<For most events it's not used (unless you fiddle with the URL); when it is used, it's in situations where the leaderboard would not be appropriate and the software cannot figure out who is actually in the lead.>

Isn't it also used when there are more players than can fit on one page, even when the standings can be determined.

I posted some comments in response to this comment:

A J Goldsby (kibitz #2793)

where DomDaniel gives a recommendation to Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual.

It was my understanding that AJ was essentially inactive (last post Jun-07-2014).

So, did he delete my comments? If not him, who?

I spent enough time, and there's plenty enough content, to make my comments of sufficient value to restore. If I had thought my comments would be deleted I would have posted them elsewhere and left a forwarding link in AJ's forum.

So - can <CG> please restore my comments in, say, the Kibitz Cafe (or the Bistro)?

<Does the software set the game results?> The software sets the result to what we receive. We received 1/2-1/2 for that so that's what we set it as. Perhaps because it was a rapid/blitz event the chances of getting bad scores followed up with corrections is more likely. I have a plan to remedy this, to make a special clause that only affects games that are less than a week old.

In the future, don't post things you can't afford to lose to his page. Nevertheless, I can salvage this. Feel free to repost it where needed:

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

zanzibar: RE: Endgame books

Check out the endgame book Carlsen has by his side in the (in)famous <Too weak, too slow> blitz game with Fressin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY2...

I actually have both books, and its a dream of mine that someday I'll manage to actually open one of them in a meaningful way.

By the way, I found a PGN transcription of the blitz game here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comm...

Does anybody know what Carlsen is actually saying about 1:55 in, when he says

<No draw for (you)>

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comm...

I was reading posts where people were saying AJ had, to paraphase, "had it" with <CG> and left it for good. I know he doesn't post anymore, for a long, long time.

I was prompted to make my post because I saw DomDaniel had mentioned another endgame book. Since I almost always see people mentioning one and the other I thought I should mention - plus the fact that Carlsen used it was interesting in and of itself.

Anyways, as the saying goes - once bitten, twice shy.

* * * * *

Actually, speaking of twice...

Could I please impose on you once more to recover the follow-up post I made with the links to the FCE book and reviews?

Carlsen is saying "No draw for bad Frenchman".

Ok. It may be easy for me to say this. But I think that if you don't try harder to have the tables right, you won't get enough slips to correct them. Examples:

World Blitz Championship (2015). A glance at the official site (http://www.berlin2015.fide.com/blit...) and Chess-Results (http://www.chess-results.com/tnr190...) shows that even if you now have processed slips on Ivanchuk, the table is still wrong: Nepomniachi should have 14,5 points. It also takes less than a minute to see that the reason for this is that I Nepomniachtchi vs Grigoriants, 2015 is given 0-1, instead of 1/2.

Many tables are wrong, because the slips are not in yet. Will they ever be in? Example no. 2:

PokerStars IoM Masters (2015). A glance at the table shows that some players (Arkell, Nakar, Houska) have 10 (not 9) games. Have you received correction slips for those? You could have compared J Houska vs Arkell, 2015 with J Houska vs Arkell, 2015 and got rid of one duplicate yourself.

Let's go 5 years back. Example 3:

World Blitz Championship (2010). Some players have 38 games, others 37. One Aronian-Mamedyarov game is missing, and what more? The official site is down, and the golden chance you had to have the World Blitz Championship (2010) table correct and with all the games a mouse-click away is now gone?

Five years with wrong table is a long time anyway. Tip: A lot of orig. tournament data can be found at http://www.chess-results.com/Turnie..., but I don't know the details how it works.

W So vs Aronian, 2015

but the link on the front page takes you here:

<It also takes less than a minute to see that the reason for this is that I Nepomniachtchi vs Grigoriants, 2015 is given 0-1, instead of 1/2.>

OK, now maybe I feel stupid, but the situation is this: the official PGN I see shows 0-1. I noticed from the progression of Nepo's score (perhaps not the best place to look) that FIDE believes he scored 1/2 point there. I even mentioned this in the editor's notes to the game:

<I have indirect reason to believe this game was drawn due to the progression of game results found at http://www.berlin2015.fide.com/blit... -- chessgames.com>

Also, for what it's worth, the computer says that Black has a good edge. I didn't feel confident to change the result, especially since the official site has PGN that declares otherwise.

Examples (CG vs official site):

Alekseev and Petrosian have a whole point too much. Perez 1/2 point too much, Kazimdzhanov, Gelfand and Fedoseev 1/2 point little. Korobov and Andreikin also 1/2 point or more too little.

This is a lot, and I think the pgn results are set by the electronic boards? Losing on time, resigning in an even or won position, agreeing to draw in a winning position because of time trouble, failing to put the kings in the middle afterwards, putting the kings in the middle on wrong squares (which I heard will affect the game result), etc., you name it, and the boards get it wrong.

I honestly doubt you can solve 90% of all this by technical means. You would have to do some manual work also.

It seems like a lot of work though, to get most of the games right. To end with a positive note:

Usually our problem comes from PGN that changes after the initial release, and our software ignores the changed version in preference for the original. That's the issue which zanzibar and I discussed at great length and could be fixed to some extent.

In this case the game scores are simply wrong and the official site seems content that as long as their leaderboard is fine, nothing else matters.

<personally I'd rather have the bad leaderboard as a reminder that there are games need fixing.> Me too! But without fixing them, we end up with not much more than a place-holder for kibitzing.

The leaderboard show the top 29 players, and I could compare the scores and identify the wrong games without too much work. For the remaining 160 players the total score is not shown. Perhaps a first step could be to show the total score for all players? Somehow, if at all possible. So that the culprits can be found more easily.