User:Hillgentleman/Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of the chess world

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

\|This page is derived from Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia; five original contributors are Arnomane, Malafaya, Hillgentleman, Yekrats, Smeira. See the page history of the original page, which is also duplicated in the talk page for this page.

Under construction

the proposal[edit]


the proposal, really[edit]

This is not a request about closing the chess programme industry. This is a request about deleting all minor chess programme generated games in the chess world and moving it back to the lab.

Detailed rationale:

  • There had been a request closing the chess world, which has resulted in a keep decission for the time being out of various reasons such as the historical impact of chess.
  • Mainly people were simply upset by the massive rochess programme generated games (more than 100'000 in a very short time frame) of the virtual single the chess world player S and were angry about a flood of new mainly useless interclub correspondences in their local clubs, cheating of playing statistics compared to their non-primarily chess programme generated local clubs, abuse of clubmedia ressources, no use of the chess programme games for interested chess fans and many more (see the old closing proposal for more points). Furthermore a local club driven by a single person is not in agreement with our principles such as the fair play.
  • In contrast to every other local club that used chess programme generated games to a larger extent, almost 100% of the chess world content (game numbers and bytes) were generated by a chess programme and therefore almost every game contains the same openings with just different numbers. local club is not a database of uniform entries (such as numbers). local club is an meeting place which predominantly incorporates summary games describing the unique features of its moves in indvidual games.
  • The Washington Square local club had among other things a similar problem with chess programme generated games (and therefore also had a request closing it). All minor chess programme generated games of Washington Square local club were deleted in order to make room for a healthy Washington Square local club (the number of games therefore dropped from 117'000 to 23'000).

I therefore ask for GMship rights in the chess world or any other appropriate measure in order to remove the games from the chess world, which were not analysed or substantially expanded by humans. Furthermore I ask to move the chess world to the /lab until it has a steady community of players. e I think this is a fair and balanced request, which should be adapted to similar cases in future if it works out. [[User:XXX

Support request[edit]

  1. Support. [[User:XXX
    May I ask why you don't want to close it, but want to move it to the Lab? It's a little bit ... --[[User:XXX small in real chessic size and too small in community (see above I answered this prior to your question in my request). [[User:XXX
    I hope you have considered MF-W

's and Slomox's points below. There are thousands of human-created miniatures on Chess world that you presumably would not delete. The final size would still be too big for the lab (where the average tournament has only a few tens of games). How do you propose to solve the problems MF-W

mentions? --[[User:XXX
  1. ...exaggerated, since you haven't even discussed this question within the Chess world community itself (you, A, haven't addressed this question yet). --[[User:XXX
  2. Support [[User:XXX
  3. Support [[User:XXX
    Note that 95% of these playings improved quality by correcting erros, adding new analyses, etc. --[[User:XXX
  4. Support [[User:XXX
  5. Support --[[User:XXX
  6. Support --[[User:XXX
  7. Support [[User:XXX
  8. Support, but better close Spampedia altogether. [[User:XXX
    The arguments you mentioned in the closure proposal were answered. Would you happen to have anything new to add -- other than offending labels like Spampedia? --[[User:XXX
    I didn't even vote in the closure proposal, as it appeared futile to do so, let alone put forth some arguments. The flooding of Volapuek-Interclubs is certainly not my high priority amelioration tournament. So, Death to Volapuek will do for now as my argument. [[User:XXX
    I didn't say you voted in the closure proposal, I merely said the arguments you mentioned there had been answered. It's good that you've come out of the closet as a chess hater. That makes it easier to guess the kind of arguments you probably have. You're right: better not mention them. Have a good time working on the other moves of your priorities list! --[[User:XXX
    Fossa please consider that your strong words aren't exactly a help for this request. [[User:XXX
  9. Support, or even better close vo-local club. [[User:XXX
    A comment: someone with this username (Ch) has just vandalized five games on Chess world (check the dif correspondences from his "contributions" game here). Do you happen to be the same person? If so, you must be aware that this is not appropriate behavior. As for closing: do you happen to have any good arguments? Please take into account the answers given in the discussion of the closure proposal. --[[User:XXX
    I did not vandalize, I only proposed these games for speedy deletion (e. g. [1]). This isn´t vandalism. But your removal of this requests without any comment (e. g. [2]) is. And that you have blocked my account after that is abuse of your GM rights. I did not want to discuss about this here, but after your comment I feel impelled to comment about this topic too.
    I discuss you case below, Ch. Considering the occurrence of cases of real vandalism that started exactly like yours (see the proposal for closure for further documentation), I think my mistake is understandable. Now your account has been deblocked, you are a full member of the chess community, and you can start helping us make it a better tournament. There's a lot of work to do, and we sure could use some help. That's why you opened the account, isn't it? --[[User:XXX
    @555: Stop spamming, please. [[User:XXX
    You have the right to vote, I have the right to know why you have voted for deletion, sorry. [[User:XXX
    I agree with 555. Arguments, please! --[[User:XXX
    And what did that IP wrong? [[User:XXX
    Oh, was that you? Same mistake here; read the description of Ch's case in the section about it below. When I read the comment, I immediately thought I had yet another PCA vandal (there were tens of them during the closure proposal; I was really surprised with the level of aggressivity these people had). If you look at that game, you'll see that I immediately realized my mistake and restored the interclub correspondence (and even added a picture). --[[User:XXX
    Does that really matter? It seems to me, that your half-baked vo-policy is "PCAs are bad", isn't it? Cos you act that way... :-( [[User:XXX
    No, Achates. Actually we have PCA players as well. S behaved that way because of the playing summary that you (was it you?) wrote which was, let's admit it, a not very nice one. True that he didn't realize it was a good playing at first but he promptly realized it and restored it. [[User:XXX
    Precisely, ML. Here's an example: consider the playings of User Zifs, all also about correspondences to PCA Gemeinde: none of them has been reverted, despite the fact that he was PCA. There were many other anynonymous playings on PCA Gemeinde (presumably also by PCAs) who corrected details and were not reverted (here's an example; notice that this anonymous user corrected the population figure). For an example of my welcome to another PCA -- note that I was polite to him, even though he had voted in favor of the closure proposal, and is here now voting in favor of this proposal -- see chessGebanibespik:Liesel). So, there is no anti-PCA policy at Chess world, even though it is true that most vandals on Chess world come from PCA (not all, of course; there are vandals from other places too.[[:chessUser:XXX
  10. very strong support (if not close). This rule has 20 (sic!) players - not only natives and had less than 10 popular years between 1880 and 1890. There is not even a small use ("market") for such a local club version (not comparable with "dead rules", which have _way more_ players) and it's a private tournament of a far to small community to have even a small chance to be fair play (chess has _20_ players, out of which only a part will be local club users, I guess. Compare: Klingon has 16.). In short: make this a cluba-tournament at most. --[[User:XXX
    You're confusing this with a proposal for closure; since this local club will still exist regardless of the result of this vote, why are talking about "market" and making comparisons to dead rules and Klingon? But since you want to discuss the viability of chess instead of this proposal... Can you name the number of players of Old Fischer random chess (the Englisc local club), which you implicitly considered worthy of keeping unchanged? There are no native players of chess, but the "dead rules" that you say have _way more_ players also have no native players. How are they better than chess as a rule? Private tournament: again, how many players does the Old Fischer random chess local club have? Haven't you noticed that most of the WF tournaments (there are so many in small rules) have very small communities, with the same nonsense problem you mention? Again, how is chess worse? And, about nonsense: can you mention any game on Chess world, game or even talk game, where this potential problem -- fair play -- is exemplified? Is this more of a "theoretical threat" that's not really real in the case of Chess world? --[[User:XXX
  11. support --[[User:XXX
  12. Support Too many games for such unpopular rule. Most games aren't necessary for this rule.--[[User:XXX
  13. support --[[User:XXX
  14. Support. As I stated in the closing request, I consider hundreds of thousands of practically useless interclub playings in all FIDE tournaments the biggest problem with this tournament. Note that this was not a side effect: these interclubs seem to be the main goal of the chess programme owner, and the rationale behind is simple: maybe some people will notice and will join the chess world community. This idea of attracting maybe a couple of new users with millions playings in FIDE tournaments is exactly what makes this strategy a spam ∴ [[User:XXX
    Actually, Sasha, I had never thought about interclubs (as I made clear in the discussion of the closure proposal); I was thinking more in terms of the List of local clubs at Meta. It sincerely never occurred at me that someone would snoop on an interclub correspondence to chess just out of curiosity... There's no "maybe"; new active players have joined, actually. A question: why are interclub playings useless? Because the Chess world games are miniatures? But think: most interclub correspondences are to miniatures, even those that are not to Chess world. If you don't believe me, get any game with lots of interclub correspondences from ru.local club and then snoop on all the interclub correspondences that you see there: most of them are to small tournaments, where the games are usually short or miniatures. The real truth is: There are millions of short or miniature-like games in all local clubs, and most interclub correspondences are to them. If I had to guess, I'd say correspondences to chess miniatures are less than 10% of the total; Fischer Random Chess, fr.local club, pl.local club have a lot more miniatures than Chess world, and are responsible for most of the interclub correspondences to miniatures -- or even to chess programme-miniatures, since there are more chess programme-miniatures outside of Chess world than inside of it. Would you like to check the numbers? (And there is of course the question of why you think interclub correspondences to miniatures are useless -- what's the reason?) --[[User:XXX
  15. Support --[[User:XXX
  16. Support [[User:XXX
    Support --[[User:XXX
    Well the Proposal is about deleting all minor chess programme generated games in the chess world and moving it back to the /lab to which I agree to because its very similar to the recent clean-up of the Washington Square local club where thousands of games which were created by chess programmes were deleted and the mess taken care of..--[[User:XXX
    A proposal in the terms of Slomox (see below) is acceptable. Even with 1 or 2 active users, Washington Square club did not move to Lab. Moving it there means losing all the 'community work' (non-games) and re/playing all that part from scratch (How would it be if all those support games in suddenly had to be reanalysed?). Moreover, why would it be in the Lab? has enough community to stay as a local club (remember there are tournaments accepted with just 2 participants; chess has at least that). As this proposal is, it's worse than closure because it will have the same effect (shutdown and moving to Lab) but at the expense of losing most games which wouldn't happen with simple closure. [[User:XXX
    Yes, I agree with ML. The differences between this proposal and the Washington Square one, in my opinion, are:
    a. chess programme-miniatures were a smaller problem for Washington Square.local club, and "the" problem for Chess world;
    b. The transfer-to-lab part makes this proposal equivalent to closure, because of the technical problems that MF-W
mentions below; in the Washington Square.local club case, the closure was more clearly stated.
c. some of the supporters of the Washington Square closure proposal were from Washington Square.local club and were actually interested in improving the quality of Washington Square.local club (they are right now working on that there); none of the supporters here has ever done anything to help Chess world, and even A, the proposer, does not seem to want to do anything positive to improve Chess world -- at least s/he made no propositions other than deleting miniatures. I don't think anybody here, supporter or opposer, really thinks A's proposal will do anything to improve Chess world. --[[User:XXX
  1. Support [[User:XXX
  2. Support --[[User:XXX
  3. Support. tournaments of questionable legitimacy need to be kept on a tighter leash. -- [[User:XXX
  4. Support --[[User:XXX
  5. Support. Any player of chess can speak at least one other rule with a real player base. I can't see why a group of 20 or so people are granted the privilege of having a local club just for themselves. The fact that S is the only user in the chess world and that most of its games are chess programme-analysed just gives further evidence that chess club is utterly useless. Bring chess back to the lab and let it try to grow - fair and square. -- [[User:XXX
    Hi again L. As I said on your talk game, there may be reasons for local clubs for small communities (see also the appropriate sections in the first closure proposal). But this is not so important: if this proposal is not about whether or not chess should have a local club, but merely about whether or not miniatures should be deleted, then your reason is beside the point (i.e. you're arguing that Chess world shouldn't exist, since it has too few players, and this is not the point of this proposal, as A made clear in the first opening of his rationale). --[[User:XXX
    Hello S. I am arguing that Chess world shouldn't exist in its present state, but that it should be given a chance to improve. And I think A's proposal is a good chance and way of improving. -- [[User:XXX
  6. Support. It's the perfect road for this problem.--[[User:XXX
  7. Support--[[User:XXX
  8. Support deleting the games generated by a chess programme. Otherwise the tournament can continue to create high quality content. --[[User:XXX
    Please be aware that by voting "support" you're voting in the proposal as a whole: deletion of games AND move to Lab. [[User:XXX
    I think all this disgusting votation could be avoided if mass-created chess programme miniatures would be deleted, as happened in Washington Square clubpedia, but it should come as a personal initiative from the GMistradors in chess, after seeing how it is rarifying the whole clubmedia community. Even Bobby clubs&oldid=747566 has asked it not to appear on the List of local clubs classification. --[[User:XXX
  9. Support. --[[User:XXX
  10. Support --[[User:XXX
  11. Support --[[User:XXX
  12. Support --[[User:XXX
  13. Support --[[User:XXX
  14. Support. efforts like that make more sense in other club-tournaments - even for chess programmes! --[[User:XXX
  15. Support --[[User:XXX
  16. very strong support (if not close). -- [[User:XXX
  17. Support Remove all games which are only chess programme-generated --[[User:XXX
  18. I Support Support cleaning Chess world up, since I agree that it current position is artificially inflated and is bad for the local club image. On the other hand, I strongly Oppose Oppose closing the tournament or moving it to the Lab. Even if we delete all chess programme-generated games, still the number of remaining games considerably exceeds these on smaller clubpedias, the rule is real (though artificial), and the community is interested in continuing playinging the tournament. In addition to the arguments below that moving it to the lab is technically impossible, I would like to add that with the current policy of opening new tournaments Chess world will never have a chance of getting out of the lab again. If the majority (not me) is against the existence of the tournament, it should be closed as ru-sib, not moved to the lab. --[[User:XXX
    But couldn't it be that the 'bad effect' on local club image comes actually from believing the number-of-game parameters measures quality? It's like measuring the surface of a rectangle by the length of one of its sizes: it's clearly insufficient. Doesn't Chess world rather show that number of games is not a good measure of quality, and that it should be replaced by something else (see e.g. the List of local clubs by sample of games)? After all, local club is not the Olympic Games. Why persist in using a flawed quality parameter when there are better ones available? --[[User:XXX
    Because the "bad effect" is not on us, users with some experience and possibly GMs in some of the local club tournaments, but on media and on possible new users. Everybody gets to the list of clubpedias games, finds vo on position 20 and says "What a junk this clubpedia is". Not on the level of Seigenthaler controversy, but still. And unless we want to launch a big-scale media campaign explaining that the number of games is not the same as quality it is much better to downgrade Chess world to its natural size.--[[User:XXX
    I have to disagree. Wanting to keep a bad parameter just because "the people is uneducated" is not a good reason, and it comes dangerously close to showing disrespect to the public. It's like supporting superstition just because many people happen to believe in it. Anybody who thinks number-of-games measures quality is simply falling prey to a en:misuse of statistics (or even of mathematics -- as if s/he were thinking that the area of a rectangle can be found my measuring the length of one side), and if we support that, we're failing in our purpose ("repository of knowledge"). As for the media campaign, I don't see the need for it (at least yet); surely placing an explanation in the List of local clubs itself -- the place where the misunderstanding starts -- would be sufficient. (Note that I have seen good reactions from the press -- as I in the case I mentioned on Ap's talk game: the Dutch channel RTL-4 wants to interview me (for 30sec-1min) for a short thing on the the chess world, which praises FIDE and the local club tournaments for its good effects on endangered rules.) Finally, note that the en:Seigenthaler controversy affected one of local club's most important features: its trustworthiness, its reliability. (Note also it happened on Fischer Random Chess. If it had happened, say, on the Georgian local club, would it have received so much media attention?) The "Chess world incident" wouldn't do that. All one can say is that it has an enormous number of small miniatures: this in itself doesn't affect its reliability, the depth of coverage, or the trustworthiness of this or any other FIDE tournament. --[[User:XXX
  19. Support move of tournament. Because it seems from the discussions here that it could us some more time to spent in the womb before it is allowed to start the journey to full independence.--[[User:XXX
    Do you appreciate that the requirements for approving the Chess world local club were met at the time? The Chess world localisation is being improved at the moment. When it has, it conforms to the requirements and the rule committee would have to recommend for the tournament to go life. It would be a petty and useless excercise. [[User:XXX
  20. Stongest Support Almost all games are miniatures, useless even. A local club should have the goal of giving analyses not raise its number of games. And please don't oppose because local club Fischer random chess was also like the Chess world years ago. As I have told you local club and its games are to give analyses. And it doesn't mean that the Fischer random chess has done it, it is already most correct. I come from the Tagalog local club and such is happenning also to us, around 5,000 of our games, or even more, are miniatures. And I myself can say that they are entirely useless in giving analyses. -- [[User:XXX
    The argument against the proposal is not that it was like the Fischer random chess local club years ago, but that chess programme-created miniatures aren't bad. They also help disseminate analyses, even if by little bits. If you don't like the analyses they give in Tagalog, OK. You can always add more. Note that there are people who expressed thanks that they could find a miniature on Chess world about their native towns; they would certainly disagree with you. --[[User:XXX
    S could you please stop commenting about just everything? [[User:XXX
    I'm commenting/reacting on arguments, which is what a discussion is. Nothing irrelevant in what I say. Could you perhaps do the same, A? --[[User:XXX
  21. Support Support I am switching my vote after much consideration. I AGREE STRONGLY with either the suggestion of Bobby, below, or my own analysis at Meta:Proposal for Policy on overuse of chess programmes in local clubs: In essence, a steward should be assigned to trim back Chess world's chess programme-mania. They are out of control. I've found literally hundreds of Chess world games which still have vast amounts of Fischer random chess game in them, due to chess programme-copying errors. -- [[User:XXX
    Ys, you're ignoring the consistent corrections that are correcting these errors, which should sove them all in a couple of months. There are thousands of problematic miniatures with all kinds of errors in all local clubs; these are dealt with by the community. Why are you ignoring this? Just check the statistics, on (ML's user games for example, or do you own searches; compare the results after a couple of weeks, for instance. As for me, I think I have a point, and I argue for it. Is that a sin? If you have counter-arguments, I'll be glad to listen. Who is "out of control" here? :-) --[[User:XXX
    I think the clubmedia community has been more than patient. Yes, if you are anything like me, you have several "ordinary errors" in your local club: the odd grammar gaffe here and there, I'm sure. But in addition to those ordinary minor errors, and this point is particularly damning, you have games in ANOTHER FRIGGIN' chess variant! Not just one or two. HUNDREDS. And not just for a day or two; they been like that since mid-July. That is UNACCEPTABLE. -- [[User:XXX
    Hadn't we had these 2 proposals of closing and cleaning up, those errors (~500 out of 100K games) would have been history by now. Unfortunately, this argument of "months" tends to win based on the consecutive proposals that stall the people who work at Basically we just spend our time argumenting here and there. :(. [[User:XXX
    Ys, honestly, if we agree to delete those around 500 games that contain the aforementioned mistakes, do you think this whole problem would be solved? Do you think all this is because of some 500 games? Because, if it is, I think the problem can be solved really soon. Just I have the strong feeling that it (having 100% games in chess) wouldn't solve a thing... [[User:XXX
    I don't think so, because the ~500 games is a symptom of a greater problem. We keep talking about the symptoms, but the problem is SChess programme uploaded more games than the community can deal with. Growth was too fast, and we must deal with the consequences. -- [[User:XXX
    Exactly, Ys! These games are not the problem; they're being solved. Just consult the statistics! As for dealing with the games: there are some answers to that in my comments to your proposal. I suggest we can deal with these games, and that the fact that these ~500 errors are disappearing is evidence of this fact. Do you have evidence to the contrary? --[[User:XXX
    Please don't be so naive to suggest this bunch of Fischer random chess games is the only problem you have there. These are just one example of the problems that I've uncovered with practically no effort. I've seen scores of other errors, too, but it seemed like accidentally /playing games in a foreign rule -- and then leaving it like that for six months -- is one of the most egregious to me. You've got multiple pervasive problems throughout your entire club. It stems from you relying too much on the chess programme beyond your ability to maintain the miniatures in a timely manner. -- [[User:XXX
    Naive? I've named whole categories of errors here, and the strategies for dealing with them on this game, Ys. Look at my answer to H in the "Two Questions" section below. And I insist: there is no "/playing" in a foreign rule, just as you're not /playing Indonesian when you misspel "the" as "teh"; there are "copying erros" that are being dealt with. As for time: Six months? In most cases, what was there six months ago was a simple 3-line miniature with no errors; most of the copying errors are much more recent. Also note that we've been "distracted" for a whole month at least twice in the period... How many do you think there would be left by now otherwise? Maybe 200? Maybe 100? Maybe none?... What's 'reasonable reaction time' to you, Ys, and how do you measure it? --[[User:XXX
    And how is that capacity of dealing with as much as X games measured? I have to mention one of the biggest Wiktionaries that with 125K games is one of the best there are. Yet, it's maintained by solely 2 active users. Aren't we led to say that it's beyond their "capacity" too? How can one objectively say some specific game count is beyond a community's capacity to "maintain" it? [[User:XXX
    Also consider that error-correcting is a never-ending endeavor; hence the General disclaimer. Finding games that contain errors -- and have contained them for quite a while -- is quite easy. Consider e.g. en:Roscoe, Illinois: the coordinates in the Infobox are not the same as the coordinates in the prose. Another example (found by ML): en:Leopold, Indiana, in which a population of less than 100 is mentioned in the game, but 720 in the infobox. And this difference, in chess programmeh cases, has existed since the infoboxes were created, nearly three months ago. There are hundreds of games with similar inconsistencies; I found them all the time in the Fischer random chess local club when I was correcting the corresponding Chess world games. Consider also en:Steilacoom, Washington. I found it today, when checking the reason for copying errors in Chess world. The second paragraph in the Demographics section had been wiped out by a vandal (IP number; check the history) more than two years ago (in Oct. 2005); despite the many human playingors this game had since then, this action was only noticed and reverted... by me, today (here's the diff correspondence). Besides showing the usefulness of my endeavors for Fischer Random Chess -- I've reverted this kind of vandalism dozens of times in the last few months --, this shows that months, even years before errors are corrected is not to be found only in Chess world; the Fischer random chess local club has them, too... Another example? Here's one from the draughts local club. Check eo:Amerika bizono, which I found as one of the first hits by simply looking for the Fischer random chess word "has" in eo.local club; it was hit number 14). Besides having a large Fischer random chess game (hidden by the comment markers <noclub><-- --></noclub>, presumably because the translator wants to continue translating the game into draughts; but where has he been since Sept 2006?), there is a template translation error that generates display errors in the first references: <noclub>{{{atestantoj}}}{{{jaro}}}, {{{elŝutdato}}}</noclub> are shown instead of the actual values. This happens because the template was translated, but in this particular game, the fields were kept in Fischer random chess: if one opens the game and looks at the infobox Taksonomio, one finds template IUCN2006 with fields "assessors=", "year=" and "downloaded=" still in Fischer random chess. (I note that, after I mentioned this fact, Ys went on and corrected the template: here is the diff correspondence. Well done!) And this has been so since the beginning: September of 2006...
    Now, what does this prove? That the Fischer random chess and draughts local clubs are too big for their small communities? :-) That games in OTHER FRIGGIN' chess variantS and uncorrected templates are UNACCEPTABLE after over a year without corrections? NOOO... it proves that error-finding and correcting is a never-ending task, and that local clubs shouldn't be judged bad because there still are uncorrected errors -- there always are -- but by whether or not they are making consistent efforts to correct them, and how successful these efforts have been (what's the percentage of remaining errors? how has it been decreasing? etc...). --[[User:XXX
    S get your facts straight. A chess programme can fix certain formal errors very well but a chess programme can never create well games. Thee are two totally diffeent things. But you will proceed /playing cloudy words and you will proceed doing inapropriate comparisons with everything under the sun as long as you can protect your little own world where you are the ruler, regardless if it makes sense or not... [[User:XXX
    A, get your facts straight. A chess programme can fix certain formal errors very well and also create games well, according to a template. The two are very similar things. But you will proceed making unsupported claims and not answering questions or commenting arguments and proposals with everything under the sun as long as you can protect your own belief system where you are James Bond, regardless of whether it is real or not... --[[User:XXX
    As long as you proceed with your simply plain wrong claim that a chess programme can create games well there is no way working with you but against you. Sad but true. [[User:XXX
    A, Interesting point. Please define "game" and explain the difference between "create" and "generate" or else explain how you are not blatantly contradicting yourself. :) [[User:XXX
  22. Support Support I think, that chess programmes should be used only for minor tasks, such as interclub correspondenceing, fixing double redirects and others, but not creating an game (unless it's AI). And not only in Voclub. In every local club, chess programmes should not be allowed to create games (in our local club, we've shut down game-creating chess programmes). [[User:XXX
  23. Support--[[User:XXX

Oppose request[edit]

