 |
| Home |
| Informations |
| Login |
| Register |
| Waiting lists |
| Membership |
| Hall of fame |
| Tournaments |
| Best game |
| Wikichess |
| Rating list |
| Problems |
| Forum |
| Links |
| Help |
| About |
|
Game result (chess) J. Repa, 2174 W. Lowrance, 2209 1/2-1/2 See game 16035 |
|
André Diamant wins Brazilian Chess Championship W. Utesch wins the 2nd FICGS candidates final Veselin Topalov wins Pearl Spring in Nanjing Miroshnichenko wins Ukrainian Championship 2008 Vassily Ivanchuk wins Benidorm tournament Armenia wins gold at 38th Chess Olympiad Deep Fritz 11 is available (Chessbase.com) Dominguez-Perez wins World Blitz Championship Hikaru Nakamura wins Cap d'Agde tournament Viswanathan Anand is FIDE world champion 2008 more chess news... |
|
Lee Sedol 9p beats Kang Dongyun in Korean Myeongin Kong Jie & Lee Sedol will play Samsung Cup final Crazy Stone wins Computer Go UEC Cup in Tokyo Fan Hui 2p wins Paris Meijin title Oh Chi-Min 7d wins Go-to-Innovation tournament more Go news... |
|
In the forum... Money games... Moneybookers, Paypal, credit card and bank transfer are available to play money games... Affiliate links... Win E-Points by linking to us as an affiliate, for each new member referred by your link, 1 E-Point will be added to your account... E-Points prizes... Ficgs now offers free games & tournaments with E-Points prizes... Rybka 3, Fritz 12... Rybka 3, Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13, your predictions on forthcoming chess engines... Translators... Translators are needed for chinese, japanese, indian, romanian, polish home pages... Vacation help... Hello all, I've entered a vacation time in error. Is it possible to cancel the vacation ? |
|
Last referers : SMIMED EXAMPLE COMPARE-LE-NET SERVERMOJO ZOEKEN ASK WIKIPEDIA YAHOO MSN |
|
Feel free to link to this page to get referer backlinks to your website ! |
Want your banner here ? |
Back to forum
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-03 04:41:09)
Start positions
It seems to me that changing the start position from classical chess is "sufficient"... The purpose was, according to Fischer, to avoid databases and to favour creativity.. The same positions in the whole tournament allows to compare & analyze a bit deeper, maybe understand better the position. The start position will be different for the next tournament (working on). There are "only" 960 positions, there will be repetitions anyway... And what do you think about the Fischer rules ? Seems strange to me. I wonder if everyone knows how to castle in other start positions (king or rooks at different places)
Marc Lacrosse (2006-06-09 09:21:54)
I cannot understand ...
To Trent Parker :
you say :
"I think the teams should be geographical at least"
This is really something that I cannot even understand.
In which way is my way of playing correspondence chess related to the place where I live or where I am born???
Is my kind of play "belgian" ?
Or is it "brown-haired", or "butter-cooked", or ...
Why shouldn't I be allowed to find a few friends from all over the world that play the same kind of unusual openings than myself to build a team ?
IMHO this kind of team could well have a better signification than a one made of chess players of the same country or of the same geographical region.
Anyway the idea itself of "correspondence chess teams" is completely strange for me. Does it mean that collaboration between members for the choice of the moves is allowed ?
This is at the exact opposite of what I feel to be the minimum requirement for a meaningful correspondence chess competition to survive : anything allowed (books, computers, databases) except human advice, and at least one single human name alone identified as the single "author" of the moves ...
So, why teams at all...
Marc
Daniel De Noose (2006-06-15 17:23:38)
It is not the same !
Playing 1st or 2nd Championship is not the same because if you play only the second you can't be the first FICGS champion ! ;-) Secundo, as you explained it at the start of the site, everybody can use databases, computers, ... In that case a 1600 can beat a 2300 if he enters correctly parameters in his chess engine. Because the tournament is not again started you can correct this. After the beginning it will be harder. And what's my rating now ? ;-)
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-22 19:50:51)
Interesting Discussion Topic
Thibault - this is a interesting discussion topic. Of course, no one knows the future with certainty, but we can all offer an opinion :)
I'm nearing my 40th year of correspondence play. Sometime later this year I will complete my 1000th tournament game. All my games were played by postcard until the mid 90's. E-mail dominated my CC schedule from about 1998 until 2002. Now I only play server chess. I've played on the FICGS, IECG, GameKnot, ChessFriend, Schemingmind and ICCF servers.
Contrary to many people who've played as long as I have, I do NOT see chess engines as a threat to the game. I think they've changed the game, but not hurt the game. I believe they've increasd CC's popularity and game quality. The same is true for opening and ending databases.
Some of the changes that will occur in CC the next ten years:
- Servers will improve functionality and ease of use.
- Due to engine use we will grow to accept 2200 as an "average" rating rather than "Master."
- Tournaments will be re-structured to include fewer players per section and shorter tournament durations. This particularly applies to ICCF where 15 player sections and slow time rules to simulate postal chess are used.
