I am posting to report that this function is not working properly.

It has been stuck for about a month, roughly the same time the early May improvements were rolled out.

Thank you.

mine seems to work fine

Can you provide more detail please? When you say it's not working, what does that mean? What happens when you try to explore your games? What steps are you taking? Are you getting any error messages? What is not happening that you expect to happen? Please provide as much detail as possible.

It has not updated and added any games I have played since the beginning of May.

No error messages. Just the same info that was available one month ago and none of the games played since then have been added to the mix.

So, where it states I played  X games starting w/1.d4 that number should be significiantly higher since I have played (and completed) another 25+ 1.d4 games since that point in time that it stopped updating.

The last games added were finished on 4/27/09.

we're currently re-working games explorer and that has caused the import script to stop. we should have this fixed in the next 10 days. sorry!

Thanks!  I figured it was something like this, but after a while I thought....well, maybe they do not know ?!

I find this feature THE most helpful on the site for personal learning.  Keeping track of my own efforts is provides more info than looking at db to see what others play.

So, thanks for having it, thanks for responding, and thanks for the efforts to get it back to its usual usefulness.

richie and oprah...how is it the most helpful tool?  How exactly does it help? :)

There is nothing more helpful than going over one's own games as part of a balanced system to improve.  Going over losses is in particular the most helpful and here are some reasons why.

1. Patterns of thought emerge over a number of games that are not apparent (though present) during just one game. 
   
2. Playing the same opening system and seeing where one gets "caught out" or does not find the right path is easier to find over multiple games.
   
3. Learning how to critically analyse one own efforts is a major obstacle to getting better.  It is hard work, and often painful, because we look closely at our faults and flaws and must accept them for what they are if we are to learn from them.  Game Explorer makes no mistakes in transcription and if our moves look ugly, that is because they are. It is an honest, objective mirror.
   
4. It is the most useful barometer of improvement.  More so than rating.  Seeing how we improve from game to game, regardless of result is easier to see, more relevant, and more personal than looking at a number.
   
5. It does not matter what a GM plays in a given position if one does not understand the underlying play in that position. So, it is more important for me to see what is is I see and why I choose to play certain lines.  Which leads to...
6. My own games are the best historical record of what I have really done in particluar situations.  It shows how I reacted to real-(chess)life situations and is the only "truth" about my own play.  Regardless of what I think about my play, Game Explorer provides the reality  with no transcription errors or missed move pairs.
   
7. It also indicates what I am likely to do in similar situations, so I can now foresee problems better in similiar situations.
8. It helps build engrams of the actual moves one needs to play better than going over another person's game because of the psychological attachment/detachment issues*.

With regard to opponents, it is most useful as well as it is a road map as to what one may face when playing specific opponents.

Whenever one gets a really good mentor, the first thing that person needs to assess your real level of play is to see your actual games against real opponents.

It is better to remember what I played and why it did, or did not, work than it is to know what some stronger player would play.  This person will not be at the board with me in future games to explain their ideas to me, so I want to grasp it on my own, and looking at one's own games is the time honored and proven way to accomplish this.

Sincerely,

~ richie_and_oprah

* Perhaps the most significant.

One thing I absolutely learned here on Chess.com about my play is that against 1.e4 I have trouble against the Scotch Opening.  I did not realize this before, but the results speak for themselves.

So, I have tightened up and hopefully patched that "hole" in my repertoire.

Game Explorer revealed that in those specific Scotch pawn structures I was playing far too aggressively and not accepting that White's position is solid.  I was playing the positions wrong.  Without the ability of looking at several games in succession in the same line, I probably would have never caught what the problem was (my dark square Bishop and Queen placements).  Instead of looking to counter attack on the dark squares, I needed to defend them.

Now, whether or not my  new ideas will suffice remains to be seen, but I will have my own specific benchmark to make comparisons.

So, recently I have been unable to update my "charts" and see if the resulting play (actual play-not neccessarily winning or losing) is better.

Actually I find this very interesting as I've had it in my mind to find a way to explore my patterns with all the openings I want to play.  Currently I send every game "of interest" to computer analysis and then save them by opening on my computer.  Very antiquated but I figured I could at some point sit and crystallize all the "patterns" and tendencies of each game type.  I haven't looked at this Game Explorer but it sounds like a nice way of getting a lot of information fast.  I'm going to go have a look now.  

I'm especially curious...what sort of "patterns of thought" could emerge potentially?  Like an example of something.

With patterns of thought, I mean...what kind of ideas do you/could you spot when you become aware of this?

~ Piece placement in development.

~ Exchanges, when and why and what is the result.

~ King safety issues.  How senstive one is or is not to it.

~ Endgame proclivities.

~ Minor piece preferences ( I like the Bishop pair!)

~ Pawn structures.

~ Rook activity.

~ Piece coordination.

~ Middlegame planning.

~ Tactics missed.

~ Does one always castle simply because one can?  or do they do so because the position called for it?

~ Attacking before completing devbelopment?

~ Penchant for sacrficies?

~ Open or Closed systems preffered and what results in each to compare and contrast.

~ Panic when attacked, or cool defense?

~

Will it update all the missed games, or are those gone?

I never knew this feature was there. It will be very helpful.

And here is a real big pattern to spot:  Does one like to play on the light or dark square complexes?  Is one complex easier to play than the other?

Just like lefty/righty with our hands, we have preferrences with color choices in chess as well but they are not at all apparent without closely looking at our own games.

Some people prefer play on the light squares with both sides, some prefer the dark squares, some are more flexible.

Ok, you're talking at a very different level...I don't have a grasp of the difference of light and dark squares...I guess their importance/character is different depending on the opening?  You're giving me some interesting things to look out for.

I bet you can find out if you win more games attcking the light squares than the dark and would find a distinct pattern in your play now that you know to look.

Another perspective/slant on the same issue:  Do you play for mating attacks or to win in endgames?

Kings on color is emblemic.  White king on dark square, vice versa.

If the king is on dark square and you have White sq bishop, no king attacking for you!  (over simplified, no doubt!)

Extrapolate onto your games and you will bask in splendiferous and mellifluos rays of luminosity. 

That's crazy! Did you come up with this yourself, or did you get it from someone? I've never heard of such a thing, but it's quite interesting... my first reaction is: absurd.  My second reaction is: I'm always playing on the light squares, aren't I?

JG27Pyth: I was taught it by several friends who are(were) titled otb GM's.

I have found it to be very true.  Both for myself and other people's whose games I study.  Super GM's can play without 'color bias' but until one even recognizes it fully, one is always controlled (to some degree ) by it sub-consciously.