|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 308 OF 308 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Sep-05-19
 | | Tabanus: Thanks Annie! Now I finally know how to find tid for non-TI games :) |
 |
Sep-06-19
| | Tabanus: <Annie> If you would upload the 104 submitted RUS-ChW games 2006 & 2008, I would be even more "on cloud 9". Btw the Russian Championship Higher League (Women) (2006) (2006) (oops, 2006 two times) has 127 games out of 162 available. I may submit the 35 missing ones too. |
|
Sep-06-19
 | | Annie K.: <Tab> submitted where? I don't see them in the upload queue. If you sent them by mail to the main cg address, please send them to mine instead. Alternatively, you could simply upload them directly to the queue with the PGN Upload Utility. Russian Championship Higher League (Women) (2006) fixed, btw. |
|
Sep-06-19
| | Tabanus: <Annie> I sent them to CG but now to your mail (2 files with strange original names, hopefully the right ones). |
|
Sep-08-19
| | Tabanus: Russian Championship Superfinal (Women) (Tiebreaks) (2018) (2018) has 2018 two times. What about a correction slip button also on non-TI events. |
|
Sep-08-19
| | Annie K.: <Tab> fixed, thanks. In these cases, just pick any one game out of the event, and submit a correction slip on it, saying that the event name or site need to be corrected. :) |
|
| Sep-30-19 | | Boomie: <CG>
What happened to Morphy's annotations? (games annotated by Morphy) Stockfish seems to have overwritten Morphy's work. Is this supposed to be an improvement? Does the loss of historical info have any meaning for you? Stockfish is free, you know. We can all run it if we want to see its "thought". |
|
Oct-01-19
 | | jessicafischerqueen:
<Tim> Morphy's annotations are still there eh? Possibly your default <Olga Settings> aren't showing them? You can tell they are from Morphy because he talks about <M'Donnell> in them. I don't think <Stout Fish> knows who <M'Donnell> is. Possibly it can spell the name better though. |
|
Oct-01-19
| | jessicafischerqueen:
Good heavens it is October!
WEEN |
|
| Oct-01-19 | | Boomie: <jessicafischerqueen: Morphy's annotations are still there eh? Possibly your default <Olga Settings> aren't showing them?> The Settings have nothing relevant to this issue. Which means I can't find Morphy's historically important work. While we're at it, I will rant once again about Olga. It is the worst chess player I have ever seen on the internet. It will never have the capability or elegance of Deluxe II. |
|
Oct-01-19
| | jessicafischerqueen:
<Tim> Aha quite right. It's not a "settings issue." I believe I have solved the mystery though. Go to your list:
If you click on a game, you will see Morphy's original annotations, and not Stockfish's annotations. But if you click on the little blue bottle to the right of the game in the menu, then you will see Stockfish's annotations and not Morphy's. games annotated by Morphy |
|
Oct-01-19
| | jessicafischerqueen:
<Tim>
More sciencing researching:
When you are on a game page that has the Stockfish annotations, there is a banner under the game. It's the last banner before you see the actual moves and annotations: <THIS IS A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE. [CLICK HERE] FOR ORIGINAL.> If you CLICK HERE on CLICK HERE it will toggle the game back to Morphy's annotations. La Bourdonnais vs McDonnell, 1834 You will also get to this original version of the game by clicking on the actual game in the game list, (NOT clicking on the little blue bottle to the right of the game in the list- that will take you to the new Stockfish annotated version of the game). This is what the Stockfish version of the game looks like- you'll see it has <[analysis]> appended to the hyperlink view: La Bourdonnais vs McDonnell, 1834 [analysis] So you can see that both sets of annotations are intact. The two versions of the game are differentiated by the following code- Morphy's annotation is <Game ID 1261696> in this case, and the Stockfish annotation <Game ID is 1261696&comp=1> |
|
| Oct-01-19 | | Boomie: <Jess>
Thanks. I found that link. I suggest that the Morphy version should be the first one you see. I don't know why the obsession with computer analysis anyway. We can run the computer for ourselves. In fact, I believe that is a far better way to study the game than to be spoon fed the evals. The quick analysis used (6/s per move) are not nearly deep enough. It is as though having any computer analysis, no matter how meaningless, is better than nothing. |
