<If the system fails, I will have the satisfaction of knowing exactly why.>

What on earth? Even if you feel this way, just keep it to yourself, and detach that sentence from your argument and spin it off as meaningless.

Additionally, you used the word <I> 12 times!

If you have firefox, hit ctrl+f then search for <I> then click the toolbar button <highlight all>.

One of the most powerful kinds of meta-analysis, is to only read the sentences in someone's argument that include that magical word.

It was less an argument, (the argument came earlier), and more volunteering to stand behind my idea. Please let me know how to volunteer without saying "I." :)

My next step will be to present the system in a little more detail and figure out who the four forum hosts will be. By this time next week I hope to have that in place.

Have we defined the exact needs for a change?

Are improvements expected with the new system addressing the teams apparent weaknesses? Such as constructing a plan to adopt the best theoretical opening lines leading to promising middle-, and endgame positions?

My view as to the purpose of a current game status summary may well be the key for a major improvement if the displayed emphasize highlights:

1) Best theoretical known line including at least two alternatives.

2) Support for the leading move candidate in positive and negative terms reflecting the wishes of our strongest analysts.

I know that this runs counter to your view which stresses the importance of an unbiased summary.

Unfortunately such a position does not help members who do not have the time to follow our threads. Just a simple question for clarification of this point; would any one of us not be tempted to accept and vote for a move if the recommendation is perceived to come from a Super GM? Or would we rather vote for a home cooked line suggested by a low rated player.

I don't know if you saw the initial explanation of the new idea. It is on my forum a few pages back now. I think the initial explanation along with the discussion that followed serves to declare the motivation for, and the strengths and weaknesses of, the new idea. However, I am working on a more complete explanation of the new system, which I hope to complete later this week. I will post it on my forum header.

The change in the system for analysis forums is not intended primarily to address the need for summarization. However, as a by-product, the new system should help summarization a) by improving forum continuity, thereby making it easier for a summarizer to gather data, and b) by freeing up three people who would otherwise be devoted entirely to forum preparation. One of the three has indicated an interest in trying his hand at summarizing.

Yes, I do think summarization and advocacy / recommendation should be separate activities.

..*

I..... < FORUM POSTING GUIDELINES >

In an effort to achieve consistency and facilitate summarization the following are recommended, but not required, guidelines for posting analysis in this forum:

<A.> Include a FEN Diagram of the starting position of the analysis. This diagram will generally appear in the Forum Header and easily can be copied into your post. Information on FEN diagrams can be found at:

FEN Help Page and http://www.zbestvalue.com/ChessFENR...

<B.> Indicate the type of analysis, human or computer.

<C.> Indicate the engine, version, and ply-depth at each level of analysis (if sliding backward or forward), and pertinent method, if applicable. Refer to ____ for a discussion of analysis methods.

<D.> Include a FEN Diagram of the ending position of the analysis.

<E.> [OPTIONAL] Include descriptive analysis with FEN Diagrams after important moves.

<F.> Include references to historical games, game databases, if applicable.

<G.> Include a <kibitzing> reference to prior analysis if it is not on the same page. References can be obtained via Search Kibitzing by searching for the user and then the appropriate post.

<H.> [OPTIONAL] Include a .pgn formatted version of posted analysis at the end of your post as well as a notation indicating the line has been posted to the Analysis Tree.

We all prefer detailed summaries to be available at or near the move deadlines. Following the above guidelines will greatly enhance the summarizer's efficiency. Although the above may appear to be substantially additional work, we have provided cut/past templates to assist you as well as helpful links. A detailed example follows, although this is only an example- substance is more important than form and we are always interested in improving the template.

..*

click for larger view

Rybka 2.3.2, 21-ply (infinite analysis to move 12.)

1. (.20): 10...h5 11. Kb1 Qc7 12. Bd3 Ne5 13. h3 h4
2. (.24): 10...h5 11. h3 Qc7
3. (.36): 10...h5 11. h4

Line 1. follows T Kosintseva vs S Atalik, 2007 up to black's move 12.

Sliding forward on line 1. from black move 12.

