ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 894 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-02-16
 | | Domdaniel: <Let's say CG goes down ...>
No. Let's *not* say that.
Florida nuked, LMAJ ascending into heaven ... I don't want to think about this. |
|
Mar-02-16
| | Domdaniel: Those 1980s 'best of' games are magnificent, BTW. |
|
Mar-02-16
| | Domdaniel: <Tabanus> Heh. The phrase "crawl me harder" deserves to go down in history. |
|
| Mar-02-16 | | zanzibar: I have to admit that
<"Crawl me all over"> is pretty good too. |
|
| Mar-02-16 | | zanzibar: For those who want a quick download of "CG's best of the 80's": Game Collection: CG - Top 10 of the 80s (Top 10) Game Collection: CG - Best of the 80's (by year) (by year) |
|
Mar-02-16
 | | WannaBe: <Z> Can you do a BeeGee's best of the '70s while you're at it?? |
|
| Mar-02-16 | | zanzibar: <WannaBe> as much as I'd like to help, my total aversion to all things disco prevents such an endeavor from even being contemplated. A man's got to know his limitations. |
|
Mar-02-16
 | | OhioChessFan: M Hancas vs E Reicher, 1987 must be an anomaly too. |
|
Mar-02-16
| | OhioChessFan: To the tune of:
Call Me Maybe-Carly Rae Jepsen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuc...
Crawl Me Maybe
I threw a wish to cgc
I'll never tell so don't ask me
Don't disappear was my plea
And now you're in my way back
I gave my time for a page
Minor master or well known sage
Will it last through every age
But now you're in my way back
My fear was growing
Paranoia showing
Last night
Mind was blowing
Where you think you're going cgc?
Hey I just wrote this
And this is crazy
But here's my url
So crawl me maybe
It's hard to think I'm being lazy
But here's my url
So crawl me maybe
Hey I just wrote this
And this is crazy
But here's my url
So crawl me maybe
And all the other sites
Don't embrace me
But here's my url
So crawl me maybe
You took your time with the crawl
I took no time with the fall
You gave me nothing at all
But still you're in my way back
I look and study and ask
Bios never ending task
I didn't know I'd need a mask
But it's in my way back
My fear was growing
Paranoia showing
Last night
Mind was blowing
Where you think you're going cgc?
Hey I just wrote this
And this is crazy
But here's my url
So crawl me maybe
It's hard to think I'm being lazy
But here's my url
So crawl me maybe
Before you disappeared in the night
I missed you so bad
I missed you so bad
I missed you so so bad
Before you disappeared in the night
I missed you so bad
And you should know that
I missed you so so bad, bad, bad, bad....
It's hard to look right at you way-b
But here's my url
So crawl me maybe |
|
| Mar-02-16 | | zanzibar: My word, I am simply stunned at that effort...
It's hard to smile when one's jaw is hitting the floor at the same time. |
|
Mar-02-16
| | OhioChessFan: BeeGees Top 10 70's:
1. You Should Be Dancing
2. Jive Talkin'
3. Stayin' Alive
4. Night Fever
5. Love So Right
6. How Deep Is Your Love
7. Love You Inside Out
8. Tragedy
9. Too Much Heaven
10. Nights On Broadway |
|
| Mar-02-16 | | zanzibar: <OCF> heck, I got that beat, from <1983 (a mermaid I should be)> L Darling vs R Wood, 1983
It don't get more anomalous than that, resonance cascades be damned. |
|
Mar-03-16
 | | chessgames.com: So to return to your question <Do the top-10 games, as voted in, get some notice on the game page?> No, but now that I have the power to generate 'top 10 game' lists it's a great idea and just a matter of time. <I think the concept of top-10 is a good one, and wish I had enough chess-cred to vote on the nominees...> With this new auto-generated method you do! Now there is the question of what to do with the anomalies. I can think of three basic approaches, all with their pros and cons. We could remove them by hand with a blacklist (perhaps giving them an honorable mention somewhere), we could have rules about how long the game must be and/or how high the ratings of the players must be—or, we could just let the system run untouched, and if Darling vs Wood is "notable" to our members, then so be it. |
|
Mar-03-16
| | WannaBe: <CG.com> FYI, today's home page did not have live game advertisement for Women Championship. |
|
| Mar-03-16 | | zanzibar: <chessgames> This game is marked as annotated: F Deacon vs Anderssen, 1851
It's not really annotated, rather, it has a comment in the PGN giving the sources. This I approve of, but I would like to formalize this more, and propose using the tag PGN specifies for this purpose: <[Source "<proper reference>"]> Now, my understanding is that <CG> strips off such tags for current game submissions. Can we begin to respect such a tag when submitting games? |
|
Mar-04-16
 | | Tabanus: <Let's say CG goes down. Will it (or the last archived parts of it) then turn up in a Google search?> This question remains unanswered. Yes or no? |
|
| Mar-04-16 | | zanzibar: <Tab> Afaik none of the Wayback content gets scanned by Google. You could try it yourself, there's something about robots and spiders that you can learn about if interested. I know you like spiders (or did, at one time). Too bad robots don't. |
|
| Mar-04-16 | | Boomie: At the end of today's POTD, C C Crittenden vs D Kerr, 1956, there is ellipses as a comment. Anybody know what that means? |
|
Mar-04-16
