< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1037 OF 1037 ·
|Nov-16-17|| ||MissScarlett: All but one of these games are marked as rapid, when they should be blitz:|
Champions Showdown: Carlsen-Ding (Rapid G/10) (2017)
Someone posted the relevant link to FIDE regulations, but it's confirmed by https://2700chess.com/blitz, albeit most of the blitz games were disregarded for some nonsensical reason.
|Nov-16-17|| ||chessgames.com: <Hello Boss Daniel Freeman.. Why am I as a member getting commercials?> You shouldn't be but it's possible there is a coding error. Please be more specific. Give a link to the page.|
|Nov-16-17|| ||chessgames.com: <MissScarlett: All but one of these games are marked as rapid, when they should be blitz> Yes I suppose you're right—by FIDE definitions, it's right on the cutoff between blitz and rapid. For technical reasons I was waiting for the event to finish before changing the title of the event.|
|Nov-16-17|| ||chessgames.com: Recently we underwent a small change, yet a big change.|
We've abandoned the practice of naming the files of our players after their names, e.g. no more garrykasparov.jpg or robertjamesfischer.jpg — now it's simply the Chessgames PID.
For example if you go pay a visit to Max Lange and right-click on his graphic, you'll find it takes you to http://www.chessgames.com/f/15965.jpg. What this means, of course, is that the OTHER Max Lange won't display his photo automatically, and what's more we can have two different photos for people with identical names.
This is a sort of behind-the-scenes change that shouldn't affect the user experience, but if it does, please let us know how.
|Nov-17-17|| ||zanzibar: <chessgames> Probably a good change.|
Now, can we get the player names in collated format (aka FIDE format, i.e. <last, first>)?
A user setting would allow for individual games to have the names in the old format, if for some (bizarre) reason they preferred it in the PGN.
But such a change is much needed, would allow much greater and easier cross-checking with other sites, and greatly facilitate uploading new games.
What say you?
Now's the Time.
|Nov-17-17|| ||Tabanus: <it's right on the cutoff between blitz and rapid> 10 minutes is very clearly defined as blitz, see http://www.fide.com/component/handb...|
<the title of the event> But you have 7 events. I still hope you will merge them all, so that the table at Game Collection: Champions Showdown 2017 could be added to the bio. I could also add a short explanatory text (in my dubious, but editable, English).
<a small change> Looks like an improvement to me! I suppose 15965 is a pid - what about the tids? ;)
|Nov-17-17|| ||offramp: Do you ever watch The Apprentice? In this country the hirer/firer is Lord Alan Sugar. I'm not sure who did the American version....|
Anyway, right at the start of each series the teams have a short conference to decide on a name.
I think we should do that with the chessgames challenge. <Team White v Team Black> is very dull; very boring names.
The only good thing about it is it lets me make my gag about "Team White had White last time, so now <it's Team Black's turn."
|Nov-17-17|| ||zanzibar: To reiterate <Tab>'s post:|
<Appendix B. Blitz
A ‘blitz’ game’ is one where all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of 10 minutes or less for each player; or the allotted time plus 60 times any increment is 10 minutes or less.>
Full spec from FIDE handbook.
|Nov-17-17|| ||chessgames.com: <offramp: Do you ever watch The Apprentice?> |
I saw an American episode ages ago, and thought it was the stupidest thing I ever saw. It pretends to teach the viewer business acumen — but then pits teams on a contrived contest (to see who could sell the most hamburgers) in which absolutely no business sense was required. I believe the winning team was the one who incurred the greatest losses. Good thing the star of that show found another job, because he was terrible as a TV personality.
Anyhow, I suppose you are saying that we should allow the teams to vote on their names? It sounds fun but I never considered how such a voting mechanism would work.
|Nov-17-17|| ||chessgames.com: <Tabanus: <it's right on the cutoff between blitz and rapid> 10 minutes is very clearly defined as blitz> Yes, that's what I meant by "right on the cutoff" — if it was 10 minutes and 1 second per side, it wouldn't be blitz. As it stands, you're right, it's blitz. I'll go in and change the name of the event as well as the gametypes.|
|Nov-17-17|| ||chessgames.com: <Now, can we get the player names in collated format (aka FIDE format, i.e. <last, first>)?>|
Well for starters, it's not <last, first> — it's actually <surname, given name>.
