Yes, that is true. In fact, I've already developed the list of forums if 10. Kb1 is played. They are:

1) 10...Rc8
2) 10...Qc7
3) 10...b5
4) 10...h6
5) 10...Qa5
6) 10...O-O

<classF> would be given the one corresponding to the move most often discussed in the 10. Kb1 forum.

A survey of the chatter in the Kb1 forum causes me to agree that 10...b5 is the most discussed.

So how about this? If GMAN plays 10. Kb1, then I will give you the 10...Qc7 forum as a <guest host>. I will inform the team that you have requested to host a forum for one turn only and that this particular move interests you. Let me add, however, that you are just hosting a forum for one turn, even if we end up playing 10...Qc7. The reason for that is we have eight forum hosts who are willing to be assigned moves to host. All of them patiently wait for a chance to host the <main line> forum.

I'm interested in becoming a forum host. You can even assign me a different move for black's 10th move if necessary.

Hey, I wanted to say I disagree with this sentiment.

Additionally, I wanted to make a polite argument, and for you to tell me if you think the same way, after reviewing my beliefs on the matter. These beliefs have evolved for several months, and I've put a lot of logic into the structure of the relationship between facts and the conclusions.

I'd ask for you to spend 30 minutes reading it with full attention. If you get an email back from chessgames, I ask for you to read my argument before announcing to the team CG's response. I would like to hand over to you my viewpoint, and ask you to present them both to the team.

This is an odd request, but I have successfully became unaddicted to this website, and I spend less time on it, and more time studying science.

If we can do this, then I don't have to make a single post to the main page, nor will I answer any posts on the main page. I have tremendous respect for your judgment in establishing yourself as a perfectly neutral team facilitator.

You are a great leader, the team trusts you. That is why I know I can turn over my beliefs on the off site project to you, and I can have 100% faith that you would report a fair representation of my belief on the matter, if it turns out that CG is against the off-site analysis tree.

I also promise to limit myself to make my argument in only one kibitz message (one post maximum). i.e. no "part 1" "part 2" etc...

Even if CG says its fine and swell, I'd still like to let you summarize my beliefs into your post on the main page, when you report to the team what they have told you.

Thanks, you are a little bit like a mentor to me. I am active as a wikipedia editor and I try to behave over there, as you do here. There's lots of hard people to deal with over there, and I always aim to be respectful, wise, and fair. You get a lot more done that way, and everything gets accomplished more effectively.

I am very amazed at "volunteering science" because a volunteer's work is their compensation for their work. (my theory) and to increase productivity, facilitators should aim to make the work more meaningful. That is how our team could evolve into a collaboration project with 30 "committes" of 3-4 people assigned to distant nodes, etc...

*** <Analysis of 10...<b5>> User: achieve

*** <Analysis of 10...<h5>> User: Red October

*** <Analysis of 10...<Nxd4>> User: mckmck

*** <Analysis of 10...<Qa5>> User: Karpova

*** <Analysis of 10...<O-O>> User: ajile

*** <Analysis of others> User: benjinathan

*** <Analysis of 11. <Kb1>> User: Red October

*** <Analysis of 11. <Nxc6>> User: Dionyseus

*** <Analysis of 11. <h4>> User: classF

*** <Analysis of 11. <h3>> User: mckmck

*** <Analysis of 11. <f4>> User: tweet77

*** <Analysis of 11. <Bd3>> User: Karpova

I have now read your post a couple of times, which I believe you intend as a preamble to another post. If so, post when ready. I will have time over the weekend to consider what you have to say.

I do think, however, that it may be academic. Tomorrow will be one week since I emailed cg.com about <jepflast>'s work, and I have not seen a reply. That's OK - I'm not upset about that. But I decided not to wait forever. Monday night I announced the AT project to the team. It has been received positively. If cg.com expressed reservations at this point, I don't anticipate trying to pull the plug. It's too late now. So if you are worried that I would reverse myself and discourage the use of the AT, you can rest assured that I'm not going to do that.

I think that an offsite analysis tree, in this case, actually complements chessgames.com

I don't see it as a predatory website wishing to eat into cg's marketshare and steal members, but rather as an amazing altruistic work of creativity, designed purely out of philanthropic interests (including the love of chess, and the love for this team). Alterior motives like profit or power mongering are not present at all, upon considerable inspection the first day I check it out.

*** <Analysis of 11…<Qc7>> User: Red October

*** <Analysis of 11…<b5>> User: classF

*** <Analysis of 11…<Rc8>> User: achieve

*** <Analysis of 11…<Rb8>> User: ajile

*** <Analysis of 11…<O-O>> User: Dionyseus

*** <Analysis of 11…<Qa5>> User: tweet77

I'm tring not to think about that! Seriously, <zanshin> and I have discussed it briefly. I think we agree that each game will have to have its own forum coordinator and we will need two sets of forum hosts.

*** <Analysis of 12. <Nxc6>> User: Red October

*** <Analysis of 12. <h3>> User: Karpova

*** <Analysis of 12. <Bd3>> User: mckmck

*** <Analysis of 12. <Qf2>> User: Dionyseus

*** <Analysis of 12. <a3>> User: classF

*** <Analysis of 12. <Bg5>> User: dalbertz

*** <Analysis of 12. <f4>> User: achieve

I've only done four of the seven myself (the rest tonight). So far, Fritz and Rybka agree pretty well, at least for the first few positions.

As your time permits, my requested priorities would be:

1) slide forward on moves other then the seven (moves that look plausible per your baseline)

2) go to a deeper ply on the more likely moves

I missed your message about summarizing until just now.

You probably have to make forums for bad moves, just because bad players believe they are good moves (or fail to understand why they are bad moves).

As long as renting forum space is using monopoly money, then I guess its fine to include too many moves for consideration, than too few.

Anyways, I 100% feel your struggle. Its effecient to just do one thing, but its bureaucratic to do another. Since we are undefeated against grandmasters, why make any sacrifice?

While I agree that its a lot of work, I think CG should step in and push the analysis tree ahead of schedule, to come in before the start of our next game running concurrent to this one.

Sadly, I feel a bit overwhelmed, because if we lose or draw this game, it will take a toll on the way our team runs, on the other game.

Don't get me wrong, I think we have equal chances right now, and would score 50% from this position against GMAN, over a large sample. Its only slightly less than the 52% before the game began.

They may have started this "grandmaster vs noobulites" experiment just to draw publicity and increase traffic (including page visits to the homepage), but they never anticipated the burden that would be placed on its volunteers.

Honestly, I believe that the only way to alleviate this duty from members, is to give us a few FM's or over-the-hill-OTB-IM's for us to follow their guidance, just like we had during the Kasparov-Krush game.

The only way to get CG to listen, is for us all to sign an online petition, demanding they deliver the A/T before our next game commences.

Afterall, humans are competitive, and they simply arrange unnecessary chess-matches that get peoples hopes on the line. Can't we all just play against Crafty? The-World-plus-GMAN-vs-crafty.

DAMN! "Multiply the amount of clorine in seawater by 1.65 to get this number"... What is Pi?