ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1025 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Sep-11-17
 | | chessgames.com: <Tabanus> What would the point be? To locate missing games from the lower bracket? Or just good information to know during Olympaids, knockouts, etc? It could easily be done but would really bloat the size of the list. |
|
Sep-11-17
 | | Tabanus: <CG> Err.. hmm (thinking). 1) There are often missing or unplayed games from the upper bracket, especially in older events. 2) Good information to know for round robins and Swisses, but not (yet) for knockouts and team events. 3) the list would be only 3 digits wider (there's no reason to count the missing games). If it can be easily done I can't see any disadvantages. Only that if CG generates crosstables one day, it would be less necessary, since then I think the missing and unplayed game results would have to be added by hand (into the xtabs, say in another color). Also, it would be a little easier (or faster) for editors, but if it would be useful for others I'm not sure. Anyway, it would be good if a CG results list/xtab could be trusted (on accuracy). - And adding the number of games would at least show that the list has been edited in the first place (e. g.: Piotr Brodowski 17.5/26 (+17 -8 =1) [12 games]). |
|
Sep-12-17
| | Tabanus: CG, don't be angry but I find it a bit sad to see standings tables like for example Reykjavik Open (2009). There are several dozens of this kind in CG, simply because nobody edits the tables (who are generated from often incorrect pgns). The event was won by Hedinn Steingrimsson and I'm sure he and the Icelanders were proud. But he's in 12th place in CG. For the correct table see http://chess-results.com/tnr18947.a... or http://chess-results.com/tnr18947.a.... I am (or was) planning to edit all such events after 2000. But I lack a plan, really. In theory, one could edit a CG results list even if 90% of the games were missing, but then I think this fact should show somewhere (such as in the presentation of the number of games). Another option is to make a "hand-made" correct xtab to put in the bio, with only the participants list on top. Also, I wonder whether or not no list is better than a wrong list. Admittedly, Tab's confused. And maybe you are too :) |
|
Sep-13-17
 | | FSR: <chessgames.com> Very happy to hear that your home and the website survived more or less unscathed. The picture you have for Anton Kovalyov makes him look like a little kid, which of course he's not anymore. Wikimedia Commons doesn't have any recent photos of him, unfortunately, but I think this one is a distinct improvement on yours: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/... It would be ideal if you could find a picture of him in the infamous Bermuda shorts, of course. |
|
| Sep-13-17 | | Arconax: <FSR: The picture you have for Anton Kovalyov makes him look like a little kid, which of course he's not anymore.> He only acts like one. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | chessgames.com: <Travis Bickle: Attn Dan Freeman: I apologize for my horrible temper & caustic outbursts. I hope all is well in Florida.> Thank you for that. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | Tabanus: Cg, I take that as a no then. But I think it can be a surprise (when clicking on "games") or even disappointment to the reader of Asian Continental Championships (Women) (2016) to find that the winner only has 8 games and that Sharmin Shirin Sultana has only one. The winner Bhakti was in 4th or 5th place on the list before I edited it. But it also said "6/8" (showing it was based on her 8 games only). Sultana was not on the old list (of 29 players) at all because of only 1 game (0.5/1). I have now many times seen players in 30th-70th place (or 110th place as the record) end up on the top-29 list only because they have many games included. And sometimes players in 15th-20th place fall outside the top-29 because they have few games. I'll end this campaign by noting that "Asian Continental Championships (Women) Tournament" and many other titles are more than 3 digits wider than the list is. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | Tabanus: <The event was won by Hedinn Steingrimsson and I'm sure he and the Icelanders were proud. But he's in 12th place in CG.> Right now in 6th place, for some reason. The "edit history" doesn't tell. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | chessgames.com: I never said "no" and I wasn't aware it was a yes-or-no question.
But just to be clear, you're asking for an entry that looks like this <Yuriy Kryvoruchko 6.5/8 (+5 -0 =3) [games]> To be rendered like this
<Yuriy Kryvoruchko 6.5/8 (+5 -0 =3) [8 games]> Isn't that entirely redundant? I must be misconstruing what you are asking for. Anyhow, in general, yes I too am saddened when I see events missing games from the leaders. The "edit standings" feature was intended to mitigate that. It's not as good as having the games, but it beats erroneous leaderboards, and IMO is better than having stub-games. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | chessgames.com: <Right now in 6th place, for some reason. The "edit history" doesn't tell.> Edit history doesn't keep track of leaderboard edits for now, but anyhow, no edit took place. You're just witnessing the property of databases to return sorted items in a quasi-random order when the sort fields are identical. If you look again he might be 4th or 7th. The leaderboard editor will override that behavior, of course. (By the way, apologies for typos and what not, I'm running CG from my phone right now.) |
|
Sep-13-17
| | Tabanus: <The leaderboard editor will override that behavior, of course.> I'm glad to hear, in fact I suspected/hoped that was the case! <Yuriy Kryvoruchko 6.5/8 (+5 -0 =3) [8 games]> Nah, you are using a pre-edition example. He should have 9 games. Sometimes half or more of the players have fewer than max number of games. Better examples: <Yuriy Kryvoruchko 6.5/9 (+5 -1 =3) [8 games]>
