ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 339 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-24-10
 | | Peligroso Patzer: Where are the games from the "Quad" among the four finalists at the U.S. Championships? They cannot currently be found at US Championships (2010). |
|
May-24-10
 | | Tabanus: <<Stonehenge: <CG> I've already asked this once: It would be nice when using <suggest your correction> that you actually make those corrections. And preferably within a matter of days. Thank you. No hard feelings :)> I asked about this before, cg's answer was that correction time is "within 15 months". Which reminds me of the collections in the museum I'm working. Errors are produced at a faster rate than they are corrected. The museum leaders won't discuss the issue at all. They fear what it might cost, and they fear the prospect of having to dirty work themselves. And their secretaries can't do it. Or be taught to do it. Which is why they are happy to have me, 100% working time payed by outside sources for the 12th year in a row without regular employment. While they are toasting in champagne in the public section. |
|
| May-25-10 | | Dr. J: How does one go about making suggestions for the puzzle of the day? (in this case specifically chessgame?gid=1337050, 34.?) |
|
| May-25-10 | | dakgootje: Kind admins - I wonder, would it be possible to keep personal forums in read-only status whenever his or her membership has expired? Perhaps You noticed that mr. WannaBe has been in contact with dear old Joe Williams [aka JoeWMS]. I wanted to re-read some of his posts, but obviously his forum has been closed, as has Branko's - where we had many a fine discussion.. Obviously, the forums are a premium member-benefit so I ask but for an option to read them - for auld lang syne :) |
|
May-25-10
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <dakgootje> All such posts are still available through Search Kibitzing - it's obviously not the same, but it's way better than nothing. It would in fact do the job quite neatly if we could limit our searches to a single forum, in this case JoeWms chessforum. That would be a useful feature in any case, but I guess the admins are too busy developing another sixty useful features right now :) |
|
| May-25-10 | | dakgootje: I thought about that option, but you would need keywords would you not? Unless you could search for, for instance 'forum=JoeWMS & post=20'. But I agree in that I figured there would probably be some complicated way, if one would <really> need a post. Like, as you implied I think, searching on a members name and just scanning for which posts are in his/her forum. |
|
| May-25-10 | | hms123: <dak> Go to search kibitzing and enter this: +user:joewms You will get 251 pages of kibitzes. You can then jump around the pages to find a range of dates that will get you to the discussions. you won't get all of the posts by others, but often there are quotations that help. |
|
| May-25-10 | | PinnedPiece: <CHESSGAMES>
The uploader has mixed up Nakamura's game round 8 U.S. championships with his 10th-round game. See here:
Onischuk vs Nakamura, 2010
The names of the players are from round 10? But the game is round 8 vs. Kamsky. . |
|
| May-25-10 | | dakgootje: I know there are ways to uncover some posts dear <H>, but the limitations are so severe.. For instance, say you want to re-read a discussion which involved three participants. It is possible to open-up three different cg-screens in your browser and use each for a different person going from one to the other looking at the posted date and logical flow, but I'll guarantee I would walk away after 5 posts regardless of how interesting the topic is. Admitted, part of my reasoning for the initial question was because I suppose(d) the implementation would seem to be quite easy and quick. Maybe that assumption was incorrect though. |
|
| May-25-10 | | hms123: <dak> I agree with you completely that it would be useful to search someone's forum--and I think I made a request like that about a year ago or so. Having closed forums as read-only is a great idea. |
|
May-26-10
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <chessgames.com> Merging the many player files of Natalia Pares Vives, you left out J Pares and Pares Vives J while including N Pares Vives vs A Belezky, 1998, which was probably played by somebody else. (My best bet is Jordi Vives Cabau - http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?..., no other games in this database - but there seem to be plenty of other chess players matching "J Vives" and actively playing in Catalonia, so the original designation, which was just "J Vives", should probably be restored.) |
|
| May-26-10 | | Blunderdome: Forums for Chinese Championships and ACP Rapid Cup, pretty please? |
|
| May-26-10 | | apachetiger: Funny to see:
player of the day: Valery Salov(1964-
and after clicking on the name you see games from 1959 :):):):):) |
|
May-27-10
| | Tabanus: The games from 2002 onwards are not by him either, but rather Sergej Salov This great player also deserves a picture! :) |
|
| May-27-10 | | Ragh: <CG> Please see this post regarding the Match Description you posted at the top of the WCC page: Anand-Topalov World Chess Championship (2010) |
|
| May-27-10 | | Riverbeast: <CG> I agree that posting such a bitter quote from Topalov on the match page, suggests (even if it was unintended) a pro-Anand or anti-Topalov bias on the part of cg.com |
|
| May-27-10 | | jmi: <CG> Anand-Topalov World Chess Championship (2010) I concur with Riverbeast. Such a bitter response from Topalov after the game has no place in the summary at all and only serves to demean the match. I also find the reporting extremely uneven. If Anand's seconds were mentioned, why not Topalov's seconds or that he received unprecedented support from the Bulgarian govt in using the Blue Gene/P supercomputer or the latest Rybka engine? I would also prefer if CG had instead used a photo of the match venue with both players on the board than that of Anand. |
|
| May-27-10 | | hms123: I am a big fan of Anand, and think his picture is appropriate on the summary page. Nonetheless, the summary seems very biased toward Anand and against Topalov (for whom I have little sympathy). |
|
| May-27-10 | | PinnedPiece: Chessgames.com
Thanks for the information in the header information on the Anand-Topalov WCC. I like it. But what I want to know is, Why haven't you responded concerning the mixup on the final rounds for Nakamura in the U.S. championship? See my earlier post.
