|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 18 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-12-11 | | crawfb5: Re: Reshevsky vs J Kostro, 1968 The 79-move PGN version you have is also the one at OlimpBase. However, in the August 1969 issue of <Chess Life>, pp. 339-340, Reshevsky annotates the game in his column. He gives it as a <75-move> game: [Event "Lugano"]
[Site "Lugano SUI"]
[Date "1968.11.15"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Reshevsky, Samuel"]
[Black "Kostro, Jerzy"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A36"]
[EventDate "1968.??.??"]
[PlyCount "157"]
1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.d3 e6 6.e4 Nge7 7.Nge2 O-O 8.O-O d6 9.Rb1 a6 10.a3 Rb8 11.b4 cxb4 12.axb4 b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.d4 d5 15.Bf4 Rb6 16.Qb3 dxe4 17.Nxe4 Nf5 18.Bg5 f6 19.Be3 Ncxd4 20.Nxd4 Nxd4 21.Bxd4 Qxd4 22.Rfd1 Qe5 23.Qe3 Ra6 24.Qc5 f5 25.Nd6 Bd7 26.Bf1 Qxc5 27.bxc5 Rb8 28.Nxf5 gxf5 29.Rxd7 Rc6 30.Rxb5 Rxb5 31.Bxb5 Rxc5 32.Ba4 Re5 33.Bb3 Bf8 34.Rc7 h6 35.Kg2 Re1 36.Rb7 Re2 37.Kf3 Re1 38.h3 Bc5 39.Rb5 Be7 40.Rxf5 Kg7 41.Rf4 Re5 42.h4 Bc5 43.Bc2 Be7 44.Bd3 Ra5 45.Kg2 Bd6 46.Rc4 Kf7 47.f4 Rc5 48.Re4 Kf6 49.g4 Rd5 50.g5+ Kf5 51.gxh6 Rxd3 52.h7 Kxe4 53.h8=Q Rd2+ 54.Kh3 Bxf4 55.Qa8+ Kf5 56.Qf8+ Ke4 57.Qb4+ Kf5 58.Qb1+ Ke5 59.Qb8+ Kf5 60.Qb1+ Ke5 61.Qb5+ Ke4 62.Qb7+ Ke5 63.Kg4 Rd4 64.Qb8+ Kd5 65.Qb5+ Kd6 66.Kf3 e5 67.h5 Ke6 68.Qe8+ Kd5 69.Qg6 Rb4 70.h6 Rb3+ 71.Ke2 Rb2+ 72.Kd3 Rd2+ 73.Kc3 Rh2 74.h7 e4 75.Qg8+ 1-0 I started with what we have here and then translated from descriptive to algebraic from move 63 forward (which is where the differences start). I took the round number and date from OlimBase. Oh, I see New In Chess has the 75-move version, so I could have copied it from there. |
|
May-13-11
 | | Phony Benoni: <crawfb5> Thanks for looking. Despite the evidence from Reshevsky, it still seems more likely to me that four meaningless moves were taken out rather than added later. Moves are sometimes added at the end of a game, but rarely in the middle of it. This seems like an alternate game score situation. |
|
| May-13-11 | | crawfb5: <PB> I see your point, but it is also possible that whoever did the original transcription from descriptive to algebraic lost their place and repeated four moves. If that version then propagated through the various databases, we'd be where we are now, with a shorter descriptive than algebraic version. Back in the day of adjournments and non-SD time controls, it was very common for annotators to drop in a quick sentence like, "These moves were repeated to gain time on the clock." It would not strike anyone as the least bit unusual, so I don't see the motivation Reshevsky would have to "clean it up." |
|
May-13-11
| | Phony Benoni: <crawfb5> Ah, I see it now! In the longer score, moves 63-68 duplicate moves 59-62. Also, there is a triple repetition of position after Black's 58th, 60th, and 64th moves. That probably tips the scale to the shorter version, though I think the longer should still be kept as an alternate score. |
|
May-14-11
 | | chessgames.com: OK, we opted to keep the 75 move version of Reshevsky vs J Kostro, 1968 but the 79 move version is archived in the alternate-score (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/dupe...). Thanks for your help. |
|
May-15-11
| | chessgames.com: It may be valuable to have a quick discussion of a program called "pgnfix" that runs periodically and makes the most tedious corrections to the PGN of games. For example, an admin often will add a few moves to the end of a game, or remove a few moves. What a hassle it would be if the admin also had to also worry about updating the move count field in the database, or modifying the [PlyCount "..."] tag in the PGN. It would literally double the amount of time it takes to make such changes, and would open the door to all sorts of human error. Luckily, "pgnfix" handles that drudgery, and it never makes an error. Likewise, suppose an admin changes the white player to pid # 19233. The [White "..."] tag should really be changed, as well as the [WhiteELo "..."] tag. Once again, pgnfix will take care of those details flawlessly so the admin doesn't have to worry about it. Pgnfix