First of all, kudos to <kutztown46>, <zanshin>, <dotsamoht> and others who devote so much time to the organization aspects of the team.

<RV>
Fortunately, <RV> probably won't be needed during the first few weeks of the UMAN game (computers aren't much help in the opening). Perhaps when the UMAN game gets more involved, the GMAN game will need <RV> less (since computers aren't so helpful in the endgame either). :-)

<Summarizing>
I agree with <govert> that <jepflast>'s Analysis Tree (AT) has automated much of the work that previously required a summarizer -- except of course that it lacks the informed commentary that <whatthefat> (and before him, <TheDistrucktor>) would provide. However, the AT would be a valuable resource to anyone who wants to post an informed summary.

I think that the role of "chief summarizer" is begging for burnout. Perhaps it should just be done by anyone has the time and desire to do it. (This is basically what it has evolved into anyway).

<Analysis Tree vs. Analysis Forums>

I think the AT is excellent. It would be preferable, of course, if it were incorporated into <chessgames.com>, so that (1) you wouldn't need to login to another site, (2) direct links from cg.com to tree nodes would work more easily and be labeled better, (3) it would also support "reverse" direct links from comments in the AT to cg.com posts, and (4) the author of comments could *automatically* be identified by the cg.com userID.

But the main things required to make the AT better are behavioral things: (1) more people should post their work there (and only post quality sliding analysis there, (2) people should add more comments, particularly at the end of a line, and at critical branch points, (3) people should always identify themselves in the comments.

The AT page where you can look at all the lines together is wonderful. In a glance you can see where work is being done, and where more work is needed.

It would be extremely useful if there were a quick way to see comments on this page, but I understand that this may be difficult.

Some people have complained that the AT has come at the expense of the analysis forums. I think this is true to an extent. The contribution to analysis forums is way down in this game. I know that when I want to get the status of a given line, I look at the AT and at <RV>'s forum first, just because it's quicker and better organized. Later, I may check out the analysis forum for that line (which typically has little to say).

One advantage of the AT is that you can see the complete line there, whereas that line might be split up across multiple forums as a result of new forum assignments. Consequently, the analysis forums should be seen as the place transient development work, since it is more suited for conversational collaboration. The AT would be seen as the permanent repository of stored analysis, since it is logically structured for that purpose. One thing doesn't replace the other -- rather, they complement each other.

However, I think maybe we've gotten a bit lazy. Many analysts just post to the main forum. But part of this may be due to a decline in the amount of *active* participation. In the first GMAN game, we HAD to have analysis forums because the main page was filling up ridiculously fast. In this game, it doesn't fill so fast, which reduces the pressure to have separate forums.

BTW, I think it was a good idea to just create forums on a "demand" basis.

<Other comments>
I agree that there is a certain amount of bloat. Sometimes the organizational elements must expand, and sometimes contract, as the need requires. Ideas are often proposed that are good and useful, but that doesn't mean that they will *always* be useful. The Computer Pool forum was a great idea, but if the demand for it is down (as well as the supply of folks willing to work it), then it should be shelved, except as a good idea that might be revived if and when the demand for it arises.

I'm hopeful that cg.com will implement a suggestion I made to them to automate the polling, so that anyone can opt to make their vote public, and have it accessible in a "poll report" similar to what <Karpova> and others have produced. (Their response to my suggestion was positive, without going as far as saying they would do it). :-)

My expressed opinion about the forum system in the past seem to run counter to the wishes of our membership.

Therefor I am reluctant to make any suggestions in this regard.

But I would like to share my thoughts on how we could improve our opening preparation for the Umansky challenge and enlarge our membership by making use of our existing forums.

Because we need very deep analysis to have a chance for winning, we could assign forums for the purpose to collect data ,condense it and analyse it. As I see it we need to research ECO B06 to B09 and thoroughly check the game data correctness which is used by our opening explorer. Such data could then be the guidance if he chooses to play Robatsch or the Pirc defence against us. It would also be very beneficial for every one interested in this opening theory.

This method could be expanded to prepare for KI defences etc also.

Such a forum system should attract many chess players world wide if advertised and should definitely draw attentention to all our members because of its potential value for obtaining high if not the best theoretical knowledge about a particular opening line.

<What organizational steps have already been taken to prepare the team for two simultaneous games?>

I don't really have anything to add here. Having two forum coordinators and two sets of forum hosts seems to make the most sense, as others have pointed out.

