Is this really true?

I brought up the idea of having a summary which does mention what the preference of some of our top analyst is. Kutztown rejects such an approach as being too biased.

My reason for bringing it up again is because there is a current standing to invite discussions on the subject of forum assignment and or reevaluation of it.

Is the purpose of Kutztowns efforts not directed to help the team to be better organized in archiving its analysis and reviewing it.

Is the goal for seeking improvements with our forum system to save time for analyst and to have an instant review as to the status of a particular line?

Should a measurement of this project then not be reflective of a more efficient approach elevating the teams performance rating?

If the improvements seek to increase our playing strength with a more streamlined archiving of our analysis and condensing of ideas for a particular move selection, why is advocating the apparent best move candidate undemocratic?

I strongly belief that even RV's contributions in the opening phase of a game may be inadequate for the team to reach a promising middle game or transpositions into a sound pawn structure needed to keep winning chances alive. It can be expected that our opponent will have access to RV,s engine book lines and therefor will lead us into positions preferable for him as we have seen from GMAN.

Unless the team plays a prepared novelty our chances for a win is very slim indeed regardless of the amount of forums and tree information's where we expect to see current theory rewritten by democratic means.

The question of how best does one improve its chess vision remains to be asked; is it by observing the practice of masters or simply learning from your own mistakes?

Yes, in the sense that 1 person (no matter how dedicated and talented), gets the same vote as another person (no matter how untalented, disinterested, or even antagonistic to the game). Even if the karpova/hootey list shows how the top analysts are voting, the less talented masses are free to vote as they wish.

The off-site data tree never got permission from the board. The team had a need, and a volunteer that the team trusts, <jepflast>, took the initiative.

If you want to sidestep democracy, you have to learn these things without me having to come right out and say them.

Kutztown, feel free to delete this post from your forum. I have tried to educate kwid but he's too stubborn even for me. He was willing last game, but I wasn't. I was willing for the UMAN game but apparently he wants things done his way or no way.

I share some of your concerns about the AT. The ideal situation would be if cg developed a more full-featured AT themselves. They say it's on the list, but I think their to-do list is very long, with limited resources to accomplish all of our wishes.

I'm very sure that a cg AT would identify the poster. In that respect, it would work like any other kibitzing.

Later I will address your most recent comments. However, at this point I wish to resume a prior discussion.

Over a week ago, you suggested creating multiple forums to consider various ECO openings that could be relevant to the Umansky game. I recommended a course of action whereby we could use our existing forum system to accomplish this. You did not pursue this although you were hoping that I would. Neither did you pursue a completely different course of action suggested by another team member.

Today I have been in email contact with <hms123> and <zanshin>. We have discussed this situation at some length. Although all of us are skeptical that we can create a long term plan that the team will actually follow, we do see the value in discussing various openings in the context of the Umansky game. Also, the suspension of the analysis forums in the GMAN2 game potentially frees up certain individuals to host forums devoted to certain ECO openings for the Umansky game.

So here is my updated proposal. I will attempt to recruit a group of team members to host ECO variation specific forums. <hms123> and <zanshin> have agreed to be the first volunteers. However, we want and expect that you will play an active role in this initiative. The first thing we want you to do is to name the first two ECO variations to receive forums. Then we want you to provide help and guidance to <hms123> and <zanshin> as they create these forums.

My suggestion would be for the participants in each forum to analyze games in which Umansky won or drew with black in that particular opening. Then improvements for white could be sought. However, we defer to you in this area.

Your expertise and experience uniquely qualifies you to take a leadership role in this effort. If you choose not to be closely involved, then this effort will not go forward.

As soon as we receive your preference for the first two ECO variations to receive forums and your promise that you will actively participate and provide leadership, then we will establish the first two forums and I will ask <chancho> to provide links to the forums in his forum header. After a few days, I will continue recruiting additional forum hosts to expand the effort.

Thanks for your efforts to make our participation at this site more enjoyable and providing the means to increase our playing strength.