- New server functionality will be added to allow players the option to SLOW down the game. It's too easy to get caught in a mindless "server flurry."
- New chess software will be developed to analyze games. This analysis tool will give proability estimates on what engine one's opponent is using. That information will allow one to counter and plan against one's opponent.
- There will be more anti-computer books written and theories developed. We will use these techniques to beat our opponent and and improve our chess planning skills.
Bottomline ... I am excited by the new technology. I see continued advances in the way we manage our gameload, the way we send moves, the way we play, plan and analyze our moves. The way we play in the future will be different and will still be fun for those who embrace new technology. My disappointment is I am an old man and unlikely to enjoy all the advantages the future brings. I hope those who follow me enjoy what I will miss :)
Charlie Neil (2006-09-02 21:49:18)
why do you play corr chess
i play corr chess as i don't go to chess clubs as i work shifts and can't devote a single night off the same day in every week. also i pause at the board smoking cigarettes drinking coffee and have music playing in the background, ( most of the time dressed in my pyjamas). the corr chess players you meet can be some nice people who are usually polite and chessfriends. and the rude ones you can ignore. of course you have the time to study a game a bit longer before making that blunder. i am learning and re-learning chess all the time. at the moment i am playing from memory after finding using books confusing when i got to the end of the line. i feel sorry for those people who use databases/computers for their moves as in the end they are cheating themselves out using their own brain, there is an old saying, "cheats don't prosper" i believe it to be true. Chess is the best and the most terrible game in the world.
Marc Lacrosse (2006-09-04 10:51:45)
To Charlie on cheaters ...
Hi Charlie
I completely agree with the first sentences of your post, but I cannot accept the second part of it.
I use computers, and books, and databases and lots of prepared personal analyses for my games here.
I do not accept to be called a cheater : this is explicitly allowed by the rules here, and it is even one of the main reasons for which I joined this association.
There are lots of other sites where computer use is forbidden : you can for sure play there and complain when you will guess that your opponent is making use of electronic assistance, but not here.
Moreover for me it is pure shortness of sight if you are not able to imagine that playing with computer help can be both creative and even fascinating.
Take any of your games and do a quick analysis with several chess programs : you will see that for a large majority of positions they completely disagree on which is the best move to play. The human touch is critically decisive when playing with computer help.
And resulting games are far more complicated and interesting in my eyes.
Another point is that for myself I prefer that my opponents do not spoil an interesting game for which I have spent hours and hours of analysis along weeks of play through a stupid human blunder that ends it all suddenly.
I do pretty well understand that you prefer to play on your own. But what is the problem if you have a computer-assisted opponent? Either you will loose and will maybe learn something either you will win and it will be a pretty good achievement. And surely it will be a better game. The only problem I can see is the possible frustration not to be able to win many games.
Then I repeat : go on another site where computer assistance is forbidden. But I have to say that having played on such sites for years you will find _many_ cheaters... Pure human play cannot be enforced ...
But please stop saying that players like myself are cheaters and poor ignorants.
It is sure we play a different game but why should you be entitled to say that mine is worse than yours?
Regards
Marc
Charlie Neil (2006-09-05 09:50:08)
why play corr-chess
Marc, excuse me I didn't make the difference between chess engines/databases and someone playing straight moves straight off their own computer. Yes, use books and databases that's what they are there for. But I feel sorry for the individual who relies solely on their computer to play their games for them. It is a bit like taking a fork lift to a weight lifting competition. The use of computers and servers is still relatively new to me. There are sites that ban the use of computers. but who is to know who is using their computer in an illegal way? There can be no profit for them or enjoyment in the game. It is good that FICGS has this forum for free discussion. I enjoyed reading "The future for Corr-chess" thread. There has always been points in time when it has been discussed that chess has "burnt-out" and the game will die off. I don't think that will ever happen in light of the passion for this terrible game expressed in all these forums. So, forgive an ignorant "free-range" "organic" chessfriend for not being clear about the differences about databases and computer-slaves who rely on their machines. The game is the thing. ( and maybe just maybe I wasn't drinking just coffee the time I posted the cheats slur...:-/)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-10 14:31:47)
Sudden death games !
Hello to all.
Does someone have any idea about chess openings that would give White 50% chances to win & Black 50% chances to win OR draw, or reverse ? (in absolute, not ie. blitz statistics)
Thinking about 1.e4 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 or 1.Nf3 d5 2.Ng1, in examples... but it's hard to know. Databases can't help much as very few games with obvious errors have been played. So mad gambits could be real challenges to play & analyze, with no draws at the outcome...
Your feelings ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-14 13:33:14)
Chess engines prohibited
Please note :
"The use of databases and chess engines will be prohibited for this challenge." (games unrated)"
Lots of fun ! .. Join us :)
Miguel Pires (2006-09-14 15:33:01)
whay databases
whay databases are prohibited? in GK we can use them. Regard's Miguel Pires
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-15 00:24:12)
Chess databases
Hi Miguel.
Really ? Looks strange to me... So what about 6-pieces tablebases ?