performs other valuable functions like word wrapping the game score properly, removing extraneous spaces, fixing technical formatting details (like in the date tags), and more. However, pgnfix does not run instantly every time a game is edited. It processes games in bulk, and it's scheduled to run once a week. In practice we run it several times a week especially when a large number of changes are being made. For this reason, you will sometimes see a correction made at the database level, but when you examine the PGN itself you see that it still contains the errors. Sometimes we get reports of this as a problem. I just wanted to say, that when you see this contradictory state of affairs, have no fear--this is a very temporary situation. |
|
May-15-11
| | Phony Benoni: Two nearly identical scores:
a) S Arkhipov vs Suba, 1986 b) S Arkhipov vs Suba, 1986 The difference comes after <34...Kh7>: 
click for larger viewNow version (a) has <35.gxf8N+>, version (b) <35.gxf8Q>. While this makes no difference to the rest of the game, it would be nice to know which is correct. I suspect (a), because someone entering the game into a database would be more likely to accidentally enter a queen promotion rather than a knight promotion. |
|
| May-16-11 | | myschkin: . . .
Is <Irene (Irén) Hönsch (Karoly)> from Hungary, Games: http://chesscalisthenics.com/select... Article (in Spanish/German):
http://www.chessbase.com/espanola/n...
http://www.chessbase.de/nachrichten...
Photos (personal): http://picasaweb.google.com/karolyl... Photos (others): https://picasaweb.google.com/gsilly... in the database - under a different spelling maybe?
thanks in advance |
|
May-17-11
| | chessgames.com: Somebody suggested that L Shapi and Henryk Szapiel are the same person, but they also expressed some doubt. Does anybody else have an opinion? |
|
May-17-11
| | Phony Benoni: <chessgames.com>: I don't know if they are the same person, but it seems likely that the games attributed to L Shapi can be transferred to Henryk Szapiel. Shapi has games from only one tournament: <Szczawno Zdroj> 1950. (A couple are listed as being from <Schiavno Zdroj> 1950, but that could well be a different form of the place name.) <Chess Results 1947-1950>, by Gino Di Felice, p.403, lists Szapiel as playing in this tournament. The results we have for Shapi exactly duplicate those which Szapiel achieved. The only complication is the game L Shapi vs Keres, 1950, since we also have the game H Szapiel vs Keres, 1950 from the same tournament. However, a kibitz on the "Shapi" game says that Black was actually Efim Geller, and this is confirmed by a PGN download of the tournament games available at http://www.pgnmentor.com/files.html.... |
|
May-18-11
| | chessgames.com: <Phony Benoni> Top notch research, thanks. |
|
May-19-11
 | | chancho: The player with the black pieces in this game is Vadim Martirisov: J Curdo vs V Martirosiv, 1999
The player in this game with the black pieces is William N Aulson: J Curdo vs A William, 1997
I submitted corrections for these two games years ago, but they have yet to be fixed. |
|
May-19-11
 | | Stonehenge: <chanco>
<From now on, new corrections will get priority> I wonder if our dear Librarian can keep up with all the corrections being submitted at the moment. I'm guilty :) |
|
May-19-11
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <chancho> Anyway, you probably mean that Martirosiv = Vadim Martirosov / V Martirosov, as you yourself correctly noted in that game's kibitzing. No need to confuse poor Librarian even more :) |
|
May-19-11
| | Stonehenge: May-15-11 chessgames.com:
<It may be valuable to have a quick discussion of a program called "pgnfix" that runs periodically and makes the most tedious corrections to the PGN of games>. etc. |
|
May-19-11
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Stonehenge> Thanks. Deleted my post. |
|
May-19-11
| | chancho: <SwitchinQuylthulg> Darn it! :-) |
|
| May-19-11 | | Jack Bauer: <Darn it!> I don't know anything about anything. |
|
May-19-11
 | | Domdaniel: <Librarian> I may be wrong here, but I have the impression that many correspondence games in the database are classified as 'classical'. If so, is this correct? Is there a separate category for corr games? |
