proposal for Ottawa event game capture

[Jean Hébert]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

Second of all, imagine this scenario... -

There are an infinite number of scenarios that one can imagine in chess games in various contexts, some to one's advantage and others to one's disadvantage. Considering our age difference Bindi, you can be certain that I am well aware of your scenario and many others.
This idea of collecting games automatically is first to preserve them for posterity and secondly to serve educational purposes regarding not just opening theory but all phases of the game (tactics, endgames, etc.). Of course it will happen that some well prepared opponent will catch another in some prepared line, but if someone is a serious player the opposite will also happen to make things even. That is Chess. Hiding a young players games to allow him to deliver a few more Fool's mates (slight exaggeration to make a point...), is not my cup of tea. This is not the way to learn and improve, which is far more important in the long run than winning those token "championships".

I understand that a few players may be reluctant to let their games be known and possibly studied (even if you and Tom are fantastic players, you should not worry too much about it, there are quite a few guys whose games rank higher in priority.). That is why there is no room to let players decide if they want to submit their games or not, which by the way takes away the need for what can be for some people a heartbreaking decision. As much as possible, all scoresheets should be collected just after the games finish and eventually entered so that everyone stand on a fait footing regarding preparation and that, which I think may be even more important, to make sure that no significant game gets lost for chess and historical purposes.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

[Gary, you] do understand that there is no CFC central clearinghouse for chess scoresheets, right? So in other words, you want organizers all across the country to collect scoresheets for no purpose whatsoever because it's in the rules? Really?

Assuming that my earlier interpretation of a scoresheet not belonging to the organizer after a game (if a player bought it) is deemed incorrect (I made the assumption that organizers need access to scoresheets only while games are in progress in case of a dispute while the game is in progress, and that that was the intent of the CFC [i.e. not to have an organizer literally steal a players' own purchased scoresheet], and which also made this rule before intrusive databases existed), Tom has something of a point.

There is no CFC collection point for shoresheets, as he says. The only one who has offered to collect them on a large scale is Hugh, who is doing it for altruisic reasons ostensibly. I do not know if anyone will be offering to take up Hugh's work after he stops collecting games from organizers and players.

The *ideal* time to donate games for players like Tom would be after they retire as chessplayers. Then Jean and others will at least have their wish for games being on the record for posterity. :)

[Jean Hébert]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

The *ideal* time to donate games for players like Tom would be after they retire as chessplayers. Then Jean and others will at least have their wish for games being on the record for posterity. :)

The "ideal time" is now but it never comes when left in the hands of pig headed and by definition self-centered players with little interest outside of their own. "Organized" chess is there to make up for it, as least partially.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

Let me see if I get this straight.

I want players to have a choice whether or not they have their games appropriated and used for historical/educational/stamp collecting purposes by people, even people not even in anyway connected to said tournaments.

You, on the other hand, want to force everyone(?) involved in every(?) chess tournament in Canada to submit their games to someone(?) who is going to collect them, enter them into a computer database and distribute them. Nevermind that we cannot guarantee that all games will be collected, or entered, or distributed. Nor that perhaps there are some players who simply do not want their games collected, entered or distributed for a variety of reasons.

Yet somehow people who don't want to go along with your plan are pig-headed, even if none of those people would in anyway try to stop you from collecting, entering, and distributing your own games. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you want to bully other people. Perhaps you might also ask yourself why people who don't want to go along with your "forced variation" are self-centred while you are being totally reasonable in demanding that others do things to suit you, even against their own self-interests or even simple desires.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

Tom, are you in favour of chess960 as a means of preventing the studying of well-defined repertoires? It almost seems that you are making a larger point here: that the studying of an opponent's opening repertoire is an unfortunate characteristic of standard chess that is furthered by each recorded game submission that makes its way into the public record. I mean, if we take your desire to not have your game scores available to an extreme, then there would be no game scores available at all. But of course, that can't happen, chess is a recordable game and the recording of moves is necessary on both sides for dispute resolution. I don't think you or anyone reasonable would like for there to be no game scores available anywhere. Truly, the more the better if for nothing else than the sheer appreciation of the logical beauty of chess.

I suggest something: instead of arguing against public availability of game scoresheets, why not work towards the promotion of chess960 as the new standard for tournament chess, so that opening repertoire study becomes practically useless and players of all age groups are forced to rely on creativity and originality?

I am in favour of chess960 and other variants because I like chess, but I prefer it in its classical form. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with chess in its present form. It is certainly true that computers have made preparing tougher. It is also true that games like Shirov v Kramnik at Tata Steel lose some lustre if it turns out that most of it was pre-game preparation. Perhaps there will come a day when the best players will simply have the biggest teams, almost every game between these few players will be draws and the games will be mostly homework. I am not an elite player, but on the face of it it doesn't seem we have reached that point.

Players like Carlsen, Anand et al are paid handsome sums to entertain and for that we need their gamescores. At lower levels there is absolutely nothing wrong with organizers mandating that some or all of the players must submit their scoresheets so long as they do it in advance and they recognize that they may lose participants to their tournaments as a result.

