*** <Analysis of 55…Kc5 56. Rb8 Re6+ 57. Re4 <Rc6>> User: Deep Breath

*** <Analysis of 55…Kc5 56. Rb8 Re6+ 57. Re4 <Rxe4+>> User: Karpova

*** <Analysis of 55…Kc5 56. Rb8 Re6+ 57. Re4 <Ra6>> User: dalbertz

*** <Analysis of 55…Kc5 56. Rb8 Re6+ 57. Re4 <Rb6>> User: mckmck

Your wish is my command, so to speak:

B1) 56...Re6+ 57.Re4 Rxe4+ 58.Kxe4 Nf2+ <kutztown46/zanshin> 59.Ke3 Ng4+ 60.Kd2 Kd4 61.Rb5 c3+ 62.Kc1 62...Ne5 63.Kd1 Nd3 64.Rxh5 Kc4 65.Rh7 Kb3 66.Rb7+ Kc4 67.Rc7+ 67...Kb3 68.h5 Nf2+ 69.Kc1 Ng4 70.Rc6 Kb4 71.Rg6 Ne5 72.Re6 Nd3+ 73.Kc2 Nc5 74.Rb6+ Kc4 75.h6 Nd7 76.Rd6 Nf8 77.Rf6 Nh7 78.Rf7 Ng5 79.Rf4+ Kd5 80.Rf5+ Ke4 81.Rxg5 Kf4 82.Rxa5 Tablebase win for White in 5 moves.

B2) 56...Re6+ 57.Re4 Rxe4+ 58.Kxe4 Nf2+ <kutztown46/zanshin> 59.Ke3 Ng4+ 60.Kd2 Kd4 61.Rb5 c3+ 62.Kc1 62...Ne5 63.Kd1 Nd3 64.Rxh5 Kc4 65.Rh7 Kb3 66.Rb7+ Kc4 67.Rc7+ 67...Kb3 68.h5 Nf2+ 69.Kc1 Ng4 70.Rc6 Kb4 71.Rg6 Ne5 72.Re6 <Nf3> 73.h6 Ng5 74.Rg6 Nh7 75.Rg7 Nf8 76.Rf7 Ng6 77.h7 Ka3 78.Rg7 Nh8 79.Rg8 Nf7 80.Rf8 Ne5 81.h8Q Nd3+ 82.Kc2 Nb4+ 83.Kxc3 Nd5+ 84.Kc4 Ne3+ 85.Kc5 Nd1 86.Rb8 Ka2 87.Qg8+ Ka1 88.Qb3 Nc3 89.Qb2#

*** <Analysis of 58. Kxe4 <Nf2+> 59. <Kf3>> User: Karpova

*** <Analysis of 58. Kxe4 <Nf2+> 59. <Ke3>> User: Deep Breath

*** <Analysis of 58. Kxe4 <Kc6>> User: dalbertz

*** <Analysis of 59. <Kf3>> User: Karpova

*** <Analysis of 59. <Ke3>> User: dalbertz

*** <Analysis of 59…<Nd1>> User: Karpova

*** <Analysis of 59…<Ng4>> User: Red October

*** <Analysis of 59…<Nh3>> User: mckmck

*** <Analysis of 59…<Nd3>> User: Deep Breath

*** <Analysis of 60. <Rb5+>> User: Red October

*** <Analysis of 60. <Ke2>> User: dalbertz

*** <Analysis of 60…Kd4 61. <Rxa5>> User: Red October

*** <Analysis of 60…Kd4 61. <Rxh5>> User: mckmck

I would like to discuss administrative / organizational issues for the team. What are we doing well? Where can we improve? I am interested in the opinions of other team members. I will start the discussion with some thoughts of my own.

1) One thing that will profoundly affect how the team operates is if and when CG grants us the request of an “Analysis Tree”. Based on the latest feedback from CG, we should assume that we will not have this feature for the next game.

2) I think the temporary forum system is working well. Assigning forums is definitely the way to go. Having the next set of forums defined as soon as a move is made is helpful. The <RV> deep-ply Rybka lines were always helpful to me when preparing forum assignments. Later in the game, <zanshin> also provided valuable help with forum preparation. Obviously, we prefer active forum hosts to absentee forum hosts. When the next game starts, I will request volunteers for forum hosts. Hopefully, our active hosts from the GMT game will fill the same role again. Lumping all the <other> lines in a separate forum was also a good idea, I think.

3) <Waitaka>’s forum was an excellent idea and I hope we can continue that in the next game. I have taken advantage of it and many others have also.

5) I am concerned that because of the way the team works, there have been several times when it is our move, the engines tell us that there are two or three equally good moves, but all or almost all of the analysis has been on one of the moves, while alternate move(s) receive little or no analysis. As a result, team members are reluctant to consider voting for a move that has not been researched. I would like to see a solution to this.