|
| May-19-11 | | Nina Myers: Even <Jack Bauer> has his girly moments. <Librarian>
Two games should be removed as wrong duplicates from Lensky : Lensky vs Olga, 1949 and Lensky vs Olbga, 1949 And for the remaining game Lensky vs Olgba, 1949 Black is just <Olga> as sneaky pete pointed out. |
|
May-19-11
 | | CG Librarian: Hi guys. Yes, it's taken me a little by surprise how many new corrections are coming in (but <Stonehenge>, I get the feeling you are removing the "aka" or name correction from the bio when you submit one, so thank you). I'm doing OK keeping up and grabbing some old ones along the way (with help from <chessgames.com>), but if I'm in doubt or need to do more research, I've left it for later in favor of doing the simple ones. I will try to fix the more difficult ones or post them here soon. If you submit a surprising correction, like if both players in a game are wrong, it's helpful to cite a source. Also, I've floated the idea with <cg> of creating a player naming policy. Currently there are a lot of places we have inconsistency: name order (for Hungarian, Indian, and East Asian names), the hyphen between Spanish or Portuguese last names (it doesn't belong there, but there is an issue with the software correctly identifying the last name, which <cg> is working on), special characters (letters with accents, umlauts, and so on) in names, and a few other more minor issues. I want to look at Wikipedia's policy on names and draft something myself, then I'll ask for comment here. I've also noticed that consultation team names tend to get garbled by databases, so I may post a list of those to sort out also. Anyway, don't worry, I'm around. :) |
|
May-19-11
| | Phony Benoni: <CG Librarian> I'm sure many persons, like myself, had stopped spending a lot of time submitting corrections because the change process seemed to be broken. There is probably a lot of pent-up demand being released all of a sudden; hope leads to action. |
|
May-19-11
 | | Annie K.: <CG Librarian> I'm a native Hungarian speaker, and can also help on Hebrew names. I'll try to check in here often, but if you want a quick consultation on anything I can help with, you're welcome to drop by my forum, or email me - I'm online most of the time. :) PS - <"I adjust"> - highly brilliant, but why not the original French <j'adoube>, then? ;) |
|
May-20-11
| | Stonehenge: <Librarian> What about Brigitte Burchardt-Hofmann? I submitted a correction that B Hofmann is the same player. Hofmann is her maiden name. Now, there are many more women in this database who have two player pages. One with their maiden name and one with their husband's name. Personally I have no problem with that. But in Brigitte Burchardt-Hofmann 's case you have made a page with both her names, although FIDE has her as Brigitte Burchardt. So in this particular case I thought you could merge both files. The other solution is of course to have one page for Burchardt (without -Hofmann) and one for Hofmann. |
|
May-20-11
| | Phony Benoni: <Stonehenge> I suspect the duplication in pages for married women is not a deliberate policy, but a matter of not having the opportunity to sort out differences in submitted game scores. Games come from many different sources, and there is no standardization about which form of a name to use. In the library world, the general directive is to use one name with some sort of reference structure to guide users between different forms. For name changes, the latest form is preferred unless the person is likely to continue using their original name. For example, <Judit Polgar> continues to use her maiden name, and should be entered using it rather than her married name. This can lead to complicated and frequent changes due to divorces and remarriages, but as long as a good system is in place to refer users to the currently used form it shouldn't be a big concern. I don't know if this is the best idea for chessgames.com. <CGL> mentioned looking at Wikipedia's standards, which are probably more familiar to the average person. But I would strongly prefer having one page per individual |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 18 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
