My immediate reaction is that if Wesley So writes, or has somebody write, his bio, that information absolutely must be published at the beginning or the end.

It said "by Bobby Fischer" right on the cover of "My Sixty Memorable Games." We knew he wrote it, they were his opinions. The same should be true of any bio which is written by the player himself.

I do agree that bios should be limited, or can be limited, to chess. For example, So would have every right to want all information about his family and personal life removed from the page.

<However, that doesn't mean that a GM has the right to say "remove everything!" or replace it with a mysteriously selective account of their career. >

Very few biographies are the work of a single person and with SuperGMs it is almost never the case, but we should be proud to list him as a contributor at the bottom of the page.

<But that is what has happened at the moment, as his whole time at Webster and with Susan Polgar eliminated. It isn't even negative information about him, as he improved greatly during that period.>

Perhaps there is a boiler-plate biography of Wesley that they pasted in place of the one we had, so things got deleted without even having been read first. I really don't know.

I can talk to Wesley and say that the biographers who wrote the original material want to see some of it returned. I can ask him directly if there is something that he wants expurgated (not that his word is final, but it would be nice to know.)

In the end I envision a biography better than the one that exists right now and the one that we used to have. I really don't see how this could be interpreted as a bad thing.

Let the player submit his suggestions to another editor, and complain to you if that editor does not take into account their reasonable suggestions.

Perhaps a compromise of some sort could be worked out - like a link on the <CG> bio to the player auto-biography.

I still hope that we could reach some kind of consensus on player bios and tournaments to have a basic, stripped-down boiler-plate section.

Then such a minimalist section could be supplemented as interest arises.

I tried to do this with all my "First Look" entries in Z-base. It's incomplete, but I believe it's a good framework which evolved from the research work.

Twinlark's work with recent tournaments also contribution to the conceptualization.

An analog formula for player bios could be arrived at, I'm fairly certain.

No, absolutely not. >

Well, you gave him all the powers to regulate his page...seems to me it carries with it the regulation of his biography.

A biography after all is part and parcel of his page...

Be careful now...you are skating on thin ice of your own making...

Don't make Wesley angry..you wouldn't like him when he's angry...

Well, obviously he was given amendatory powers by the founding father of the CG constitution...

Now, that same authority is reneging on his initial stand because of peer pressure...

The bio of every player is intended to be an accurate, informative summary of the player and his career. It's not intended as a public-relations piece which publishes only what the player wants.

Well, the approach CG has taken will surely be taken into consideration by Wesley...He is now seriously considering pushing that unlike button on his facebook page..

CG can now prepare a life without Wesley at this online community...

Well, that was the original intent when CG granted Wesley absolute control of his player's page.

If that is his response, so be it. He needs us more than we need him.

(Though I'm a fairly neutral observer in all of this, or so I think)

Well, we are in the middle game and Wesley has just spotted a blunder by CG.

The latter granted him administrative function over his player's page...Now, it forbids him to do so in his bio...How can the two be separate and distinct from each other such that the same policy can not be applied to both?..Wesley is slowly but surely considering his next move?

Stockfish has Wesley in a winning position...