< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 737 OF 737 ·
|Aug-25-14|| ||chessgames.com: Thanks Annie and Tabanus.
<Stonehenge> Doh! Thanks.
|Aug-25-14|| ||chessgames.com: Many thanks to the anonymous member who just donated 3 years to the Rinus Scholarship. New count 15!|
|Aug-27-14|| ||technical draw: I can't renew my membership with my debit card. I guess they are not as good as a credit card,which should be the other way around. Ok, I still have a month to fiddle daddle,|
|Aug-27-14|| ||whiteshark: <technical drachm> Let me bail you out, my friend. Take mine:
|Aug-27-14|| ||technical draw: Sorry <whiteshark> your vice card is good for buying drugs only,|
|Aug-27-14|| ||Penguincw: Is it me, or do all the players have their age in their bio now? If yes, thanks then. :)|
|Aug-27-14|| ||Stonehenge: Not everyone is happy with it:
And problems like this will occur:
|Aug-27-14|| ||chessgames.com: Yes, we put player ages in biographies, just like Wikipedia does.|
|Aug-27-14|| ||chessgames.com: <Stonehenge> I can't deny that it's redundant, but I don't see the harm in doing the math for people. |
Ilijas Subasic is a fringe case; we don't have a lot of players with an unknown year of death. Those few situations could be solved by adding the year of death and noting in the biography that it's approximate.
If we were really ambitious we could have a "circa" checkbox next to dates, and then it could say he lived to be ~58 years old.
Anyhow, let's just try it out. I don't think it should inconvenience anybody.
|Aug-27-14|| ||WinKing: Are you going 'live' with the Sinquefield Cup?|
|Aug-27-14|| ||WinKing: I now see the 'live chess' sign flashing. Thank you chessgames!|
|Aug-27-14|| ||chessgames.com: You think we'd skip "the strongest chess tournament in history"?|
|Aug-27-14|| ||zanzibar: No hurry on reply, since hopefully everyone is watching an exciting live game right now. |
But since I'm in the neighborhood I was wondering about something...
<CG> has a couple of duplicated games for <Tromso Women's>, e.g.
< 2014.08.02 (R1.22) 0-1 Chelsie Monica Sihite -- Darlin Rocio Villar Acevedo (B18) 27
2014.08.02 (R1.22) 1-0 Chelsie Monica Sihite -- Darlin Rocio Villar Acevedo (B18) 27 >
C M Sihite vs Darlin Rocio Villar Acevedo, 2014 (1-0)
Almost certainly the first, White win, result is correct. But FIDE has the second result.
Since both <CG> games, and the <FIDE> game, give the game as 27 moves, it appears that <CG> does some kind of <post-production> to fix the result.
Now, maybe the <post-production> is done elsewhere, like at <TWIC>.
1) Can somebody explain exactly what <post-production> is being done?
2) Why isn't the stale game deleted afterwards?
|Aug-27-14|| ||Boomie: A comment from the Sharjah Grand Prix:
<virginmind: <cg.com> Alina Motoc and Alina L'Ami is one and the same person. Her name was Motoc until she married Erwin L'Ami a few years ago and so became Alina L'Ami.
I've noticed you're keeping separate player pages for <Motoc> and <L'Ami> - maybe you should do something about it.>
In the leaderboard is:
Alina L'Ami 0/2 (+0 -2 =0)
Alina Motoc 0/1 (+0 -1 =0)
|Aug-27-14|| ||chessgames.com: <Since both <CG> games, and the <FIDE> game, give the game as 27 moves, it appears that <CG> does some kind of <post-production> to fix the result.|
Now, maybe the <post-production> is done elsewhere, like at <TWIC>.
1) Can somebody explain exactly what <post-production> is being done?>
First, I don't understand the significance of 27 moves. Yes, the game was 27 moves long (both versions).
Anyhow, "post production" does take place--sometimes TWIC fixes up games and even helpfully adds tags. Sometimes we fix things up. But most likely in this case, FIDE first sent out one version and later sent out the other.
The logic of the game loader works like this: if the moves are different, or the result is different, it's regarded as a unique game and added to the database. Even if the players are the same, the round is the same, etc., we make a new game record.