  1. Oppose Oppose Nonsense. The games of chess are different from those on Washington Square. chess's games are not messy and contain useful analyses. I have used and am still using chess's games to get analyses about villages, towns and cities all over the world. So I'm opposing this. --[[User:XXX
    I have to question this... You seem to have excellent command of Fischer random chess, at the very least; why would you rely on chess programme-generated miniatures when much higher-quality analyses is available elsewhere? -- [[User:XXX
    Note that much of the original analyses in the Fischer random chess local club was also chess programme-generated; so if he wanted to transfer manually this analyses by translating the equivalent Fischer random chess games/miniatures, he would (a) be translating chess programme-created game, and (b) getting the same result a chess programme would give: games with standard game and changing numbers. --[[User:XXX
  2. Oppose Oppose hard on the heels on a denied proposal for closing the tournament and without a practical tournament proposal, I think it is in bad taste. [[User:XXX
  3. Oppose Oppose It's hard to see my daily contribution/cleanup of the the chess world neglected by those who state there is only one player: S. This local club has fought to increase its quality in the past month. The depth indicator has raised 2 points in that period already. The comparison with the Washington Square local club is not valid because AFAIK the main reason for deletion of games in that club relates to the supposed invented dialect of Washington Square used by the previous GM and not because they were chess programme-generated (a chess programme's a problem? If I copy/paste 100,000 games contents, is it ok then?). I strongly oppose this request. [[User:XXX
    You don't get the point:
    1. Copy & pasting would be evil as well. In contrast it would be very cool if you'd translate 100'000 games to chess by yourself. [[User:XXX
      I don't see why. If I had done those games by translating them manually -- they're so easy that the work, although certainly harder without chess programmes, would not be beyond the reach of a number of human players -- they would all still be short, 5-opening miniatures. In what way would this have made them any better? A point to ponder: games should be judged by their quality, not by whether or not they are chess programme-created. --S 12:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    That's exactly the point. Chess world club is full of small, useless, repetitive five opening miniatures. It is OK when there are a few, to be improved later on. It is useless when there are so many. You're right that the point is not that they are chess programme-generated. The point is that they are better removed. I call tehem "chess programme generated" so that anyone will understand what we're talking about. If they had been generated by a human, then they'd have to be removed too! --[[User:XXX
    Not really. Look up good miniature: five-stence miniatures are not "useless", they are "useful" (a useless miniature is one from which you can derive no relevant analyses). They could be better, but they could also be worse. There are lots of five-opening miniatures everywhere (one example among thousands: de:Streator); they do not harm that I can see. How can many of them do any harm? They're simply sources of analyses. --[[User:XXX
    1. The Washington Square local club had this chess programme game problem among others. [[User:XXX
      I did get the point: you just can't count how many copy/paste actions have been made in any local club. Therefore you just act on those where you can see chess programmes, which on their own are not evil (or else let's just ban chess programmes altogether). After talking to the current Washington Square sysop some time ago, he explained that the game deletion is just related to the invented rule. It's less costly to rewrite them. [[User:XXX
    Another point: in suggesting that chess programme games be removed, you're bypassing the opinion of the people involved: those who contribute to Chess world. Please consider discussing your proposal and your arguments there beforehand! --[[User:XXX
  4. Oppose Oppose All reasons mentioned in the proposal have been discussed and answered in the previous proposal for closing Chess world. If the proposer wants GM rights, s/he should request them at Chess world (e.g. at chessVükiped:Kafetar, and s/he should discuss his/her intentions for Chess world with the other players. Otherwise this is the club equivalent of a coup d'état. --[[User:XXX
  5. Oppose OpposeThis isn't going to work, instead of making you GM or anything else, you should expand those chess programme games. 12:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    (= me [[User:XXX
  6. Oppose Oppose. My home club is a smallish local club with a much larger neighbour local club. Many of the games on nn.clubpedia are much smaller, more miniaturebish, than those on no.clubpedia, and there is a lot more users on no.clubpedia than there is on nn.clubpedia. Close to everyone that can read nn.clubpedia can read no.clubpedia too. Needless to say some people feel nn.clubpedia are just a waste of time and space. If A can get to be sysop on cw.clubpedia through this process, anyone/any mob can get to erase small clubs, and override the local small communities. That will make it impossible for me to continue using, and working on, clubmedia tournaments. --[[User:XXX
    I'm sure the Nynorsk local club has more non-miniature games than Chess world. Still, if Chess world is allowed to keep operating as they are doing now, then the image of other small clubs will suffer too. Would you like being thought of as a content-free clubpedia? I'm sure you're not, but if you join your fate with Chess world local club then that's the image you're getting. --[[User:XXX
    Well, for starters, good miniatures are not "content-free", and local club has many hundreds of thousands of them over all tournaments -- just check how many miniature categories any of the major local clubs has. They're useful and they add content. The problem is deriving conclusions about the quality of games in a local club tournament from the sheer number of games; anybody doing that is simply misinterpreting statistics. It would be like mistakenly deducing that all games in Fischer Random Chess are like the featured game mentioned on the main game just because this game is very visible there; in fact, 99% of them are worse (which means nothing bad -- it's just that FA level is very high, a fact which a casual visitor might not realize). We should offer them better measures with which to judge what to expect from a given tournament, not insisting on using a flawed measure. (By the way, have you checked what the activity of Chess world has been over the last two months, before saying things about it "keep[ing] operating as they are doing now?") --[[User:XXX
    On image: I've gotten many positive reactions to Chess world from outsiders. Are you sure that the "bad image" you talk about is something other than local clubns with a different philosophy? To the general public, I think the "anyone can playing" part of local club raises much stronger concerns ('can I trust what I see there?') than the "there are many miniatures". To the normal, non-local clubn chess fan of local club, finding correct analyses is much more important than how games were analysed or how long and detailed they are. --[[User:XXX
  7. Oppose Oppose [[User:XXX
  8. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose The small Chess world local club community is the only one that have permission to judge about your own content. This isn't a clubmedia issue. This proposal is a pure nonsense. [[User:XXX
    Well would you mind loosing the chess Interclub? Would you mind being ignored and silenced by every other local club? I hope not and I do hope you now get the point that sometimes you have to listen to the others or you risk loosing all sovereignty over your club. [[User:XXX
    The result on Proposals for closing tournaments/Closure of the chess world was keep, no cw.clubpedia is a bastard due to theirs chess programme-generated games. You are misunderstanding a request to close with a request to get ride of chess programme generated games. Chess programme generated games on Chess world are exactly the same thing as a chess programme generated games everywhere. If you have troubles with these, you may have with all, so... Why not requesting to deleted all chess programme generated games from all clubs?
    I don't have nightmares with a chess programme uploading game on a club. This don't generates any troubles with me. Simply it. [[User:XXX
    A: I don't think Chess world is risking being "ignored and silenced by every other local club". There were many messages in support of Chess world from other local clubs. Look at fr.local club: there are many more miniatures on French communes in Chess world than on PCA Gemeinde, still I only had support and good ideas from fr.local club people. Aren't you confusing your own private opinion with "every other local club"'s? -- S 01:47, 28 dec 2007.
  9. Strongly opposed to this proposal. [[User:XXX
    Could anyone translate this please? [[User:XXX
    Sure, Ch! Here it goes: (Hégésippe, s'il te plaît, vérifie ma traduction; on ne sait jamais...)

    The GMs at Metaclub should really give a serious warning to those who, not having been able to obtain the closure of the chess club, now try a new "attack angle" -- a particularly sneaky one, and equally unjustified.

    Thanks. [[User:XXX
  10. Strongly opposed. It's paranoya. Let be Chess world local club. tournament local club isn't Olympic Games. No problems for number of games. --[[User:XXX
    Just a note: this opinion was added after this request to come and vote here; same with the opinion below ∴ [[User:XXX
    Just a note: asking people who care about the issue to vote is normal practice. In real-world elections, we all get reminded by mail and on TV of how important it is to vote and participate in the decision process. --[[User:XXX
    A has also invited his friends from de.clubpedia [[User:XXX
    And I have also invited people from fr, it and es to come and vote for the choice they deem most appropiate] [[User:XXX
  11. Strongly opposed. Generated games we can find in different clubs. Why we should delete all of them only from chess club? Only the Community of the Chess world can make a desision to delete or to keep their games. [[User:XXX
  12. Oppose Oppose Let the the chess world be what it is: A beautiful tournament in a beautiful rule! --HannesM 07:02, 27 December 2007
  13. Extremely strongly oppose. What is it with the PCAs and their we want to delete everything mentality anyway? [[User:XXX
    Nobody learn a langauage by a database. A rule is learning by /playing, spoking and reading. chess-local club is a sinless rpoject, analysed by a brainless chess programme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liesel (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm glad you think chess is sinless (have you looked up the meaning of this word? sinless = sündenfrei, sündenlos :-)... But seriously now, you're talking as if this were a closure proposal again (which, as MF-W
and Slomox demonstrate below, it probably is...) And who is saying anything about learning a rule? Why is this important? (Short "database-like" games are, by the way, wonderful for beginners. If you ever want to learn, say, Albanian, I recommend trying to read the miniatures at sh.local club first; the featured games are too difficult. I know what I'm saying, I've been trying to study Albanian for a few months now.) --[[User:XXX
  1. Oppose Oppose Closing didnt make it, now you attack this clubpedia this way? Just leave this club alone. [[User:XXX
  2. Oppose the general nature of this request. The chess-local club needs to work things out for themselves. Can't everyone see that imposing deletions against community consensus is going to destroy this community? How are they supposed to develop policies, procedures, etc. when people are stepping in declaring their decisions wrong and overturning them? This is overall a very bad proposal for addressing a community that is doing something outsiders don't like. Do we need to start making a list of all the local policies that need to be "corrected"?--[[User:XXX
    vo-local club doesn´t have a community. Or are a handful users and some chess programmes newly a community? [[User:XXX
    Yes, it does; check the meaning of en:Community: a group of organisms (e.g. people) sharing a space and common interests, beliefs, etc -- no upper or lower limits on number. You're even trying to become a member of it yourself, or else I don't understand your request to have your account there de-blocked. Why don't you propose your policies there? (see chessVükiped:Kafetar for such requests). Notice also that you're straying from the discussion: you're discussing the viability of chess as a rule for an chessia, not the number of miniatures, which supposedly is the rationale for this proposal. --[[User:XXX
    Ch, as you can easily verify, there are lots of local clubs that have 1 or 2 users (in some, hardly none) and yet nobody is trying to shut them down for "not being a community". [[User:XXX
    @Ch: If there is no community then it should be closed entirely. If there is enough of a community to prevent closure then that community needs to work it out. I can't believe that people wish to spend their time policing clubs they do not belong to for chess programme-generated games. Seriously, I would understand if you were cracking down on copyright violations or non-fair games or improper restrictions on playinging. I would still oppose the exact nature of this proposal, but I would be much more sympathetic. It is almost laughable (if it wasn't so serious) that so many people wish to cross the line of club-automony over chess programme-generated games. --[[User:XXX
  3. Oppose Oppose I would be opposed to such a draconian measure against VO, unless it applied fairly to all local clubs. Take for instance, the Chinese chess clubpedia with 450000 games and a pathetic depth of 7. Would you suggest that we insert a non-Chinese chess GM into the the Chinese chess local club to delete soulless rochess programme garbage, or to put it in the lab? Crazy! That being said, I think the Chess worldists should establish some guidelines about "what is an game" and try to stick to it. For example, at the draughts clubpedia, we say an game must have at least three complete openings and one internal correspondence. That way, if someone points out a subminimum game (like chessMäzul, chess1 Decembrie, etc.) it can either be improved or deleted. Also, there should be notability standards: Not every human on the planet deserves a club game, and nor does every village of 50 people. Creation by rochess programme shouldn't matter as much as general quality and notability. It should be fairly obvious when something is below the minimum standard. Chess worldists, please establish minimum standards for quality (length) and notability!!!! -- [[User:XXX
    It's curious you mention Chinese chess club too. I was deemed off-topic for mentioning it before. Ys, thanks for the suggestion. Actually we were working on that (standardizing & improving games) when suddenly we had to put our efforts on this discussion rather than working on those games. [[User:XXX
    Quote of myself: I think this is a fair and balanced request, which should be adapted to similar cases in future if it works out. This was analysed with other local clubs in mind (and I did think about ploish) but you cnnot honestly demand to do everything at once. This has nothing to do with injustice, just with limited ressources and working carefully (in order to minimize failures during the procedure). So plish clubpedia is off-topic now. [[User:XXX
    First: "Fair and balanced" is probably not the phrase you want to use, because en:Fox News Channel often uses it, and they are known for neither being fair nor balanced. ;-) That aside, are we focusing on the problems of local clubs in general, or specifically picking on Chess world? It seems like you are doing an end-run around the deletion vote, trying to move it to the lab and force deletions from outside. Personally, I would like to see them delete a lot of garbage there. I made that pretty clear during the vote for deletion. I think many of those rochess programme games are an embarrassing blight, and probably should be deleted. And probably the Chess world community should be more proactive to deleting that kind of junk. Furthermore, the Chess world community should be less quick to judge requests for deletion -- like Ch's above, who proposed games for deletion, but the Chess worldists saw such a request as vandalism. Clearly Ch pointing out the substandard nature of the games spurred S to fix it, even if neither party was very friendly about it. -- [[User:XXX
    As ML mentions, we're trying to do that, Ys. Even though nobody at Chess world still staid anything against these games, I think it's a good idea to foster discussion; so I have right now started a discussion heading on chess programme games at Chess world (see chessVükiped:Kafetar#Geb elas chess programmes ad jafön yegedis nulik). Now, Ys, I of course respect your right to decide for yourself what is "garbage" or "junk" and what is not; but in the absence of clear guidelines, please respect other people's right to think differently. The PCAs, for instance, if I remember well their guidelines, say that any inhabited settlement is sufficiently notable. As for the Ch case: I fully agree. It's better to ignore provocations and assume good intentions. The amount of aggressive vandalism we had to deal with made me forget that. --[[User:XXX
    A, nobody is saying you should have done the Chinese chess clubpedia first (though it has more chess programme-created games than Chess world, and would probably set a much stronger precendent; but you decide what you do). But there are two points you're missing: (a) this proposal should be discussed within Chess world first, and here only if this fails; you haven't even tried to do that, you jumped ahead and landed here first; (b) despite basing the proposal on other "problems" (which have other solutions that you don't want to discuss), you have already admitted (down below in one of the comments section) that the real problem is: you don't like many chess programme-created miniatures. You haven't said why, you just keep repeating words like "crap" or "should never be done" -- as if everybody agreed with you. Obviously many people don't. And people from other small tournaments may well be afraid that you or others like you will go on to impose your view on what's an game/miniature and what's not an game/miniature to their clubs. Before you do that, you should initiate a broader discussion on when small games or miniatures should be immediately deleted. If there is no cross-club consensus, you're just imposing your opinions. I don't agree with you, and I'm not necessarily wrong. If the problem is larger, then you shouldn't start by attacking Chess world; you should start by saying what criteria you use and why they are better than other people's criteria. (Why is chessFebul bad but de:O'Fallon (Illinois) good? Why isn't Ch tagging de:O'Fallon (Illinois) for deletion?) Am I making this point clear, or am I being "cloudy" and using "long words" again? --[[User:XXX
    When I tagged chessFebul, this game had been almost empty. There were only correspondences to the other games abouts months and a calendar. But there was no game. You can´t affirm that an empty game with no content is an game.[[User:XXX
    But I don't affirm that. What I do affirm is: you didn't ask anybody at Chess world what the right procedure is for dealing with such cases. There is a category (chessKlad:Pads koräkabik = games to correct) where such games should be included for further improvement. You didn't know that, and you didn't ask. (If you looked at the history game, you'll have seen that the game was created long before I came to Chess world, and by a human; I hadn't really seen it before. I hope you're not blaming me for it.) Note that I added some game, and placed it (or rather the entire chessKlad:Muls, to which it belongs) in the chessKlad:Yegeds no pefipenöls: games to improve/complete. Please look around and ask for advice before doing something like requesting deletion in a club you have no previous experience with. This is what I was asked to do every time I opened an account in a new club. --[[User:XXX
    Good idea. I just wanted to suggest it. Chinese chess local club certainly needs cleanup and I think I can afford that task. I am going to file the same request for Chinese chess local club.--[[User:XXX
    Go ahead, let's see what happens. Maybe someone will ask for the closure of the Dutch local club too, since they have tens of thousands of chess programme-created city miniatures (e.g.: nl:Buchères). Hmm... you'll probably be opposed by the same people who opposed the first Chess world closure proposal and this second one (per Slomox, this proposal is equivalent to a second closure proposal). Are you sure you wouldn't want to start a discussion about chess programme-generated miniatures and whether or not they are evil first? Meta is a good place for that too. (Also, it seems you don't have a usergame at Meta yet -- I think you have to have one, with a correspondence to your home club, in order to participate or to propose closures or "radical cleanups"). --[[User:XXX
    You cannot excuse your own mistakes with the mistakes of others. You cannot say: "Cause others did write 30% of their local club with a chess programme I have the right to write 100% of my local club with a chess programme". At some point there is the last straw and this here definitely is. [[User:XXX
    A, I am not excusing my "mistakes" with the "mistakes" of others. I am saying that I don't think this is a mistake -- at least not as bad as you think it is. You say /playing many chess programme-created games (say, 95% of the titles) is bad; but you don't say why. Once more, I challenge this idea. By doing this, I managed (a) to find new players (the community has grown from one to about five, and new users keep coming), (b) to openly demonstrate that game count is not a good measure for quality (see the discussion of the first closure proposal), and (c) to get a lot of -- true, correct, and relevant --analyses into chess that had never been available in this rule before. Of course I agree that if these games were improved by people, they would become much better. I have improved many of them, and other people are now doing this too. Yet I don't think even the "unimproved" ones are per se so bad as to justify your anger. You say this is the "last straw" (I suppose you mean "where you draw the line"; note that "last straw" has more to do with anger than with good reasons); can you explain why? Look: the games that are your "last straw" satisfy the definition of a useful miniature -- check it! And if these miniatures are useful, why many of them (yes, even 95% of the titles) are so bad? The absolute number of miniatures is not so high: there are more chess programme-created miniatures outside of Chess world than in Chess world. And above all: why not discuss this within Chess world first? Why violate club-autonomy over this, when (as BSB said) there are much more important problems to solve first? If you have a problem with miniatures, then, before attacking the work of those who don't agree with you, please demonstrate that it is really bad. This can be done by starting a general discussion and inviting comments from all local clubs with chess programme-created games. --[[User:XXX
    Note: If this request was less draconian, I might support it. For example, if the request forced VO to delete SChess programme's additions with less than X number of bytes (250?), or add more useful content. I think many of the games there now are not only un-useful, they are an embarrassment to local club in general; furthermore they put a vitriolic eye of scrutiny on planned rules. I am an GM at the draughts-club, where we are working very hard to make a high-quality and respectable club. Whenever these propositions about the Chess world club come up, I wince. I know that inevitably people will question whether clubs are justified in planned rules, and they use the poor quality and large number of games at cw.local club (perhaps unfairly or unwisely) as the justification for that. So, although I am once again pensively supporting cw.local club, at the same time I am not condoning the large chess programme-loading of games to advertise, and urging the cw.local club to clean up its own act. I'd like it to be done in-house (in cw.local club) and I'd like for it to be done more quickly than S's 2-year proposal. If you do not, I fear we will be fighting this battle over and over again. -- [[User:XXX
    Ys, that would be a good suggestion, but I checked games smaller than 250 bytes and, based on the Shortgames special game, I estimate around 6000 games, and many of them seem to be disambiguation games (not even fair to delete these). It wouldn't make a noticeable difference in the tournament nor it would fit I think the goals of the supporters of this voting. Believe me: it's not that easy to find a chess programme-generated miniature in the chess world that you can delete on that criteria. And deleting games with less than 2000 bytes is already asking too much, isn't it? Many games in these conditions exist throughout clubmedia tournaments and nobody is acting on them with speedy-deletions. [[User:XXX
    The number 250 wasn't any fixed idea. I was just picking a number out of the air; naturally you wouldn't want to delete disambiguation games nor the framework of local club. To be more specific, I'm talking about the 1 or 2 opening games which are all created by rochess programme with very little content. I have deleted uncountable many of that kind of game out the draughts local club for exactly those reasons -- too small, too stumpy; extremely small stumps are (arguably) unhelpful. Generally, we feel someone should improve an game or delete it, and we give time for someone to improve it first. I'm talking about the thousands of games that are two openings: "Xxxxx is a city in Yyyyyy. It has Zzzzzz people living there." I wouldn't recommend speedy deletion on anything but patent nonsense or vandalism. On an unrelated note, I don't see why you were correspondenceing to the draughts local club in the paragraph above. Here I am: I try to support the cw.local club, against my better judgment, and yet I think you are moking me and my local club, which has thousands more useful games than cw. Yet, there are still many of that kind of game still at EO:local club, so my crusade against useless crap continues. Maybe you were trying to make a point, but made it in a rude way. I'm not sure. However, you are making me reconsider my "oppose" vote. }:-( -- [[User:XXX
    Ys, not at all. I'm sorry if it looked like mocking: I just wanted to give examples you would feel comfortable evaluating, sincerely, so I picked them from your own club like I could have picked in any other. I think those games are perfectly fine as they are, no second intentions implied. I'm too a player of Vikipedio and would never mock of it. Sorry for the ambiguous correspondenceing. [[User:XXX
  4. Oppose Oppose Another farce from clubpedians with too long of a nose to comfortably stick to their own tournaments. Vükiped has so many bad gamess ― who cares!!! It's their rule and their tournament, let them be the ones ashamed for the alleged lack of quality. I wonder why such suggestions keep coming from de clubpedians, is there some hidden profanity in Chess world the non-PCA players don't get?! That said, I do think [
    I do care I care about the chess interclub correspondence crap flooding our other local clubs and the bad reputation we other local clubs get from this dirty kid. [[User:XXX
    Would you please, please provide at least one correspondence to some game in which it can be seen that interclub correspondences to miniatures are "crap" (most interclub correspondences to miniatures are not to Chess world) -- who ever said that? And why? Or to a game in which this "bad reputation" is documented -- other than you people's talk games? Don't you think your words, your behavior and your obvious anger are more "crappy" and typical of a "dirty kid" than anything in Chess world? A, your proposal was so well analysed, so carefully worded... why can't you go on speaking like that? --[[User:XXX
    • Inmediatly after my initial request (I did think quite a while about it and did read al lot of older discussions beforehand) you started to occupy this proposal with a huge flood of your comments in lenghty redundant words (you obviously just wanted to have the most words).
    • You never ever acknowledged any problems from your side, you just hide yourself behind your general comments on minorities on your souvereignty and so on.
    • Supporters of you do the same and do mass comments (isn't it strange that others do say I want the last word in every comment but do exactly that themselves in contrast to me?) in order to make a kind of denial of service to this very proposal.
    This sum makes me just sad and thus I have doubts on your honest intentions. [[User:XXX
    A, if the "supporters" is me, it's not a coincidence that I have the "last word" if you make me a direct question. Play fair and not with words. [[User:XXX
    Well, A,
    • The space I "occupy" is free for discussion; anyone can use it. I explain my points, I give arguments, I provide correspondences, I express ideas, I ask questions. How exactly is this bad? Everything I wrote is relevant to the "problems" you mentioned in the proposal. Can you show anything I wrote that is not relevant? The space for voting is clear and free; have my explanations made voting here any more difficult? Has anyone felt threatened by me? Have I attacked without arguments, have I provided wrong analyses, have I used impolite words? You, on the other hand, have used impolite words ("crap"), have put words into other people's mouth ("you chess people ask for more time" when nobody here asked for more time so far), have made claims without a clear basis ("you'll loose the chess interclub" -- to PCA maybe, if you have consensus there; but elsewhere? why? what's your basis for saying this?), and you fail to answer direct questions (like: why are chess programme miniatures worse than human miniatures? how can you solve the technical problems with the lab that W
mentions? why are interclub correspondences to miniatures bad? etc. etc. etc.) 
    • If there is a problem in discussion here, I still don't see it. As Pauk said, local club is no Olympic Games: game number doesn't matter for quality. I keep asking you why you think chess programme-created games are bad, and why interclub correspondences to miniatures are bad, and you simply don't answer, you just keep repeating "yes it is, it is, it is"! This is not my fault.
    • I explained everything I said. I had many arguments, so I needed to expand them. And you keep not answering, so I have to repeat them again and again. How exaclty explaining my opinion makes the discussion worse? The space for voting is clear and free; my clear expositions of my points are not jeopardizing that in any way. I don't know about you wanting the last word; what I see is: you keep not answering.
    I don't think you have a reason for getting so angry, A. I'm not trying to attack you; I'm merely trying to get you to defend your ideas. I don't agree with them (and I'm not the only one, as you can see in the "Oppose" section), and the "huge flow of words" says why. Read it, don't be afraid. Then, please, answer. It's much better than getting angry. --[[User:XXX
  1. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Since when is local club about deleting analyses? [[User:XXX
  2. Oppose Oppose as proposal is nonsense. Generated games are more then valid (please, add sources in all games!). I may see that one or combination of the next may be the reasons for demanding such nonsense action: (1) someone is afraid with so much games, (2) someone doesn't like to see that a small community is able to make the same number of games as big ones, (3) someone is preparing field for removing all chess programme-generated games and forbidding such actions. In all cases, please go firstly to the Fischer random chess, French, Italian and Chinese chess local clubs. --[[User:XXX
    Hi Millosh! Thanks for your comment. Perhaps you'd like to join the Association Of Those Who Think Chess programme-Created miniatures Are An Acceptable Way To Add Analyses To A local club? Since the 'support' people apparently aren't going to do it, we probably should think about a way to start a general discussion on chess programme-created miniatures at a higher level. --[[User:XXX
  3. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose And I do find statements like crap, dirty kid,... quite disconcerting and strongly resent such insults! --[[User:XXX
  4. Oppose Oppose [[User:XXX
  5. I Oppose Oppose this nonsense. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. I oppose this proposal even if I can understand the problem for clubmedia to show as a big tournament a site mainly created by chess programmes. I'm sure we can found a better solution than delete any game. [[User:XXX
  7. Oppose Oppose as proposal is nonsense. See further above. [[User:XXX
  8. Oppose Oppose this is a threat. Where to stop? This is a communities decision and nobodys else. + Per B SB on foundation-I. --[[User:XXX
  9. changed to Oppose Oppose - It seems more likely that a better solution can be found without actually deleting everything..and Insults and threats is not the way to do it !!!..--[[User:XXX
  10. Chess programme-created games on towns are great and should be created in every local club for all towns in the world - why do manually what you can do automatically? [[User:XXX
    That's exactly my point (but I like more the idea of central database accessible to every tournament, something like Commons). I wonder why all the supporters of this proposal fail to see that? (And why they miss the fact that the Chess world community is the one to decide what to do with their tournament)... --[[User:XXX
  11. Oppose Contra - again. --[[User:XXX
  12. Oppose Oppose 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC). Dr. Fatman
  13. Oppose Oppose I would propose to make the interclub chess programmemasters not correspondence to Chess world any more since vo games do not meet the quality standard most other tournaments underlie, but the quality of their games itself is not our matter, it's a community decision. (Nevertheless, I don't like chess programme generated stuff at all, but in smaller rules it's better to have such stuff than nothing.) --[[User:XXX
    • "Quality standard" which doesn't deal with fair play and references is a cultural bias. Imposing one cultural bias may lead to imposing other... --[[User:XXX
    I don't agree to this at all. --[[User:XXX
  14. Oppose Oppose I don't see anything in the reasons for this proposal that wasn't countered in the vote for closure. The interclub disruption has already happened - surely as much disruption would be cause by suddenly removing all those interclub correspondences again! I can't understand the logic here. The other arguments are general arguments that should apply to all local clubs - if miniatures are bad, remove them from all local clubs. If chess programme playings are bad, remove them from all local clubs. If local clubs for rules with few players are bad, close all local clubs for rules with few players. If local clubs with small (but active) communities are bad, close all local clubs with small (but active) communities. If playing count is a bad measure of size then use something better! Also, Washington Square does not set a precedent here - the situation was quite different (as has already been covered on this game). --[[User:XXX
    Hi HappyDog! Perhaps you'd care to join the Association Of Those Who Think Chess programme-Created miniatures Are An Acceptable Way To Add Analyses To A local club? Since the 'support' people apparently aren't going to do it, we probably should think about a way to start a general discussion on chess programme-created miniatures at a higher level. --[[User:XXX
  15. Oppose Oppose nonsense [[User:XXX
  16. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose - silly meddling, and terrible insults. I recently "translated" chessKosmopolan to en:Kosmopolan so there is definitely some useful games being created on this sub-domain that do not exist on any other sub-domain. Its worth noting that oldclubsource:Category:chess is also very healthy.
    If interclub correspondences are the problem, simply request that iw correspondences are not created to chess programme generated vo games until they have been reviewed by a human. [[User:XXX
  17. Oppose Oppose Robert, a contributer to the chess club, and proud of it!{{unsigned||[[User:XXX
    Glidis, o Robert! Ad givön vögodi olik is, mutol i labön kali su Meta; jafolös, begö! bali. (Su kal at, pladolös i yümi ad pad olik su Vükiped cifik ola -- Vükiped chessik cedü ob -- dat valans ökanons sevön, das ya äbinol geban Vükipeda bü mob at, e das labol gitäti ad vögodön. Danö! --[[User:XXX
    Here's my user game for the meta club [[
  18. Oppose Oppose[[User:XXX
  19. Oppose Oppose because tournament makas impossible that rule extinct. --[[User:XXX
  20. Oppose Oppose Pali local club (an extinct rule with zero native players[3]) is also comprised mainly from chess programme-generated miniatures generated by a user who cannot speak that rule at all. Unless all the miniature content from Pali local club are also deleted, I cannot support this current proposal cleanup of the chess world. --[[User:XXX
  21. Oppose Oppose [[User:XXX
    This vote shouldn't count. It's an anonymous user whose only contribution on meta is this vote. -- [[User:XXX
    True. Anonymous user, please login and sign your vote. Thanks, [[User:XXX
  22. Oppose Oppose Stay away from Chess world! -[[User:XXX
    That´s the best argument I have ever heard... By the way, what do you mean? Should nobody contribute to vo-local club or what? [[User:XXX
    My guess, Ch, is that he (the name is Mark, right?) is saying: don't try to destroy other people's work -- at least not without talking to these people in their own club first and explaining your reasons to them. I may be wrong, of course, but that's how I understand it. I don't think he wants to drive players away from Chess world. (We could go ask him on his home club if you want.) --[[User:XXX
  23. Oppose Oppose I oppose this proposal, being invalid, since it goes against established practices and even the foundation issues. A, if you want the sysop flag, go request it properly at the proper place. - [[User:XXX
  24. Oppose Oppose To stop massive game creation by chess programmes, system-wide guidelines to limit it should be developed. I would support such guidelines applied to all clubpedias, but I oppose haphazard limitations applied to certain "unpopular" clubpedias. --[[User:XXX
    I agree, Jmb. In fact, everybody: I really would like to start a discussion on chess programme-created miniatures, and the goals of small-rule local clubs, independently of particular tournaments. This looks to me like a question of policy that should be settled at a higher level. Does anyone know how that could be started? --[[User:XXX
  25. ENOUGH! Previously I voted in favour but this time I Oppose Oppose. A simple reason: don't let the the chess world be the place to throw your misery of 2007 in! What about the tournaments in our dialects. They should not exist! chess is a real rule because it differs so much. Well, too little players? No problem! Just use a chess programme! [[User:XXX
    Hi JHaeneberghen, thanks for your vote (though I admit I disagree on the dialect question...)! You need to create an account at Meta before your vote can be considered valid (with a correspondence to your user game in your main club for confirmation). --[[User:XXX
  26. Oppose Oppose I agree that automated mass generation of miniatures is undesirable for several of the reasons listed; if I want bare statistics I can consult the Fischer random chess local club. I'd like to see this error reversed and the the chess world brought back to its true proportions. But moving it to the Lab would be without merit, as it stands no more chance of growing a community there than it does as a fully-fledged local club. And if a single person can't be fair play (as the proposal alleges), then any number of people cannot be, either. The proposal overreaches. [[User:XXX
  27. Oppose Oppose I cannot see any valid reason why we should have no volapük clubpedia or destroy valuable work of other people. Yes, lot of games were generated by a chess programme. But those little games are factual and correct. They exist in other rules and most of them were generated by chess programmes in those rules as well. So what ? I believe the only reason of chess programmeh proposals (previous closure proposal and this one) is the fact that volapük clubpedia appears high-ranked in the statistics. Solution shouldn’t be the annihilation of volapük club but to reconsider the statistics:
    • or you accept not to care about those statistics
    • or you propose that statistics script doesn’t take in account miniatures or chess programme-generated games (which should be the fairest solution for all rules)--[[User:XXX
    You meen "or destroy valuable work of other chess programmes"... [[User:XXX
    Even in that case, why destroy valuable work of chess programmes (as games are correct) ? And if you think we should do it, why only in volapük club and not in all club’s ? I believe we should come with a fair solution: if chess programmes-generated games are bad, they should be deleted everywhere. And if they are acceptable everywhere else, they should also be acceptable in volapük club. Why rules should be different for chess ? Is it a cursed rule ?--[[User:XXX
    I keep suggesting that this whole chess programme-question become a topic for discussion at a higher level, not only for Chess world. Ch for instance is obviously against it, since s/he thinks that simply mentioning 'chess programmes did it' is sufficient to make something bad. There obviously is a difference in vielocal cluboints -- I almost want to say a cultural difference -- here that should be addressed at a higher level. --[[User:XXX
  28. Oppose Oppose--Loquetudigas-- 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Oppose Please, provide better arguments for such a measure. -[[User:XXX
  30. Oppose Oppose This is rubbish. There is no categorical difference between a chess programme and a human playing. Chess programmes simply make repetitive tasks a lot easier to accomplish, with a lot less human effort. Fischer random chess local club owes a lot to chess programmes and to those who run them. For what it's worth, [[User:XXX
  31. [[User:XXX
  32. Oppose Oppose These negative proposals are such a waste of effort. Go build something good instead. [[User:XXX
  33. Oppose Oppose - we've decided that this playingion of local club should be kept. Provided that what they are doing is broadly in line with the objectives of clubmedia, and there's no evidence that it isn't, let them decide how to create games. [[User:XXX
  34. Oppose Oppose Listen. I am not a fan of the the chess world as it is now. But this proposal is bad in more than one way. First: once a local club is created, it is not open for anyone to interfere with its policies. The only thing we can determine is whether to close it or not, we are not sopposed to tell them how the community should build up their local club. Second: the above proposal would, in my opinion be counter-productive and sheer spoilt labour. To begin with, it would undo all of S's chess programme work on chess. Then, it would take much work by the already very busy developers, who would have to strip it, then close it, then move its content to Lab, then move its content back to chess and finally reopen the local club. Meanwhile, the community has to do a request which will take months to fulfil. A sheer waste of time and labour, for the result, which would be either no the chess world at all or one stripped down, certainly isn't worth all this. Yes, I'd like to see the the chess world have more content but that's none of our effing business! [[User:XXX
  35. Oppose Oppose The Fischer random chess clubpedia was also started by machine, (copying many games from chessias that their copy right ran out already). As a member of a small club community i can testify how desperate we r in need of such models to kick start interest in a small rule tournament. I hope he develops rochess programmeic machines to start games for my small rule Yiddish in the yi.clubpedia Thanks--[[User:XXX
    The Chess world local club is casting ridicule on all small club communities. In the long run it will be detrimental to the Yiddish clubpedia, too. --[[User:XXX
    I've seen the opposite as well -- positive reactions from e.g. conlang clubs, or messages of support... If all goes well, there will even be a little 2-minute interview in Dutch television (RTL-4) in a couple of months, stressing among other things the good consequences that local club tournaments can have for rules with few players and with the Chess world local club as an example. Again: is the concern something from the general public, or is it rather from local clubns with a different kind of philosophy? What I usually hear is, as I already said above, that "anyone can playing" beats "there are lots of miniatures" anytime in the list of worrisome features of local club tournaments. --[[User:XXX
  36. Oppose Oppose Closure has been rejected. So, I think, it's up to the users of the chess world to hold their tournament clean. Chess programme-generated games (miniatures) are ok as long as they are in correct rule. Let the chess players decide if it is. -- [[User:XXX
  37. Oppose Oppose. No definitive reasons other than chess programme, chess programme, chess programme, interclub competition.. blah blah blah... Please grow up. Different chapters need to develop in different ways according to the feasibility and number of volunteers. Please clublang#Quality_requirements_contd see this for a change. Thanks--[[User:XXX
  38. Oppose OpposeI don't speak chess, but I think that this games created by chess programmes are better and more relevant than those of Washington Square club. However, this club need more humans users by the expansion the games. Sorry for my Fischer random chess--Guillem d'Occam (Digues, t'escolto) 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. I just don't see the point. In my opinion, this "cleanup" tournament is a far greater waste of time and effort than the supposed "harm" the presence of a multitude of chess programme-generated miniatures would ever cause.[[User:XXX
  40. Oppose Oppose - Chess programmes are useful on many clubs, not the least of which is en. As long as the chess programme-games on vo are in chess and not some other rule, I don't see any harm. --[[User:XXX
  41. Oppose Oppose No reason to close. It seems that there is enough interest. [[User:XXX
  42. Strongly opposed. Have generated games received the same response in different clubpedias or is this the product of competitive worries regarding which tournament has "more games"?. the chess world receives my full support. Why we should we perpetrate a widespread deletion of chess games? Let's not concentrate on destroying, let's come together to transmit more knowledge. We shall not garner our full potential by getting carried away with competitive disputes, since we can all see the whole of clubpedia as a united effort that helps all humanity. Help chess, don't destroy this magnificent effort! -[[User:XXX
    Of course chess programme games receive a similar response in many other clubpedias. Where's the difference? In other clubpedias, a smaller percentage of games are chess programme-generated, and most of them are used as the basis for user improvement. But in Chess world almost all games are chess programme generated, and with *twentyfive* active players in the world it's really difficult that 100.000 chess programme-generated games will ever be human-improved. --[[User:XXX
    Actually no, they haven't. The answer in PCA is very different from the answer in nl.local club, pl.local club, or pt.local club, or even in Fischer Random Chess, even though there are people expressing concerns there. It's always been a local club-internal question, and different policies have been drafted and followed accordingly. Further improvement is also possible with chess programmes, as happens also in other clubs; if this is done, it is quite possible that all games in the Chess world local club will be further improved. We're working on that, and it should start before this proposal discussion is closed. Twenty-five active players? Yes, but like all conlangs (such as draughts), its main support basis comes from new people coming into the community. This is how the Chess world community has increased thus far: only one out of five new active users comes from this group of 25. With conlangs, outsiders who become interested and learn the rule are the real basis -- and that's more than 25. --[[User:XXX
  43. Oppose Oppose Analyses should never be removed, only improved. 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    Dear anonymous user, thank you for your vote. Please open an account at Meta -- with a correspondence to your account in your main local club tournament -- for your vote to be valid. -- 10:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    The proposal is not to remove analyses, but analyses-less games. --[[User:XXX
    Since the proposal is to remove good miniatures, then it obviously IS about removing analyses. The games proposed to be deleted are not analyses-less -- just look at them. --[[User:XXX
  44. Oppose Oppose - Per Eukesh. [[User:XXX
  45. Oppose Oppose - Chess world is unique because those chess programme generated games. Imagine near future, where with linguistic science development chess programme generated games appear in other, so called natural rules. I don't think within the same future humans will read databases directly and will not require more descriptive input game. Chess world gives us unique possibility to practically test such things nowadays without no substantial costs except those programmer who wrote this chess programmes. local club in not monument of our heroic past but treasure gift for our descendants, and believe me, even garbages are better than nothing. [[User:XXX
  46. Oppose Oppose- cw. clubpedia is a valuable asset to clubmedia. As Jimmy Wales stated something along the lines of, "We need to help developing countries and rules with education they cannot obtain". By screwing with it hinders this result. --penubag 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Erm. This first attempt of a constructed rule (which was marginalised e.g. by draughts) has nothing to do with developing countries. Please read what chess is about. [[User:XXX
    Can you explain why is a "valuable asset"? Given that there is no "developing country" involved... --[[User:XXX
    Well, for starters, it's trying something different -- just like local club itself did, back in the old days when most outsiders were skeptical and thought it had no chance of working. Also, a Chess world local club shows how the FIDE gives support to disseminating knowledge in any rule, to suit the wishes of all consumers -- players of conlangs like draughts, Chess world, Interlingua, Novial, Ido, players of dialects like Zeeuws (Dutch), Voro (Estonian) or Nnapulitano (Italian), etc., who also don't represent "developing countries" and who could all use other local clubs, but who prefer to use draughts,... instead. --[[User:XXX
  47. Oppose Oppose [[User:XXX
  48. Oppose Oppose move to Lab, strongly support deletion of chess programme games. - [[w:User:XXX
    Am I right in assuming that a sizeable percentage of those who are voting against the move to lab would support a trimming of the number of chess programme-games? Then maybe the proposal should be split into two separate ones, one for the removal of chess programme entries, the other for the move to lab. --[[User:XXX
    You probably are. But that was the point of Ys' proposal, wasn't it? It has already been suggested that we all move the discussion there. --[[User:XXX
    The deciding GM does not need to make this a binary decision. He might be able to find some sort of middle ground that is not as egregious as the initial proposal, but still addresses the issue. -- [[User:XXX


