We are preparing a document to help people figure out how to configure their systems to whitelist Chessgames so that you can use Chess Viewer Deluxe again.

It may be a day or two before we have this document online--but we know some of you can't wait, so here's a very helpful rough draft you can use immediately:

http://www.chessgames.com/chessimag...

The hardest part can sometimes be finding your Java Control Panel in the first place. For Mac users it's easy: click on the Apple Menu, then "System Preferences…", then there is a Java icon at the bottom.

Unfortunately, I have to sound a note of skepticism if not cynicism. In any group, there will be some who are without honor.

On the help page you say: <2. Make sure the security level is set on "High" or "Medium" – not "Very high".> In the picture the security is set on "High", and the text underneath reads: <Java applications identified by a certificate from a trusted authority are allowed to run.> That's why you need to add cg.com (and potentially other sites) to the exception list if you want to run Java here, as an exception from the certificate rule.

If you instead set the security level on "Medium", the text underneath changes to: <Least secure setting – All Java applications will be allowed to run after presenting a security prompt.> That's the setting I chose, without use of the exception list, and Viewer Deluxe works just like it did before the Java update (ie with a prompt each time). So far I haven't experienced other uncertified Java applications, but I see no reason to distrust Java's message.

Are there other security risks involved with the "Medium" setting, apart from making it easier to enter Java applications than with the "High"/"exception list" combo – after all, you still have to decide each time if you want to do so? I wouldn't think so, but I'm an amateur in this field.

<I had a good chat with Nikolai (CVD programmer) about that subject and the future of Java. I was under the impression that having an applet signed would offer all of the protections that Java normally has in place, and on top of that the layer of protection that you know that the code comes from Chessgames.com and hasn't been modified by an evil hacker.

This happened once last year, but it seems to be happening again on a regular basis now, and increasing in frequency.

Your <SPAM COP> keeps rejecting emails I send to <chess@chessgames.com>.

It's happened several times in the last few weeks so I'm hoping you can figure out what's going on here, before I get the impression that you've (perhaps wisely) assigned me to your SPAM BLOCK list.

Here's what happens.

I get a <WE DON'T ACCEPT MAIL FROM A DEMON FAILURE> notice.

I click on it, and then I see this:

<Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address.

<<chess@chessgames.com>: Remote host said: 553 Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?98.... [RCPT_TO]>>

This is then followed by 56 pages of computer code to help me "understand" what happened.

Would it help you solve the problem if I emailed you these 56 pages, or do you already know what's on the pages?

Might this have something to do with me having a Korean IP address?

Anyways please take a look at this, because it's starting to give me a complex.

I just tried to send you the "rejected" email again, and it was just rejected again with a <DAIMLER MERCEDES BENZ FAIL> notice, identical to the one I just posted above there.

All of my accounts will come from the same IP address eh?

You know my IP address.

Is it possible for you to "Whitelist" my IP address somehow, or put it on some kind of TOP SECRET INTERNATIONAL "A-ok" standing?

The mystifying thing to me is that it happened a few times before, then stopped.

This time round, it happened a few times and then a lot of times.

But on another game site (Dynomite!), in addition I also had to set the security level to Medium (instead of "High - minimum recommended"). I then got the warning, "this operation will not be possible with future editions of Java for unsigned applets like this".

I just sent the same email off for a third try, but this time I did it by hitting "reply" from one of your older emails.

No <MAILER DEMONS GET OUT OF HERE> message so far.

So if I don't get any <MAIL TO THE DEMON, CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN> messages in the next few minutes or hours, or ever, I'll assume this particular EMU got through.

1. Leipzig (1879) (The game W Paulsen vs J Minckwitz, 1879 was scored as a loss by both players when Paulsen exceeded the time limit while checkmating Minckwitz.")*

2. 2. Chess Note 3879:

<From page 356 of Chess Review, December 1956, under the title ‘But is it Unique?’:

‘The British Manchester Guardian reported the Third Rosenwald Tournament as follows:

“Reshevsky won the New York Tournament with 9 out of 11, followed by Bisguier 7. An incident probably unique in tournament play took place in the game between Mednis and Hearst, who were both judged to have lost on the time-limit.”’

Eliot Hearst (Tucson, AZ, USA) has related to us what happened:

‘The Mednis game may be unique as to why we both received a “0”. Hans Kmoch, the tournament director, announced before the event began that anyone who did not keep an accurate, up-to-date score in time-pressure would be forfeited. The players did not like this rule very much, but I recall no serious objection. Edmar Mednis and I fell into tremendous time-pressure and we both failed to record the last few moves before the time-control. So Kmoch forfeited both of us. At the time we thought it unfair, although now I can be more understanding; perhaps Kmoch was right, as the rule had been announced beforehand. Neither of us overstepped the time-limit. Since I had a lost position I argued strongly that I could resign the game (Edmar was a good friend, and why should both of us suffer?), but Kmoch would not allow that.’> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

3. <In the 6th round of the Zhejiang Lishui Xingqiu Cup International Open Chess Tournament held in Lishui, Zhejiang Province, an extraordinary incident happened when two young star players Wang Chen and Lu Shanglei agreed to a draw. After the end of the round, the Chief Arbiter declared both players to have lost their game.

....

The players had come to the tournament hall, signed on the scoresheets without making a single move and left the tournament hall immediately. This is as good as fixing the result prior to start of play. Such behaviour is bad for the image for the development of Chess. This was why he made such a tough ruling.> http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/200...

We do allow games to end with "*", meaning either the game was never completed or (esp. during live games and Chessgames Challenges) is actually in progress. If I recall, there may be a few of those Botvinnik training games that end in "*" because they were never completed. Maybe we can use "*" as a proxy, and then explain in the notes that it was a double-forfeit?