Home
Information
Login
Register
Waiting lists
Membership
Hall of fame
Tournaments
Best game
Wikichess
Rating list
Problems
Forum
Links
Help
About
| Install FICGS apps | |
| play chess online |  |
|
Game result (chess) B. Ozen, 2269 N. Wilson, 2121 1/2-1/2 See game 152323 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Back to forum
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-08 13:10:47)
Things to be implemented...
Hello to all... and thank you for your confidence in this very new server (when no game started yet ! maybe today...)
I expected a high average rating, but not so much :)
The last update provoked the first bug -> in this forum. Sorry to all who tried to post here. It should work now.
Here are things to be implemented in the future :
- Vacations (until, time limit by move is 2 months)
- Conditional moves
- A better interface for the forum...
Don't hesitate if you have ideas to improve the website !
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-08 14:49:23)
FICGS titles
As you may have read on TCCMB forum, ICCF officials reacted when they learnt about FICGS titles. My idea was it first to be informative (titles from ICCF/IECG/FIDE), because I think players like to know who they play against, particularly if their opponents are titled. It seems obvious to me that FICGS titles are FICGS ones, not "official", not ICCF or FIDE.. even if words are quite the same (titles are FICGS IM, not IM).
I would like to know what you think about that. Do you think FICGS titles should be renamed (ie. FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM), or do you think there's no possible confusion between FIDE/ICCF/IECG/FICGS titles ? This is an interesting debate I invite you to follow :
http://pub11.bravenet.com/forum/924995304/fetch/552912/
Thank you for your advices.
Per Lea (2006-04-08 23:15:01)
Elo overlap
I think the overlap is a great idea. The ratings may come from a lot of different sources and are therefore not necessarily compatible. My ICCF rating is 2136 (why I was given 5 extra points on FICGS, I cannot explain...), but my Norwegian OTB rating is 1631 or thereabouts. That number is probably more realistic....
Per Lea (2006-04-09 11:50:32)
Vacations
OK, Hannes, you're right. When you leave "The modern world" my comments no longer apply... And, by the way: I fully support the idea of some sort of "vacation". After all, not everyone is obsessed with chess 24 hours/day. There are other valuable things in life as well! Often, it can be fun just to relax, and forget all about difficult middle-games, irritating colleagues at work and the disappointments of your local football team and just go away - to Vanuatu (wherever that mey be)
Per Lea (2006-04-09 21:51:02)
Suggested improvement
When clicking on "My games", only a list with one line representing each game should appear (as on ICCF, Chessfriend and I think all other servers I have encountered - and there are quite a few!) With many games running, a short overview is sufficient. Now I have to scroll down to a particular game, even though I only have 6 games running. I definitely think you should look to ICCF and Chessfriend to get some good ideas in this respect.
Hannes Rada (2006-04-10 21:57:30)
Job specification
Generally speaking I am interested. But what about a job specification :-) To be honest, I've no idea about go ..:-) But I've experience in administrating a phpbb - Forum. Hannes
Patrice Verdier (2006-04-10 22:19:36)
Possibility Job
I have been club chess president. I can organize tournaments, proceed rating calculator, write rules, doing relation with others organisation (ICCF, IECG,...). I have some ideas also for tournament with fee and prizes
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-11 05:18:57)
FICGS council / staff
About job specification, as I said, I would like FICGS to be a place that fits to the most, and not under a dictatorship (even mine :)), so the idea to create a council with all members who want to be part of it, voting all decisions relating server rules, tournaments, wch cycles, titles... (or simply opinion poll on the website ? or both...)
The FICGS staff should be able to manage the server (registering new members, moderating the forum, referees...) Nothing difficult, just needs motivation. Most important is that it could completely work without me. Of course, if developers want to help, making a drag & drop interface ie. or improving whatelse..) About "go", we'll see later, Hannes :) (it's a fine game, you should learn !)
Anyway I'll send an email to all players responding in this thread soon. We will discuss about that.
Best wishes & thank you !
Marc Lacrosse (2006-04-11 10:36:45)
Computer accounts ?
Just an idea : as computer use is explicitly allowed on FICGS, it could be nice to offer chess program authors the possibility to have a "semi-official" account for their latest beta babies on FICGS.
Some of them would surely like the idea of having quite a tough test against good correspondence players ...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-11 13:23:44)
CC players vs. Computers
Hello Marc, the idea is good for sure, but I doubt developers would want to see their "beta babies" to achieve a 2000 ELO rating with pain :) If matches like CC GM - Engines are quite balanced, so would be a CC 1800 - Engines one... Anyway, if you know developers interested, we could envisage something in this way...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-11 14:54:36)
FICGS titles
Hello to all.
I would like to have players opinion !
As you may have noticed, I already changed FICGS titles to FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM. (not titles obtained elsewhere) Do you agree with titles appearing this way ?
I thought several other ways : EFM, IFM, SFM, GFM, or only to mention norms obtained ! (not titles) At last, of course, we can suppress definitely titles from FICGS, a bad idea in my opinion. What do you think about that ?
Thank you in advance for your responses.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-12 09:14:24)
Tournament formulas
Hello to all.
What do you think about the idea to create a SLOW tournament category ? Clocks could be 60 days + 10 days / move or 100 days + 100 days / 10 moves (very slow) ?
Any idea or opinion ?
Dinesh De Silva (2006-04-12 12:27:56)
FEM,FIM,FSM,FGM
I saw the rating list, with the title changes....Interesting idea......But what will the titles be called when some of us eventually gain FICGS titles?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-12 12:46:22)
FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM
About titles obtained on FICGS, it would be the same ones. We have choice : We could add a special letter, from the organization the title comes from (very confusing I think : IIM.. IECG / ICCF) .. or consider EM, IM, SM, GM are "official" titles, and FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM are the other ones, including FICGS ones... Probably not perfect. Any idea ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-12 14:02:49)
Solution...
One solution could be to display titles from organizations in separated columns named FICGS, ICCF, FIDE, IECG etc... (as Chessfriend do) It's quite heavy for the rating list page :/ So the idea was to display the player's highest title only, and player is free to mention his titles in his own informations page.
That's not a completely satisfying solution, I agree...
Hannes Rada (2006-04-12 19:15:19)
Titles
>> One solution could be to display titles from organizations in separated columns named FICGS, ICCF, FIDE, IECG etc... (as Chessfriend do) It's quite heavy for the rating list page :/ So the idea was to display the player's highest title only, and player is free to mention his titles in his own informations page.
I think that's the best idea. Maybe you can use smaller fonts, so that all information can be displayed on that page.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-13 15:46:55)
New Titles
Hello Paul-Iosif.
Interesting new idea. In my opinion, there are too many titles & titled players already from official & "non-official" organizations. I think this is a mistake from FIDE / ICCF they couldn't remedy anymore. Titles from other organizations and particularly IECG are not really a problem "more", cause they are hard to achieve (rare), but I don't think this could be so attractive for players. To get a title is a reward itself. Maybe even EM title shouldn't exist.
But I think that ie. a KM title (over GM) could be an interesting idea !
Anyway, I'm ok with the commission idea, we'll vote that too.
Another interesting & controversial idea is (as IECG do) titles not to be awarded for life ! If player's rating decrease, he could lost his title... but I don't think this is very fair.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-14 04:54:25)
Proposal from a visitor (anonymous)
" >>> Hi Thibault
Congratulations for the launch of your new CC server! I fully support your initiative and hope I will join very soon.
Meanwhile I would like to share some ideas about the Ficgs Titles, which I also fully and unconditionally support.
My proposal is to adopt/or "recognize" any title awarded by FIDE/ICCF/IECG as a FGM, FSIM, FIM, FEM titles. (e.g. not just IECG IM = FIM, but all others too).
That is, a ICCF GM should be named FGM much as a FIDE GM, or IECG GM (or SIM, IM or EM for CC). There shouldn't be special treatment to those players with a title from FIDE/ICCF
Then, to differentiate them, there could be a color scheme or a footnote explaining the procedence of the title: FGM (ICCF) ...FSIM (IECG) and simply FSIM for the truly SIM title obtained at FICGS.
In adition, those players who do not have a title, but have norms either at FIDE/ICCF/IECG (my case ;) either will have them "homologated" (as the titles are) or better, when/if the title has been awarded later, his Ficgs title will be "updated" to the newly awarded title (by FIDE/ICCF/IECG), which must be the highest of them all (as in IECG SIM > ICCF IM > FEM ..etc)
This way FICGS will be the first organization to homologate norms and titles in CC world ;) <<< "
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-16 18:33:01)
Adjudication
Déjà ? :)
So, about games "obviously lost" (somewhat subjective), the council may decide special rules so that referees can grant games that drag out. What do you think is best ? That's a recurrent problem in correspondence chess, and an original policy could make the rating more accurate, as some players may finish "good games" very faster than others... Quite subjective indeed, and not obvious. Where's the limit ? Maybe correspondence chess players should first accept this idea that their "won" games may finish much later...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-26 01:33:22)
Finally...
Less than 2 hours later, the second Class C tournament started :)
I hope the first CHESS 960 tournament will begin soon. (Special tournaments category) See the Help section to see the start position. More about Chess 960 / Fischer Random on Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess
Quad tournaments and other categories will appear later, but feel free if you have any idea for special events (teams from countries, other clubs or websites etc...)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-01 14:27:08)
"Repetition"
Thinking about it... I like the idea where all start positions are the same in the whole tournament.
Jose Carrillo (2006-05-05 00:25:09)
Start positions
In FRECC santioned events, we rather have each board be different within the same tournament. It favours even more creativity when each board is different, and no one can look at another board for ideas. Look at a sample FRCEC tournament: http://frcec.chess960.info/FischerCup.htm
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-12 07:49:43)
Building groups
I suppose the following method is quite reasonable... (if you have a better idea...)
So, building WCH round-robin tournaments groups : Grading all players by elo. Starting from the middle of the list. The first 2 players, one above the middle, one below, play in the first group, the next 2 players in the second group, the next 2 in the third group etc.. Finally, elo average for each group shouldn't be far from each other. What do you think ?
Dinesh De Silva (2006-05-14 07:43:13)
An alternative to Cup Championship
In my opinion, instead of a Cup Championship, perhaps a Knock Out Rapid Championship maybe more interesting!? This is simply an idea. (Otherwise, FICGS might begin to look too similar to other correspondence chess sites, don't you think?!)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-14 16:07:16)
"Blitz" cup...
Thank you Heinz Georg, for the files you sent to me.
Now I understand better the work and ideas of Reimund Lutzenberger in Chessfriend.com, a great experimentation field for sure...
I first concluded some things not to do in FICGS WCH. In example, a player rated 2500 (even provisional rating from fide) shouldn't have to play in the first stage against a low-rated player in a world championship [but that could be possible in a cup tournament cycle]. So I'll add special rules for high rated players (who are not qualified for the WCH knockout tournament) to begin directly in a 2nd stage tournament...
I agree with Dinesh, the aim is not to use the same formulas, even good ones. Anyway I think we can find new interesting (better :)) ones. But as the WCH is already a rapid tournament cycle, the CUP could be an unrated "blitz" (30 days per game with no increment, or even 10 days + 1 hour / move) knockout (2 games / match + playoffs) !! Something quite "brutal" and unfair between correspondence chess & classical rythms. What do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-15 08:33:32)
Team Championship
In brief : The idea of a team championship is very good, but of course it's too early... Such a championship could be a 2 stages round-robin tournament with teams of 6 or 7 players.
Bonjour Sébastien. Pourquoi discorde ? :) Au contraire...
Pour le moment j'envisageais des matchs par équipe occasionnels (FICGS vs. fédération ou autre serveur de jeu).
Le problème d'un championnat est qu'il soit représentatif, il serait donc souhaitable (dans le cas par pays) de pouvoir monter des équipes complètes (6 ou 7 joueurs) et que les plus forts joueurs trouvent un "intérêt" à défendre leurs couleurs (dépend de la popularité du serveur). L'idée est de toutes manières des plus intéressantes, mais le serveur doit gagner en confiance et en expérience sur la durée, il est encore tôt. Par contre je me demande comment se déroulerait un tel championnat... Un tournoi toutes ronde (round-robin) entre 5 à 9 pays, divisés par groupes, puis une phase finale ?!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-15 11:05:57)
Blitz cup
Yes, time is the main problem. Correspondence chess don't give a large choice, it's difficult to vary rhythms.