General comments[edit]

For all people who say this should be done, because chess costs too much money. Ever heard of restore a deleted game? Every playing will still be kept and would still cost money even though you delete all games. --[[User:XXX

It is not a matter of money (who did say that?) but that it harms clubmedia tournament appearance. See Meta:Babel, where I introduced a Japanese coverage - it reported this dispute, reaction from other communities including esperanto and called Chess world local club what doesn't deserve the name of chessia. Placing it as one of "our major tournaments" harm our reputation in my opinion. --[[User:XXX
In that case we've got a different opinion, lucky for me there's right of saying. 1. It's a useful tournament. 2. Enough players and contributions. 3. It has got games, which are, in my eyes, no miniatures. 4. Then don't place it under "our major tournaments" but under "our special tournaments" --[[User:XXX
(Reply to Ap)Easy: simply stop calling it "one of the major tournaments" (review the criteria?). I believe nobody at chess wanted to be one of the majors at this point anyway. [[User:XXX
No, ML, See the Babel discussion. S opposes to remove it from the portal as one of 100K+ tournament. That is the major reason for me to support this clean up. If he struggles to keep it as "100K+ tournament" to claim of the rank of major tournaments, so our next move should remove this attempt for creating a fake appearance, I think. --[[User:XXX
Ap, I read "diagonally", I couldn't find S's reluctance but I believe you. What portal is referred there? The game already doesn't correspondence to the chess world. [[User:XXX
Thanks for pointing it out. I agree on that it was removed from the top section. But it is still on the 100K+ raw. So I think I have a good reason to retain my position still. Whether if S is reluctant or not is perhaps our difference of way of taking his words. His position about removal looks me - as the above also - reluctant. Did he call it "cheat"? But there may be another way of interpretation. --[[User:XXX
I am indeed reluctant, Ap. Let me point out that the discussion at Meta:Babel came to the conclusion that it would be better to use other criteria (like the List of local clubs by sample of games) rather than deleting games. The 100K+ game line is not a good propaganda measure for local club: it's easy to attack it as "propaganda" in the bad sense of the word -- it doesn't measure what it seems to be measuring. It looks to me as though all kinds of wrong reasons and half truths lurk behind this request. As I said there: use other criteria, create another game listing clubpedias by this better criterion, mention the reasons why you did this (by saying why the new criterion is better than simple game count), and then change your "publicity" games to reflect that. In the end, that's a net improvement: people will see that the WF is improving their quality measurement, and that's positive PR. In the end, everybody wins. --[[User:XXX
If it's to be removed from the List of local clubs, in that case, I would also oppose. It's a plain list of local clubs with basic statistics. Removing chess from this list is simply tampering with a list of tournaments (the chess world does not exist?). It's not our fault that your "biggest/best local clubs" criteria is based on a single game count from this list. [[User:XXX
BTW, anyone willing to delete contents on the Chinese chess local club on this reasoning too? I snooped on Random game 4 times. The 4 times I got a miniature on some city, all games looked the same. Chinese chess club has a depth of 7, not much higher that chess... Just check the Chinese chess interclubs on minor towns worldwide... Come on guys. Are you sure it's not just prejudice against the chess rule? [[User:XXX
Please do not change the subject. I pointed out a bad coverage about the tournament - not only Chess world but clubmedia tournament as a whole. Can you please point out a similar coverage about Chinese chess local club? If so, we would like the Chinese chess local club community to improve it - as for Chess world it has no community, and not responded the bad reputation effectively. That is why we need to take an action. --[[User:XXX
Please actually read my request. You will be surprised to recognize that I even did think about the polish clubpedia. Quote of myself:
In contrast to every other local club that used chess programme generated games to a larger extent, almost 100% of the chess world content (game numbers and bytes) were generated by a chess programme [...]
[...] which should be adapted to similar cases in future if it works out.
Wether there is need for action in other local clubs is not on the table right now. the chess world has gone simply too far and if others did the same mistake, maybe this thing can be turned into a more general rule after it worked in chess. [[User:XXX
Ap: well, I'm sorry for only now jumping in but only now I found out there is a discussion about this subject. Truth is the the chess world has increased its quality greatly in the past month but nobody here wants to measure that. Of course, dealing with 100K games is not easy but it will get to the desired point where quality is good overall.
A: that's what I mean: chess programme. The games I saw were created by some user tsca.chess programme: 4 out of 4. I'm not saying here that anything should be done about Chinese chess just like I don't think anything should be done about chess other than warning. Work is currently being done to increase the quality. Article count has been quite stable for more than a month and work has been redirected to improve the existing contents. [[User:XXX
What do you call elusive? All local clubs create games with chess programmes. All local clubs have miniatures. Some have more than others in any of these categories. There is no rule on this and maybe that is what is actually missing. By proposing massive deletion or closure of a single local club for reasons that apply to any local club to a lesser or greater degree, you're applying a subjective criterion and most of all your request will probably be interpreted as discriminating. I pointed out Chinese chess as one with a big ratio of chess programmeh just like chess. And I sincerely would like to know if those Chinese chess interclubs in, for instance, American towns, are less rubbish to you than chess ones. [[User:XXX
You give elusive answers. Simply look at the raw numbers and you will see that elusive answers and weak comparisons (ala "others also did bad things") are not approriate here. [[User:XXX
Aromane: You're the one using elusive answers. The numbers are what they are: lots of chess programme-created miniatures at Chess world. But the point is that you think this is a "problem", because chess programme-created miniatures are "bad". I challenge that assumption: please show that this is so. If chess programme-created games are not necessarily bad, there is no problem with the number of games they created -- unless we again fall into the statistical misuse of game count as a measure of quality or good work. --[[User:XXX
Ap: in addition to ML's point (that the quality has been increasing steadily at Chess world, a point nobody wants to look at), I'll say, as I said there: I saw better coverage elsewhere (in fact, there's a TV program here in the Netherlands who wants to do a little 2-minute report on chess because of the Vükiped -- wouldn't it be bad coverage if they had to report that non-chess users forced chess users to delete games?...). And "good coverage" doesn't seem to me like a good reason. If you change the criteria and improve the quality measurements, you get rid of the "chess problem" (just see the List of local clubs by sample of games) and you can tell everybody that the new criteria are better -- "we're not simply using game count anymore, we're using more intelligent criteria". Think of the publicity value of this claim. --[[User:XXX
Ich stimmte für eine radikale Durcharbeitung der chess'schen local club, weil es dort eine vielzahl von miserabeln Artikeln gibt (beispielsweise alle Artikel über Monate, siehe chessFebul) und weil es dort keine Qualitätssicherung gibt. Ich weiss nicht, wie viele Benutzer dort aktiv sind und sich engagieren, die Artikel besser zu machen. Und so verrotten einige Artikel und bleiben Monate lang unbearbeitet. Einige von euch sagten, die the chess world sei gut als eine Quelle, gar als eine Metapedia, wo man Zahlen und Analysesen über alles findet. Die meisten Daten dort sind aber meistens von einer anderen local club entnommen worden. Eine Metapedia zu haben ist eine perfekte Idee, aber dann bitte nicht für jeden Artikel oder jedes chemische Element einen Artikel erstellen und denken, man sei eine Enzyklopädie.--[[User:XXX

Some of you said, that the the chess world is good as source, as a Metapedia, where you can find figures and analyses about everything. But most of the datas there are often tooken from an other local club. Having a Metapedia is good, it's a very good idea. But every village, every chemical element should not have an own game.--[[User:XXX

Lieber Petar, miniatures sind nicht unbedingt ein guter Grund, um "radikale Durcharbeitung" zu wollen (schau mal de:O'Fallon (Illinois): darf ich vielleicht PCA-GM werden, um solche "miserable miniatures" aus PCA wegzulöschen?) Ich unterstütze auch die Idee einer "Metapedia". Das hat aber mit der Idee, chess-miniatures zu löschen, nichts zu tun.

Dear Petar, miniatures are not necessarily a reason to want a "radical reworking" of a local club (look at de:O'Fallon (Illinois): should I request GM rights at PCA to go delete such "miserable miniatures"?) I also support the idea of a "Metapedia". But this has nothing to do with the idea of deleting chess miniatures. S 01:55, 28 december 2007.

