like your last post, I re-read what you said, and now I see what you were getting to.

<anti-trolling measures> let's kill this topic, because just like my idea of a data-tree was super-prone to trolling and getting ruined, I played it smart and never discussed it.

When you talk about anti-trolling measures, all you do is create trolls.

All data-tree forums have a "contributed by..." and if someone is a troll, I can delete all their contributions in 10 minutes.

<BTW, <sentriclecub>, we agree on this: if there are <n> plausible moves at a certain position, the engine output should show <n + 1> moves, so the reader can clearly see where the dropoff is.> Thanks Kutz!!!!! I made that point 2 weeks ago, glad you see silently agreed with me 100%

Please tell that to RV!!!!!!!!! He would rather have 26-ply "1 line" data than 4-lines 23-ply because he wants no-one to be able to touch his artificially high-depths.

He even asked a question on his forum a couple weeks back "does anyone know why I can only reach 24-ply when the PV setting is more than 1 or 2? The only thing I care about is posting mega-depth, so from now on the team must rely on narrow data".

Thats why I include the node-count when i post data, to let other people know that if I wanted to, I could make it to 25 or 26 ply if I set the display to 1-variation only. which damagaes my ego, but is more helpful to the team. Why am I ripping on RV? Because he puts me in his quote of the day; and he hates that I'm more effecient at Rybka productivity on a per-computer basis. (I have 2 single-core computers to his 6 quads)

I just won $300 from the tampa-hard-rock casino today and bought a 37" LCD tv afterwards from walmart (had $600 already saved from pure gambling profit). Poker.

I'm in a pretty happy mood, and usually when people say mean stuff, it means they themselves are in a bad mood. Needed to clearify that my statements are not the result of dysphoria. I'm elated and on cloud 9.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...

Here are its 4 top search results

Data Tree Corp.Offering Public Land Records, Property Data, Document Retrieval, and Document Management Solutions. Nation's #1 Online Public Land Records Provider. www.datatree.com/ - 27k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

ACSM.NET - Data TreeFirst American Data Tree is the nation’s single largest digital provider of recorded land documents and property information online, anytime. ... Map of 4 First American Way, Santa Ana, CA 92707

www.acsm.net/datatree.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Tree (data structure) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaA subtree is a portion of a tree data structure that can be viewed as a complete tree in itself. Any node in a tree T, together with all the nodes below it, ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_data_structure - 35k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

The wikipedia link is one that I actually contributed to and worked on a lot. I am a wikipedia editor in the sciences.

Anyways, that article I laid out explains everything and the important terminology: subtree, root node, leaf node, internal node, inner node, child node, etc...

I prepared so much for September/October's conversion of the forum-system to a data-tree system, that I made edits to wikipedia, to where I could post a "data-tree FAQ link" in my forum for people to self-educate.

If you do a search for "analysis tree" you don't get good results and the wikipedia top-result is

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisi...

This above wikipedia article I have not edited, and its not useful for peole who are chessgames users and want to learn data-tree stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisi...

If you click the 4 links, you'll see why I chose to call it a data-tree and not an analysis tree and not a decision-tree. Furthermore, if chessgames.com does make the AT, I'll edit further the data-tree entry article of wikipedia, and make a new article called data_tree_ (disambiguation:chess)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey...

The word turkey in wikipedia has several meaning. A turkey in bowling is three strikes. It is also a country. It is also a bird. Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for entrys that have the same name but different meanings. I'll volunteer to help make edits to wikipedia that are beneficial to our team, but my pages will get deleted if I call something the wrong term. (I'll get an "article marked for deletion" and they'll ask me why isn't this page part of the correct entry" or something along those lines.

Also, I'd like to be able to see the bottom of your forum-header from time to time without accidently re-reading the same posts over and hitting the "earlier kibitzing" "later kibitzing" buttons.

<Regarding placement of the kibitzing area...> Let's just state that kibitzing should be on the same page that displays the node and leave it at that.

