Honestly we haven't figured that part out yet. I imagined some routine that clears out games longer than, say, 1 year old.

But it's sitting on a 1-terrabyte drive and a game only takes up a few kilobytes so it's going to be a long long time before we even need to consider deleting any.

Incidentally, you can link to those games here on CG to show other members. That means the analyze-PGN feature was a really a giant leap forward for us, in a way unrelated to the analysis itself. For the first time you can use Chessgames to show other people games you played using the Olga viewer.

user-game 2683284033980315

To make that link I simply copied the link from where it says

<Analysis is complete.
[ view game ]>

OTOH - info like that should be "local", i.e. embedded in the PGN. Also, it would be nice to "activate" the link on the local <CG> page.

Do you mean, make it so others are/aren't allowed to view the game?

Please can you consider getting an https certificate - there are even some free ones.

The issue is that sites that have moved to https to avoid those browser concern issues on top left before the address have to make sure that their page contents also has only https references to keep the page secure.

Now for example, if I put a link to Chessgames.com from my own site, I would dynamically replace the http with https - but no https is available right now for chessgames.com

As more and more websites move to https because of chrome and firefox making that a priority - also for search engine optimisation ranking as well - the links to chessgames.com would make the source website page contain "insecure elements".

Now I know that you don't get too much sensitive user data if at all - but there is this bridging problem from other sites.

Since then Google introduced "HTTPS everywhere" and now we're compelled to make it activate at all times, for a number of technical reasons.

Yes it can be done in one fell swoop, I just want to make absolutely sure that it's the right thing to do. People actually DO say "superfinals" just like "semi-finals" and "quarter-finals". It might not make much sense but we should call the event what was actually called at the time, whether or not it makes grammatical or logical sense.

<chessgames.com: The amount of "Fuel" received daily for our Analysis Laboratory feature has been upped from 100 to 150. Plus, we just topped off everybody's tank at 2000.>

This line on the analysis page need to be updated:

"Hello, WannaBe. You have 2000 Fuel. You receive <100> more Fuel daily (not to exceed 2000). [more info]"

In other words, you are now allowed to share your victories with other Chessgames members — but only if you let Stockfish provide its commentary.>

My point was I never came up with the term "superfinals" — on numerous occasions it was labeled that way on TWIC (who in turn surely copied it from elsewhere) and I too copied and pasted it into our database. Now I'm told it's not only wrong, but ignorantly wrong. If that's the case, so be it: we all agree that it's much better to be correct than incorrect.

<It's a shame you don't have the option of playing through the analysis with the mouse.> We've considered that from day one. The analysis tab could be, instead of a fixed graphic of a position, a miniature instance of Olga that starts you on the move from which the analysis request began. (And if you go deep into that analysis and have a question, the engine button would hop you to the next Olga instance, ad infinitum.) It's only a little complicated to do it that way, and would be the crowning jewel on the analysis feature.