I think I was looking for information on historical chess players who have more or less been lost in the sands of time. I found some good information on this website. That might be the most valuable aspect of this website; the excellent historical research that's been done, and I recognize <Miss Scarlett>, <Zanzibar>, <Tab> and some others as having been very important contributors. They excel in this endeavor. The historical research on this website is held to a high standard and everyone is always asking for more references on each other's work. The end result is some highly refined historical information. Great stuff.

These people go way down deep in some of those rabbit holes to get to the bottom of a lot of interesting little details, and that, to me, is what makes this website a better source for chess information than even Wikipedia, even though some of the Wiki articles are written by members of this website.

I like looking through the games of obscure players from the 1830s-1840s, just as an example, and clicking on the bio pages of their even more obscure opponents, and actually finding substantive information! I'm often surprised, and I can see that progress has been made in this end over the last few years.

I see sometimes that historical research is left in the comment section, and then, perhaps years later, the bios are amended to reflect some of that additional info. That's really great.

Your bio says <Member since Nov-06-20>

The template idea is not new, and not mine either. It was used six years ago, see for example Tata Steel Masters (2016) and Gibraltar Masters (2016) (the latter used Chess-Results as their pairings program).

The list I made in a hurry should have included Chess-Results (used by 90%, not Tata) and chess24. IMO also some courtesy fields to the organizer, director, arbiter. There should not be too many rows, but the space to the right is not utilized.

One of the first crosstables I made here was wrong and Daniel commented on it. As <Jess> says, "it took me many years to arrive at where I am now", lol, so perhaps a short and Q&D

<Tab's Tutorial>

Type. Should be "Tournament type" perhaps, what's the English term? Sometimes two types, e. g. round-robin + knockout.

Where. The name of the town/city and country, spelled out. Not all know where Wijk aan Zee is. Why not also include hotel or arena.

Site tag. Should be same as in all the games.

When. This is the "bracket dates" as they call it, + year. We agreed in the Bistro long time ago and it's been followed ever since: <from the start of the first round until the start of the last round>. This is also practical, as one can see the date of round 1 and the date of the last round.

Rest days: the year can be skipped here.

Time control: If not found in official site, try Chess-Results, FIDE, chess24 or others.

Number of players. Should be the number actually playing (if only one round). For Swisses this is most easily found in Chess-Results.

Number of rounds. Often easy. Bad example: 15 rounds rapid and 3 rounds knockout.

Official site, Chess-Results, Chess.com, ChessBase, chess24 & TWIC. I use to find these by googling. Chess.com & ChessBase links should be updated after the event is over. The others should work also after (perhaps not always - I'm not 100% sure). The official site link address will often be used for next year's event, keep the eyes open or find the link in the Wayback Machine ;)

FIDE's report after the event is often only this kind: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament.... This one can be hard to find, I use to find this link in an old event, then click on "The full list of tournaments received from xxxxx for xxx 20xx", then search for the country (on top), then seach the time (e. g. February 2022, at bottom). FIDE's report will often have the organizer and chief arbiter, and the correct game results. These are in Chess-Results too, but the two may differ a little on organizer/director.

That is very gracious of <ocf> and I appreciate that a lot.

I invite others also to have civil and mutual respectful interactions with each other in rogoff forum even if we have difference of opinions.

I intend to act maturely from now onwards and I wish we all act maturely in rogoff forum.

2) <keypusher> <<rdb> always meant well , but he struggled with Self control>

Well , I intend to change that in this new year. Thank you <kp>

Thank you , guys

8 players: 7 x 4 = 28 games
10 players: 9 x 5 = 45 games
12 players: 11 x 6 = 66 games
14 players: 13 x 7 = 91 games
16 players: 15 x 8 = 120 games

Me : au contraire ! Not if you are ardent/earnest practitioner of real teachings of Jesus and are at an advanced level like me . ('real' is the key word here). In my case , rogoff forum brings the best out of me.

2) it is sufficient to be practitioner of real teachings of Jesus for rogoff to bring the best out of you but not necessary

For example , <al wazir> , <keypusher> , <johnlspouge> are atheist/agnostic , however , they almost never engage in 'shout show' , 'monkey throwing faeces' show in rogoff forum , and their posts have very high level of clarity/depth of thinking/understanding and I learn from their posts all the time - the reason why I visit rogoff forum.

I really think "A00" is causing a lot of search damage to the database and underrepresenting certain key exponent players.

In the main search form as example, it is funny that Nimzo-Larsen attack is at the bottom in "other" but

NOT as example
1) Benko's opening 1.g3
2) Grob 1.g4
etc

It seems to be the fault of the generic A00

Now I know Bent Larsen is amazing, and he won many tournaments making use of 1.b3 but also he made use of Benko's opening 1.g3 as well. It is great that in the main database form at the bottom one can easily find games of "Nimzo-Larsen attack" but not say "Grob" or "Benko's opening".

Here is an example tournament and notice how generic this looks:

Palma de Mallorca (1969)/Bent Larsen

Larsen vs Mecking "A00 Uncommon opening"

Actually it is 1.g3 - Benko's opening

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%...

Pal Benko is an important person in US chess History - without him Bobby Fischer would not have been given a qualifier place.

I am not US but I am just pointing out here the inherent disrespect of disregarding also not just Benko but Michael Basman for the grob and other people all in the generic "A00" classifier which makes game opening identification vague, and is under-representing some variations on even the main database search form.

In fact 1.g3 is more common than 1.b3 according to the main database.

Anyway I thought I should mention these issues in passing.