<anti-trolling features> After reading <sentriclecub> comment, I would say: let's not call them that, but do include them as long as they are not disruptive. For example, do identify node creators since usually the nodes will be created by the proponents of the particular move/line. I see no need for anonymity here.

<a button to move forward to the next branching point> This came to my mind, too, after realizing that some people will want ability to step through the individual moves, so node-per-move is needed. So, lets have regular buttons for slow navigation, and fast forward buttons to advance to branching points.

Whether or not to <accept entire lines>: I see your point, but have one more argument against entering lines move-by-move. Such method greatly increases the likelihood of mistakes. Lines would be typically pasted from a computer, in one operation, and less chances for mistakes.

<will cg.com balk at the duplication of posts> There is no physical duplication; all CG pages are generated dynamically, as far as I know. It is just a matter of assembling the appropriate posts pulled out of the database. CG already knows how to do such assembly efficiently to allow (a) ignoring some users and (b) highlighting others. There should be no impact on the data volume here.

<it was not my intent to request any kind of special fields to dispay engine evaluations> The valuations are analogous to the white/gray/black bars in OE, showing the percentage of won/drawn/lost games. Note that in OE, the next moves are sorted by the number of games played. In data tree, they could be sorted by valuation. I am not particularly adamant about this. Just something to consider, maybe for version Deluxe :-)

<if there are <n> plausible moves at a certain position, the engine output should show <n + 1> moves> This should be a recommendation, but not a requirement. Sometimes it will be impractical (too many moves with similar valuation). Personally, I never run less than 2 variations, but to each his own. One important point to make in the recommendation is that multi-PV sometimes forces the engine to look at a solution that would be otherwise discarded. I have seen such behavior when looking at some difficult puzzles. Single PV would run much longer than multi-PV before finding the solution. Alas, for most analysis it is the other way around, i.e., multi-PV slows down the analysis (most likely by its effect on the hash utilization).

<if someone is a troll, I can delete all their contributions> This is not likely to be allowed by CG.

<sentriclecub> First of all, congratulations on your recent streak of good luck. Hope you enjoy the LCD.

I'll have to disagree with you on the anti-trolling feature. IMHO, trolls will not bother to follow discussions. When they enter a new forum, all they think about is "How can I mess this up?" Just like hackers, they have a mindset and it doesn't matter whether you have discussed preparations or not, so you might as well.

I know your ripping on <RV> is to be taken with a grain of salt. But as you point out yourself, he was having problems with multi-pv lines. He was posting them before he started to have problems doing so, and I'm sure he would prefer multiple lines himself.

<MAJ> I'm still not comfortable with being able to create multi-node lines of analyses. If we are on say, move n and someone generates 10 lines of analyses, should s/he be allowed to create all the nodes down to an arbitrary ply level? How would you represent these lines at the move n level? I think one of the reasons for kibitzing at move n is to decide feasible candidate moves. If the Team decides only 3 of the 10 candidate moves is good, then we should create only 3 new nodes.

I meant the data-tree forums. The forum host, and I always have editing power. The number of 19. Qf7+ voters, is the approximate number of trolls we have.

What if we put a max-depth on the AT of 4? A 1x4x4x4x4 AT would have 256 nodes.

I have to STRONGLY disagree with any + all disagreements to the <N+1> cutoff.

Otherwise, people can't reliably build analysis off it. For example, in the 19...Qf6. There is not a node-following within 2 plys that I have not covered. ALL of the possible 1x4x4 (16) combinations are covered, and the team doesn't have to question whether or not they need to comb behind me and make sure I didn't skip any relevant positions.

<Kutztown46> What about the idea of using a 3rd party chatroom and we will plan a 2-hour preliminary online discussion of the very-basics? That way we can save the chat, and let others read it, and of course, people can continue the discussion on the forums.

