1) get your browser to the show the page source

2) search for 'me="reply' (without the single ticks)

3) stop by the correct post and read the digits following 'reply'

:o)

i'm perfectly aware that you could do this easily (without relying on the search method), but i honestly think most chess players should be able to, too. of course, if cg.com could've found a way to more easily show users the yet "untranslated" link, it would be better.

btw, the translated (pid=&kpage=) link <also> has the anchor in it - if one has just followed a link one wants to share. see the one on this page for instance, if you follow a link here. the translated address becomes

http: //www.chessgames.com/perl/ chessplayer?pid=101612&kpage=197#reply5550

hence, the problem should be solved in those cases (where you know the reply-number) simply by changing which script on the server to call:

chessplayer?pid=101612&kpage=197#reply5550
is changed to
kibitzing?kid=101612&reply=5550

I realise now that if I copy a link that I found by "search kibitzing", that link works only for me... I haven't posted many links like that, but I have been mildly annoyed by all those useless links that other people post. Presumably they have been using the same method, unaware that the links are useless.

However, your link converter fixes the problem. I will test it some more tonight and see if I find some fault with it :-)

I guess one problem is that people may still post links that only include the player ID and the page reference, like this one:

Hans Arild Runde

Jepp. En gratulasjon er på plass - i forhold til hvordan du har klart å ignorere mange fjols det siste året. Og enda mer imponerende hvis du som folk flest har "jukset" litt og tyvtittet ;)

Som vi har sett og opplevd funker det dessverre ikke å overse enkelte forskrudde stalkere, men over tid viser det seg at de fleste av også disse tilfellene går seg til.

mi "tjuvtitting" er forøvrig avgrensa til det som måtte dukke opp på framsida (pop-upen du får når du let musepeikaren kvile over ein side-link) og det som einskilde siterer av mine favorittars gullkorn.

elles, b, så er eg ikkje samd i at lommelegen har funne ein måte å drive personangrep på som ikkje bryt retningslinjene. slik eg ser det, er det heilt klart eit brot på desse når begge desse to punkta er oppfylt (på ein og same gong):

1) avsendars intensjon er å begå eit personangrep, og

2) mottakar oppfattar og føler det som eit personangrep

det er både komisk, barnsleg og latterleg når ein viss person gjentatte gongar triumferer over at ymse innlegg frå såså-gruppa blir fjerne medan hans eigne "bidrag" blir ståande - akkurat som om kva cg.coms to hovudadministratorar finn for godt å slette inneber ein implisitt aksept og godkjenning av alt anna.

men som eg skreiv på forumet til d/g så er det rimeleg bortkasta å bruke tid og krefter på dei fleste som nyttar mesteparten av tids si her på personkonflikter og maktkamp av ymse slag. det siste inkluderer også lommelegen, som i sin iver etter å kontrollere denne staden minner meir og meir om einskilde representarar for ferjemannskapa på vestlandet, nærare bestemt dei som dirigerer ombordkøyring og plassring av bilar; dei har fått <så> lite makt, og må følgjeleg utnytte den til det ytterste. i seinare tid har fenomenet blitt mindre pga fleire fastlandssamband og større ferger der nitidig stokking av bilar er mindre aktuelt - men barndomsminna frå småfergene på bilturar på (nord-)vestlandet er ganske levande. :o)

wijk aan zee, ja. det er vel ikkje det at eg mislikar tipping veldig sterkt - det er vel meir at eg "mislikar" at folk ikkje veit kva dei gjer når dei tippar, og så "får rett" i etterkant. eg kan til dømes seie at det er 10% sjanse for A, 20% sjanse for B og 70% sjanse for C, og så tippar du at det blir A - og hevdar etterpå at du hadde rett og at eg tok feil.

tilbake til wijk... magnus er forventa å ta 8,04 poeng på dei 13 partia, og det vil faktisk seie at +4 (8,5/13 el. 8,5-4,5 om du vil) er det minste han kan score for å unngå å ned i rating, medan +3 er det nærmaste han teoretisk kan kome "forventa" score basert på ratingen og elo-systemet.

