ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 776 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-01-15 | | zanzibar: Can somebody describe the prescription used to change the score? What exact criteria is needed? Do we document this anywhere?
Both the needed criteria, and the changes themselves. E.g. are we allowing for the possibility of rolling-back our changes? Are we attempting to notify other database maintainers, e.g. ChessBase of this change? Shouldn't we at least notify Shulman that the score of his own game that he has in his own version of ChessBase is incorrect? |
|
| Feb-01-15 | | zanzibar: <FSR> About the bet, yes, sorry I just read it as a bet of $100. I agree that 100:1 odds is just about right.
And price of $1 to get a definite answer, and save me the trouble of making any of these posts, would have been well worth it. |
|
| Feb-01-15 | | zanzibar: Oh, yes, what GM (or GM's) would play the moves such as these? 1.d4 d6 2.Qd2 e5 3.a4 e4 4.h3 f5 5.Qf4 Be7 6.Qh2 Be6 7.Ra3 c5 8.Rg3
Qa5+ 9.Nd2 Bb3 10.d5 Bh4 11.c4 e3 12.f3 f4
Maybe I should do a histogram on these moves and see if there are any games in the <CG> db that rectifying or removal? |
|
Feb-01-15
 | | Domdaniel: <FSR> Your analysis of the Lein-Shulman game makes total sense, as has now been acknowledged by CG. Here's another strange sequence of opening moves: Shirov vs Judit Polgar, 1998
Obviously, it transposes into a regular King's Indian ... but White (seemingly) played e4 before the normal Nc3, giving Black the option of ...Nxe4. Which was declined. *Maybe* this move order is just about playable (I vaguely remember a Geller game with the same moves) ... and perhaps Black is justified in declining the gambit and steering for a normal KID. But I'm not sure. |
|
Feb-01-15
 | | Annie K.: Heh... that reminds me of when I was watching Morozevich vs Judit Polgar, 2005 on a Hungarian site, with live commentary by GM Almasi Zoltan, who grumbled after the opening 'they didn't have to make such a fuss if they were only going to play a Najdorf!' :D |
|
Feb-01-15
 | | chessgames.com: <Can somebody describe the prescription used to change the score? What exact criteria is needed?> The Davy Crockett rule: "Be sure that you're right, then go ahead." Yes, that's glib, but not far from the truth. There are some cases where the answer is patently obvious, others where there is a very likely explanation and some farfetched ones, and some cases where we have nothing but speculation. We have to take them on a case-by-case basis. <Do we document this anywhere? Both the needed criteria, and the changes themselves.
>
As far as the changes themselves, sometimes CG admins will make a note in "Editor Notes" which are now readable by anybody. This emboldens the admins to make changes when the evidence is overwhelming, but still not absolutely certain. This feature is relatively new, so it will only help us going forward. <E.g. are we allowing for the possibility of rolling-back our changes?> Editor notes were created for the purpose of preventing "edit wars", or future corrections that undo previous corrections. If that sort of thing happens it should be well documented so that we don't go back and forth between two conflicting accounts. <Are we attempting to notify other database maintainers, e.g. ChessBase of this change?> I wouldn't know how do that if we wanted to. Do they have anything similar to a correction slip? If there was some "chess correction API" that all of the big databases used, CG would be willing to participate in a friendly exchange-of-information system. Something like that would represent a small revolution over the current state of affairs, a number of proprietary databases that are uncooperative (if not downright hostile) toward one another. <Shouldn't we at least notify Shulman that the score of his own game that he has in his own version of ChessBase is incorrect?> Maybe it would suffice to have a feature in which you can review editor notes for various players. Then if Shulman cares, he can review the notes on his own games and take actions of the ones which he feels important. I think you'll find however that many GMs aren't very anxious about things like that; they regard it as "not my problem." |
|
Feb-01-15
 | | FSR: <Domdaniel> Yes - as you can see if you scroll down, Shirov-Polgar was already in my "Games with Notation Errors" collection. But OTOH there was that amazing Judit Polgar vs Spassky, 1993 game where the move order given by CG.com and others looks like it must be wrong, but it wasn't. It really <was> a double blunder. And that wasn't just a blitz game, but a match game! If Polgar and Spassky could perpetrate such a blunder in a match game (albeit one where they were "blitzing out" the opening moves), then it's certainly possible that Shirov and Polgar could have done such a thing in an actual blitz game. |
|
| Feb-02-15 | | Gottschalk: Here is an example of beauty and creativity of the South American chess.