The branchings of my branchings of Zanshin's forums has been growing too much since the extension gave us an extra 7 more days (compared to 3) to grow.

The natural response is for me to slow up production and wait and let my machines idle, until the extension is up, but my itch to be productive and contribute is burning me to push forward, and output my 4 deep sets of data per day, and I've been storing them in my kibitzing area, and Zanshin's kibitzing area, but they really belong in a forum-header.

With your permission of course, I'd like to take on the task of creating the 19...Qf6 summary and EVERYTHING into a single word-document, for download immediately off the sticky.

(a download can be embedded in a hyperlink) and the sticky has hyperlinks.

Of course, before you make your decision, I would like to supply you with the first copy.

Since it doesn't make any modification to the forum system, and since it is a supplement, and not a replacement, I feel I've violated no rules or principles of our shared philosophies.

Additionally, the document will be available in "open office" format, and "plain text" format.

<sentriclecub>

Your suggestion to put the proposal at the bottom of my forum header is a good one. I'll wait another day or so to see if you guys have anything else. Then I will create a "final draft" and put it in my header. I'll make one last solicitation on the main page for comments and hopefully next week sometime make the formal proposal on the chessgames.com forum. When I put the final draft on my forum header, it will have all the details included.

Analysis tree vs. Data tree: Sorry, I prefer analysis tree because to me it is a more descriptive term. The first time I heard the term data tree, I thought "what kind of data?". A secondary reason is that it was apparently called an analysis tree in the Kasparov game (at least per the Wikipedia article). I will call it an analysis tree in my proposal, but cg.com can call it anything they want, just so they do it. :)

Regarding navigation within the AT, how about this: We can request that the moves actually played so far in the game appear at the top. The user can click on any move and jump immediately to that node. Otherwise, it should be possible to move one node at a time, or to the next branching point (forward or backward, I suppose).

Even if we disallow entry of entire lines, your idea of having an individual post show up at a series of nodes is very interesting and less objectionable in light of your explanation that the post will only exist once in the cg database.

In the AT, I don't think we should attempt to limit or rank the candidate moves at any position. Let the existing nodes following the position on the screen just be displayed alphabetically (along with who created the nodes).

Yes that is what it was called. And Irinia Krush was the one in charge of it.

Slipped my mind.

Oh well, maybe it can link to a marker-post and immediately under the marker-post be the link.

Say I'm exploring the line.

<after 19...Qf6 20. Nd4...Reb8 21. e3...Kg8>

At each node, I will see relevant information. However, I'd have to visit every node in the whole path, to get all the available information.

Also, each node could or could-not duplicate all the information from prior nodes

or prior and forward nodes.

In other words, the problem of suiting the AT for the user who wants to click one node and see everything relevant? Or trying to educate users to traverse up and down the path, because not everything relevant to a certain node, is in that node's information-page.

I prefer the latter, after much thought, but there are pros/cons to each.

CG has 1 font size, and only 2 <colors> black and highlight.

I'm going to create a word-document for people to download and read.

For those without word (I actually don't have word), I'll create it in .rtf and .doc and .openoffice

Open-office is as good as MSWord, but free.

At the risk of scope creep, how difficult do you think it would be for them to allow this: If a user adds a kibitz at any node and then jumps to or creates a new node, have a check box to specify that the latest kibitz be "duplicated" at the next node. Reasonable?>

I think that having to mark posts for duplication explicitly is going to be less intuitive that associating it with an entire line.

How about this: the primary entry for the post would be at the end of the line (with each move entered manually, although I am still not convinced that addition of multiple lines would be detrimental). Since the page for that last move will be showing the entire game, it is a single click to identify the beginning of the line and cause the post to appear at all immediate nodes.

Note that <sentriclecub>, in the third post preceding this one, appears to disagree with the idea of duplicating posts. I mean the post where he said:<I prefer the latter, after much thought, but there are pros/cons to each>, referring to users navigating back/forth to get all the information.