< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 197 OF 197 ·
|Apr-22-18|| ||chessgames.com: <Sorry, my mistake, no pages are missing> Good, you had me worried.|
|Apr-24-18|| ||WannaBe: <CG.com> I think I mentioned this a while back, and want to follow up, maybe its a project that requires manual work, instead of being done by technology.|
Can tournaments/events that spans multi-years have a link to previous and next, like kibitz'n pages, or maybe even possible, jump to box?
Example: If I am viewing 2018 US Championship, and I want to go to 2012, (jump to box) or if someone is viewing 2015 Gibraltar (this tournament page would have Previous and Next) and want to go to 2016.
If the tournament for that year does not exist, it would display an error. Like if someone had a typo and entered 1012 for US Championship instead of 2011.
|Apr-24-18|| ||chessgames.com: WannaBe, in way we've tackled that problem, and in a way we haven't.|
Here's how we've tackled it. Suppose you're on the page for the 4th Euwe Memorial (1990). You may wonder if we have a page for the 3rd Euwe Memorial. You guess it was in 1989 but you're not even sure of that. You may also want to learn more about the 5th (assuming there was one.)
Luckily, our tireless CG editors have already written into the introductory article many links to the previous and next events, if they exist. In this case the page reads:
<The 3rd Euwe Memorial (1989) and 5th Euwe Memorial (1991) were the previous and next tournaments in this series.>
Note that one is a link and the other isn't. That means that one is in the Tournament Index and the other (probably) isn't.
Clearly there are some problems with this approach. One, it relies on humans, so it's fallible. The CG editors don't always do this, and sometimes the tournament is added and nobody thinks to go update the adjacent events. And the format is never quite the same.
Also, not everybody knows to look at the bottom of the article. And we can't have neat little left and right arrows. And you can only go one forward and one backward.
Also it's important to note, if you're stuck on #3, and there is a #6 but #5 is absent, you're stuck on an island. (You can't leap to #6 no matter what you do.)
There's no page where you can see all the events in the group. There's no way that groups can have subgroups, even though that's how most very large events are structured. I think we all agree, it's not a perfect solution.
I can suggest a very robust solution, but it's complex, so I'll save it for another post.
|Apr-24-18|| ||chessgames.com: Imagine if tournament relationships could be defined in a text file, something like this:|
((73476 73627) (73477 85467) 73478)
Or, perhaps it's best in expanded format with helpful comments, shown below. Everything after a semicolon is just exposition to assist in future editing of the file.
( ; US Championship 2011
(73476 ;Group A
73627 ;Knock-Out Final
(73477 ;Group B
85467 ;Group B Play-Off
Now the software will get this string <(73476 (73477 85467) 73478 73627)> and see that the events are:
US Championship (Group A) (2011)
US Championship (Knock-out) (2011)
US Championship (Group B) (2011)
US Championship (Group B play-off) (2011)
US Championship (Women) (2011)
Based on that, it already knows that the entire group can be rightly labeled "US Championship" with a year of "2011".
Technically this event has 3 elements (Group A, Group B, and Women) — not 5 groups, as two of the elements are subgroups.
If nothing else, this would allow us to automatically create a small link complex that shows something like this, without the need for CG editors to toil:
US CHAMPIONSHIP (2011)
< Group A | Knock-Out > < Group B | Play-Off > < Women >
But wait, it gets better. Imagine that all of our US Championships are set up in the format shown above. Now it's a simple matter of putting parentheses around all of them, so it looks like
( ;*** US Championships ***
72731; Showalter-Judd 1891
81337 ; 1962
79231 ; 1963/64
81336 ; 1966
(73476 ;Group A
73627 ;Knock-Out Final
(73477 ;Group B
85467 ;Group B Play-Off
(Imagine it much longer than that, filling in "..." with countless US Championship data.)
Now we've declared that all of these tournaments, some of which are groups of tournaments unto themselves, we've defined a new "supergroup" called "US Championship (1891-2018)". One payoff would be link complexes that would naturally expand and collapse as you navigate. Any tournament could easily offer links to related tournament, whether they were concurrent or previous/next.
It might seem like a lot of effort to make some helpful links, but I think it will payoff in countless other ways as well.
|Apr-24-18|| ||Tabanus: Oops.
NB US Championship (Knock-out) (2011) is the final and Groups A and B are "sub-groups", I suppose.
|Apr-24-18|| ||chessgames.com: Duly noted, but let's not get mired in the details of this example tournament. The point is, a "tournament structure definition file" could settle issues like this once and for all.|
|Apr-24-18|| ||WannaBe: <CG.com> & <Tabanus> Thank you for the answer and input, I know this is not something that will happen tomorrow or next week. =))|
I just like the easy(ness) of being able to go from year-to-year in a tournament and see performance of a repeat player.
(I got the idea from Wiki pages, that lets you go from year to year, e.g. World Series Championship or Kentucky Derby...)
|Apr-25-18|| ||Tabanus: <Oops.> Because I had just entered "Previous edition" and "Next" on the US Ch's 2004-2018 when seeing CG's post.|
I'm planning to do the same for US Women's Ch, if it's OK.
|Apr-25-18|| ||whiteshark: <ceegee> Is there a special reason why the latest TCEC superfinal computer games (season 8-11/2015 onwards*) are not in the database? cover a huge variety of openings and are imo quite instructive when it comes to strategy...|
*except for an unknown diehard of Laser 11 (Computer) (lol, right?)