12...Ne5 13. h3 h4 14. f4 Nxd3 15. cxd3 (.10/24 Rybka 2.3.2)

click for larger view

The objective in the above line is for black to aggressively prevent white's g4, thereby forestalling a thematic white pawn-storm on the king-side with an eventual h4, f4, g5. The benefits of h4 and subsequent h5 is that black, in many variations, can lock down the kingside and shift play to the queenside and the open c-file. The downside is that black has permanently weakened the kingside, given up the opportunity to castle and sequestered the KR to the protection of the h-pawn well into the latter parts of the middle-game- primarily a defensive strategy. However, the more aggressive strategy discussed here A Nickel vs The World, 2008 is not consistent with black's intended line of play.

.pgn formatted line (posted to Analysis Tree)

10....h5 11. 11. Kb1 Qc7 12. Bd3 Ne5 13. h3 h4 14. f4 Nxd3 15. cxd3

Great Work! If adopted it would make the recommendations for choosing our top move candidate a lot easier.

It may be worth speculating what affect such a structured approach will have on our present system before implementing the changes.

Let me start with a reflection of my perception how the present system works.

We now accept input and challenges of perceived validity from individuals on one to one exchanges as well as recommendations from beginners even with no chess program assistance at designated platforms and at the main forum site.

These exchanges of perceptions and analysis mostly derived by comparing engine lines and our opening explorer recommendations based on games played by humans under time constrained has been our guidance for selecting a move.

This scenario confirms the present of human thoughts and deep opening preparations from game data bases and engine book lines in all our analysis.

Posting these valuable analysis for us derived also via studying of theory or by other observation is a large contributor to our collective wisdom resulting in our playing strength.

Where then could improvements come from?

Is the difficulty for condensing these data what is of utmost importance obstructed from our personal biases towards the presenter?

Is a lack of ability to condense the provided data a hindrance?

Is the present method for collecting pertinent data for summarising not adequate to detect the true value at a glance?

Thank your for your comments.

One of the objectives of the template is to provide anyone at any level of expertise a format for providing data that can be analyzed and summarized effectively by the team. It would be naive to assume the guidelines will be unanimously and comprehensively accepted from the start; however, as they are refined and their effectiveness proven they hopefully will gain acceptance over time.

I hope to encourage even the newbie chess analysts to attempt to put into words the impacts of a suggested computer line. This, IMHO, has been one of the drawback's of our centaurian analysis in the past.

As a forum host, I hope to recruit analysts at all levels and with expertise with various engines to participate at the forum level by creatively trying to find ways of making the experience more useful and educational.

<kwid>, I would hope that you might consider acting as the summarizer for my forum once the Umansky game starts. I believe your active participation in this trial would motivate many analysts to participate and adopt the posting guidelines. If we could attract at least one senior analyst from the Rybka, Fritz, Shredder, Naum and Zappa camps (including some of your old cronies), we might have the nucleus to make this work. It will only gain widespread acceptance if we can show in our microcosm of a forum that it can be effective. Leadership by example on a small scale will achieve more than any attempts at dictatorial mandate on the main forum.

Sorry for the delay in replying.

Obviously (and I'm sure you realize this), the top of your forum header should indicate 1) which theme you are currently hosting, and 2) moves / lines currently being analyzed at your forum.

Now, concerning the substance and format of what you wrote, I agree that acceptance will come slowly. I also definitely agree that it is appropriate for you to try making this work at an individual forum first.

I think this will look intimidating to beginners and those who are not as advanced in their skills. So, while I have no objection to you taking this approach, I hope it does not discourage some team members from taking part in your forum.

I am very happy that you want to recruit team members to help you at your forum. Good luck!

You are quite welcome.
It pains me to decline your offer to serve as a summarizer at your forum which will be of great help to our team even without my presence. Similar offers to recruit my services from Sentriclecub and kutztown46 where also politely refused, even so I considered it an honor to be part of their worthy endeavor to raise the playing strength of our team.

What seems to be a stubborn refusal to cooperate stems from my perception that the use of PGN format postings for line analysis is an absolute necessity for any consolidation game when conducted under time constraint.