+4 skulle vel då vere eit godt tips - det blir neppe meir enn eit halvpoeng feil nokon veg; med unntak av den "dårlege" turneringa i 2009 har magnus scora anten 8 eller 8,5 poeng, og det bør han greie igjen - sjølv om årets utgave kanskje er den sterkaste på lenge.

likevel, når ein ser på kva spelarar som er med, til dømes topalov, ivanchuk, nakamura og van wely, så er dette normalt ei turnering der ingen bør ha så gode sjansar om magnus. i tillegg manglar kramnik og anand (som i snitt berre betyr 50% for magnus, også i nyare tid). basert på scoringshistorikk (der denne er signifikant, dvs. eg ser bort frå -1 mot giri, som ikkje betyr noko) ville moglegvis magnus blitt ein endå større favoritt enn basert på rating åleine.

<eit brot på desse når begge desse to punkta er oppfylt (på ein og same gong):

1) avsendars intensjon er å begå eit personangrep, og

2) mottakar oppfattar og føler det som eit personangrep> Jepp. <Burre> har rett i at man prøver å omgå "lovens bokstav" ved å stigmatisere grupper for ikke å navngi enkeltpersoner. "Sløkket", som vi sier i Bergen.

Nettopp. "Logikken" synes å være slik:

Jeg fastslår at person A innehar en rekke negative egenskaper. Jeg fastslår samtidig at A tilhører gruppe X.

Dette betyr at de negative egenskapene til A finnes i X.

Som selvoppnevnt politikonstabel står Jeg nå fritt til å slenge dritt om gruppe X, og på den måten unngår jeg å angripe A direkte. Dette er, ifølge samme geniale logikk, ikke et brudd på reglene.

Jeg kan dra det lenger, ved samtidig å definere <meg selv> som medlem av en annen gruppe. La oss si at jeg tilhører "gruppen av hvite østlendinger", og at jeg fastslår at rogge er en "hatefull vestlending". Hvis rogge sier noe stygt om meg, følger det at "hatefulle vestlendinger angriper hvite østlendinger."

rolfo, eh ... vi snakka om eit evt. <tap> i det 9. partiet (dvs. med 8 remisar, som du sa var maks):

I'm running an elo-rating thingy for my high school chess team. Floor is 1200. I use the FIDE ratings change calculator.

I've been told that my ratings will "go flat" unless, at intervals, I inject points into the system somehow. If that is true, how would I inject the points?

hi, bmulligan! the exact development in your rating pool will depend on its dynamics: which players enter the pool, which players leave the pool, etc. your correction mechanics will need to depend on those dynamics, but i don't think injecting points "at intervals" sounds like a good idea. only when/if one observes a certain tendency should countermeasures be taken, but they should be of a "continous" kind, hopefully stabilizing the system incrementally, not by periodic, "global" adjustments.

you mentioned a rating floor: is that the uscf kind of floor (which people can't fall through), or is it the fide kind, which simply is a cut-off for lowest rating possible to have; if you go below that lower floor you simply lose your rating in fide.

<You are losing in real time, just like you always do. You cannot hold your own with me.>

what kind of competition is this, i wonder?

<The residual hate group is down to five, and I have the handle on all five.>

some kind of war? a man hunt? are we approaching the day of doom? what's the gospel being preached? do we have a saviour, maybe?

<You are the root of all this evil madness.>

that sounds scary. almost like the devil.

<You cyberstalked my chessforum multiple times, and you cyberbullied many individuals all over this site.>

what kind of person would do anything like that; stalking. bullying. relentlessly. all over this site.

<You spent the last six months desperately trying to "fix" the Wesley So page>

are there regular kibitzers who try to "fix" cg.com - i mean, like "fixing" certain kibitzers or specific pages? wouldn't that be a task for the admins?

<Kibitzers on this site are expected to mind the Posting Guidelines, creating permanent messages which don't contain personal attacks against other users. You should try it sometime.>

"Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye (Matt. 7:1-5)."