<Do we have enough forum hosts for two games?>

If they were working properly, we probably wouldn't. However, it's my impression that the forum system has completely broken down in the current GMAN game. I can no longer find enough useful information to make a reasoned decision about a vote in the forums, even for the most popular moves.

If we don't have enough for both, I'd suggest short changing the current game in favor of the new one.

<How has the forum host(ess) experience been during GMAN2?>

Uneventful. My recent workload, unfortunately, made it hard for me to contribute to the analysis. And the lack of forum usage, especially recently, has left me with little to do in the way of summarizing or reporting results.

<Have I found the right balance in refraining from assigning forums which are likely to be ignored?>

I think your methods for assigning forums have been fine.

<Do we typically have the right number of forums?>

Again, I think you've done a fine job as forum coordinator in terms of the number of forums and move selections.

<How helpful has the Analysis Tree been to the team? How can it be improved?>

It's been a mixed blessing. (I do appreciate the effort <jepflast> has put into it.) I've wondered if the Analysis Tree is the reason the forums have been neglected. If so, it's been a hindrance. However, as a tool for keeping track of what's been looked at, it's great.

<Can we revive the idea of having a Summarizing Committee?>

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think this only works if the forum system works. I suspect it's too difficult to pull together material for summarization if it's all in the main forum. Having it already partially organized by being broken out into the various forums makes the job manageable.

<What should we do about the Computer Pool Forum? We lost <rinus> and <Waitaka> has limited time to spend on chess.>

I agree that this is a valuable resource. We'll probably just have to rely on volunteerism to make engines available. I don't think the forum host necessarily needs to be someone with an engine. My suggestion would be that we make an effort to advertise it regularly throughout the game.

<What other ideas are there for improving the team's organizational effectiveness?>

I won't be able to host a forum for the GMMU game since my forum will be closed by then. But it will stay open long enough for our current GMAN game and can be used for it.

I agree with
<dalbertz: However, it's my impression that the forum system has completely broken down in the current GMAN game. I can no longer find enough useful information to make a reasoned decision about a vote in the forums, even for the most popular moves.>

<If all the analysis we make would be entered into the tree, it would be IMMENSELY useful.>

Let me say firstly; I have not written an opening book for chess programs nor am I active at top level chess competition any more.

But my experience gained from participating in such activities at international Senior Master level should qualify me to make a few suggestions.

Let's look at the indented function of the AT.

The usefulness for presenting data collected from the random contribution from our members renters this tool to be reflective of a partial summary.

Should this serve to provide guidance for the team?

Would RV's deep ply findings not be superior in quality and reliability?

My observations of our struggle to select a move and form voting consensus stems from an inability to provide an unquestionable reference.

I strongly belief that an unbiased reference could be established with the current forum system. We would need to convince the members that the best move for a particular position is only derived by use of established theory and then our contributions.

The proper use of current theory or the practise of Masters could be rewritten with our collective power to verify the correctness of present assessments.

As I see it; We should assign a forum for a particular ECO let's take B09 for an example. To get credibility from all the team members we must collect all available game data as well as written articles about this opening. Then our analysts must try to scrutinize the bases or games on which the information of opening explorers base their credibility.

This requires many analysts to have the most influential games replayed with deep ply search engines to check the soundness and possible improvements.

You may see by now where I would like the team to get the most reliable data for not only selecting a move but provide information useful to construct the necessary game plan.

Such a data would unquestionable be our foundation to start a game, lead us via known transpositions into preferred middle game positions and may provide an acceptable guidance right into the end game stage.

This data would override our individual biases and bridge the difference of our individual playing strength to give us a collective rating worthy for this World Team.

they are not the same,

the way the analysts present the information has the greatest impact on how useful the forum system is

if the analysis is confusing, not step by step and not logical then no matter where they are posted i.e. whether they are contained in the AT, Main Page, Forums or elsewhere they will not guide the voting

The reason OE has the most impact in the Opening is because of the layout and presentation IMHO

RVs Analysis has a great impact not only because its high ply Rybka but because of how he presents it.

I am waiting a bit to respond to the postings of the last few days. However, your idea is time-sensitive and needs to be addressed right away.