Please consider my reasoning for it.

As an example I post an answer to a query at the main forum " Why did Knudsen resign?". Since this question seem to be connected with a possible opening choice for the Umansky challenge it may be timely to address it. Mainly because it could affect the planning strategy for our current opening selection and thus influence the decision making process of the team.

I could start with a game annotation referring that the opening line up to move 13 is considered as sound by theory. But seemingly white did not have a plan or simply put did not understand how to continue from this position. As you see i could go on and on--but it is too long of a ramble if i were to include all the move choices and with explanations of the possible reasons for them.

Why not post a PGN for easy speed download into a game window and let any available engine look at the variations which are run out to provide an understanding of why for student or players of expert level..

[Event "Knudsen- The World"]
[Site "Internet 2003"]
[Date "2003.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "John C Knudsen"]
[Black "The World"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E59"]
[PlyCount "60"]
[EventDate "2003.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 c5 6. Nf3 d5 7. O-O Nc6 8. a3 Bxc3 9. bxc3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Qc7 11. Bb2 e5 12. h3 Bf5 13. Qe2 Rad8 14. Bb5 e4 15. Nd2 a6 16. Bc4 $2 (16. Bxc6 Qxc6 17. c4 Nd7 (17... cxd4 18. exd4 Qb6 19. Bc3) 18. Rfe1 (18. a4 Qg6 19. Kh1 Rfe8 20. d5 Ne5 21. Bxe5 Rxe5 22. Rfb1 Qh6 23. Qf1 Bc8 24. Qg1 Rde8 25. Qh2 Qh5 26. Ra2 Qe2 27. Qg3 h6 28. Rba1 Qd3 29. a5 Rf5 30. Rf1 Ree5 31. Re1 Rg5 32. Qh4 f6) 18... Qg6 19. Kh1 Rfe8 20. Nf1) 16... b5 17. Ba2 c4 18. Nxc4 bxc4 19. Bxc4 Ne7 20. Bxa6 Ng6 21. Qc4 Qd6 22. Bb5 (22. a4 Bxh3 23. gxh3 Nh4 24. Rfd1 Nh5 25. Kf1 Rb8 (25... Qh2 26. Ke2 Ng3+ 27. Kd2 Qxf2+ 28. Kc1 Rb8 29. Bb5 Ng2 30. Rf1 Qxe3+ 31. Kc2 Qh6 32. Rfe1 Qf6 33. Re2 Qf3 34. Rxg2 Qxg2+ 35. Kb3 e3 36. Qd3 Rfe8 37. Ka3 Qf2 38. Bc1 e2 39. Bd2 e1=Q 40. Bxe1 Rxe1 41. Rxe1 Qxe1 42. d5 Ne4 43. Kb2 f5 44. Kc2 Rb6) 26. Rd2 Qh2 27. Ke2 Nf3 28. Bb5 Ng3+ 29. Kd1 Nxd2 30. Kxd2 Qxf2+ 31. Kc1 Rfc8 32. Qb4 Nf5 33. Kb1 Nxe3 34. Qb3 Nc4 35. Qc2 Qf5 36. Ra2 Qf1+ 37. Qc1 Qxh3 38. Ba3 Qd3+ 39. Qc2 Nd2+ 40. Kb2 Rxc3 41. Qxd3 Rxd3 42. Bc5 Nf3 43. Kc1 Rc3+ 44. Kb2 Re3) (22. f4 exf3 23. Rxf3 Be4 24. Raf1 Rb8 25. Bc1 Rb6 26. Bb5 Nh4 27. Rxf6 (27. R3f2 Qg3) 27... Qg3 28. Qe2 gxf6 29. Rf4 f5 30. Qf2 Qxg2+ 31. Qxg2+ Nxg2 32. Rxe4 fxe4 33. a4 Ne1 34. Kf1 Nd3 35. Bd2 Rf6+ 36. Ke2 Rf2+ 37. Kd1 Kh8 38. Be1 Nxe1 39. Kxe1 Rc2 40. Kf1 Rg8 41. h4 Rg3) 22... Bxh3 (22... Nh4 23. a4 Bxh3 24. Qc5 Qb8 25. Qe5 Bxg2 26. Qxb8 Rxb8 27. Rfb1 Rb6 28. Be2 Rfb8 29. a5) 23. Qc6 Qb8 24. gxh3 Rd6 25. Qc4 (25. Qc5 Rd5) 25... Nh4 26. f4 (26. Rfd1 Nd5 27. f4 exf3 28. Kh1 Nxe3 29. Qa4 Rb6 30. Rd2 Rxb5) 26... exf3 27. d5 Nxd5 28. Kh1 Nxe3 29. Qxh4 Nxf1 30. Rxf1 Qxb5 0-1

