As for wild and interesting openings... the Yudasgoat ;-))

When you have a laptop it sometimes happens that you touch your touchpad accidentally. Then the cursor can indeed disappear. There's a handy program, Touchpad Blocker, that you can install if you're using a mouse instead of a touchpad.> Thanks very much for that suggestion! Although, on second thought, I use a desktop PC with an optical mouse, on a pad... ;)

I see. And it's still about 15 to go. >

< chessgames.com: <Penguincw> Two great suggestions, but we're going to decline both of them. >

I see. The Nimzo-Indian I kept hearing from someone saying it was "dynamic" and the Marshall, well, you need at least 8 moves. Thanks for looking at them anyways. :)

< <the Evans Gambit> Great! >

I am posting this publicly instead of emailing <CG> in hope that in doing so, some other well-meaning kibitzers will realize how unfair the current system is and that the <probation/suspension/ban without notice and explanation> could also happen to them.

If his friend had just e-mailed the site from the start and discussed it with the Administrators privately, nobody would have known. Instead he is making an issue out of it, thus no productive resolution, and now some collateral damage.

Note this site has decency standards which might be more conservative than our own. There was a time when "whore" was blocked by the SOAP filter. Their reasoning behind their actions is usually quite understandable, or else based on previous precedent.

However, if it is really up for grabs I like the insane <Bryntse's Gambit>

1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 Nf3 dxe4 4 Ng5 Nf6 5 Bc4 Bg4 (5...e6 spoils the fun).

click for larger view

1) Morra gambit (1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3):

click for larger view

2) Danish gambit (1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3):

click for larger view

3) Goring gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. c3):

click for larger view

4) During one challenge we briefly debated the Milner-Barry gambit against the French (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3):

click for larger view

5) Alekhine's defense (1. e4 Nf6):

click for larger view

6) Scandinavian/Center Counter (1. e4 d5):

click for larger view

I'm not sure that something like 1. b4 or 1. g4 would get enough <pro> votes, but I guess they could be thrown in the mix to see.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5!?

click for larger view

I would love to see an Ulvestad Gambit -

click for larger view

(1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 - Opening Explorer)

Specifically, I would like to suggest the position arising after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6, although the move order is not really important.

click for larger view

Opening Explorer lists games with 14 different 7th moves by White so Team White has many choices from the cowardly (just kidding) 7.h3 to the sharp 7.f4 to many options in between. I would personally like the game to continue 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+ (the Taimanov attack, A67) particularly since Richard Palliser's latest book, "the Modern Benoni" has many lines where he does not have a definite opinion as to which side stands better, but that would be Team White's decision. I would look forward to being on Team Black from this position.

I also want to say that I understand your position and your reasons for not pre-informing members that they will place on probation for their actions and their reasons. But here are some thoughts for your consideration:

1. Your reason for not relying on pre-contacting members that you're planning to put on probation is understandable. However, perhaps simultaneously you should also make an attempt to do so using the email address they've provided you even though only 40% of those addresses may be accurate. That may increase the number of members that have an opportunity to hear your reasons for your action since if you depend on them to initiate contact they may just simply ignore the situation and leave the site, never to return. Of course, many of these may still do that even if they received a list of the reasons, but no one would be able to criticize you for not trying.

2. I also understand why you don't want to bother sending emails to accounts such as Viagra4u@trashmail.net. But each members posting history is available to you, and you can choose to only send explanatory emails to those members that have a history, not those who are likely spammers. You do not have to treat everyone equally. And those that complain about not being treated equally or fairly will likely be the ones most deserving of the most drastic treatment.

3. The same would apply to any waiting period prior to the suspension of posting privileges. Again, let the content of the offender's posts be your guide. If, for example, you come across a spammer with a high volume of posts, some of them highly objectionable, then that person's posting privileges could be revoked immediately. Others whose posts are "milder" and "less frequent" (however you choose to define those words) could be given a time window to contact you to discuss the situation prior to implementing their probation.

Regarding this concern of "probation without notice and explanation", I honestly don't know what the problem is.

<Is there a notice?> Of course there is. When you go to post, you are told that you are on kibitzing probation, and given instructions for lifting the probation. A cold and stark notice, we admit, but there's your notice.

<Is there an explanation?> Of course there is. When you contact an admin we'll explain, via email, in as much detail as you require. That includes showing the very posts which which caused the probation.

<What about the three-day warning period?> The only other idea left on the table is matebay's idea that instead of putting people on probation immediately we instead send them an email saying "three days from now you will be on probation." That notion is so naive it's hardly worthy of ridicule.

It's worth mentioning, we do in fact occasionally warn people via email things like "if you keep posting like you have been, then you're going to go on probation", a measure that has mixed results. That's an exceptional measure. -- it's our discretion to make such efforts. Warnings like that coming from an admin are courtesies, not rights.

<SwitchingQuylthulg: <chessgames.com> I take it computers will be allowed in this game? You didn't actually spell it out anywhere :)> We're planning on allowing computers. After all we want to get to the truth of an opening verdict, and if computers help us get to the truth, so be it.

<crawfb5> All excellent ideas.

About the Benoni:

<AylerKupp: I would like to formally request that the Modern Benoni be included in the list of opening that will be voted on. ... I would like to suggest the position arising after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6> Aha! So you think the Taimanov attack should still be on the table, if White wants to do that. You see, some Benoni advocates insist on only playing ...c5 once White has played Nf3, therefore eliminating the possibility of the f4-e5 thrust (or f4-f5) thrust.

A long time ago there was a very prolific poster on this site. He was a great guy, not to mention a relatively strong chess player, and everybody enjoyed his contributions. However, he was possessed of a risque sense of humor, and some days it came out more than others.

One day he crossed the line and used a colloquialism which describes a specific sexual act. So an admin put him on probation for that, and we waited to hear from him. And waited. And waited.

Had we got an email, I would have just written to him "Hey, you know can say ______ around here, it's a G-rated site!" and then I would have immediately reinstated him. But he never did write.

As it turned out, he made an entirely new account. It seems that he would rather start from scratch at chessgames than go through the indignity of writing to chess@chessgames.com and apologizing. I don't think he despised us or resented our policies, he just was a very private person who didn't like being commanded to reach out to communicate to anybody.

I empathize with his point of view. Nobody likes being sent to the principal's office. If the roles were reversed, I might make a fresh account myself. And yet I do not believe that at any time CG did anything wrong.