Your roll as forum coordinator is of great value because it provides the necessary guidance for coordinating our analysis and ideas.

My suggestion for a possible improvement to our existing forum system has been answered.

I was trying to create an awareness at the opening stage to replay the games from our opening explorer first before accepting the displayed value used to guide our selection criteria.

The current forum system will serve us well again in our next game because of the increased interest GM Umansky will generate.

As to formally soliciting my help in the forum for guiding analysis, I suggest to keep it as informal as possible to avoid the perception of a hierarchy which could effect contributions of inferior perceptions.

Time permitting I shall help the team to my best ability in every way I can.

Now here is an exerpt from our forums in regard to opening selection which shows our diverse view points.

Quote:

< - I think that there should be a concerted effort in the Opening to simply shut up. Maybe one day before our first move, and then for the next 10 moves, stop the chatter, stop the endless debates about e4 vs. d4, stop the posts about having never played this or that line, stop the posts about the weather, stop the suggestions of silly gambits we know won't be played, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. There will be a lot of voters in the first few moves who will not be especially sophisticated players. Many won't read anything. For those who do, I hate to think we are going to swamp them with pages of pointless kibitzing.>

Looks that the ball is still in my court.

Ok, it may have been to naive from me to suggest that we could raise our opening approach above of the amateure level for our encounter with Umansky.

To me a forum is a platform to discuss developments in chess theory for a particular variation to demonstrate its viability to obtain an advantage or initiative for white. Look for new possibilities to gain advantage in positions which most likely can be reached according to Umansky,s assessed chess vision and anticipated opening choice against us.

Reprint opening surveys contacted by theoreticians and replay those games used for verifying its assessment values.

For an example of how I thought we should be analysing the KI defence as a transposition from the Modern or Robatsch defence look at my contribution at chanco,s site which has been designated for pre-game preparation for the Umansky game.

Unfortunately our team has no interest for any preparations or thinks that they know what is best for us already.

Since we have no advocating the importance of opening preparation I will retreat and keep my contributions at the expected amateur level. If I could I would delete my lines for the KI defence posted with the anticipation to stimulate discussions for it.

To sum it up; No active Master player would ever reveal such data just ask ssoyyd or chessgame and see if they would part with any move which is considered a novelty. My contributions are not appreciated by the amateurs because they seem to be beyond their grasp.

One of the reasons the World was succesful is that <Thorsson> was the only very high rated and experienced CC player. When he spoke, people listened.

As an example, <GoldenKnight> a while back gave an explanation about the purpose of the rook at h5 and how it helped set up a barrier on the rank (as gave a citation to <Attack with Mikhail Tal>). I found that very useful.

Also, his way of analysis and presenting it was quite different. He used to post short lines of <good moves> with some reasoning.

Thank you for responding to my suggestions.

Fora organized based upon the top alternatives for a single move (our move not our opponent's) is a less efficient means of achieving our objective. If you consider how an analyst normally "humanly" examines a position, it is almost always 5 or 6 ply deep at a glance. First, emphasizing tactical considerations and then secondly, long-term strategy. The fora should be organized similarly, following a line of thought rather than trying to mimic the brute force move by move technique of the computer. Arguing for a "move" is then transformed to a much more meaningful debate for a line of play, a strategy, or a tactical parlay.

In setting up fora for our opponent's move, the single move alternative is best, but not for our move. Our objective should be to give a forum to the most feasible lines rather than moves, while allowing our more creative artists such as "Hugin", "Dan" and others an outlet for arguing for an unlikely, but game changing, move or strategy.

An example, one taken from the game would be on our move 10.