<Diana Omurbekova 4/9 (+3 -4 =2) [1 games]> See e. g. Asian Continental Championships (Women) (2016) where most of the players have less than 9 games (in database). But the list now (after editing) says xx/9 for all of them. The editor must also fill out the + - = fields, else the sum/total score will be wrong. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | Tabanus: <The editor must also fill out the + - = fields> Except, in fact, the - field (n losses field) for unplayed losses. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | Tabanus: Sorry for long posts, but my example would look like this: Kulkarni Bhakti 7/9 (+5 -0 =4) [8 games]
Dinara Saduakassova 6.5/9 (+5 -1 =3) [9 games]
Soumya Swaminathan 6.5/9 (+5 -1 =3) [9 games]
Thi Mai Hung Nguyen 6/9 (+5 -2 =2) [8 games]
Hoang Thi Bao Tram 6/9 (+4 -1 =4) [9 games]
Thi Kim Phung Vo 6/9 (+4 -1 =4) [9 games]
Sarasadat Khademalsharieh 5.5/9 (+4 -2 =3) [8 games]
Batkhuyag Munguntuul 5.5/9 (+4 -2 =3) [9 games]
Gulrukhbegim Tokhirjonova 5.5/9 (+3 -1 =5) [9 games]
Bodda Pratyusha 5/9 (+5 -4 =0) [9 games]
Bakhora Abdusattorova 5/9 (+4 -3 =2) [7 games]
Mitra Hejazipour 5/9 (+4 -3 =2) [8 games]
Xueyi Li 5/9 (+3 -2 =4) [9 games]
Atousa Pourkashiyan 5/9 (+3 -2 =4) [9 games]
Padmini Rout 5/9 (+3 -2 =4) [9 games]
Le Thao Nguyen Pham 5/9 (+2 -1 =6) [9 games]
Mary Ann Gomes 4.5/9 (+3 -3 =3) [8 games]
Tuvshintugs Batchimeg 4.5/9 (+3 -3 =3) [9 games]
Uurtsaikh Uuriintuya 4.5/9 (+3 -3 =3) [4 games]
Ramesh Babu Vaishali 4.5/9 (+2 -2 =5) [8 games]
Qi Guo 4.5/9 (+1 -1 =7) [8 games]
Gong Qianyun 4/9 (+4 -5 =0) [7 games]
Dewi Ardhiani Anastasia Citra 4/9 (+3 -4 =2) [6 games]
Ye Yuan 4/9 (+3 -4 =2) [6 games]
Diana Omurbekova 4/9 (+3 -4 =2) [1 games]
Nodira Nadirjanova 3.5/9 (+3 -5 =1) [5 games]
Nadezhda Antonova 3.5/9 (+3 -5 =1) [3 games]
Iman Hasan Mohammed Al-Rufaye 3.5/9 (+3 -5 =1) [2 games]
Sharmin Shirin Sultana 3/9 (+2 -5 =2) [1 games]
Btw, I think the "edit standings" table is a small masterpiece. If there were editors enough (which is not obvious to me), perhaps CG could publish more events that have few games. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | chessgames.com: I see what you're saying now. You want to make it obvious when games are missing, even when an editor cleaned up the standings. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | chessgames.com: <See e. g. Asian Continental Championships (Women) (2016) where most of the players have less than 9 games (in database). But the list now (after editing) says xx/9 for all of them. The editor must also fill out the + - = fields, else the sum/total score will be wrong.> If you look at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/edit... you can see the fields that were edited highlighted in yellow. I'm sure you know, you're not permitted to just change the game totals nilly willy; one must supply the + - = values. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | Tabanus: <even when an editor cleaned up the standings> I would rather say <especially> when an editor cleaned up the standings, such as in most pre-2000 events. Yes it's impossible to just change the game totals. The + - = values are from http://chess-results.com/tnr222020.... (which the organiser used), and should add up to 9 games for all (except for those with unplayed losses). I think it's fine to do it this way? I may have missed a point here. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | Tabanus: One advantage is that this way finds wrong game results. If +6 -2 =1 gives 6.5/9 points in Chess-Results (or the organizer's xtab) and you put +6 -2 =1 into CG, only to get 6/9 or 7/9, then you are next guaranteed to have found a wrong game result for that player (and an opponent). This method only works when all or most of the games are in. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | chessgames.com: Maybe what's needed is to have a count of games (or if you rather, missing games) on the page that edits leaderboards. I'm not trying to shoot down your idea. I'm just driven by a design philosophy that pages prominently displayed should not to be "bug reports". For example, we have no list of "oldest living players" because it would simply show players whose date of death is unknown. However, behind the scenes, we have exactly such a tool, and it points out all sorts of mundane database issues. Likewise, we could hide the bug report for editors bent on fixing leaderboards without trumpeting how many games are missing on the main page. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | Tabanus: Editors and in fact everybody can easily see the number of missing (for whatever reason) games before editing. But not <after> editing (as the n games then changes to say 9 for all), which is why my idea. Let's think about it? I can admit it's not the most pressing issue. |
|
Sep-13-17
| | Tabanus: Example: Rector Cup Rapid (2012) shows the n missing games (the players should have 11). But the standings is wrong (except the top 3 perhaps). If I edited it, the standings would be right, but the n missing games would not show. Does that matter? You decide :) |
|
| Sep-14-17 | | ughaibu: How about an option to put the Kenneth Rogoff page on ignore. It's really irritating to see it constantly at the top of the new kibitzing page and have the rampant nonsense posted on it stuffed under one's nose. |
|
Sep-15-17
| | FSR: <chessgames.com> You should make O Seuss vs H Hurme, 1969 the GOTD (I submitted a pun for it yesterday) to continue the "mate by castling" theme initiated by A Kvicala vs NN, 1869. |
|
Sep-15-17
 | | MissScarlett: Now the storm has abated, please attend to my games. |
|
Sep-15-17
| | Tabanus: <CG> Thanks for adding n games to the edit table! On the front pages, I'm not sure any more. I'm not seeing missing games as a "bug". CG's game results and n games are just as good as elsewhere. |
|
Sep-15-17
| | chessgames.com: <FSR> Hurrrrrrrrrmme.... I'll think about it ;-) <Tab> Great, glad you find it useful. <MissS> Yes m'am! |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1025 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
