< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 185 OF 185 ·
|Feb-09-18|| ||saffuna: <...but IMO since he "only" tied for 5th it's not a critical success to mention.>|
I haven't pored over the list with a magnifying glass, but it appears to include all of So's tournaments, not just the successes.
The title for the section is "Tournament History," not "Best Tournament Results."
|Feb-09-18|| ||chessgames.com: <it appears to include all of So's tournaments, not just the successes> Well, it shouldn't. We'll have a feature soon where you can look up all the tournaments in the Tournament Index for a player with a click; there's no reason to enumerate them again in the biography.|
|Feb-09-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<chessgames.com> Perhaps it seems that way, but the same rules apply to his page as any other player. ... I don't know if he's swayed by influential posters, but whether or not, it's his account and he can manage it as he pleases>|
No, it doesn't <SEEM> that way, it <IS> that way. And he is not involved with the managing of his web page in any way. I have the documentation to prove it if you're interested. But it doesn't matter one way or the other since you've indicated that it's his account and he can manage it as he pleases, even though it seems to contradict your statement at the bottom of this post: chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #27184). But maybe you've changed your mind, which is certainly your prerogative.
Given that an ever increasing number of posters are being banned from the current Wesley So web page for a variety of reasons and given that a separate page has been forked for Edmund Beronio, what's involved in forking the Wesley So page so that others that do not feel as, shall we say, "enthusiastic" about him have a forum to discuss his activities in a more balanced way? Subject to the usual <chessgames.com> posting guidelines, of course.
I would therefore like to formally request that this forking of the Wesley So page be implemented. And please provide us instructions on how to access this new forked page instead of (or in addition to) the original page. So is a top-ranked world class player and I think that his accomplishments deserve a forum for discussion without concern about repercussions as long as those posting adhere to <chessgames.com>'s posting guidelines.
|Feb-09-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<chessgames.com> <<saffuna> I haven't pored over the list with a magnifying glass, but it appears to include all of So's tournaments, not just the successes. > Well, it shouldn't. We'll have a feature soon where you can look up all the tournaments in the Tournament Index for a player with a click; there's no reason to enumerate them again in the biography.>|
Agreed that it shouldn't be necessary, but since you indicated that "it's his account and he can manage it as he pleases", I would assume that this applies to the bio on his page as well. Unless different rules apply to a player's bio in his page and the content of his pages. Which is fine by me, just unclear. And also not that it matters to me and possibly others one way or the other.
|Feb-09-18|| ||chessgames.com: When I said "he can manage [his page] as he pleases" I meant inasmuch as any user can manage their player page (he can ignore whom he pleases, he can delete posts, etc.) The biography itself is a different topic—that's a joint effort, on all player pages. |
We respectfully decline the proposal to fork the Wesley So page. If you like, you can turn your own chessforum into a forum of that nature.
|Feb-09-18|| ||zanzibar: <chessgames> not sure if that's the best policy, but perhaps we can allow users to create discussion pages for general use at a fixed rate/year.|
One potential use, other than forks of player pages, would be for pre-TI tournament discussion/research pages.
I do have to say that allowing player's to outright ban <CG> users from player pages, rather than just scrubbing individual offending posts, just strikes me as wrong in principle.
Player pages should not be the same as individual forums, imo.
My general stance on individual forums is to avoid them like the plague, after having experienced a couple of reasonable posts deleted at the whim of owners.
(Agreed, it's the owner's right, but having been twice-bitten, I've learned my lesson)
So's page is a major attraction of the site - so I doubt this is much that will change in its administration. Notice that I try to avoid posting on that page as well.
|Feb-09-18|| ||zanzibar: BTW- where is the other version of Edmund Beronio ... ?|
|Feb-09-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<chessgames.com> We respectfully decline the proposal to fork the Wesley So page. If you like, you can turn your own chessforum into a forum of that nature.>|
Very well. It's your site and as long as I participate in it I will certainly abide by your wishes. But I would prefer to keep any specific discussions about Wesley So separate from the other discussions on my forum. So my next question is, since you don't strictly forbid members from having more than one account if there is a good reason to so (I'll let you decide if this is a good reason), would it be possible to create another user account, and then pay for a Premium Membership for that account so that I could activate the forum for others to post?
You see, I <AM> a fan of Wesley So in spite of what some of his more "enthusiastic" followers apparently think. And I think that there are others who also are fans and would like to be able to have open-minded discussions about him. But we are currently prevented from doing so as a result of the policies of the Wesley So page. And specific discussions about Wesley So on other pages would properly be considered off-topic.
|Feb-10-18|| ||Tabanus: <he can delete posts> I thought nobody could delete posts on their player page.|
|Feb-10-18|| ||chessgames.com: <it be possible to create another user account, and then pay for a Premium Membership for that account so that I could activate the forum for others to post?> It's more than possible, it's encouraged. People who run forums like that are a small bit of extra revenue that help us keep the servers running. If the page ends up being a huge success we may even give it honorary lifetime membership, like we've done for a few hotspots.|
<zanzibar> You're not the first one to suggest this, but you make it sound like we have two alternatives: (A) keeping things the way they are, (B) having world-class players come here and get cross-examined by every chess fan, critic, and troll. Those aren't the choices. The choice is between (A) and not having world-class players come here whatsoever.
|Feb-10-18|| ||saffuna: <<zanzibar> You're not the first one to suggest this, but you make it sound like we have two alternatives: (A) keeping things the way they are, (B) having world-class players come here and get cross-examined by every chess fan, critic, and troll. Those aren't the choices. The choices is between (A) and not having world-class players come here whatsoever.>|
Sort of like the choice between losing your queen or getting mated.