Let me see if I understand your suggestion. We have designated <chancho>'s forum for Umansky pre-game strategic and openings planning. Discussion is ongoing there, and you are part of it. However, you are suggesting that this forum needs to be split into several forums, with each individual forum covering a particular ECO variation. chessgames.com does have a kibitzing area for every variation, but I realize they would not suit our needs. Our discussions would be in the context of the upcoming GMMU game and would need to be shielded from GM view.

Have I understood your idea correctly? If so, I agree it would be worth trying. You will still have the burden of convincing the team to follow any plans that you develop, but maybe this idea would help in that area by making the planning process more organized and efficient.

Here are my suggestions to implement your idea:

1) Discuss your idea further at <chancho>'s forum.

2) You choose the first variation (B09 for example), open up your forum and initiate the discussion for this variation. You could discuss Umansky games in this variation as well as discuss current theory. Your forum header could contain links to relevant articles, etc.

3) After a few days, open additional forums. We will have to find premium members willing to host these forums. <sentriclecub> seems to be interested - perhaps he would host one of them. Perhaps other premium members taking part in the <chancho> forum discussions would help in this way also.

4) Use the <chancho> forum header to post links to all the individual variation forums that you establish.

5) When the Umansky main page opens (with a brand new sticky), we can post links to the variation forums there as well.

If we have 100 volunteers working smartly, we can rewrite chess theory just by starting from the best current theory.

If 100 people aim to slightly improve current chess opening theory, and we organize our efforts, then the opening phase would be our strongest phase!

Please open up your chess forum so I can be exuberant over there!

I used to have the link bookmarked at the top of my forum. There aren't enough forums on CG to hold it all. That's why its hosted on wikibooks.org (a child of wikipedia)

If we post it to wikipedia, we can help more than just ourselves and our team.

Forums are TERRIBLE at storing/retrieving data unless you know which page to go to. If chancho's forum becomes 20 pages, then his forum becomes useless. The data-tree that Jepflast hosts exemplifies the dominance of splitting a page when the page gets too big.

Forums can't be split.

The data-tree can branch, and so can the wikibook (hosted by wikipedia, a non-profit)

Forums can branch only if the forum host is willing to do a lot of unnecessary work (which leads to "burnout")

Chancho's forum works fine for a team this size, but imagine if he has people filling up his forum with social stuff and the "digging" is required.

Time spent digging = ineffecient
Information where you need it when you need it = my philosophy for chess and for storing all types of human knowledge.

"Rotating" a forum is a misnomer because you really just pile a new forum on top of an old forum. Kwid's proposal (if he's enthusiastic) involves tons of data and hundreds of man-hours of prudent chess anslysts careful time.

#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_

Sep-17-08 Xenon Oxide: <I was kind of wondering about this as I updated the Sticky. <kutztown46> and others want the Sticky as tidy as possible, so I overwrote the temporary fora.

Instead of this, do you think I should leave the temporary fora for the move before? So on the Sticky we would have a set of current temporary fora and a set of immediately-previous temporary fora.>

No, I think it would be too untidy then. It will be a mess, with nobody quite being able to find things quickly. I think a sticky is used for quick notices and shortcuts, not storing lots of info. <kutztown> should have the previous forum assignments in his header, in any rate.

<I worry, as I think you do, that if, say, <Red October> hosts a temporary forum one month but not the next, valuable information in his forum needed on the next move might be overlooked.>

<Kutztown> said that he will keep "mainlines" within one forum. So, if Red October hosted a mainline, then whenever a new move is made she will continue to host the "main move" forum. That way, a larger percentage of analysis could be preserved linearly. At least, that is my interpretation of how it works.

Anyhow, you could ask him about that, I'm not really the expert in that area. I'm just a poor crier :)

#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_#+_

(this is another issue which was omitted from the survey). When people do sliding analysis 5 ply forward, where do they post to? They post to the designated forum (well actually they post onto the main page, but stick with the story). When the forums are piled, the analysis exists at a forum which is later "rotated" a new forum. Lets say I am hosting 1.e4 and someone wants to put some stuff on the french there. Lets say a 3rd teammate wants to post some stuff on the sicilian. Now lets say 1. e4 is played. My new forum assignment is 1...e5 the Ruy. But underneath my new forum assignment is stuff still relevant because the french and the sicilian aren't ruled out until the 1...vote is finished. I would like this concern to have been the lead part of the survey, rather than the irrelevant <What organizational steps have already been taken to prepare the team for two simultaneous games?>.)