10 days + 1 day per 4 moves (6 extra hours / move) could be more fair and we can avoid playoffs with the sudden death (similar to WCH knockout tournament). I like the idea of a violent, rapid and quite unfair (unrated) tournament. It could be quite popular. An advantage in a knockout (with 2 rounds) is that a few games will have to be played : 7 rounds means at most 14 games... If the number of players doesn't fit, the highest rated players could enter at stage 2. The winner could be qualified for the third stage of the WCH round-robin cycle.
But there are potential problems. I don't find a good & fair algorithm to distribute players in a big knockout (chance is not a good idea, I think), and it could be a big work to organize such a tournament (& start games regularly) with 256 players or more...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-15 13:48:57)
Building groups / Qualifying
Update for the method building round-robin tournaments groups :
1) Grading players by rating
2) Filling the groups. If there are 4 groups, #1 -> group 1, #2 -> group 2, #3 -> group 3, #4 -> group 4, #5 -> group 4, #6 -> group 3, #7 -> group 2, #8 -> group 1, #9 -> group 2 and so on... A clearest way.
Finally, I came back to my first idea, in round-robin tournaments only one player should qualify for next stage (in case of equality, the highest rated). Not sure it's less fair, it's more logical and it rewards the rating obtained before... After all, even ICCF WCH final tournament designate a unique winner. Wch page has been updated.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-05-15 13:49:57)
Team Championship
I like Sebastien Marez's idea, for a team championship somewhere in the near future. It could perhaps be termed FICGS Team World Championship. It's a good way of building camaraderie between chess players too!
Dinesh De Silva (2006-05-15 13:53:13)
Blitz Cup
I think you're quite correct, Thibault! It seems conducting such a tourney has some practical problems. Nevertheless, it was good discussing ideas.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-05-17 08:41:06)
overall evaluation of this new site
This mate problem on this site is a big problem. Only chess site I play on where you have won and it is not won until the player resigns. Secondly I am in a game where mate is in 2. but my opponent has stopped playing. Many others are reporting the same thing. The idea is nice, it assumes that all players are good sports. Over all I would say many players here are not considerate of their opponents, and it is a reflection of their charachter. I dont think to much of the moderaters or those who are responsible and have taken a no action stance despite many complaints. Moderator or responsible authority take care of this ridiculous policy Regards Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-19 02:15:13)
Amici sumus
Hello Wayne. I agree, of course, your game was won. Here the problem is not the checkmate rule, it is about the adjudication of a forced win or draw ! Clearly, there's no perfect solution. There will be some abuses, more or less important ! One can't prevent this... Rules (particularly time rules) mean abuses. But don't forget that if a player abuses, it doesn't mean all players do the same intentionally in such a situation. I don't know if your opponent really stopped to play... (what for ? .. you'll get the point anyway) Maybe he just had other things to do these days... Who knows ? Even if this is not the case, it could have been ! It is the same problem (in the forced mate case) everywhere, there's simply nothing else to do than wait, then call referee when a time limit is reached. There's no other reasonable rule ! (and it would be too much work for referees)
Understand me, I don't say it was not an abuse, I just say there's no solution. If I change the rule, there will be abuses in another way ! There will be abuses anyway... Nevertheless, if you have an idea, I'll read it with interest.
Respectfully.
Trent Parker (2006-05-19 08:04:48)
My Overall evaluation of this new site
I really like this site. I like the format of the tournaments, I like the fact that the number of games one can play are not limited.
I like the idea of the best game function, however i do not think it is properly utilised (I have aired my ideas on this elsewhere....)
I personally think the resign for checkmate rule is ok, although none of my games have gotten that far yet. After all a) this does not limit the amount of games that you can play on this site and b) your opponent will run out of time anyhow. So what is the difference? You are going to get the point anyhow.
I have the following criticisms:
I am on Dial up. This site is very slow to play on, very time consuming with the amount of games that i am up to. would it be possible to... I dunno... make it like a javascript or something, just to speed it up a bit. Or perhaps even make the submit button further up the page a bit? Often i have gone out of a game thinking that i have made the move when i have forgotten to click the submit button. (By the way this site would be excellent if i had broadband but i don't.)
I may have some more comments later on but at the moment i've said enough.
Thanks for this site Thibault!
Trent Parker
Pablo Schmid (2006-05-22 22:49:47)
Wiki
The Wiki is a very good idea, but I think it would have more success and it would be great if there was not a problem with transpositions. Is it possible to fix that soon?
Ryaad Aabid (2006-05-23 22:48:14)
why I have right to vote for my game ?!
I think it is better for the player hasn't vote for a game where he was an opponent in that game ! Why I don't let others to vote for one of my games as best ? I have myself done this mistake , but thenafter the mentioned idea has come to my attention :-)
Per Lea (2006-05-24 10:14:43)
Elo list no longer searchable by country
The idea to have flags in the rating list looked like a nice feature at first, but the disadvantage is that it is no longer possible to do a quick serach for players from a specific country. For example, it is interesting to find out if there are any new memebers from your own country. So, instead of letting the computer search for "NOR", I now have to manually read through the complete list. A good alternative would be to let the members sort the rating list by country and name (as on Chessfriend.com)
Ryaad Aabid (2006-05-26 22:46:10)
Go Tournament (forfeit)
I have applied to this tournament without reading its rule,that I unfortunately have no idea.I am an old player :-) Therefor I should say SORRY to all players in this tournament - not my interest ! I thought it is some chess tournament with different system ! Please remove my name if it is possible , otherwise I should resign all my games in this tournament. Kind regards Ryaad Aabid
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-29 23:07:25)
Value of the pieces...
That's exactly what I was thinking about before allowing you to exchange your bishop against two pawns... Actually, I've no idea about it :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-31 11:36:44)
Hall of fame
Hello Wayne. That's true... I was thinking about that but no quite good idea yet. We could list all tournament winners at the bottom of 'Hall of fame' page.
It would be difficult to apply a 'ticket' system so that tournament winners can entry a higher class tournament. (and there's no obligation to copy other organizations rules...)
Anyway, finished tournaments will be announced regularly.
If you have another idea...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-01 06:17:28)
FICGS go rules + quick link
Hello Tom.
You have 30 days + 1 day / move !
About the 'quick link', that's a good idea, I'll think about that.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-01 21:25:04)
Discrepancies
It is very clear Lionel.
In another hand, each tournament rules and generally each situation influence the strategy at chess (so other games). And FICGS chess wch rules are special ones in the knockout tournament that should avoid draws. Actually, only a "one game match" can have no influence on 'the game'. (not perfectly true, as the player's strength is another factor)
Rules are flexible, particularly for the game of Go, so I think we can use even uncommom ones, if it is balanced enough (= there's still a challenge). Do you have an idea about this rule avoiding repetition, how many stones or komi it could be worth ?
Another question : Are there situations that look like zugzwang in Go (where the best move could be 'passing') ?
Dinesh De Silva (2006-06-06 05:11:01)
Trent, Here's An Interesting Question!
Trent, IF future teams are named after countries, under what country would I fall?!??? (As I'm from Sri Lanka, and as far as I know I'm the only player actively playing on FICGS, ICCF, IECG etc). Then the only option would be for me to play under another country's banner, eh?! Quite an interesting idea, I might say!
Dinesh De Silva (2006-06-06 11:17:47)
Good Suggestion!
Paul, That's a very good idea too!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-06 16:40:04)
Team championship
Many good ideas... :)
I'll post a news soon, inviting players who want to lead their country team to give me an email where they can be contacted by players.
So far, the rules :
- The leader of each team should be from the country he's playing for.
- If several players ask to lead the same team, the current chess rating will decide.
- Leaders will choose candidate players for his team and the "board" (1, 2, 3 or 4) they will play.
- Players from any country can play with another country team. (all players can play for only one team)
Marc Lacrosse (2006-06-06 23:16:56)
No national teams here !
I left my own national federation and the whole ICCF system partly because I find those national teams championships at most boring and uninteresting and at worst reminiscent of some of the worst 20th century nationalistic concepts.
Why should we have national teams here ???
... to confirm that France is larger than Feroe islands and smaller than China ?
This is pretty ridiculous IMHO.
I can't see anything interesting in this idea.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-06-07 06:59:09)
Interesting Debate!
Hi, everyone It's quite an interesting debate......regarding whether to name teams after countries or not. Marc, for players like you and I, perhaps we could find some sorta compromise if the team rules allow it. As Thibault says, the problem is that even though our (small)countries hardly have any players interested in correspondence chess to form national teams, playing under another national/country banner is kinda a unique situation (IF allowed). It all depends on whether future FICGS team championship rules might allow it or not. Any creative ideas/suggestions left to make?!
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
Dinesh De Silva (2006-06-09 17:55:32)
Good debate regarding team championships
Thibault, it was good discussing these ideas. I too think that postponing team championship might be a good idea, until some of the issues have been sorted out and some sorta common concensus is reached.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-13 18:28:54)
FICGS chess world championship 1 & 2
Hello to all.
FICGS chess world championship deadline (2006 june 15) is 2 days far from now ! Here is the scheme, allowing all players who registered to start playing at the same time, without loosing the opportunity for new players to register at a later date :
As 2300+ players will enter the cycle at stage 2, the idea is to start 1st (from stage 2) and 2nd (from stage 1) world championship at the same time. Thus, all tournaments will begin at the fixed date for all players who already registered, then a new deadline will be fixed (probably in august/september), and all players registering late for chess wch would begin a tournament each time there's enough new players in the waiting list, with the condition that the ELO average of these new tournaments be equal or superior (as few as possible) to the tournaments that began on June 15.
And good luck to all... :)
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 01:07:56)
Symmetrical games
The format used(8-game match with simultaneous games, 4 white and 4 black) brings up the issue of avoiding symmetrical games. I don't see a perfect way of doing this other than being conscious of the problem, and trying to deviate early on. If I see an opening chosen by my opponent that I am also planning to use, I have waited to respond in one(or more) of the games, until the position reached a point where I would normal deviate, and choose an alternate move with the opposite colour. Anyone else with better ideas about how to avoid this problem?
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 19:08:38)
8-game matches
Just to clarify my position about this format, I think it's just fine if the players are alert and avoid playing symmetrical lines/games. I actually think it's a good idea to play a simultaneous 8-game match to see who's better. It's just a bit different than your normal round-robin tournament, perhaps that makes your site unique!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 20:15:35)
8-game matches
John... ??? :)
Vladimir Kramnik - Peter Leko (match for WCH classical title)
Vladimir Kramnik - Deep Fritz...
Of course it is desired... Who will remember the names of the players in the last ICCF final tournament ? Even if ICCF doesn't use this format, and (as you say) serious CC players didn't have the opportunity to play such tournament, knockout format is still desired.
My first idea was a pure enormous knockout tournament, but it's obviously not possible (too much rounds, a time problem), that's why I thought about this combined system.
Now look at the chess world : Many players don't understand why FIDE progressively reduces the number of games and time controls in WCH matches. It is the main reason why FIDE world champion title looses value. Not hard / accurate, not spectacular enough !! ..
What many players (me, at least :)) expect is a classical world championship with a big final match. You may have noticed that FICGS champion will have the opportunity to defend his title in a... 24 games match against his challenger... (!!) That's real fight, that's real challenge and that's what I expect to see from a championship, a big opposition between 2 players, and not a round-robin more or less aleatory, with too much names, not understandable for the most.
Now, as we said on TCCMB : FICGS is not "official" matter, chess is for fun here, but chess must be a show and I'm convinced it is relevant in correspondence chess too. We'll see that ;)
John Knudsen (2006-07-06 06:41:08)
Leave/Reflection Time
Hi Thibault: I understand this now - thanks. And I like the limitation on accumulated reflection time - this is a great idea. Still, the stated reflection time was given as 30 days +1 per move, and when you are on leave, you are not moving. To award an extra day reflection time on days that you do not more (i.e., vacation) is not logical at all. Your reflection time should remain unchanged from the day that you last moved. Any smart guy that has not used leave, and is running out of time on his games will just take his 30 days leave, and presto - he has 30 days more reflection time. This possibility, by itself, makes the reflection time a joke, in my opinion. John
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-10 01:24:28)
Limit for one move
Hello Alarich.