<2) Why isn't the stale game deleted afterwards?> Perhaps you're thinking that the old version should be automatically removed, but that's a very dangerous idea. We can't assume that whatever copy of a game we're receiving today should replace the one in the database; it's entirely possible that the new version is the bogus one. You'd think that the second version is always a correction of the first, but it's not unheard of to see a good game suddenly become mangled. If I understand your narrative, that's what happened in this case, no?
So in short, an admin should review the situation and make the necessary merge, which is what I just did.
|Aug-27-14|| ||technical draw: I got my membership extended. Here's how I did it: I wrote down all for sets of 4 numbers from my debit card AND the little 3 digit code number. Then I sent the renewal information to my son and he used HIS credit card and I am now re-upped for another year. Works all the time. Thanks.|
|Aug-27-14|| ||WannaBe: <technical draw> What a dummy, I just send phishing emails to Daniel and I got all the information I need!! =))|
Great to have you for another year, you need more games on GK??
|Aug-28-14|| ||zanzibar: <chessgames> Thanks for the update. |
<First, I don't understand the significance of 27 moves. Yes, the game was 27 moves long (both versions).
Anyhow, "post production" does take place--sometimes TWIC fixes up games and even helpfully adds tags. Sometimes we fix things up. <But most likely in this case, FIDE first sent out one version and later sent out the other.>>
As for the significance of the 27 moves, that's to contrast with a case like this:
<2014.08.02 (R1.67) 1-0 Hager Omer -- Jane Garwell (D38) 19
2014.08.02 (R1.67) 0-1 Hager Omer -- Jane Garwell (C45) 49>
<CG> has two versions again, but the different move numbers suggests something besides the result are different. Originally I thought that <CG> had downloaded the game before the round was over, so the 19-game was still unfinished.
But looking at the game in SCID I could search on the position, and found the 19-move <CG> actually matches this game:
<2014.08.02 (R1.13) 1-0 Alyssa Wang -- Mustafa Mansour Zienab (D38) 19>
So a mismatch in the move number seems to suggest a cross-up with another game.
(Looking at the <CG> gid number, the 19-move move game was loaded before the correct 49-move game)
* * * * *
Now, I've yet to see a <FIDE> result from this tournament change. Of course, I never downloaded a version until after the round was completed. But I got a couple of rounds "hot off the press", and the PGN was unchanged thereafter. Which means the errors were even frozen in place (e.g. the FIDE names during the first couple of rounds in the Open Section).
Not to be too contrary, but I remain unconvinced about the last statement in the quote - about the likely cause of the change being <FIDE>.
If that were the case <FIDE> would have to change a correct result into an incorrect result in the original <Chelsie Monica Sihite -- Darlin Rocio Villar Acevedo> game. That seems unlikely.
It's hard for me to know which of the two duplicates was uploaded by <CG> first without <CG>'s gid. I have to visit <CG>, searching one game at a time by hand, if I want to know for sure what the gid is.
Can I assume that when I do a PGN download the games loaded sequentially, by gid, for a tournament?
Here is another example:
< 2014.08.02 (R1.14) = Jovana Vojinovic -- Mathilde Chung (D00) 31
2014.08.02 (R1.14) 1-0 Jovana Vojinovic -- Mathilde Chung (D00) 31>
Here the draw seems wrong, and it has the lower gid.
* * * * *
|Aug-28-14|| ||zanzibar: * * * * *
Actually, I have about a dozen other mismatched <FIDE> vs <CG> game results - where for most of them <CG> has the correct result.
That leaves me wondering how <CG> results can to be different than <FIDE>'s? In these dozen games there aren't any earlier <CG> duplicates to match the different <FIDE> result.
I can only assume you switched to download the <TWIC> version of the games, or that you ran an engine to tweak the final results for those games where the final position is out of whack with the final result.
(But isn't that a dangerous practice? Maybe not to 1st order in this tournament - since FIDE provides the timing info in the PGN, and so time forfeits can be eliminated. That would only leave resignations in a winning position, a 2nd order effect)
I haven't checked <CG> vs <TWIC> or <FIDE> vs <TWIC> for the Women's but I will.
Some questions to finish (sorry for the length, but this stuff is rather involved):
Can I always use the gid to see which game was downloaded first?
Does <CG> do a "post-production" with an engine to flag games with an final position eval not matching the final result?
