<If you don't like a business's operation, don't retain it's services.>

I also applaud the recent "suspensions" and "sanctions" that you have done, even though I was one of those who got smacked down.

Your message to me and the Troop and <AJ> has been heard loud and clear. The last two weeks have shown a great improvement for the other members all across the site. The insults and obscenity are, hopefully, a thing of the past.

This forum has multiple purposes:

• To help Chessgames users get the most out of Chessgames by answering their questions

• Helping customers with a variety of issues (payments, passwords, etc.) when normal email communication fails

• To solicit suggestions for improving the site

• Other miscellaneous announcements that are not important enough to deserve homepage coverage

There are a few things that it is specially NOT for:

• Pasting PGN of games to be submitted

• Pointing out errors in games

• Complaining about the behavior of other users

• Joking around, sharing stories, etc. (although this is mostly tolerated)

The posts of yours that we removed neither asked relevant questions nor helped answer anybody else's questions. You talked about Goldsby (and how you have left him alone), you took multiple swipes at tpstar, but nothing you posted was either an earnest question or a suggestion.

Actually there was one question: you asked <Is user <tpstar> a member of your staff???> I strongly believe this question was disingenuous, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, we'll answer this for you. The answer is "no."

Chessgames.com has quite rightly taken action to enforce this site's posting guidelines. I would have been happier if they had done it sooner, but better late than never.

Now what everyone needs to do is to stop quibbling, stop playing the barrack room lawyer and actively <help> CG.com to set this site straight again.

And, yes, I am sure that everyone feels that they aren't as guilty as someone else. And that someone else should be punished more than you. That doesn't really matter any more.

this page is *not* for ...

<Complaining about the behavior of other users >

what about both complaining <and> suggesting that specificj, named users should be banned (permanently), then?

why isn't such rubbish like that always immediately deleted? to put it differently - when admins *allow* such <extreme violations> of both posting guidelines and the guidelines for the use of this specific page, *not* deleting it and *not* otherwise expressing disagreement (publicly), then it's tempting to assume one of

1) double standards
2) bad judgment

this is unfortunate, and i think more for cg.com itself than for any individual user.

extrajudicial punishments and neighbourhood/community watch "programs" are *not* a good way to improve the cg.com community, and i think cg.com should be very clear on who's running this site and taking care of its business (and community). any self-appointed policing of the site is a *problem* for cg.com, not an asset, imnsho.

once, if you mean that people should be friendly to each other, discuss chess and so on, i completely agree.

i assume that you do *not* mean that we should adopt stasi-like programs where everyone spies on everyone while trying to dig up some *wrong* or *bad* behaviour that can be brought to the attention of the "police" (or alternatively used for blackmail).

We agree too, and in that spirit we just deleted a number of posts from this page that were part of its spiral out of control.

It was a bit painful to delete some of these posts because most of them were 100% true and heartfelt, they just weren't on the real purpose of this Chessforum.

<Please note> This post is not the official announcement of the Team-vs-Team Challenge, it's just a plea for help to Chessgames members, to help us get a list of openings put together properly before the newsletter goes out. :) The official announcement with all of the nitty-gritty details will be in that newsletter, due later this month.

OK folks, here's what's up. The next Team-vs-Team game has been decided to be a thematic correspondence game, in which the opening moves will be pre-determined by a vote.

We dub this

♔ THE <CHESSGAMES THEMATIC CHALLENGE> ♔

Like the previous team-vs-team games, it will be open only to premium members.

Here's some great news: we have an ingenious web form in which we can solicit choices of members about various opening positions, in which bad opening positions (say, ones in which one side is clearly winning) will automatically be winnowed out, and contentious positions (where there is great debate over which is the preferred side) will be the ones that float to the top.

Voters will be able to choose one of four options for each positions: "I want to play White", "I want to play Black", "I would play either side", or simply "It's not my cup of tea." You can vote however you want on each position--but be careful, because your decision may one day determine which side you are assigned to!

Now the question we are wrestling with is, how to best choose these openings that people get to vote on?

We were thinking that some of the most wild openings would be the most fun, especially if they actually contribute something to theory. But "wild" means different things to different people, so let's talk about what we really mean.

Here are just a few ideas that flew around the office:

• <THE TRAXLER> The (in)famous Traxler Counterattack, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 Bc5, looks utterly insane, allowing White to capture on f7 with check, or forking and winning a rook. And yet, the last we checked, it's still not refuted. Plus, that king-walk variation teeters on the edge of checkmate and success so effectively that it's famous for straining the limits of even modern computers.

• <IMMORTAL DRAW VARIATION> One of our very own members claimed this classic has been busted by his overnight run of Houdini. But ever the skeptics, we wouldn't be surprised if an even longer run can bust-the-bust! Can the immortal draw be saved by Chessgamers? [Note: if this opening was chosen, Black would enjoy the benefit of draw-odds.]

• <BLACKMAR-DIEMER> The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3, never enjoyed a good reputation but its adherents believe that it's logical, sound, and aggressive.

• <MODERN BENONI> Based on a previous suggestion we want to include an option for the The Modern Benoni. We considered the move order 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5, however Benoni advocates often use a different move order, waiting for White to commit Nf3. On the other hand, the systems in which White plays an early f4 are among the fieriest in chess.

Of course there are so many ideas, the Benko Gabmit, the Albin, the King's Gambit, you name it. We are also considering not-so-popular gambits like the Tennison (1 Nf3 d5 2 e4) and even that nutty "Halloween Attack".

If we put something silly on the list, we don't feel so bad, since nutty ideas won't win the popular vote. (Or if they do, that proves they weren't so nutty after all! :)

However, the main concern is that we fail to include enough openings that people truly want to play. We don't want to just present a list of joke openings with no serious choices. There's where you come in! If you have a really good idea, now is the time to speak up!

In summary:

<1> We will soon issue a voting booth that will contain a number of exciting opening positions to choose from. You'll be able to vote for each position, as either "white" or "black", or both, or neither.

<2> Before that happens, we want to hear from you (either right here, or by email) about what opening positions you think might be good for the poll. So post your ideas right here, any worthy idea will be regarded as a nomination. No need to "second" anybody's nomination--if you have an idea, let's hear it.

<3> Finally when the Spring newsletter is mailed the final positions will be there, we'll announce the voting on the homepage, and everybody can choose which positions they are willing to play as White and/or Black.

<4> We'll find out what the most contentious position is, and then we'll play it! A good time to be had for all.

If so, then I would like to nominate the Evans Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.♗c4 ♗c5 4.b4).

click for larger view