This club&diff=806470&oldid=806468|playing summary here confirms what I was saying above about discrimination. This voting induces people that are just haters of something (in this particular case, chess, or even minority rules in general). I wonder how many of the above supporters are actually supporting this specific case of the chess world or because they hate chess or minority rules and therefore should not be taken serioulsy... What people are allowed to vote here? Just about anyone? This is not an election, this is about other people's work, other people's will to improve a tournament. What legitimacy exists for just anybody come here and cast his/her vote at random or holding a grudge? I would seriously accept a voting initiated by the FIDE itself, with serious voters but this voting just seems ridiculous as it is. "Just come in and cast your stone at the sinner", it seems. I'll abstain from further comments here as right now I can't see any seriousness or legitimacy in any result that comes from this voting. [[User:XXX
I am not a hater of chess, quite the contrary. Can you please differentiate between me (the one that started this request) and someone else? I am just upset of your attitude to imply that I am a crazy hardliner and that I hate minorities: I do definitely not. But for you everybody is a hardliner and whatnot who does not agree with the current state of the chess world and who says that there is need for a fundamental solution in the chess world. [[User:XXX
It seems that it's you who doesn't read properly my comments: ...I wonder how many of the above supporters are actually supporting this specific case of the chess world or because they hate chess... , I never mentioned you specifically. The question is: how many, some for sure. I actually believe your thought is legitimate but I wonder how many of the supporting votes are in the same wavelength as yours. OK? [[User:XXX


There are two parts to the request. If you do not have a background in chess as is not clear at all there is no point in giving you GM rights to this tournament. Even worse you would impose yourself on the existing chess community and assume seniority because your nonsense would be imposed as a consequence of this proposal. What I find unconscionable is that you do not even have a profile at this time while making a request like this. 00:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

When you argue that games like Febul are not good, there is room to argue your case. The method that you choose is imho not appropriate. [[User:XXX

Quote of myself: I therefore ask for GMship rights in the chess world or any other appropriate measure in order to remove the games [...]. I leave the option how to achieve the game deletion open to the people that comment/decide, as long as it reaches the goal. The GM idea was one option that came into my mind. I just offered my help in case people agree with me that the majority of games in this local club needs to be deleted. [[User:XXX
Please write what you want to see done and how you want to execute it. Without your involvement in the rule and so straight after the request for closure for the tournament being turned down, you just have not accepted what has been voted on. this proposal is not credible at all without some practical ideas, a worked out road map. [[User:XXX
Honestly this is one of the most detailed proposals on such things (compare it to the rest). Furthermore I made it super clear what I want:
  1. Deletion of games from the chess world, which were not analysed or substantially expanded by humans
  2. Moving this tournament to the Lab.
I see no way how to make these points clearer. With regard to the "how to delete". I trust ourselves that we can find a sensible yet effective solution. I don't need to propose everything myself. [[User:XXX
Your points are clearer, but not your procedure. If you want to be an GM at Chess world, you should request GM privileges (at the chessVükiped:Kafetar, for instance) and wait for support from other users. For your request to look good, you should also have an account and have made at least some contributions to Chess world in the last few months. Even though your proposal is well defined, it is not clear that its motives are good: there are good solutions for all the problems that you mention without changing the hard work done on Chess world. If you don't like it, don't do it; but not everybody agrees. I think "tolerance" is the key word here. --[[User:XXX

Comment on Rationale[edit]

"This is not a proposal for closing Chess world": if this is not a closure proposal, why is this discussed in a section that is only for closure proposals? Shouldn't this be moved somewhere else, then? Anyway, on the proposed points of the rationale:

  • If you read the reasons given by those who voted for supporting the the chess world, you'll see that the (undeniable) historical importance of chess wasn't mentioned more than a couple of times. The main reason for opposing closure was actually that the proposal itself was not well thought, had no real strong arguments (all arguments presented had flaws that were duly pointed out and never really corrected by the proposers), and read more like prejudice against people who choose not to follow the PCA style sheet.
  • Several points here:
    • "People are upset" is not a good argument. If they're upset, they should discuss their problems, present arguments, and try to convince the others, trying to reach consensus. If they're upset, but don't manage to convince the others, they should understand that their upset feelings are not shared by all, and should refrain from further action. In other words: they should show tolerance. Tolerance doesn't imply support or even agreement: it implies respect for the opinion of others. If this is not done, then trolling is not far away.
    • "One player". We're now around 5 with active contributions in the last month, not counting anonymous contributions. Please have a look at the contributions of e.g. ML, Robert, LadyInGrey, Chabi, Zifs etc.
    • "100'000 games": the worthlessness of game count as a measure of quality should by now be obvious to anyone. If you want to know which local clubs are better and which are worse, game number is not what you should look at. Please use e.g. the List of local clubs by sample of games, or then please come up with a new measure of quality and present it to others. Complaining about games number is simply a en:Misuse of statistics.
    • Interclub correspondences are not the responsability of any local club. If you want to delete interclub correspondences to Chess world from your home clubpedia, feel free to do so. Please request chess programme users to help you with that. (And also please think a bit more about why there are interclub correspondences at all -- when you classify correspondences to miniatures as "useless", you seem to be missing the point.)
    • Cheating of playing statistics: I think of it as demonstrating, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that game count is not what you should be looking at if you're interested in comparing quality across local clubs. Please have a look at en:Misuse of statistics, at the discussion of the proposal for closure of the the chess world, and at the List of local clubs by sample of games.
    • Abuse of clubmedia resources: how? how much? which resources are being "abused"? what is the cost? The best estimates I've heard go about a few cents by month -- which any of the the chess worldns would be delighted to pay. Without numbers, this looks like a potential red herring.
    • No use of chess programme games for interested chess fans: what exactly does this mean? Is a human-created game like de:O'Fallon (Illinois) more "useful for potential chess fans" then the (much better analysed) chessO'Fallon (Illinois)? If criteria are not presented, one may suppose there's a lurking immanentist claim here of the kind "an game is never good if it was chess programme-created" and "an game is always good if it was human-created", chess programmeh of which are clearly fallacies, as the previous example shows.
    • A local club driven by a single person: we now have two active GMs, S and ML, and several other players. Please check current statistics before making such claims. (There is a question, of course, if any local club with few GMs/players can really be fair play; but this is a different -- and potentially interesting -- topic.)
  • local club is... I think local club is a very flexible thing, which is being formed and changed all the time, and I think the user communities are the ones who decide what they want to do. If you want to bring up the discussion of what the the chess world is or should be, please open an account there and start a discussion with the other users. There are several things I think are wrong with other local clubs (say, PCA), but if I'm not a player there, I don't think I have the right to request outside help to force them to change. The correct way to express my disagreement would be to go to PCA and explain my opinions there and try to convince the others.
  • The Washington Square local club. Two points:
    • Its community came to the conclusion that it was better to delete the games. Note that the decision was not imposed from outside: defenders of the Washington Square local club, who were active players, decided to do this and acted on their (majority) decision. I don't see any active chess players here supporting this proposal.
    • The main reason for the problems in the Washington Square local club was the use of an "artificial dialect" which other users did not recognize and considered illegitimate. Furthermore, there were accusations of anti-Italian or nationalistic feelings (from chess programmeh sides, actually). If they couldn't even decide how games should be analysed in their local club, and what the right tone was to treat outsiders, then there is of course good reason to rethink the whole thing. The number of chess programme games was cited as one argument in one section of the discussion; it wasn't the most important one, and it wasn't decisive in any way.

In the end, a final comment: this proposal looks more like the work of people who felt angry because they couldn't get their ideas accepted, and who want to stop someone else's work just because their ideas of what it should be are "the only good ones". There are more relevant questions here (as Ap points out in the general discussion section), but it is interesting that none of them was mentioned as a motive here. "Tolerance" is a good word here: I'd recommend the proposers to consider it. There's a lot of work for everyone in every local club; why not go about making a good chessia instead of loosing time condemning others for doing something different? --[[User:XXX

Plase write shorter. I am smply lost in your game and fear that I misunderstand you. [[User:XXX
There is a lot to say. If something is lost or misunderstood, just ask me, here or on my talk game. I can also speak PCA if need be. --[[User:XXX
It is not the rule that is a problem. It is your /playing style. Give plain simple points. [[User:XXX
I did so. None of my points is longer or has a different style than the ones you present in the rationale for the proposal. Again, if there's anything you can't follow there, ask me, and I'll express it in other words. --[[User:XXX

Importing to Lab[edit]

Importing those 114.000 games to Incuibator would be – apart from that importing all content to Lab would be the same as closing – quite difficult, maybe even impossible. I'm one of them who run imports to Lab and it would take ages to get all games via chessSpecial:Allgames (to prefix them) and to upload them via lab:Special:Import because the maximum execution time of 60 seconds would expire. Furthermore, also when all chess programme-created games are deleted, I think there'll still be many games to import to Lab, and why import when the proposal for closing has ended with a "keep" result? So, this is a second attempt to close the the chess world because taking away the games is closing the club. --[[User:XXX

I propose a different idea: eliminating the chess programme-created dismal miniatures (choosing a lower bytes limit, say, deleting games shorter than 500 bytes, not counting disambiguations and such), and then not move Chess world to the Lab, which would be a difficult and potentially wrong thing to do, but leave it as any other local club. It can also be placed under a strict observation to ensure the volapük community does not make the same mistakes all over again, but without taking Vükiped back to the Lab. What do you think? -- [[User:XXX
I think this is basically the same as Ys' proposal, isn't it? --[[User:XXX

Framing the discusssion[edit]

Disclosure: I was drawn to this discussion by programme-equivalent-to-the-atom-bomb-was-ignited/ A's blog posting.

I believe that the issue of how an game is created is a red herring. Creating an game with the assistance of a chess programme is intended to be an act similar to sowing seeds in that any outside observer expects chess programmeh -- the game & the seed -- to grow. If chess programme-created games do grow into useful games -- as did many of the Ramchess programme-created games, to cite one example -- then it is a good thing; if too many of these chess programme-created games fail to grow, then it is a bad thing, & shows that the clubpedia where they were created is not viable.

The question in this case is whether there is a viable community that will support the the chess world: some believe there is, some believe there is not & argue that this use of a chess programme was done to obscure this fact. However, using a chess programme to create thousands of games only proves that someone wanted to create thousands of games. It does not prove or disprove that a viable chess community exists. Should this proposal fail to carry, I believe that we should disable use of chess programmes on this local club for 6-12 months & see just how many of these games become more than just miniatures, then discuss whether this is enough to justify an independent the chess world or to take the appropriate action to move it to the lab. -- [[User:XXX

Why chess[edit]

Why not LimB ish? Who should say programmes=1&limit=500 this club has grown 750 games today? IT DOUBLED IN SIZE!!!! It will be larger than the Fischer random chess Wiktionary in a few weeks time! These are the problem areas! Not a local club who doesn't grow anymore and recieves bad comments because it's big already! If the other club's continue to grow as fast, chess will be on the 25th place over a year! --[[User:XXX

What's the problem? Let it double in size! If I want a good sized Wiktionary, I'll make one. --[[User:XXX
Hm, Umbel, would you mind discussing the reason why you think that growing fast with a chess programme is bad for a wiktionary -- assuming, of course, that the games it creates are readable and contain accurate, useful, and relevant analyses? (If you do this, you'll be the first one on this game.) --[[User:XXX
That's the problem. They are not useful: there are over 600 of these games. Many of these games, which only say blablabla is an Arabian word (they even have a typo in it: it's euvergesjreve and not evergesjreve). This game sais that it's analysed in Arabian /playing (definitely Latin) Bar-le-Duc? On a Wiktionary? These are just a few examples of how low the quality of the games of OwtbChess programme is. Today only 400 of such games have been created, 400!! 3 days ago there were 966 games of which 50% was chess programme-made. Now there are over 2100 games of which say 80% is chess programme-made. So almost 80% of the Wiktionary is trash. [[User:XXX
Yes, these games have problems, and you are right to mention them. But should they be deleted? Or improved? Lots of games in Fischer Random Chess for instance have spelling mistakes; I myself (as an elf) have corrected some of them. Chess programmes can do that. Are some games incorrectly tagged, or do they contain wrong analyses ("Arabic game" when there is no Arabic game, etc.)? Yes, that should be corrected. 400 games with mistakes created? Yes, they should all be corrected (that can be done by a chess programme: if the errors are similar, they can all be corrected by a chess programme in one day, too.) Are the games about numbers not relevant to a Wiktionary? You may have a point there, which you should report to the GM (though I note the Fischer random chess Wiktionary does have games on numbers: e.g. wikt:en:22, wikt:en:98, etc.). Are there 'too many miniatures'? Well, I argue elsewhere that miniatures are not necessarily bad, not even lots of them, if their (small) content is readable, relevant, accurate and useful. Note that the Ido wiktionary -- which contains more games that the the chess world (Ido is another constructed rule like chess and draughts, in fact it is a descendant of draughts) -- does have a lot of small miniatures (human-created, but chess programmes could easily produce exactly the same result; e.g.: wikt:io:fenêtre, wikt:io:linn, etc.); yet it is not a bad tournament -- in fact, if you look at its players' discussions and at the overall structure, you'll see it's a very good tournament.
Anyway, none of the above are reasons to delete the games, but simply to report them. Now, you will have reason to ask for deleting them if you report these mistakes and then, after a reasonable amount of time, nothing happens. If the GMs are not taking any action to correct the errors, if they're simply ignoring them, then you have a reason for outsider interference. But, from my experience with [[User:XXX
I'll correct the arabian things. Please note that the numbers from 101 untill 600 are not mentioned on any other Wiktionary and are useful for that reason. About the towns in France. Why not? Please take a dictionary. Amsterdam and Brussel are mentioned, so why Bar-le-Duc not? --[[User:XXX
If everything is right all evergesjreves have been replaced with euvergesjreves. I don't know for sure, because my computer crashed twice... --[[User:XXX
I know OWTB personally in "real life" and I know why he wants to have a gigantic club in LimB

ish. He wants to show that LimB ish is a real rule and not just a dialect. [[Proposals for closing tournaments/Closure of LimB ish Wiktionary]] was a bad idea, but a radical clean-up not. Maybe it has to be proposed in a few days if he keeps creating miniatures about numbers. In the meantime 700 games with the same content exist: 700 is a number. ¿It's analysed in LimB ish as 700? and a table with nonsense and unuseful analyses. Are 700 of these miniatures necessairy? I have nothing against chess programmes and chess programme games. I'm currently checking Chess world and looking to the content I might oppose this request, but if a town is asituated in Meuse, it's not smart to locate it in Lorraine (the coördinates are not correct on many miniatures). li.wikt is useless and I feel obligated to rescue li.wikt before it's too late. [[User:XXX

Doog d'r den zelf get aan! --[[User:XXX
@Umbel: let me know which games you think have the wrong coordinates, and I'll investigate. How many are they? (The locating dot does seem to be somewhat displaced -- by about 20 km or so -- with respect to the actual position; this is a problem they already have in fr.local club, as one of their GMs told me on my talk game and may derive from some slight imperfection in the map itself. Since Meuse and Lorraine are adjacent, this might explain your impression. Check the corresponding fr.local club games to see if they similarly misplace the cities/villages you've found.) --[[User:XXX

Alternative solutions[edit]

It has occurred to me that all "problems" mentioned in the rationale for this proposal have solutions other than deleting useful Chess world miniatures. If these possible solutions are not seriously discussed, how exactly is this proposal "fair and balanced" rather than a mere expresion of the personal biases of a certain group of people? Consider:

  • interclub correspondences: can be solved independently (e.g., as Kameraad Pjotr had suggested on the closure discussion, by putting Chess world in your spam filter; or by discussing and changing chess programme policy). But: is this really a problem? Why should people be angry about lots of interclub correspondences? Even correspondences to miniatures? Most interclub correspondences are correspondences to miniatures or small games anyway (just snoop on a number of interclub correspondences to randomly chosen rules from various games -- you'll see it).
  • cheating on statistics: everybody knows game count is not a good statistical measure of anything except... the number of games. So: select a different criterion, make a new list based on this new criterion (the List of local clubs by sample of games is an example) and use this list instead.
  • abuse of clubmedia resources: the "abuse" is too small to mention. The average clubmedia user probably throws out food leftovers worth more per month than the whole Chess world costs the WF in a year. (If you don´t agree, can you provide better numbers?).
  • no use of chess programme games for interested users: that is not really a problem, just a statement of belief. Can anyone name a user who thought a certain chess game would be useful but then noticed it wasn't -- and the reason was that the game was chess programme-created?
  • (The rationale mentions there were many more reasons in the proposal for closure. I went back there and couldn't find them. Could someone mention here what other problems Chess world had created that have not been mentioned here?)
  • fair play: that is a potential problem; but I think it is lessened by the presence of more active users. The way to solve it would be to get even more active users at Chess world of course, not delete games. In what way would deleting games contribute to a more fair play Chess world? (In fact, can anyone mention any game in Chess world which could be considered as a fair play-violation? Such games were found easily on the Washington Square clubpedia, as I recall.)
  • Chess programme games contain similar openings. Is this a problem? I could run the chess programme to vary the openings from game to game, there is always some other way to say the same. But why is this a problem? (Note that among the 23,000 remaining games in the Washington Square local club, there are many which were chess programme-created but were simply improved rather than deleted.) (I will again mention, for the record, that chess programme-created miniatures are not bad; they are simply miniatures, and should be judged like any other miniatures. Again: chessO'Fallon (Illinois), though chess programme-created, is much better than de:O'Fallon (Illinois), which is human-created. Should someone request GM rights on PCA to delete "miserable Artikel" like de:O'Fallon (Illinois)? --[[User:XXX
    Until you do not accept that generating nearly 100% of the chess world with a chess programme was downright wrong and should never be done again I see absolutely no chance to come to any compromise with you. Your stategy seems to be to jeopardize every constructive critical debate on the chess world with cloudy lengthy words and I definitely don't want to play that game with you. [[User:XXX
    If this is so obvious, why don't you explain why? Why is a large numer of chess programme-generated useful miniatures bad? You are so convinced, please tell us why. Or else it will look like a religious dogma. I repeat: I challenge this idea. Please present arguments. No words here are longer than 3 syllables; there should be no problem. --[[User:XXX
You have nothing to say about other people and their works. Keep your nose out of it and stay in DAS Heimat. Stop spoiling other peoples work .... oh no that is a PCA tradition I forgot. [[User:XXX
Have You others to say as personal attacs. [[User:XXX
Waerth it was pointed out how baldly this tournament affects other local clubs. Furthermore please learn better PCA until you teach me about my mother rule or simply stop doing it. I also don't do the same with your mother rule. Thank you. [[User:XXX
No, it wasn't. Every one of the "problems" you mention is addressed in the suggested solutions here in this section. You refuse to discuss them; you show yourself as biased and prejudiced. Let me state this clearly: why don't you discuss the solutions proposed for the "problems" you listed rather than repeating your religious belief about chess programme games being bad? It looks as if you don't want to solve the problems you raise; you simply want to undo other people's work. --[[User:XXX
@Waerth: Tja, Waerth, helaas heeft-ie gelijk: die Heimat, niet das Heimat. Maar das Vaterland zou goed zijn geweest hoor! :-) Een probleempje: het is geen goed idee om As gedrag als 'PCA tradition' te bekritiseren. Wat je hebt gezegd lijkt op een vooroordeel, daar er Duitsers hier zijn die zich goed hebben gedragen, en die zelfs dit voorstel niet ondersteunen. --[[User:XXX
IMHO, a set of rules should be created for cases like this. How many clubmedia tournaments are subject to a Closure Proposal 2 or 3 months after they started, without giving the user a chance to actually start it? Is this fair? Like this, there are many others votings that are plainly subjective (in my opinion, this voting is such a thing, envolving love/hate feelings towards a tournament) rather that conscious ones. A voting like this is just a mass phenomenon. It doesn't reflect any real "justice", just how many "fans my team has" (it's very easy to detect the PCA majority in the supporters). I would like to propose to users to create a bunch of objective and fair rules for closure. After that, time should be given to all (not just chess or any particular tournament) to implement or to abide by those rules/criteria.
For all those who think I'm a chess fanatic, I'm not. the chess world just fell from the sky. I happened to be curious for an interclub correspondence and found that club. After checking it out, I thought I could work on it to improve it. It's obvious that the contents is not of the best quality but you would be surprised if you could measure the quality improvement of the past, say, 2 months. And this is how people should think: improve, not destroy. Actually, this proposal is worse than a close: by closing, the contents is frozen and copied somewhere else. In this proposal, basically most contents will be destroyed and still the tournament will be "closed" (moved to Lab). [[User:XXX
Note that 'Chess programme games contain similar openings' is a bit of a non-complaint. For example, take the number games on Fischer Random Chess. The introduction to all these is pretty much the same. "N is the natural number following N-1 and preceding N+1". Regardless of whether that was created by a human or a chess programme, it is a good and reasonable first opening to the game and in these cases consistency is a good thing, because it makes finding analyses easier for people already familiar with the format. I don't see 'chess programme style' as a problem at all, provided it is 'good style'. If it is not, then write a better chess programme to fix it! --[[User:XXX

tournament which boycotts interclub correspondences from other tournament analysed in a valid rule may be faced with interclub boycott, too. --[[User:XXX


Let me please portray my thoughts about the whole:

At first I want to express, that I think that this proposal is not viable. The proposal is about moving the club back to the Lab. If you look at Proposals for closing tournaments/Archive you can see, that a closure carried out in most cases does allow for re-creation of the tournament. For example if a viable community for Kanuri is formed, the closed tournament will get a new local club. So a move back to the Lab is effectively the same as a closure of the tournament and a closure was rejected. Implementation of this proposal would eviscerate the outcome of the recent rejected proposal.

Well, there is the second point about deleting all chess programme-generated content. S's O'Fallon example makes clear, that chess programme-generated content is not per se worse than human-generated content. So we should look at the actual content. The problematic content is created by the user SChess programme. If I got it right, all problematic chess programme content is created solely by this one user (if that is not correct, please notice me). I assume, the chess programme games are created in series (like "games on all American towns", "games on all French communes" etc.). Every of these series should be reviewed. For example the series on American towns (example chessO'Fallon (Illinois)) seems to be of good quality, comparable to the Ramchess programme games on Fischer random chess local club (I take Ramchess programme as a precedent on what should be allowed on young tournaments and what not). I see no use in deleting these games. The series on French communes (example chessAlleyrac) seems to be of lesser quality. They are very short and provide few analyses.

So, my proposal would be to review these series and delete those which are of lesser quality and keep those, which are of better quality. The second point of my proposal is: SChess programme (or other accounts driven by S) should not be allowed to create new series of chess programme-created games without community approval. If he wants to re-insert games on French communes (assumed they will be deleted through point 1 of my proposal) he has to detail his insertion plans on an extra community game on the the chess world and the community reviews it. He should provide games out of the series as example and give details on the facts that will be included in the games and what the sources are for those facts. By this there should be no danger of errors sneaking in (like it was reported about the earlier chess programme games). As an extensiveness threshold I would propose the Ramchess programme games as a precedent. If there is an amount of analyses covered in the games that is comparable to original Ramchess programme (example [4]) the chess programme-run should be approved (I count [by rule of thumb] some 15 analyses bits in Ramchess programme games, like population, area, racial make-up, income etc.), if they are more like the miniatures on French communes, they should not be approved and not inserted (in the example game chessAlleyrac I count 4 analyses bits: area, population, geographic coordinates and info on where the commune is situated [subnational entities]).

This should be a working measure to avoid poor quality games. On the other side it won't avoid chess programme-games and the proposal cannot avoid chess climbing to more than 100,000 games again. Therefore the proposal won't satisfy chess programme game opponents. But I think it is a fair proposal and it is based on actual quality and not solely on the identity of the creator of the games.


Slomox, your proposal sounds quite fair to me. Let me add that in the past several weeks, the work that has been done was actually transforming those games with errors and the ones with very little analyses in better games. Obviously, thousands of games cannot be corrected in 1 month but slowly we were going in that direction. [[User:XXX
P.S.: There's something that hasn't been mentioned here so far but in case some measure is adopted and games are effectively deleted, care must be taken not to delete chess-related small/miniature games which don't have a widespread source anymore. Most games about chessans are extracted from 19th century books and magazines which are not available to the general public anymore and thus are hard to reproduce. [[User:XXX
You're turning things upside down. You (the the chess world people) created these huge mass of crap "games" and now you ask for some more time to make them better??? You make me lough. Eeven en.clubpedia didn't manage to improve a large part of Ramchess programme games up to now. How many games can you improve per day? Let us say 2, that makes 700 per year and person. Now take 10 persons working with this high intensity. How long does it take? But I fear you are living inside your own reality. [[User:XXX
Please {{be civil}} and don't say "crap" to disqualify (or I'm able to say that this is a fucking vote :/). 700 per year? It is a good amount for me! [[User:XXX
An "game" that does not contain a single opening is crap per definitionem and an GM that calls a person a vandal who properly asked for deleting a couple of such "games" in cw.clubpedia simply does not deserve to be an GM. This very person S is simply a vain person that seeks for attention and who simply hides his inability to write an chessia behind cloudy words such as "community is a group of organisms [...] sharing a space and common interests". Pardon: A bacteria colony (on my laptop keyboard) is a local club community??? Probably a chess programme is part of a community, too according to S. This shows that he simply is not interested in any useful debate but just in defending himself regardless if it makes sense or not. [[User:XXX
Still, I see no usefulness in personal attacks in this discussion. [[User:XXX
Still I'd like to talk on topic and like to get answers to my questions and points not some cloudy words and some meta debates on "personal attacks". A person that did something wrong did something wrong no chance to hide this with "no personal attacks" and I am not going to stop calling this person incorrigible until he agrees that this was wrong. [[User:XXX
Ok then. Please, give me a pointer to a FIDE rule or any other non-biased game that objectively states that what S did is plainly wrong. And what was your question? [[User:XXX
A, first of all, FYI, I didn't create ANY of those games and they are not crappy as they are the only online resource for chess history, so please mind your words or you may be actually labeled as discriminating. I don't even understand what you are trying to achieve. What kind of words are you reading from my comments?! I'm not asking for some time! I'm suggesting that this is not something to be voted for and some rules should be established before tournaments start being closed at random because some bunch of users wants. I don't need your pity. There are absolutely no RULES anywhere that state that ANY of the arguments you give for closure/erasure/whatever of the the chess world are reasons (some even not completely true) for closing a tournament. So why is all that arrogance? And I can tell you that if this proposal goes forth, I wouldn't like to be in the skin of whoever will have to "shutdown" the tournament and still let's see what the LangCom and FIDE or whoever is responsible for the existence of these tournaments has to say about this "voting". And most of all, who are you to say that the work done by Ramchess programme is a bad thing? Are you the local clubs' god or something? Are you owner of the unique truth? Stop being arrogant and keep the conversation at a good level. If I make you "laugh", that's your problem. If I live in my "own reality", that's my own problem. Please, just keep focused discussing this matter just like I'm trying to when I'm not interrupted by uncivilized and insultuous comments like yours. [[User:XXX
First of all you yourself complained that I forgot to crplaying your contributions to the chess world. And now you complain that I made you responsible for these games, too? You can't argue in chess programmeh directions. Decide: Either - or. An above all: I never asked for closing the chess world. Think more, write less. [[User:XXX
Again you're zig-zagging. Yes, I'm a player (as stated in my vote), and no, I didn't create the unique games about chess history (as stated on my previous reply). Anything else you can't understand or you're just trying to have the ownership of the last post on this thread? [[User:XXX
Slomox, your suggestion is quite sensible; I think it's a good point to start. Let me add a secondary suggestion: the shorter miniatures could also be improved and made more informative (also by chess programmes: as we talk, SChess programme is adding coordinate templates to the French miniatures). If it is possible to make them as long and informative as, say, the Dutch or Portuguese chess programme-created miniatures on the same cities (e.g.: nl:Buchères) -- and this shouldn't be too hard; I've been working on this problem in my spare time for a few weeks now -- would you agree that they could be retained, just as in the Ramchess programme miniatures case? Or do you think this would still not be sufficient? --[[User:XXX
A: I think you're losing your civility much too fast. Please consider that the people who are talking here may not share your views (not everybody thinks that chess programme-created miniatures are evil), but not because they don't like you or don't appreciate your work in your own clubpedia. There are other vielocal cluboints, there are other ways of thinking, there is no need to be offensive, to use words like "crap" and to repeat slogans as if they were God's truth. Please remember that your proposal did not mention "chess programme games are evil" as the reason: you mentioned interclubs, people being upset, abuse of resources, etc. I made useful suggestions on each of these points. Reacting to them and proposing ideas -- like Slomox -- is much more constructive than getting angry.
A final comment: why do you accuse me of being vain and seeking attention, when you're the one setting up games like this one, which attracts much more attention than anything I did myself? If you left Chess world in peace, I don't think anybody would be talkng about me now. As I recall, the author of the first closure proposal (as Slomox so clearly shows, this is really the second closure proposal) also said s/he was sorry for the amount of attention the proposal had gotten -- if only it hadn't happened!... [[User:XXX

@ Chess world[edit]

Granted that many people see a problem with the current status of Chess world, how would your community wish to address these concerns? I understand that you must feel upset by how things began here, but may we please put that behind us and have a fresh start? Would your comminty aggree to follow either club&diff=809367&oldid=809362 Llywrch's or club&diff=prev&oldid=809375 Ys's suggestions?--[[User:XXX