Since engine evaluations can be obtained in blitz time for all end positions and the record keeping involves only a click of a mouse to store as a data base or delete this data if desired it would be immensely time saving. It would elevate the playing strength to be equivalent to the engines used. Our opening strategy will then be a copy of the most successful player plus prove read to confirm its validity.

I am strongly convinced that such a method would avoid duplicating efforts because of the ready availability of data which can be merged with any other pertinent input into a specific ECO base.

Expressed opinions of questionable value are kept short. Diagrams can be viewed in a game window . It will reduce forum space and thus ease the search for data.

Let me say from the start that I understand your position and reasons and should I not be able to convince you otherwise, we on the team value your contribution however you choose to participate.

With that said, let me entice you with the details of my offer which stems from an earlier exchange we had on the topic of pgn postings. I opposed such postings on the grounds that many analysts had issues with the legibility of the format, however, I promised to look into the issue. My suggested analysis posting guidelines are a result of that review.

<What seems to be a stubborn refusal to cooperate stems from my perception that the use of PGN format postings for line analysis is an absolute necessity for any consolidation game when conducted under time constraint.>

We are often stubborn when it comes to the sacrifice of our own time and ideals. The inclusion of pgn postings is important from the standpoint of documenting our thought processes because the software world has adopted this format for not only engines, but databases, table bases, gui's, etc. For this reason, I have requested that analysis posted to my forum include pgn formatted data at the end.

That said, it is naive to think that all analysts that post analysis that is worthy of consideration will abide by this request. Therefore, if you will reconsider my request, I will commit to summarizing and providing you with the data you require before the deadline for the team's move. The data will assume the following example format.

[Event "CCGM Umansky v. The World"]
[Site "www.chessgames.com"]
[Date "2009.2.1"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Michael Umansky"]
[Black "The World"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "*"]
[PlyCount "*"]
[EventDate "2009.2.1"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 c5 6. Nf3 d5 7. O-O Nc6 8. a3 Bxc3 9. bxc3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Qc7 11. Bb2 e5 12. h3 Bf5 13. Qe2 Rad8 14. Bb5 e4 15. Nd2 a6 16. Bc4

This is typical pgn format and will reflect the analysis to the present. The analysis lines beyond the last move will be additionally provided to in the following format.

(16. Bxc6 Qxc6 17. c4 Nd7 (17... cxd4 18. exd4 Qb6 19. Bc3) 18. Rfe1 (18. a4 Qg6 19. Kh1 Rfe8 20. d5 Ne5 21. Bxe5 Rxe5 22. Rfb1 Qh6 23. Qf1 Bc8 24. Qg1 Rde8 25. Qh2 Qh5 26. Ra2 Qe2 27. Qg3 h6 28. Rba1 Qd3 29. a5 Rf5 30. Rf1 Ree5 31. Re1 Rg5 32. Qh4 f6) 18... Qg6 19. Kh1 Rfe8 20. Nf1)

Once again, this data is in pgn format.