Here are some possible reactions to this:

a) This is not a problem. Don’t worry about it.

b) This is a problem but there is nothing we can do about it. Forget it.

c) Strongly suggest that forum hosts perform some minimal amount of analysis (maybe sliding forward 5-10 moves, assuming best play for both sides, and then posting a final engine analysis at the end of the slide. If the forum host does not have an engine, either secure a free one and learn how to use it, or request help on the <Waitaka> forum. This would ensure that all playable lines receive some analysis.

d) Instead of asking the forum host to do the minimal analysis, attempt to recruit a group of analysts who will volunteer to be assigned a line for analysis. We could request that the analyst spend one day on his / her assigned line and after that he / she could work on some other line if desired. I must point out that I tried to recruit analysts willing to be assigned to a specific variation during the GMT game with poor results.

e) Blending the previous two options, recruit a slightly larger group of forum hosts (at least a dozen). The hosts would work in teams of two. One of the two would perform the traditional forum host duties and the other one would perform the minimal analysis. Then, at the next forum change, I would swap the two roles – the forum host becomes the analyst and the analyst becomes the forum host. The two could help each other and might find the experience to be very enjoyable.

6) I miss <MrSpock>. I don’t think his absence has hurt our winning chances, but I think having someone to fill his role (gently explaining why certain suggested moves are poor) would be beneficial to the less experienced team members.

The biggest problem, IMO, is the tendency for some talented analysts to ignore the forum system and post important lines and variations in the main thread.

When things are getting posted fast and furious in the main thread, it becomes very hard, if not impossible, for forum hosts to find and recognize posts that should be copied to their forum. And this is when it's usually most critical!

This appears disorganized, is dysfunctional and might prevent some useful members from volunteering. Let's clean it up.

I also think you might want to ask some of the veterans why they appear to be participating less. If you want to learn, you may have to ask direct questions and be ready to listen to some unpleasant answers. Maybe not. In any case, now would be a good time and we need those members of the team.

Of course, as discussed in previous games, our team is organic, changing constantly. We need our new members too.

I agree that summarizing is important. It's such a big job that you will have trouble finding anyone who wants to do it who will last very long. This requires an assigned group.

I think that d sounds interesting. The team is organic. Make the analysis forums organic. Appoint a "task force". Consider rotating the members of each task force at some point. Consider rotating the assigned forums among each task force member. (Don't do it every move necessarily but when a significant change in the assignment changes.)

As a forum host, I can say that it is fun ---sometimes. Sometimes I am quite busy and then the GM moves early which forces me to drop everything to do some analysis. It's great when teammates join in and help. It is dispiriting to see no one leaving any comment about analysis you (and. I hope, others) worked long and hard on. Also, it is VERY rude for someone to leave a big analysis in the main forum and not bother to post it in the assigned forum. Thankfully, some other team members have copied messages over --sometimes. The forum system seems to waning for some reason.

The constant drumbeat of assignments can wear anyone out.

Finally, there needs to be some policing of the main forum. There is too much junk there. If the signal to noise ratio gets too low nobody will read it. I know I often don't. Maybe someone should be assigned to point new comers or violators to the rules. Right now that eventually happens but maybe it could be better. An assigned social forum would be good too. (Maybe CG.com can give the team an extra forum or assign someone's forum?)

Don't get me wrong. if someone has contributed many useful messages of analysis, then a few fun messages is ok. But, members who provide no analysis just posting junk messages should not be.

RE: Karpova Voting

Maybe the votes should be in her forum and not the main forum? Maybe only her summaries should be posted?

What does everyone think?

These just some ideas we should think about. I'm not sure that we should adopt them, but we should at least consider them.

As new sticky manager, I will do all I can to make our sticky less sticky. There is no way we can get a password from Chessgames to limit access to updating the sticky?

As far as chaos in the main thread, I suggest the following: A daily posting of the current position, current next moves under consideration, eval numbers for the moves and the software that gave the eval, and the forum considering that move. It would look like this...

~~~~ DAILY UPDATE ~~~~

click for larger view

1. e4 (+.23) Deep Hiarcs 12.1 <dotsamoht>

1. d4 (+.20) Rybka <hms123>

1. c4 (+.18) Fruit <kutztown46>

1. Nf3 (+.15) Shredder <dalbertz>

1. g4 (-.22) Fruit <MrSpock>

I will volunteer to fill MrSpock's role if he does not return.

Each forum should report their eval number and software used at the end of each day so that I can do the daily posting in the main thread, as I show above.

I think this can be covered by the "Other Moves" forum. A low-ply evaluation of the position (make it 10 PV) after the "MARKER POST" should be enough to show why some moves are 'illogical'.

<Regarding The Stick>

I would be happy to host the "others" forum next game if you want. I am happy to run some comp. analysis on main "other" lines when I can. However, sometimes work makes that difficult for me.

I have 3 thoughts.

First, I think it is useful to have a posted list of the top ten candidates for each move. RV used to do that but he changed that this game.

Second, I would find it useful if someone kept a running index of the page on which the moves were made.

Third, the more the analysis is directed the better. I think that players will not accept being told what to analyze. But I don't think it is too much for players to tell someone (you or Z) what line they are analyzing and for that information to be made known to all. I also do not think it is too much for someone to ask for volunteers for a specific line. Or for a player to volunteer to do any line and then be assigned to a line.

I believe <MrSpock> job is more needed when the voting is closed, when we cant see how many votes each move have received. So when we see a blunder on the voting options, (like 62.Kxg4) we dont know if the number of voters on this option is significative.

With the open voting, we can see that this move received only 3 votes from a 292 total, and it just do not deservs attention.