Just in case, here's the link to the TCEC archive: http://tcec.chessdom.com/archive.php
|Apr-25-18|| ||Stonehenge: <CG>
Can you please upload the games that are in the queue? Thanks in advance :)
|Apr-25-18|| ||Peligroso Patzer: Although this point was previously raised by <FSR> several days ago, there is still a duplicate of R Wojtaszek vs Mamedyarov, 2018 in the database for Gashimov Memorial (2018) . |
As usual, the duplication of this game is introducing an error into the standings presentation for the tournament.
|Apr-25-18|| ||chessgames.com: <I'm planning to do the same for US Women's Ch, if it's OK.> Oh, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just that with some effort we could make that obsolete. In the meantime we can do it this way. It's the same technique wikipedia uses: rolling up your sleeves.|
<Queue> Yes, we started yesterday after a break, more are coming.
|Apr-25-18|| ||chessgames.com: <Although this point was previously raised by <FSR> several days ago, there is still a duplicate> And to make matters worse, it's literally been deleted five times. |
You see, what's happening is that there are two valid formats of PGN when it comes to certain moves. In this case it's Nxb4 vs Ndxb4. (Both are acceptable, because although there is a knight on c6, it is pinned.) They provided the Nxb4 format and we accepted it. Then they provided the Ndxb4 format, and a duplicate was created. So we deleted the first one assuming they changed their mind.
Then the next day they go back to Nxb4. A day later, it's Ndxb4 again. Later in that day, back to the Nxb4. I can't account for why they do that. For now I'm just deleting the extraneous ones as they pop up.
I can think of some measures to prevent this from happening while the tournament takes place but it seems like a problem created out of bizarre practices.
|Apr-25-18|| ||Stonehenge: <it's literally been deleted five times.>|
"sorry, but if you say the word literally inside Continental, you have five minutes to finish your drink, and then you must leave."
|Apr-25-18|| ||WannaBe: <Stonehenge> That, is literally the best piece of news I have ever read.|
|Apr-25-18|| ||Tabanus: Previous and Next added back to US Women's Championship (2007). Before 2007 it seems there are no US Women's Ch's in CG.|
Oh CG, the plurals again. Lots of the US Championships (2007) kind with extra s.
|Apr-26-18|| ||Tabanus: Hmm, plurals gone? In one fell swoop? Aaaaaall right, I've updated the bio links :)|
<WannaBe> Happy now?
|Apr-26-18|| ||Tabanus: In Chessmaster US Championship 2005 (2004) all the games are from 2004. No other US Ch in 2004. There was no US Ch in 2005. Wiki: <Tournament was played in 2004, but called the 2005 Championship, for legal reasons> Rats. I guess we can call it 2004 now?|
|Apr-26-18|| ||chessgames.com: < Hmm, plurals gone? In one fell swoop? Aaaaaall right, I've updated the bio links :)> Yeah, more or less. After due consideration there aren't many cases where "Championships" would be correct. |
The one exception I ran into was what we call "Class Championships" (at least in the states) — usually it's a big open of players of all different ratings, and your placement in your rating category determines your prize. Sometimes states combine this with their state championship, but not always. Florida is one state where the events are separate. So it might wrongly say "Class Championship" in a few places where I didn't spot it by hand, but I think we can live with that. It will be easier to fix the exceptions than the typical cases.
<Aaaaaall right, I've updated the bio links :)> I was going to do that next; you beat me to it! I still need to write software to reprocess all the HTML from the bios, if I haven't already.
<Tournament was played in 2004, but called the 2005 Championship, for legal reasons> That sounds like a good wrinkle to confound people during a Christmas Klu! (It's never too early to gather ideas.) Anyhow if that's the case submit a correction slip and Sargon or I will handle it.
|Apr-26-18|| ||chessgames.com: I think "literally" is perfectly called for, even demanded, when you say something that could be construed as a figure of speech or an exaggeration. Like if I actually fell of my chair laughing, and bruised myself, I couldn't just say "I fell off my chair" — you'd think I was using an idiom.|
Likewise, I said "literally five times" because sometimes people just toss a large number out to emphasize their annoyance. (Related: "Why 39 is the funniest number." http://splitsider.com/2014/08/37-is...)
|Apr-26-18|| ||chessgames.com: Actually, given the facts of the situation that Tabanus described, labeling it Chessmaster US Championship 2005 (2004) might be the best approach. Yes, it looks weird, but the naming decision was weird.|
|Apr-26-18|| ||Tabanus: <<Aaaaaall right, I've updated the bio links :)> Yeah, more or less.>> Oh, I only updated the US Ch's. I'll literally have to look at the others as well then.|
<CG> Perhaps just delete "Chessmaster".
|Apr-26-18|| ||chessgames.com: <Perhaps just delete "Chessmaster".> |
Although I sometimes do it, it never makes me feel comfortable. After all, some company paid a lot of money to have their name attached to some historical chess event. Companies like that need to see that they made their mark on history, or they won't do it again, and we all want them to keep doing it. So we do our small part by calling things "Tata Steel" instead of simply "Wijk aan Zee" and so forth.
I know: it's not our solemn duty nor legal obligation—but it does convey a bit more information, so humanitarian considerations aside, it's only a feature.
That being said, it's a slippery slope. After all, there are always SOME sponsors. When exactly do they get "naming rights"? Naming the sponsor on one particular year and no others does appear odd.
|Apr-26-18|| ||Tabanus: I don't know the status of Chessmaster (Computer). The last CG game is from 2010, and kibitzing stops in 2011.|
|Apr-26-18|| ||WannaBe: Last release CM XI, was 11 years ago...
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 197 OF 197 ·