But to answer your question: we're working on it. Before a solution can be proposed there is an extensive list of issues to address:
• Players without first names. (e.g. "Garcia")
• Players without last names. (e.g. "Stockfish")
• Players with first or last names that are not known to us. (e.g. "Judy")
• Players with multiple last names, only one of which is in current use. (e.g. any married/remarried women)
• Players with last names that are commonly truncated (e.g. you rarely see Capablanca y Graupera used, but that is indeed his last name.)
• Players who's surname is displayed first because of the conventions of their country (e.g. Hou Yifan, Ding Liren, etc.)
• How do we distinguish between Westernized names and the "properly" written name? (e.g. Réti vs Reti)
• What ever will become of Flight Engineer and Science Officer Greg Chamitoff?
OK the last one was a joke, but there are a lot of circumstances to cover so it's not a one-day hack-job. Some of those situations seem to have very easy answers while others are more thorny. It will come, and we're going to do it better than FIDE.
If you have some spare time here's a somewhat amusing overview on the topic: <Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names> http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17...
|Nov-17-17|| ||offramp: <chess games.com: <offramp: Do you ever watch The Apprentice?>
<... I suppose you are saying that we should allow the teams to vote on their names? It sounds fun but I never considered how such a voting mechanism would work.>>|
Yes. I am primarily saying that I don't like the Team White/Black names. I am on Team White but there have been dozens of other Team Whites in the past. I feel no connection to them.
Couldn't you use the voting mechanism used in the Caissars to select a name? It would occupy the week prior to move 1.
Then, instead of Team White v Team Black (2017) as a game we might have
<TEAM TUNGUSKA v TEAM KRAKATOA>.
Whoah! That is so cool!
|Nov-17-17|| ||Tabanus: CG, just in case, you have probably seen this site before but I noticed it only today:|
|Nov-17-17|| ||zanzibar: <<CG> Well for starters, it's not <last, first> — it's actually <surname, given name>.>|
Let's not get distracted on this...
Let's make it easy on you to start - where FIDE card has a comma in the name, <CG> should just copy their convention.
Next - I'll make a volunteer mapping of all those players who are in Z-base (i.e. all major historical *tournament* players up to 1898).
That should be enough to get the wheels rolling.
A quick word about Capablanca -
<CG> has three names for each player, iirc. A short name, used in HTML tables, a full name, used in the PGN, and a long name, used on the player bio pages.
I'm mostly interested in the PGN names, so the complications of "y Graupera" can be relegated to the bio pages. There the "collation" name could just show up as a header name - the full name, with full UTF-8 encoding could be given in the first line of the bio (I still suggest ASCII encoding for the PGN at the moment, for maximal compatibility).
In fact, I like the wiki convention where the player's name is also given in their native script (Cyrillic, Mandarin, Greek, whatever).
BTW- If the player uses Chinese or Hungarian conventions as their preference then their full name = collation name, and its obvious from the fact that the collation name doesn't have a comma.
The present of the comma makes for an easy and obvious transformation from collation format to "<CG>" format.
<Flight Engineer and Science Officer Greg Chamitoff>
is given as
Flight Engineer and Science Officer Greg>
Certainly, a reasonable first pass, I think.
|Nov-17-17|| ||chessgames.com: <Tabanus: CG, just in case, you have probably seen this site before but I noticed it only today:
Thank you for that, wow, what a great site!
|Nov-17-17|| ||heuristic: <cg>
is there a separate forum for stockfish analysis?
i'm still confused about it's usage.
L Steiner vs Koblents, 1937
how does anyone know that there is analysis at specific moves?
also, do you cache the analysis on a per-game basis or per-fen? if the latter; is it in one ginormous SQL (ala opening explorer)
also, can one access one's own previous analyses?
|Nov-17-17|| ||zanzibar: Being a bit curious, I tried to look up a little more info about live.followchess.com.|
Here's some stats about the website:
It's a low volume site from Mumbai India.