I want to stress that I am not opposed to the public availability of scoresheets. The only argument seems to be that some people feel it would be good to have all the games of all the players for record completeness. That, to my mind, is woefully short of a sufficient reason to inconvenience everyone, assuming that some sort of national scoresheet submitting standard for every game played across the country could be reached, which it never could.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

I am in favour of chess960 and other variants because I like chess, but I prefer it in its classical form. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with chess in its present form. It is certainly true that computers have made preparing tougher. It is also true that games like Shirov v Kramnik at Tata Steel lose some lustre if it turns out that most of it was pre-game preparation. Perhaps there will come a day when the best players will simply have the biggest teams, almost every game between these few players will be draws and the games will be mostly homework. I am not an elite player, but on the face of it it doesn't seem we have reached that point.

Players like Carlsen, Anand et al are paid handsome sums to entertain and for that we need their gamescores. At lower levels there is absolutely nothing wrong with organizers mandating that some or all of the players must submit their scoresheets so long as they do it in advance and they recognize that they may lose participants to their tournaments as a result.

I want to stress that I am not opposed to the public availability of scoresheets. The only argument seems to be that some people feel it would be good to have all the games of all the players for record completeness. That, to my mind, is woefully short of a sufficient reason to inconvenience everyone, assuming that some sort of national scoresheet submitting standard for every game played across the country could be reached, which it never could.

Good points, Tom. I personally have no problems with you or anyone else preferring the standard chess form. There is something to be said for opening research and the quest for novelties even if they can't show up until the 27th move in certain variations. That is a science, and worthy of pursuit, and I think I would even personally enjoy it myself if I had the time for it.

I wasn't just thinking of the chess elite when I mention chess960. Agreed that we are not yet at the point you describe at the elite levels, although that point is now within sight. Kasparov really carved the path with his embracing of computers and his eagerness to out-research any opponent on openings.

I really think the YOUNGER generation is going to have to look beyond standard chess very soon now. Bindi Cheng just made an interesting point on this thread, in an imagined scenario where a game really amounts to "4 moves really being made". Organizers should take note. Standard chess can't keep young players around the way it could in the past, when nowadays they grasp that they must abandon creativity and simply memorize opening variations or perish. The thing that drew them to chess -- seemingly infinite variations and opportunity for adventure -- soon vaporizes and turns to rote memorization. This younger generation, being impetuous by nature, doesn't appreciate 27-move deep opening research like us oldsters do, or could do if we had the time. But the classical setup no longer affords them the element of surprise. Even the Owens Defense, to name one esoteric opening, is well researched and known by their coached and prepared peers.

Those peers will go on to become the opening researchers and elite players of the future, but they are the small minority. The larger majority are the ones who just want to create... but can't. For them, chess960 offers a new world of whirlwind adventure, the way chess was meant for young people.

And the side benefit of chess960, which you can and do appear to appreciate Tom, is that submission of scoresheets is no longer something to fret about in respect of disclosing one's opening tendencies.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

At lower levels there is absolutely nothing wrong with organizers mandating that some or all of the players must submit their scoresheets so long as they do it in advance and they recognize that they may lose participants to their tournaments as a result.

My opinion is similar. It is organizers responsibility to collect games. There several ways to distribute them worldwide , e.g., TWIC >> chessbase and assistant, chessgames etc... I think that is one of possibilities to publicize traditional events.

When Aris will be finishing his 50th Eastern Ontario Open and he will want to commemorate that by publishing a book, he will be glad that he started to collect games long time ago :D

[Jean Hébert]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

Let me see if I get this straight.

I want players to have a choice whether or not they have their games appropriated and used for historical/educational/stamp collecting purposes by people, even people not even in anyway connected to said tournaments.

You sound like a lawyer pleading against what he tries to make appear like the most dangerous threat to mankind, using every argument possible and impossible. Including the sarcastic "stamp collecting", for effect.

You, on the other hand, want to force everyone(?) involved in every(?) chess tournament in Canada to submit their games to someone(?) who is going to collect them, enter them into a computer database and distribute them.

Again you want to make it sound one like a revolution, when it is a simple procedure done in most tournaments all over the planet. We just want to preserve as many games as possible for future generations, especially the top games in Open sections. For this to happen we have to do the same thing people do elsewhere as a matter of fact. No more no less.

Nevermind that we cannot guarantee that all games will be collected, or entered, or distributed. Nor that perhaps there are some players who simply do not want their games collected, entered or distributed for a variety of reasons.

No need for guarantees. The whole thing means only that players return one copy of their NCR scoresheet to the TD after the game. That is all. Nothing that infringes on your basic liberties or rights. If you want to keep your games to yourself, you stay home and you have no game to keep to yourself anyway. Your choice.