I understand the players' point of view. They don't want to come and see a page of you-tube style insults. That's what drove Susan Polgar off the site.
A player is abusing the privilege, though, if he or she simply deletes every critical post.
|Feb-10-18|| ||frogbert: I have hunch that <chessgames.com> would reconsider their policies if more world elite players started to «admin» their player pages by proxy. There are several Carlsen bashers that easily could've been stopped from posting on his player page this way, for instance. I can think of a few that possibly could've been «ignored».|
And btw: So's bio has been utterly ruined - tournament results are being reported in totally non-standard ways (4-6th of 6 listed as tied for 2nd, with a tie between 1st to 3rd place, for instance). It's a brilliant example of the «value» of having PR people admin player pages and bios.
|Feb-10-18|| ||chessgames.com: Our disclaimer for the self-editing feature contains the following notice:|
<Chessgames Services LLC (a Florida company) reserves the right to administer all pages on its web site, including the page dedicated to your chess games, as it sees fit. This includes the right to override any administrative decisions that you make, and the possibility of revoking your administrative powers.
The intended purpose of the Self-Administration feature is to allow certain users to exercise editorial control over the discussions on their player page, but not to terminate the on-topic discussion entirely, nor to prevent normal discussion.>
So we still hold the reins.
In my experience, most of the big players have used their powers very sparingly. I think Nigel Short has two people on ignore. Ray Keene only deleted four or five posts in as many years, and if you read them you'd agree they really should be deleted. The most vigorous self-admins are the amateur members of the site who happen to have games here.
|Feb-11-18|| ||FSR: <chessgames.com> On January 29, I submitted the game Rhine-Shankar. If you add it to the database, could you please add a note to White's 15th move: <15.e5!! Qc6! (only move) 16.exd6 [insert symbol for large advantage to White]> ? Thanks!|
|Feb-11-18|| ||chessgames.com: We were able to salvage two of the Carlsen-Nakamura Fischerandom games, the ones where nobody castled.|
Nakamura vs Carlsen, 2018 (0-1)
Nakamura vs Carlsen, 2018 (1/2-1/2)
|Feb-11-18|| ||chessgames.com: <FSR> Sure.|
|Feb-11-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<chessgames.com> So we still hold the reins.>|
Good, that's the way it should be. You have always acted responsibly in the past and others that have similar "reins" available should emulate your example.
However, along with having the power that comes with holding the reins comes the responsibility to use the reins when necessary, such as when stopping a runaway horse or not allowing others to "terminate the on-topic-discussion entirely, nor to prevent normal discussion."
Sometimes you just have to make the hard choices between (A), (B), or others. After all, you DO have mechanisms in place to be notified of violations of your posting guidelines and you have the "reins" to correct them. And if a first class player cannot take any kind of criticism whatsoever, even if it is non-confrontational, constructive in nature, and meant to be of help, then maybe they simply don't belong on this site. Perhaps a greater emphasis on whistle-blowing an a higher priority on investigation and resolution of posting guideline violations when directed to posts appearing on player pages might help.
Maybe some automatic detection of possible violations of your posting guidelines is possible. I suspect that AlphaZero could be properly trained to assist. :-)
|Feb-12-18|| ||morfishine: Thanks <CG> for listing the games from the Carlsen - Nakamura Chess960 match! The match is tightening up now with Nakamura winning with Black|
|Feb-12-18|| ||morfishine: Shouldn't London 1986 be a "Notable Tournament" for Glenn Flear since he won the darn thing as an IM?|
|Feb-12-18|| ||chessgames.com: If London 1986 isn't in the Tournament Index then it's not considered.|
|Feb-12-18|| ||zborris8: I'd like to announce an invitational mini-tournament for ten other GameKnot players from CG, but I don't have any idea how to create one of those chess forums. Do I need to ask a moderator to open one?|
|Feb-12-18|| ||chessgames.com: <zborris8> That’s great. Just go to your Preferences Page and select the option “activate my chessforum”. Then you might want to visit the Chessforum Configuration Page.|
|Feb-13-18|| ||chessgames.com: Another Fischer Random game: Nakamura vs Carlsen, 2018.|
|Feb-13-18|| ||zborris8: Thanks for the help!|
|Feb-17-18|| ||MissScarlett: What are you doing about making the game submission process both more expeditious and transparent? As far as I can tell, only myself, Gypsy and PhonyBenoni are regularly submitting games of historical import. <FSR> just submits his own crappy Internet blitz games.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 185 OF 185 ·