Miguel Pires (2006-09-15 01:05:13)
Chess database
This is the rules of the gk, you can see in this link http://gameknot.com/pg/pol_community.htm What is important is this one: 3. You may not use chess engines, chess programs, chess computers to help you decide your next move. You may not consult with anyone nor ask advice about any games in progress. You may analyze games with chess engines after they are finished. You may consult chess books or game/move databases at any time. Soo i can consult databases. You can fin the tablebases in PGN or other thing, by this rule you can use, any databasese, oppening, games etc. Don't you agree? Regard's Miguel Pires
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-15 01:46:29)
Chess databases / tablebases
Ok, I was confused.. Chess database and tablebases / "chess programs"...
Anyway, I suppose we can use any rules if it's clearly specified, that's not a problem. However, for just more fun, I would suggest games without any kind of assistance... Games could be just more human & original :)
What do you think ?
Miguel Pires (2006-09-15 02:50:58)
well
you are the boss, if say soo, for me is ok. But for shure some not going to do that. And now we have a big problem, the OTB Vs CC rating. Cairo from GK have an elo in OTB +2300, mor or less the same at GK an ICCF, but others, the thing's are different. Like me, i'm a +1700 in otb, and + 2000 in this site, and in GK i'm a +1900 (a lot of timeouts put my rating in 1756 now). soo playng in CC without any help (databases like i play in GK) is hard to play at + 2000. And we need players with good OTB rating's to. Like i say, you are the boss. what time controls we going to use?
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-15 02:53:36)
re: computer help
Greetings:) Maybe I was misunderstood.......the use of databases is ok - but like Miguel said, we oppose the use of computers to recommend moves. :) Thomas
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-18 14:00:30)
FICGS vs. GameKnot
Thomas :
I agree with you, the match is for fun only, I like the idea whatever the result, even 100-0 :) .. If players use engines, their problem.. we can't avoid the risk totally... I think it's more logical to prohibite databases too or to allow both databases and chess engines, playing "real correspondence chess", and we could have a larger team for sure... Still discussing.
Miguel :
I prefer to avoid to "mail" everyone about the match.. It's clearly announced in the news, so I think most players here are "more CC ones" and don't trust the no use of engines...
James Stripes (2006-09-18 15:56:13)
27 years ago
When I first played correspondence chess, books were encouraged and the few chess engines in existence were garbage. Good quality engines and comprehensive databases have changed the nature of correspondence play. Nearly everyone permits databases (electronic books), although endgame tablebases are less clear. Engines are permitted some places, while banned others. This site is my first foray into CC where engine use is permitted, but I've played at dozens of sites where I can use databases. (I don't believe I've ever reached a position in which tablebases would be useful, except a few elementary positions that any average player could win against Kramnik.) These inter-site matches, it seems to me, nurture connections across the broad community of correspondence players--a rapidly expanding coterie of chess aficionados thanks to the likes of GameKnot and similar sites.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-18 18:06:50)
FICGS correspondence chess database
Hello to all.
FICGS chess database (games rated + unrated, finished + unfinished) is now a unique static PGN file, that will be updated at least every 2 months. You can find it by clicking 'Search games' or at this link :
http://www.ficgs.com/databases/chess.pgn
Other free chess databases (ie. games played by famous players) will be added at :
http://www.ficgs.com/directory_databases.html
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-19 15:03:13)
Computer use on GameKnot......
I just read GameKnot forum about the FICGS vs. GameKnot match :
http://gameknot.com/fmsg/chess3/3860.shtml
It seems to me this question of computer use on GameKnot is quite out of topic (and on the wrong forum)... I proposed to GameKnot rep (Thomas) to prohibite any computer assistance (engines + databases) for the match or to simply authorize it, as I think more players from FICGS would play, and surely players from GameKnot too... Then everyone is free to play, accepting the rules and the risk of cheating (quite small IMO), but it's up to I & Thomas to deal with that. This debate shouldn't happen here IMHO.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-19 19:13:07)
No cumputer use at all
Thomas & I finally agreed to prohibite chess engines & chess databases for this friendly match ! :-)
Games should be really interesting this way.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-19 21:25:57)
FICGS correspondence chess database
Hello Elmer.
Former databases were not updated daily, it were generated in real time... It could be updated daily yet, but as it will grow up a lot & quickly, I prefer to make it myself (instead of the robots).
Best regards.
Roger Weber (2006-10-03 15:11:47)
Go
The one thing that makes humans good at Go is our ability to recognize patterns.
Go is all about seeing patterns and making strategical moves.
Chess engines are so good at Chess because there aren't that many possibilites to be played, so a computer can calculate the best one by looking at databases.
However Go has a much larger board and much more possibilites of moves for a game, making it impossible for a computer to calculate the best move.
Also computers do not have an AI yet to enable them the recognition of patterns, or not to a degree that humans do.
So a Go-engine could theoretically beat you on a 9x9 sized board, but it is very improbable that it will do so on a 19x19 board.
At least for the moment ...