The rook's sacrifice remember what was done by Kasparov at WTC-1995. http://www.365chess.com/view_game.p... |
|
Feb-02-15
| | Domdaniel: <FSR> That, unfortunately, is the big question mark over all these possible corrections ... however plausible they seem to us in hindsight, we still need to examine them on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, moves were incorrectly recorded; in others, unlikely moves were actually played. I know of one of my own games where the final moves, as seen in an online database (not here), are wrong. In the absence of a CG-style correction mechanism, I haven't tried to fix them. <CG> -- < so it will only help us going forward>
I'm glad to hear that. I'm also pleased to see a rare case of the correct use of the phrase "going forward". So many people now use it as a synonym for 'the future', which is just plain wrong. |
|
Feb-02-15
| | FSR: <Domdaniel> Shirov-Polgar is a much closer case than Lein-Shulman, particularly since (a) it was a blitz game, and people play faster and hence play more blunders in blitz games, and (b) the odd moves only lasted for one move on each side, rather than for many moves as in Lein-Shulman. It seems to me that there are three possibilities: that (1) 3.e4 was a deliberate pawn offer by Shirov; (2) the players had a mutual brain fart (as in Polgar-Spassky); and (3) the score is erroneous. (1) is made more probable by Shirov being a crazed attacker, but less probable by virtue of neither Shirov nor anyone else playing it in other games, despite tens of thousands of opportunities, Opening Explorer. Incidentally, though 3.e4 looks mad, Houdini only rates it as -0.23 - dubious, but not crazy. Someone recent played a similar gambit against me in online correspondence - 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Nf3 Bb7 5.e4!? - and rolled me like a joint. That gambit is extremely rare, but actually looks to be quite dangerous. (2), the mutual brain fart, is hard to dismiss out of hand - particularly given that, as I've noted, Polgar did a similar thing in an important, indeed historic, match game. (3), the notation error, strikes me as the most likely possibility, particularly since blitz scores are notoriously inaccurate. We might get more insight if we knew how the move list was generated - was someone writing the moves down (or trying to) or were they electronically generated in some manner? Based on what I've said, my sense based on current information is that (3) is more likely than not the answer. I do not think that the evidence is such as to rise to "clear and convincing evidence," let alone "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - if one of those is deemed to be the appropriate standard. In light of all this, I think it's a judgment call whether to change the score of Shirov-Polgar. Either course of action is defensible. In Lein-Shulman, by contrast, I think that it is a virtual certainty that the score was wrong. CG.com evidently agreed. |
|
Feb-03-15
| | Domdaniel: <FSR> I agree on both counts. In Lein-Shulman, all the evidence points to a notation error. Shirov-Polgar is almost impossible to call, though I agree that a notation error *seems* to be the most likely explanation. Incidentally, does anyone know of a Soviet/Russian game from the 1960s/70s (Polugayevsky, I thought) with a similar opening sequence -- ie, White e4 before Nc3, Black declines to take it and transposes to a regular KID?
Maybe I imagined it? |
|
Feb-03-15
| | Domdaniel: If competitive chess survives into the future (something which we can't take for granted, given the proliferation of strong engines and of people willing to cheat with them) then it is likely that more data will be recorded about every game. Specifically, it would be useful to know how much time was taken over each move, and whether the final result was occasioned by a resignation, a loss on time, or whatever. Future generations of chess fans may wonder why we omitted so much data. |
|
Feb-03-15
| | FSR: <Domdaniel> OK, my mind is officially blown. Check out this game, featuring a similar gambit, which was accepted: N Chadaev vs Carlsen, 2012. You may have heard of the player of the black pieces. |
|
Feb-05-15
 | | OhioChessFan: Majorly bad call on today's pun. There is a huge difference between having fun with a name and making fun of a name. Today's is way over the line, and quite insulting. What were you thinking? |
|
Feb-05-15
| | FSR: <Down Goes Frazier> for Paschall vs P Frazier, 2001, hours after the death of Joe Frazier, would have been even more tasteless, but that one was an accident. |
|
| Feb-05-15 | | Gottschalk: <chancho>
I think the games have a greater chance of acceptance if we include parentheses and quotation marks, as is done in the games submitted by PGN Upload Utility.
