Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I've begun to think about the procedure to use for pairing people up for
games. Before describing the procedure, let me state its goals. One goal
is to maximize the number of games played by everyone. Short of that, to
maximize the number of people who play any game. Another goal is to
maximize the number of each player's top n choices that he gets to play.
Short of that, to keep each player's assignment of games in conformity
with his preferences as much as feasible.

Here is what I'm thinking of. I'll begin by getting a list of ranked
preferences from each person of his top n+3 games. I'll mark any game
that appears in everyone's top n games. Let's call the number of games
everyone has in their top n m. Everyone will play these games, but I
won't pair people up in them until I have paired people up for other
games. I will first pair people up for the remaining n minus m games.
Beginning with each person's top ranked unmarked game, I will try to find
a partner who also ranks that game highly. Someone who ranks a game more
highly will be favored over someone who ranks a game less highly. If an
odd number of players rank a game among their top n games, precedence will
be given to those who rank it higher. As much as possible, any player who
has ranked a game on top will be given an opponent who has ranked it among
his top n games. Whenever two people are paired up for a game, I will mark
that game in their rankings. After pairing up opponents on the basis of
top ranked games, I will repeat the procedure a rank lower, and repeat
again until every player has been paired up for n-m games. If the
procedure terminates without pairing everyone up on n-m games, I will
repeat the procedure on the unmarked games of player's who haven't yet
met their quota, but I will extend it to the full ranking. Then I will
pair everyone up on the games everyone put in their top n games, pairing
each person up with someone he hasn't already been paired up with.

If anyone would be happy to play any game among the top n, saying so will
make it a bit easier to pair everyone up for games they will be happy
playing. If anyone ends up unhappy with his assignment of games, he can go
read Green Eggs and Ham. If anyone has a better suggestion for how to
acheive the same goals, I will be happy to hear it.

Okay, I've done some additional thinking on how to pair people up. To
maximize how many people get their full preferences met, it is important
to pair people up for less popular games before pairing them up for more
popular games. Also, if the tournament is played in multiple rounds, it
will be okay to let people play the same game twice, so long as it is
played for a second time in a subsequent round between two people who each
won the game against other opponents in a prior round. This will help
allow everyone to play only his preferred games. To better enable this
option, it will also help to play the most widely preferred games during
the first round. With these things in mind, here is how I propose handling
this.

First, make a list of how many times each game is included among
someone's top n games. Next, make a table of which games are among the
top n for each pair of players. Make an ordered list of all pairs of
players, using the following criteria:

Give precedence to the pair that prefers fewer games in common.
When two pairs prefer an equal number of games in common, give precedence
to the pair whose commonly preferred games includes the least popular game
among both sets of commonly preferred games. In case of a tie, appeal to
the second least popular game in either set, and so on.

Go through the sorted list from the beginning, pairing each set of
entrants together on the game that is least popular among all the
entrants, for which neither entrant has already been paired up with
someone else. In the event of a tie on this score, pair them up on the
game most preferred by both. If there is no game most preferred by both,
pair them up on the game most preferred by the entrant who has had fewer
of his preferences met so far.

If this process does not pair everyone up with everyone else, additional
pairing may wait until the second round as long as each player has been
paired up on enough games for the first round. On the next round, anyone
who still needed to be paired up for some games could be paired up on
games he and someone else each won in the first round. In some cases, two
entrants who had been paired up for one game could be allowed to switch to
a game both won in a previous round. This could free them up to play the
game they had been paired up for against other opponents. In either case,
this would help all players play only their preferred games.

In the event that people still had to be paired up for the present round,
the previous procedure could be repeated with everyone's top n+1 games.
As needed, it could be repeated again with everyone's n+2 games and
finally with everyone's n+3 games. At n+3, all games would be tied for
overall popularity, and pairing would be based on overall preference
between both players. In each case, someone would get to play one of his
preferred games.

hi there.  i've just noticed this.  i've yet to play any of the variants
yet, but can i please sign up for the tournament anyhow?  a good way to
learn i think!

I've spotted an inconsistency in the details for how the tournament will
be run. I said that 10-12 will be played round robin, and I said that 12+
will use elimination rounds. So I've said contradictory things about what
we'll do with 12 people. I have now removed the inconsistency by going
with round robin for 12 people with three rounds of four, four, and three
games. This would allow everyone to play 11 games. Anything above 12 will
keep the maximum number of games at 11, while allowing all the strongest
players to play each other, by using elimination rounds.

If we go with elimination rounds, I am considering making only the second
an elimination round, allowing everyone to play at least 8 games. If 13 or
more sign up, then I will let everyone in the tournament vote on the
matter, with any abstention counting as a vote for what I originally said
I would do.

thanks, i sent you email fergus.

There are a few rules that aren't clear to me, and these should probably
be nailed down before the tournament begins.

1) In Eurasian Chess, if a pawn on the ninth rank is immobile due to a
dearth of captured pieces, can it still give check?

2) The rules of Chessgi seem to allow dropping a pawn on the first rank,
but they do not state how it may move from there. I can think of six
sensible rules: a pawn on the first rank could step forward one, up to
two, or up to three squares, and in any of these cases a pawn moving from
the first rank to the second could either retain or lose the right to step
forward two squares on its next move. Regardless of which rule is correct,
I assume that the en passant rule is applied in the logical way.

3) There is also the issue of the precedence of victory conditions in
Maxima, currently being discussed on that game's page.

The rules for Chessgi and Eurasian Chess have been programmed into the new
presets. So, even if you were unsure of the rules, you couldn't move
illegally. Michael Howe gave you an accurate answer for Chessgi. In
Eurasian Chess, the rule is that a Pawn may not check a King unless it can
promote. 

I originally based the promotion rules in Eurasian Chess on those in Grand
Chess, and in programming both games in the same timeframe, I came to
notice some disparities between them that I hadn't paid attention to
before. In particular, in Grand Chess, a Pawn may check the King even if
it can't promote. I'm considering changing the rules of Eurasian Chess
to more exactly match the promotion rules of Grand Chess, including
allowing optional promotion on the eighth and ninth ranks, but I'll let
this tournament be a trial run with the original promotion rules of
Eurasian Chess.

As for Maxima, Roberto Lavieri can answer your questions.

Fergus, 

I'm not sure if you received my email.  My preference is simple: I'd
like to play a game of Pocket Mutation, as I invented it. Apart from that,
all are good games and I would be happy to be assigned however works out
the best for the tournament.