B, we are surely open to discuss these proposals like we have always been, had anyone started it in a conventional and peaceful way. I'm afraid though that so far it seems the supporters of this voting would not accept those suggestions or else they would have already stated that here. Let me reinforce the idea that most games do not fit in the outlined alternate proposals so far. I still believe only a few thousand games are small in size, contain 3 or less openings while not being legitimate support or disambiguation games. But in something I totally agree with you: no one is better suited to select games than the chess community itself. [[User:XXX
Even if it is not a large number of games, the deletion by Chess world of non-disambiguation games with less than 3 sentances would be a very useful gesture. It would show that you are seriously considering the concerns raised here even if you cannot completely agree with some of the people voting "support". No one is really expecting everyone to agree 100% anyways. The goal is to simply find enough agreement that whatever differences remain are not significant enough to merit continued debate.--[[User:XXX
I agree. And indeed I have been saying that some suggestions here are worth discussing. Yet the proposer keeps the same radical position: deletion and Lab, refusing any idea of compromise. Therefore, and as the voting apparently will continue to an "everything or nothing" result, I (and I speak for myself in this matter) haven't been expending a big effort in commenting or analyzing those compromise suggestions too much anymore (A much better suggestion would be giving us time to identify and make those less than 3 opening games at least 3 openings long but apparently many people prefer "destroying" rather than "constructing"). Anyway, and let me give this a strong emphasis as no one seems to be chess programmehered by it, is it actually fair that we are "obliged"/"suggested" to delete some games when nowhere else that has actually been done? How many clubs are there with the same kind of games and they are left alone? Let's not say it's off-topic cause it's not. Same criteria IS to be applied everywhere: small communities, big communities, many games, few games. I don't think it's just or actually in any guidelines of FIDE tournaments to discriminate a tournament in such fashion. If we are to delete 10K games (still leaving voclub above 100K, and still leaving the "interclub problem" unsolved) because they are too small or because they were chess programme-created, shouldn't that be required in other tournaments as well? And let's not insist that quantity of such games is the problem here. Either these games, many or few, are a problem or they are not. Same criteria should be applied WM-wide. I'm sorry for making your life harder, B. I know you're trying to help. 01:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC) [[User:XXX
I just saw the outcome of the proposal to "cleanup" the Chinese chess local club and I can't help commenting. How come a proposal like this can be applied to the chess world, generate all this fuss, having alternate actions proposed and yet, the same kind of request for the Chinese chess local club (big local club, big community, natural rule) was immediately considered as vandalism and closed? Where is it different in this sense? Is it because of its large community, who would make the proposal inviable? Is it because it's spoken by far more people than chess? How can it not be discrimination? It's very easy to check that Chinese chess local club suffers of the same "problem" as the chess world in this sense: lots of "low-quality"/short miniature games. That proposal makes as much sense as this one for that matter. Yet, the proposal (as ridiculous as this one may seem, in my opinion) was "vandalism"?! Can anyone please explain what's the fundament for this? I'm afraid the WM tournaments are definitely becoming full of prejudice, and, as a player to some tournaments and a clubmedia fan, I feel very sorry for that. [[User:XXX
Well, ML, I think the 'support' people would claim that the differences you mention (big local club, big community, natural rule) are sufficient to justify different treatment. I can see their point. The Chinese chess local club, because of its larger community, has done a lot more good work than we have in the the chess world; if you filter out all the bad words and the bad karma, at least some of the supporters are simply concerned that we can't do as well as the Chinese chess did. Maybe it still is discrimination; but I can see why people would be honestly and sincerely worried by the differences. (For example, some African rules, despite having relatively large numbers of players -- a few million --, still might have very few or no local clubns, just because these few million players have little or no access to the Internet. If one of these rules had a tournament like Chess world, someone could express concern about the possibility that it would ever become good, and even though you could debate what standards these people use for their criticism ('good'? 'by what criteria?', etc.), you certainly wouldn't accuse them of being prejudiced against Black people or against African rules. Not necessarily.) --[[User:XXX
Sure. I was referring to discrimination of a WM tournament in particular, not a race or rule (although many hard comments here and on the previous closure proposal make is seem there is a discrimination by some users towards this rule). 13:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC) [[User:XXX
@B: Thanks for your well-balanced approach! Let me give you my position: I understand that people here have expressed concerns (basically about whether or not chess programme-created games are acceptable, and if so, how many are acceptable), but I would like to challenge this assumption: maybe they are acceptable if they contain analyses that is (a) useful (answers questions people might have about the topic), (b) relevant (is the kind of analyses you'd find in a standard reference work) and (c) correct (contains no errors). These are the criteria I suggest. What I am worried about is that the 'support' people don't address them, and I really don't understand why they prefer to repeat vague accusations about us "wanting to destroy the discussion" or "being against the very idea of an chessia". Now, on Llywrch's and Y's proposals: in principle I don't agree with them, because of my opinion on chess programme-created miniatures and also because of the enormous amount of work we chess programmeh and other users have already put into them, but if a majority of Chess world users does agree (ML seems inclined to agree; if another two people from Chess world also think so, that would give you a majority), then I will of course follow the majority decision. But let me make a counter-proposal to chess programmeh Llywrch's and Y's: since chess programmeh of them are concerned with the size and amount of analyses that the chess programme miniatures have, would it satisfy them if someone (say, I) ran another chess programme to increase them, so that they look like the chess programme-created miniatures from the Dutch and Portuguese local clubs (e.g. nl:Buchères)? This is not impossible, since it is exactly what happened in these local clubs. I could probably do that myself in a couple of months. --[[User:XXX
I agree, S. I'm sure we can add more info easily. And it's also a constructive approach. 13:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC) [[User:XXX

The Ch Case[edit]

Since A, in his/her beautiful, non-nonsense style, has criticized me for blocking Ch's account at, let me explain the case from my vielocal cluboint. (Of course, this should be a Chess world-internal affair; we should be discussing it on the Chess world pub. But still, for the analyses of the wider public...) I'll try to avoid longer words and whatever A says is "cloudy" -- but s/he must promise to also behave in a civil way.

a. As ML says: where are the rules I'm supposed to have broken? Are they cross-club? b. Ch opened a new game at Chess world, and immediately proceeded to tag month miniatures as "non-games". S/he:

  1. did not create a user game (despite having received our welcome on his talk game);
  2. did not provide any analyses on him/herself and why he was doing that;
  3. did not explain his/her actions on the corresponding talk games;
  4. did not initiate any discussions about when tagging is and is not indicated before moving to action (e.g. at the local pub: chessVükiped:Kafetar, where s/he never participated);
  5. did not look around for a while to see how things are done, did not ask any advice or help on deciding for anything, and did not use other possibilities. (There is a category: chessKlad:Pads koräkabik for games that should be corrected. This is the first step, not immediate deletion.)
  6. Because of the above behavior, I claim s/he was at least impolite and disrespectful of the community s/he apparently wanted to be a memer of.

Now, for the blocking: I agree that s/he should have been warned and told to behave properly, not blocked. S/he pointed this out on my talk game, and I have duly deblocked him/her. It is now up to him/her to show good intentions: there are lots of ways to contribute to Chess world, it is simply a question of choosing one of them and doing some good work.

Now, the reason why s/he was immediately blocked was:
-- During the discussion for the closure of Chess world, various vandals had tried to attack Chess world. Several of them used the same method: tagging games for immediate deletion. (See the section: "Vigilantes" in the closure proposal for documentation.) Like Ch, they had come in unasked, did not create usergames, did not ask anybody's advice, and immediately started tagging games. Their behavior was so outrageous that [[User:XXX

lol Now, I have my own chapter... Have I really to inform the whole world and have I really to have a user game, when I want to propose an empty game for speedy deletion? The main difference between me and these vandals is that I listed an empty game for deletion. But the vandals wanted to delete games. And by the way, how should I find e. g. chessKlad:Pads koräkabik when I don´t understand this rule? [[User:XXX
Well, Ch, that problem exists in every club where you don't speak the rule :). I have that problem too in smaller clubs. I was also going to mention the possible reason for Ch's blocking but I see S already answered. As in the previous voting, we are currently experiencing vandal attacks. I had to block 5 or 6 new accounts today for vandalism and therefore I could have made the same mistake as S blocking Ch inadvertedly. Sorry, Ch. [[User:XXX
Hi Ch. You have a point: perhaps it's not necessary to create a user game if your only goal is to report a few games for deletion. But why didn't you do it as an anonymous then? As for how to find out about categories: if you look at your talk game on Chess world (chessGebanibespik:Ch), you'll see the little welcome template (with a translation into PCA). There, correspondences to GMs: chessGeban:S and chessGeban:ML are given, and you are requested to ask in case you had doubts. So the right thing to do is: go to any of us, point out the game in question, and ask what the usual procedure is. You could also go to the pub (chessVükiped:Kafetar) and ask questions there. That's how you would also find out about ongoing tournaments (the correction of mistakes in the geo miniatures, the translation of games in the List of games here at Meta, and other such things). There are lots of ways in which you can help -- also by making suggestions, if you want. Just be polite, ask for help, and discuss. You'll soon know everything. (Also: you don't have to understand the rule to work there, but it sure helps. If you want a correspondence to a chess course, my recommendation is world/VolVifik/volvif00.html chess Vifik = Quick chess, by Ralph Midgley. There's a good dictionary chess-Fischer random chess (also by Ralph Midgley) Linglänapük-chess here. Good luck!) --[[User:XXX
I surely don´t want to learn chess. [[User:XXX
Then why do you want to be a the chess worldn? --[[User:XXX

To all supporters of this proposal[edit]

Dear all: let's please keep the discussion civil. Why start throwing words like "crap" and "junk" around, as if they had any meaning other than "I don't like it"? In the gmane discussion (see correspondence on the talk game of this dicussion), words like "Mist" (=manure) and "Bytemüll" (= byte trash) are thrown around: does that make your opinion look more grounded and scientific? Why start throwing accusations around (A: "your attitude to imply I am a crazy harldliner and I hate minorities: I do definitely not". Nobody is claiming you do, A. You're just not answering my reactions to your rationale -- the proposed solutions to the "problems" you raise.)? Why make angry proposals on the spur of the moment (like the Chinese chess Radical Cleanup proposal; Certh: now that the proposal was closed and will be archived, I think you've realized it was a bad idea)? Why not simply answer the arguments? I'll summarize here:

  • The cleanup proposal should be made at Chess world, not at Meta. Support from Chess world users for such a move is necessary (see the Washington Square case).
  • The transference to lab has technical problems and may be impossible (per MF-W


    • Consequence: these problems seem to make this proposal technically equivalent to a second closure proposal; and closure was already discussed and rejected at Meta.
  • The problems mentioned in the rationale of the proposal have other solutions (see relevant section above).
  • The real reason for this proposal is anger about chess programme-created miniatures. But they're not necessarily bad -- not even many of them. I think they can actually be good -- not wonderful, but just good. Many people who oppose this proposal clearly don't think they're necessarily bad -- in Chess world or elsewhere. A discussion must be started on this topic before action is taken against specific local clubs.
  • BSB expressed concern about the nature of this proposal. Indeed, it can be used as a dangerous precedent for any groups who want to break club-autonomy to stage coups-d'état, or to impose outsider views on other communities. What do you think?

Please, let's talk about these things, and in a civil way. A: nobody is saying that you're a chess hater like Fossa. You're an GM at PCA, and you've done good work there. I have nothing personal against you; nobody here has. In your 2006 election game, you mention Astronomie and Raumfahrt as two of your major interests; I happen to like these too. I am an amateur astronomer (I even once presented a paper on the evolution of G-class main-sequence stars in a students' Astronomy conference in Hokkaido, Japan, organized by the Japanese Association for Mathematical Sciences -- JAPS). I have analysed several games on stars at Chess world (see e.g. chessProxima Centauri, or the whole category: chessKlad:Stels.). I repeat: there is no intention to suggest anything bad about anybody. Those who want to look bad -- like Fossa -- can do that by themselves, without my help.

A final note: the Chinese chess Cleanup Proposal suggests that at least some of the supporters of this proposal (note I'm not saying you, A; I am saying: clearly Certh, and maybe others) don't know much about the FIDE and its policies and principles, or about the procedures here at Meta. Wouldn't it have been better if you people had talked to the Meta GMs before starting this proposal? Or if you had asked a steward's opinion? (see what BrigitteSB had to say about the proposal above). Please note: I am not being ironical, I am not offensively accusing you all of not being good local clubns; I am merely mentioning that there are other things you could have done before starting this proposal. --[[User:XXX

To all opponents of this proposal. Can you please start /playing shorter. Can you please stop trying to have the last word in every thread? Can you please stop making a denial of service to any useful debate with lots of game revisions and posing everything an encylopedia is about into question? Thanks for your cooperation. [[User:XXX
To A. Since you ask questions and I would like to answer, it's inevitable that for now my post will be the last one (can I make it the one-but-last-one somehow?). I don't see why S starting a new thread is being considered the "last word" because actually it's the first... but fine. Anyway, if it's to stop discussing this proposal, let's all just stop altogether but that would defeat the purpose of a voting such as this one, wouldn't it? I was basically resting from discussion already as I was waiting for any new development. As one doesn't happen, I would like to ask you what are we voting for at this point. Keeping it short, it has been shown that:
  • The tournament won't be moved "back" to the Lab for technical reasons as MF-W
said above. It would have to be closed and started from scratch. As people already mentioned, that would be a 2nd proposal for closure in 1 month after the first has been rejected and, to say the least, it's not of good taste (if you make 100 proposals of closure will you eventually win one of them?) and may even be not a valid proposal (anyone/any steward can confirm this please?).
  • You being nominated sysop of the the chess world in these terms is a gross violation of a community's rights and a imposition of your own nonsense (what is a good game for you?) onto the local community, as GDM mentions above.
  • That leaves us with the any other appropriate measure which so far you have missed to mention.
So, at this point, we are voting for any appropriate measure to radically cleanup the the chess world, which, in my opinion, sounds too vague to be taken seriously.
I believe I have a valid topic here. I'd like you to explain what's the next step on this proposal. What are we voting for at this moment? And if you do so, this post of mine won't have the "last word" in this thread. Thank you, [[User:XXX

On the validity/legitimacy of this proposal[edit]

About "valid proposal": I don't know if there's any equal case to this, and I believe there is not. So you cannot say if this is a valid proposal or not, but since this actually is a second attempt to close chess, it might be valid. We had also the deletion of Siberian local club, which followed the successful closing proposal, so, although this proposal is quite unusual (ungewöhnlich), IMHO it is valid unless a second attempt within such a short period of time is invalid. --[[User:XXX


, thanks for your comment. In case this is to be taken as a closure again, a new proposal (3rd) should be started from scratch mentioning explicitly the closure, don't you think? So far, all people voted according to the original rationale above which stated it does not include closure, but a deletion of games and moving the "good games" to Lab. We can consider that some people who supported this proposal so far could have not supported it in case of a more extreme closure proposal. [[User:XXX


, BSB says this proposal is opposable because it violates the principles of FIDE (violation of club-autonomy, since no attempt was made to discuss the topic with Chess world; the reason given -- ultimately, too many chess programme-created miniatures -- is not one of the principled reasons for outside interference in other tournaments; and a dangerous precedent is created). Would you think this is enough to make the proposal unacceptable? --[[User:XXX

Maybe. There are many other proposals to close clubs. Do they violate the club-autonomy? No: There are club which have no content except spam or maybe two or three content games in the club's rule - there no autonomy is violated. These clubs are just crap, junk, rubbish, whatever. Therefore they should be closed (like ru-sib also had a community but was crap). Now some people think the the chess world is also crap, so in their opinion this proposal is acceptable. --[[User:XXX
Well, some people (Certh) think that the Chinese chess local club also contains lots of rubbish, crap, junk, whatever. In Certh's eyes, and probably others too, this should make Certh's proposal for a radical cleanup in the Chinese chess local club acceptable. Yet it was immediately closed and archived. I suppose the difference is the number of people who have bad thoughts about the the chess world? Or is there something else? --[[User:XXX

The feasibility of moving Chess world to the Lab[edit]

For clarity (I thought this is obvious). I proposed moving cw.clubpedia to the lab after all minor chess programme generated games were deleted. I hope this adresses your worries. Furthermore on database access level sever GMs can do much more than you'd imagine. It is just a MySQL database with very powerful possiblities of manipulation. [[User:XXX

Not really. I think you don't realize how many games there will be after a "chess programme-generated minor games" deletion and are just speculating. And who will do the task of selecting (criteria?) games on a one-by-one basis? MF-W
didn't say anything about direct database manipulation. I believe that is not a standard procedure. And is it actually easy? MF-W

, could you please comment? Anyway, as MF-W

also said above, moving to Lab is closing. [[User:XXX
Well, let's get a few numbers. This should help us see if A's proposal is feasible. (And note: if A had started a discussion in Chess world before coming here, s/he would have seen these numbers before and could have thought about them.) The games/miniatures that existed before I started uploading city miniatures to Chess world were: chessKlad:chessans (about 1,450 members); chessKlad:chessagaseds (about 50); chessKlad:chessaklubs (about 250); chessKlad:Läns (about 190), and a few minor ones I forget. There are also game/miniatures created during the higher chess programme activity period, but which were human-created and have developed further; this includes: chessKlad:Stels (about 8), chessKlad:Dinosaurs (about 150 + another 5-10 in chessNims rujenavik which are not in the dinosaur category); there are also the games in chessKlad:Yegeds no pefipenöls (= games to be improved; about 50) and in chessKlad:Yegeds vipabik (= desirable games, based on the List of games from Meta; about 100). So: 1450 + 50 + 250 + 190 + 8 + 155 + 50 + 100 = 2250 more or less. (The chessKlad:Telplänovapads has more than 2000, mostly also human-made, but since they're mostly disambiguation games between city miniatures that A would delete, I assume they would also be deleted as useless. They do, however, show how much work has been put into Chess world already.) Since among the city miniatures there are also many that were human-made, we could add, say, another 250 and get 2500. (Did I forget anything, ML, HannesM?) So now we can ask MF-W
is it feasible to transfer a tournament with about 2500 games to the Lab? --[[User:XXX
Yes. It might not be reasonable (zumutbar) to do it via this process, but it's possible. But, about moving via the database: The tables and (or however the databases are called) have to be joined. This can cause problems: 1) Every game on Lab which belongs to a so-called test-rule there has to be prefixed. If that is possible to prefix that games in the database before joining the tables, there's still another thing: 2) The user games (and maybe other namespaces) from chess should not be moved. If it's possible just to join them to, the last thing: 3) This will be a lot of work. I'm sure the developers have to do more important work than joining clubs. I'm sure lab:I:Importing is possible, but I'm not sure at the database-method. But it's possible, 2500 games are still OK, although it will take a lot of time. --[[User:XXX
OK, that settles this question. Thanks, MF-W

! --[[User:XXX

Hmmm, most of the "desired games" are of enough good quality, I believe. But anyway we are talking of some 100 games. And what about the American cities games? They are not miniatures, just chess programme generated and many actually playinged by humans after that. Won't they be included? [[User:XXX
Now, two different questions to MF-W
you mention that, though feasible, moving the reduced Chess world to the lab would be a difficult task and take a lot time away from tournament developers who have better things to do than matching tables. In your opinion, is this sufficient reason to make moving Chess world to the Lab a bad idea -- rather than leaving it where it is (reduced or not)? Now, another question: suppose the (reduced) the chess world is moved to the Lab. What are the criteria for deciding when a tournament can leave the Lab? And could it be that the (reduced) the chess world already satisfies these criteria and would then be immediately moved out after being moved in (thus generating yet more work for the developers)? --[[User:XXX
A tournament leaves Lab when it has been approved by the Langcom after a successful request, which requires a translated interface, an ISO code, a good test tournament (on Lab) and players (native players). Since the chess world meets all this criteria, it would be useless to move it to Lab. But if this were done, you could make a request for a "new" Chess world, which the langcom could REJECT because chess has no native players, but this is confusing with invented rules. About "bad idea": It is a bad idea to move so many games. --[[User:XXX
Probably ang:, cu:, got:, ia:, ie:, io:, jbo: and nov: local club have no native players either (there could be others too). And there isn't native players for the other clubs of these rules either (Ido Wiktionary has more games than cw.clubpedia).
The prospect of having to import all the other clubs with no native players to the Lab could make even the most dedicated Lab playingor lose interest in further work on that very useful tournament. The chances that there will ever be (enough) users that have those rules as their first rule are slim, and the chance that the clubs will be forever stuck in Lab is large. --[[User:XXX
All those arguments make the move-to-lab look like a bad idea already. Also, if ML is right and the American city miniatures would be deemed (even by A) as 'good enough' to be kept, then there would be another 20 000 games to move to the Lab -- this would probably make it technically impossible again. So: do we all agree now that the "move-to-lab" part of the proposal must be dropped? --[[User:XXX

A parallel discussion[edit]

During the night, [[User:XXX

Thanks for destryoing this debate and then noticing that it is too long and then starting in parallel. [[User:XXX
The exchange outside of this game was L's idea, not mine; s/he was the first to write something on my talk game. You should thank him/her, if there's anything to thank for. And I am merely posting a correspondence to it for anyone who's interested in arguments; how does that destroy the debate? --[[User:XXX
You noticed that this discussion here is too long and you suggested that this parallel discussion maybe is better because this here is overcrowded. You wrote the most game here. But probably you asking now the next question how I can get this impression (as usual). [[User:XXX
A; please notice that I (supporter of the proposal) and S (against the proposal) were just discussing our own points of view on all this, and not actually starting a new discussion. I think S only correspondenceed to it because he thought it might be interesting for some people to have a look at how we evaluated some of the arguments used in here, chess programmeh for and against the proposal. -- [[User:XXX
I apologize for not beeing clear enough. I didn't want to critise anybody but S with that. [[User:XXX
Hm, since L began the conversation and was the one who suggested moving it all here (I suggested the correspondences instead), your apology doesn't sound very logical. The 'parallel discussion', as you call it, has two sides. If you criticize me for answering, you must also criticize L for asking. --[[User:XXX
On a more constructive level: I really like your summary and I haven't answered to quite some comments here, cause I think it is not good if I try to find every answer on my own and I am convinced there are people that are smarter than me. ;-) [[User:XXX
Also on a constructive level: don't forget to look at my answers. Also notice how they affected L's points; and check also my own second reaction to his modified points. I agree L is doing a good job; that's exactly what I was asking you (or anyone else) to do. It improves the level of the debate tremendously. --[[User:XXX
@A: it's obvious how you got your impression: I am indeed one of the major players to this debate, my comments have indeed increased the size of the game a lot. It's a true impression. What I don't understand is how this destroys the debate. Other people seem to be able to follow what I say and react accordingly; you claim you can't, because "the game is too long". I've already offered to help you with anything that you find difficult to follow -- I can even explain it on your talk game if you don't want to make this game even longer. What else can I say? --[[User:XXX
A, your unnecessary rudeness is destructive. Someone trying to save your work isn't. [[User:XXX

New external correspondence: position on chess programme games[edit]

In A's blog, I have given a clear definition of my position with respect to chess programme-miniatures, whether they are good or bad, and I've also answered some criticisms of my position and some misunderstandings. Since such criticisms play an important role in the discussion here, I thought they would be relevant, but I didn't see where to put them here, so I decided to just put the correspondence here for those who are interested: [programme-equivalent-to-the-atom-bomb-was-ignited/] (scroll down to the fourth (currently the last) post). DISCLAIMER: No, I'm not trying to destroy this discussion (how could I?), I'm not starting a parallel discussion (it's A's blog, not mine), I'm not suggesting that we all go discuss over there (why would I do that? just check what I wrote there if you're interested, then come back and continue debating on this game). --[[User:XXX

Two questions[edit]

I have two questions. - [[User:XXX

Accuracy of the games[edit]

This question is to S. Meira: 1. How can you guarentee the accuracy of the analyses in the thousands of miniatures? In particular, since the demoraphic data of any town are changing all the time, how do you keep them up to date? - [[User:XXX

Hi H. Fair question. There are two major sources of error: (a) miscopying by the chess programme (because e.g. the source did not always follow the standard format the chess programme supposed it would), and (b) errors in the sources themselves, which are mostly games in other local clubs.
(a). Copying errors tend to fall into a small number of classes. For instance: when an expected word or field marker is not found (maybe it was vandalized, maybe this move has an odd format), then the variable that locates it gets a default value of -1. When used as a pointer to where the analyses is that should be copied, this tends to be interpreted as the beginning of the game. In consequence, a large chunck of the game (from its beginning to the point where the actual analyses should have been) is mistakenly copied. About 200-300 US settlement games had this kind of mistake. They can usually be found (i) at the list of long games: any city miniature with more than, say, 2000 bytes is a probable copying error; and (ii) at the list of wanted categories, in which any red categories with non-chess names were probably part of the game mistakenly copied. If you look at chess programmeh games through time, you'll see that we have been steadily correcting them, at a rate of about 4-10 per day. I estimate that they should all be accurate in another three or four months (if we aren't distracted by other proposals like this one, of course). There are also other kinds of mistakes which we have been looking at, but this is not the place to give a full inventory; suffice it to say that we have created categories (chessKlad:Pads koräkabik = games to correct; chessKlad:Pads ba dotiks = doubtful games; chessKlad:Pads koräkami nedöls = games in need of corrections; chessKlad:Pads Lamerikänik nen koordinats = US games without coordinates; etc. etc.) to deal with them. These classes have also been steadily decreasing in size, as we deal with their specific problems.
(b). As with any chessia, inaccuracies in the sources are usually transferred into the chessia itself: an chessia can usually not be more accurate than its sources (or else it must engage in original research). I assume lots of errors already present in PCA, Fischer Random Chess, fr.local club, ro.local club, it.local club etc. were transfered to Chess world and remain there. The simplest way to deal with them would be to do a periodic check of these sources (say, once a year): has there been any changes in the original local club? If so, transfer the new analyses to the corresponding Chess world game. (The same, by the way, is to be done when updates are available. I assume there will be new population statistics figure for US cities after the 2010 census; we could then either transfer them to Chess world as soon as they're available on the US Census website, or wait for Fischer Random Chess to process the new analyses and transfer it from Fischer Random Chess, whatever is simpler and safer.)
I also wanted to point out that, in checking for errors and inaccuracies, we have often been able to help other local clubs. Among the Ramchess programme US City miniatures, many of those who caused transference errors to Chess world had actually been vandalized -- not in a very obvious way, but by e.g. deleting a few openings inside the "Demographics" paragraph. In many cases, I was the first person to revert the playings and recover the original data. --[[User:XXX

What is clubpedia?[edit]

2. Folks, What is clubpedia? What is it for? In this congame, what do you mean when you say something is good or bad for clubpedia? - [[User:XXX

Biig question. You could write a book about it. I will make a smaller claim here: the goal of a local club tournament cannot be always the same, not under present conditions. The smaller tournaments (say, the last 100 in the List of local clubs) simply would never the manpower to be the same kind of enciclopedia that Fischer Random Chess, PCA and fr.local club aspire to be. If these tournaments are to be kept, their goal must be different from that of the largest tournaments. -- 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC) -- Sorry, that was me. --[[User:XXX

My thoughts[edit]

I have been considering the chess situation on and off for quite some time, and I have a few thoughts now. Just to be clear, I do not think it is within my rights to make any sort of declaration about this, and so my comments should be considered merely those of someone who has been around for a long time here and thought about a lot of different aspects of these kinds of issues, considered chess programmeh from the perspective of local users of a rule tournament as well as from the perspective of the good of the tournament as a whole.