For my own part, consistent with the structure of my forum, the analysis lines will come from a variety of sources and analysts annotated consistent with my proposed posting guidelines and may take the following form:

<RV> <User: RandomVisitor Rybka 3, Dynamic, 21-ply to move 17

(.10): 16. Bxc6 Qxc6 17. c4 Nd7 <18. XX XX 19. XX XX 20. XX XX>

Fritz 11, 22-ply to move 17

<TofK> <http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...<TouchofKnight>

16. Bxc6 Qxc6 17. c4 cxd4

1. 18. exd4 Qb6 19. Bc3 (.13/20)
2. 18. a4 Qg6 19. Kh1 Rfe8 20. d5 Ne5 21. Bxe5 Rxe5 22. Rfb1 Qh6 23. Qf1 Bc8 24. Qg1 Rde8 25. Qh2 Qh5 26. Ra2 Qe2 27. Qg3 h6 28. Rba1 Qd3 29. a5 Rf5 30. Rf1 Ree5 31. Re1 Rg5 32. Qh4 f6 (.16/20)

These lines may be broken apart, annotated variously or accompanied by any number of FEN Diagrams which would hinder your use. In short, I will summarize the data into a format which is useful for you to analyze and post it to my forum. As this is an experiment, there will no doubt be times when you cannot provide a summary or I may not always be able to aggregate the data in the time alloted; however, I hope to show how this structure, if utilized effectively, can provide the type of analysis you have been battling for.

If you will visit my forum, the structure is more advanced and is more consistent with your initial comments. The guidelines eventually will be moved to a posting in my forum and internally referenced in the header.

I note an air of more than just a little hesitancy in your comments. :)

Trying to design a forum for all intended users irrespective of skill level is not feasible IMHO and was not my original intent; however, I believe that structure is important in advancing the team's evolution. There will not be anything on my forum that generally does not appear on the main forum and if the guidelines are followed even to a limited extent by at least one senior analyst with each of the major engines, a total of four including myself, the data provided can be summarized into something which anyone, at any level, will be able to understand to a degree that has only been limitedly possible before.

As you no doubt have read my exchange with <kwid>, I am pursuing what I believe are the necessary elements to ensure all the tools are available. I also intend to approach <Tabanus> for Rybka and <TofK> for Fritz to participate as well as several others. Hopefully, if we free you, <zanshin> and <hms123> up, I can occasionally receive some assistance from this dedicated trinity.

I know to some extent I am preaching to the choir here, however, should either of us have any doubts of the concept's viability, they need to be completely aired before you proceed with your presentation of the new forum system.

Now as to your proposed format, the pgn below is a copy of it. It certainly is not representative of your presentation which I do believe is very informative and should be used for summarizing.

[Event "CCGM Umansky v. The World"]
[Site "www.chessgames.com"]
[Date "2009.02.01"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Michael Umansky"]
[Black "The World"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "42"]
[EventDate "2009.02.01"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 c5 6. Nf3 d5 7. O-O Nc6 8. a3 Bxc3 9. bxc3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Qc7 11. Bb2 e5 12. h3 Bf5 13. Qe2 Rad8 14. Bb5 e4 15. Nd2 a6 16. Bc4 This is typical pgn format and will reflect the analysis to the present. The analysis lines beyond the last move will be additionally provided to in the following format. Once again, this data is in pgn format. For my own part, consistent with the structure of my forum, the analysis lines will come from a variety of sources and analysts annotated consistent with my proposed posting guidelines and may take the following form: <♖V> <User: ♖andomVisitor ♖ybka Dynamic, to move : ♗xc6 ♕xc6 c4 (16. Bxc6 Qxc6 17. c4 Nd7 (17... cxd4 18. exd4 Qb6 19. Bc3) 18. Rfe1 (18. a4 Qg6 19. Kh1 Rfe8 20. d5 Ne5 21. Bxe5 Rxe5 22. Rfb1 Qh6 23. Qf1 Bc8 24. Qg1 Rde8 25. Qh2 Qh5 26. Ra2 Qe2 27. Qg3 h6 28. Rba1 Qd3 29. a5 Rf5 30. Rf1 Ree5 31. Re1 Rg5 32. Qh4 f6) 18... Qg6 19. Kh1 Rfe8 20. Nf1) () 16... Nd7 <18. XX XX XX XX XX XX> Fritz to move <Tof♔> <http://www. chessgames. com/perl/ches. <Touchof♔night> ♗xc6 ♕xc6 c4 cxd4 exd4 ♕b6 ♗c3 () 17. a4 ♕g6 ♔h1 Rfe8 18. d5 ♘e5 ♗xe5 Re5 19. Rfb1 ♕h6 ♕f1 ♗c8 ♕g1 Rde8 ♕h2 20. Qh5 ♖a2 ♕e2 ♕g3 h6 ♖ba1 ♕d3 21. a5 ♖f5 ♖f1 ♖ee5 ♖e1 ♖g5 ♕h4 f6 () *

Well, if you are successful in your recruiting efforts, you will be the envy of the other forum hosts!

