ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 364 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-11-10
 | | Domdaniel: <CG> The question of creating an 'error message' for illegal move votes in team games has cropped up before. It was generally felt such messages would be useful, and would assist players who accidentally inputted a typo or tried to move into check, etc. Is it just coincidence that the error message was implemented in the past 24 hours? At a time when a bunch of World players were deliberately voting crazy moves in an effort to slow down the practice of early voting? |
|
Nov-11-10
 | | Stonehenge: <CG> Can you please look into my post from Nov. 7th? The serious one I mean :) |
|
| Nov-11-10 | | rapidcitychess: <chessgames.com>
I should of posted it here but anyhoo:
<rapidcitychess: Doesn't this violate the pun regulation that there shouldn't be a reference to a chessgames.com user?> On today's GOTD. Thanks! |
|
Nov-11-10
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <rapidcitychess> User puns shouldn't have such references, but admin puns are a completely different slice of porridge. They even directly used <holland oats> as a GotD title after he won the 2008-09 ChessBookie World Championship: Amsterdam vs Rotterdam, 1824 |
|
| Nov-11-10 | | rapidcitychess: <Switching>
Odd, but oh well, the admins do as they may. |
|
Nov-11-10
 | | Phony Benoni: Which gives me an opening to ask a question: What is the limit on the length of the introduction to a collection? I'm working on Game Collection: Game of the Day Pun Index, which I'm sure will exceed any such limit at some point (only up to June 2005 so far). |
|
Nov-12-10
 | | chessgames.com: <Stonehenge: <CG> There are two Sorensen-Nielsen Copenhagen 1873, 28 moves 0-1 C40 in the DB. But believe it or not, they are not identical.
This one B Sorensen vs Nielsen, 1873 was played by Vilhelm Nielsen. This one B Sorensen vs Nielsen, 1873 was played by Govert F Nielsen - I couldn't find him in the DB. White was B Sorensen = Balduin Fernando Sorensen.> Thanks for sorting that out. |
|
Nov-12-10
| | chessgames.com: <rapidcitychess: Doesn't this violate the pun regulation that there shouldn't be a reference to a chessgames.com user?> That rule is only for the Pun Submission Page, the purpose to avoid users receiving unwanted attention. Some members want to preserve their privacy and not let it be generally known that they are in the database. The CG staff however may decide honor users from time to time with ample discretion. |
|
Nov-12-10
| | chessgames.com: <Phony Benoni: Which gives me an opening to ask a question: What is the limit on the length of the introduction to a collection?> Offhand it seems like the software doesn't enforce any limit at all, which means that the database will enforce its own limit, rudely, by snipping off the end of your text. We regard this as bug which we'll have to address sooner or later, but we promise to leave the limit very large for you. |
|
Nov-12-10
| | chessgames.com: <Domdaniel: Is it just coincidence that the error message was implemented in the past 24 hours? At a time when a bunch of World players were deliberately voting crazy moves in an effort to slow down the practice of early voting?> From time to time an admin may see an illegal move and declare it as invalid for this move. It's not really a validity checker, it's just a way to outlaw specific moves. It comes in especially handy when there is a common mistake, like forgetting the check symbol. The other day we wiped out some preposterous Nxe8# moves or something, is that what you are referring to? Anyhow, yes, it was just a coincidence. |
|
Nov-13-10
| | Phony Benoni: <chessgames.com> Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it and report if anything untoward happens. |
|
| Nov-13-10 | | computer chess guy: A recent computer chess tournament was held on the freechess.org server, won by Thinker (Crafty 2nd). Games are available from http://compchess.org/ACCAChampionsh....
Btw. also I think you do not have games from this earlier tourney: http://compchess.org/ACCAWCRCC/2010... |
|
Nov-13-10
| | Domdaniel: <CG> -- <The other day we wiped out some preposterous Nxe8# moves or something, is that what you are referring to?> Yes, that's it. There may have been over 30 such moves at peak. Those who 'made' them reported that their votes had been nullified, leaving them free to pick a legal move. And subsequent attempts to vote in this way got the Error message. I think the type of illegal move and the numbers voting for it should have alerted you to the fact that this wasn't a routine error or a notation problem. It was a strategy -- anyone voting for the crazy move was, in effect, announcing to the team that they were still considering the options, and would switch to the best choice available before the deadline. It was hoped that this might deter early voters, who post their move as soon as they can and often fail to check back to see what improvements may have surfaced. Is there any reason why this strategical device should be off-limits? I know that initially it confused some voters, but the hope was that they'd read the forum, get the message, get used to it. There are precedents from the first Arno Nickel game, when the use of forums etc went beyond admin expectations, and later led to the introduction of 'closed' forums etc. Is this a resource too far? |
|
| Nov-13-10 | | crawfb5: Wouldn't adding an "undecided" option to the vote serve the same purpose and be less confusing overall? Barring an administrative change, I thought voting (however temporarily) for move #2 or #3 in popularity would help keep the vote closer and help stimulate the debate. |