Am I allowed to direct attention to more relevant topics? Such as this one

mckmck chessforum

I have the standard "newest kibitzes on bottom" so the first post I see is

Nov-09-08
Premium Chessgames Member dotsamoht: ~~~~~~ MARKER ~~~~~~

<Analysis of 18. Qxg5 Kf8 19. <c3> <Kg8>>

and of the most recent 25 kibitzes on mackmck's forum

here is the breakdown

14 OF THEM ARE MARKER POSTS!!!!

Some have said <well I don't agree with...> and to those I simply state a fact, and leave the argument as "fill in the blank". Sentriclecub observes that 14 of the 25 recent kibitzes on an analysis forum are marker posts and ______________

Why don't my concerns go into the survey. Certainly the item <<What should we do about the Computer Pool Forum?> could be removed to make room for it, since the fact stands it is used for things like

<In an online CC game i (as black) got this position... > and my favorite... <I need the following line refuted >

This item remained in the sticky because it does get used more than 1 relevant post per month, but did anyone even check this page before including it in the survey?

Rybka 2 is free and for everyone who can't run Rybka 2 with Arena, they can ask in kibitzers cafe or simply upgrade their computer:

System requirements: Minimum: Pentium 300 MHz, 64 MB RAM, Windows Vista or XP (SP 2), DVD ROM drive, Windows Media Player 9. Recommended: Pentium IV 2.2 GHz or higher, 256 MB RAM, Windows Vista, GeForce5 or compatible graphics card with 64 MB RAM or higher, 100% DirectX compatible sound card, Windows Media Player 9, DVD ROM drive.

Asking people to take a baited survey is counterproductive if the team really wants to make necessary improvements and avoid adding even more bloat.

I would include in a forum host's job description a simple mandate:

#1 you must do at least an 18-ply multi-PV analysis (takes 5 minutes to do)

#2 you must copy/paste at least two posts from your forum (if it is still useful) into the new forum. This solves the piling problem. Of course the pressure is on the forum host to look for two good posts that an analyst worked hard on and bothered to post to the correct forum.

#3 why 3? why not stop at 2? I stop at 2. If this is the only improvements we make, it will be better than letting Kutztown read through our posts and cherry-pick which ideas to consider.

Also, where in the survey does one invite the idea to make forum hosts spend 30-60 minutes of work? Your survey won't get this feedback because We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. the FC's job should include being responsible for the laziness of the forum hosts. All it would take is one sentence to remind forum hosts that if we only needed their chessforum, we could ask CG to provide us with 10 fake premium memberships just to use their kibitzing forums. analysis1, analysis2, analysis3 and CG can just activate the kibitzing areas. Instead its a better idea to make people get involved and ask for a 30 minute level of commitment from the forum hosts. This will trigger the cascade which can make the forum system awesome like it once was.

<#1 <What organizational steps have already been taken to prepare the team for two simultaneous games?>

#2 <Do we have enough forum hosts for two games?>

#3 <How has the forum host(ess) experience been during GMAN2?>

#4 <Have I found the right balance in refraining from assigning forums which are likely to be ignored?>

#5 <Do we typically have the right number of forums?>

#6 <How helpful has the Analysis Tree been to the team? How can it be improved?>

#7 <Can we revive the idea of having a Summarizing Committee?>

#8 <What should we do about the Computer Pool Forum? We lost <rinus> and <Waitaka> has limited time to spend on chess.>

#9 <What other ideas are there for improving the team's organizational effectiveness?>>

When you dictate the survey, and when you are the one who reviews the responses, and when you are the one who assigns forums, there is no entry into this process for an idea that requires change. This survey effectively blocks me out.

I would have liked to have had my 2 items go into the survey. The team is afraid to comment on my ideas <yes I wonder why>, but I do care about the team. I like CG and I think the failures that I have pointed out, don't exist only in my mind. Plus I want <whatthefat> to come back to the team, as he is the best commentator on the team. He has the ability to weave analysis and prose together in such a way that is meaningful at various skill levels.

The only worse idea of having a chief summarizer and assigning him uncommitted assistants is the variation index idea (User: once) as a supplement to the data-tree.

Naturally, here is the part where I balance my tone.