The rule is the same for all time controls : Limit is 60 days for one move, appearing between brackets if this time is inferior to total time for the game. The idea was first not to constraint players. (so there's practically no limit but the total time in WCH time control : 30 days + 1 day per move)
Josh Knapp (2006-07-10 06:03:03)
yes
Thibault, That is exactly what I mean. I find them very useful. Espically when you are trying to develop a complicated plan. It is nice to write/type it down so that if you can't end up coming back to the game for a week, you can have some idea of what you were trying to do.
Henri Muller (2006-07-10 14:02:17)
Football W.Ch.2006
Rideau !! Italie Championne du Monde !! TRES bien !! Mais quelle belle "sortie" de MONSIEUR Z.Zidane. Sans aucune excuse. Inadmissible ! à ce niveau, à ce stade et comme professionnel!! Quel bel exemple aussi pour les jeunes !! Heureusement que l'Italie a gagné finalement.
Gino Figlio (2006-07-11 03:59:17)
Leave
Hi Thibault, Everyone has their own opinion about this. Do what you think it's best. My opinion: If you want to mimic the ICCF method, don't allow play during leave and change to programming to freeze the clock when a player takes leave, therefore not adding the leave time to the reflection time. If you want to continue with your original idea of adding the leave to the reflection time, then add only 50% of the time, since the clock stops for the player on leave when the opponent is on move anyway. You may suggest players to take leave after they make a move, in order to take maximun benefit. Other ideas related to preventing players from dragging out lost games/positions would be to establish a lower limit for leave time say of 7 days; preventing players from going on/off leave multiple times; to prevent exceeding the reflection time. Another approach would be to try to regulate more the higher limit of time per move, by allowing players to take 30 days per move only once, 20 days per move 3 times, 10 days per move 9 times..etc. you can change the numbers to fit your desire but you get the idea. Best, Gino
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-12 23:12:46)
Delay before tournament start
Hello Rodrigo.
I think your idea looks like very much the system used in email chess. I just wanted to make it easier to understand. Quite strange to make moves and have no days added to the clock. "Official" and "non-official" start for a tournament is a thing we can avoid. That's the main reason of this time control 30 days + 1 day/move.
Don Groves (2006-07-14 02:59:50)
Time limit per move
I feel there should be a firm limit (I would like to see 10 days) and a penalty for exceeding it: (1) Subtract one day from offending player's clock for each day over the limit. (2) If limit is exceeded more than double, game is forfeited. If player cannot abide by these time constraints, they should take leave (or perhaps play in fewer games ;-) Also, I agree with the idea of no moves at all during leave. Leave is leave from FICGS, not just from one game or tournament. Regards to all, Don
Wayne Lowrance (2006-07-14 23:08:11)
Private notes
a nice idea....Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-15 13:21:58)
Time limit per move
The idea is interesting, however it could be difficult to display the remaining days (confusing)...
About the 60 days limit, I think there are clear advantages, and the bad effects are not so important if you consider there's no real way to prevent a player to last a game and the rating period of 2 months. The point that makes it difficult to compare to other organizations is some FICGS rules are harder : All lost games are rated, forfeits or not... I think this rules takes off some pressure. And many players can't assume regular play. Players who think 60 days per move is too long may play only rapid tournaments...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-19 02:54:06)
Search : commented games
I've added a link in the 'Search games' page to find all games commented by players... First comment made by David is very eloquent ;)
Feel free to tell me if you have ideas of criterias to search games. Also added in the 'Search games' page : search by opening. Now 3 ways, this new one, Wikichess, and the form below the menu (improved).
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-23 19:54:58)
Chess thematic tournaments
Hello to all.
The 7th chess thematic tournament (waiting list is open) may be a very interesting challenge...
The opening : 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Ng8
Is it a lost position or not, you can try to respond ! (it is at least very hypermodern style, but is there a name for such a manoeuvre ? :))
There are many other ideas of openings, but you can make suggestions for future thematic tournaments.
Previous ones :
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000001
King's gambit (winner : Josef riha)
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000002
Wing's gambit
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000003
Benko gambit
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000004
Orang-utan
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000005
Danish gambit
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000006
Scotch gambit
Benjamin Aldag (2006-07-23 22:52:39)
New Ideas
Here my Wishlist: 1. Dzindzi Indian (1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 f5) 2. Helloween Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5) Benjamin Aldag
Don Burden (2006-07-25 01:25:39)
Handicap moves?
The idea may be a new way to offer a handicap to lower rated players. Maybe for each rating difference of 200 points, the higher rated player must play two moves moving the g8 knight to f6 & back (g1 knight to f3 & back if playing white). To be fair, the lower rated player should not be allowed to capture or give check during each two move sequence of the knight.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-25 01:51:34)
Handicap moves
That's an idea... Actually I don't think many players (benefiting of the handicap moves) with a 200 points lower rating would be interested, cause it's quite "risky" to play with an advantage. If you win, that's just normal, if you loose (even draw): that's a big defeat.
Such matches may be interesting for both masters (2400+) and amateurs (1600-), maybe even in a simultaneous context, so that draws could satisfy everyone.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-26 20:46:02)
New profile feature : Photos :)
Just added this new feature in 'Preferences'. You can now upload a photo... (JPG format, 100 ko max)
Thanks to Dinesh for the idea (indirectly). By the way, for live video chat you can use other services... :) (we are still there to play chess ;))
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-02 23:07:36)
Adjudication, forced mate & rules
Hello Marc.
According to the rules, the game has been adjudicated.
I think this is a good moment to discuss this adjudication rule.. (see 11.5 - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html)
Surely it can be improved, but how.. I'd like to have players opinion on what cases (position + time) should be adjudicated or not, so that we find a better & fair compromise.
Any ideas ?
Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-08 12:09:40)
Suggestion (sponsors)
Hi Dinesh.
I'm looking at everything of course, it would be great to get sponsors and prizes for free tournaments ie. WCH... The more success, the more chances, so still working. It will take time anyway...
In a near future : Tournaments with entry fees & money prizes should start in October, I have many new ideas to make it attractive for the most, titled players as beginners, and it should bring something to the whole site.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-13 20:39:42)
List unfinished games
I was just thinking about a link to see all boards of the tournament on one page (quite heavy)... It could be interesting combined with your idea.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-14 19:39:28)
Activities on the FICGS server
I'll think about that. I have to make a "static" statistic page anyway...
Inactive players
Active chess players
Active Go players
Any other ideas ?
Benjamin Aldag (2006-08-22 17:48:09)
I prefer the following Gambit
Ok, here my idea, for one of the following thematic tourneys.
The Goering Gambit:
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 exd4
4.c3 dxc3
5.Nxc3
This Gambit is full of great tactical play.
Benny
Pablo Schmid (2006-08-22 19:47:43)
another ideas
The latvian gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5), The elephant gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5) The Cochrane gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7) The Frankenstein-Dracula variation of the Vienna defense :) Etc.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-22 19:52:28)
Thematic tournaments & King's gambit
Danish gambit and scotch gambit have been played already. (not far)
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000005
FICGS__CHESS__THEMATIC_TOURNAMENT__000006
I'll keep the idea...
Where did you see that king's gambit is not playable ??? Disproved doesn't mean anything IMO... (& this is probably the most known chess 'troll' :))
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-23 14:28:39)
Private messages
Hi Don.
A way is to leave a public comment... I'm thinking about a funny and efficient way to "connect" players (who want to be). Not so easy... All ideas welcome :)
Benjamin Aldag (2006-08-24 13:00:07)
Premove ?
Hi,
a premove-feature would be very nice, were i can klick on my opponents figures and tell the interface > If my opponent play THIS, then i play THIS. Good idea or bad idea ?
Benny
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-24 13:31:19)
Premove (conditional moves)
Hi Benjamin.
Conditional moves was one of the first features expected and discussed here... I'm still not sure it is a good idea. Of course it may save time in forced sequences, but there are some controversial issues (see previous discussions with Glen about chess servers) about time and holidays. Anyway, the truth is it's a major change, and I've too many things to do right now :/
Benjamin Aldag (2006-08-26 01:37:37)
"NEW" Opening Idea !
Hello,
i would be very happy, to see the following line in a thematic opening tourney:
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bc4 Bc5
4.c3 Nf6
5.d4 exd4
6.cxd4 Bb4+
7.Nc3 Nxe4
8.0-0 0-0!
ok folks, i am searching for this line in my database and found just a handfull games, played by low rated players. I am searching in many books for this line, but i found nothing ! I've analysed this line and i believe, this line is good for BLACK ! What do you think about this line ??? Do you see more than me ? Do you have any GM-Commentary about this line ? Maybe in an ebook or something else ? Please help me to find the answer, why this line is never played by some very good players. It would be helpful, to start a thematic-tourney'bout this nice line.
Benny
Don Burden (2006-08-26 18:51:54)
Opening Idea
I'd say it is a fairly big advantage to black. He's a solid pawn up and threatens to win another. Found two games in my database with higher rated players:
[Event "ICCF MN/12 corr"]
[Site "ICCF corr"]
[Date "1995.06.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Majewski, Jan"]
[Black "Chorvat, Marian"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C54"]
[WhiteElo "2335"]
[BlackElo "2305"]
[PlyCount "122"]
[EventDate "1995.??.??"]
[Source "www.chesslib.no"]
[SourceDate "2006.04.01"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8. O-O O-O 9. d5 Bxc3 10. bxc3 Ne7 11. Re1 Nf6 12. d6 Nf5 13. Ba3 Nxd6 14. Bxd6 cxd6 15. Qxd6 Ne8 16. Qd5 Nf6 17. Qd6 Ne8 18. Qd2 d6 19. Ng5 Nf6 20. Rad1 d5 21. Bb3 h6 22. Ne4 Bg4 23. Nxf6+ Qxf6 24. f3 Qb6+ 25. Qd4 Be6 26. Bxd5 Bxd5 27. Qxb6 axb6 28. Rxd5 Rxa2 29. f4 Rc8 30. Rd3 Rc2 31. Ree3 Ra8 32. h4 Raa2 33. Rg3 Rd2 34. Rde3 Kf8 35. Re4 b5 36. Re5 Rab2 37. Rc5 b4 38. Rc8+ Ke7 39. cxb4 Rxb4 40. Rxg7 Rxf4 41. Rh7 Rf6 42. Kh2 Ke6 43. h5 Rd5 44. g4 Rd4 45. Kg3 Rd3+ 46. Kg2 Rd6 47. Re8+ Kd7 48. Rf8 Ke7 49. Rhh8 Ke6 50. Re8+ Kd5 51. Re7 b6 52. Rf8 Rf4 53. Kg3 Rdf6 54. Rc8 Rf3+ 55. Kg2 Rf2+ 56. Kg1 R2f4 57. Rg8 b5 58. Re3 b4 59. Kg2 Kd4 60. Rb3 Rb6 61. Kg3 Rf1 0-1
[Event "ICCF MN/12 corr"]
[Site "ICCF corr"]
[Date "1995.06.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Mathias, Manfred"]
[Black "Chorvat, Marian"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C54"]
[WhiteElo "2370"]
[BlackElo "2305"]
[PlyCount "110"]
[EventDate "1995.??.??"]
[Source "www.chesslib.no"]
[SourceDate "2006.04.01"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8. O-O O-O 9. d5 Bxc3 10. bxc3 Ne7 11. Re1 Nf6 12. d6 Nf5 13. dxc7 Qxc7 14. Qb3 d5 15. Bd3 Be6 16. Rb1 b6 17. Qc2 g6 18. Bb2 Ne8 19. Re2 Neg7 20. Rbe1 Rfe8 21. Qd2 Nd6 22. c4 dxc4 23. Qc3 f6 24. Bxg6 hxg6 25. Qxf6 Qf7 26. Rxe6 Qxf6 27. Rxf6 Rxe1+ 28. Nxe1 Re8 29. Nf3 Re2 30. Be5 Nf7 31. Bd4 Re6 32. Kf1 Rxf6 33. Bxf6 b5 34. Bc3 Ne6 35. h4 Nf4 36. a3 Nd5 37. Bb4 a6 38. g3 Kg7 39. Ke2 Kf6 40. Ba5 Nd6 41. g4 Nb7 42. Bd2 a5 43. Bg5+ Kg7 44. Ne5 c3 45. Kd3 b4 46. Kc4 Nb6+ 47. Kd4 Nc5 48. axb4 axb4 49. f3 Nd5 50. Nc4 Ne6+ 51. Kd3 Nxg5 52. hxg5 b3 53. Na3 Kf7 54. f4 c2 55. Nxc2 Nxf4+ 0-1
Elmer Valderrama (2006-08-27 11:17:48)
opening idea
..aparently everyone was/is impressed by the game Spielmann-Cohn, Carslbad 1907... --> White get such a big advantage in development that it's hard to think Black will get away with anything best than a draw here..
Mikhail Ruzin (2006-08-30 18:14:32)
Opening Idea
What about 15. Bd5 in the first game (Majewski-Chorvat)?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-06 17:08:56)
Other games on FICGS ?
Hello to all.
Just wondering... after Chess, Chess 960, Go and Big Chess (soon available, as the graphical interface works better now) what other games you'd like to see here in the future ?
FICGS is firstly a correspondence chess server, without any doubt, but that's great to see chess players discovering Go game this way.
I have been told about Chinese Chess (Xiangqi), Shogi, Blokus.. Maybe not Draughts, as it is a solved game now.
Any ideas ?
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-07 13:12:14)
Re: Best game......
Thibault, I think that's a good idea! ( There are hundreds & hundreds of chess players at IECG, but only a handful seem to be voting! )
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-10 14:13:09)
Re: Best game prize
Hi Dinesh !
Of course, there are many things like this to envisage.. ie. Wch prizes. It will all depend on money tournaments (working on) & eventual sponsors.
However, I'm not so favourable to such suggestive results... We'll see. If the idea is plebiscited in the future, I just say why not...
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 (2006-09-11 00:26:57)
1.b4
Hello Ulrich.
1.b4 is not bad enough :) The idea is to organize ie. money matches (with only 1 game) & tournaments where draws can't happen. So it's important to have about 50% chances at a high level.
Just an idea.
Maybe normal start positions with a pawn less could work...
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-11 05:32:27)
Re:
Well, maybe a better idea might be to not allow d4 opening or e4 opening or Nf3 opening, and to allow other openings. Then there maybe a better chance for a result.
Gino Figlio (2006-09-11 13:45:43)
OTB idea
Why not for a 1-game match, use the OTB tie-breaking idea of black winning with the draw but starting with less time on the clock, 20% less in a fast time control match?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-11 13:49:05)
OTB idea
Hi Gino.
I thought about that, but it seems really unfair.. It depends too much on player's availability, so chances wouldn't be equal for sure.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-11 14:23:17)
Re:
Only board games are considered?!? What about some other stuff..... like Bridge (cards) or solving tough riddles (riddles championship)?! Just an idea, of course.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-12 03:42:57)
Match FICGS vs. GameKnot
Dear chessfriends, a match FICGS vs. GameKnot may start in a few weeks ! The idea is to oppose players in different rating categories (1200 to 2400+ elo), playing one game with Black on FICGS, one game with White on GameKnot.com ... Please send an email to info (at) ficgs.com (specifying your name) if you're interested. More info in a few days & weeks...
It seems that many players from GameKnot want to play this match, we need a large team ! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-12 12:55:06)
Scoring function for Go
Hello to all.
I'll add in a few days a scoring function for Go games. Players could retire dead groups, then the program just covers the board (line after line & column after column to compare) and adds empty spaces points to the stones that surround it. The aim is to give an evaluation of the position only, not to decide the result automatically.
Just tell me if you have an idea about a better algorithm, as I realize the difficulty of programming Go.
Thanks in advance ! ;)
Elmer Valderrama (2006-09-15 19:59:46)
two moves from the start
Interesting idea, Thibault, for having a winner in just one-game match. (I mean of course giving clear advantage to White from the start in a must-win game (any other result would be failure).
In this same line of thought, I would suggest to give White two consecutive starting moves (no captures allowed), W player chooses which are those two moves ( 0.e4 1.d4 or 0.e4 1.Nf3 or 0.e4 1.Bc4 or why not 0.e4 1.Qh5!? or whatever )
However, in all cases where White is giving a significant advantage at start, I believe, White has a 2/3 (66%) chance to win, and 1/3 (34%) to draw, so that in a match a strong player with White should go the next round. (assuming he has played the best two consecutive moves and then mantained the advantage all the way --although with the current wonderful defending capabilities of the engines it could add some serendipity to the game ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-15 20:17:44)
two moves from the start
"White has a 2/3 (66%) chance to win, and 1/3 (34%) to draw" ?? ... you mean "to draw or loose" ?
Great idea, this move 0. Statistically, this is quite the same for : 1.Nf3 d5 2.Ng1 ... but 66% wins for Black seems a lot !? .. I would say about 40 to 50%, maybe less.
So, what chances for 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 .. ?
And what about 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Ng8 .. ? :)
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-18 01:03:29)
Thibault
If possible, could you post the names and ratings of those players from FICGS who are interested in playing against GameKnot? I would like to go ahead and get some idea of the pairing possibilities. Thanks:) 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...
Marc Lacrosse (2006-09-19 11:45:18)
A tool for knowing each others' chess
In the "classement" page (the one that lists all current members), it could be nice to have two additional columns :
Finished games
Running games
giving the number of games the player is involved with
And (ideally?) clicking on one of the numbers could lead to a listing of the corresponding games in PGN? :-)
It could be a nice tool for knowing who is who, who plays what, who is active or not.
Your opinion ?
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-20 02:07:42)
Traxler thematic tournament
The waiting list is filled already for this 14th thematic tournament ! .. The last player who entered is Benjamin Aldag :) (Benny, this is not reasonable ;))
This opening was definitely a good idea :) Thanks, Ron.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-25 00:08:52)
How about two matches?
Hello Marius.
That's a good idea... but it seems that players at GameKnot are really against computer use in such a match. Anyway, that's probably better like that.. Teams will be quite low-rated, more friendly, more fun :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-29 03:40:57)
Re: A small Go help
Hi Don.
That's a very good idea but I have to think about that. The program avoids to read all moves in order to display the goban. First priority is to save time processing... This change would add some work. But that's right, it would be better.
To be continued.
Benjamin Aldag (2006-09-30 15:57:58)
e4-Line !
The e4-Line is the only line, which gives white the possibility of an clear advantage. All other lines are really bad for white. The point of this opening is, to have with the black color good knights versus a bad bishop-pair of white. Roman Dzindzihasvili is the founder of this Defense and i think, "Beefeater" is not the right name. I call it "Dzindzi-Indian-Defense". There are many interesting lines and some of them, transpose the game to other openings (Pirc, Sicilian-Dragon, Kings-Indian etc.). The move 5...f5 was played to prevent black of 6.e4, but 6.e4! is the best move, white can play. I've played last year in Litomysl in a Simultan versus GM Sergey Movsesian this "Dzindzi-Indian-Defense". Sergey played 6.h4?! and after 15 moves, we draw the game. The Dzindzi-Indian-Defense is an easy to learn opening and i've got good results with it in many tourneys. Last time i've saw this Defense at the Chess-Olympic, played by players around 2400-2500. 6.e4! is the best move, but many many players don't know it and the possibility for black, to get a good result in a game is very high. I can say, i know all variations about this opening and this thematic tournament will be my first tourney here, where i will not use computer-assistence. Its funny to see, that an Engine (Rybka,Fritz etc.) dont understand the ideas behind this defense and without an opening-book, engines dont see that 6.e4! is the only way, to get an advantage.
I luv Dzindzi-Indian-Defense
Benny
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-03 17:10:08)
Delay / Slow down the games ?
An interesting idea had been submitted here a few months ago to "decrease the pressure" for all players and to slow down the games... (correspondence chess & Go are quite addictive :))
It would consist in delaying the transmission of moves or at least avoiding one can respond to a move immediately after being played.
The server works very well, but I feel there could be irregular peaks of charge in future... More and more tournaments start, faster and faster and that's probably only the beginning.
So what do you think about the "delay" idea ? .. 1 hour would be probably enough to spread out charge over time, but players may expect more or no delay at all !?
Elmer Valderrama (2006-10-04 22:36:44)
Toga
Since everyone is being honest in this thread here is my confession..
Usually I use latest Toga, I bought Rybka 1.2 series, but I've found it is not better than Toga, especially if run in a slow computer (I still use a AMD +1600, with Windows 98: I know I should buy a better computer but this one is already a recent "upgrade" from a Pentium 700Mhz running Fritz 8 ;) and I dont want to fall in the endless (and costly) chain of keeping -up-to-date just to get a few more ELO points ;)
Sometimes I test the positions with other engines (Fritz 8, Schredder 8, free Fruit) just to prove how right was Toga in the initial evaluation. In those rare but happy occasions when I make my own input is simply to give an idea of where should the engine "think". When things go well, after some point, it is just a matter of setting the engines on my opponents, they would finish the job.
Yannick Maret (2006-10-09 09:39:01)
A question about chess engines
At first I was against using engines but the opinions given in another thread made me believe that they might be an useful teaching mean.
So I'm starting to think about using a chess engine here... but just to check if the moves I chose spring any tactical opportunities for my opponent! Following the suggestions of the engine would just remove the fun of the game for me.
Anybody has an idea on how to do that easily, and what engine to use? I would like a method that avoid the temptation of playing moves suggested by the engine!
Thanks in advance,
Yannick
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-09 10:56:23)
Server peaks of charge
Hi all and thanks for sharing your views.
I agree with Marc, there's no reason to slow down games by force. I'm just thinking about an emergency system that would delay (a few minutes at most) the moves to appear in 'My messages' and 'My games' with an appropriate message if too many players are sending moves at the same time - in future. Some games run particularly fast (30 moves played in half an hour).
The idea of delaying the sending of moves is interesting but I'm not convinced yet. I fear it wouldn't be used a lot and too many options is not good IMO. (more, the delay wouldn't be 100% accurate) As for me, I just 'accepted' to have 10 or more pending moves continuously, I delete emails (or set email notification off) and come back later to the server... Another way would be to filter moves responded before a defined time in 'My games'. Not so useful...
Yannick Maret (2006-10-10 11:37:56)
Hmm
Thanks for the links... I will have a look!
Actually, I'm looking for a program on which I can set the actual position of a game. Ideally, I would then propose a move and the program would tell me if the move is sound or not (without giving its reasons). Then I can figure out by myself why the move is unsound and choose a new one... without being overly influenced by the engine.
Hmm, I guess I want too much... and should implement an interface for doing just that :(
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-12 17:02:26)
Tie break
... I wouldn't like to be this world champion :/
Tie break with rapid games is definitely a bad idea IMO.
Former world champion should retain the crown in case of equality... Ok, this is particular case here as they're two world champions, but the result will be difficult to accept for everyone... In this case the match should continue until one takes a 1 or 2 points lead.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-12 17:21:24)
... rapid games
Huh.. I've no idea... All I know : They played a blitz game just before the match and it was a draw (dutch opening) :)
Maybe we'll have surprises (at last) in the openings, but the result will be so aleatory...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-21 12:38:30)
Junior 10
I don't have this one, but I experienced the strange behaviour of Junior chess engine, which may 'guess' the best moves for some 'bad' (at least not enough) reasons... I don't trust it much, but it may inspire with some ideas.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-21 12:43:30)
Re: Thinking on opponents' time
I agree with that...
But so many variants & ideas, we have to choose... Games are the reason & the result.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-25 11:47:22)
Once upon a time in Kalmykia
An interesting interview of FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov about future of chess, reunification match and other things...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3448
I can't resist this quote :
Misha Savinov : Bearing in mind successful unification, do you see a chance of Kasparov returning to chess?
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov : In my opinion, Garry will not return. His age will not permit him returning, chess advanced too far. But, of course, we would all be happy if he returns. Actually, I would be happy if not only Kasparov, but also Spassky and Fischer come back. If they do, I am ready to organize a supermatch of FIDE champions. A good idea, by the way! We’ll invite Vassily Vassilyevich Smyslov, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov, Topalov, Anand, Ponomariov… It is going to be a good supertournament!
Misha Savinov : In Elista?
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov : In Elista. And, probably, it will be 25-minute games, double round-robin. I wonder if Fischer accepts the invitation, what do you think? We will announce the winner a superabsolute champion (laughs)!
Misha Savinov : One can call it an open championship of Kalmykia…
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov : Are you suggesting inviting the Kalmyk champion of 1978? I think I could play 25-minute games…
.....
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-31 09:50:28)
Red mark + Message
Graham, really ? Please note the red mark is only displayed on the 'move' page, when you're to play a move. (not in the viewer page ie.)
Sebastian, that's quite right, messages may be forgotten on the 'move' page... But I thought it would be hard not to see it on the 'move_confirm' (cf. url) page, above the 'send' button... That's a problem to displace the board at the bottom IMO :/ And a popup window wouldn't be appreciated... I have no better idea at this time.
Thanks for feedback.
Graham Wyborn (2006-11-03 10:15:45)
Next & Send buttons.
Good idea. Thanks
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-07 16:14:47)
Match of the century
Revenge match of the 20th century happened in 1992 in Yugoslavia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Revenge_Match_of_the_20th_Century
About his last tournament, I've no idea...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-11 06:16:23)
@ Sebastien Marez
Hello Sebastien.
That's always interesting to compare IECG and FICGS... Several players asked me about your forfeit in the previous tournaments, so I'm curious : Can I ask you why you finally came back to play some games at FICGS (after loosing about 240 points - future rating : 2204) ?? I suppose the time controls here are too slow for you (as Henri), do you have an idea about a "perfect" formula ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-11 14:08:48)
Can't enter in waiting list
Hello Wolfgang. I've no idea (maybe forgot to confirm ?), I just did it, you're now in the waiting list. Greetings, Thibault.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-12 15:00:01)
Chess problem
Interesting chess problem...
The first move seems quite easy to find, knowing only one move wins & considering bishop and knight, but proving it is not obvious... maybe I'm wrong (my first idea was h5)... Anyway, chess engines are lost here, it seems Hiarcs is the only one finding h5.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-16 13:02:24)
Suggestion
The idea to jump the first time control (not to add 40 days at move 10) would have been interesting if we knew 'where' ends the opening, but that's quite impossible... The real problem is some players can't connect so often, or play so quickly !
It may be frustrating in some cases but that's correspondence chess... I connect about 20 times a day but I have many games and I feel in zeitnot in some of them. As for me it depends more on the game than on the time control...
Glen D. Shields (2006-11-17 06:39:51)
Changing World
It's interesting to read players correspondence chess expectations as technology evolves.
What we see on servers like FICGS is the integration of players with various chess backgrounds and expectations. Players who grew up with the internet, and whose first chess experiences were real time chess servers expect games to move quickly. Players who grew up playing correspondence chess by postcard expect games to move much more slowly.
Personally I'm as equalled annoyed by players who stall (like the one described by Mr. Aabid) as I am by those who think move-a-minute correspondence chess is cute. It's going to take time and creativity by the server owners to balance players needs/interests. My ideal is when both players move at a steady 2-3 days per move pace (with the obvious exception for holidays, work, illness, etc). Those games stay interesting from start to finish and always seem to end with a pleasant thank you and congratulations.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-17 14:40:56)
Chess and politics...
Just noticed this link on TCCMB correspondence chess forum, to MSNBC article by Howard Fineman : "Iraq exit strategy and the Tehran gambit"... Quite funny. (no matter political ideas, only chess metaphors)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15728086
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-20 00:10:19)
WCH qualifications
Hi Miguel.
I'm afraid not :( ... I understand this is quite disappointing but I'm sure these rules that favorise ratings combined to the WCH rhythm (a new cycle every 6 months) give chances to everyone. The idea is statistical, your rating will increase so you will have more chances during the next cycle, and your opponent has more chances to win 2nd stage.
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-20 21:57:03)
Go handicap and rating
Is handicap Go really nonsensical in rated tournaments?
While it seems so in a world championship, where the aim is to determine the stronger player in an absolute sense, why should it be so in a tournament, where the aim is to determine the best player in a relative sense... hum, not a very clean or clear sentence, but I hope you got the idea :-)
In face to face Go, in most amateur tournaments, it is not a problem, and you can win or loose a tournament, win or loose points, playing with an handicap (some tournaments set a limit lower than 9 in the number of handicap stones). I do not know the formulae used to compute the knew ratings, but in practice it works well. (and the same thing works also in Shogi tournaments)
Before WWII, even pros played with handicap (one or two stones at most, more commonly with a fixed color and no komi) and that *for money*!! Nowadays this is not the case anymore: maybe the increase of pro-tournament prizes change the noble way to be the best of two players fighting *their best* at their *respective* level!
Anyway, I think such an idea may be interresting to motivate players: when weaker, I will fight my best because I have a chance to win, and when stronger, I *have* to fight well :-)
We could think of a rating system where you play your first, say, 20 games without handicap to get a starting rating, and then to receive or give handicaps automatically in tournaments. We could then consider a rating as fixed after a bunch of 20 more games...
Or any other system that will always generate tense and dangerous games! That will be, at least for me, a great motivation to play more :-)
(but then I do not care much for my rating :-))
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-21 11:22:58)
Go handicap and rating
It makes sense. That's an interesting idea.
However I feel it could be quite difficult to balance the handicap with ratings and to keep the results of the games coherent. Finally, it is another rating system. Thinking about that...
Previous thread - http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_1611-Go-Komi.html
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-03 22:10:26)
Google Adsense
Hello to all.
You probably noticed these ads under the search field and on the chat bar.
Google Adsense could work with such a site with more than 24,000 pages viewed per day and constantly increasing, so I try. The idea is quite clear, if Google can sponsorize the server and FICGS championships prizes, they are welcome IMO. Google Adsense is an intelligent system, and adverts are quite relevant.
However, this is a test only ! .. Let's see.
Feel free to tell me what you think, is it unbearable, is it useful ?! .. Thanks for feedback !
Janos Helmer (2006-12-04 14:16:34)
About Google Adsense!
Hello Thibauld! I think the idea is very good,especialy for the players from some eastern countries, but what do You know about the...real story of the Chessfriend server?!? Best regards, Helmer Janos
Don Groves (2006-12-07 09:01:45)
Scrabble
Thibault, I like this idea! It would be a very complex game and require not only good offensive ability (knowing lots of words) but also defensive ability to stymie the other person. There would still be the luck of the draw however, unless some method were devised to divide the letters evenly in the beginning, as in chess. Like Backgammon, however, it would be a game where skill could overcome luck at times.
Mladen Jankovic (2006-12-07 14:02:00)
The reason
I'm currently entertaining the idea of signing up for yet another waiting list. With the Big Chess tournament in progress and being signed up for the WCH, I belive it would be too much if I signed up for another one. Maybe something like a waiting list vacation. Sorry about giving you more work.
Don Groves (2006-12-08 03:00:18)
Scrabble+
Yes, trademark is a problem ;) I have played a game long ago with a 5x5 grid where each player took turns naming a letter and each had to put that letter somewhere inside her grid. Scoring was one point for each letter that was part of a three-letter word or longer both in the vertical and horizontal directions. This game could be expanded to a much larger board with a few premium squares and with more points for longer words. This may possibly be close to your idea about Scrabble+. You have my permission to implement this and we split the enormous proceeds evenly. OK?
Mladen Jankovic (2006-12-08 09:11:25)
Re:
That's it. Too much chess is a bad idea. :(
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-09 14:34:04)
scrabble+?!
I am not sure this scrabble+ would be a better game than the current face to face competitive version. (the rules imply a game of skill; but also of risk management because of the clock and the correctness you may loose, but willingly give up, in a form of bluff very like poker).
The point is, why would one change a game where players can beat computers if one has enough skill (because computers are still bad at valuating the level of openess of a scrabble position), for a game where a searchable tree is (in theory) enough to play the very best moves?
The game then becomes IMO quite void of fun in correspondence play, because the player skill adds nothing to the computer evaluation. Note the difference in chess, where most correspondence players are convinced they do add and choose something worth improving the play. (although I have just give up the idea to buy an engine... gnuchess is enough for me as a sparring partner, and correspondence analysis, I let it to my shaky brain... for shaky analysis :-), but more fun!... And thank you Thibault, you convinced me to play correspondence chess again :-))
The deepness of the game is another wonder: in the current game I have to ponder many possibilities, an probalistic equipartition (sorry for the bad translation) (and good players always keep the count of the remaining letters)... it seems much more complex, though less analytical, than just wandering along a calculation tree?!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-09 19:17:43)
GNUchess
Lionel, are you sure about GNUchess ? .. seems quite weak to me, did you have a try with Fruit, Rybka 1.0 or Toga ?
About Scrabble, what do you think of my idea (several posts above) to eliminate chance completely ? I'm thinking about a new board (and name for the game) with these rules - letters 'out of bag' and ordered already - may look like a chess-scrabble ?!
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-09 21:24:05)
scrabble+
Your idea for scrabble is interesting but the luck seems still there (not that luck is a problem per se IMO): even if the letters are shown, their very order is luck dependend ; and the only thing that really changes is that you can forsee the letters of your opponent and play accordingly... and so the game is actually more simple (!) IMO, more calculating prone and less strategic because you remove some possibilities, all as likely, in your move tree.
To be more concrete, suppose you can play a scrabble for, say, 75 points, and open the grid for the opponent, or play a nice glue-word for, say 40 points, but let the grid closed enough. In your proposed game, I just have to look at my opponent possibilities, as I know his letters... I calculate one, two or more moves ahead and say, ok, I can open the grid and still win by 10 points. In the normal game, I have to estimate, if the openess of the grid is worth the 35 points difference and that means calculating the rough propabilities to score points on the letters I open, considering what my opponent already played, if he seems waiting for some specific letters, or maybe he is bluffing, but then by experience I know that the double 'e' I let is not very valuable, considering that only four expensive letters remain...and so on: the game seems much more strategic and interesting for me.
Of course, I can loose because my letters are really bad... but that is quite uncommon on a whole game for good players, and almost meaningless on a match with, say, five set or more. (remember that the goal is not to make words, but to score points, or to prevent your opponent doing so on the grid, something a good player can almost always do whatever his letters).
For the chess engine, I did try some, and frankly my level in blitz play is so terrible that gnuchess is enough for me for a quick match:-). Now I tried Fruit and Hiarcs on some of my correspondence games and even on my modest scale, I was not very happy with the result: they did suggest others moves than mine, but that were moves I would never have played (maybe (surely?) I am wrong, but I am not sure)... so what would be the point to waste computer time? Even if they may suggest a good move I missed, I would still feel uneasy to play something 'outside' my own mind... old fashion maybe, but that is how I have fun in chess :-) I still like the waiting of the reply, while wondering if I made an oversight! (that being said, I used and will still use the tablebases reading engine when needed: very useful at some points :-)
But then maybe my biais against engines made me use them badly :-) Never mind, I am not going to apologize for that to a silicon piece of junk :-) And if the beast feels somehow insulted and asks for a real time match, let's just play Go!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-17 01:38:17)
SEO forums
Hello to all.
You may have noticed new FICGS forums, linked from the Home Page (article follows) and from the bottom links...
http://www.ficgs.com/forums.html
The article : "The most famous game nowadays isn't chess or Go anymore, the game most played for several years is called SEO : Search Engines Optimization. The board is internet, rules are dicted by Google and players are the webmasters. Actually anyone who creates his homepage or a blog is interested at one time on how to get more visitors on his website. The stakes ? Glory or whatever, but first of all : Money, of course... FICGS now has his own SEO forums. Feel free to discuss anything about Google, his famous PageRank, Yahoo! search, MSN live, affiliate programs, AdSense, AdWords and so on... Have good-Google games !"
The idea is not to make this site a portal about everything or anything, of course :) .. But there are many good reasons to add such content to this site, even if it's completely separated.
SEO forums start today... first dedicated to webmasters, feel free to discuss anything about your website and search engines optimization. I'll try to give some advices :)
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-03 12:04:10)
Blitz correspondence chess
Actually I'm thinking about 1-game match in the classical way, there will be draws, hard to avoid it. "Silver thematic" is a good idea for another category (ie. with no draws). About tournaments with several rounds / several days, well, why not... maybe later :)
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-03 20:49:41)
Game end time stamp
hi Thibault I have found it at times that I would like to know the date of a game result. Is this difficult to implement ? Do u think it is worthwhile. Just an idea Wayne
Kieran Child (2007-01-13 12:05:50)
ooh
That's a very very nice idea. I would suggest an immediate split in it between "pawn-dominant endings" and "piece dominant endings" then further splits for the type of pieces on the board and the opponent's material. If you stick to an advantage rule (like, white always has the greater points value) then it doesn't sound too hard. I would very much like to see this.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-13 13:31:40)
Wikichess, javascript with comments?
Nice idea, as well as a commented PGN file... and many other things :) .. so much to do yet.
Ok, I'll think about that after money tournaments start.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-13 13:34:31)
WikiEndings
Nice idea !
Feasible without any doubt, but it has to be relevant enough... I'll think about that.
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!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-21 14:31:00)
Chess ratings
Hello to all.
I have been submitted this case :
"Rating system: Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200, 10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+ Case 1: Finished games: 01.01-28.02: 9= --> New rating 01.03: 2200 01.03., no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228 Case 2: Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2200 --> New rating 01.03. 2214 In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14. IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you finish in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod. That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings."
This result looks quite normal to me as a player's level may increase as time passes. Rating calculations are done after periods long enough to avoid big differences... I don't know if you're right about IECG rating calculation, FICGS ratings seem to evolve quicker and I think it's best. By the way this system is used by several chess federations.
Best wishes.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-01-21 15:16:26)
Chess ratings
I have formatted my message (and partly corrected) to be able to read the text better.
Rating system:
Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200,
10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+
Case 1: Finished games:
01.01-28.02: 9= New rating 01.03: 2200
01.03. 1+, no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228
Case 2:
Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2214
In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14.
IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you have finished in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like
NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod.
That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings.
Lionel Vidal (2007-01-21 17:49:41)
Go and Chess
About your point number 3... A chess world champion could very well note its moves before playing and yet be mated in one move :-)
In Go pro-matches, the moves are usually recorded during play by another (younger :-) pro, who has also to deal with time keeping: it makes sense not to disturb gods at play by basic housekeepings :-). I remember an article on the WEB counting the numbers of obvious blunders in go pro-games, and it was *very* low compared to chess.
Concerning your point 2, it is not quite true AFAIK: most top pros run a school of younger pros or wanabe pros who play and analyse numerous games on the Master supervision (He does rarely play with students and then it is a great honour!). So a master does not not really analyse alone, but discuss many ideas with others.
Concerning your point 4, I think that increasing the number of games would change the playing calendar too much and a pro cannot play many more games by year without consequences on his results... even at my very low level, I find a go game *much* more tiring than a chess one (here I mean a face to face game, not correspondence or server go... something I still don't manage to get used to :-)
BTW, I also find that recovering from a loss in go is much more difficult (again I mean face to face Go) than in chess: maybe because of a higher involment, maybe it is just me. What do others players think?
Another point is that a pro is paid by the federation (a fixed amount depending on its rank, not linked with his gains in tournaments that are much more important), and have to give some services to the community: lessons, conferences, teaching games... and so on... and this is more true for the lowest ranked pros!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-26 22:30:32)
Scandinavian defense
Hi Miguel.
That's a nice idea. Great opening with interesting recent developments.
Waiting list is now open ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-28 14:01:35)
IGN Goama
Lionel, your answer has been published in 41st IGN Goama newsletter... :)
Another answer :
"Also we got a letter from Benjamin Schooley:
Dear Alex, I have been having these very same thoughts. I think after awhile I started to accept the way things were done in the East and tried to see the positive side of it. Maybe three world champions are better than one. And really isn't it better that people don't have endless helpers and seconds, then it almost becomes a matter of who has the most help and the most money to hire that help and not the most skill on an individual basis. But I do get the sense there is more of a community in Go. Go players are more apt to share their ideas and puzzles with each other and not prepare secret variations in some unscrupulous plot. I would be more curious if the Korean paper at least acknowledges your thoughts, I highly doubt they will try to change anything though.
Still I do lament the absence of a broader tournament format. Not all are knockout but they all tend to have the knockout "flavor." I think some players who are really talented get overlooked (Hane Naoki) because their playing style doesn't mesh as well with a knockout tournament. On the other hand people who have novel playing styles like Cho U and Takao Shinji do pretty well in the KO format. They benefit from a smaller sample size, harder to get a read on their strengths and weaknesses."
Richard Core (2007-02-03 03:20:17)
Computer free chess
Hi Benjamin Aldag, I agree with you. I really don't see the reason for playing with a computers help. What have you accomplished with the help of a machine? I have no idea. When I come up with a great combo, I get the satisfaction that the answer came from me, not the machine or any other source. It is alot more fun. A lot more fun. I think most people I have played are not ussing computer help. I haven't won a tournament yet, but I think I have had a respectable performance.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-10 03:08:52)
Rybka, Fritz and future...
Computerchess is definitely an exciting challenge... The community is fast-growing, new versions of chess engines appear every day, many dream to be the next Vasik Rajlich and to produce an engine that would beat the well-known Chessbase engines and the famous Rybka.
These days, I had a look at Fruit 2.1, TogaII and Crafty source code that are available to download, and started to implement new search & evaluation functions. It's quite easy to understand why chess programming is so addictive, so much done and so much to do... finally I did not enter this mad race without an ending, probably for the same reasons Anthony Cozzie (the author of Zap! Chess Zanzibar) and many others retired.
However here are my feelings about future of chess engines, and the fight that just started between most probably Chessbase engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior and Hiarcs) and a new era of chess engines that started with Rybka...
First, it's quite obvious to me that Rybka (now Rybka 2.3) is only another one of a long series of chess engines always stronger than each others ! .. I expect the next ones to reach 50, 100 then 200 points more (and maybe more) on the next chess engines elo rating lists, a scale that definitely can't be compared to human elo rating list ! .. Several reasons to this : (1) Chess engines are human killers at standard time controls, but chess engines are far to play perfect chess yet. (2) The way ratings are calculated.
Rybka taught us several things IMO :
- Algorithms and evaluation functions are no more enough. Now chess engines have to play chess, not only search a tree of chess positions... That's probably what Rybka brought to computerchess. Since Fruit 2.1 & Toga II source code is available, and computerchess community is constantly discussing improvements in algorithms, evaluations of positions and new ideas, to implement a chess engine becomes easier so I have no doubt that new very strong chess engines like Rybka will come.
- To become famous, a chess engine must 'also' beat his rivals. I first thought that Rybka was designed to be an engines killer only (at least before to be an analysis tool) with some tricks exploiting most engines weaknesses. No, Rybka is also a great UCI engine, simply stronger and with many options & features. Like Vasik Rajlich, who is engineer and international chess master, you'll have not only to think like an engineer to create such an engine. However I still don't think it is the best analysis tool for correspondence chess, it doesn't play really better chess and in all cases it is not enough. More, Rybka 3, 4, 5 shouldn't influence correspondence chess (maybe even human vs. machine) much... Computerchess influences computerchess first.
It's written sometimes that the strongest chess engines could reach a IM, even GM level at correspondence chess. I definitely disagree with that, at least for the moment (it will take a long time yet), but as chess engines results tend to approach correspondence chess ones (means more and more draws), I do think chess engines have much to learn from correspondence chess players way of thinking, meaning : A more psychological approach, bonus for traps detection. Evaluate moves, not only positions. A more complex search, not 'only' iterative (brute force is definitely useless). No more anti-human style, speculative moves (=weakness, ie. Deep Junior) for speculative results against strongest chess engines, draws are prefered. To avoid positions not understood by the engine. Longer games, closed games (if supported)... Opening books should look like correspondence chess GMs ones (of course according to the engine's style of play) and no more been made of FIDE GM games. A better time management... Future of computerGo may teach to computerchess about some evaluations.
A chess engine must play good moves AND try to win (which is not always the same). It seems Fruit & Rybka play solid and are waiting to exploit their opponent's weaknesses thanks to a better "chess" algorithm/knowledge. As far as I have seen, Shredder & Fritz still have the best 'eye', they see far but fuzzy. Quite the same about Fruit & Toga developped by a great engineer, Fabien Letouzey : Less chess knowledge but an improved algorithm. As for Rybka, a great chess knowledge and probably a smarter algorithm (not better, smarter !) were probably enough already. The future best chess engines will be made by good chess players...
An interesting point is it could be not so easy, maybe even nonsense, to create the best analysis tool that would also obtain the best results against other chess engines. My first prediction is Rybka won't be the top rated chess engine ever, hundreds of new ideas will appear in all parts of chess programming, slowly breaking Rybka secrets, then speed will be a factor again. Deep Fritz, Junior, Fruit or Hydra are most probably the core of the next generations of chess engines... but there's a lot of work yet :)
My two cents.
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-02-14 09:57:32)
engine-free area
I completely agree with Benjamin Aldag. there are many players that do not use comp. ass. becouse they are pure chess players. and there are also players who cannot use a pc ass. becouse they do not have a chess engine or they play from work or from the office. but if comp. ass. is allowed i cannot tell nodoby "DO NOT USE A CHESS PROGRAM". i think a great idea is to make a "place" or special tournaments where computer is not allowed or a special symbol after the name of players who use pc ass. so you know if your opponent is using a chess engine and you will play differently. this is the best free corrispondence chess server i found on the web and making a "not-pc-assistence-zone" will be the cherry on the cake! sorry for my bad english
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-16 00:00:43)
A solution?
Hi Pablo.
The real point is here (quote from Benjamin) : "The discussion is not about to change something. It is about to build a new feature here"
Such a new feature is not only something more, it would completely change the challenge's nature offered here. I don't think it's a good idea. A special tournament would have no sense here IMO. If you want to play without computer assistance and be sure your opponents do the same, the only solution is... play big chess :)
Don Groves (2007-02-16 00:47:37)
I Agree...
... both for Chess and Go. Such information will give a much more accurate idea of where each player fits in on FICGS.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-16 01:14:10)
Active player list
Hello Dan.
I don't think it's a good idea to have several rating lists (many reasons to this), but I can easily add in statistics the numbers of active players. Now, after which period of time a player should be considered as inactive at correspondence time controls... 3 months is not enough IMO, some players regularly connect and ie. wait for WCH tournaments to start, 1 year is still more than the age of FICGS.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-16 02:09:40)
Established rating list
Of course it's a good idea, and it can be discussed. So far, three main reasons for not doing this change :
1) One rating list is much clearer and easier to reach than two.
2) Provisional and established ratings are easy to distinguish already. (grey or not)
3) There could be more strong players in future who will play unrated games -only- at standard time control (2 hours / 40 moves, soon available) and in my opinion, the rating list is first a way to show who is playing there.
Dinesh De Silva (2007-02-19 01:02:03)
Re:
Valer's idea is very good. There certainly should be a team from FICGS to take part in the champions league 2007-2009 season.
Ovidiu Baron (2007-03-01 16:12:17)
Big chess. An idea!
Interesting game, but I think the Big chess has a small(?) problem, the 16 squares on the vertical. It takes too much time to bring the pawns into the game, and the risk is that they will not participate at the "battle" at all. Wouldn't be more efficient to reduce the vertical lines a little bit, maybe not to 8 squares, because of the central knights positioning, but to 10 or 12?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-02 11:57:24)
Big chess. An idea
I saw another chess variant with about 16 squares on the horizontal and 8 lines on the vertical... I don't feel it's interesting enough... A kind of "double-chessboard". But you're right, pawns won't participate in the opening battle... What's interesting IMO is the many ways the middle game could happen :)
Now I'm discussing "theory" with some of my opponents.. :)
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-10 15:27:33)
Playchess Freestyle Tournaments
Interesting and true observation, Thibault.
What about the format 2h/40moves displayed under Money Tournaments in Waiting Lists? Maybe this is equally harder (in order to beat Rybka) that at 1h+15sec (!?)
And second question is why do you think Black needs so many moves to have winning chances in the proposed Silver/Gold Thematic game, or a better question could be: Do you think White can get a draw after that sequence: 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 d5 3.Nf3 c5 4.Ng1 Black to move. -->assuming the idea is that if the game is drawn White would win the 1-game match--.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-11 01:36:31)
Your best quotes :)
I just read a great "quote" written by one of my opponents... :)
You saw these quotes about chess, Go and other subjects while playing your moves, actually you probably saw all of them already, so I'd like to gather your favourite quotes here, I'll add the best ones in the file !
Don't hesitate to submit your own ideas ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-11 13:30:46)
Money Tournaments
I'll come back in a few weeks on this subject with full explanations... The idea may evolve yet, until to find the more attractive system.
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-13 18:43:31)
Why isn't there a Chessbase forum?!
..any ideas?
The best I can think of is...they would definitely benefit from one..or maybe not -and that's why there isn't any ;)
Example, we could learn about CB freestyle tournaments impressions there, or about performance of programs, or about recommended books, DVDs, etc, oh well thanks God there are other forums ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-13 20:53:51)
Correspondence Go rules
I read a post at GoDiscussions.com by a player who wondered how to tell his opponent he's lost... That's quite true some correspondence Go games may last (sometimes more than 50 moves) whereas the result is obvious, ie. when a very strong player beats a beginner who even doesn't really know why he's lost.
I was thinking about a rule to solve this problem but I couldn't find one good enough :/
Is it correct to ask his opponent to resign (according to a rule) or simply he's 'most probably' lost ?!
All ideas are welcome.. Thanks in advance !
Nick Burrows (2007-03-21 05:51:48)
anthropomorphity..
I was attempting to illustrate that there actually is order/structure/reality that is external to human beings, that we can but glimpse at and partially understand through the medium of thought. Our only means to understand it is through thought, but that doesn't mean that what we are percieving isnt something real and of value.
a belief in no reality outside of human consciousness is a contrary viewpoint, and weakens the idea of an external reality. Too anthropic for me also. Apologies for my clumsy ramblings, just following the dialectic out loud. Bring on the games!!
Don Groves (2007-03-25 05:50:08)
Computer Go
I was thinking about that very thing, Thibault, the idea of using neural networks to analyze the board first in small areas and then higher level networks would combine the small areas into larger and larger areas until the whole board was analyzed. The problem with this approach seems to me that the size of the small areas is variable depending on the depth of the game. Developing algorithms to deal with this variability could be a very hard problem, whereas humans deal with this problem easily.
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-25 11:24:50)
Computer Go
While I agree that programming Go is much more a problem of algorithm than a hardware one, I think you underestimate the theorical difficulties.
First, a word on the alluded new approach (BTW the french edition of 'Pour la Science' has an article on this algorithm this month, but not very involved): it seems promising only because that program regularly beats other program using what we can call a traditional approach: tree exploration combined with pattern recognition and some clever splitted evaluation function. That is fine, but does not mean much for human, considering the poor level of all these programs.
AFAIY the very best program is said to be at low pro-dan level on a 9x9 (without any concrete real test match, that is with money at stakes... but let's suppose it is true). The problem to play on 19x19 is that the nature of the game dramatically changes: in short the tactics is more complicated and the once very basic strategy of 9x9 becomes overwhelming! There is still no known algorithm to tackle that problem. Such algorithm could exist of course, but don't hold your breath :-)
Now I am quite eager to read the tests and pubications on these researches :-)
The neural network approach is interresting but is more or less stalling (again AFAIY) in recent programs mainly because of a fundamental flaw: the tuning of the gap functions. In Backgammon, where this approach works very well, these functions are tuned by simulation: basically, the program plays many, many games against himself and in a way learns (that is tunes its network) depending on the results. As you may guess, this can not work in Go because of the complexity of the branch tree. So the problem is how to tune the network (and 'by hand' cannot be a soution, believe me, considering the number of nodes and the type of the functions being commonly used!)
Of course I simplified a lot and the maths behind these kind of algorithm are involved enough (and very interresting :-)) that someone may find new ideas that will revive one path or another. But my feeling is that the pros of go have nothing to fear for a long time...
You have to consider that the very best programs are not beaten, but crushed, by multi-dans amateurs, you know, the kind of player a top pro will beat at 5 stones while blitzing and at 9 stones if some money is at stakes :-)
Now I may be wrong, and I remember in the 80s many people saying the same thing for chess, and betting on the fact that a program could never beat a good player in at least 50 years :-)... but at that time, I did not agree :-)) mainly because the algorithms were more or less basically known already... the 80s hardware was a problem, but a technical and not theorical one...
Sorry for that too long reply... I can't believe I typed so much... that must be my new keyboard, and the fond memories of some past jobs ... :-)
Pablo Schmid (2011-07-13 23:01:37)
Shogi in ficgs?
Thanks for the link, but I think there is no real conclusion. Chinese chess and Japanese are really "classical" boards games that are quite related to chess, maybe it's not a bad idea to include these games, with the hope to get more asian players for example. If you are not convinced by that idea we could do a poll in this site for the inclusion of shogi, chinese chess, both or none?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-28 20:06:16)
Wiki Go ?
As there isn't much space in the chat bar, we could discuss here the idea of a WikiGo (for Joseki ?!)... I'm not convinced it could be useful yet, as the tree of the game is too large but just waiting to be convinced :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-29 19:51:24)
Double round-robin tournaments
Single round-robin tournaments with 7 players remains the very best option in my opinion. Shorter waiting time, more opponents... Playing White or Black against a particular opponent have consequences particularly in WCH tournaments, that is a choice but as there's no perfect system, the idea was to organize more cycles (about one every 6 months) for more chances. This way I'm convinced the best player will reach the final quite quickly :)
Double round robin tournaments with five players will be organized for special events (by the way this formula will not decrease the waiting time before a tournament starts... the more games in a tournament, the longer waiting time to begin another one, it doesn't depend on the number of players only)
Finally I think the idea of double round-robin tournaments with 5 players could be a good one for a new category, with a different time control (maybe longer ?!) .. What do you think ?
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-03-29 21:01:14)
Double round-robin tournaments
I think it is a good idea.
Playing 2 times against an opponent (whit White and Black) is more exiting, specially in WCH tournaments
Marc Lacrosse (2007-03-29 23:44:48)
Fast double RR at five players
"Finally I think the idea of double round-robin tournaments with 5 players could be a good one for a new category, with a different time control (maybe longer ?!) .. What do you think ?"
Or why not testing it with faster time controls (5 days initial + 1 day per move, maximum accumulated time 20 days) for example.
Sure I would immediately enroll for a 2200+ tournament on this basis.
:-)
Strongly limiting maximum accumulated time is also a project I would support wholeheartedly !
Anyone for a test ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-05 01:58:22)
Big Chess championship
Hello to all.
You may have seen in the chat bar the idea to organize a Big Chess championship at FICGS is in the air.
It could be interesting for several reasons, the first one of course is there's no engine to help players :) .. by the way, it may be really hard to program a good Big Chess engine, it should use some Go concepts combined to a powerful chess engine (with quite different parameters).
Now there are some questions :
- What rules for a Big Chess championship ?
- What about a Big Chess rating ?
In my opinion, there shouldn't be a Big Chess rating. That's a pity, but "simple" chess should remain the main rated game here. Actually, the nature of this game (and time control) makes me think it should remain a friendly game first. However there could a championship for fun...
About the rules for such a championship, it could look like the Go championship : A two-stages tournament, first stage would be a single round-robin tournament with the 7 players who won most Big Chess tournaments (will help to promote tournaments ;)), second stage would be a 6 games match against current champion (if the final score is a draw, the current champion will keep his title).
What do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-05 04:22:32)
Go : Simultaneous games with handicap !
Hello to all Go players !
It could be interesting to organize simultaneous games by 1 kyu+ players with a stones handicap against weaker players... or another kind of hard & funny challenge, feel free to make a suggestion if you have ideas.
Any taker ? :) .. come in, more fun !
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-04-05 16:06:36)
BigChess Championship
Hello to all.
BigChess is a great game. No books, no engines, and no ratings!
A BigChess Championship is an excellent idea. I think that everyone should be able to take part in this tournament. And - if possible - it should start as soon as possible. If we must wait until 7 different players (not seven times Thibault :-) ) have won a tournament, then the Championship probably starts only in 2009.
Jason Repa (2007-04-07 04:23:38)
Big Chess
This is an excellent idea! I'm looking forward to playing in the next Big Chess tournament!
Jason Repa (2007-04-07 04:45:25)
Double RR Tournaments
Double RR tournaments are a good idea and makes things fair. It is a big advantage to have the White pieces in a Corr. game.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-10 00:32:54)
chess movie
Nice idea ! (James Woods as Bobby Fischer)
Maybe you're right, a good chess movie is to be done yet.. but I quite like some of these ones... and what about John Dahl's "Rounders" with Matt Damon, Edward Norton, John Turturro and John Malkovich about Poker ?
Waiting for a movie from Stefan Zweig's novel "The Royal Game" (Le joueur d'échecs).. huh actually it has been made already, did anyone see it ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Game_%28film%29
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-10 02:07:20)
Go / Weiqi : Enigma
I have no idea :) .. Actually right now I have no more idea about anything :> .. zzzZZzzz
Volker Koslowski (2007-04-12 22:02:56)
Big Chess Championship
I think that a system based up on points suggested by Heinz-Georg is a good idea for a BC Championship. It is not very complex and maybe we must not wait until 2009 for the first final round robin tournament :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-16 05:33:46)
Skip feature
That's a great idea, thanks :) .. I just implemented it, soon updated.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-21 10:08:48)
WCH Stage 1 rules
Hello Achim.
I understand, it may look really difficult at first sight, the ideas behind this are first to make cycles not too long in order to organize a new one every 6 months (so you have more chances), second to have best chances to find the very best players in the final stages - this is the aim of a championship IMO.
Anyway, that's right the fight is often between the 3 top-rated players in these groups. So the easiest way : To get a good rating first (at least you can win some points in these groups).
It could be great to organize another event (like a cup) with different rules. Waiting for more players :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-23 01:05:39)
Performance / Rating
Achim, you just pointed it : "Regarding the rating as a decision maker I have one questions: Who showed the better performance if two players have the same number of points at the end? The player with the higher or the player with the lower rating?" .. of course the player with the lower rating :)
Once more, the aim of these rules is to find the very best player, NOT the best 'performer' in a group, tournament, match or whatever... ICCF & IECG do it well already and I thought this system could be more exciting. Maybe there could be some improvements in the rules yet, but the idea makes sense IMO. Does it really make sense to speak of performance in correspondence chess ? .. It makes sense in OTB chess because it reflects the level of players at a particular moment. But you can play a good CC tournament and a bad one at the same time...
Best wishes, Thibault
Jason Repa (2007-04-23 10:04:00)
Cheating Accusations
My advice is to take the accusations with a grain of salt. I'm a very good blitz/bullet player and years ago before I found out about ICC and Playchess.com I used to play at the crappy free sites such as yahoo and pogo. I would often be the strongest and highest rated player in the room and would get constantly accused of being a "prog". I would say take it as a compliment but these people are too stupid to understand what a good move or good technique is. They make the accusation based on successful results only.
As for your game with Anand. I think it's ridiculous to accuse you of program assistance. For starters, the game isn't very important. It's just an unrated simul game with no prize whatsoever. It seems to me you should have received some sort of award, not necessarily cash, but something chess related and of value. I understand it's for charity, but I can't see who in their right mind would pay money to play in a simul when there is no incentive to win. You might as well just write a check to send directly to the handicapped children of India.