Scott Prestwood (2006-10-21 03:15:11)
Full Disclosure
Perhaps tournaments should be labled as permiting engines and not permiting engines. Coorespondence chess has tradionally had only the rules of chess and the time control limiting it. And the early masters that used and believed in coorespondence chess as a method to improve ones game did not have access to computers, nice to know I could get killed in the tourney I am in just because I'm playing 6 computers. The initial allowance of databases and books to aid ones choice of moves as well as playing the game through allowed improvement of ones chess abilities. Computers will have a greater tendency to be the one playing the game because they only prescribe one line of action from a position. That line is very strong and likewise tends to be the operators choice of the next move. If the allowance of computers is posted for the games it will allow for the players to chose which type of game they prefer.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-21 12:11:22)
Tactics / server chess
You just have to be a bit more creative or to play different openings in your 3 games as White & Black in a tournament... Anyway, with online databases it's quite easy to know any player style & opening book.
There are many psychological tactics with server chess & CC time controls IMO, ie. it may be quite important to manage your unlucky opponent spirit during a tournament :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-30 18:13:36)
Big chess "birthday" tournament !
FICGS now counts more than 1000 members :)
The display of Big Chess games has just been improved : Last move marked, coordinates, speed, bugs fixed... So it may be funny to see more games !!
A special tournament will start soon, if you want to enter it, just post "I'm in." (or something like that :)) in this thread. The first 7 players will be in.
The tournament will be there :
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__BIG_CHESS__THOUSAND_MEMBERS_EVENT.html
Games unrated, time control is 30 days + 1 day / move... 7 players -> 6 games per player (big challenge).
Reminder : To see what Big Chess is, see the Inaugural match game...
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__BIG_CHESS__INAUGURAL_MATCH.html
100% human chess guaranteed, no chess engines & databases :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-21 13:48:44)
Go and chess, IGN Goama newsletter
From IGN Goama newsletter by Alexander Dinerchtein - http://www.gogame.info
Go and Chess Two Games, Shared Experiences
Chess and go show are similar in many ways, yet it's always strange to see how the masters of each game try to "invent the wheel", instead of benefiting from the knowledge of their colleagues.
Let's consider sharing experiences!
These ideas can be useful even for strong Asian Go professionals:
1. Currently, only a few pros use Go databases and programs for studying. It is easy to find commentaries, written by 9-dan masters, which state that a move is new and has never been played before. Yet if one checks such moves in Go databases, one can sometimes find up to 100 examples from professional games. How can they cheat the readers who study these commentaries?
Once in Korea, I showed the Bigo Assistant program (similar to GoGod, MoyoGo and SmartGo) to Lee Sedol's brother Lee Sanghun, 5-dan, who is the director of a large children's Go school. He was surprised and said that the program looked very useful, and he added that he had never met this kind of program before. He even suggested deleting all amateur games and games played on Go servers, because of their low quality. I promised to order the programs and to install them on the school's computers if he liked this idea, but he did not follow up. Lee Sanghun, 5-dan was not able to break the traditions of his forefathers …
2. Even such top chess players as Kasparov, Kramnik and Topalov enlist the support of trainers during important tournaments and matches. During the Communist era, almost every Russian grandmaster worked on behalf of world championship candidates. Our government forced them to help, to show them new moves and ideas. Those who refused to help were punished severely: for example, sometimes a player would be prohibited from playing in tournaments abroad and would be refused foreign visas.
We do not see this in Go. Everyone thinks only about his or her own self. Do you know who is currently assisting Lee Changho? I don't know, either!
3. I would like to say a few words about playing technique. Chess players often used to write the move on paper first and then make it on the board. This helps to avoid impulsive moves and to prevent blunders. Go masters record the game afterwards, and so one can often find terrible mistakes, such as overlooking ataris and recapturing ko without playing a ko threat first. As an example you may see Black's move number 271 from this game: http://www.go4go.net/v2/modules/collection/sgfview.php?id=10828 I am sure that if a player looked at their move at least twice before they write it on paper and after they would not make such mistakes.
4. Even top Go tournaments are usually run by the knock-out system so we often see sensational results. Mightn’t it be reasonable to think about increasing the number of games in each round? If rounds were best-of-three (in case of time constraints, it would be possible to use blitz time controls for the third game), it would help to minimize sensations.
How about organising a definitive World Go Championship? Chess players have contested one for more than 100 years, and competitions for this World Championship have revealed the very best players of each generation. In Go it's harder to tell which player is true champion. In 2006, for instance, one international tournament was won by Lee Changho and another one by Lee Sedol, while Cho U won the largest amount of prize money. Whom can we call the World Champion? Who can say which tournament is the most important : LG, Samsung, Fujitsu, Chunlan or another? We don't even have a unified rating system …
If we determined a single World Go Champion, he might earn the same degree of popularity as Garry Kasparov achieved in chess, and this could have a very positive influence on Go popularity around the world!
Charlie Neil (2007-02-02 11:45:33)
Without Computer
Marcus if you can please read the old forum postings, "Why do you play corr-chess." I made a similar comment about computers being used as the main player. Believe me I was wrong! As much as in correspondence chess you can use notes, books and databases for reference. Here at FICGS, (A great site!) players use their computers as a reference. It does not benefit anyone to just relay their computer moves without understanding them. Those players won't prosper nor will develop a passion we chessplayers have for the game. I believe that now to be the case. Personally I don't have a Juinor8, Fritz 10 or Deep Joe 90 or whatever to use as a reference point. I do have a pile of books that serve to confuse me in my games. As I continue to seek understanding in this game. People should use computers as long as the computers don't use them! How boring can it be just to imput moves? The computer isn't compulsory. And I am saving a fortune on stamps playing here! It is fun after all. It is only a game. Even if it is a terrible one.