|
Nov-13-10
| | Domdaniel: <crawfb5> Excellent idea. I'd vote for that. An 'undecided' option *that actually shows up as such*. Or would it seem too wishy-washy? And more wishy than washy, as Nigel Short once said. |
|
Nov-13-10
 | | Annie K.: <craw> & <Dom> I like that too. I keep worrying about some "obviously ridiculous", yet legal, vote actually winning, if some undecideds forget to return to vote in time. Or the move coming close enough to winning that everybody actually around has to drop all good alternatives and resign themselves to backing a single leader, just to beat the monster. |
|
| Nov-13-10 | | dakgootje: <I thought voting (however temporarily) for move #2 or #3 in popularity would help keep the vote closer and help stimulate the debate.> I have done that multiple times in the past actually. It is no solution if a lot of people start doing it though, because it would become completely unclear which move actually has support and which move only temporary support. An 'undecided'-option would be terrific though |
|
| Nov-13-10 | | crawfb5: <dak> Yes, that is a potential problem, but if you are making a temporary vote, it behooves you to keep watch on the count in case you need to make a <second> or even <third> temporary vote... :-) |
|
| Nov-13-10 | | whiteshark: Today Almira "Skippy" Skripchenko playing Black uncorked an interesting exchange sacrifice in rd 3 of the German Bundesliga vs Ronald Koehler :
<1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5 3.Nf3 e4 4.Ng5 f5 5.Nc3 Be7 6.Nd5 Bxg5 <TN> 7.Bxg5 Qxg5 8.Nxc7+ Kd8 9.Nxa8> 
click for larger view There were dozens of other interesting games from rd 1+2+3 that I'm gonna show you... here! |
|
Nov-13-10
| | chessgames.com: <Domdaniel> <I think the type of illegal move and the numbers voting for it should have alerted you to the fact that this wasn't a routine error or a notation problem. It was a strategy -- anyone voting for the crazy move was, in effect, announcing to the team that they were still considering the options, and would switch to the best choice available before the deadline.> We had no idea that there was some kind of strategy behind these votes, we just thought it was a number of people fooling around. <Is there any reason why this strategical device should be off-limits?> Well, for one thing, if the World Team ever votes for an illegal move the software will not make a play, and the arbiters (us) will probably regard that as voting for resignation. So you might as well vote for 0-1 if you're going to vote for Nxd8#. Perhaps allowing "undecided" as a legitimate vote is a good idea. |
|
| Nov-14-10 | | Pyke: Just a reminder, as the problem is still there:
<Open Defence: these games from the 11th Men's World University Championship 2010 have been added to the ex-champ Botvinnik's page, I think they are mapped to the wrong Botvinnik, and should have gone to the younger namesake:Botvinnik vs J Guerra
G Munkhgal vs Botvinnik
G Orgil vs Botvinnik
Botvinnik vs V Papin
Botvinnik vs Peter Meier
K Mekhitarian vs Botvinnik
J Wyss vs Botvinnik
I have submitted correction slips for each of them but since this is a bulk scenario thought I would let you guys know here as well> |
|
Nov-14-10
| | Domdaniel: <CG> These games are currently credited to Robert Eugene Byrne. Keene vs R Byrne, 1964
W Heidenfeld vs R Byrne, 1968
A Coldrick vs R Byrne, 1971
R Byrne vs S Ryan, 1971
R Byrne vs Sam Lynn, 1971
R Byrne vs H MacGrillen, 1971
T Ireton vs R Byrne, 1971
R Byrne vs S Heffernan, 1992
They were actually played by former Irish international Ray Byrne (b.1948), who doesn't have a player page. Maybe you could create one and move the games? |
|
Nov-16-10
| | chessgames.com: OK, so the problem is that Mikhail Botvinnik is being mixed-up with Mikhail Botvinnik. It's easy to imagine how that could happen. FIDE lists the following Botvinniks currently playing chess (well, two are inactive currently) 2804832 Botvinnik, Ilia m ISR 2369 7 1960 2806088 Botvinnik, Irina wf ISR 2216 0 1961 w 4150953 Botvinnik, July RUS 2150 0 1924 i 2805650 Botvinnik, Mikhail ISR 2360 10 1983 4110919 Botvinnik, N. RUS 2005 0 wi We can handle Irina Botvinnik, Ilia Botvinnik, et al without any fuss but this one who has the exact same name as the world champ is causing a little consternation. This is nothing new, there are probably a dozen Petrosians in the world of chess and we cope with that. In Tigran's case we sidestepped the problem by always using his full name, middle name included. The impressive sounding "Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian" can't possibly be confused for any other. But World Chess Champion Botvinnik is rarely called by his middle name (Moiseyevich) --in this case we would prefer to stick the middle name on the younger one rather than the world champion. It's a very arbitrary decision, but it only effects essentially cosmetic issues. It would be very helpful if we had a middle name for the young Mikhail Botvinnik, as a way to distinguish between them. If we aren't careful here we will be begging for bugs to crop up, like the pulldown menu taking you to the younger Botvinnik, or searches making faulty assumptions. |
|
Nov-16-10
| | chessgames.com: <Domdaniel> The efficiency in which you reported those errors is exemplary. Thanks. |
|
| Nov-16-10 | | rapidcitychess: Hullo guys.
On this game P Vaitonis vs E Eliskases, 1933 it seems a bit blunderous to be for the great Erich. Are you sure this game is good? It might also need to be rejected for purely quality errors too. Thanks. |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 364 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