Also - does <CG> automatically flag duplicated games like the two set of pairs above for manual inspection?
* * * * *
Of course I ask all these question in order to learn more about the process. It does seem to me that the tournament should be cleaned up while it's still fresh. The sooner the better because most people who are interested will be downloading it the first moment its available. With some diligence, and the proper toolset, I think most of these inconsistencies could be caught before the end of the tournament.
|Aug-28-14|| ||chessgames.com: Hi Zanz. <Not to be too contrary, but I remain unconvinced about the last statement in the quote - about the likely cause of the change being <FIDE>.>|
No, I think you are right. When I said <But most likely in this case, FIDE first sent out one version and later sent out the other.> I was merely speaking from prior experience. Often FIDE (or any official site) will release a game that's wrong and then soon follow it up with a corrected version. But if your research indicates otherwise, I believe you.
On rare occasions (but not so rare to ignore) the process seems to work backwards, and something that was released correct ends up crazy in later updates.
In the case of Tromsų, we intentionally took the PGN from The Week in Chess instead of the official source. Mark Crowther (of TWIC) tirelessly works on getting the PGN as good as possible before release, and then sometimes makes further changes as required. I don't know if the man is a chess-editing Hercules or if he has a team of elves working for him, but he does incredible work. Much respect. The worse the official source is, the more you can witness his magical abilities.
So that means that we're looking at a data flow like this
FIDE ---> TWIC ---> CG Admins ---> CG Final Product
It's important to note that changes can occur at any one of those nodes. FIDE might change their data, TWIC might change FIDE's data, and CG Admins may change it even further.
<Can I always use the gid to see which game was downloaded first?>
Yes, you can. Games with a lower GID were imported into the database prior to games with a greater GID. Of course it's possible to process rounds out of order and other odd things, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that, but it's always the case that the lesser GID was in the database first.
<Does <CG> do a "post-production" with an engine to flag games with an final position eval not matching the final result?>
Oh, heavens no. I shouldn't even need to enumerate the problems with that. However it would be really neat to have such games flagged for review. Which brings us to your next question:
<Also - does <CG> automatically flag duplicated games like the two set of pairs above for manual inspection?>
No, but it would be great if it did that.
The programming hurdle looks like this: the function that figures out if a game is a match or not simply returns either 0 (meaning that it's unique) or the GID of the game that is the match. It does a lot of computation to get that answer, but the output is very simple. There is no "degree of confidence", or any way for it to say "I didn't find an exact match, but I did find one that's 98% like it."
It would be virtually impossible for a function to have perfect accuracy, i.e. "I'm positive this is a duplicate game, even though it's not actually identical." At best, it would have a degree of confidence. Since we're just talking about flagging games for later human review, 100% accuracy is not demanded.
|Aug-28-14|| ||chessgames.com: <technical draw> I'm sorry you had such trouble but glad it worked out in the end. It makes us feel helpless because the reporting on our end is so sparse, all we can see is 'declined'. (Banks do that for security reasons. If they told WHY it was declined it would make life too easy for fraudsters.)|
Anyhow, thanks for your support; this place wouldn't be the same without you.
|Aug-28-14|| ||Benzol: <... this place wouldn't be the same without you.>.|
|Aug-29-14|| ||zanzibar: <chessgames> thank you so much for the very detailed reply.|
I'm still studying it, and am again looking at TWIC games for the Tromso tournament.
(I had the impression that TWIC agreed with FIDE for the Open Section, but I could be wrong. Since I change my code so much I have to do a new, fresh run).
One question I have right now however, is whether or not TWIC supplied the games from the Women's Section?
Maybe I missed them somehow, but I think TWIC only supplied the Open Section.
Do you know?
* * * * *
<TD> best icon of the bunch.
|Aug-29-14|| ||Shams: Can we get a dancing rook with Caruana's face on it? I'm willing to bet you'll get good use out of it over the next few years.|
|Aug-29-14|| ||chessgames.com: <whether or not TWIC supplied the games from the Women's Section?> Sure they did, I even have the link to the PGN: http://www.theweekinchess.com/asset... |
<dancing Caruana rook> That's a good idea.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 737 OF 737 ·
Hardinge Simpole Publishing