Shortest-proof-game challenge

^ Any time zone is fine, as is giving no exact time at all - I was only making a suggestion, not a controversial rule

Plus, the whole thread's gonna die if the next round gets delayed much longer. My guess is that browni has been waiting for some of these ambiguities to be ironed out before starting up the next round, so the issue on whether to allow textual problems (as proposed by stubborn_d0nkey) should just be put to a vote.

For the sake of expedience, the voting starts now and will end in 48 hours, so you don't have much time (assuming you care either way, of course ). Feel free to discuss it first, but in 2 days the votes will be in, one way or the other, so that we can get moving again .

I vote no, for the reasons I explained before, but I'm willing to take it either way.

One vote in with just 24 hours to go... this is starting to resemble the eighth round a bit, eh?

The deadline isn't changing, though - if time runs out and no other votes have come in, then the rule will remain as "diagrams only" indefinitely (unless another valid proposal is made at some point), all because of a single vote!

I suggest that we can make stubborn_donkey's type of problem optional, but not mandatory. It's nice to have variety. Also, do you mind if I pass off the problem posting privelege to donkey? I want to see his problem and I don't have one ready.

I vote yes. As far as my vote counts for anything 

I doubt that anyone thinks that they should be mandatory; the vote is on whether or not they should be allowed as an option.

'Course I don't mind ;)  But if the majority votes "no" on allowing textual problems, then stubborn_d0nkey would need to post a diagram, instead of the problem he had in mind.

The 48 hours are up, but unfortunately we have a tie, with 1 "yes" vote and 1 "no" vote. So as much as I hate to delay round 10 further, it will have to wait until another vote comes in (the next vote will decide the issue immediately).

no

Unless you're not counting my vote because I didn't explicitly say "yes", then it should be 2 yes, 1 no, or if you count jet's it's 2 yes, 2 no.

If you are counting both votes, I vote no.

Well, if they aren't allowed, can stubborn_d0nkey message me with his problem?

Well, you didn't make it altogether clear that you were actually voting, but if you were then I guess it wasn't really a tie. And without a tie, it makes little sense to count any votes that came in after the initially specified deadline, so the final count is 1 "no" vote and 2 "yes" votes. This means that, starting with round 10, whoever has won the privilege to start a round may post a [non-ambiguous] set of conditions to be met (in addition to the option of sticking with the usual diagram format). To win such rounds one must merely reach a position satisfying the conditions in  fewer moves than anyone else (at the end of one week from when the problem was given, as before).

I apologize for not counting these votes, but the time limit was clearly specified in post #131. I realize you only voted because there seemed to be a tie, but still...why didn't you vote earlier?! I hope you'll both compete in future rounds anyway, though - we don't have a lot of participants at the moment.

Why hasn't round 10 started yet? Where is stubborn_d0nkey? Does he not know that the right to give the next position/description was passed off to him? Or does he not yet know that the rule change regarding textual problems has already been voted through? If stubborn_d0nkey doesn't post this problem of his soon, then browni3141 should come up with something, since he won the last round.

At this point I think it's fairly safe to say that stubborn_d0nkey has simply abandoned the thread, so I'd appreciate it if browni3141 would either message stubborn_d0nkey in some way, create some sort of position/textual problem for the next round, or appoint someone else to do so ASAP.

Sorry, I haven't really been following the thread the past couple days. stubborn_d0nkey messaged me with his problem, but I think it may be too difficult for casual enjoyment. It would require some research on the 8 queens problem if you don't already know what it is.

"Each side has to have 8 queens and a king. Each set of queens by themselves have to be a solution to the 8 queens problem and neither king can be in check(mate)."

The more I think about it though the more I think it won't be too hard. Finding the position is the hard part, getting there isn't so hard.

^ It would still be better than nothing :(

EDIT: Oops, I see you added the problem to the previous post just as I typed this. Lol... well, this should be an interesting round, anyway :p

EDIT 2: Clarification will be needed on whether extra material is allowed (besides the 8 queens and king for each side).

I think the intent was for each side to have 8 queens and a king, and nothing more. That is what is expected here.

Only 2 days remaining, people!  

Since round 10 is almost over and the 1st attempt has yet to be made, I think I'll give this one a shot and see what happens =D

Okay - here's a rushed and rather sloppy attempt for everyone to beat: