One issue I noticed with that Silverlight is that the Ipad doesn't work with it - mind you Ipads and Iphones lock out Flash as well. This might change at some point soon.

Anyway, onto another idea I had this morning - I have a popular Sicilian defence page on Facebook, and I wanted to be able to show the latest Sicilian defence games. On the front page of Chessgames.com is the Latest games from latest tournaments on the left.

Have you thought about a combo box for "Opening fans" - maybe as experiment just 4 major opening systems such as:

Sicilian defence
French defence
Kings Indian Defence
Slav defence

And put these into a combo box on the left with "Latest games with this Opening.."

This shortlist omits both the Spanish and the Catalan. Both very popular. Is it an anti-Iberian thing?

I'd like to see some Grunfelds, but half of them get lumped in with the E60 King's Indian anyway.

Of course I'm sure you know it is possible to find "latest Sicilian games" if you relax your definition of "latest" to mean "anytime in 2011". But what you are essentially asking for is a way to slice the date field more finely than the yearly chunks.

A simpleminded approach would be to make a new checkbox called "game played in last 30 days". In a more advanced system, the exact number of days could be specified. That checkbox might have other handy uses too—if you just want to see what's new in the world of chess it would be a very nice way to do it. After all, we sometimes have new games from tournaments that don't get put in the spotlight on our homepage, but they are in the database nonetheless.

Agreed.

<Instead of linking to the analyses or re-posting them, if we identify which posts at which forums go to which games, would you be able and willing to copy all of the posts including diagrams and place them with the appropriate games?>

Hoo boy.

We really want to do this, but the logistics are important to work out, lest we end up spending a week on the project. The main problem is: how do you describe to us which posts you want to move, and to where to move them to?

When admins click on a "delete" link on a post they see a special link on the confirmation page that other users don't see. This link allows them to move the post from the current thread to somewhere else on the site.

What I'm thinking is that we could use those delete links to be able to do this efficiently, and it will also have the added advantage of ensuring that everybody who is moving a message understands what's going on. Let's go through an example:

Suppose that this message:

AylerKupp chessforum

should be moved to this game:

Golden Executive / Houdini vs Kutztown46 / Stockfish, 2011

I'd like to ask AylerKupp to go in there and click on the "delete" link to get this URL:

www.chessgames.com/perl/kill?kid=U978&reply=263

DO NOT DELETE THE MESSAGE! — I am asking the chessforum owners to go there just to get that URL, no other reason. Then copy and paste the URL into an email along with the game # that it should go to and send it to chess@chessgames.com. I imagine the email to contain a number of instructions, one per line, that look something like this

www.chessgames.com/perl/kill?kid=U978&reply=263 -> G1625067

The exact format isn't critical, as long as it has the delete link and the game # to send it to.

When providing the instructions via email it is also important to put them in the right order. Moved messages will lose their chronological ordering and show up in the order that the admin moved them. So it's probably a good idea to list the messages in chronological order (unless for some reason you think there is a better order).

I know that AylerKupp isn't the only person involved, but since we are removing messages from members' chessforums, asking them all to gather up "delete links" is a way to ensure that we are acting with their full approval. Plus it will make the admin's job 10 times easier.

I will take this up with <AylerKupp>. Either he will do it or I will do it, or we will split the duty (six games each, for example).

Hmmm, I see what you are saying and I agree.

So using the Search Kibitzing instead of having the forum owners separately find the delete links would work just as well. We'll end up with the same information (just a different script being called). So then lines in the aforementioned email would then look similar to this

chessgames.com/perl/kibitzing?kid=U978&reply=263-
-> G1625067

(You could even be a dear and change that "kibitzing" into "kill" for us.)

That is controlled from a premium-only feature called the Chessforum Configuration Page. I would guess the forum owners either forgot to unlock them or just don't regard it as very important.

Plus, in the not-so-distant future there will be a new Chessgames Challenge and then those forums will no doubt spring back to life.

First, I don't think that players should be able to change the historical record on their games.

Second, I am under the impression that the truce is fragile, but surviving.

Third, it needs a chance to work on its own.

<4. Admins clean up the kibitzing 3. It needs a chance to work on its own 2. The truce is fragile but surviving>

These three points are connected by an assumption that the focus of conflict can be resolved by truce. Unfortunately the major disputes that surround AJ Goldsby will require too many site resources to continually police, because they are not of the kind that can be brokered. That's why I'm asking for the admins to reconsider their position, because these areas require more leverage than a simple truce to resolve:

1. His uploading games against strongly outclassed opponents.

2. His insisting that GM Nakamura is a cheater.

3. His rejoicing in the fact that gays will burn eternally in Hell.

It's obvious that the truce will do nothing to stem the flow of conflict arising from these disputes, but is succeeding in creating more differences between members. So another solution is needed.

A trial period could be granted to AJ for kibitzing-control of future uploaded games where he has outclassed his opponent - using this as leverage that he recants his position on Nakamura, and promises not to take part in conversations against the LGBT community.

<First, I don't think that players should be able to change the historical record on their games. >

3. His rejoicing in the fact that gays will burn eternally in Hell. >

Uploading games where the disparity of rating is hundreds of points is the source of conflict. I say nothing of whether that conflict is fair. I've only said you can't broker a truce from it. The next time he uploads such a game the conflict will start all over again.

<So if he strongly suggested Nakamura cheated, it is rational to allow open ended discussion of that for years on end?>

It's not whether it's rational to allow it, but whether it occurs because of it.

<So if he one time claimed a religious viewpoint you don't agree with, you are free to violate Rule #3 at a whim, for an indefinite period of time, and an indefinite number of posts?>

It's not whether one is free to disagree, but that such a viewpoint creates a conflict that cannot be brokered by a simple truce.

< You, sir, are the problem here, and this post is the <perfect> example of where most of the problem lies.>