Yet somehow people who don't want to go along with your plan are pig-headed, even if none of those people would in anyway try to stop you from collecting, entering, and distributing your own games. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you want to bully other people. Perhaps you might also ask yourself why people who don't want to go along with your "forced variation" are self-centred while you are being totally reasonable in demanding that others do things to suit you, even against their own self-interests or even simple desires.

I don't get any special benefit from this. The benefit I get is the same everyone else get: access to our chess heritage while we are alive. Future generations will be the bigger winners. What benefit do you get from hiding your games ? Are you planning a campaign to win the over 60 world championship ? If so your old games will betray you anyway.

Yes you are pig-headed and self centered (don't tell me you do not agree, I would not believe you) to refuse to do the simple gesture of handing in your scoresheets, like just about everybody else. And finally yes, I am totally reasonable to campaign for this, not to "demand", because demanding is for people in charge like organizers and TDs.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

Wow, Jean. I was fence-sitting, but I find this last post well articulated. Public score sheets for public tournaments.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

... I decided to order (from their Montreal store) 200 of the carbon NCR scoresheets which I will be donating to you. They should be in next week.

Also, if I'm able to do it from home, I am willing to input games.
I plan to see you Thursday at the RA to pay for the next Tournament - hopefully the scoresheets will be in by then.

Aris,
Are you going to take advantage of this offer and others to start preserving games in your next tournament(s), or have you decided to ignore it and try to steer away the attention from it to the trivial matter of number of sections ?

[Aris Marghetis]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

Aris,
Are you going to take advantage of this offer and others to start preserving games in your next tournament(s), or have you decided to ignore it and try to steer away the attention from it to the trivial matter of number of sections ?

Mr.Hebert, there have actually been multiple offers made from nice people to help me out with this. I have indicated to Hugh that if I had a supply of such scoresheets, that I could collect games from the top boards. I have suggested that Hugh send me a mailing address, but he has not yet had the chance to do so, I guess. As for the matter of the number of sections might seem trivial to yourself, but it is of interest to other people.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

Mr.Hebert, there have actually been multiple offers made from nice people to help me out with this. I have indicated to Hugh that if I had a supply of such scoresheets, that I could collect games from the top boards. I have suggested that Hugh send me a mailing address, but he has not yet had the chance to do so, I guess.As for the matter of the number of sections might seem trivial to yourself, but it is of interest to other people.

Something may be "of interest" to some people and be trivial all the same. Actually even I probably have some interests that may seem utterly trivial to others, like chess for example.
Whether there are 2, 3, 4, 5 or more sections in your events, you can hardly go badly wrong there, unless you decide to revert to a one section event. Just about every players who is accustomed to play in your events will keep doing so. That is what I meant by "trivial". A big discussion on something "of interest" that is not likely to change anything by the end of the day.

By the way, considering the very favorable circumstances (nice people helping out, free scoresheets, etc.) I find the limited "top boards" collecting of scoresheets rather disappointing and unpromising. It sounds like very little change from the past: a few games will be picked up here and there, as if by accident. And the top players (if their games are collected) will be cheated: while their games end up on display for everyone to study, those of the slightly weaker ones will remain hidden.

[Aris Marghetis]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

Something may be "of interest" to some people and be trivial all the same. Actually even I probably have some interests that may seem utterly trivial to others, like chess for example.
Whether there are 2, 3, 4, 5 or more sections in your events, you can hardly go badly wrong there, unless you decide to revert to a one section event. Just about every players who is accustomed to play in your events will keep doing so. That is what I meant by "trivial". A big discussion on something "of interest" that is not likely to change anything by the end of the day.

By the way, considering the very favorable circumstances (nice people helping out, free scoresheets, etc.) I find the limited "top boards" collecting of scoresheets rather disappointing and unpromising. It sounds like very little change from the past: a few games will be picked up here and there, as if by accident. And the top players (if their games are collected) will be cheated: while their games end up on display for everyone to study, those of the slightly weaker ones will remain hidden.

Hi Jean, sorry for any misunderstanding, I was in a rush when I wrote the previous post.

When I wrote "top boards", I meant much more than before. For example, I believe John was collecting the top 2-3 boards, but I was planning on collecting at least the whole Masters Section, and then depending on scoresheet supplies, more FIDE-rated games. The other difference is that John was writing articles on some of the games collected, where I was planning to send all of the games collected to Hugh (I could really use his mailing address). As soon as I have some scoresheets in hand (we are still over a month away), I can decide a little more tangibly how many games to collect. Sound reasonable?

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

Aris - check your mail.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: proposal for Ottawa event game capture

When I wrote "top boards", I meant much more than before. For example, I believe John was collecting the top 2-3 boards, but I was planning on collecting at least the whole Masters Section, and then depending on scoresheet supplies, more FIDE-rated games. The other difference is that John was writing articles on some of the games collected, where I was planning to send all of the games collected to Hugh (I could really use his mailing address). As soon as I have some scoresheets in hand (we are still over a month away), I can decide a little more tangibly how many games to collect. Sound reasonable?

It sounds like a definite improvement Aris.