Why not give us an openings database based on a...

I love being able to see all of my opponents' past RHP games. Access to these games really enhances position analysis. However, it's hard to sift through the games when searching for a particular position.

So, why not front-end the huge RHP game database with a search tool like chessgames.com's Opening Explorer, or shredderchess.com's opening database? After all, the games database of RHP games already exists. We just need a more productive way to access the info in that database.

Anyone agree?

Thanks so much for your consideration! :-)

Originally posted by MrJohn
I love being able to see all of my opponents' past RHP games. Access to these games really enhances position analysis. However, it's hard to sift through the games when searching for a particular position.

So, why not front-end the huge RHP game database with a search tool like chessgames.com's Opening Explorer, or shredderchess.com's opening database? ...[text shortened]... s the info in that database.

Anyone agree?

Thanks so much for your consideration! :-)

No problem...
http://www.timeforchess.com/gamesexplorer/

Anything else, I can help you with?

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
No problem...
http://www.timeforchess.com/gamesexplorer/

Anything else, I can help you with?

D

Thanks, Rang! :-)

As it happens, I did find my way to gamesexplorer shortly after I posted my note. It's beautiful. :-)

I guess it's hard to find because it's still in beta?

Anyway, many thanks for the address. :-)

I asked a question along similar lines Thread 65867 since the gamesexplorer does not have up to date games. The ability to download an opponents pgn is better than spending hours using the slow explorer.

Originally posted by z00t
The ability to download an opponents pgn is better than spending hours using the slow explorer.

Oh, I *love* the explorer! (Now that I've found it! .g. )

And, of course I love being able to download my opponent's pgn, as well. I'm so thankful to Russ that he has now given us *both* options.

Now, Russ, about that analysis board.... .gggg.

:-)