<voratco: When you are ready to play more name calling, let me know, I am ready. Ok?

Pak off, you bastard.>

and

King's Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.f4

click for larger view

It's way shorter than 6 moves, and some famous games have started this way (e.g. Anderssen vs Kieseritzky, 1851). Also, very popular in the 19th century, but very rare to see in the 21st century. The database says only 700 games have been with this opening since 2000. I hope there's nothing wrong with it. :)

Latvian Gambit
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5

click for larger view

I think we can expect more, much more. Really, it should be easy.

http://www.badbusinessbureau.com/in...

yes, they probably are, but there are a couple of problems.

1) they are seemingly understaffed, at least in some sense.

2) the available tools and the "technical" structure of the site (forums, pages) make it hard to handle the kind of issues we're seeing; maybe a more distributed form of "moderation" could've been implementable if there was more structure to build it upon.

3) the apparant tendency to "reward" those who make the most noise in the cg.com-forum (regardless of reason) does not scale very well - it inevitably leads to more new issues than it solves.

4) it appears that a more revolutional "root cause analysis" might be needed, where one is willing to rethink a couple of factors that currently seem to be outside the scope of consideration.

returning to us, the users and kibitzers of this site, i think there are a few things most of us would do good to consider. most of the problems i observe around here are due to the following, imo:

1) there seems to be a worrying lack of tolerance for people who hold different opinions and beliefs than oneself, and way too many arguments go personal instead of focusing on the topic of debate. discuss what the other kibitzers say and argue, not who you think they are and what you assume are their motives. (because a) you don't know, and b) it's inflammatory)

2) there also seems to be a considerable tendency for passing judgment and making accusations instead of giving others the benefit of the doubt or leaving room/time for people to change their ways. there aren't bad people or good people - we're all human beings and we do good things most of the time and bad things some of the time. the big majority tries to do their best most of the time.

3) if all of us would mainly watch ourselves and make sure to keep our own path clean, we could safely leave to the site administration to take care of the few missteps that people are bound to make. we don't need private lynch mobs, "troops" or "site patrols" who think it's their task to take care of "unwanted behaviour". we don't need their cheerleaders either. those initiatives make the problem worse, not better; blow the whistle or write an email to the admins and *accept* what they choose to do (or not do) about it.

4) and if you absolutely need to interfere with how other people here behave, then try watching your *friends' behaviour* and be a friendly corrective for those who already respect and believe in you. if you can't convince a friend to change his/her ways, you can forget about making someone you openly despise listen to what you have to say.

Oh God, give us all a break.

Apparently your interpretation of Freedom is the right to come barreling through a private place of business and insult as many people as you can, being rude and abrasive to the business owners and customers alike.

Read this loud and clear: This forum is NOT for sounding off on whatever CG related topic you happen to want to get off your chest.

Take this as a serious warning: If you make ONE more post on this page, no matter how trivial, which is NOT a genuine support-issue, you WILL go on probation, and that's a promise. I don't want to see your name on this forum even one more time.

This is always a touchy issue. We recently got an email from somebody who was furious that Hou Yifan was not present. They were a bit rude but I forgive them as I know how passionate people can be about these things.

First it's important to understand that there are two lists, the "short list" that everybody gets, the "longer list of players on the homepage" which you can activate with a preference option. There aren't many important people missing from the long list, but the short list has some very conspicuous absentees. So if it bothers you that somebody is missing, just activate your long list, and forget that a short-list even exists.

Next understand that we have an algorithm to determine who gets to be on the short-list and the long-list. There's no editorial staff that determines which player merits inclusion. It is not strictly based on rating, it also has to do with the number of games. So it's not easy to predict exactly who will be on the lists.

Third point: we do not give the women a bonus. If we just added a rule that said "add 100 points to all women for purposes of being on the list" then we'd suddenly have Kosteniuk and Hou Yifan and a number of popular women on the list along with the guys.

Such a rule seems to us sexist, as if saying that "women are weak and need a handicap to stand on par with the men." We don't believe that to be true.

And yet Yifan Hou's 2639, it might be enough to make her Women's World Champion, but it's a lower rating than (say) Zoltan Gyimesi or Igor Lysyj. Nobody sends us angry emails about THEIR omissions on the short-list.

Sometimes when somebody writes "so-and-so needs to be one the short list" I ask in return "OK, so who should we remove to make space for them?" I know, it's sort of a snarky answer, but it illustrates the dilemma: we can't just keep adding to the short list, or it will one day become longer than the long list!

Thanks, but a few comments:

• No correction slip was submitted. If the protocol was followed this might have been fixed ages ago. Complaining in the kibitzing areas is the worst way to get things done around here.

But indeed, you may expect my first contribution this week, with some 15 notable players, plus a few promising young talents. Later perhaps I can expand, as I have learned the ropes and have the quality upto <Annie K> standards, which is of course quite impossible.