<Forum A> Prevention of White g4 10...h5 11. Kb1 Qc7 12. Bd3 Ne5 <Kosintseva v. Atalik, 2007>

<Forum B> Allow g4 and Counterattack 10...b5 11. g4 Nxd4 12. Bxd4 b4 13. Ne2 e5 14. Be3 Qa5 <Movsesian v. K. Miton, 2004>

<Forum C>Allow g4 and Counterattack 10...0-0 11. g4 Nxd4 12. Bxd4 Bc6/b5 or 10...Nxd4 11. Bxd4 0-0 12. g4 (transposes) <G. Ardelian v. Valentin Raceanu, 2004>

<Forum D>Immediate Attack 10...Qa5 11. Kb1 b5 12. Nb3 Qc7 13. Bxb5 axB <Zsofia Polgar vs D J Zecevic, 1994>

<Forum E>Alternatives

This organization gives the fora "horizons" rather than a single move orientation. Some may argue this is form over substance, and for the experienced analysts, maybe, but for the masses it shows direction and planning. I hope this clarifies my comment in some way. :)

I think your idea is intriguing but I fear it is impractical for two reasons: lack of time and lack of expertise. Let me try to explain.

After we move and while we wait for our opponent to move, many on the team relax a bit. However, this is when the Forum Coordinator goes into high gear. In 24 hours (because the opponent might move in one day and we have to be ready) the FC has to develop a set of forums for all plausible moves that our opponent might make. More than once, I have had over a dozen different forum plans ready, one for each possible opponent move. For the most anticipated moves, I can use team kibitzing as a guide, but for most of the plausible moves (the ones ignored by the team) the forums are based on engine analysis.

It is time consuming to develop and type up a dozen sets of forums, even after all the analysis is done. This is why <zanshin>, <hms123> and I are grateful for runaway votes - we can have a head start!

Suppose there are a dozen plausible opponent moves being prepared for, and six forums for each plan. That would be 72 individual forum possibilities. To examine each, develop those which are single moves into short lines and come up with a one-sentence tactical description for each would be, I fear, impossible.

<isemeria> I agree entirely.. With all due respect to the strong players we have now there is a big advocay difference between <thorsson's> forceful style and a long run out of a game. Perhaps we need both, but now we are lacking the former.

<capafan>

<as statistically having a diverse group actually strengthens our bell curve of possibilities although it may be counterintuitive,>

I have evidently done a poor job of communicating. I will not have time to try again until tomorrow.

I do not have an issue with the more experienced analysts taking active roles, especially in the opening, to define a long-term strategy. This is absolutely necessary. However, that is different than following the lead of one or two people throughout the game which *would* lead statistically to poorer performance.

I am considering an idea for our forum system that would represent a significant departure from what we have done in the past. I don't think this is exactly what <capafan> had in mind, but it is an adaptation of what I believe he was advocating.

<Idea: instead of assigning forums each move to a specific move or line, have four permanent analysis forums, each assigned to a THEME.>

Forum A: Main line forum - in the opening, this forum would work on the most commonly played line, whether in OE or other databases. Once <RV> starts posting analysis, this forum would work on <RV>'s best rated line.

Forum B: Aggressive alternates forum - this forum would analyze aggressive alternatives to the "main line". Aggressive alternate lines could differ from the main line on the current move, or on a subsequent move.

Forum C: Careful alternates forum - this forum would analyze alternates to the main line which are more solid or defensive in nature.

Forum D: Creative alternates forum - this forum would consider alternates to the main line which are not suggested by the engines. This forum would encourage human ideas.

These forums would be designated early in the game and would not change. We would only change forum hosts if one of them requests a break. Forum hosts would not be told what moves or lines to work on. That would be up to the host and participants of each forum.

With this scheme, forum hosts would need to be very active and take more of a leadership role since I would not be assigning moves or lines to the forums. Summarization on the main page would be very important.

Advantages:

1) Improved continuity of forums

2) Removes an impediment to posting analysis to the forums (no fear of losing the analysis due to forum change)

3) Huge reduction in workload for Forum Coordinator and assistants, freeing us to do other things for the team

4) No need for regular updating of the sticky

Disadvantages:

1) No breaks for forum hosts (depending on the host, this may not be a problem)

2) Possible overlap between forums