firstly my apologies for being away , but some pressing matters needed my immediate attention

coming to the discussion

1) An analysis summary is vital since many participants may be confused when 2 or more seemingly equal candidate moves present themselves and all the more critical when a certain move runs into a bust further along in the PV which engines may not see immediately and thus give good scores early on

The key here is the analysis which goes into the forming of the forums. A great deal of analysis has to be done ahead of time - once the voting starts to run away it is difficult to get a new move accepted.

That would be my number one complaint. I spent many hours in the GMAN game trying to make sure I had SOMETHING in the move forums I hosted. And to watch moves made without a single remark, good or bad, about my analysis, was really disappointing. I recall one particular line that I spent 10 hours on in 2 days. And was completely ignored. I think most people would give up after something like that happened. Sounds like whining, I know, but I think that would explain why a lot of the better (or at least hardworking) analysts tend to disappear along the way.

Great comment about at least a 10 ply analysis on even the "other moves" forum. Seeing why moves don't work often times helps to understand the position better.

Hi <kutztown46>!

Thank you for inviting me to the discussion about enhancing the organization of the <chessgames.com> chess team. I really appreciate it!

First let me say that you have done a magnificent job, this game and last, in creating an organizational structure that is not only efficient, but effective. I truly believe our victories in the last two games have been a direct result of your hard work and unwavering dedication to the team and to the game of chess. You have my thanks and gratitude for your outstanding contribution.

While I’m in a congratulatory mood, I would also like to extend my appreciation to a group of very fine analysts who worked tirelessly for the last year to give the <chessgames.com> chess team three straight victories. The following dedicated players have my heartfelt thanks and appreciation for doing such an outstanding job in one capacity or another:

<g.mueller, TheDestruktor, Red October/Open Defense, kb2ct, GoldenKnight, YouRang, kwid, RandomVisitor, Tabanus, Zanshin, pferd, firebrandx, kwgurge, Domdaniel, imag, Karpova, Hugin, Chancho, Kutztown46, Nite4K, DPLeo, Waitaka, ajile, MarkThornton, hms123, Boomie, zsoydd, Honza Cervenka, Xenon Oxide, whatthefat, isemeria, DanLanglois, RookFile, truefriends, benjinathan, hcbsb, Deep Breath, classF, rinus, sentriclecub, twinlark, chesstoplay, dalbertz, crazymate, MostlyAverageJoe, Nightranger, mckmck, rebjorn, dotsamoht, amadeus, stukkenjager, ganstaman, Gypsy, MindCtrol9, hoodrobin,> and <OhioChessFan.>

Please accept my apologies in advance for leaving anyone off the list or misspelling anyone’s <moniker.>

My listing these outstanding contributors serves another purpose: perhaps they might be willing to participate on the <chessgames.com> “steering committee,” an ad-hoc appointment of course, to help guide the <chessgames.com> chess team in the selection of an appropriate opening repertoire for both White and Black.

As you know, one of our team’s biggest weaknesses is the absence of a unified opening strategy for both White and Black. The <steering committee> could eliminate that problem by deciding in advance of the <GMAN> game how we are to defend as Black, assuming that we will not have the White pieces. Some of this work is occurring in the <Chancho> forum, but time is short. Once the candidate defenses have been selected, the <steering committee> can cast their votes, from which an opening response or responses will emerge.

The idea I am proposing is not new:

<Truefriends>: Maybe it is possible to form a group of, let's say (at least) 100 people, who all agree to vote for the best opening according to the analysis in this [<Chancho’s]> forum. By this we can influence our opening choice against GMAN into the right direction.>

<Truefriends’> idea is a good one, and it should be given serious consideration before the start of the next game.

The idea of proxy voting is not a new one: in the United States during the presidential election, the winner is not selected by popular vote, as you know, but by the Electoral College. The <steering committee> of the <chessgames.com> chess team could perform a similar function.

As for the issue of finding relevant analysis when we use multiple chess forums during the game, each analyst could be encouraged to post his or her work in the appropriate forum and in his or her own forum, if he or she has one. If a significant discovery has been made, a brief synopsis of the work can be posted on the main forum by the analyst who made the discovery. The forum in which the discovery was posted should also be mentioned. I realize this is our standing practice today, but this practice needs to be communicated periodically throughout our next game so as to encourage others to follow it.

In regards to eliciting help with sidelines and the less popular continuations, the forum organizer could ask for volunteers. This practice was used from time to time in our previous game with some degree of success. Anyone who volunteers his or her time could then be considered for membership on the <steering committee> as a possible reward.

