If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.>

Jess:

I have no problems with you. (Really.)

In fact, I admire your work, and it takes a good person (with a big heart) to admit when they are wrong. (Thanks.)

I - for one - want EVERYONE to know how you have befriended me! How you stuck up for me, even maybe when I did not really deserve it. How you acted as a friend/shield/advocate ... and staunchly came to my defense at practically every opportunity. (And I want everyone to know that I never asked you to do any of this, you did it - on your own - acting on your own inner convictions of what is right and what is wrong.)

Here - I think you were sticking up for Travis. You are a good person. (And I understand that.)

So - apology accepted, although you never did anything to really apologize for.

Personal note - I am taking a <small> trip this AM. Going to Foley, AL with a friend. We are going to visit a bunch of stores there, like a factory outlet. (My friend needs new clothes. He is an instructor on the Base, and needs to look his best.) I am going going along just for the ride.

I mean "gay" in the <Noel Coward> sense (no letters, please).

I'm wondering if we might try a video on <The Spirit of St. Louis> as a kind of test case.

I'd have to see if I could round up enough images for it.

I really wish <CG.com> offered us a "view counter" on the Games Collection so we could see if a "reverse link" to <screwed tube> would actually increase collection views or not.

Also- and more importantly really- why can't we open up a Games Collection forum space?

I should think a forum would greatly increase games collection traffic.

Here is a photograph of <suenteus po>, <benzol>, and <phony benoni>:

http://www.cs.ucc.ie/j.bowen/cs1107...

And here is a photograph of <crawfb5>:

They recently stated they intend (eventually) to cannibalize good historical tournament collections to make tournament pages like the ones they already have for the modern events.

I am deeply skeptical of this plan- in my view the collectors should maintain administrative control over their work.

The best part of the Cg.com plan might be that it will never actually happen.

Remember when they told us our <Chess Books Forum> would be folded into an official version within the year?

"It will never happen," I said.

You know seriously, the <Big Three>, and other redoubtables such as <Doggimus> already have administrative control over the Player biographies.

So I think their collections could well serve as good candidates for a new- and better, IMO scheme- in which their work got the right to open and operate a forum.

And <Big Crawdaddy's> collections too.

http://www.photographyblogger.net/w...

Is <this> the real face of <JFQ>?

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y2...

So, what would a game collection forum do that isn't already being done? Be a central clearinghouse for people working on collections and looking for games/info? That would be a small group, and the Yalta troika don't seem to need much help. Would it be a spot to announce new collections? That might be useful, as one needs to do a keyword search now (or check some of the tournament games) to see if a collection exists. OTOH, new collections are not coming out fast and furious.

An "official" CG tournament page would allow people to kibitz in addition to maybe putting in some photos without hyperlinking. In a games collection the only way to post a FEN or anything else about a game is in the overall introduction.

The two could very well co-exist. They even could link to each other. Maybe some sort of hybrid with, as you suggest, administrative control granted to the creator. There are some limits and drawbacks to either form. I'm not sure yet what my "ideal" would look like.

Missing tournament games would <never> be found solely on the initiative of the admins, because they have no initiative. Not because they are uninterested but because they don't have the time. No time. We have time because we are hobbyists and we choose to do this.

It's the members' propietary interest- not in *owning* the tournament games collection, but in building them- that drives, and has driven, the finding and uploading of games that wouldn't have seen the light of day at this website in a million years.

I have read the story of rare games found, and collected, on the <Rubinstein> page. That's the only way they every get found and collected, by the members coming together and doing it. Say you post an incomplete collection- a forum would be a natural place for people to drop in new games for upload they might find. Also, historical corrections could be posted in such fora.

And a forum on existing historical tournament games pages would increase general interest- significantly, I'll wager.

Imagine the <WC Match> collections CG does have- without the space for kibbutzing.

Nowhere on the internet is there a one stop place to view tournament games- found, collected, and mounted on an easy to play viewer- along with historical introductions- and with a space to comment on them-

Nowhere.

You have a chance to do that here.

And NO- there would be no non-hyperlinked photos put on these hypothetical official CG historical tournament pages.

I've seen posts by members on the player pages- some of them seven years old- linking perfectly usable photos and offering them- to deaf ears.

Not deaf because CG doesn't care- but rather because they are understaffed, underpaid, and overworked. And- significantly- CG.com has to pay attention to COPYRIGHT LAW when they post a real photo on a Player Page. If they post a photo that has been scanned by a book under copyright they could be sued. This is the advantage of hyperlinking by members.

If *you* and the others don't do this yourself, it will never, ever get done.

There is absolutely NO DOWNSIDE to allowing you people to have forums for the tournament collections.

There are very few interested in chess history- so let's bring the people that *are* interested together.

Why not bring them here to the best chess website in the world?

And there is no <fast and furious> in chess history.

Only slow and steady quality archiving.

That's what it is. That's what we want.