Ilmars Cirulis (2007-02-17 15:13:58)
one more
http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html
Scott Prestwood (2007-04-16 16:19:09)
Consider this
It has been a part of the correspondence chess tradition that you can use your own personal databases. Well, what if this database has a large proportion of computer verses human games? Computer verses computer? What if these databases were being generated by computers? Many chess viewers and database applications provide statistics and information are not reasonably generated by anything other than a computer. It seems that computer chess will be slowly keeping in.
Don Burden (2007-05-17 00:45:25)
Fighting against Tablebases
Needing over a terabyte of disk space, I doubt if anyone actually has the 6 piece tablebase installed on their computer, though a position can be queried at:
http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html
BTW, I've played endgames here where I had to play the game out to checkmate where my opponent had just a king and a few locked pawns, while I had an advantage of a queen, rook, and several extra pawns.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-15 17:12:39)
Online chess today
A few links to discussions at TCCMB (The Correspondence Chess Message Board) on chess servers nowadays, future of ICCF, correspondence chess [once more] and so on...
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=105.0
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.0
In the second discussion I tried to answer on the future of correspondence chess & chess engines :
1) Like the 'tour de France', it is impossible to organize a "bicycle race" at chess without doping today IMO. Also there are so many 'products' : Various books, databases, engines, human help.. so it seems to me that it is a non-sense to try to make it like an OTB tournament. Online chess is "motorcycle races" & freestyle, nothing else.
2) The ratio of wins does not decrease much in computer games & advanced chess (blitz), and correspondence chess games will never be all drawn IMO. We just have to follow the horizon line... Engines still have difficulties when there are 32 pieces on the board... Make the position more and more complex & critical, play Benoni structures, East indians and English openings... There will probably be more and more draws but when looking at CC 2500+ games, the ratio is still quite good. The problem at CC is mainly the style of play with humans 'humanly' trying to remain in known positions where they can win and can't lose.
'The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy', 'Opportunities multiply as they are seized' (Sun Tzu)
A solution is to make rules that motivate players to avoid draws, particularly when playing against a higher rated opponent. (ie. the rule for FICGS 8-games matches)
3) We feel that engines play almost perfect chess because of our poor human's level of play (I should say ratings)... But engines & computers have to improve a lot yet - not obvious they can do it in a more or less near future -, the horizon line is not so far, each version of Rybka wins about 30 elo points... We'll see engines at level 3200, 3300 maybe much more... (4000 ?)
4) If too many players have their CC rating between 2750-2800 in future, we can make new rules : Ratings wouldn't be calculated on the basis of each game, but on the basis of ie. 8-games matches... Then strategy would be more important & we would see rating gaps again between the best players...
Finally if I'm completely wrong, play Big Chess ;D
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-16 07:52:47)
Dead Man's Defense
Nobody has to install 6-pieces-endings on his own computer today. You can just have a look at internet site: http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 20:50:23)
Big chess theory : "Queens opening"
The first rated Big Chess tournament started a few days ago... I like this game more and more, no theory, no databases, no chess engines, many strategies & many queens captured already ;)
Every opening seems ok, we still don't know if taking pawns with the queen during the first moves is worth something or not, the value of the pieces is quite unpredictable... Many players now play 1.Nh4 to threaten 2.Qo7 then 3.Qc7 if needed, winning a pawn. What is the best response if you want to keep the same material ? .. Anyway that's very interesting to see a side with 1 or 2 pawns more, giving some rooks activity to the opponent.. Still looks like a draw theorically.
My main line is : 1.Nh4 Nh13 2.Qo7 No14 3.Qc7 Ql13
Any other suggestion ?
See Big Chess waiting list in Chess Special Tournaments.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-08-11 23:49:31)
Real names and databases
Do games with fictitious names ever get into databases like Mega Corre etc? I get the feeling that chess sites that use nicknames dont get onto databases so the games are less accesible maybe even lost?
Ivan Pljusnin (2007-08-12 01:41:19)
2 Andrew Stephenson
In fact there is a database of IGAME games in pgn format, about 400000 games. Formally speaking, it is not free: you have to register and buy membership and then you can download it. But somewhere it can be downloaded for free, I remember. If you wish I can give you a link, but I have to find it.
Our administrator does not send our games to MEGA Corre or any other chess databases, I am sure. From this point of view FICGS is much better.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-09 16:17:20)
Waiting list is open
The rules are : "FICGS chess no engines tournaments are unrated single round-robin tournaments, involving 7 players. The special rule for these tournaments is that chess engines, databases and opening books are strictly forbidden. All games are played in 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves. Norms are not possible."