In the game below, the move 10..e5! was certainly bright.[Event "College Final Four 2014"]
[Site "New York USA"]
[Date "2014.??.??"]
[White "Wesley So"]
[Black "Kore Akshayraj"]
[Round "2.2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2738"]
[BlackElo "2486"]
[ECO "D94"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. e3
O-O 6. Bd2 Be6 7. Qb3 dxc4 8. Qxb7 Nbd7 9. Ng5
Bf5 10. e4 e5 11. exf5 exd4 12. fxg6 dxc3 13. gxf7+
Rxf7 14. bxc3 Rb8 15. Qc6 Qe7+ 16. Be2 Ne5 17. Qe6
h6 18. Qxe7 Rxe7 19. O-O-O hxg5 20. Bxg5 Re6 21. Rd4
Nd3+ 22. Bxd3 cxd3 23. Rxd3 Reb6 0-1
I did not submit the game just because
<chessgames.com> has a personal motive against me. Anyway, anyone person who wants to can see the game here http://www.365chess.com/game.php?gi... |
|
Feb-05-15
| | chessgames.com: <Morbidly Kobese> We apologize for accepting such a poor pun. It was in no way was a reference to IM Kobese specifically, just a lame rhyme, but undoubtedly tasteless. |
|
Feb-05-15
| | OhioChessFan: Then get it off the record. |
|
Feb-06-15
| | chessgames.com: We just did. |
|
Feb-06-15
| | OhioChessFan: Thank you, good call. I don't object, and I expect <FSR> wouldn't object, to all of the references made in the process being deleted. |
|
| Feb-06-15 | | Gottschalk: Good notice. As it was not me who submitted the PGN,
the game is now part of our database.
Splendid!
W So vs K Akshayraj, 2014 |
|
| Feb-07-15 | | Appaz: I've been a member on cg.com for more than 10 years and have paid premium membership for almost as long. I will <not> renew my premium membership. I'm #ยค%"Q#&"/ tired of the disrespect shown by the Philippine troll AND by cg.com who let him run around, spreading his trash and ruining pages, like the Grenke page right now, despite countless complaints. I've been supportive of your liberal censorship in the past, but this trolls harassment of GMs, organizers and members has gone way too far. Page views obviously are more important to you these days than providing a decent service for you members. I urge other premium members to likewise withhold their payments until cg.com show that they actually care for their premium members over some random hooligan. |
|
| Feb-07-15 | | rogge: <I urge other premium members to likewise withhold their payments until cg.com show that they actually care for their premium members over some random hooligan.> I already did, but (un)fortunately, someone paid for my membership. |
|
| Feb-07-15 | | achieve: Needless to say I am pretty much 100% with you, <APPAZ>. Action being undertaken is a must, but threatening with a handful of 10 dollar bills won't make it. It's just about moral standards consistency and sincere communication, plus application of rules. Too difficult? Bad luck, again. |
|
Feb-07-15
 | | chancho: Same here.
Mine runs out in July, and I was thinking of paying in March to maintain premium membership. But as <Appaz> said, Glenn Salem has made a mess of this site. I've placed the troll on ignore, but his posts appear copy pasted by others and the thread is not even about Chess... it's just discredited garbage repeated ad nauseam. I understand that freedom of speech is an essential right, but not to be abused via constant stupidity repeated day after day and year after year. I'll have been posting here for ten years come May 16. I hope I don't have to end up doing what Benjamin Lau did in 2004. |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 776 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
