So several questions come up... why would there be two Averbakh-Furman games from USSR-ch28? Did they play mini-matches back then as part of the format?

We checked a few other online databases to see if they had an 80 move Averbakh-Furman game from that period but they just have the same games we have.

<Peligroso's> game from the <Steve Giddins> book is indeed bona fide, but it has a crucial error in the <PGN info field>:

<Averbakh, Yuri - Furman, Semyon Abramovich [D32] URS-ch28, Semi-final, Odessa, 1960>

This game was from the semi-final of the <27th> URS Championship, not the <28th>, which causes the confusion.

The game is easy to find in "Rusbase" with the corrected PGN event field.

It's right here: http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_urs/1...

To find the game <Peligroso> submitted, just click on the PGN zip file under the cross table and whoop there it is.

So to sum up:

1. The game is bona fide

2. There is an error in the PGN field (should be 27th URS Champ semi-final)

In the case of Russian games in particular, <Rusbase> features some of the best chess history research in existence.

On that topic, how long is the pipeline on PGN event field corrections? It's been <two months> since I sumbitted this correction slip, and also posted the correction on the game page:

Alekhine vs K Junge, 1942

<Jan-25-12
jessicafischerqueen: I have submitted a correction slip for this game- >

<It was not played in Cracow, but rather <<<Lublin.>>>

This game is round 5 of the <Third General Government Tournament> played in Poland 11-28 October 1942.

Round 5 was played in <Lublin> on 17th October:

"The first four rounds of the tournament were played in Warsaw, the next four in Lublin and the last three in Cracow.">

--Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946
Skinner and Verhoeven, p.689

=============

The Event Field currently reads "Crakow" for venue and "?" for round. Now you can put in the correct venue and round, thanks to <Skinner and Verhoeven>: "Lublin" "Round 5"

Might take 5 seconds to read this and make the correction? Unless there is a long pipeline.

I tell you what worries me and why I'm putting this in the admin forum- I have a more general question:

Are the people who read the corrections slips operating under a "priority" system in which PGN event fields are given lower priority than other kinds of corrections?

jfq, i would assume it's mostly a capacity problem, although cg.com would have to confirm.

however, i'm a tiny little bit frustrated by not being able to improve the database (its content, not anything technical) in certain, limited areas in a *much* more effective way than the current system of submitting correction slips allows for; submitters tend to express dissatisfaction every so often - not with the system per se, but with the turnaround time, at least for some corrections.

At that time, the Soviet Championships generally began in January. Looking at our two collections:

Game Collection: USSR Championship 1960

Game Collection: USSR Championship 1961a

The 27th was held from 1960.01.26-1960.02.26, and the 28th from 1961.01.11-1961.02.11.

The SemiFinals were generally held in a different city than the Final, and usually preceded it by at least a couple of months. Di Felice's <Chess Results 1956-1960> gives these locations and dates for the semi-finals in question, in both cases citing <Russian Chess Base> as his socure:

URSch-27 Semifinal: Yerevan, 1959

URSch-28 Semifinal: Odessa, 1960.08.20-1960.09.16

His crosstables show that Furman did not play at the first event, while URSch-28 matches the one you cited.

So then <Steve Giddins> had it right the whole time. Good for Steve eh?

And thank goodness for <De Felice>.

2. There is an error in the PGN field (should be 27th URS Champ semi-final)>

To actually answer your question about the pipeline, the numbers look roughly like this: there are about 4000 corrections in the queue. About 1000 of them get corrected a month. However, more trickle in, at the rate of about, um, 1000 a month. So the Librarian is both making huge improvements but ironically feels like she's on an endless treadmill.

In truth, the new slips are coming in at a slower and slower pace (sooner or later it's got to get hard to find obvious mistakes!) so progress is starting to be measurable.

Also - a question on games submission: Do GM games get a higher priority than other games? Or are all <submitted> games treated equally? What's the average response time on game submission running nowadays? Do you have a huge back-log, or are things going well in that area? (I submitted a few games a while back on openings that I was working on, none of these were ever posted, not that I could see.)

Far as I can see, game upload time -- at least for non-GM one-off games -- is running at up to three months. A few of my submissions recently appeared after this kind of gap. I'd begun to think they'd been rejected, but I wasn't complaining. And I'm not complaining now either.

I assume the ECO numbers and variation names are ascribed automatically, but occasionally there are some inconsistencies. One I've found is Naiditsch vs I Sokolov, 2012 and Naiditsch vs T Markowski, 2011. The former describes the position simply as Ruy Lopez Closed (C84), while the latter describes the opening as Ruy Lopez Closed Martinez Variation (C78) although they are identical up to move 11, these being the only two games in the database with this sequence of moves after move 8.

Also it doesn't seem like the more recent of the two games has found its way into the Opening Explorer just yet even though the opening has been ascribed and linked via the ECO number. At Opening Explorer, it should double up with the Markowski game.

Disagree. That is his player page, and it is his right to Moderate it how he sees fit. Let that player decide for himself.