In which case I nominate <Missy> as the official <CG> relic of note.

The most venerable crustiest and mustiest.

* * * * *

And yes, <Susan> is in effect wantonly violating guideline #8 with that post - or exposing a missing qualification - <past, present, and future>.

(And let's also note that you mentioned he-who-must-not-be-named.)

Finally I can't help but comment that I find <nihilistic negativity> inaccurate. I tend to think <kierkegaardian existentialism> more accurately describes my take on <CG>.

I very much doubt it ever started working - the management presumably abandoned the venture. I note that at the bottom of the Playing Zone FAQ (Playing Zone Help Page) is <Copyright © 2001-2012, Chessgames.com> which may well be a clue as to its provenance. That, of course, would pre-date my time here.

If it's insulting others, it's covered by rule #3. If it's polluting the site that's rule #2. Overall I don't see the point of this addition.>

This post will get censored, but there are no actual posting guidelines. They continuously let racism, hate speech, misogyny, spamming etc. to get flooded in the kibitzing areas, also they do nothing about sockpuppets and personal attacks. This is what CG became.

If it's insulting others, it's covered by rule #3. If it's polluting the site that's rule #2. Overall I don't see the point of this addition.>

1) #2 and #3 apply to proletariat

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

Part I.

First - <CG> has several closed forums which I believe should be opened.

Without the forums being open many posts, some of which are historically important, are inaccessible to public viewing.

E.g.

CG Librarian chessforum

Once the home of correction slip submissions, a discussion zone of several <CG> developments.

User: Playing Zone

For discussions of the proposed <Playing Zone> that <chessical> was inquiring about. It apparently once was open for active comment.

What possible point is there in lying that way, <bobcrisp>?

Are you trolling? Do you really think <Goldsby> isn't posting on <CG> because he's restricted?

PS- Are you disavowing any association with accounts other than <MissScarlett> for yourself?

(<BobCrisp> [2011] comes to mind - User: bobcrisp)

I'm talking about his games, all 97 of them:

<The kibitzing for this page has been disabled until further notice. — Mgmt>

A J Goldsby vs F Goodenough, 1974

<Are you disavowing any association with accounts other than <MissScarlett> for yourself?>

I also made some commentary on <Playing Zone>...

<I wonder how much of it was <Daniel>'s impetus ... (?)>

A natural question... but obviously almost all of <CG> was <Daniel>'s doing, so it would be natural to assume the <Playing Zone> was also his.

I tried to motivate why I asked with this parenthetical:

<(<CG>, in much of my researches, seems to have deliberately downgraded online chess playing)>

At the time I struggled to come up with <downgraded>. In retrospect, <downplayed> would be the better term.

(Is this why <CG> thought the post should be censored?)

To elaborate the point - again an impression I have from researching <CG> history - the site almost never promoted itself as a place to play chess.

This is why the <Playing Zone> is interesting to me - because it was an attempt to add such a feature.

It has intrinsic interest just for its own sake as a <CG> piece of history. But it also has interest in the internet history of chess - because <CG> was one of the first chess sites on the web, yet got eclipsed by several other sites in popularity, e.g. <chess.com>.

The lack of onlline play might explain why that was so.

<The kibitzing for this page has been disabled until further notice. — Mgmt>>

Ah, my mistake (though it would have been clearer to have notice in your original post).

I suppose it's a cost-benefit calculation then. How much benefit would you anticipate from opening up the commentary.

Apparently it evolved as far as beta-testing:

Daniel must have had good reason, judging from his dossier.

I know Danniel was not fond of pedantic know- it- alls with a penchant for rude replies.