HOWEVER: the first time it runs anything Java related, Windows 7 will give you a barrage of very cryptic questions, along the line of "Do you give jucheck.exe permission to write to your hard drive?" (As it turns out that's just "Java Update Checker" and is quite harmless.) In short, if you get Windows 7, say "yes" to everything Java-related and then Chessgames will work fine.

There is a kind of a problem that occurs once every year or two, where the GOTD is accidentally wrong (perhaps a repeat in the file, or a typo, or whatever) and then an eagle-eye administrator notices the problem after midnight, and quickly changes it. To the end users everything is normal but behind the scenes our database has a broken calendar pattern.

I appreciate the time and effort you put into this website and I have a suggestion to make. I made a few corrections to the Error Correction Forum a month of so ago, and they have still not been fixed yet. While I do realise you may get a lot of error corrections each day, I recall that the system does not sort the corrections in terms of how old they are.

Is there any possible solution to this problem? Can you perhaps create an account with a chessforum dedicated to error corrections?

The book sounds a fascinating idea. Thanks for the explanation. I'll resubmit the O'Kelly-Ahlbach game.

I would really appreciate it if you guys delete ALL the posts I made today and yesterday on I Hatem.

<Manic> <I do realise you may get a lot of error corrections each day, I recall that the system does not sort the corrections in terms of how old they are. Is there any possible solution to this problem?> Yes. <Can you perhaps create an account with a chessforum dedicated to error corrections?> We could, but that I fear that would just make things worse. The chaos of the discussion areas is much harder than the admin-area that we get to see. It's not the prettiest part of the site but it gets the job done.

In what way would the ultimate error correction system work? Here's some features off the top of my head:

1. Errors processed first-in-first-out, no exceptions.

2. An email field which REALLY WORKS ... it would send you a report of your correction and what action was taken. Strictly optional, of course. And for security reasons we have to use only verified emails on file with us (otherwise it could be hijacked for harassment or even spamming purposes).

3. A way to correct admin mistakes. For example, it's easy to make the error of deleting the wrong game when there are near-duplicates. Right now we have a backup which is a real pain to get into, and a motto of "be careful!" It's not a bad motto, but technology should save us in the times when we show our human side.

4. A way so that trusted volunteers could tackle some of the problems themselves. Combined with the backup system, this shouldn't be too risky of a proposition. If we had just 20 volunteers willing to track down 4-5 corrections a day we'd have it covered.

Part of the problem is that a large number of "corrections" really are mistaken. In fact some of them are submitted by people who are QUITE confused. From time to time we get one that says "this game must be wrong, the final position is not checkmate." Apparently they never heard of "resignation" or even "time forfeiture." I don't mean to belittle these kind people--they can benefit form our site, and their hearts are in the right place, but they simply shouldn't be helping us make corrections.

While this seems the ideal policy, the "No Exceptions" should be relaxed in some circumstances, much as is done now for Game fo the Day corrections or other current events.

But I don't see it as a make-or-break issue. Once the backlog is eliminated and a mechanism put in place for timely maintenance, the exact order of corections won't be a problem.

<2. An email field which REALLY WORKS ... it would send you a report of your correction and what action was taken. Strictly optional, of course. And for security reasons we have to use only verified emails on file with us (otherwise it could be hijacked for harassment or even spamming purposes).>

Definitely. Consistent feedback would give more motivation to continue finding and submitting corrections.

<3. A way to correct admin mistakes. For example, it's easy to make the error of deleting the wrong game when there are near-duplicates. Right now we have a backup which is a real pain to get into, and a motto of "be careful!" It's not a bad motto, but technology should save us in the times when we show our human side.>

You fellows aren't infallible either?

<4. A way so that trusted volunteers could tackle some of the problems themselves. Combined with the backup system, this shouldn't be too risky of a proposition. If we had just 20 volunteers willing to track down 4-5 corrections a day we'd have it covered.>

It's very frustating to keep submitting corrections when nothing ever seems to change. I know I've been affected by the "Oh, why bother" bug often, and that's probably not uncommon. You have some unbelievable historical researchers here who do astounding work. Finding a way in which they could cooperate and more contribute more effectively seems, at the very least, sensible.