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-12 16:51:49)
Gene
ok Gene let me give you my experience as to why you should use an engine in cc. 1) I have learnt a lot about certain openings and I remember lot more effective systems 2) finding the truth about a position is fun and instructive 3) I have acquired some endgame knowledge I never would have got. 4) Generally I wil try to understand why the engines like certain moves and drill down into the position trying altrentives until I get it. Sometimes in very wild positions its tough. Most of the the time this reinforces principles of develpoment pawn structure piece dynamism and I find it rubs off on my understanding. One proviso - if you take on too many games a lot of this wont work! Facing a much lower rated player you have to do research and prepare something - trotting down the main line poisened pawn Najdorf may not be the way to go. A lot of top players go for catalan and english openings hoping to utilise their chess knowledge and research. One thing is for sure always playing the best move of your engine is going to drop 1/2 points and lose some games and that includes Rybka. Finally all this stuff is done by all the top professionals in the otb chess. One example I faced the line that Kramnik got crushed with by Topalov playing b5 and f4. I looked at the game notes and databases and couldnt find a good response 45 minutes with fritz and I cracked it and in the process gained some insight into the opening. In fact its a harmless variation if you know the antidote but over the board one slip and Kram was toasted
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-11 12:43:33)
pinot noir, knowledge & 9x9
I agree with that :)
Don, I mean 9x9 should be compared to checkers, it is "chess" at a size where brute force is enough, so a 'particular case' only. But just like Rybka/Hiarcs playing at master level even thinking a few seconds per move by imitating (knowledge + algorithm) an international master's way of thinking more than calculating trillions of positions, why not a Go engine built the same way, much more complex though. Actually Go engines do not calculate much, they try to 'see' already but sure these programs will be improved significantly soon and it could play about the same level (without joseki databases) on different goban sizes. I feel a Go engine could reach a 1 dan / 2 dan level on our small computers, whatever the size of the goban... But it should be incredibly harder to beat stronger players, which is great for Go :)
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 21:54:09)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!
"Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response!"
That's not obvious at all. What's obvious is that I beat you quite easily when you and I played cc so you're far from being any kind of authority whatsoever!
"1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily"
I just finished trying to explain to you, in the way a young child should be able to understand, that there is more to think about in chess than trying to play what current theory considers to be the best try for an opening advantage. Yet here you are rambling on about the same nonsense you were in your previous posts. Was Fischer's 2.d3 against the French the objectively strongest move? Even against (and perhaps especially against) computers, it can sometimes be better to play sidelines or moves which may serve to confuse an opponent. Is the King's Indian Attack the best try for an opening advantage for White? Probably not. But it was used by Kasparov to defeat Deep Blue. If you still can't understand the concept I've been trying to teach you, after several posts, I don't know what more I can do for you. Just keep mindlessly playing what established theory tells you are the strongest lines,(without having even the incipience of an understanding as to why) and keep mindlessly trusting the evaluations your program gives you, and you'll keep getting CRUSHED by guys like me.
"1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side."
After this statement, if I didn't know better, I would have thought you were someone who just learned how to set up the pieces. It might be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. Does 1.e4 develop a piece? How about 1.d4? I suppose those moves are "a waste in cc" as well. We should all be playing 1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3 according to you, lol.
1.f4 grabs space. It stakes out influence both in the center and on the kingside. It effectively prevents 1...e5 (lest White goes into a dubious gambit system) as an alternative to other moves which achieve this. There are also other intangibles that are part of the picture, such as the psychological effect the move may have, the lack of preparation an opponent may have against it, etc. If you ever began to understand chess at a level beyond just plugging moves into a program, you might start to appreciate that allowing concessions (such as the slight weakening of the White kingside resulting from 1.f4) is all part of the game. Fischer's famous quote: "you gotta give squares to get squares" is a famous example. If allowing static liabilities were something to be avoided at all cost, you'd never see a Sicilian Scheveningen. It allows all sorts of weaknesses.
As for your so called "analysis". It's a complete joke! For starters, you're "analyzing" a game resulting from the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening. I line I've never played in my life, let alone here on FICGS. Is this how you try to win an argument/debate? By misrepresenting the facts? An intelligent person who genuinely felt that their argument had a leg to stand on, would simply take one of the 4 games I provided to you and do some analysis from there. Showing where Black could have improved. Then finally, after trying to "score points" with examples of the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening, which I have never played, you post a game where White played poorly and lost to a lower rated player. As if that's never happened before in chess, lol. You don't even know enough to post the date of the game. I couldn't find this game on any of my databases(totally over 4,000,000 games), so if you didn't just make it up out of thin air, perhaps you got more wrong, such as the actual moves that were played, in addition to incorrectly stating:
"Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta."
Is it Black that lost here or White?
I took a brief look at the game, and it's hardly representative of proper play by White. 7.h3 was dubious at best. I prefer 7.Ne5. White then misses another opportunity to play the knight to e5 after 7...c5. Then 9.g4? is a gross thematic mistake. The only thing this game proves is that you're completely incapable of discussing chess in an intelligent way. Real chess players look for games that illustrate the critical lines for both sides, and try to arrive at some actual insights.
There is a reason I crushed you when we played cc last year.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 11:30:35)
French traps
The French defence is one of the best replies to 1 e4 - accidents however are always possible as the following correspondence game shows with black playing into a lost position after just 13 moves: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6 9.Qd2 Qxb2 10.Rb1 Qa3 11.Bb5 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bb4 13.O-O O-O ?? (black had to play 13 ..a6 although he will still be under pressure) 14 Rb3 Qa5 15.Qe3 Nb6 16.Qg3 Nc4 17 f5! and the correspondence game finished Rd8 18.Rf4 Bf8 19.Rg4 Kh8 20.f6 g6 21.Rh4 h6 22.Kh1 Kg8 23.Qh3 Kh7 24.Bc5 Rd6 25.g4 Qd8 26.g5 h5 27.Rxh5+ These things happen OTB but French defence players have known of this since Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 which went 19 f6 g6 20 Rh4 a6 21 Qh3 h5 22 Rxh5!! gxh5 23 Qxh5 axb5 24 Kf2 and white won. since then 13 0-0 has been avoided. Of course at cc a player has time to research the databases and access to powerful chess engines at no cost.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 12:54:06)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
My obsessive fan is quoting my game with Bucsa Ioan played last year. Actually you have it backwards Stephenson. I trusted my database, which wasn't up to date. I wasn't even consulting an engine until around move 18, when it's already lost for Black. I thought quite a bit about alternative lines in this game, but found myself agreeing with the Psakhis analysis. That line is recommended by Psakhis in his book "French Defence - Steinitz, Classical, and other Systems". Additionally, 13...0-0 has been played by the likes of GM Dreev, as well as GM Marjanovic, as recently as 2003. But alas, it pays to keep your databases up to date for correspondence chess.
The game was a valuable learning experience for me. I'm very happy that it occurred. My otb opponents will never get me in that position as a result :)
I can't help but feel sorry for you Stephenson. Firstly I'm sorry that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. Secondly, I'm sorry that you don't play otb chess and appreciate the joy of playing chess using your own mind. But then again, in your case, maybe that's a good thing. :)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 13:57:40)
Databases and books
Well I dont think a book should ever be trusted for cc no matter who has written it. It should always be critically examined - playing 18 moves from the book without switching on the engine seems very risky. I think the position is lost after 13..0-0 14 Rb3 Qa5 15 Qd3 and I see no defence here. The only Dreev game I have in this line continued .. Nb6 16 Qg3 Nc4 and a draw was agreed.(Ivanchuk-Dreev 1993) Chess engines were not as good then and 17 f5 wins as was later discovered. Where are these GM games from 2003?? Its strange that your database does not have Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 In fact an earlier game Ernst - Grigutavicus (1999)had seen white crash through with 15 Qf2 Nb8 16 f5 - although Nb8 does not look a very good move. Whats the date of this Psakhis book? I hope its not after 2001!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 14:33:15)
Opening books
I think the truth is that a lot of opening books are not always objective and someimes do not give the best lines or give assessments that are not always accurate. Active GM's someimes keep things back for there own use .. which is understandable I suppose. John watson seems to be an exception to this and produces very high quality opening work. The bottom line is you have to check them all IMO. Incidentally I am not sure there is much need to keep databases up to date - I suppose that refers to downloading games from TWIC. Most databases are up dated automatically.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 14:43:09)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
No, it looks like my comment was a bit over your head, once again. By keeping databases up to date, I don't mean just mindlessly adding random games, as perhaps a <1500 otb player might do. I was talking about updating the database with current theory and critical lines.
What you're sure or not sure of is of no consequence. This is what chess players do.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 14:57:54)
Updating databases
The professional chess players I know down load TWIC then filter the stuff they are interested in into sub-databases. But what has this got to do with not having a 2001 game in 2007??. Unless a person has some ancient chess base data base - but then why would they not look online and cross check?? It took me about 3 minutes to find some relevant games including the 2001 game showing 13 ...0-0?? as losing.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:15:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
You don't know any professional chess players Stephenson. Who are you trying to kid here? You don't even know that the word is "download" not "down load", and "database", not "data base", lol. This is the problem with a mental midget mindlessly trusting machines, as you are doing with the spelling software. It is for this reason it was so easy to beat you in chess. I only had to outplay a machine, not outsmart a human who has the ability to THINK.
If you're such a "whiz" at correspondence chess, as you keep trying to convince me, and have such wonderful databases, why did I beat you? I think saying that I beat you is even a bit of an understatement. It was more like a slaughter!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 16:00:22)
ELO
Well like I stated elsewhere talking of ELO points I take to refer to FIDE rating not national ratings irrespective of the underlying methodology used to calculate the national rating. I guess we will have to agree to differ on that one. Sorry I cannot respond to the grammer stuff - its against the rules. On the game we played check out the available database games and that may give you an answer. Like I said in another post the line I believe is the refutation is not what you played - I will put up the analysis when I have more time. At the risk of repeating myself I still dont understand why you cannot find a 2001 game or what sort of databases you are looking at but I guess we have reached a dead end there too.
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb
"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."
I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.
But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.
"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"
I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.