---

<The site's role is to enforce the Posting Guidelines>

only the site's role? what about the old guard's role?

<Based on this cycle, I will propose that all future site awards only involve Premium Members>

but of course. that makes sense. otherwise the wrong people might receive awards, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

<The whole purpose of the site awards is to be nominated.>

winning the award doesn't matter? seriously? let's skip the voting process then. even if it will increase the importance of getting the nominations "right".

<Never underestimate the old guard.>

this year 10 of 10 winners so far are also previous winners of the site awards. i don't think "the old guard" is being underestimated at all. still, a new category for "strongest old guard" or "best undercover policeman" could possibly be considered just to make sure that nothing bad happens.

the old guard needs proper recognition. where would cg.com be without volunteers to lead the righteous fight?

---

---

<I'd been thinking along other, more sociological lines: the problems generated by a group of posters who (a) [...] (b) [...] (c)>

<Unfortunately - because aggressive behavior is often still rewarded in such societies - silent majorities tend to stay silent. That leaves only excommunication.>

starting with the latter quote first, connecting it to your belief that blowing the whistle on posts represents a fruitful/useful response to repeat-offenders of stalking, bullying and other <targetted attacks> (i.e. where a group or an individual keeps attacking <the same> person or group of kibitzers over a prolonged period of time - months, years):

if looking closely i think you'll see that there are and have been several quite different groups and individuals who have exposed what you refer to as "aggressive behaviour". i've experienced that kind of relentless aggression from multiple attackers here on this site, and while the bw has represented the biggest <count> of kibitzers, the 3 worst repeat offenders are/were all individuals and not part of any group per se.

when anyone makes it a goal to bother you and are relentless about it, it actually only contributes to their perceived success that you spend time and energy fighting their actions; literally pretending that they don't exist is the most effective means to avoid providing more incentives for their bullying. you can liken this to sticking my head in the sand all you want - i'll still claim it's quite a rational thing to do, in this context. also, as i already said, as long as the registration mechanisms here are what they are, even excommunication/bans only leads to reincarnation.

[at one point multiple bw guys kept spamming my player page with nonsense, which is the "historical" reason why around one third of the people on my ignore list are from bw, sometimes in multiple reincarnations - and i also have from 3-5 editions of a couple other stalkers on my list who either were banned and returned, "hidden" in a new robe, or who simply have taken on new names to circumvent the ignore option.]

now, i think the idea that only certain "societies", and implicitly (?) mostly primitive ones, reward aggressive behaviour simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. in fact, i think maybe most people avoid challenging "authorities" and others who wield some kind of apparent power that they at least occasionally choose to use - and then use aggressively. other people are simply silent in order not to hurt their own (personal) relationships in any way. this is how it is in the world at large, and i think it's like this also on chessgames.com. the majority of the <entire> chessgames.com society tend to stay silent when some kind of aggression does not target themselves.

as i see it, the will to use "power" and act "aggressively" is present in many camps around this place, the only real difference being the reasoning used to justify it. unfortunately also here it seems like some people think that "for the good cause" anything can be accepted; the cause justifies the means. this is a line of (military/political) thinking that stems from the real world too. however, this is maybe <the most dangerous phenomenon> there is, both here and irl: when someone is convinced that they are fighting the just battle - "we are the good guys, we lead the good fight" - it's even easier to go blind and lose sight of what you're actually doing. and those few who might have been able to provide some corrective typically stay silent for some reason or other.

it's not hard to find frightening examples of what "soldiers fighting for the good cause" might end up doing in the real world. being "the good guys", representing the right belief, morality, higher values and a more advanced society, the enemy becomes thugs - bad guys with wrong beliefs and values, representing some primitive, lower-level way of life that had it coming; are they even real humans? we've seen pictures from war zones where the good guys seemingly must have gone a good ways towards taking all features of humanity away from their enemies. if they didn't, i can't imagine how else they could've gone through with what they seemingly did.