| | Tabanus: <zanzibar> Now I see. You and CG are robots that will never die. That's what you mean right? Someone, somewhere, at some time at least, must have access to the WBM content. What else it it there for. I found something: <The Internet Archive today is launching a free service to help webmasters improve their user experience by augmenting their website’s 404 Page Not Found page to link to the Wayback Machine in the case that it has it.> It's here: https://blog.archive.org/2013/10/24..., and all CG has to do is to sign up for it, for free! Says the optimist. <in the case that it has it> Only it hasn't. As least not all of it. Yet. |
|
Mar-04-16
| | Tabanus: Nah, that does not help either? :( Now I found this: <Access to the Archive’s Collections is provided at no cost to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes only. The Archive, at its sole discretion, may provide you with a password to access certain Collections, provided that you complete any required application process and provide accurate information in your application.> At https://archive.org/about/terms.php |
|
Mar-04-16
| | chessgames.com: <ellipses as a comment> An elipsis means there were more moves played at the end of the game that are not recorded. <Let's say CG goes down. Will it (or the last archived parts of it) then turn up in a Google search?> I believe Google has a policy to not return search results for sites that are offline, so I would imagine not. |
|
Mar-04-16
 | | Annie K.: <zanz: <So now we have same day service? My how times have changed!>> Yep, WB went through a major overhaul and growth spurt a couple of years ago. <Crawl Me Maybe>
We totally need a new Caissars category for this sort of thing. :) <cg: <Now there is the question of what to do with the anomalies. I can think of three basic approaches, all with their pros and cons. We could remove them by hand with a blacklist (perhaps giving them an honorable mention somewhere), we could have rules about how long the game must be and/or how high the ratings of the players must be—or, we could just let the system run untouched, and if Darling vs Wood is "notable" to our members, then so be it.>> Brilliant innovation! :) Tough call on the anomalies - depends on how these lists are going to be used, I guess. Perhaps an 'untouched' version can be shown as a site curiosity somewhere (the Statistics page?), but an 'anomalies suppressed' version, with the freed up slots going to the "next most deserving" games of the year/decade could be a very valuable chess study tool. <Tab> Google won't show WB results, because they are focused on live sites, and don't want to mix the present with the "dead past" - the key word here is 'interactivity'. The WB pages are called "snapshots", because they are not interactive; you can't post to those pages, even if the kibitzing box seems to be there, and the search forms won't work on a WB page either, because these functions all depend on the underlying <database structure> of the actual site, which WB doesn't duplicate; it just records the static output pages. But direct links on the pages will still work (if backed up at WB), and anybody who knows their way around a site (i.e., knows how the site's url systems are structured) can find most any page there by searching for a manually constructed url. So even in an absolutely-worst-case scenario, such people can provide guidance (on live and Google-searchable sites) - and direct links - to retrieve the information stored in WB. It won't be lost. :) |
|
| Mar-04-16 | | zanzibar: Less you think that having the <Wayback> store a copy of <CG> is safe... https://www.google.com/maps/place/I... http://geology.com/articles/images/... And talk about sloshing waters...
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/23VflsU3kZE/...
And less you think having <CG> backed up at some random guy's house in Florida is safe: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe... Boston?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-g8QTJZHCy... Kansas?
http://www.tornadochaser.net/photo/...
New Jersey?
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/201... |
|
Mar-04-16
| | Tabanus: <Annie> I see. It will be there, only we won't know it's there. And if we find out it's there, we won't know what's in it, or how much of it was lost, or never copied over. So that CG perhaps should consider a request to be crawled all over before it's too late. |
|
Mar-04-16
| | Annie K.: Hmm, maybe some kind of script to request WB to archive every single <cg> page could be written - though I'm not sure whether WB's powers-that-be would welcome that, or consider it an ethical violation - but it's not true that we won't know it's there, or how to retrieve it. For that, you are assuming not only that some kind of disaster would befall both Daniel and his home, *and* the remote server, at the same time - but also every single knowledgeable <cg> member here, from all over the world, and all at the same time. :) I'm pretty sure that this wouldn't be too likely, short of the entire Earth, or at least civilization as we know it, being destroyed.... in which case, the life stories of 19th century chess masters would probably not be the greatest of our worries anyway. ;s So, as I was saying... anything short of that apocalyptic scenario, and a whole lot of <cg> regulars would immediately get together (Facebook, blogs... we would search each other out) and immediately pool and apply our knowledge of how to save <cg>'s information from Wayback. :) |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 894 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