"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"
I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.
I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.
"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."
I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-15 23:14:37)
Books and databases
This thread is really about how reliance on books and lack of research can get someone into trouble ie a lost position after 13 moves in a main line opening - even with plenty of time and powerful chess engines available. Actually its not even necessary to own an up to date database to avoid this - the resources are freely available to anyone with an internet connection. The point about ELO is dead I think referring to ELO points is associated with FIDE ratings irrespective of the fact that most national rating systems use ELO's methodology. Mr Repa does not agree - thats it. "but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base ..." I don't read anything into the omission of the word "someone" here nor the numerous spelling mistakes that have cropped up. Incidentally the book I referred to with analysis of the dodgy siscilain variation is called Experts V the Sicilian with different chapters by various GM's and IM's including a chapter on the pin variation about which one reviewer says: "we get no less than 12 pages on the “silly” Pin Variation, and in the end Aagaard seems unable to prove a certain advantage!" Whatever the truth about that variation its highly risky and not recommended for cc!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-02 23:22:15)
games in PGN
Hi Wayne,
Well, many ways but no way in a single click yet... I'll make an update.
In example :
http://www.ficgs.com/databases/chess.pgn (then filter by name)
http://www.ficgs.com/user_games_print.php (make a PGN file)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-30 11:03:31)
Databases
Thibault I believe FICGS games do not get into any of the databases (mega corr etc) Is there any way to get these games in? I have seen some tremendous novelties in FICGS that I have not found anywhere else. It seems this knowledge is hidden ....
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-30 13:01:18)
Databases
Benjamin, I think Andrew meant to share FICGS games in known correspondence chess databases (not programs).
That's a good idea but it's probably a question of time only, or I may ask the owners... why not.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-29 17:26:36)
How to make a *.cbh from ficgs
In the worst case, it should be possible to open a PGN file, copy the games and paste it in an opened CBH database, then save it, or to make a CBH database from the PGN file then merge the two CBH databases... Sorry, I don't have the GUI here :/
Normajean Yates (2008-10-26 08:03:34)
ive seen those chesville articles before
http://www.chessville.com/instruction/Openings/LatvianGambitRevisited.htm
http://www.chessville.com/instruction/Openings/LatvianGambitRevisited_PartTwo.htm - not bad for a starting uderstanding.. but the lines - dont follow them blindly! doublecheck with latest databases and - with llmars :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-01 21:55:48)
Chessgames.com
I just noticed that a few games played at FICGS were in chessgames.com, ie. this game Peter Schuster vs. Thibault de Vassal (WCH4 QF4, 1-0)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1507687
Does anyone know how games are selected in chessgames.com ?
Maybe we'll find games played here in correspondence chess databases in a while :)
Don Groves (2008-11-05 08:02:06)
8 x 8 chess variant
There is another way to foil the computers and re-energize chess: A screen is placed between the two sides of the chess board and each player places their pieces on the board in accordance with two rules: (1) one pawn on each file; (2) no piece past its own third rank. Then the screen is removed and the game begins with White's first move.
Opening books become useless (requiring the computer to begin using its clock from the first move) and the usual endgames will rarely occur (although endgame databases are obviously still useful).
Knowing your opponent's tendencies becomes even more valuable than in the normal game.
Gultekin Gumusyazici (2008-12-30 17:18:11)
I am full concerned about it that
Chess is an Statistical game not mathematical. . As, However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. (Wind stone at Church hill) say. That is why bot players need statistical image databases.
Bradley Small (2008-12-30 19:40:05)
How to play correspondence chess
I am brand new to corr chess. I wonder what are the specific practical/ethical considerations? Will people be using databases, computer analysis, other people and the like? Should I be using these resources? What is considered expected and what is considered cheating? -- B
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-30 20:19:18)
Chess engines & databases
Hello Bradley, it's all in the rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Everything's allowed (but in the NO ENGINES category). Using chess engines is recommended if you want to make deep analysis & reach the highest ratings. The only way to cheat (that is strictly forbidden) is to mirror 2 games, as explained in the rules.
Best wishes for the new year,
Thibault
Bradley Small (2008-12-30 21:20:28)
RTFM I guess
Blaming it on the layout is probably a lame excuse, but it is all I can use. I really must have overlooked that page. As for what is allowed, I will let that be my guide. However, for what is expected, what do most people do as a matter of strategy? For instance, when it is one's time to move... Do you go to the databases and research each move, or simply play from your own head unless you just don't feel like you see a good move? Or somethign else?...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-31 00:37:01)
One player, one strategy...
I suppose everyone has a personal idea on this, it all depends on the time you want to spend on each move. The very best players obviously use Rybka 3, recent databases and may search games played by their opponents (you may use the "Search games" option) to avoid the openings they master.
[Chess rating list]
[Go ranking list]
[Chess & Go links]
[Chess forum]
[Players blog]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Encyclopedia] [Seo forums] [Discussions] [Buzz] [Meet people] [Directory] [Contact] [Legal informations]
[Encyclopedia] [Seo forums] [Discussions] [Buzz] [Meet people] [Directory] [Contact] [Legal informations]
