I just checked. I do not see a <TWIC DOSSIER> for this Women's GP event.

----

<%clk>

So, shouldn't the cleanup be as easy as stripping out comments?

I downloaded one round from the tournament, and I couldn't find any nonconforming PGN.

Is <CG> adding the extra fluff, e.g. after 9.Be in the snippet here:

9. Be3 100 12255 100 12255 0 0 9234 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 33853 {[%clk 1:26:45]} O-O

It's not against the rules to post a bleep-word per se. Context definitely matters.

* * * * *

Another example of why a <pre></pre> escape is need is for the inclusion of PGN with comments in a forum post:

A A Smorodsky vs Nimzowitsch, 1914 (kibitz #22)

<CG> does a very nice breakdown of what the player's opening prefs are, for B&W.

But what's missing, I thought to myself, is a breakout of their scoring (either as W/D/L or scoring percentage).

http://monaco2015.fide.com/en/compo...

and each file loaded into SCID just fine.

In fact, doing a egrep search on "8. Qxd4" yields this from the R1 PGN file:

[%clk 1:24:43] 8. Qxd4 [%clk 1:28:13] Bg7 [%clk 1:25:08] 9. Be3

(curly braces get munched...)

So it does look like someone mangled the data during the live transmission.

But the bottom line is that good PGN is available at the official site, as well as at TWIC.

Ok, here's a suggestion that I think would help to improve the site.

Allow members to tag games for deletion.

Theory of operation: if three or more paying members tag a game for deletion that game would be removed from public consumption (i.e. becomes unviewable) and gets kicked to the digital backroom where CG staff can make a final determination on actually deleting (or correcting) a game.

At the very least it gives the impression of issues being dealt with quickly by removing bogus or incorrect games from the system while pending review.

And if that type of tag-for-deletion system is possible in this code base, then perhaps a games "publication" system the other way could also be developed with a pending games area paying members can access... users submit games and if three paying members vote the game into the system it then goes into a holding area for CG staff to approve. That way CG gets the benefit of some free labor eyeballing submissions and members feel like they are contributing.

I know we can currently submit requests for removing games and submit games, etc., but the response time can be agonizingly slow (probably due to the staff being overwhelmed with other duties) so why not harness the user-base to help with additions and deletions?

<Allow members to tag games for deletion.> Of course this is already implemented in an indirect way, through correction slips, but the idea of making it a purely vote-based system has crossed our minds.

There are multiple scenarios here. One situation is a game which is simply bad, and nobody wants to go out of their way to say "hey, these guys are patzers", so the score lingers and lingers. Your idea would be helpful for that.

However an even more helpful case would be in the very common situation of a new tournament providing two scores to the same game. Usually the second one is a correction of the first, but our database doesn't know for sure what to trust, so it loads them both and lets the admins decide what to do. This works fine, but the problem is that if the score table shows somebody with too many games for even an hour, the utility of the scoreboard is comprised and people will (quite vocally!) react to a common transmission error.

Your suggestion would allow members to identify the incorrect game and abolish it before our admins are aware of the problem, perhaps before they even rise from bed.

<perhaps a games "publication" system the other way could also be developed with a pending games area paying members can access... users submit games and if three paying members vote the game into the system it then goes into a holding area>

This is a project which is currently being developed. In fact, we don't even see the "holding area" as necessary as long as the voting mechanism is rigorous enough.

The details of the voting system may work something like this: it takes 100 votes to transfer a game from the "sandbox area" to the database. Everybody gets 1 vote, but if you're a premium member, you get 5 votes, and CG editors get 25 votes. (And if you are an employee of Chessgames you get 100 votes.)

Similar to our current method of voting in tournaments, it could also allow for "nay" votes. This way, if a CG editor sees something demonstrably wrong with a game, they have some automated way to to express "No! Do NOT use this game, it is faulty."

There is a duplicate game in the Women's Grand Prix.

N Dzagnidze vs N Pogonina, 2015

World Blitz Championship (2015)

It bills itself as a crosstable, or perhaps a leader board, but sorts the list of players according to highest achieved rating?!

I want to see the entire list of players because the player I'm interested in isn't listed on the first page.

If a player isn't shown on the first page it appears there isn't a list showing their actual placement.

(I showed the &xtab=2 link to demonstrate this fact).