Now that you are ready to start up your new system, I will add another comment, knowing fully well this is an evolutionary process. :)

In the early part of the game, you may consider organizing the fora into opening line variations and wait until we reach a novelty prior to adopting the themed approach. I know this is a monkey wrench but to use a financial metaphor, you have not yet gone public and the offering memorandum can yet be changed if you so wish. This is a selfish request as that is precisely how, in the early stages of the game, my forum has been organized; however, it might be a good way to transition into the new system.

I've read as much of the discussion here as I could in the last couple of hours. Congratulations to everyone involved at coming to an efficient and useful forum-based tool for the Umansky game. Hopefully it will maximise the team's chance of success.

I don't really have anything to add because other people seem to have thought of the salient points. Except to say that it would serve the system well to keep the forum names flexible to aid strategic planning and understanding.

I'm happy to offer my services as a reserve forum host, should you need it.

Your comments present a dilemma. You have done OUTSTANDING work at your forum, and to my surprise, the team seems to be coalescing around a particular opening system. That means your forum, AS IS, may be relevant for several moves beyond my stated estimate of move 5 for the start of the new system. So it may well be counterproductive to start the new system prematurely.

What makes the dilemma is that in all of the last three games, the team clamored for forums very early in the game.

I do not want to kick off the forum system this game by assigning variations and then abruptly shifting to the theme approach. I think that will really confuse people. What I am willing to consider is stalling as long as I can before we kick off the forums (assuming we continue on the semi-Slav path).

It was not my intent to create a dilemma...I honestly do wish to assist putting into place something that is valuable and helps the team evolve.

I believe by putting off the implementation of the forum system it will "de facto" implement what I suggest, however, one forum is not sufficient to deal with the complexity. It is already becoming unwieldy, although I am so pleased that team members such as <kwid>, <kwgurge>, <DanLanglois> and others have put so much energy into their analysis in the forum.

What if one of us approaches the other intended forum hosts to see if they wish to take another piece of the QGD SS off my hands...they can choose their poison.

I stand ready to lead my forum in whatever capacity you see fit. My only reservation is that, while I will be able to organise the variations and focus, I'm not confident I have the skill to properly lead the analysis as other forum hosts (capafan, for example) are able to. On that basis, perhaps some extra assistance would be required. It seems only fair to pre-warn you.

After thinking about it today, I guess propagating your forum now to multiple forums is not that different than what I was trying to work out with <kwid> before the game started but could not come to terms.

In essence, you are fulfilling the role I had imagined <kwid> would take. Your forum, and those that it spawns, could really be considered opening preparation forums, even though the game has started.

So I don't see a problem. Having a few forums for opening prep might hold off the cries to open the analysis forums for a while.

<<capafan>, if we sub-divide your forum, how would you propose that we do it?>

I did not mean to ignore your question...

<OD><Red October> QGD, Slav Variation

<dalbertz> QGD SS,

* 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 [D46] dxc4 7. Bxc4 [D47]

Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav (D46)
Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav (D47)

<mkkmck> QGD, SS Meran,

* 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 8. Bd3 a6 [D48] 9. e4 c5 10. e5 cxd4 11. Nxb5 [D49]

Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav, Meran (D48)
Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav, Meran (D49)

<ajile> QGD, Meran, Botvinnik, Moscow and Anti-Moscow Systems

* 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7

* 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bxf6

* 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4

Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav (D44)

<tweet77>QGD SS, alternatives to 5. g3

* 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6

<kwgurge>, I am sure you must feel the same way. You have previously been outspoken in your belief that such planning is not possible in this format.

You might not be expecting this response, but I do not believe narrowing our choices artificially by giving the team less opportunity to disagree is necessarily the best decision for much the same reason as I would argue against always following the advice of our strongest team member. Statistically there is strength in numbers and diversity despite what your intuition would tell you otherwise. Administratively, yes, herding the team along a path via ease of analysis might facilitate one aspect of the game, but places our subjectivity above individual team member choice...this will get recognized by a few and will be resisted and resented. Coalescence should be natural and unbiased...if my work is for naught because the team chooses another path, then so be it.

