We've deployed the new player page ( [unknown player] ). The most noticeable differences are the <Games' table> and the <Kibitz Corner>.
To Do list to make Player Page complete:
- NOTABLE GAMES
- WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS (buggy)
- NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS
- GAME COLLECTIONS
- Editing features (Bio,Photo,etc...)
- Admin delete comments feature

<how is the new pager pages better, what changes were made and why>
For the most part, we are trying to keep the upgrades looking relatively the same, but, I'd like to think the best improvement (the user can see) is the Games' table. We now have enough filters to easily review thousands of games. It would've been extremely difficult adding the new columns and filters to the games' table as the code is written now(If/Else madness ). The datatable is also dynamic so, when the time comes, it can be reused for event page, advanced search, etc...

There are MANY upgrades in the backend that are being done as well(integrating Cloudfront, DynamoDB, S3, etc... for better global performance). We are working on the docs and perhaps could make some of them public for those who are interested in what's going on behind the curtains.

I believe our next update will be the game and analysis page, including Engine server. We would like this done in time for the WCC. As before, a majority of the upgrade is behind the curtains but users should quickly notice an improved queue system and the use of Olga to review analysis on the analysis page ( analysis of move 15.? )

I don't know why live pages haven't happened for a while, but Ding Liren v Nepo wouldn't be the same without them!

In the rough and tumble, I sometimes forget how much goodwill there must be to make it all happen, with volunteers and busy staff.

<There are too many options in the games' menu. It all looks a bit clunky>
The additional columns were enhancement requests from other users. I suppose it will be a good idea to create a feature to customize the Games' table by allowing users to choose which columns and filters they'd like to display. We can then store their preferences in local storage ( https://www.w3schools.com/jsref/pro... ).

I was hoping we can make the new player page permanent after completing the updates I've mentioned in prior comments, which can be done by the end of this week.
Should we wait until we can make the games' table customizable and the "most openings" less obtrusive?
If so, it may be best we just leave both Player pages accessible and complete it after the game/analysis page and Engine server <so we can watch and comment on the games in real time>(to answer <Dionysius1> question).
Keeping both pages accessible is not my preferred choice but I'm open to the idea.

From a user perspective at least.

Even if it means restoring <Daniel>'s old code, which I assume was operated by hand as far as the move entry went (i.e. no web-scraping).

No. How can you say the sections look the same or are the same size here (Magnus Carlsen) and here ([unknown player])? Personally, it's a feature I don't use as I rely on the Repertoire Explorer, so it's doubly annoying that it figures so prominently.

<Should we wait until we can make the games' table customizable and the "most openings" less obtrusive?>

Most subtle styling changes(e.g font-size increase, which is still not the recommended minimum 16px in most of the page) was recommended by Lighthouse ( https://developer.chrome.com/docs/l... ). We are not thriving to make it look EXACTLY the same, it's too time consuming and, honestly, I think only a dozen of the 10k daily users will actually notice or care.

<steve> I'm afraid silence does not imply consent in this case.

Given the small amount of feedback you have seen, I wonder how many users have actually visited you new page, and how many times?

Though it may be true, I refuse to believe that. lol

<Do you have the tracking statistics so we can evaluate and discuss?>

Yes, we're tracking stats. Not too many users have been testing the new pages but there seems to be a few, which leads me to believe the features are working as intended. It'll probably be best to start with the Rogoff page when the time comes.
I'm sure the active users there will speak up if they don't like the upgrade, or stay silent if they're content.

The way I see it:
-There are about 10k daily users, meaning a majority of users are not going to be giving feedback about the upgrades. We'll just need to use google analytics to see if stats are improving or not.
-The main upgrades are in the backend. We are keeping the design basically the same with a few minor updates that are being recommended by Google and AWS. These updates are meant to greatly improve costs, performance, accessibility, SEO, etc. They've done more research than we have on what is best for websites so I think we should trust the process for now.

Judging by <MissS> feedback and what I've learned working with <Annie>, it's likely CG's long-time users will not like the, what I consider, "minor" visual changes. For that reason, we will make it easy for users to opt-out of the the new pages. I don't think a high percentage will decide to opt-out which will hopefully still make the upgrades highly beneficial

This must be a joke - nobody on <Rogoff> looks at the bio!

As far as opting-out - <ChessTempo> did an upgrade, but left behind the entire site in legacy mode. Guess which mode I still use?