At the later stages of this game, <kutztown46> suggested that I would do something similar to this at the header of my forum. I did if for a few moves, since the game was near end, and computer analysis was decreasing in importance.

You can see a sample of what was posted on my forum header here: Waitaka chessforum

I am open to receive help for this task, or if you want to get this task for you, no problem.

And <MAJ> already volunteered to fulfill his role: The World vs G Timmerman, 2007

<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.>

<MrSpock: Hi all

In the last game against Juri Schulman we played with "closed voting" that is, nobody could see the statistics for the different moves. I took up the role to refute very bad moves. Because of the open voting in this game, this role is not longer needed. Therefore there is just no discussion in my forum.

Regards, Mr. Spock>

Perhaps, Mr Spock's forum wasn't as urgently needed as the last game, but I agree it still has a place. Informed teammates make votes for good moves. Training young or new chess players isn't a bad idea.

But what happened to Mr. Spock? He disappeared. I hope he becomes active again. Where are all the other major contributors from the past?

Direct comparison of evaluations from different engines is not a sound way to go.

Compare the 'intra-engine' embedding of a line's evaluation in the given option space of lines from that engine, and compare a certain line with it's starting move on an 'inter-engine' way.

If 2 different engines both are producing a 27-ply deep line, then it's normal, that the first 4-ply are equal;

it's nice, that the first 6-ply are equal;

it's very nice, that the first 8-ply are equal;

Should we set standards? The only downfall to teams focusing on a line, is that you wont get the long hours that is necessary to spend obsessive amount of time on.

If we set standards, then every move has a fair shot. Just an idea. I mean with quad cores now, someone can post 22 ply and be done in 10 minutes, and can even slide 10 ply deep in about 6 subvariations in under 2 hours...

At the beginning of this game only 4 people had quads with rybka.

Next game I guess will be about 15. We need to anticipate these kinds of things before they come up, since its unkosher to change rules during the game.

I mean, when I first came to the game, it was not obvious to me to click on the sticky to get to the analysis forums... I figured, as I think most passersby do, that, if I want to say something relevant about the game, the main thread is the place to post. I seem to be hearing from the group here that the information is difficult to organize and coalesce when that occurs.

Strategy discussion;

Summaries from the forums;

Summaries from the engines;

Karpova list;

Discussions and disagreements (lots of disagreements, I am not joking);

My thoughts:
1. dedication and time available—one issue is that different people have different amounts of time and energy for the game. Further, those amounts can change across time within an individual (personal reasons, work schedules, vacations, etc.).

2. organizational structure—I do think that the structure has evolved to fit the changing personality of the team, and that it will continue to do so. I was happy to see how quickly the “Team Member Advice” age attracted positive attention and got on to the “sticky.” That told me that there were many who felt the same way.

One challenge to any organization (and to anyone entering a new organization) is “system entry.” I made sure to introduce myself to the team with my first post, and made it clear that I had been following the game for a while before jumping in. You might notice that I often welcome newcomers to the game (I still remember that <benjinathan> was the first to welcome me to the game when I joined). More of this kind of thing would be good.

3. group dynamics—I started in on this in 2) above, but there are two sides of system entry—the person entering and the system being entered. As a few incidents during the game showed, there is the possibility of disaster when people “misbehave” or are uncivil in their words to each other. I believe that most of us learned an important lesson from those situations.

I don’t think that anyone wants his or her entire contribution to be that of “social director”. I also don’t think that anyone really wants to hear from the “official team scold”. One possibility is to make sure that there is a sufficient number of team members who are willing to speak up for civility.

In general, rather that trying to get people to cooperate, it is probably better to inform them of ways that they can help, and trust that some of them will respond.

For example, I agree that <Waitaka>'s computer pool forum was a great idea. It allows people who aren't great analysts but have a computer to contribute in a meaningful way.

Similarly, I think <zanshin> did a good service by occasionally posting which lines were getting attention in the analysis forums -- and more importantly, which were not. This information helps people know where they can best contribute. (At least I felt more useful looking at neglected lines than merely repeating the work that 100 others were doing.) I don't think we'll ever be successful in getting people to analyze "assigned" lines.

<Chief Summarizer> The <TheDestruktor> did a great job of it, but I don't blame him for getting burned out, especially if he has to plow through the main forum in addition to the analysis forums. It's also a big responsibility, requiring considerable analytical skill and objectivity. People who are both willing and capable of doing that job are rare. I'm not so sure how to best split those duties, though.