Perhaps one reason why general summaries of the game have not been more forthcoming is a result of there being too much analysis and a feeling, perhaps, that all current and relevant analysis must be included in the summary in order for it to be both thorough and authoritative. Such detailed summaries are too time consuming to create and require far too much work. A better solution would be for the strong players of the <steering committee> to provide general plans and ideas for both sides while including some relevant analysis to illustrate key points, but not to give an exhaustive treatise that very few of us will actually read. Another feature of this summary could be the listing of possible candidate moves and the reason for their selection. A forum could be set up to debate the merits of one plan over another before a final plan is chosen and communicated to the team in the main forum.

These are some of the ideas that have occurred to me over the past few hours. If I think of anything else, I will post more.

The issue is that the TEAM game is founded on the principle of one member one vote, an ideal democracy where every matter is put to a referendum and all votes are equal even those 0-1 votes and Qf8+ votes

so a <steering committee> is not something I would like, however a <serving committee> which would serve to analyse lines (especially those that are in danger of being neglected), summarize analysis and PATIENTLY COMMUNICATE the same no matter how difficult the team dynamics get would by something we need IMHO

1) First of all, I think I don't quite like the idea of having a group of analysts assigned to specific moves. However, I think that there should be a "crier" who would post regular reminders, in BOLD and <<<<<<shiny>>>>>> text, reminding the team which variations are not being fully analyzed.

My reasoning is this: most people ignore certain moves because of ignorance. They don't realize it is being neglected. I believe at least a couple people will willingly volunteer to analyse certain lines once they realize analysis is needed.

The same thing could be done for the use of analysis forums. Many people just don't know it exists, or how to use them! If someone would post every 24 hours a short text on how to use forums, as well as the list of current active forums, again in BOLD and <<<<<<shiny>>>>>> text, it would act as a good reminder.

I personally volunteer to fill this role, if people around here think this is a good idea. BTW, I don't think this is new. Looking back at the kibitzing at the original GMAN game (though I didn't take part), <twinlark> or <domdaniel> would also post a reminder in BOLD of the analysis workshops, because there was no sticky. Now, even though there is a sticky, I don't think the number of people actually checking it out is that great.

2) I think the number of analysis forums in this game were a little bit too much. A lot of forums had very few analysis in it. I think if we limit the number of forums to 5 or 6, the forums would have a lot of more posts "populating" it. I think most analysts love the feel of having a lot of people "working together", so they won't feel their analysis is being neglected. Having fewer forums would make the discussion more "tight" or "plenteous", for want of a better word.

3) Also, I believe that the way forums are assigned should also be changed. A lot of times, 8 different forums would be assigned to 8 different first moves, and the first 3 will receive lots of discussions while the other 5 will receive much much less. Over time, the forum hosts with less active forums will feel he isn't doing much.

I think perhaps you should check the main page to see where the bulk of the discussion is going, and you might want to give 2 or even 3 forums to a move with lots and lots of analysis, by branching out on a move down the line.

4) Finally, I think proxy voting is a big no. It should never be implemented as an official voting mechanism, because it violates the nature of a team game, and besides, who decides which players are part of the "representative group"? It is just too elitist. If it is an unofficial mechanism, I think it is kinda useless, because people ARE doing some sort of proxy voting informally. Sometimes a player might decide "I'll vote for whichever move <Artar1> votes."

The more serious consequence of a "proxy system" would be that players would start being mindless. Some players who would have considered all lines carefully before voting without the proxy system would now be encouraged to stop doing so.

I think summaries are absolutely critical, and the remedy for most other problems. I've been putting together an analysis of the whole game recently, and it's really reinforced my opinion. Some particular points:

1) Few people are able to get a full overview of where the analysis stands, and this is where summaries are necessary. Most analysts will spend the voting period devoted to a particular move, which can indirectly lead to partisan voting. It is simply not possible to properly assess the position and make an impartial vote without having some idea of what's been going on in other forums. Furthermore, summaries make the team aware of which candidate moves have not yet been properly explored, and thereby naturally distribute the analysis more evenly.

2) A single chief summarizer is not a realistic option IMO. I devoted more time than was sensible to this game, and even between myself and <TheDestruktor> we were barely producing summaries at the required rate. I think a summarizing committee is a much better idea, and I'd be happy to be a part of that.

3) Posting analysis in the forums is crucial to the production of summaries. If analysis is allowed to stagnate in the main forum, then it will be lost in the constant flow of other posts. Furthermore, it makes the job of the summarizer ten times harder if they must pick through the main forum as well as the analysis forums, believe me. I have three recommendations on this point:

(a) We need more frequent reminders of the analysis forums, and we need to emphasize the pitfalls of not posting in them.

