I remember a few years ago having a discussion, or a lecture given even, by a member named <klangenfarben>, who lamented the PGN indices and proposed a new and improved system vastly superior to the PGN. That ship seems to have sailed. Stimulating discussion nonetheless.

Perhaps that should read "reached". A spot check showed that games from the last few years, especially tournament games, include the full date field. That is probably because the date is readily available when the PGN is created.

Going back to previous years, even recently submitted games often lack the date field not because of carelessness, but because the information is simply not readily available. Many older games have been found in newspaper columns, magazines, or books which would give only the year.

To illustrate: on page 174 the chapter reads as follows, "Kissingen, 12-24 August, 1928" - and indeed dates with the individual games are not, or coincidentally given.

Meticulously organized and well-written book, but the Games Register at the end only gives City and Year, not date.

I sorta like it; that's why we have to do the research. The book I have in front of me was published in <1949> ... "Databases? PGNs? What??!!"

[Event "London Match"]
[Site "London, England"]
[Date "1866.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Bird, Henry E"]
[Black "Steinitz, Wilhelm"]
[ECO "A02"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nf6
5.d4 Nc6 6.Bg5 Bg4 7.e3 Qd7 8.Bxf6 gxf6
9.Bb5 O-O-O 10.d5 Qe7 11.Bxc6 Qxe3+ 12.Qe2 Qc1+ 13.Qd1 Rde8+ 14.Bxe8 Rxe8+ 15.Kf2 Qe3+ 16.Kf1 Bxf3 17.gxf3 Bc5 18.Kg2 Rg8+ 0-1

Each bit of information is labelled by a specific tag or code; for example, <[White ""]>. If you do not use this format, the computer cannot tell properly interpret the information. Your error message "PGN lacks the White code" was probably the result of not having the <[White""]> code. It's also possible that you erased the quotation marks (""). I do that sometimes too, and they are essential.

Here are six Webb-Hartston games:

We quite often receive heroic efforts of chess fans who tediously typed every move by hand, even converting from descriptive to algebraic. Then when we process the game we find that a game of 80 moves might have two or three typos. Sometimes we can fix them by hand, other times they are too mysterious to fix, either way it's a pain for all involved.

Just upgraded to Windows 7.

I have already installed the correct version of Java. The cvd file does not install, do you know how to do it manually?

Years covered: 2010 to 2010

I haven't got time to find the exact date right now, but the 100th anniversary of S Levitsky vs Marshall, 1912 may be coming up very soon. It was played at the German Congress in Breslau, which was held July-August 1912.

A simple and free PGN generator is available at http://www.caissa.com/chess-tools/p... Just click "Manually Enter Position" and click "Next", enter the moves and click "Next", enter the header info and click "Next". Now simply highlight and copy the PGN from the screen.

<In other words, if someone logs in and votes in a team game, but does not post a message to a forum, does this "count" when determining "last seen"? Thanks.> Oh, absolutely. There's no way to slip into Chessgames and do something account-related while avoiding to update your last-seen counter.

"show spoilers from time to time because it encourages people to think combinations all the way through, instead of simply finding a move which looks like it initiates an attack, without considering the defenses."

Coming from someone who takes great pride in doing his best on the daily puzzles, I am sincerely glad that I was determined, prior to you posting today's puzzle, to <not> formulate a solution today:

I would have hated to be looking for a forced win/draw on the most difficult puzzle day (which is also most peoples' rest/family day).

It is a somewhat adversarial thing to do to the members/patrons/espousers of this excellent and unique Chess community.

LTJ

PS. In all honesty, I must say that it is equally as bad as the times this site puts up puzzles that only lead to some sort of ok advantage, but nothing that can immediately be called <decisive> or at the very least <clear>: Yesterday's puzzle is one example; as is, Zukertort vs Englisch, 1883.

Let me give you an example of what I mean:

This past Monday you put up Karpov vs Geller, 1983

The move to find was <31. Qxc4!>, but you failed to note that Black had a tremendous reply, <31...Re7!> leading to a longer variation which was more of the Wednesday/Thursday vintage than the traditional Monday one.

The problem is that there were people there erroneously claiming the full point for that day for only having found <31. Qxc4> without taking into account <31...Re7!> - as if White does not find the proper reply to this move he will be the one losing material!

Therefore, it is important that each day you put on a note saying <This is the expected solution for today to claim the full point>.

That way,

a) You won't have members, as it happened on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, saying "You had to post all the line to claim the point today" <LTJ: Which is true actually> and or "I only found this one move which is good for the full point" <LTJ: Which in the case of this past Monday was misguided and untrue>

b) You will assist in lessening the verbal disagreements between members turning the daily puzzle into a serious-for-everyone/competitive and <graded> tool for chess improvement.

Of course it goes without saying that if there is an alternate solution to the puzzle, then us members will point that out as we already do, making that alternate solution good for the full point as well.

(Although it would be even better if you also stated, <The following alternate solution(s) is/are also good for the full point>).