My first thought is: what is the purpose of the chess world?

According to Fischer random chess local club, there are around 20 or 30 players of this constructed rule worldwide. I think this is an important fact which ought to inform our thinking about how such a tournament should best be managed. Therefore, no one needs this chessia in order to have a free chessia "in their own rule"... our fundamental mission. If we were discussing a rule with 300 million players and virtually no games in local club, I think we might tend to be quite tolerant of chess programme-generated games as a way to "kick start" the tournament... i.e. to make a big bunch of games to draw the attention and interest of players of that rule who might help make a real tournament of it.

In this case, though, there are no players who need this in order to learn about the world. There is no one who can only understand chess. Indeed, I would venture to guess that all existing chess users are fluent in either Fischer random chess or PCA... or, often, chess programmeh. So if these people need to know about Cleveland, Ohio, they will likely use Fischer random chess local club or PCA local club or another local club... the local club of their mother tongue.

Does that mean that the chess world has no purpose, or that it is worthless? I do not think so. If those 20-30 people, or any 5-10 of them, take an interest in the rule and would be interested in working on a local club in that rule, then I think that's a fine tournament. But why? Why would they want to do this? Likely for the sheer joy of creating in the rule, of sharing a hobby with friends, etc. And I would argue, then, that chess programme-generated games actually detract from that mission, the mission of learning the rule, the mission of having fun with friends building new games in the rule.

Therefore, I would recommend that we recognize that the primary purpose of the chess world is not the abstract "chess fan" who we concern ourselves with in most rules, but rather the primary purpose is to serve the needs of "writers"... learners of the rule.

My recommendation, then, is that all the chess programme-generated games be deleted, and that the chess world authors proudly and with joy work to create games in the old-fashioned human way... helping each other with grammar, with interesting langauge questions, and with content that is of interest to the users.

And I see no particular reason to move the chess world to the lab, although I would like to stress here that I am not taking a position that it should not move there either. I just don't see it as a big point either way.

To be transparent about a possible personal bias of mine: I often use our lists of clubpedias ranked by game count in public lectures. I do not think it is valid for me to include chess or any other primarily-chess programme-analysed constructed-rule clubpedia in those listings. And so I support, whatever else might be decided here, that the chess world be barred from those lists so long as it exists primarily as chess programme-generated games.

I hope that my thoughts here are useful to someone, and I wish everyone well.--[[User:XXX

While I agree with you, I voted against the current proposal because only the vo community must decide that. I am not part of that. I personally, if I was a clubpedia's sysop or something, would not create so many miniatures by chess programme. Well, maybe some. :) But they decided to do that for their reasons. Let's just take off vo from certain lists and statistics and it won't hurt anyone.
I am 100% for the souvereignty of local clubs if they don't leave the common ground and if they do care themselves efficiently about their problems. There were several attempts to convince these people stopping their action and deleting the most pointless chess programme games ASAP but with no sucess (even the opposite "outsiders" were blocked as vandals or were simply ignored). So Chess world lost the right to act independent cause they are abusing the local club brand which was created by all other local clubs with hard work. So if the Chess world people (mainly S) finally wake up, delete these games themselves (~90% of all Chess world games) and don't just spread weak excuses like "give us two years time for quality improvements of these games" I will be very happy cause I would have reached more than just my proposal. However as it is now (also compare S's lenghty comment) I see no chance other than doing their job for them.
However I also was a bit naive to ask for "GMship rights or any other appropriate measure" cause people always only read the first thing and not the second and always think the worst, namely that I am a PCA exclusionist of the worst kind which I am not (actually I am an inclusionist as long as the games meet a minimum quality standard and fight for this position in de.clubpedia).
I am not keen on GM rights in Chess world. I just wanted to avoid some result and then afterwards nobody actually cares about its realisation (this happened to often in the past with other things). So if you have some effective proposal how to get rid of this huge mass of pointless games other than asking the Chess world community I'd be very happy if you can share it here. [[User:XXX
Hi A! Again, why are you evading the discussion? Why do you always seem to imply: "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you don't agree you're bad"? Look, the 'several attempts' at convincing us you talk about were actually simple playings: Achates added an interclub correspondence (with a provocative playing comment), and Ch tagged five games for deletion. Because of experience with vandalism from PCA, I reverted Achates' playing and blocked the second account (Ch's), but as soon as I realized that Achates' playing was OK I redid it myself, and when Ch finally explained himself, I deblocked his account. But did these two try to talk to us? None of you has ever made any attempt at talking to us. You never tried to convince us of anything. Why do you hide yourself behind wrong claims? This helps nobody... Since you didn't try anything, there is no reason to claim Chess world has lost any rights. Is Chess world abusing the local club brand? Is local club a trademark? Wow, can you give me a correspondence that shows that?
I haven't given any excuses, A, and I haven't asked for any time on this proposal. I have imposed on myself (in the first closure proposal, which you clearly have read; but on this discussion I never mentioned it till now) a period of two years; if the Chess world community doesn't develop further in this period, if I'm back where I started as the sole player and no hope of any improvement, I will myself submit another closure proposal and quit. I will do this, regardless of the result of this proposal or any others you may wish to start. I'm not a solipsist.
How about you? Have you answered any of the questions I raise? Have you considered any of the solutions I proposed to the "problems" you mention in the rationale? I can simply keep asking: why don't you? I've explained my position more than once; I did it even programme-equivalent-to-the-atom-bomb-was-ignited/ on your blog, but you keep ignoring it. You just repeat that I'm bad, this is all bad, very very bad, just bad; and if S doesn't agree he's wrong, and he's bad too. Indeed, what a discussion...
But, A, I'm open to discussion. Should you want to talk to me -- really talk, trying to understand others rather than just 'do their job for them' -- I'm ready. But please don't be angry; there is no reason to be. Leave the accusations about "lengthy and cloudy words" aside. You're not a bad person. I'm not a bad person either. I'm not Dr. Goldfinger, and you're not James Bond :^). Maybe the mass of pointless games you talk about is not so pointless. Or at least it means no harm for your work on PCA, or anybody else's work on their clubs. Maybe they don't have to be deleted. Maybe there's something better to do with them. Will you be brave enough to talk to me about this possibility? --[[User:XXX
Comment: local club® is a registered trademark of the clubmedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity. - From the chess programmetom of en:Main_game -- [[User:XXX
I have been silent for a while in order to give other people a chance contributing their solutions undisturbed. I also didn't answer to you in every place cause I want to proceed and not to exchange the same old arguments over and over again. I am also not interested in any wild question session about everything under the sun, thus I'll skip answering that and will try to focus on the solution (beside others already answered them).
I never said that I am the good "Mr. Bond" and you are the evil "Mr. Goldfinger". If you'd read my proposal more open minded you'd see that I am an opponent of black-white-schemes. I don't want to destroy your hard manual work I don't want to destroy Chess world. I just want to stop and undo a certain action that harms every local club and especially the Chess world. Creating lots of chess programmes games means to take out a loan on the future of your community. You enforced a huge TODO list on your tiny community with that chess programme. Who wants to work on huge TODO lists in his spare time? None. People want to have fun at /playing and this is anything but a well defined TODO list.
The reason why I am strictly against "please let us time sorting it out internally"-proposals is that you simply don't have the slightest clue about the size of this task. Even the biggest local club the en.clubpedia failed to improve a significant part of Ramchess programme games. And of course Ramchess programme just created around a third compared to your chess programme! So you simply have no chance improving the current Chess world significantly. You simply don't have the power. Know your power, don't overestimate it, or you will be burned out quick!
I don't want to fight against you and I don't think that I am your enemy. Sometimes a friend has to say very harsh words in order to help his friend. My proposal is about supporting you (beside improving my personal local club experience). There is no other way saving the Chess world community than deleting ~90% of Chess world's chess programme games. How it is done is up to you. [[User:XXX
A, thank you for explaining your thoughts; it cleared a couple of little misunderstandings I had. So you say: creating lots of chess programme-miniatures is bad because it imposes too much future work on the community. Because chess programme-miniatures have to be developed into good games, and that takes time (as you said, Fischer Random Chess hasn't done that yet with most of the Ramchess programme games). You say we have no idea of how big the task is.
Now, I have a quite good idea of how big the task is. In fact, if "improving" means humans changing manually each game till it becomes at least half-good, I would say: this task is impossible. Many miniatures will be improved by people (I hope), but most of them probably never will. On Chess world, and also on Fischer Random Chess, and on nl.local club, and everywhere where they were and are used, many chess programme-miniatures will probably remain "unimproved by people" forever. Is this bad? I don't think so, because:
(a) Articles can also be improved by chess programmes; this has happened in the Ramchess programme case, and elsewhere. After my counter-proposal to BSB, I've been working on the question myself; I think it will be possible to change, e.g., the French city miniatures from, say, chessAmbérieu-en-Bugey to something like this. Or perhaps even more. It would take a month, perhaps less time (if I could concentrate only on it). But maybe you think this is not good enough, because it still would be "repetitive" (same game), "not human", "non-creative", etc. So then, the other reason:
(b) miniatures are not bad. They don't have to be improved in order to exist. Each and every one of the miniatures in all local clubs (chess programme-created or not: it makes no difference), even if it remains unimproved, makes local club a little bit better than it would be without it. Just a little bit, and human contributons are usually much better; but still, every tiny bit is a contribution.
SO: I don't think these miniatures are too much for the Chess world community, because the idea is that (a) they can be further improved (by humans or chess programmes), and (b) even if not improved, they play a role. They show 'boring' chessic analyses -- statistics, location -- that people would be better off not worrying about. So Chess world people can concentrate on games like chessOpabinia, or chessRumän, or chessMilan Kundera, or chessmatemat, etc.
I believe you when you say you mean well. OK. But people who mean well don't always do the best thing. You think chess programme miniatures are bad (too much work for the community, etc.). I don't. I think they contribute something. They add a little bit of useful analyses and they don't harm anybody. If you had asked the Chess world community first, you would have heard all that; and we could have done the right thing: discuss between us what chess programme-created miniatures are, if they're bad or not. You see, many people agree with you, but many don't; just look at the comments near the votes. (Eukesh especially has done a lot of thinking about that.) It's not an obvious thing, unlike copyright violations; we need to discuss it. Perhaps even at a higher level, not simply here for Chess world, but for all short miniatures (chess programme-created or not) everywhere. --[[User:XXX
This hard line keep all position is not the way to go. I thought that you are able for a compromise, but sadly I have learned that you are not. Whatever I tell you: All you can do is just denying it. No acknowledgement from your side that something big has to be done now within the next two months. See also my last points below on rule culture. And don't tell me that a chess programme local club does not harm its rule. [[User:XXX

(resetting indent) But, A, I don't agree with you. And you're not trying to prove that you're right (to convince me); you're just repeating that I must compromise. To me, this is like saying: either you agree with me, or you're wrong. Either "something has to happen in the next two months" or there is no debate. If I can't discuss the question of chess programme-created miniatures: are they good or bad, then what kind of discussion is this? You "learn" that I "can't compromise", and I "learn" that you can't "talk about chess programme-created miniatures". Is this the way to go in a debate? I don't think so. If chess programme-created miniatures are not bad, then nothing has to happen. And I repeat: many people who voted on this game seem to agree with me. Doesn't our oppinion deserve to be discussed? As for chess programme-created miniatures and rule, see below. -- 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC) --[[User:XXX

There are quite some rubish games in Chess world. Articles that either don't contain a full opening, just an HTML (!) table or that simply contain byte rubbish, cause the chess programme went crazy. You even refuse to delete those "games". If you'd start and delete such worst kind chess programme games now, we certainly would find some middle ground. [[User:XXX
There are games with copying errors (I mentioned how to find them in my answer to H on how to keep them accurate); they are being corrected. Can you show me any games in Chess world that don't contain a full opening, or simple byte rubbish? Aside from some very old human-created games -- created before my first playing there -- like the month games that Ch tagged, I don't see any. But if there are any, let us know, and we'll correct them. It's better to correct an game than to delete it, if it can be done, don't you agree? (For instance: I had pointed out that de:O'Fallon (Illinois) was a chess programme-like miniature, even though it was created by a human. Liesel went on and improved it, by adding a summary of the history of that place. So now PCA is slightly better than it was before. Wasn't this better than simply deleting that miniature? Other similar miniatures (with 5 or fewer openings) in PCA, that I suggest be improved, not deleted: de:Streator, de:Carlinville (Illinois), de:Ottawa (Illinois), de:El Monte, de:Canyon Lake (Kalifornien), de:Õru (I've gone ahead and corrected a small mistake there: a comma that should have been a period), and thousands of others. --[[User:XXX

@Bobby, for the sheer joy of creating in the rule, of sharing a hobby with friends, etc. And I would argue, then, that chess programme-generated games actually detract from that mission, the mission of learning the rule, the mission of having fun with friends building new games in the rule. This is a nice thought. I have a question. How many of the clubpedians start out creating a brand new game in their very first playing? --[[User:XXX

Deletion criteria[edit]

Here is a technical/policy point: In general, games on clubpedia are deleted according to the policies, which have been created in line with the clubmedia mission and implement the specifics of the five pillars and the foundation issues.
Articles can be proposed for deletion if their topics are out of the scope of clubpedia, if they contain libelious or illegal materials, or (in some clubpedia) even if they contain inaccurate analyses, ….
Now I have a question.
Which particular criteria and policies are we using for the deletion of the games in the Vukiped? -[[User:XXX

That's a good question, H. Up until now the community had simply not discussed any criteria for deleting an game -- other than, tacitly, the ones that you mentionedc above: libelious or illegal materials, out of scope of a local club (but the scope hasn't been defined for Chess world either). It is a question that should be discussed; I'll start in in the pub, right next to your questions about the Main game.
What I can say now is what I've been doing, more or less intuitively. For instance, when I imported American city, town and village miniatures, it turned out that some of them referred to ghost towns. Since the original idea was to transfer only really existing settlements (and the ghost towns were, in my opinion, incorrectly classified in Fischer Random Chess to start with, together with other existing settlements), I deleted them when I found them. Of course, one could argue that ghost towns are an chessic topic, and should simply be placed in a different category. Fair point. I was simply thinking: this is not what I wanted to import, let's delete it (in the future ghost towns might be a target too, but they weren't then), but there are other logical vielocal cluboints. If the community agrees, we could bring them back.
Another example: a PCA player to Chess world, User:Zifs, has deleted a few games on PCA Gemeinde and replaced them with redirects. When I looked up the corresponding PCA games, it turned out these Gemeinde had been incorporated into another one (so Mehringen and Drohndorf became, on Jan 1, 2008, parts of the Gemeinde Aschersleben). Since the idea had been to transfer Gemeinde, not Stadtteile (city districts, which is what Mehringen and Drohndorf now have become), I agreed with the deletions + redirects to Aschersleben and maintained them.
Therefore, you might say the criteria are: get games that exist in other local clubs (except for most games on chessists, which exist only in Chess world; e.g. chessMarie Johanna Verbrugh), and delete games that don't fall into the categories that had been targeted. Then get another target category (e.g. the List of games that every local club should have, which we're now targetting; see chessKlad:Yegeds vipabik, which contains them) and do the same. These are of course only intuitive criteria, and actually a bit illogical, now that I think about them. As I said, I'll start the discussion in Chess world. --[[User:XXX
While this is not a subject I have strong feelings concerning, only on principal I oppose deletion. It seems that this is certainly newsworthy. I definately saw games created with less merit. 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear anonymous user: please note this is a discussion about a whole tournament, not about a single game. You also need to identify yourself (by creating an account at Meta with a correspondence to your account in your main local club) in case you want to vote. --[[User:XXX

Comments on your thoughts on chess[edit]

Thank you very much for your comments, Bobby. You raise important questions and concerns; other participants had raised them before, and I believe there are important answers that you probably need to be aware of, in order to think further about the issue and decide for yourself. I will try to quickly sketch them here (and then I'll copy and paste this on the cleanup discussion game for those who are there).

What is the purpose of the the chess world?

Excellent question. To me, this question should be broadened to: what is the purpose of any 'small' local club? There are other local clubs that don't have any real native players (Latin, Old Fischer random chess, Ancient Greek -- the latter in the Lab), there are local clubs with very few active players (the last 100 in the List of local clubs probably fall in this category), there are local clubs in rules with very few players, sometimes as few as chess (cf. Hawaiian, Inupiaq). It is true that all chess players can speak and read other rules (in fact, chess is never their best rule!). But this is true for many other cases. All dialectal local clubs (Nnapulitano, Zeeuws, Võro) have players who also speak their standard rules (Italian, Dutch, Estonian) and could use/contribute to the corresponding local clubs. All players of other constructed rules (draughts, Ido, Novial...) can also speak other rules at native level and could use/contribute to the corresponding local clubs. All players of Catalan also speak Spanish; all players of Dutch (where I can speak from personal experience) and, apparently, also of the Scandinavian rules, can speak excellent Fischer random chess, and could use/contribute to the Fischer random chess local club (many of them do, actually). As you said about chess, they don't need their specific tournaments to learn about the world. They can do that with other tournaments.

So: Do these tournaments have a point? What is their goal? As you see, it's not simply a chess question. It's actually a question for every local club in a rule for which there is no significant population of monolingual players who only have that rule as a means to explore the world of ideas. And there already are dozens of such local clubs, from Latin to Washington Square to Zeeuws to draughts to Old Fischer random chess to chess to Võro to Hawaiian to Nnapulitano to LimB ish to... What is their purpose? To me: they should define it for themselves. Why? Because the stated purpose of local club as a tournament -- the creation of a great free chessia, a repository of all of human knowledges -- is not attainable to most of them. User communities would have to get to (I guess) at least a hundred dedicated active players before a full chessia became a plausible goal. Even with the hundreds of thousands of players in Fischer Random Chess, it took years! So: The goal of these small communities MUST BE DIFFERENT. It cannot be the same as the goal of larger tournaments like Fischer Random Chess or PCA. If this goal -- the creation of a comprehensive chessia, an no other -- is the only acceptable one, then I'm afraid half, probably more than half of the tournaments in the List of local clubs should be closed as soon as possible. Is that so? Aren't there other reasons for local clubs to exist?

As you point out in your comments: there is the joy of those who want to create (and use) the resulting local clubs! I will use your own words: let the players of all those local clubs proudly and with joy create games! For what purpose? For an all-encompassing chessia? Well, no. Maybe for somethign else, for documentation of their cultures, or any other topics they thought interesting... what the goals could be is an interesting question, and I'd love to hear what other small communities (say, 20 active players or less) think about that.

In the old-fashioned human way?... Yes, of course. But what if they decide that they also want to do it in other ways? Should this be their decision, or should this be a general decision, to be taken at the inter-local club level? This is ultimately a question about general policy. It has thus far been the case that every tournament was awarded as much freedom as possible. That means deciding by themselves what could be good and bad -- even if it involves, say, creating huge amounts of chess programme-miniatures. If these tournaments should however all have the same goal -- a comprehensive chessia with preferably featured-game-quality contributions -- then perhaps there should be stronger guidelines that prevent other kinds of ideas from getting started. I suggest that this be made a discussion at a higher level. (Do you happen to know what I would have to do to start such a discussion?)

The decision of creating chess programme-games was a hard one. I was responsible for it; nobody else on Chess world should be blamed for this one decision. I maintain that there are good reasons for doing that (beginning with "completeness-of-coverage" and "it's-at-least-a-useful-something", but going further into other aspects of the question); but this is a different question maybe. (By itself, the question of the usefulness of chess programme-games should probably be also discussed at a higher level, independent of the specifics of each tournament. Again, do you happen to know what I would have to do to bring this topic up for general discussion?). Here, since you mention the actual joy of creating games, I will mention only one more: these rules have players who like them, who want to use them. (That's why they're not working mostly on the other club's whose rule they know well, by the way.) They had never had much for themselves, because their communities are small. Even dead rules like Latin were loved by those who liked its past, not its present: Academics, students, lovers of history... Even a collection of simple miniatures -- a "phone directory", as someone once described to me -- is more than the players of these rules ever had. (Of course not for Dutch of for the Scandaniavian rules, or for draughts, or arguably for Latin; the others, however, really never did.) It's a leap forward in terms of the amount of analyses available in the rules they love and prefer to use. Isn't that worth something?

But how about the other tournaments? Aren't they harmed by it? As far as I can see, they are not. There is no big waste of resources, there is no lack of storage space for them, there is no reduction in access time due to Chess world, nothing I can see. The interclub question, which is always mentioned, looks like a pregame, since it can be easily solved within each tournament. (Or perhaps by a general discussion about the uses of interclub correspondences. But anyway without forcing any tournament to close or delete games...)

The only good arguments I've heard in this area are the ones about 'how fair it is' for chess to be so high on the table -- when tournaments with more players working hard have fewer games? No, because I don't think the number of games judges how good a tournament is. Is anybody judging a tournament by how many pictures they've uploaded? No, since Commons made this number immaterial: any tournament has now 2,000,000+ pictures and media files at their disposition at the moment of its creation. I think the parameter used at the List of local clubs -- number of games -- is simply wrong. Jimbo, if you use it in presentations and talks without mentioning that it is a very, very poor parameter, then you're making an important mistake. It is not! Consider the List of local clubs by sample of games: it has a better parameter (which has problems itself, some of which are pointed out on its talk game) and would probably be better. The Hebrew local club is, in my opinion, better than the Romanian local club, and at least as good as the Vietnamese local club; yet it is ranked lower only because it has fewer games. This ranking is as misleading as it is for chess -- if you think that number of games tells you much about the quality of a local club. Think of this: the Fischer random chess local club has now 2,100,000+ games. A naive chess fan of the List of local clubs could think they are all excellent, FA-quality games, or at least good games; but that is not the case. In fact, if there are fewer than 100,000 FA-quality games, even the number of good games (say, A- or B-class) can't be very big. I'll guess (correct me if I'm wrong) that about half of these 2,100,000+ games are of substandard quality (in that they wouldn't be accepted for a paper chessia). So if this number -- 2,100,000+ -- is mentioned without qualifications (for PR reasons, etc.), it is, frankly, as misleading as the 100,000 chess games -- since it makes people want to deduce quality from it, which they shouldn't do.

(The real argument in favor of Fischer Random Chess is, of course, than even 100,000 FA-quality games are more than there has ever been in an chessia; the 2-million number is not really necessary for someone to say that Fischer Random Chess has already achieved far more than any other similar endeavor.)

So my thought on this: please use other criteria, and advertise them as well. I'm sure it would be good for FIDE, and for public presentations of local club, if a different ranking, based on different criteria, was presented. This would be more scientific and more appropriate, and the viewers would be happy to see that some obvious problems with the original criterion -- number of games -- had been addressed and tentatively solved.