I have no hesitancy or doubt at all that we are doing the right thing here. Any hesitancy that you perceived from me has to do with the fact that I have spent the better part of two games trying to "herd cats". People who like and/or are good at chess are an independent lot. I just don't know how easy it will be to gain acceptance for a suggested format of posting analysis.

I will be the conduit and take the data from the analysts edit it and supply it to you. What I will need from you are two things: 1) a return pgn in the same format as given to you with your analyzed lines once you have completed your analysis. 2) an annotated summary of your pgn analysis, the type which you supply generally as a preface to posting your pgn lines, as detailed as you see necessary.

I can then take your summary (pgn file and annotations) and put it in a form that fits my suggested guidelines for your presentation to the team as a whole. In this manner, we can maintain a very sophisticated ongoing annotation of the game that can be downloaded into a database or that can presented almost in textbook form.

It is a shame the original pgn protocol did not provide for written annotations.

As far as the language differences, this has been a concern of mine for some time and I am sure leads many non-English speaking participants to follow only the Deep Rybka analysis. Publishing the summary in pgn is one answer, at least they will be able to see the end result of the analysis as well as possible alternatives; however, short of translating the annotations, I see no other way of communicating.

organization is not a easy undertaking.

I think what the team is saying though is they want a simpler to read. analysis. on the move. 4 captains Irina Krush-RV.(analysis like GK vs world game) where the captains write a short where we are going strategy and maybe a computer line to back their idea.

readability to the casual player.. so he/she can make a informed voting decision. (i think this is what the team needs for the Umansky game.)

we need to avoid computer solidification of lines.. for a more free flowing chess attack..

alot of the casual internet chess players. (myself included are tal/fischer romantic chess era style attacking chess players.) I'm not saying our sacrafices are always sound. but without opening lines to the opponents king and taking some chances. the path to victory isn't always a solid computer line where you don't lose a pawn.

the Topolov and Karpovian theorists.
"Board Constrictor GM's is what i call their play style". (play where style is more about control of squares and constricting their opponents access to the center. then about classicly occupying the center, (Positional attacking rather then tactical attacking chess.) their chess is on a very high CC level. that can put the computer programs to the test.

But is that playstyle something the team really wants to see played out on the board. Do we want to play a game where we struggle thru a defensive position for a long time to stay materially balanced? we got that game in the GMAN game now.

I think we have to loosen up our game and attack the enemy's king more.

Is that he's a positional chess GM and that d4 is his most likely starting move. he does have games with Ruy Lopez e4 in his chessgames database.. but d4 is his mainline repitore and we can expect him to be very knowledgeable in. Hyper Modern style Chess.

We can approach this a number of ways as a team. by working out a style of our own to counter his opening.

the classical mainlines wont suprise him but they will certainly give us a even game. * i kinda advacate that we stay in mainline classical attack mode for black.

going off into the world of noveltys quickly.. is often putting yourself in the woods.. without a knight and putting that bishop on the long diagonal without considering (time and spacial board parameters) and blindly going into a KID.. no matter what he plays.. is not a style i'd want the team to get into. even though KID is a classical defense.

we need time to analysis pirc and slav defenses and other things we can do vs d4. and we have to wait to see what he plays vs us.. anyways.

my two cents.

<2. Are you interested in hosting a forum full time or would you prefer breaks?> Full time is certainly doable, unless breaks a required to the nature of the game and moves

<3. If you want to host a forum, do you have a preference for which theme you want to host to start with?> I would be partial to hosting the creative alternatives forum. I believe this is an area least explored in the GMAN2 game