(b) Analysis on the main page that does not make it on to the analysis forums should simply be ignored by the summarizer. And the summarizing committee should make it clear that this approach will be taken, as a deterrent to those who would post in this fashion.

1) I take the blame for not publicizing the forums more on the main page. My intent was to post ALL of the forums (including the permanent ones) on a daily basis. The problem I ran into was this infernal text editor we use here. To prevent text wrapping, I have to pad the end of each line with underscores, or else double space everything. I attempted to copy the forum list portion of my header to the main page and discovered that the spacing was different, which completely messed up the post. If I double space, the post was just not readable and I think it may have been rejected for length. I will have to find a better way to do it next game.

I'm a relative newbie and been a passive observer sofar on the several World vs GM Challenge games, but plan to be of assistence for the Nickel rematch, if possible.

Extremely valuable ideas have been offered to improve the quality of the processing of the input delivered. I will try and post some thoughts on possibilities to improve on the quality and versatility of the provided analysis through improved system entry, mutual encouragement/quick feedback, EG by the forming of smaller analysis groups to be a flexible source for various applications in that regard. (If wanted/needed... The suggested improvements already cover a lot of ground in order to optimize the use of the [potential] analysis/talent available.)

You keeping the team handled prevents fighting. Also you lead by being very unbiased, and helpful.

I think of all the players, you are the mvp because if our efforts aren't coordinated, then our contributions don't stack up, but rather spread out.

To you kutiztown46, I award you this trophy...

I felt that the forum host should make sure that at least some analysis was posted for each move and the forum header was changed every move. Some moves I tried to summarize complicated analysis in my forum and the main forum.

Result: Often I was the only forum that did the above and NO ONE seemed to notice. It took a lot of time over a year and began feeling like an unpaid job. Late in this game, I stopped doing the above as hardly any other forums were doing it. Again, NO ONE noticed.

It is ironic to see so many calling for it now. I am not sure how to interpret this.

<Ohiochessfan>
<...I recall one particular line that I spent 10 hours on in 2 days. And was completely ignored. I think most people would give up after something like that happened. Sounds like whining, I know, but I think that would explain why a lot of the better (or at least hardworking) analysts tend to disappear along the way...>

I don't think people realize how much work a forum leader can put in. Also, he (or she) agrees each half move to analyze an assigned line vs the one that is the most interesting to him or her. There have been times I wanted to analyze the hot line in the main forum but had a duty to work on the line assigned in my forum and I had no time to do both. I did the unlikely, boring line everyone else ignored but was assigned and needed to be looked at.

Having teammates fulfill their assigned roles no matter how unappreciated is essential to the team's function at a high level.

Good luck attempting to assign more work to the forum leaders. Good luck finding volunteers who reliably function for most all 62 moves.

To paraphrase JFK, "Ask not what your team can do for you, but what you can do for the team."

In short, I don't think that anyone will fulfill the role of forum hosts with expanded duties. Dream on. Any volunteers will disappear or not do the work after a short period. We should focus on helping the forum hosts not demanding more from them. How you bring more people into the process should be the question.

I also wanted to say what a great job I thought you and your helpers did assigning analysis. That is a big, tough job.

I appreciated how you avoided switching assigned lines for a temporary forum if you could help it.

You helped make me want to fill my role, too.

You were a reliable and good forum host. I appreciate all of your efforts. In the early part of the GMYS game (when <Artar1> was forum coordinator), I hosted a forum for a few moves, and believe me, I know how tough it was. I thought my brain was going to explode!

<How you bring more people into the process should be the question.>

It also might be less intimidating for someone new to post on a forum rather than on the main page where the criticism can be harsh at times. It would let them get their feet wet without having to dive into the deep end of the pool.

We can ask CG.com to list the rules of the game right next to the chess borad in screen. Sticky in left, Rules in right (we have space there).

As we may need to play two games concurrently the load will be higher for you. May be we should ask <twinlark> <zansin> or <ohiochessfan> about coordinating the second game.

<chesscard> is always telling us about some engines works better in some types of position. So we should use Waitaka's chess engine forum more to find best moves by different engines and positions in which they excel.

For example if DeepBreath was assigned 50. Ka1, and there are only 4 logical candidate moves, then his forum header should have the FEN picture of the 4 replies, with the respective analysis under each position it falls under.

This is what Zanshin used to have, and it instantly "shows the holes", however I think zanshin worked with sentriclub via email, they didn't just scrape the sludge out of the main forum or hunt for it out of prior forums.

If deep-breath's comments are true, then I partly blame those who rely on reading analysis on the main page only (who will never learn about the forum systems this way). Afterall, 60% of voters just think 5 minutes, read the <main forum only> and vote.