Team leaders should provide guidance and options not manipulation. I understand the spirit of <kwgurge>'s comments is positive and not negative and is tinged by our recent experience in the GMAN II game, but lets let the strength of our analysis provide the impetus for change.

The 250-50 preference of c6 over e6 just proves that capafan has solved our opening dilemma. I guarantee that as long as the participants at Capafan's forum keep working so well, that the team will unify in the opening phase. The hard work that goes on at capafan's forum has had enormous influence on the votes.

The slav system has already been ruled out, and we are going into a semi-slav. It would be unwise to ...

<While it's not premature to get <OD> going with a Slav Forum, it may be too early to break up the momentum going on <capafan's> Forum for the Semi-Slav. >

Since the momentum is at capafan's forum, please lets preserve it, even if it means hybridizing our static planning with his dynamic flow. Wow, just read his forum this game. Amazingly helpful--the 5-minute voter's dream, and the serious chess analyst's dream forum.

As far as your cause and effect argument, if I had chosen to select the Slav for my forum, you would not be arguing as you are.

At first, I thought it would confuse the team to have a set of forums on opening prep, then abruptly shift into the "theme" forums. But then I realized that what <capafan> wants to do is essentially the same as what <kwid> wanted to do, albeit later. So part of me is inclined to support this effort.

However, <capafan>, the concerns from <kwgurge> carry weight with me. He is a sensible and intelligent guy, as you are. The fact that he has posted four times on the subject demonstrates the depth of his concern.

We are flying by the seat of our pants here. Maybe next game we can plan this out better ahead of time, and have multiple opening prep forums. For now, however, I think it may be best if we do not "officially" sanction several additional opening prep forums. Let's stick with yours, <capafan>, and <OD>'s. If anyone else volunteers to take a piece of it, fine, but let's not actively recruit any others.

<capafan> We may be misconnecting. I'm not sure what it is you think I am proposing and perhaps I'm not sure what specifically it is that you propose. Opening up other forums is fine with me. I've agreed it makes sense to split the Slav forum off to <OD>. What beyond that are you suggesting? My point is not to foreclose open discussion or other forums, my question is when. For instance, assuming we have yours for 3.Nf3 (or Nc3) Nf6 4.Nc3 (or Nf3) e6 and <OD's> for 4...dxc4. Are you proposing that <kutztown> open new forums now for alternatives to 3...Nf6? That's what I don't think would be worthwhile. However, if what you are proposing is new forums to take up at white's 5th move alternatives and black's 5th move responses, I have no problem with that. Even on the idea of other forums for black's 3rd move, I don't see anything wrong with others stepping forward to light other paths with their own forums. What I have been focusing on is the sanction of officialdom that comes when <kutztown> implements official forum assignments.

I guess I fail to see how I am being presumptuous or seeking to deny illumination to anyone or any idea. My position would be no different if your forum was for the Slav. I would still suggest breaking one off for the Semi Slav and starting others at the move 5 alternatives in the Semi-Slav.

I will continue with my forum, as is, with one exception. Having both the QGD Semi-Slav lines and the specialty QGD Shirov-Shabalov Attack is unwieldy. I have discussed opening a new forum, similar to what <OD> has done with <Red October>. I will place the QGD Shirov there with a similar format. I have already transferred to him what little analysis I had on the Slav.

As far as transferring to the themed forums, that is strictly your call. If the team chooses the Semi-Slav, I will host the "Base Line" forum if you wish. If the team chooses the Slav, <OD> probably is the better host.

It seems to me that as long as we follow a variation that has been analyzed within a particular forum, that forum should continue as the base line until the team chooses a move that is principally from the analysis of a different forum. In this way transitions can be fairly seamless and fluid. As I assume all the fora will necessarily want to include Deep Rybka analysis it will only be at the time Rybka suggests a novelty that the themed forums may make sense.

This esssentially segments the fora into ECO lines (starting at move 5) as you referred to in your most recent comments.

My principal concern is the "officialness" of <kutz>'s setup also. Because of his diligence in the past, it carries substantial weight and should be, to the extent possible, objective and not slanted toward one opening, one line or one move or the other. I believe he has taken great pains to be objective in the past and will trust him to continue in the future.