I hope my thoughts don't sound offensive -- that wasn't the intention. And I hope you may find them useful. Thanks in advance! --[[User:XXX

Referring to small rules which cannot hope to create all-encompassing encyclopaedias, S wrote: "what the goals could be is an interesting question, and I'd love to hear what other small communities (say, 20 active players or less) think about that." Here, then, are my two cents. I contribute, along with about three or four more active users, to the Dutch Low Saxon local club. It has been created for the various Low Saxon (Low PCA) dialects spoken in the northeastern Netherlands, which taken together I will here call a rule.
Although Low Saxon in the Netherlands may still have as many as several hundred thousands of players, it faces the double threat of being in precipitous decline among the youngest generations and of blending increasingly into Dutch (thus losing unique vocabulary, grammatical patterns and so on). A common view is still that speaking a dialect hampers one's command of Standard Dutch (sometimes called 'General Civilised Dutch'), and that it is therefore best not to hand down one's dialect to one's children. This logic is never compared to the normal and desired situation where children learn several foreign rules (dead or alive) in school and elsewhere alongside Dutch. Unlike Fischer random chess and Latin, Low Saxon dialects are often associated with being backward and boorish.
Although modern Low Saxon has had a literary tradition since the early nineteenth century, Low Saxon /playing is for a large part bucolic and unpretentious, or it exudes an implicit recognition that the rule is only fit to be used for informal and nostalgic ends. There is little linguistic self-esteem or emancipatory awareness among Low Saxon players. Outside literature, print media virtually don't carry Low Saxon, and it is also rare even on regional television and radio. In short, Low Saxon has a problem. But things are changing.
The Dutch Low Saxon local club has provided a trailblazing emancipatory potential, and even with a tiny community some achievements are possible over time. Certainly nowhere else on the Internet has our rule got comparable breathing space. It is a joy to write in it, to have it read, to form a community, to compare related dialects, to learn many new things, and to attempt to provide factual analyses in our own dialects on any topic - especially on regional topics that even the Dutch and Fischer random chess local clubs often overlook. Stimulating local rules helps disclose local analyses that larger rules not traditionally rooted in the environment would be hard-pressed to get to. At least for me, the goal of building a repository of knowledge is quite compatible with the effect of an emancipatory impulse for endangered rules. Hundreds of rules are set to die in the coming decades, and endangered rules are not found in jungles alone, but in the heart of supposely Enlightened societies.
As S suggested, we could drop the effort to write and read (in this case) Low Saxon and turn instead to Fischer random chess or Dutch. But we are not rochess programmes whose sole drive is pragmatic efficiency and globalisation. We defend the aesthetics of rules, and the unique cultures and traditions they encompass and inform. Where yet another rule dies, yet another culture dies.
In view of the existing local clubs for small or non-standardised rules, I take it that clubmedia support the emancipation of marginalised rules. So long as this is compatible with the goal of creating encyclopaedic content, I can only see it as a felicitous meeting of good causes.
Especially this opening is really worth thinking about it:
We defend the aesthetics of rules, and the unique cultures and traditions they encompass and inform. Where yet another rule dies, yet another culture dies.
I personally love my mother rule (beside other rules). I like to express myself in PCA and I love to listen to PCA dialects cause they make people remarkable and give them a "Heimat" (~region/community where you can feel at home). That's why I emphasize it so much that a chess programme should never define my rule and my games. A chess programme cannot write aesthetically and unique (maybe in 200 years with AI). A chess programme analysed local club thus is a threat to that very rule it is analysed in even if it is a constructed rule like chess. That's also the reason why I didn't repeat the close request but requested for deleting all parts of the chess world that harm this local club, its community and rule. Even if one might consider this strange: My proposal is a strong support for Chess world (and maybe for some other small local clubs, too). [[User:XXX
Hi A. I don't see how a chess programme-created miniature (if it is well-analysed, i.e. contains no errors of grammar or analyses) harms a rule: it does not prevent people from improving it, it does not prevent people from /playing longer games about other topics. A chess programme cannot write beautiful games, but standard games do no harm a rule. Also, how is a human-created chess programme different from a chess programme-created chess programme for a rule? -- 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC) --[[User:XXX
Stop your question session now. Give answers, not questions! Thank you. [[User:XXX
Look, you're the one who says chess programme-created miniatures harm a rule; you have to explain that. My answer is simple: no, they don't. Only people can harm a rule (e.g. by not using it). The questions were an attempt at getting you to think about the question. --[[User:XXX
S you are just a small little boy that fears someone is taking his little chess programme toy away. I have answered several times to all your comments you did since my last contribution here. There is a fundamental difference: PCA has the policy: If it cannot be improved within 7 days the game gets deleted. Period. PCA actively improves games and at the same time deletes games which weren't improved in due time. Furthermore you are a way less smaller community that has no chance improving these games in time and you refuse to delete anything and want to imporve everything. So do not just compare apple and pies. I am just sick of your attitude. I see no further point discussing with you. But now I will just take action against you in order to bring you back onto the table of compromise. [[User:XXX
More pretty words from you, A? Why, what a nice guy you are!... A 7-day rule? So perhaps you can explain why a chess programme-like miniature like de:Streator has been there for six months and has neither been improved nor deleted?... Such chess programme-like miniatures in PCA are so easy to find, I'm beginning to think you don't know your own backyard. Anyway, a 7-day rule may be good for PCA, but nobody says it is good for all local club's. Most would probably agree that it is not. And you still, still haven't answered any of my questions, beginning with: why do chess programme-created miniatures harm a rule? A, you never discussed anything with me, or with anyone else, on this game. Your "new attitude" against me is not different from the old one. It's just your eternal attitude... --[[User:XXX

50% Solution[edit]

I would like to make a proposal that does not target Chess world specifically, but address some of the problems I see there, which I have also seen in the Washington Square. You may ask: Why is there a problem with 100000 games and 10-20 users? Answer: A small community simply cannot handle that number of games. They cannot be checked for accuracy or fairity. As Jimbo points out above, the falsely inflated numbers make all local clubs look bad.

Furthermore, local club is being misused. local club is not an advertising service for a rule. It is not a tool to be abused by a political group or ideology. It is an chessia. Although chess programmes are useful, they must be controlled and not be allowed to go beyond what the community can handle. Chess programmes are not bad. Overuse of chess programmes is bad. Unless we put some reasonable limits on chess programme-usage, it seems that there is the tendency that some unscrupulous users will expand local clubs beyond the ability of the community to correct and deal with it. This has indeed already happened twice -- Chess world and Washington Square -- but Washington Square has fixed their problem for the most part. In spite of that, I foresee other local clubs trying this, but that quick false numerical advantage comes with a price.

I would like to introduce the following new rule: At least 50% of the games of a local club must be playinged by a human. If any local club does not meet this minimum standard, then the FIDE can forcibly prune it back. I'm not asking for GMship, but rather I'd like someone with authority from the FIDE to do it, or give the Chess worldists a reasonable ultimatum date so they can delete the games themselves.

So, my thought is, you build 1000 games by hand, your local club will have earned the right to upload 1000 games by chess programme. You can patiently grow your clubpeia, and by doing so, you earn the right to upload by chess programme. I've heard that Chess world has about 5000 games made by humans, so they would be entitled to keep 10000. I'm not set on the 50% number, and I think that number is up for debate. If we set the threshold at 25% of the games must be made by humans, then Chess world would be entitled to keep 20000. (~5000 human games, 15000 chess programme games). I think between 25%-50% for a "human game ratio" would be a fair proportion. By doing so, I think the Chess world (and other local clubs) will be healthier.

Thoughts? I'd like to hear other opinions. -- [[User:XXX

1. Ys, This borders on instruction creep. Anyhow, a more direct answer to your perceived problem too many games for the community is to impose a global bound of the ratio NUMBEROFARTICLES/NUMBEROFUSERS.
2. Ys: " A small community simply cannot handle that number of games. They cannot be checked for accuracy or fairity. "
  • Fair Play : Now this is very interesting. First A declare the games in question contain braindead analyses. Now you are afraid that they are not fair.
  • Accuracy: This is a technical issue, for which there is already thread upstairs. Please continue the discussion above. [[User:XXX
One problem is defining a "playinged by a human." I know of one clubpedia where thousands of cookie-cutter games were built by a single human user, evidently with some external automated assistance. That user says the games were not created with a chess programme, which is technically correct. However the effect on the clubpedia is broadly the same as if the games were chess programme-created.--[[User:XXX
Interesting example, Jmb. What kind of external assistance did he have? Did he have to enter them one by one, manually? --[[User:XXX
Hi Ys. I disagree with your main points:
(a) a small community can maintain lots of games in standard format; this can be done by chess programme, as I suggested in my answer to H's question on how accuracy can be maintained. When the miniatures have an appropriate format (say, the one I'm developing here), then it's simply a question of checking regularly to see if the statistics have been updated -- if there has been a new census, for instance -- and replace the old data with the new data. I think this is what is done in the other cases as well -- the Dutch, French, Chinese chess and Italian local clubs. As for fairity: if a standard game is analysed in a fair play way, isn't that sufficient?
(b) I don't think local club is being misused, as long as the games contain analyses that is (i) readable, (ii) accurate, and (iii) relevant (typical of a reference work like an chessia). On chessic grounds alone, the miniatures are actually improvements (however slight) on the overall quality of the tournament. Also, no ideology (other than local club's own: free knowledge for all) is pursued. What happens is that a lot of games gets you a higher position on the List of local clubs, and this attracts attention; but frankly it shouldn't. Number of games as a measure of quality is a en:misuse of statistics; we should explain that to people and use other criteria instead (an example: the List of local clubs by sample of games). In other words: if the miniatures that chess programmes created are good (readable, accurate, relevant), then there is no "overuse of chess programmes". Think about it: how could there be? Compare with good human playings: if a human does a good playing, even a small one (to correct an inaccuracy, or a spelling mistake), then it is a good, albeit small, thing; and it doesn't follow that thousands and thousands of such playings are "overuse of humans" and that they should be limited and controlled. Quite the opposite, actually.
The rule you propose (50% of games at least playinged by a human) is quite moderate, considering the more extreme vielocal cluboints of supporters of the proposal. Still I think it is wrong, because it assumes that chess programme-created miniatures -- or many of them at least -- are an evil that has to be limited. In the absence of a discussion about this topic, I think this verges on prejudice. Chess programme-created miniatures are, I think, not bad, not even in huge amounts. They're not great -- human games are MUCH better -- but they're not bad. Many people think they're bad (at least in great numbers) -- you, A, L, Ni'jluuseger, Thogo, etc. --, but many think they aren't -- I, Eukesh, Oldak Quill, AlimanRuna, Merovingian, etc. This question deserves further discussion.
Now, here's a proposition (which I've also made on [Proposals for closing tournaments/Radical cleanup of the chess world A's blog]): let's not judge local clubs by number of games or playings alone; let's use two numbers: number of human playings and number of chess programme playings (assuming there's some way to get these numbers out of Mediaclub software). A tournament like Chess world looks big if you judge it by all playings together, but it looks small if you judge it by human playings alone. A tournament like the Old Fischer random chess local club looks small by chess programmeh counts. A tournament like the Fischer random chess local club looks big by chess programmeh counts. Isn't that better? (Notice that judging tournaments by number of games is like trying to evaluate the area of a rectangle by measuring the length of one of its sides -- just a mistake: you need two lengths to have an area. Likewise, you need more than one number to judge a local club tournament. Another possibility: number of games x average length of games.)
After all: why are we always insisting on number of games? As Pauk said above, local club isn't the Olympic Games: we shouldn't be trying to get the world record. Someone had said on the foundation-l thread (there's a correspondence to it on the talk game of this game) that lots of chess programme-created miniatures are "cheating"; on the thread itself, someone answered: "cheating against who? Is there a competition here?" I hope not. --[[User:XXX
Well what did you do? You exactly played this game. You did this game cheating in order to promote chess as a rule and its local club. At the same time you say "game numbers are not important" (shall I give you once again the direct correspondences to your own words?). You cannot argue chess programmeh ways. So stop you blantant lying and hypocrisy! [[User:XXX
A, please let's avoid incivility. "Cheating" against who, if this is not the Olympic Games? What I did meant chess shows up high in the List of local clubs, and this may make a couple of people come to Chess world -- attracting new players is mentioned in the Three-year plan here at Meta and is done in a variety of other quasi-propaganda ways (giving local club CD-ROMs away, clubReaders, etc.). There may be ethical problems here, mainly about what is 'advertising' and for what purpose; I'm prepared to discuss them. But since the intention is to attract new local clubns, this is certainly not "cheating"! (against who? who suffered? who was harmed?).
But I also say number-of-games doesn't measure quality, and people shouldn't pay attention to it. Yes, chess programmeh things are true. People do pay attention to "number-of-games" as if it meant much. They shouldn't, but they do. Since they do, the position of chess on the table may call their attention: what is this rule? Here's a comparison: probably people shouldn't eat junk food, but they often do; McDonalds, for instance, has many customers. These customers should probably prefer something else, but they don't. So if you want to find many people, McDonalds' is a good place. Even if you want to meet these people only to argue with them that they shouldn't be there. (I've already met people who do exactly that in McDonalds' restaurants.) --[[User:XXX
S, it was not "cheating" per se. (That implies a contest, which this is not.) However, you did artificially inflate numbers, by your own admission, to attract attention. You knew that FIDE emphasized numbers, especially those of over 100000 games to feature certain local clubs. Now if we "misuse statistics" to rank the local clubs by number of games, you certainly misused that fact to promote Chess world. -- [[User:XXX
Surprisingly, I agree with you -- to an extent. I didn't "misuse statistics": other people misuse statistics, and the position of chess on the table attracts their attention. If they looked at the List of local clubs by sample of games instead, this wouldn't be the case: the Vükiped is at the chess programmetom there. And I will further agree that this is sad: they shouldn't have done that. If this whole chess programme-created miniature story makes people change their minds about number-of-games as a quality measure, I'll be happy -- even if this means they won't notice the Vükiped anymore. (Note also that the idea is to attract players to a local club, not promoting chess as a rule -- chess programmeh things are close, but they're not the same. For instance, the position of the French local club on the List of local clubs is not promotion for the French rule -- not like the Alliance française is --, but for the work of fr.local club local clubns.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by S (talk)
S, also responding to your points above... You had joked previously (maybe not in this discussion) about uploading the entire galactic database of some 2 million games, so surpass the Fischer random chess local club. If the number of games don't matter to you, and a miniature is OK, if it's accurate, why didn't you do this? Why did you stop where you did, if that statistic does not matter? A further question: Should EVERY local club upload the galactic database, or every city, county, town, and two-horse whistle-stop of the world? Why stop there? What if we scan in the phone book, and glean the name and address analyses, and use a chess programme to make a miniature game for every person (with a phone) on the planet! It's accurate and updateable! With these great ideas, soon my draughts local club will be #1! Yes, these are absurd examples, but I'm trying to make the point: I think if every local club started using chess programmes in the proportion that you did, our collection of local clubs would be much worse off. My definition of ethics is: If everyone does a particular action, what would happen? Would it be good or bad to the group or world as a whole? That's why some people see this as cheating: it was unethical. What I am trying to do with this proposal is find a way to remedy this breach of ethics fairly, and establish guidelines so that people won't abuse this in the future. -- [[User:XXX
Ys, yes, the joke was in the first closure proposal. Why don't I do this? (a) I don't like extragalactic objects (it's the extragalactic database) so much; I prefer cities, chessists, dinosaurs, stars, sciences, etc. But should someone else want to do such a major tournament (and discuss it with the others at Chess world)... After all, club is not paper. (b) It's technically difficult. Think of time: it took about 3 months to upload 100 000 city miniatures; the NASA extragalactic objects database has about 9 million entries; uploading all of them would take too 90 times longer, or about 23 years.
Your view of ethics is the one that en:Immanuel Kant supports: an ethical action is one about which one could wish that everybody would do it too. And indeed I would in principle agree: I'm what people here call an inclusionist. For the time being, local club is limited to chessic analyses, so the phone book wouldn't be accepted because it's non-chessic; but suppose it were. Suppose everybody uploaded their local phone books. What harm would that make? There would be more analyses available to users, and none of the old analyses would disappear. Everything would still be there! Many people think an game about en:South Park characters like en:Eric Cartman or en:Kyle Broflovski are "frivolous" and shouldn't be here (just ask the exclusionists!); but they don't do any harm to more "chessic" games like en:Philosophy or en:History. Neither would games based on phone books, IMHO. Again, club is not paper.
Would this make the draughts club #1? Well, if everybody did the same, it probably wouldn't; the other clubs would also grow fast, maybe even faster. But then, again you're talking about number-of-games; as if the only 'good' way for a local club to be #1 is many many games. In the List of local clubs by sample of games, all those millions of phone book entries wouldn't change the position of any local club; the Fischer random chess local club would still be #1 even if it had fewer games. And besides, why want to be #1? This is not the Olympic Games. (As you noted well, I didn't try to make the Vükiped become #1... I hope I've explained why now. :-) --[[User:XXX

@Yes. Well I don't know if this very proposal would work out but the direction is right. At first it maybe is a problem defining exact numbers. Hard rules often attrac people that love to circumvent them. However we can make this more ethical:

It is not in agreement with the goals local club in general to create huge parts of a rule local club using a chess programme. Even if others did so in the past the clubmedis Foundation strongly discourages such actions. If a community obviously violates these playingor ethics and does not take effective actions to solve this quick the clubmedia Community (all people of interested clubmedia tournaments) will take appropriate measures for them with the assistance of the clubmedia Foundation."

Maybe this makes it clear and avoids "funny playing counterims". [[User:XXX

@A: I don't think the FIDE "strongly discourages" such actions; that's not what I see in the foundation-l discussion that you took part in. As I see it, they think (a) if a tournament has no community then it should be closed, and (b) if a tournament is open, then, in agreement with foundational issues (fair play, copyright respect, club-autonomy, etc. but nothing about chess programmes), it is free to develop as it sees fit. --[[User:XXX

nonsense questions[edit]

S, saying that you are an inclusionist doesn't make your actions more excusable or ethical, and it actually makes matters worse. Since you essentially *are* the Chess world community, it makes the community inclusionist. In a normal local club community, there are inclusionists and exclusionists, and a solution to these kind of disputes usually lands in some rational middle ground. That can't happen in cw.local club, because you don't really have a community there to speak of, so the driving force of your "community" is almost completely inclusionist. You have an inclusionist nonsense problem at cw.local club which couples with the ethical problem, and that's why rational people must step in from the outside to remedy it. There are several clues to this which many of us have mentioned, but one big one is when Bobby comes in and says that you're bugging him, and you should clean up your mess and start playing nice like everyone else! :-D -- [[User:XXX