|
Oct-01-19
| | jessicafischerqueen:
<Tim> The Morphy version is *already* the first one you see. It's the DEFAULT VERSION. That's the version you get if you click on the actual game. The ONLY WAY to see the Stockfish version is the click on the bottle with blue liquid which is to the right of the game. This is true for all of the games in our database. You need to click on the blue bottle to see the Stockfish annotations. So you don't ever have to see computer annotations- you can just enjoy the games by never clicking on the blue bottle. |
|
| Oct-01-19 | | Boomie: < jessicafischerqueen: The Morphy version is *already* the first one you see. It's the DEFAULT VERSION. That's the version you get if you click on the actual game. The ONLY WAY to see the Stockfish version is the click on the bottle with blue liquid which is to the right of the game.> I didn't click on any "blue bottle". I don't see anything like that. I see a link for Settings and one for Engine. So obviously I have never clicked on whatever you are talking about. The link at the bottom of the board does toggle between the two. However, the Stockfish version appears the first time I click on a game link. I don't see anyway to turn off the computer spew permanently. It is ridiculous anyway as anyone who worked long hours on the World Team would know. Six seconds per ply is totally inadequate plus without the other information such as depth, it is meaningless. |
|
Oct-01-19
| | Annie K.: Thanks, <Jess>. :) <Boomie> go to the Preferences Page and uncheck the box next to "Show computer annotations when available" (second option under Configure website behavior), then scroll down to the bottom of the page and press the "Update Profile" button. |
|
| Oct-02-19 | | Boomie: <Annie>
"Preferences". Of course. I always seem to overlook the obvious. Thanks, Annie. |
|
| Oct-10-19 | | Thief: <chessgames.com> Why is this site marked as not secure next to the URL? I don't want anyone stealing my stuff. (Only I can steal other people's stuff. No hypocrisy, no thievery.) |
|
Oct-10-19
 | | WannaBe: This is because chessgames.com still use http and not https, the certificate itself is not that $$ and the process is pretty easy. (As long as you have access to site's admin account or email verification.) It can be done in less than 30 minutes with the appropriate/correct information. When I was in charge of our email server, the certificate was verified by GoDaddy and it was pretty cheap. (Disclaimer: I do not currently work for GoDaddy, or have in the past.) |
|
| Oct-11-19 | | Thief: <WannaBe> I guess it's not necessary for chessgames.com to get https protocol for the entire website. Just need SSL or other encryption for credit card and personal info if you plan on buying premium membership, which it already has by directing you to "continue to secure server". |
|
Oct-12-19
 | | Susan Freeman: <WannaBe> I have been informed that it is a long and tedious process, that SSL, which I, the owner paid for ages ago. Sargon informs me that he is working day on night on the process..... for months now.
I get a promise of completion almost weekly.
My offers of outsourcing the process have been sternly rejected.
sign me
Fear and Loathing in Palm City. |
|
Oct-12-19
 | | Sargon: <Susan Freeman: <WannaBe> I have been informed that it is a long and tedious process, that SSL, which I, the owner paid for ages ago. Sargon informs me that he is working day on night on the process..... for months now. I get a promise of completion almost weekly.
My offers of outsourcing the process have been sternly rejected. sign me
Fear and Loathing in Palm City.>
Daniel hesitated for <years> on this issue—I’m not sure why. Maybe he had concerns about server load. My research indicates that’s not an issue. In any event, I’m working on it as I write this - should be ready promptly... |
|
| Oct-12-19 | | Thief: Oh, nice. <Secure> is always better than <Not secure> (unless it's stuff I wanna steal). |
|
| Oct-18-19 | | morfishine: Is anybody working the Blow the Whistle application? Or is it only updated weekly or perhaps monthly? |
|
Oct-18-19
 | | Messiah: <morfishine> In the recent weeks I used the whistle form, and the comment in question was removed a several hours after the report. <Sargon> Good luck with the TLS implementation, and also please do not send back our passwords plaintext, in an unencrypted e-mail, next time. |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 308 OF 308 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
