Hi!
> This gets more concrete !
>
> 1. The category tag could be used as a way to create books :
>
> [Category "Castle Destruction"]
> [Category "Isolated Pawns for the Advanced Player"]
> [Topic "Rook Lift"]
> [Topic "Double Bishop Sacrifice"]
I just learend that this will add an awfull lot of dead text
to the index and it seems not viable to handle it that way.
At least if I got Pascal correctly. From this point of view
one would prefer to add some "FEN-Like" coding that puts all
that in a single string like
[Category "007030123803"]
And resolve the full strings from
007 Castle Destruction
030 Isolated Pawns for the Advanced Player
123 Rook Lift
803 Double Bishop Sacrifice
by some table.
> We the notion of category could be interpreted as book and chapters,
> chapters and sections, or courses and lessons.
You actually suggest chains of keywords. This is funny,
from my professional point of view. It is said, that
nobody uses this kind of deep indexing. (I do not believe
that, but that's the result of quesioning the users.)
Plus: you even start to build up here a pretty large and
coplex indexing scheme.
I'd suggest (oh, I suggest to much) to just start with some
tournament and to fill a DB and see which of all those
suggesions made so far are viable, what is possible at a
resonable workload and so on.
Why? Your indexing is perfect. We do not do this in
libraries as if we would do such a deep indexing people like
me would have to be employed by the thousands in each
discipline and we wouldn't do any other work than indexing
literature at all. This is a bit expensive and maybe also
way beyond the users needs. Be carefull here not to set up a
to complex scheme with to ambitous targets.
> 2. Question tag is very interesting :
>
> [Question "Do you think white : (a) wins ; (b) loses ; (c) equalizes
> ? Prove it with variations."]
Wouldn't such stuff be more suitable within the games
comments? Wouldn't it be worthwile to think about storing it
outside the DB? Thinking of Pascals comments about the index
growing in astronomical numbers. Wouldn't it be better to
say: Ok, I've a table that generates the trainings DB. This
table contains the Game ID, the Ply where the quesion
arrises, the question as such and the answer, just in
separate coloumns? Wouldn't it be a better approach to
assemble the trainings DB then from the reference DB and
adding this additional info from this table?
> 3. To the most interesting flags of Pascal's list, I would have opening,
> so we could have only four flags :
>
> - Opening
> - Middlegame
> - Endgame
> - Tactics
Ahm, do not reduce the 16 that are there. They're barely
enough anyway ;)
--
Kind regards, / War is Peace.
| Freedom is Slavery.
Alexander Wagner | Ignorance is Strength.
|
| Theory : G. Orwell, "1984"
/ In practice: USA, since 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Scid-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