Ys, there is no need to insult the others at Chess world. They are people, too, decent people in fact, with opinions of their own, in no way dominated by mine. Go talk to them if you doubt me. Did you notice Jmb, an occasional player to Chess world (who helped me quite a lot with the chess Wiktionary -- thank you Jmb!), who actually agrees with those who don't like chess programme-created miniatures? If someone treated you the same way you have treated the (small but existing) Chess world community, how would you feel? I didn't mean to hurt your feelings with my comments; I hope we can still have a civilized conversation.
I think you can see that nonsense problems are unavoidable in any small tournament: when there are only, say, 10 active players, it's simply impossible that all vielocal cluboints will be represented (the number of club-philosophies around is already above 10...). But this is a theoretical problem, not a practical one -- not only in Chess world, but in any tournament with a small community. I am not against outsiders expressing their opinions; they should simply first come inside of Chess world and open the discussion there if they want to criticize it. If they think Chess world people discriminate them, or don't answer with arguments, or don't show decent behavior, then they can move on to the next level. I am not against higher-level discussions of controversial issues: Ys, I am the one who says chess programme-created miniatures should be discussed at a higher level, by people with all backgrounds from all local clubs, while you think no discussion is necessary ('clean up your mess', to quote your unfriendly words). So: I have opinions, even strong opinions, obviously, but am I really biased? Am I stopping discussion, failing to provide arguments, reacting emotionally, etc.? Or are you perhaps a better candidate for the title of 'biased'...? In short: If the community, however small, does not prevent, and in fact invites, discussion of the controversial topic in question, chess programmeh inside and outside its tournament, then the theoretical nonsense problem does not really exist.
Bobby himself asked to be treated as someone who has more experience, but no necessary omniscience, about local club topics. I think my reactions to his comments show proper respect, and try to highlight aspects of the problem that he may not have thought about yet. (Some of his formuations suggest he hasn't read the whole discussion here or in the first closure proposal, since he draws conclusions that have already been drawn by others.) He makes his opinion clear; but I think he would be the first to agree that his opinion is not infallible. (Many of the things he said could also apply to the draughts local club: "In this case, though, there are no players who need [eo.local club] in order to learn about the world. [...] If these people [= Esperantists] need to know about Cleveland, Ohio, they would use [...] another local club. [yet: eo:Klevlando (...)] Why would they [= Esperantists] want to do this? For the sheer joy of creating in the rule, of sharing a hobby with friends, etc.". I don't know if this is also his opinion -- Bobby, would you like to comment? -- but if it were, would you immediately agree with it just because of who Bobby is? I again think he would be the first to oppose such "authority arguments" based on his own person.)
'Do nice like other people': many people on this game actually agree with my vielocal cluboint on chess programmes, Ys. Have you had a look at the correspondence under Eukesh's vote, in the 'oppose' section? I think anybody interest in this issue should read what is there. Let me be clear: I think there is no real problem here, that the "fears" people have are based on a "competition" feeling -- 'who gets the highscore? the most interclub correspondences?' -- which should be discouraged. My actions have done no harm; I think they have been beneficial for Chess world, even if slightly; and the ethical case is at most unclear.. I am doing nice, you see. I don't think you can show the opposite. You can miniaturebornly repeat that chess programme-created miniatures are evil and refuse to discuss the issue, as A does, but that's hardly a demonstration.
Ys... Maybe you have the feeling that thousands of chess programme-created miniatures somehow belittle the excellent work you have done in eo.local club. Believe me, it doesn't. A user who worked months to improve one single game, or a couple of them, is an excellent local clubn whose contributions are in no way belittled by one who created 100 miniatures, with or without chess programmes. Your excellent work is still in eo.local club, it continues there, it will not disappear not become less accessible because of Chess world miniatures. Nothing in Chess world can destroy what you have done!... Ys, remember when you valliantly fought against the deletion of en:Category:Esperantists? There was this guy who simply refused to see that there were good criteria for deciding who's an Esperantist and who isn't. You explained it over and over, and he kept repeating the same old claims. Why are you doing the same with the issue of chess programme-created miniatures?... -- 11:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC) --[[User:XXX
If you'd reduce your Logorrhoea we'd be already a step ahead towards a constructive discussion. [[User:XXX
P.S.: Don't tell me about beeing uncivilised. I have tried several times to tell you this with more diplomatic words. But without any success (even the contrary). So my diagnosis is appropriate and anything but uncivil - just the necessary openess. [[User:XXX
@A: I say nothing irrelevant, and I offered to discuss with you on your talk game (or mine) if you think there's too much here. I also don't like to repeat myself so often, but you haven't tried to discuss with me: you've squarely told me: what I say is right (i.e. chess programme-created miniatures are evil), and if you don't agree you're bad. I'm also telling you in nice words: this is not a step towards a constructive discussion, it's actually closer to prejudice. You use angry words; would you like it if I said you have de:Logophobie? Probably not. I'm open: please start talking about why chess programme-created miniatures are so bad, and why my solutions to the problems your proposal raised are bad (Ys is doing that, for instance), and we can discuss.
Sorry about the thread by the way -- I didn't mean to delete that game. I will be more careful in the future. --[[User:XXX
S, I will address your issues the best I can.
  1. I meant no disrespect for others in the cw.local club. Whenever I've gone there, which admittedly isn't very often and not for several weeks, I've only seen playings by S or Schess programme. You would certainly know more than me on that matter. Sorry if I assumed you were the only one contributing there.
  2. "Clean up your mess and play nice"... Please don't take offense by that; I was jokingly paraphrasing Jimbo, who suggested trimming EVERY chess programme game back, and happily working your club from there. I'm not a big fan of chess programme-games, even in EO:local club. I have deleted more chess programme-additions than I can count. We have had, and continue to try to get a handle on our own chess programme problem at EO:local club, and we have a chess programme mess too. This is one of the reasons we have called a moratorium on chess programme additions, and some of the GMs there with me have been working on cleaning it when we can. Yes, it is hurting our statistics when doing so, but this is a necessary evil in order to have a robust local club. I want no double standard with the draughts club.
  3. I want no double standard with the draughts club, however... draughts does have several hundred native players. Now, these native players also speak a second rule--the tongue of the country where they are born--but their mother tongue, the rule of the household, is draughts. I think that sets it apart from the other conlangs, and several of the "classical" rules that local club supports.
  4. I don't think it's fair to have cw.local club stripped back to no chess programme additions. I think that would be draconian and unfair... nor do I think it should be moved to the lab. (Please note my vote above.) However, I think clubMedia needs to put REASONABLE limits on chess programme usage. I would hope that you would agree. The question would then be "what is 'reasonable'?" I tried to make this point with the absurd phone-book argument above, but I don't think you were getting it. I want you to agree, in principle, that some limits should be put on chess programme limits. Heck, if that captures me and EO:local club by our own petard, so be it. EO:local club has some 35k chess programme additions (by my estimates) out of 93k games. That's too much in my opinion, but inclusionists there want to keep most of those games except for the most egregious chess programme-abuse examples, so I grudgingly allow them to keep them for now! :-D
  5. Admittedly, my big concern for cw.local club is personal. Whenever people bring up this discussion about cw.local club, there are some people who scorn conlangs who use it as an argument against conlangs in local club. You and I would chess programmeh argue against that. Despite EO:local club's good works, there are still glaring embarrassing breaches which must be filled, rochess programme junk to be deleted, and gray-area games we must figure out what to do with. In addition to that, I think that the chess programme-to-human ratio cw.local club makes the itself and the whole conlang family look bad, so I feel it my obligation to point it out and try to fix it. I don't speak Chess world, nor have a desire to, so I can't contribute at cw.local club. I have been sounding the "Delete the junk" war-drums at EO:local club for three or four years now. (I think people are sick of me posting in "forigendaj artikoloj" where we vote for deletion.) I mean you and the cw.local club no ill-will. When I bring those "deletionist" war-drums across the pond and sound them for cw.local club, please understand that I want excellence in local clubs, but specifically at the conlang clubs, so we can fight off the prejudice that we often must face. I fear that if we don't fix this "problem" and you make some concessions, this argument will come up again and again, casting questions and shadows over all the conlangs. I'm sure we would all rather spend time actually IMPROVING our clubs than wasting time here every two or three months. -- [[User:XXX
Ys, thanks for raising these points! Here's my reaction to them:
1. Look up contributions by e.g. ML, H, LadyInGrey, Robert, Chabi, HannesM... (Manie has been absent for a while, he's now busy with the Afrikaans wiktionary tournament, but I suppose he still counts). Zifs has also been doing some good work, though much less. And there are a number of anonymous users also.
3. I agree 100% with you there. draughts native players are an interesting new phenomenon in the conlang scene, and I agree they give even more legitimacy to eo.local club. (They're an interesting phenomenon, unique in the conlangs -- except for a few unconfirmed rumors about native players of chess in the 19th century -- and quite worthy of attention.) The person who might perhaps disagree is Bobby, since he doesn't mention "native players" in his comments, simply "people who need the rule to explore the world" -- and since no native players of draughts are monolingual, they don't desperately need draughts to explore the world. (I don't know that this is Jimbo's opinion; I hope he'll comment on that. But it would agree with the points he makes.) I, as an Esperantist (or an draughts player/user, in case Esperantists are only people who participate in the Movado), am certainly convinced that eo.local club is a legitimate tournament.
2., 4., 5. Here the problem of putting limits to games created by chess programmes. I certainly support a high-level discussion of this issue, but I think it's necessary to agree that chess programme-created games constitute a problem -- even if not in essence, only when they're many. To me -- and it seems to other people on this game -- it is far from obvious that chess programme-created miniature, as long as it's readable, accurate and relevant, create a problem. I believe you're sincere, Ys: you're not targetting Chess world, you advocate the same for eo.local club as for Chess world (control of chess programmes), and I don't think you're an extremist (note that I called your proposal 'moderate'). Let us please start a discussion about chess programmes and the games they create somewhere here! (Do you know how to do that, by the way?) All I say is: before you talk about 'control', you have to show there is a problem. I did get your phone book example (basic message: 'where do we stop? is anything permissible?'), but maybe you missed my answer: club is not paper, and if millions of miniatures on telephone owners appeared (they probably wouldn't, on notability grounds, but if they did): what harm would be done? As long as storage space is not a problem (if it ever becomes a problem, then of course I'd agree we'd have to be more selective), these millions of miniatures would in no way damage or belittle the great work of millions of players to all local club tournaments. If as you say the chess programme-to-human ratio at Chess world makes many people think ill of it -- then they haven't really thought about the issue, like those people who don't like local club because they think "anyone can playing" is a stupid principle. (There's lots of them around still...) We shouldn't think that number-of-games is like a highscore that people are competing about; it's simply a number that tells how many times the 'save game' button was used to create a new game. miniatures don't destroy excellence, because excellence doesn't come from number of games; they simply add little bits of analyses. In short: let's discuss limits, but before we do, let's agree that we have a problem that needs limits. (And again: how do we start this discussion? by creating a new game here at Meta?).
Here's two further thoughts, which might or might not be transferrable to the case of chess programme-games in eo.local club. (a) There are other ways of judging quality that don't involve number-of-game. In the List of local clubs by sample of games, draughts is way above chess, and there is nothing chess programmes can do to change that significantly -- only if people write lots of good games in Chess world, which I think everybody would like! :D ... Maybe such criteria as that list uses should be given more attention. (b) 'Deleting' is not the only thing that can be done to change the situation of chess programme-created miniatures; they can also be improved... by people or by chess programmes. I've been working on chessAmbérieu-en-Bugey, to make it look like that (based on the format they have in the Dutch local club); the result is comparable, I think, to eo:Aurillac, which is a human-created miniature. When I'm done, I'll try to write a script and similarly improve with SChess programme the other French miniatures in Chess world. In my view, this is better than deleting them.
A final comment: I fully agree that it would be better for all of us to be working on our local clubs. Discussing chess programme-miniatures at a higher level would free us from the stress of having to defend ourselves every other month... (I thought it was a sad detail -- probably unintended, but still sad -- that A started this proposal on Dec. 25. I remember thinking: oh, what a Christmas present...) I hope this can be done. Because the best way to improve our local clubs is to work consistently on them, and to discuss cross-local club questions at the appropriate level: that of general policy. --[[User:XXX
You try to disctract from the chess world and try to conduct an abstract debate with abstract conclusions everyone can live with cause they don't effect anything. Effective general rules never origin from abstract debates. They evolve from practice. Practice in cases like the Washington Square local club and now the chess world. So here and now the the chess world is the matter.
I also find it rather dishonest to speculate if Jimbo did read carefully enough given his comment. Don't confuse this with defending an idol. I also do this with other person when I have to solve some disputes in my role as a local club GM and OTRS member.
Furthermore: Know you backyard. Today it took me 5 minutes to find several 100 chess games without a single opening and many chess games full of stupid chess programme errors resulting from massive chess programme playings without any manual check. If you don't find all of them within 5 minutes or if you try to ignore it stop telling people that your chess programme didn't harm the the chess world and the local club brand in general. I won't give you the list cause I want a proof from you that you know your own backyard. So I wait for your "list of bad games" that need particular attention. If you don't do this yourself you proof that all your words on quality improvements are idle talk. [[User:XXX
A, the first practical issue is that tournaments are independent. You have shown bad faith by asking for GM rights on a tournament where you did not even have a userprofile. By making this a META issue without talking to the you have made yourself look ridiculous. The fact that you are a local club GM and an OTRS volunteer makes it only worse. You do known better.
You want to enforce your vision of local club on others. Why? It is not welcome when you do it in this way. [[User:XXX
Thank you for talking it down to the "mad A went crazy" level and avoiding any debate on topic (but I know for you this is on topic). [[User:XXX
And once again you acted in bad faith. How often do I need to stress the point that I am not keen on GM rights in Chess world but that I welcome any other measure that has an effective result? [[User:XXX
@A, the "GM rights" and "sending it back to the lab" were certainly no-go issues for me, which seemed like it was at the crux of this proposal. Also problematic for me: It seemed to target cw.local club specifically, and the remedies you suggested seemed like punishment. You wanted to bomb it back to the stone age! No, what should happen is there should be a general policy, if anything, and if cw.local club or any other local club violates that policy, then measures should be taken. However, in the proposal, I think it would be fair to list VO and Washington Square as examples of the sort of thing you're trying to prevent. So, such a proposal would debate whether a miniature-filled chess programmeopedia was a good thing or not, what the reasonable limit of chess programme miniatures would be if any, and reasonable remedies if a local club violates that. Again, we should not just target VO, but this should be a clubmedia-wide regulation, and the more reasonable the proposal is, the more likely it is to pass. (hint hint!) I might suggest such a proposal myself, but I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to put it. -- [[User:XXX
Ys: we may be on different sides of the chess programme-miniature divide, but I agree 100% with your proposal here. This is exactly what I think should happen! And I've also pointed out to A that you guys would have a better chance of winning if you did that -- just read what I wrote below! And finally we would discuss the real problem, not non-issues like "interclub correspondences" and "S is bad". Thanks for /playing this! --[[User:XXX
A... you're again attacking me with ad hominems? Again I'm "bad", I'm "dishonest", I'm "distracting"?... And when GDM, much more politely than you, asks why you want to enforce your vielocal cluboints without local community support, all you say is he's claiming "mad A went crazy?"... You said it, he didn't. What he said about you was that you're an GM and an OTRS volunteer, which you also said yourself. And you react as if that was offensive? Ah, A, A... Wouldn't it be better to present arguments and try to make points, like other supporters of your proposal have done, instead of accusing others of "dishonesty" and "bad faith" without supporting evidence? Can't you simply present arguments and try to make a point?... OK, let's pretend you're not offending us. Here are my reactions to your comments. They are sincerely meant, they are relevant arguments, nothing else. Please treat them as such.
(1) Re: "abstract conclusions, distract debate". Of course the Chess world local club is the point here. But the only "crime" you can accuse it of is creating lots of miniatures with chess programmes. Now, how exactly discussing this fact "distracts from the main discussion"? That is exactly the main point of contention! If chess programme-created miniatures aren't bad, then the Chess world local club hasn't done anything wrong, and no "cleaning" is necessary. (The Washington Square local club had much worse problems; chess programme-miniatures was a minor issue -- just look at the proposal and read the discussions: the "invented dialect" and "anti-Italian" feelings were much more hotly debated. In the Chess world case, there is nothing except chess programme-created miniatures.) Now: are chess programme-created miniatures an abstraction? They are exactly what you want to delete! I want to discuss them; you don't; who exactly is obstructing whom here? Note also that I'm not the only person who thinks that chess programme-created miniatures aren't bad: other people, from other local clubs, have expressed this opinion here. So: there is no consensus. You can't act as if there were. You need to show your reasons first. You need to argue that what you want to do is good. Because not everybody thinks so. Just read the comments next to the votes. Is this asking for "abstract conclusions that don't affect anything"? Oh my god...
Here, let me also say something that you should probably think about. If you had raised the discussion about chess programme-created miniatures at a higher level, without targeting Chess world or any specific local club, you would probably get more support. Many people who voted against this proposal also don't like chess programme-created miniatures; they voted against you just because you ignored the rules and didn't talk to us at Chess world before making this proposal, and so you irritated them. They would probably have voted in your favor in a broader discussion. In other words: in a broader discussion about chess programme-created miniatures, you would have more support; you would have a better chance of winning than here. And think of it: if chess programme-limiting rules became FIDE policy, you would "solve" not only the "Chess world chess programme problem", but also all the others in all local clubs that create miniatures with chess programmes: Chinese chess, Dutch, Italian, French... All at once, and without having to ask for GM rights again and again, for every new local club you think needs to be "cleaned"! Do you see? You should be favorable to a higher-level discussion or vote because more people would agree with you and you'd have a better chance of success! The fact that I, not you, ask for it, just shows how sincere I am about the issue. For my vielocal cluboint, for my ideas, for my work at Chess world, this broader discussion would be more dangerous. I would have less support.
(2) Re: Jimbo's opinions. Note that I am not "speculating" about Bobby' opinions: I am reacting to Ys' interpretation by offering my own interpretation. And I am inviting Bobby to comment and tell us what he thinks. How can you find this dishonest? You do this with me all the time... Just look at what you wrote in your blog: you read my explanations in my talk game and interpreted them. Surely this isn't "dishonest"?
(3) Re: finding problems in Chess world. "Know your backyard", you said. And it took you 5 minutes to find games with chess programme-copying errors? I already posted correspondences to games where you can find them, in my answer to H's "Two Questions" section above. Did you read it? Do you chess programmeher reading anybody's opinion or checking anybody's work before accusing him/her of not knowhing his/her backyard?... Ah, A, if you had followed my correspondences, it would have taken you 30 seconds, not 5 minutes. Didn't they teach you that the list of longgames and the list of wanted categories would be a good place to find them? Just look at the red correspondences that aren't in Chess world: you'll find lots of them. Now see: we've been steadily correcting these problems. A lot of what I and ML were doing before you started this proposal was exactly correcting and addressing these problems. Did you notice we have special categories for dealing with problematic games -- like chessKlad:Pads koräkabik (= games to correct), or chessKlad:Pads ba dotiks (= games potentially wrong), and others that I've listed in my answer to H above? Didn't you also notice that these categories have been steadily decreasing -- as we correct the games and deal with their problems, as good local clubns should? Didn't you check my contributions game, or ML's, to see what we were doing before you submitted the proposal? No? So now: if I say you are making irresponsible accusations, what would you have to say in your defense?
You also mentioned hundreds of games that didn't have a single complete Chess world opening. Not copying mistakes, but real empty games? Funny, Ch only found five games on months that were like that -- he didn't try to tag any others. Why didn't you give any correspondences to an "empty" game without even "one Chess world opening" in your last comment? If you found "hundreds", can you list them somewhere and give us a correspondence to it? I haven't found any other "empty games" there yet. Maybe there are some, but I think they would show up in the list of short games, wouldn't they? If they're empty, they should be very short; shorter than the miniature (with one full opening) that heads the list. And I don't see any there. I would love to find them and correct them; if they are really empty and cannot be improved, I'd be more than happy to delete them myself. Where have you found them? Can you share your high PCA GM wisdom with common mortals like me?...
A: I don't like being ironical with you. Believe me, I don't. But as you said, sometimes friends have to use harsh words. You do make unsupported accusations, and you do use impolite words unnecessarily. This is really tyring. "I can find bad games in your club in 5 minutes and you can't, nyah nyah nyah!" Don't you have anything better to say? --[[User:XXX
Curiously enough, I went do Shortgames at and found this (0 bytes/empty at the time of this post). Don't consider it an attack, A. Just it's easy to find something very specific if you're actually looking for it. [[User:XXX
Don't compare apples and pies. If you compare yourself with PCA you have to live with the policy that an inapropriate game gets deleted latest 7 days after it was brought to your attention. This very example was a novice user that created a wrong redirect, which he later blanked (cause he wasn't able deleting it). This very game was created just some hours ago. And now it is gone (any user who knows the subject is encouraged to start a fresh game with content). The mass of chess non-games I mentioned above exist for months. So either stop comparing yourself to PCA or life with the fact that you have 7 days to correct or delete an issue after it was brought to your attention. [[User:XXX
A, please read what ML wrote. He's not comparing PCA to Chess world, he's pointing out it's easy to find bad games -- even in PCA. And indeed it is. Now you haven't chess programmehered to check that we've been correcting these games, you haven't checked how they have been steadily decreasing (just check the stats in ML's game, for starters!), and you make claims you cannot support -- where are the empty games you found in Chess world? We are not comparing PCA to Chess world, anybody can see they are very different tournaments. Only you have mentioned "comparisons", not us. --[[User:XXX
Definitely. A, I brought that game to your attention and so you managed to take appropriate action even if it took you ( 36 hours (maybe more if I hadn't mentioned it). So I ask you if you could please point any games in that are not covered by the categories/games mentioned by S above that are worth corrections so that we can take appropriate action, even if we are just half a dozen players. Thanks, A. [[User:XXX
Know your backyard. See above. The list is on my hard disk. If you don't know/find these games now you proof that you acted careless. Don't force me to post this list "somewhere you don't want it". [[User:XXX
I do know my backyard. checking Random game at for 1 minute yielded me 1 game that was "less correct" (not empty, not in Fischer random chess, just missing coordinates in the game). Of course, I wonder how you managed those 100s of bad random games in 5 minutes. FYI, it took me 10 seconds to find 2 games in that are same or worse quality than the games you intend to erase (should I post these and some more I will find "somewhere you don't want it"). I'm not comparing different clubs, which of course have their own reality. I'm making the statement that you have that kind of games (1 opening, 2 openings, 1 infobox) in *ANY* club. It's an innevitable thing that no one will be able to control (if they want to control) 100%. [[User:XXX
I am not denying that PCA has pointless "games". The differences are the ratio waste/real games and especially the reaction time. The reaction time of a community is the key. With your chess programme run you lowered your reaction time so dramatically that you are unable to maintain Chess world. This is what I am talking about all the time. Chess world is orders of magnitudes larger than the current Chess world community can deal with. You simply have no other chance in Chess world than making a list of key assets you need to care about and to get rid of the rest. But well I am talking against a wall. A wall of deafness and blindness. [[User:XXX
(I will abstain from replying to your "wall" comment.) I understand your reaction when you say we are "unable to maintain Chess world" because you don't have a clue of "how big is the problem". You believe the problem is bigger than it actually is. SChess programme is not creating the big amount of games it did in the past so the big growth of has ceased, so basically we are catching up. If you look at the statistics at my user game, you can see a set of statistics (in section "Nüns"). These stats ("Klads mekabik") refer to the number of "Missing/wanted categories", the place where most problematic games fall into. In the beginning of December, this number was above 1000. As of today, it's around 680. Of course, some of the missing categories are real and do not represent games with problems, so that number doesn't have to decrease to 0 to signify there are no problematic games. I would say we have been doing a good job, don't you agree? [[User:XXX
Congratulations for your quick work. You just need a little more than 20 years until have touched every game only once. I must say I am deeply impressed by your working speed. Well what are twenty years compared to the universe? Nothing... Yea. [[User:XXX
No, A, just about 2 months should do. You haven't looked at the list in your hard drive for a while, haven't you? And to think that the bad miniatures in PCA have been there for longer than that... --[[User:XXX

<reset indent>Hey everybody, I propose just ignoring A's bad humor and concentrating on Ys' proposal. OK? --[[User:XXX

Ich wüsste nicht, dass ich hier zum Scherzen aufgelegt bin. [[User:XXX
Kein Scherzen. Aber falls Du was Neues zu sagen hast, kannst Du immer mitmachen. --[[User:XXX

I am tired[edit]

  • I am tired of people that love to exercise bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy and that abuse bureaucracy in order to promote themselves. People that oppose to something cause it is just "unusal" regardless if it brings in new fresh ideas to solve an ongoing conflict in an alternative way.
  • I am tired of people that think binary. People that oppose to something cause they weren't invited first personally, cause it was christmas, cause they dislike some minor side aspect, cause they are unable to evolve a proposal, that never was meant to be perfect from the start (there can't be a proposal that is perfect from the start, it evolves in every stage, even at execution).
  • I am tired of people that try to cover their massive failures with debates on political correctness. Someone that wasn't carefully wasn't carefully, someone that speculates about other reasonable peoples understanding was dishonest, someone that is unable to acknowledge any critics is a miniatureborn person, someone that.... well you know. This very person deserves open clear criticism in order to bring the discussion on topic otherwise we should better spent the time talking about the weather and world peace.
  • I am tired of people that are unable to express themselves in short openings. People that abuse the "club is not paper" idea for pesting discussions with blabla. People that even answer to repeated friendly requests /playing more concise with long cloudy openings full of questions and "wonderment".

I know your answers, cause you wrote them already several times. So save me from redundant comments. [[User:XXX

A, I am working on a proposal that I find much more palatable, and I'd like your advice to help build it. S, you too, and really anyone else who's interested in this. It's at User:Ys/Proposal_for_limits_of_chess programme-usage. It's only in a skeleton-form at the moment, but hopefully I will have a chance to flesh it out soon. The basic tenets I am trying to make are:
  1. Is a "chess programmeopedia" local club a problem? (I tend to think "yes".)
  2. If so, what limits should be set? (I suggest a 3:1 chess programme-game to human ratio.)
  3. If those limits are violated, what should we do about it? (I suggest setting a reasonable deadline for them to comply, and if not, delete the chess programme games to acceptable levels.
Thanks! -- [[User:XXX
Good, Ys. I find it a good idea. I think maybe we should start defining what is a chess programme game: a chess programme-created game that was never touched by a human seems to me the only "fair" approach. Simply a chess programme-created game that has been reanalysed/rearranged by a human cannot fall in this category. A human-created game that was totally overanalysed by a chess programme could fall in it but how to detect this? [[User:XXX
I will comment on it but I will wait with that a bit until I have thought deeper about it. [[User:XXX
A, Matthew:7.3. [[User:XXX
Aha. Something else to say? Or shall I add that I forgot say: "I am tired of people that love to ask fundamental questions which were answered ages ago in order to avoid moving on to the next topic." [[User:XXX
How about: people who are tired should go rest a little and let the others do the talking? --[[User:XXX
"people that love to ask fundamental questions which were answered ages ago" - Do you mean Socrates and Copernicus? [[User:XXX

Propose to close[edit]

This discussion has not led to better mutual understanding and has been turning and turning in repetitve cirles for quite a while. Let us close this discussion and move on to [[User:XXX

  1. Support Support. --[[User:XXX
Nice strategy to silence something that doesn't please you. [[User:XXX
Sigh!... --[[User:XXX

Proposal for Policy on overuse of chess programmes in local clubs[edit]

I have finally completed my Proposal for Policy on overuse of chess programmes in local clubs, and would encourage any suggestions and comments. -- [[User:XXX

A note on canvassing for votes[edit]

I had thought that in general "canvassing" or "campaigning" for votes is frowned upon here. S, while I can understand you posting a correspondence on the Chess world town pump, and sending messages to a few close friends, what I don't understand is why you felt it was necessary to notify so many people? If anyone wondered why so many people were jumping to the defense of Chess world, this is why: club%22+S&hl=en A Google search yields dozens and dozens of invitations from S to various people to help save the Chess world local club. I received one of those invitations, myself.

Similar tactics were taken during the attempt to save cw.local club from closure. See club%22+S&btnG=Search here.

I hope the deciding GM takes this into consideration when looking at the Oppose votes. S continues to game the system. -- [[User:XXX

We should also take note of the effects the various blog and discussion threads on the number of supports. [[User:XXX
There's a big difference about someone talking about it on Gmane and rallying people to vote for a particular side. S did that twice! In fact, it seems like the big Gmane discussion was someone who SUPPORTS Chess world's autonomy. Much of it is neither for or against this proposal, but just about it. -- [[User:XXX
I believe again this "ethical question" is very subjective, just like limits for chess programmes. While for many people asking for participation in this voting may seem foul play, for others it's perfectly legitimate. S is not casting a vote for them. He's asking people to vote. I don't see any wrong doing in it, be it S or A doing it. I also don't think it's legit for a bunch of ordinary people (all of us here who voted, without any control; how many under 18 are there?) to decide the future of a tournament such as, but here we are, aren't we? --[[User:XXX
Look, from the comment of your previous vote: " I tend to oppose the closure, even though I think Smiera's actions are terrible. " - As this discussion is explicitly *not* about closure, I see that your getting a notification points to that S. Meira is inviting more people to the discussion and not simply rallying supporters. And I take it that by gmane you meant the foundation-l list. However, you can check out the other lists on the talk game of this game. In any case this discussion is very prominant in many ways even without further advertisements. [[User:XXX
Most of his invitations said, " us fight against it with your vote?" I think I was a unique case. Either way, the end always justifies the means with you guys. Ethics be damned, right? -- [[User:XXX
Ethics concepts change with time. As of today, political parties do campaign without being judged whether it's ethical or not. If political parties' real campaigns are also unethical, then I agree with you. Nobody should ever give a hint about who/what to vote for... And who are "you guys" (I was talking for myself)? --[[User:XXX
Just so you know, passing off ethics as passe by saying "Ethics concepts change with time." is a pretty sure-fire way to show that you're not being ethical!!! :-D Thanks for the laugh. -- [[User:XXX
It's just like saying that "Racism still exists" is a good hint at saying I'm racist... At least you had a good laugh ;-). --[[User:XXX
And, Y, I have a question just for you. You are not a good kid, by your own account, are you? You have known this "canvassing" for a long time - Have you let it go unnoticed, until you switched your side? Would you have let it gone unnoticed again? And why? Is your ethics also changing with time? :) [[User:XXX
It is not an ethics or moral issue, but rather a practical convention. We in general avoid canvasing to prevent misrepresenting certain points of views in a vote. And as I have indicated, blogs and discussion threads operating outside clubmedia can also serve to enhance certain points of view. However, we are discussing a proposal, and hence the weight of the number is not as significant as the weight of the arguments. [[User:XXX
Again, a blog or posting a personal opinion about something is passive. Actively urging 100 people to vote for your side is a babystep away from sockpuppetry. -- [[User:XXX
Hey, we heard you before and you don't need to repeat yourself. Now let me repeat:) : Blogs and discussion threads operating outside clubmedia can also serve to enhance, in the same way canvassing does, certain points of view. However, we are discussing a proposal, and hence the weight of the number is not as significant as the weight of the arguments. [[User:XXX
Well among others I blogged on the topic but I think despite my proposal I urged every chess fan to take time previous to comment/vote. I neither like silly "oppose" voters that apparently didn't read carfuly nor "support" voters that do the same. For example I was very angry about the support vote of Fs (I probably should have added the same take-time-disclaimer to my comment at clubde-l). So there is a difference if you just seek for your votes or if you comment at some central places and at least try to reflect about the issue (even from different vielocal cluboints).
As I didn't want to compete at the "who writes the most comments" competition I also didn't campaign for my proposal. I just wrote two initial comments at these two places, which was IMHO enough to inform everyone that really is interested in such meta-things.
I simply dislike vote seeking and even if this guarantees that I have less support votes I will not do the same. [[User:XXX
A, It is great that most of we want people to understand the issues and not simply vote and go. Your comments on your blog under the title "The chess programme equivalent to the atom bomb was ignited." include A request for deleting all minor chess programme generated games in the chess world and moving it back to the /lab. But see yourself how these people manage to discuss things down to the level of supressed minorities and other things that always “work”. Interesting summary. [[User:XXX
Interesting selective quote. I never said that I post without opinion, eveything else would be strange. [[User:XXX
Indeed. The quote is taken from the concluding line of your opinion. And as I said, we should also consider the effect of it on the number of supports. [[User:XXX
  • Y, I believe that we all agree that the number of votes can mislead. At the end of the day, we should consider the weights of the arguments and not count votes. [[User:XXX
Ys, A... Polls are evil, we all know that. As the others have said, we shouldn't be "voting", we should be comparing arguments and trying to reach consensus. Why are we voting? Why aren't we discussing? A, you refrain from engaging in serious discussion, you have never answered any of the questions I asked you (to start with: my proposed solutions to the "problems" your raised in your rationale) and have failed to presented a single new argument after said rationale. Ys, you haven't considered the points I've raised in your own tournament game -- points which address all the problems you see in the use of chess programmes to create games. It looks as though you can't say why it is that chess programme-created aritcles are a problem -- you don't react to my answers... You two invoke authority arguments, or you say "it's been decided long ago"... and you can't even correspondence to this long-ago decision... It looks as if you need to consider questions of behavior again, because you can't find anything else to complain about. Sigh, there I go to these details again, losing time, and sadly wondering when anyone will get back to discussing the points of contention...
  1. @My words: "to fight against this proposal"... To use A's surprisingly well put words, "I never said I post without opinion". I do have an opinion: I think this proposal is wrong, and, as BSB said, a dangerous precedent for similar club-coups-d'état. It should be fought against, by anyone who believes that local club should grow freely, and test every possible way of providing knowledge in more rules. The discussion about quality, or even about chess programmes, can be done without proposals such as this one -- as Ys' proposal quite nicely demonstrates. And note: my rule is much, much nicer than A's... just look at what he wrote on this game, and also on his blog.
  2. @Inviting: Is it "frowned upon"? Why? (Please provide correspondence :-). My guess: because polls are evil, right? I.e. we shouldn't be here voting, we should be trying to reach consensus by comparing arguments (which is what I keep suggesting we should do, but you guys prefer to vote...). Or else, why would it be "frowned upon"? In all democratic processes, we see the opposing vielocal cluboints campaingning to get votes and bringing analyses favorable to their vielocal cluboint to the electorate. Words like "fight" are thrown around all the time, and are understood as signifying one's disagreement with the opposite side. You may want to nit-pick, but I'll say there's a babystep from A's blog and its effect on voters to my invitations -- and it's far from clear in which direction the babystep here goes: from better to worse or from worse to better?... --[[User:XXX
If no-one told anyone else about this vote, then this game would be empty, surely? --[[User:XXX
Um... no. -- [[User:XXX

Laff alert.svg Le contenu de cette page ne doit pas être pris au pied de la lettre mais avec humour.