE' IN CENTER: Invasion, Tree
Garden Chess, Seenschach, The Pit.

Finally, I nominate the three games which, to me, seem to be the most
complicated. Certainly there may be one or two others which others might
feel should go into this 'top three' list more than one or two of the
ones
I am listing here, but I certainly wouldn't want to be the judge which 
has to play any of these three games, and therefore I feel each of the
following games should be split up among the three different groups,
one apiece: Ramayana Chess, Tetrahedal Chess, Unconventional Warefare
Chess

Further input and voting should be taken among the judges to come up
with that final 3 'most complicated' list and seperate them into the 
three different groups.

Thirteen entrants (16 designs) have participated in prior contests.  A
rough familiarity factor, computed by adding the number of prior entries
to the number of judge recognitions (prize or special mention), shows: 
Aikin 6, Neto 6, Quintanilla 5, Overby 4, Bell 3, Cazaux 3, McComb 3,
Short 3, Thompson 3, Bruck 2, VanDeventer 2, Forsman 1, Greenwood 1. 
Messrs. Cazaux and Greenwood certainly are well-known for other
contributions as well.

Ten entrants (18 designs, including two joint-entries) have two games. 
These are Campos, Fourriere, Knappen, A Newton (1 joint), P Newton (2
joint), T Newton (1 joint), Overby, Overington, Quintanilla, Short.

> Please note that I did not take into account the 'newcomer vs. veteran'
criteria when I made the above groupings ....
 
Excellent.  That is, I feel, how it should be.
 
I feel that each entry should be judged on the entry itself, with
absolutely no facet of the assessment process being based on whether the
author is an experienced author of chess variant games or is a newcomer.

It may, however, be that the experience of people who will be acting as
judges should be taken into account in assigning judges to each of the
various groups of games.  That, however, is not at all the same as
assigning a game based upon its author's experience.
 
I seem to remember that the first rules of the 84 Spaces Contest seemed to
imply that each entrant was required to participate in the judging.  That
then went when the rules were changed.  Now that the rules have
effectively been changed again so as to involve entrants in the judging,
could there please be, for the avoidance of doubt, a clear statement as to
whether an entrant is once again now required to participate in the
judging or if participating in the judging is optional.

I hope that the chess variants pages do not slip into that awful practice
of the news media and some magazines of referring to a person by just his
or her surname rather than stating either a first name or a formal style
in front of the surname.

There have been so many points made here I cannot comment on them all, but
I will mention some that have drawn my attention.

FYI, I have also volunteered to be a judge.  Am I to be classified as a
newcomer or a veteran?  It seems the proposed critia are based mainly on
contributions to the CVP.  I am not blessed with that sort of creativity,
but I have been a regular visitor and commentor for five years, and I have
been interested in chess variants for 40 years.  Furthermore, I seem to be
of approximately average playing strength among variantists.

There are two good ideas that are mutually exclusive.  One is Fergus's
idea that the top five games advance in each of the three pools of eleven.
 The other is Mark's suggestion that the pools are too large, and six or
seven games per pool would be better.  Perhaps the protocol should be left
to Hans in this case, because it depends on how many judges are
available.

When it comes to dividing up the games, there are several ideas.  I like
David's idea of balancing out the pools by format of game.  I think it is
a good idea to separate both contributions by the same person into
different pools.  Of course any contributor who also judges should not be
allowed to judge their own game.  I emphatically think it is NOT a good
idea to segregate the games designed by 'novices' and 'veterans'.  It
seems clear to me that a pool of 'veteran's' games would be more
competitive than a pool of 'novices's' games, and would result in skewed
first round results.

As a judge, I would expect some guidance on the criteria I would be using
to rate.  I expect to play, as David suggested, at least two of each game
(ideally more, if the nature of the game was eluding me).  I assume I
would play with the other judges of my pool, or with the inventor, if he
makes himself available as David has.  As the prospect of playing 22 large
and complex variant games simultaneously is daunting, I am already
beginning to extricate myself from my other gaming activities to make
time.

I'm shaking my head in bemusement.  Had the contest run by its original
plan, before Life intervened for its organizer, we'd be less than three
weeks from being done.  (Albeit with many fewer entries, and that includes
some good ones.)  Now, with the prospect of two or even three rounds of
judging by a pool still unknown, we may be looking at June.