The Naka round 8 & 10 game scores & opponents appear to be very knackerised. . |
|
| May-27-10 | | Rachit: Please change the page for Anand-Topolov match. it looks like it was written to malign someone and insult somebody else. Some of the worst kibitzers on this site can write better. |
|
May-28-10
 | | chessgames.com: Regarding the <2010 WCC Article> We have revised the article, mostly by removing the paragraph that involves post-match controversy in what was actually a very uncontroversial match. We also clarified a factual point regarding the use of Sofia Rules. We understand the back-and-forth about whether or not Sofia Rules would be employed, Anand's refusal, Topalov's response, and so forth. That too amounts to adding needless controversy into an otherwise civil match. It is impossible to explain exactly the situation in a three-paragraph article, so it should suffice to say it was played in the "style of the Sofia Rues", i.e., silence during the games, and the use of arbiters to mitigate draw requests. We are sticking with the "lapse of concentration" part as we think that the term "blunder" is overworked and shows a lack of respect. We are also sticking with the "ever aggressive-Topalov seemed to have a psychological edge even while trailing" part. It adds journalistic excitement to an otherwise dull paragraph, and moreover, it's true. We welcome anybody to send us a revised or even completely rewritten version to chess@chessgames.com for consideration. |
|
May-28-10
| | chessgames.com: <PinnedPiece> <Why haven't you responded concerning the mixup on the final rounds for Nakamura in the U.S. championship? See my earlier post.> We're very sorry, what post? We obtained the scores from the official site -- not always a good idea. |
|
May-28-10
 | | Phony Benoni: <PinnedPiece> Was it this post? chessgames.com chessforum |
|
| May-28-10 | | PinnedPiece: <PB> Correct. If you look closely at the Onischuk vs Nakamura game I linked to, you will see that the <PGN score> lists the contestants properly: Nakamura = Kamsky. It should be easy enough to fix, but the names on the link in question will need to transferred to the round 10 game, if that is where Onischuk v Nakamura was actually played with these moves: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. Nc3 Ne4 7. Nxe4 Bxe4 8. O-O O-O 9. Ne5 Bxg2 10. Kxg2 d6 11. Nf3 Nd7 12. e4 c5 13. b3 cxd4 14. Nxd4 Qc7 15. Bb2 Qb7 16. Qf3 Rab8 17. Rad1 a6 18. a4 Ne5 19. Qe2 Rfe8 20. Rfe1 Nc6 21. Nxc6 Qxc6 22. Qf3 Rb7 23. e5 Qxf3+ 24. Kxf3 dxe5 25. Bxe5 f6 26. Bd6 Kf7 27. Bxe7 Kxe7 28. Rd3 Rd7 29. Rde3 Rd6 30. a5 Rb8 ½-½ Thanks.
<<<<NB:>>> The only reason I am concerned at all is a very selfish one: I kept track of commentators comments, game time/move, and key move decision and post-game analysis, and wanted to paste it into the game page as the first comment. I have never done this before. But the <one> game I chose to do this, it is mucked up!>> . |
|
May-29-10
| | chessgames.com: The reason why the score sheet doesn't match the database is that we corrected it, then realized that we didn't have the complete picture, and undid our correction until we have more complete information. Could we please have a link to both games that require correction along with the players that played them? Or better yet, just put a correction slip in for both games. |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 339 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