There's also some technical(?) discussion about the site here:
I think it maybe first showed up in 2014 (at least on Wayback)
|Nov-17-17|| ||zanzibar: BTW- just for the record, I think
<Chamitoff, Flight Engineer and Science Officer Greg>
should be shortened to
<Chamitoff, Greg> in the PGN.
I think I commented over on his page about this - after all, we normally don't carry honorary titles in names (so, it's <Tarrasch, Siegbert> and not <Tarrasch, Dr. Siegbert>).
|Nov-18-17|| ||Timi: chessgames.com chessforum I think White's 24th move from the game Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2001 is the perfect Sunday Puzzle|
|Nov-18-17|| ||chessgames.com: <heuristic>
<is there a separate forum for stockfish analysis?>
Sorry, no, but maybe there should be.
<i'm still confused about it's usage.>
Don't blame yourself, the documentation is lacking. But just to make sure you've read what precious little there is, not only does Premium Membership Help Page mention how to use some basic functions, the Analysis Laboratory has a <NEED HELP?> area where you can click and get a multi-paragraph explanation of some details.
<for L Steiner vs Koblents, 1937 how does anyone know that there is analysis at specific moves?> It doesn't show which moves have analysis. The opening moves surely will have analysis, later in the game it depends on whether anybody requested it.
If the entire game is analyzed it will say "COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE [CLICK HERE]" and you'll find that there is not only a Stockfish "annotation" of the game but also if you pull up any given position and click the "ENGINE" link, analysis pops up immediately. (The fact that there is no wait is the clue that it's been precomputed.)
<also, do you cache the analysis on a per-game basis or per-fen? if the latter; is it in one ginormous SQL (ala opening explorer)>
Good question. It's on a per-FEN basis, and that table is indeed ginormous, although we trim it back sometimes by removing very short (6/15 second) evaluations when they become older than 30 days. However, when an entire game has been analyzed from start to finish, a special "Stockfish annotation PGN" is stored alongside the original PGN.
There are some interesting consequences of this technique. For example if you analyze an entire game it can take hours before you get the results back. Now if you take interest in one specific move, you can go analyze that move (FEN) for an hour. Now go back and request your full-game analysis. It doesn't take hours, it takes a few seconds (sometimes less than a second!) — it simply takes your new analysis and integrates it into the annotated PGN. You aren't even charged Fuel for the second full-game request since the system didn't need to call Stockfish.
<also, can one access one's own previous analyses?> The last 30 days appear on your Analysis Laboratory.
Incidentally, if you have a customized chess menu at the top of the screen, you might consider going to the Menu Configuration Page and adding the "Laboratory" link.
|Nov-18-17|| ||zanzibar: <chessgames> wonder if you ever considered volunteers submitting their own Stockfish analyzed games from home for integration into your DB.|
That way you could farm out CPU cycles on a global basis.
|Nov-18-17|| ||chessgames.com: <Timi> Thanks for the suggestion — I loved it when I first saw it — but as is often the case, it doesn't seem to stand up to computer scrutiny: |
Kramnik vs Kasparov, 2001 - analysis of move 24.?
|Nov-18-17|| ||chessgames.com: <zanzibar> We've considered doing it on a FEN basis, e.g. Random Visitor can "donate" one of his astounding 50+ ply searches of some opening position or famous game position. Then we replace whatever analysis we have with his.|
Of course I trust RV implicitly but how to prevent trolls/jokers from uploading bunk analysis? I suppose it could be doled out on a individual basis, sort of like Chessgames Editor status.
|Nov-18-17|| ||zanzibar: <chessgames> tagging the contribution by registered user name with timestamp should be sufficient.|
A user flag would allow users to filter out such contributions, at their discretion.
If someone abused the system a simple reporting mechanism should be sufficient to allow a quick scrubbing of bad contributions.
I'd anticipate that > 99% of the contributions would be from <cormier> and <AylerKupp> anyways!
|Nov-22-17|| ||whiteshark: All <<So> vs <Carlsen> games of 2017> labelled <Chess.com Bullet Speed Chess Championship>* should be altered/refer to Chess.com Speed Chess Championship (2017)|
*Carlsen game # 2650-2683
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1037 OF 1037 ·