BIG BAD WOLF: Well, I obviously have not expressed clearly enough. When looking on my profile I can see the tournaments I am participating in, but not the one I have created.

Why I cannot see those tournaments I have created when not participating myself? They are of course interesting for me, too.

to reza: I am surprised finding me being a subject of a cheating discussion here. Why not simply ask me directly?

a) Before participating in a tournament I am asking its creator under which conditions I would be welcomed or not. If not accepted I am simply not participating. Concerning the most actual GC tournament I have been explicitly invited.
b) If I would use the assistance of my unready and still error containing growing Smirf engine, it is merely a form of organizing my own experiences. Others will use databases of their commented game notations, books or take help from third persons or use unmentioned bought programs. But instead I am relying simply only on MY OWN means.
c) It is no secret what I am doing. I have it openly documented in my profile, that I will mostly be testing a self written engine.
d) Moreover I am mostly waiting to be invited for to play a game, thinking the invitor will have seen and read my profile.

What more can I do than to make those details open and clear for everybody instead of preferring a secret use?

to bwildman: No reason for that. Because I am just about to write such an engine, I tend to use such criteria to characterize variants. It is clear that most people would use very different approaches to group or separate chess variants.

to bwildman: Of course castling is valid in FRC / Chess960. But because an FRC engine should support all valid FRC-FEN positions it automatically would support all variants without castlings, too. Some engines are limited to support a maximum of 16 pieces a color. But Smirf is able to have the complete board filled with pieces. Thus it could support a lot of variants based on 8x8 standard or 10x8 extended Capablanca piece set. May be it would be better to separate Fortress Chess, because it has more than 16 pieces a color?

to Dresden:

Corner Chess and Fortress Chess are best to be compared with special types of Shuffle Chess because of the missing castling ability. Smirf could handle those and FRC too. Thus it could be accepted to join their boards in a kind of FRC Compatibility Group

to grenv:

Indeed I flawed my proposal compared to an optimal one. This I have done because of its easier programmability. It seems to be more important to me to describe a workable solution instead of an idea which needs more loopings and repetitions.

to EdTrice:

I think it could be handled like following:

a) find from those players with all games completed one with the most points
b) the table is complete for decision if for all participants with missing games would hold for each that when his missing games would be wins he could not reach that points from a)

Because the games will not be finished simultaneously during a tournament the "Points" file often is misleading. It would be better to have a PPFG file: points per finished game, where 0/0 is set to PPFG = 0 by definition.

to Walter Montego:

Well Smirf is supporting the basics of PGN. That is that games based on 8x8 standard chess or 10x8 extended capablanca piece set could be saved and loaded. Actually e.g. Janus Chess, Chess, Chess960, Gothic Chess (if enabled by a key) and Capablanca Random Chess could be filed as PGN also enabling comments but not yet additional move variants within a game. Additionally a lot of other chess variants could be supported, if they simply are using a different starting array.

To get an impression of Smirf's abilities you could download a restricted beta version from:
http://www.chessbox.de/beta.html Project Chronicle 2004-Dec-10