What is going on with the Game Explorer?

Sort:
JamieDelarosa

Some times I try to look back at my previous games in a given opening or defense, lines I have played before, and instead of the listing of moves from master play and an option to see my games, or my opponent's games, I get sent to some useless, stupid forum topic with a bunch a comments.

This is not what I paid for!

pam234

I've been having the same problems Jamie. I assumed it was just another damn bug. Site is full of them!

Martin_Stahl
JamieDelarosa wrote:

Some times I try to look back at my previous games in a given opening or defense, lines I have played before, and instead of the listing of moves from master play and an option to see my games, or my opponent's games, I get sent to some useless, stupid forum topic with a bunch a comments.

This is not what I paid for!

 

Openings have discussion attached to them: https://www.chess.com/openings

 

I don't think I've ever seen an issue with using Explorer like that. But if you click the opening name, it loads the opening from the above linked database, along with possible comments from members.


If you want your games, of another member's games if you chose that method, you have to click View all games from current position

 

If the is a single game, like in the image, you can just click the vs Opponent link instead.

 

JamieDelarosa

I know how to use Explorer, Martin. I do click on  the opening line. I would just like it to work like it used to.  Thing is, many times a screenshot, like the one you show, DOES NOT appear.  The last time, I got sent to a forum was in the fourth move in a NimzoIndian.  Fourth move!

Martin_Stahl

I'm pretty sure clicking the opening name always has loaded the opening in the Openings database and would go the the specific line in the opening name, regardless of the move number on the game your looking at. For example, if I clicked that one above, it would go to that opening on move 4, not on move 6 where I was in the game.

JamieDelarosa

Whatever the problem was, it seems to have been corrected.  Thanks