Urcan is a recognised chess historian, and his opinions carry some weight, perhaps comparable to Edward Winter. While <we> may know that the substance of most of his criticisms are relatively insubstantial, the punters who <don't> come here don't know that, and they may be swayed by Urcan's criticisms to avoid this site.

It doesn't take much to deter people, for example one GM I know is somewhat scornful of the site as there hasn't been a perfect delineation between his standard games and his rapid games.

IMO Urcan's criticisms need to be handled carefully.

This is so what Daniel and the other admins don't need, but they're the only ones that can really address Urcan directly and authoritatively. If Urcan is jealous, spiteful and small-minded as someone postulated, there's nothing anyone can do as he would clearly have an agenda.

In December (when she took a week vacation and only worked three weeks) she accomplished this:

TOTAL # of SLIPS PROCESSED IN DEC: 508
TOTAL # of PLAYERS MERGED IN DEC: 206
TOTAL # of PLAYERS EDITED IN DEC: 519
TOTAL # of GAMES MERGED IN DEC: 7
TOTAL # of GAMES EDITED IN DEC: 261

When she started the duplicates (merges) were processed in the hundreds every month. This month, only seven! Dupes used to be so easy to locate you couldn't help notice them. Now after almost two years of her efforts, it's actually difficult to locate a duplicate anywhere in our database.

Also note how the number of her edits far outweighs the correction slips. That's because so often one thing leads to another: somebody says a player is wrong, and that shows that there must be a duplicate game, and then the opening moves are slightly different, and one of the tournaments must be wrong, and so on. She fastidiously pieces together each puzzle and rights the wrongs, even to the point of embarking on independent research. She never simply "guesses"--if there is a Fritz Sprenkmann and an F Sprenkmann both from the 1870s, she'll actually try to find a source confirming that they're really the same person.

And while some of the correction slips are very well stated and easy to follow, others look like they were typed with baseball gloves on. But she "does the needful" and plows onward through the easy slips and hard ones alike.

She received a good Christmas raise this year from Chessgames, and deserves every dime. We're afraid a smart girl like herself will find a better offer, and we don't want to lose her.

I agree with those who call for restraint in response. Shore up the weak points addressed in Urcan's article and make sure the correction slip system is functioning properly.

Urcan's personal attacks on Chessgames.com community members such as AJ Goldsby and Ray Keene were totally classless and reveal ulterior motives on Urcan's part.

<That's what really hurts about Urcan's article. We work so hard, and he brushes us aside as "haphazard and uncaring." If only he knew how much we really care.>

Indeed. He doesn't see - and sadly probably doesn't care, otherwise he would have asked, or been in private communication rather than public excoriating you - the enormous amount of work that is being done. He mistakes work in progress for incomplete work put together with a sloppy uncaring attitude and seems to have absolutely no idea of how this place functions. The relationship between yourselves and your members, many of whom are volunteers that are adding enormous value to the content and gravitas this site is accumulating, is something I believe is unique.

It's often been said that the best revenge is success, and the continuous work and innovations you've been uncorking since you started this place are a testament to anyone with a mind and a heart of the intelligent dedication you've put into this project. The number of volunteers providing their labor to materially improve the site is testimony to the mutual loyalty and respect you've built since 2001.

Also, the splendid work of the chess librarian is one I would also like to acknowledge and to wish her an amazing New Year. Please keep us in touch with these kinds of progress reports!

That's what really hurts about Urcan's article. We work so hard, and he brushes us aside as "haphazard and uncaring." If only he knew how much we really care.>

He chose chessgames.com for scrutiny not because he was looking for the worst case scenario, but because this site was widely cited as a source of historical information. The implication is that if such a highly regarded site does not follow accepted standards for historical research, then his concerns need to be taken very seriously.

Poor old AJ Goldsby. Poor old Ray Keene.

<He mistakes work in progress for incomplete work put together with a sloppy uncaring attitude>

Tosh.

It's published material, not "work in progress". It therefore has to be judged in the state in which it appears, not in the state in which it may one day appear when somebody is able to get round to it.

And if, indeed, it takes a long time for an undoubtedly hardworking individual to get round to it, this is in itself evidence that there's far too much inaccurate or badly-sourced material present. Present and published.

<Tosh.

It's published material, not "work in progress". It therefore has to be judged in the state in which it appears, not in the state in which it may one day appear when somebody is able to get round to it.>

True, as far as it goes. But he complained about a lot of things, including lapsed footnotes and the different lengths of the bios.

By "work in progress", I meant that ongoing work of researching and writing bios for the many thousands of players on this site, a job that will never be complete as there will always be new players, current players playing new tournaments, and new information constantly emerging about players past and present. This work is done by a loose confederation of volunteers who touch base at Biographer Bistro, and overseen of course by admin.

The main value of Urcan's critique is one that my wife expressed as the favour that an enemy does you: he points out your weaknesses. The corollory of this is your enemy cares nothing about your strengths.

Urcan has certainly pointed out some weaknesses, which both admin and the volunteers who work on this site know all too well.

The problem with Urcan is not his constructive critique (which seems inadvertent), which all of us that work on this site are either already aware of or take under advisement, but the destructive criticism (which seems quite deliberate).

The latter leaves me in awe as there are dedicated team of volunteer chess historians at work here producing some meticulously accurate histories of tournaments - including the sometimes incredibly tedious work of uncovering the scores to missing games - extending back to the first half of the 19th century through to the present.

These volunteers spend a great deal of their time on these projects and from the looks of their primary sources they cite, a great deal of their personal resources uncovering ancient hard copy primary sources. The same is also true of some of the volunteer bio writers who are specialising in bios of historical players.

His laundry list of database errors would be more compelling had he actually used the correction process in place and then reported on it; his failure to mention such a self-improvement detail proves his own bias against you. His expectation of strict accuracy for your database is admirable yet continually impossible, especially as new games keep pouring in. Moreover, in chess there will always be controversies (Capablanca's "stroke" during AVRO) which defy right/wrong classification and will not fit neatly in some PGN format. Personally I don't want all 700,000+ game pages turned into a Winter-like expose about chess minutiae, or a neverending cockfight over knowledge oneupmanship.

I would avoid Ray Keene issues altogether, as he clearly wants to use Keene's history against you, which has been his motivation for the last ten years. As a business enterprise, you don't have to disclose your policies to anyone. Surely I was not the only one who noticed how this newfound attention on Keene just happened to coincide with the Holiday Present Hunt where he just happened to be a sponsor.

I am at a loss to see what might be the problem with this.

<His laundry list of database errors would be more compelling had he actually used the correction process in place and then reported on it>

No it wouldn't. It would be exactly as compelling as it is.

<His expectation of strict accuracy for your database is admirable yet continually impossible, especially as new games keep pouring in>

Then that's a problem, isn't it? As I keep saying, if you choose to publish material that everybody knows is of questionable reliability, then there's no point in whining when somebody points out that you choose to publish unreliable material.

<I would avoid Ray Keene issues altogether, as he clearly wants to use Keene's history against you>

I agree with you in general, but I just want to add that there are still some differences to other forms of publishing.

First of all, it is a website where the content can be altered, unlike a book where this is not possible and can only be changed in later editions.

I think it is, but:

Firstly, the weaknesses and problems need to be frankly accepted, rather than diminished or waved aside.

Secondly, all that can be done needs to be done to try and ensure that material is of proper quality when first published.

I don't think this occurs now.>

I'm trying to give myself a World chess champions 101 over here and you're not helping by deleting on topic posts on pages I wanted to bookmark with a fact.. so I can go back.

I'm not accountable to you.