I suppose this is partly the price of success...33 entries is really quite
a fine turnout for this contest.

My suggestion is to slow the pace of suggestions, and let Hans work
through what he wants to do.

By veteran, I meant anyone who has entered a previous Chess variant contest
at this site. By newcomer, I meant anyone for whom this is their first
time entering a Chess variant contest at this site. Using Glen Overby's
figures, I estimate that there are 13 veterans and 11 newcomers. 

I do not at all understand John Lawson's objections to segrating games by
veterans and newcomers. I do not understand how he thinks results would be
skewed. 

My main concern is that judges avoid, as far as they can, judging games by
people whose games they're already familiar with. Of course, this is
feasible only if a good number of the judges are new enough to be
unfamiliar with previous games by those who have already entered contests.
Assuming we have that, I propose that 11 newcomer games be put into one
group, and the rest be split into the other groups. Those judges who
already have favorite or least favorite games by veteran contestants can
then judge the group of games entirely by newcomers.

> Assuming we have that, I propose that 11 newcomer games be put into one
group, and the rest be split into the other groups.
 
The current rules of the 84 Spaces Contest state as follows.
 
quote
 
Judges
 
The contest will be judged by one or two qualified judges. It will be
announced later who these judges are. 
 
end quote
 
Now, the rules appear to have, in practice, been changed so that lots of
people, including entrants, judge the contest.  That change, however,
seems to be going back more towards the original rules of the 84 Spaces
Contest.
 
The distinction of some games being designated newcomer games would, I
feel, be unfair.  That was not in the rules at the start and should not
become part of the rules now.
 
David Short suggested four groups of eight.  Once Flipworld is added into
group 4, as he suggests, would those groups be suitable?  Is there any
reason not to use those groups?

I don't think the newcomer x veteran idea makes much sense, because it's
based on the false concept of familiarity - that veterans have extensive
knowledge of their fellows' previous submissions and that newcomers have
none. I seriously doubt it. I am a relatively new visitor to this site yet
I have checked *all* submissions to the previous contests, and playtested
some, including all previous winners. This may, of course, affect my
decisions - 'oh, this guy didn't do as well as in that other contest...
it's good but I'll send him a message by voting low' (of course, effect
exagerated) and there is no simple way to oppose this - adding me to the
list of veteran judges? On the other hand, some 'veterans' may have had
little contact with other submissions, and even forgotten who authored
what. It's doubtful they will have any more 'twisted' reactions than
newcomers.

On a more serious issue, most volunteered judges, including me, are
participants in the contest. Will judging be limited to us, or any
volunteer will be accepted? If the latter is correct, how will 'foul play'
be controlled? While I am all in favor of trusting people's gamesmanship,
the idea of ficticious judges voting alike to benefit someone isn't so
farfetched as to be dismissed.

The 12 finalists have been announced.  I do not have entries in
competition, so I will probably be putting my competitions editor hat back
on to organize the finals jury.  A further announcement may be expected in
a couple of days.

Good luck to the finalists!

The finals jury will be Glenn Overby, John Lawson, and Peter Aronson.  This
provides one judge from each preliminary group, and all judges from the
CVP staff.

To the judges of the preliminaries:  Thank you for stepping forward at a
difficult time to ensure that the contest could go on.

I would like to make clear that my comments about games in the 84 Spaces
Contest are absolutely in no way intended as crticism of the judges.
Having judged Group A with Glenn Overby and Michael Howe, I am well aware
of how difficult the judging task is and how diligently the judges do
their work.  No doubt some will disagree with our decisions as well. Given
the overall high quality of the entries, not all of the worthy games can
make the finals. I am also quite sure that many of the decisions were very
close ones.  

It's been a pleasure to be part of this contest, both as an entrant and a
judge.

So now the twelve finalists are going to be judged as a single group?  Is
that it?  Maybe someone oughta make a 'Round 2' page.

--Jared

The finals judges are playing a bunch of games, concentrating especially on
those each judge did not judge in round one.  I wouldn't be surprised to
see a final decision in a few weeks.