Feature Request: Additional Database filters

Hi,

Currently the Game Database of all Master's game is interesting to look through. I think one thing that would be nice would be to filter through the database (of the Master's game), by:

1.Player Name
2.Player Rating
3.Year
4.Tournament Name
5.Other corollary information

I get it. People are busy. If you guys have extra time somehow, I think people would appreciate a way to filter through the games.

Best,
InfiniteFlash

Additional filters are always fun, some are easy, others are hard.

Easy:
-- Player Rating (range)
-- Year (single and/or range)

Difficult:
-- Player Name
-- Tournament Name

Impossible:
-- Other corollary information

In any case: Numeric arguments are easy to build filters for. They have valid ranges. "Names," are entirely subjective. What if someone were to search using the native name of a foreign tournament (or, vice-versa) ... well ... should a database and/or PGN be able to automatically figure out whichever "translation" you're looking for (among millions or billions of games), in whatever language you search or specify??? -- On the "naming" issue, ask yourself: "How would I do or manage this, reasonably and efficiently?" -- And then ask yourself how many people would or will be happy to complain and suggest translations, improvements, etc.

And, of course, nobody can read your mind. ESP is a fictitious. Whatever ... corollary information falls categorically into: "Hey, you didn't read my mind and implement the filter I requested, which fell under #5, corollary information."

Please be useful @MrCharles

I'm not sure what we hope to gain by filtering Masters games by rating; surely there has been some rating inflation over time.

Filtering by year sounds fun.

@InfiniteFlash #3

My usefulness is limited only by responding acutely to obtuse statements, requests, questions, etc. (And, while "naming" seems or sounds reasonable to most people, "other corollary information" is just so obtuse it's not funny.)

But, hey, whatever, yeah, sure, we'll happily implement all of your requests, sans not having ESP.

Even if I took your side on all 5 points, the nature of the naming and "corollary information" is obtusely prohibitive (the former being difficult, the latter being too vague). Andif I took your side on the "corollary information" request, I'd sound equally stupid. (Sorry, but, that's not my thing. I even tried to posit a positive question: How would you implement or handle your own request?)

There are limits to being useful. Namely ... thinking things through and being aware of them.

You'll have to excuse me for a moment, I'm having one of those face-palm moments. (Drop my head into my hands, shake my head as hard as possible, look-up and try to make sense of things.)

I'm still waiting on the details behind implementing "corollary information" filtering. (Tapping my feet and fingers. Just waiting.)

It's pretty obvious #1 was a polite message seeking to initiate a conversation and being pretty flexible in terms of if/when changes occur or don't occur.

While I myself don't have much to add or detract from that suggestion (being super busy with work at the moment and really can't commit myself to working on this) I see no harm in allowing a conversation to occur. It's true normally I point out perceived flaws in a suggestion, but in theory any of these things seem possible (although some much more difficult than others).

@Toadofsky

Hello, and thank you for responding.

----------------------------

"I'm not sure what we hope to gain by filtering Masters games by rating; surely there has been some rating inflation over time."

I think filtering by rating would help people isolate groups of games more easily. For example, if I'm interested in looking at games only played by 2600's+ in the Sicilian Najdorf, that seems like a useful thing to have options to filter for. This would be for in order to build an opening repertoire, for example.

Also, lichess has an option for games played by rating groups: 1800, 2000, 2200, 2400, 2600 ratings yes? I would think its reasonable to implement something similar or a "numeric slider range" filter for the Master Database.

------------------------

"Filtering by year sounds fun."

I think so too. It would be useful in isolating games we care about and for people to write their own stories about players through their careers. There are many books devoted to Mikhail Tal and I have no doubt a filter by year helps us look at interesting games of players across time.

----------------------------------------

Player Name: This would arguably be the most valuable one to have. I realize that processing time for string matching through all of the games is cumbersome, but having an option to view all of Magnus Carlsen's games for his career would be great.

Tournament Name: Useful for looking at games from a specific tournament

Other Corollary Information: Open ended suggestions of anything else that would improve the database, such as the result of a chess game (1-0, 0-1, Draw)

I'm not forcing anything here. I'm simply making suggestions and bouncing them off you. Thank you for understanding that all of these request items are reasonable, but vary in time and difficulty to add.

@MrCharles

I am ignoring you. You seem to be a troll based off your profile description and word choice in posts #2 and #4.

That's right. I'm a troll. I have fun with it, and, I stay on topic and provide perspective.

But, because I'm not agreeable with "open ended" improvements or ESP, I'm not being "useful" enough.

Here's a fact: If you were to target an EASY task, and start there with a minor request, it might get implemented. BUT, if you just start throwing around ideas, well, as acknowledged at the start: There's limited time. So, I say: "These easy things are a good idea." (But, that's not useful enough.) And, "here are the problems with the other things," (but that's not useful enough). And then I have fun with an obscene request -- that's not being helpful or useful, but, again, still showing perspective.

Despite being told that these observations are not helpful, or "useful," I persist in re-phrasing: "Well, how would you implement your suggestions?" -- And, instead of thoughtful and insightful commentary (thinking more, beyond an over-simplified "request" with some complex issues behind them) ... the answer is: "This person doesn't agree with me 100%, so this person must be a troll."

I guess the OP is a whiny millennial. Easy to say or suggest something, difficult to actually think about it. (Ain't my issue.)

Eh, I think most of these ideas are much more easily achieved through commercial databases, or possibly SCIDB?

#9 I agree that most of these suggestions sound like they could require major front end and back end rewrites to be useful.