#1 I have done virtually zero work for the team

#2 I'm just the guy who does the sticky when Dotsamont calls in sick

#3 Young people don't know everything and I'm only 24.

#4 If my posts are counter-productive, then I have been counter-productive (and this is the one I have to stamp to my forehead).

#5 The road to hell is paved with good intetions. I don't want to be responsible for making our team focused too much on process. I want our team's focus to be analysis, and here I have dominated kutztown's forum with the complete opposite! I remind everyone, I do not think that process is important. I am the complete opposite type of person but I fully respect process oriented people.

< Have I understood your idea correctly?> YES!

<1) Discuss <your idea> further at <chancho>'s forum.>

Well; such a method is most likely used by every chess player. My advocating it in connection with the forum system stems from my observation since arriving at this site.

It may be more beneficial for the team to discuss the fundamentals for a successful move search process at the main forum for all to see.

But such a plea to change and adopt a more streamlined search technique must be carefully crafted to project the possible gains for the team and for all participants from such a collective effort.

It should include simple basics such as :

The idea to have the availability to access data containing the < best > move for every encountered position is surely part of every chess players dream or wish list.

Yes; fortunately for chess enthusiasts it will remain an elusive dream. It keeps our interests for this royal game alive.

We are encouraging the use of existing data bases for collecting relevant games but most important to us is the verification of this game data of its true relevancy as to the soundness of the actual played moves.

To stimulate enthusiasm such a message or plea must not be perceived to be a lecture or a proposition to enlist our team members for the purpose to establish new theory for monetary gains.

I suggest therefor to craft and post a message at the Umansky opening preparation site to highlight the benefits for researching particular ECO lines which may have to be confronted in the upcoming challenge game.

I would like also to put a cap on unrealistic expectations as a result for changing our collective approach for finding the best main and branch lines. The efforts of the World team has and is rewriting theory. But the degree of historical value is expected to raise significantly above our current contributions once the new method is adopted.

So much good has been said...

<kutztown> has asked me to join the discussion, so here is what I think.

I think <sentricleclub> and <Deep Breath> are correct, the Sticky is bloated and needs to be simplified. I believe Forum Coordinator and Current Forums should be the only links.

How do get optimum use of the forums?

As I have updated the Sticky during this game, I have noticed very little use of <benjinathan>'s <Analysis of others> forum, as well as others.

Are we getting information from the analysis forums to the main forum effectively?

I think this happens sometimes... as when <random player> in the main forum asks, "What about this move?", an analyst suggests "Check out <so and so>'s forum", <random player> goes there, digests what is available, returns to the main forum and posts, "Thanks. That helped. I vote for <this move>."

I think one way to get members to use the forums more is for core team members to promote them in the main forum more than we do. "Good stuff in <dalbertz>'s forum... CHECK IT OUT!!!" Seems slightly stupid, but it might help.

How do we play more human moves?

This will be difficult. To help, I will begin posting the line given by my books (ECO, MCO, etc.), in other words, the line I would play without computer analysis.

I will think further about these matters.

Here is an idea I just had...

What if <CG> gave us several forums not linked to specific members to get better organized.

I am thinking of a <Top Analysts Suggestions> forum that could be the final link in the Sticky in which <RV>, <kb2ct>, <kwid> and others (we could vote to see who gets access) could put their analysis.

I don't have anything to add really, seems like the discussion, at least, is going well..

i've voted every move except for like 2. what i do is log in, look and see how the voting is going to see the top 2 or 3 candidate moves. i'll spend a little time reading through the forum or clicking on the sticky to decide for myself.

when we got to the mid-game, the position was too complicated for me to understand, and i would look for posts with highest chess engine score and ply.

since i'm reading the analysis usually deciding between 2 or 3 moves, it would be nice if there was some way to easily (like one click) see "current best analysis of move (a)" and "current best analysis of move (b)" to choose from the two.

this is a Team Game, every one has a right to vote and as long as they vote for the move they think is best its fine

Otherwise cg.com should make this a game by invitation only which is very different in spirit.

I'm glad you joined the team. We are all total amateurs here. We are here to win, learn, and have fun. You have chosen to be part of something really special.

I believe you should continue to vote, but you should make an effort to vote as conscientiously as possible. The engine evaluations are part of the story but not the entire story.

If there are two competing moves, for example, play the moves for the likely lines for each, and see which resultant position you prefer.