Perhaps instead of saying "it's your turn for this move, my turn the next move, etc.", it might be better to develop the summary in stages. For instance, each forum host (or forum associate) could summarize the analysis in just in his/her forum, and post this summary in the forum of the Chief Summarizer. The Chief Summarizer would then assemble/edit that information into an overall summary to be placed in the main forum. It's still a big job, but he/she is spared from having to wade through all the forums and doing all the analysis him/herself.

<Analysis Forum Hosts> Of course, only the actual forum owner can update the profile, so the forum hosts should be active participants. The profile should at least show the line currently being analyzed there, and a FEN showing the position resulting from that line. It might be useful if it also contained a list of direct links to the first post (i.e. forum marker) for each move analyzed in that forum, so people wanting to find old analysis can do so more easily. Forum hosts do deserve a break occasionally, but they should at least let you know that they are taking a break before simply leaving their forum unattended.

Another thing that a forum host (or forum associate) might do is be responsible for scanning the main forum for posts relevant to the forum, and copying them to their analysis forum. Of course, it would be nice if the original poster would post in both places (if not just the analysis forum), but as you know, it's difficult to enforce. But that way, the summarizer can focus on the content in the analysis forums and not the main forum.

I was a forum hoster before, and this was the task I negleted the most. Maybe this is the most important task for the <Chief Summarizer> work be feasible.

So, as well as we have forums hosters, what about nominate volunteers to be <Main Forum to Forum Keepers> (it deservers a better name!)? That is, people responsible for copying information from the main forum to the appropriated forum, but only to one forum. This way we will have two people responsible for each forum.

Thanks for the invitation to add my input to this discussion.

I like the idea about extra and active forum hosts, if you can find them, but to make this work, people have to start using the temporary forums more.

<<<The biggest concern by far IMO>>> is some people, especially some of the higher rated analysts, not using the temporary forums. Perhaps one solution to this highly irritating and perennial problem is to ensure the discussion about forums and their use (and lack thereof) is front and centre of the early discussion in the next game. That way, everyone is conscious of the forums from day 1 because it is being discussed every day. This sort of discussion is a legitimate one as there is general consensus that the forums are an essential tool, instrumental in organising our efforts in defeating three Grandmasters.

If the subject of forums, how to use them, what they can be used for, how to run them, who to run them, and in general how we play as a team, is a continuing daily discussion, <then it becomes an integral part of the game>, rather something that many people feel is bolted onto proceedings.

<Summary>: get that discussion going <early>, and set up the preliminary discussions forums immediately.

All the good ideas about expanding the role of the forums, the number of participants in the process, and how they'll work together, will be undermined if the master class analysts continue to shun the temporary forums. There is a danger of stratification (master class/the rest) that needs to be handled with great care. If the people who are going to use significant amounts of their time and energy with their forums, in their task groups and analysis pools see a significant number of the master class analysts ignoring the whole process, then there will be some resentment.

The importance of generating and maintaining a discussion from the beginning of the next game is to gently build up peer group acceptance and then pressure on all the main players to contribute directly to the Team effort. Posting analyses into temporary forums is not rocket science after all, as all it involved is copying and posting into another forum: 30 seconds work, the studied avoidance of which was the feature of the last game that annoyed me the most, speaking personally.

I spent many hours collecting peoples' analyses from throughout the main thread and posting them in the right order in the temporary forums. It's not something we can expect forum hosts to do, as it consigns them to menial tasks that are easily avoided by analysts taking a few seconds to copy and post their work into the forums.

The Team needs a chief summariser, but it could also do with a <shepherd>, or several: one or more members who <gently> get into peoples' ears about posting their analysis into temp forums so that their analyses don't get lost in the rapids of the main thread. This however, is not a fun job and would need to be combined with other work that is.

The Stickies should be kept current. If there is a concern about how their "owners" would feel, then ask the question on the main forum, and then remove it if there is no objection. This is probably not such a big issue, and I'm sure most people would be happy for obsolete forums to be removed.

I think <Karpova>'s posts in the main thread are a popular feature and should be left for her to do as she will.

<benjinathan>'s idea of assigning lines for volunteers is an interesting one. There is a need for all the main lines to be covered and asking for a pool of volunteers may get the ball rolling. I cannot however volunteer for the job of assigning lines - someone else will need to step into this breach

<kutz>: I think before the GMAN game starts, you could draft an action plan taking into account everyone's ideas, so that by the time the game starts you have an enlarged and committed admin team that will enhance Team work in the next game. GMAN has been stung by us once, and he'll be a more dangerous opponent the next time around, so we need our Team to be functioning optimally. I have a feeling the time limit will fall back to being 2 days a half move, so we need to anticipate this possibility.