When Chapters bookstore hired me to do a chess simul it was a fundraiser for our chess club. I didn't lose any games, but the sole person to merely draw me (28-0-1) in the 29 games I played received a free tournament entry ($30 value) to one of our local monthly events. I thought this was a great idea and had the benefit of bringing a new player into our club.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-23 15:22:49)
Computer use
You can't prove it, of course... I wouldn't say these accusations are totally ridiculous, it's hard to avoid it. Actually we have to accept the idea that there's a "probability" (even small) of cheating in such online events, nothing more... The fact is it's not important, so the result for Anand.. the main winner is the charity action :)
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-04-27 01:25:32)
Elo question...
I have a question...
I have now 1410 Elo points and at next elo refresh (1st May) I probably raise at 1576 Elo points.
Now there is a problem: I arrive at 1576 becouse I have won 5 game where after 15-20 moves my opponent's clock silently finish without any other moves and in 3 or 4 of this games my opponent was in a really good position.
The question is:
Is possible do not to calculate elo variation of this particular games?
I think it is a good idea to make an option that when I win a game by time, I can choose if this game will be calculate or not calculate in my elo variation...
I suggest this becouse I gain elo points from losing games and it is not fun :(
Sorry for my bad english... :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-30 14:05:46)
The meaning of Go for modern Russia
An interesting (as usual) article from IGN "Goama" newsletter - http://gogame.info
Alexander Rodin, the member of Go Federation
"The meaning of Go for modern Russia"
I'll try to state my thoughts about the meaning of the Go for modern Russia.
To begin with I suggested that we extrapolate Go models on the political and economical maps. These maps are very important as the spheres of social life, because the questions that are discussed at political and economical levels touch upon our lives, the lives of ordinary Russian citizens. In these spheres they continue the fierce struggle for life and death; in these spheres rivalry is especially keen and the made decisions define the vectors of our country development.
Let's imagine a situation if somebody inadequate came to power and set the totalitarian regime! Then all social "dissident" institution would start dying and so would do the Go Federation as a phenomenon which unifies people with independent thinking. Then it would be inevitable to start "hiding in basements" to keep the organization and set the secret addresses. Under conditions of modern Russia such kind of reasoning seems to be mostly fantastic than real. But if we look behind into our history we’ll remember that we have already had this phase of social development and know everything about it.
I am for that only "adequate" people, patriots, must hold power (I mean all its levels: federal, regional, local and busyness elite as well). These people must think independently and it would be just perfect if they were the people who both understand the very notion of strategy and use in their activity all the arsenal of strategic instruments and among them principles, stratagems and Go philosophy.
Someone can argue: "What are the patriots who set Japan draughts?" the heart of the problem is not in the fact that somebody sets draughts and even the Japan ones. The matter of fact is that there is a "pacific" model the centre of which is the idea of balance and peaceful division of the territory and influence. If someone of us can offer something better, so let him rule. In my opinion, it's the same as to rewrite the Bible or "The Treatise of Military Art" Soun Tsi.
The Go essence manifests in the state scale in the following aspects:
The first one is historical and cultural. The game has a great history and longstanding traditions. Go is no less than a civil game with the development of which hand by hand goes statehood making in many countries. Besides, it's followed by strengthening of spirituality and moral principles of society.
The second aspect is social. Go unifies people, sets friendly relationships between them. Through Go a man manifests quickly, through it s/he can see his/her reflection. Owing to "open spiritual fight" your adversary is likely to become your best friend without saying a word during a game.
The third aspect is pedagogical. Through Go they bring up the grown generations and form their active civil position. Like chess, Go forms and consolidates dynamical stereotypes showing in following behavioral models of people. Penetrating and consolidation happen imperceptibly when sleeping, during the junction of conscious and unconscious.
The fourth aspect is economical. Why are business people interested in Go? Because through the game model a man learns how to manage material and non-material resources. Via the game s/he realizes economical and management notions: market (territory), economical integration, SWOT-analysis (the analysis of weak and strong aspects) etc. Managers start realizing the importance of interconnection and interaction of structural subdivisions ensuring. These subdivisions shouldn't be isolated from each other. They should work time in time like a well-tuned tuning fork.
The fifth aspect is political. The idea of community in politics is as relevant as the idea of group of stones. When a group is weak there is always a possibility of dividing it and this is a sign for the whole group. When our country, being a federal union of equitable subjects, was going through its stage of making a number of subjects had a wish to use the weakness of this chain. So, in 1992 1994 for the first time after the collapsing of the USSR there appeared first separatist tendencies. E.Rossel, the governor of Sverdlovskaya region, A. Philipenko, the governor of HMAO, claimed about the possibility of Ural republic creation. The emissary of Chechen separatists Gokhar Dudaev proclaimed the independence of Chechen-Ingush republic. The detachment didn't happen but the country paid with blood for it. Nowadays we can see demonstration of political integration and isolation on the modern political world map. Take a strong unity of the European Union and states-outsiders: Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Iran.
In terms of remaining of the USA's striving for establishment of world hegemony (from V.V.Putin's speech at the recent Munich conference), Russia needs the processes of integration and consolidation with other countries aimed at its strengthening. The unified countries have a lot of dame. Now we can observe the stronger split in the CIS as a consequence of energetic and territorial policy of Russia that uses economical instruments of pressure upon "unfriendly and opposing" countries. Is it good or not? It's more likely that it‘s bad. But there are some positive tendencies: the role of the EurAsEC as a community which's built not on the basis of "strange brotherhood" and the role of Russia in it are increasing. Go is an ideological and spiritual base making us related to the countries of Asia-Pacific region. Go teaches how to see and distinguish creative and destroying processes.
The sixth aspect is psychological. The game develops thinking, in particular such processes as analysis and synthesis. It develops the ability of seeing the whole board and its details, the ability of seeing processes proceeding at global and local levels.
The seventh aspect is verbal and lexical or even philosophical. Through studying of the game theory we realize such categories as life and death, territory and influence, reliability, stability, the whole and the parts etc.
So, what is the Go meaning on the country scale? I assume that Go, as philosophy (an ideological and spiritual base), is a very important instrument of upbringing of strategic leaders, those who make decisions at high economical and political levels that influence the country's fate. Because in Go the idea of peaceful co-existence shows the way to harmony. The most pleasant is the fact the "Go way" doesn't have an end and there sky's the limit.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-05-02 14:46:08)
Fun and competition
For me is correspondence chess just fun and competition. It is possible, that some of my played games may give others a feeling of art (in this case not in the meaning of artificial :-)), but this is just a result of a random process. A special science of correspondence chess (beside normal chess theory) can I see only in programming chess engines or in finding of Tablebases – both not my skills. I love chess, but I’m too weak playing OTB chess on a high level, possible not by my fundamental understanding of chess positions but by my missing personal power of memory, computing (without computers) and nerves. So correspondence chess is ideal for me, because I can substitute my individual weaknesses by a computer und have no time stress to analyse the positions in all ways – artificial and human – to find out the most efficient chance.
Dan Rotaru (2007-05-03 00:32:46)
sb tie breaks
I believe that Garvin’s idea regarding the tie break makes sense. The higher rated player in a group is not always the best player, especially in correspondence chess where it takes time to achieve one’s real rating or players can get an established equal rating from ICCF or IECG. I also believe that games will be spectacular and exciting even with new rules. I played to win in both my games against the highest rated players in my group and wouldn’t have played different no matter the rules. In the end the rules are rules and equal for everybody so we must obey. However from the number of replies it seems that the topic is hot and maybe it is worth debating for the next WCH. I don’t want to play in the ICCF & IECG world championship tournaments because I enjoy FICGS too much :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-03 02:13:44)
Go championship cycle
1st FICGS go WCH will start in a few months, but I'm still not really satisfied with current rules :
"FICGS world Go championship is first a round-robin tournament, involving 11 players including the 6 players who won or lead most Go tournaments started during the previous year and the 5 highest rated players, among players who entered the waiting list. If more than 2 players win (or lead) a tournament with equal score, no win is granted. A win in a "pro" tournament is worth 9 "kyu" wins. A win in a "dan" tournament is worth 3 "kyu" wins. In case of equality, the next places will be taken in account.
The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the winner is the player with the highest tournament entry rating (TER), If this rule can't designate a unique challenger, current ratings will be considered. If current world champion defends his title, they will play a 6 games match. In case of equality (3-3), the winner is the former world champion.
All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Komi is 7.5 points. Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association."
Not clear enough, quite complicate and strange, even if I like the idea of a 2-stages tournament (round-robin tournament then challenger vs. champion match) and to give the opportunity to the best rated Go players to enter it without playing tournaments before... Other questions, double round-robin or not, should it be open to all players.. Feel free to suggest your ideas for a nice Go WCH cycle ! :)
Nick Burrows (2007-05-10 00:04:13)
Mike Surtees
If you are ever short of ideas for thematic tourney's check out the openings of Mike Surtees...always interesting!?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-04 17:15:54)
Candidates Finals
Only 4 of my favourites qualified : Kamsky, Leko, Bareev, Grischuk, Shirov, Gelfang, Rublevsky & Aronian won their matches...
New pairings for the Candidates Finals are :
Aronian - Shirov
Leko - Bareev
Rublevsky - Grischuk
Gelfand - Kamsky
Any ideas for the next round ? :)
Marc Lacrosse (2007-06-04 19:05:48)
Any ideas for the next round ? :)
Aronian (not clear)
Bareev !
Rublevsky
Gelfand
Hehe !
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-12 19:11:21)
More rating lists ?
What about more rating lists at FICGS ?
- Correspondence chess active & inactive players lists
- Blitz & lightning rating list
- Big chess rating list (class tournaments !?)
- Go rating list
Also there could be casual blitz & lightning chess tournaments with entry fee & prizes, blitz & lightning games with a tiny entry fee (no prize) and more ways to win E-Points...
Feel free if you have any comment or idea...
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-13 00:50:47)
Rating list
An established rating list would be a very good idea. Therefore maybe people will play more games:-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-19 04:53:47)
Chatter robot
Well, you just gave me an idea : A robot will announce any entry (name + rating) for a blitz or lightning game in the chat bar. I hope it will help... :)
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-22 00:41:00)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls
I am proposing the following idea to solve the problem of Lightning and Blitz Time Controls: the first person who signs up should be able to choose a date and time when the game should start (use server time to avoid confusion). The player who accepts the challenge should accept that he has to logon and play the game at the established date and time. Of course any of them can cancel the game or ask for a new date and time if for any reason they cannot play.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-22 01:51:23)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls
That's an idea, but I'm making some changes to help to find opponents more easily. I hope it will help...
First, experience shows that rating rules are still too hard IMO : A player winning or drawing against another one rated 350 points more most often means the lower rated player should be rated higher, not the contrary... A few games only are concerned, but with provisional ratings such results are still not fair, and many players rated 2100 to 2300 fear to lose points in the chess WCH, even if they win their groups. This rule should allow strong players not to fear (too much :)) to play against anyone in rated tournaments without rating restrictions, like blitz & lightning ones.
Consequently, the rule "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 350" will be changed to "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 200" in a few hours.
The entry fees & prizes (E-Points) will change also, most important is to attract more players to start more advanced chess games.
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-22 14:09:17)
Russian translation
As it appears, Mike has already done the Russian translation. Of course, some purely cosmetic improvements could be made to the Russian version but do they need to de done? It's not that bad and gives a good idea of the website and its content. So I think we can leave it at that. Cheers, Alex
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-22 14:49:55)
Ukrainian
As to the Ukranian version, I can be of no help here. :) Sure, Andrew Sumets is the right guy to do that, should he feels that way. You can ask him for contribution. As to the rest of the missing versions, I've no idea who can take trouble to do them. :) Cheers, Alex
Denis Stork (2007-06-22 20:13:41)
Was?
Alexander, it's really a good idea to choose one communication language in this thread, isn't it?
Ivan Poddubnyi (2007-06-23 00:55:24)
2 Thibault de Vassal:
Unfortunately, IGAME players are not understood here in correct way. Let me clear our position about names.
Of course I respect your idea of creating a friendly atmosphere on your cite by giving real names. If I will decide to stay here, I will play under my real name. But now I am your guest and would like to play under a nick-name. I hope, you can respect our IGAME customs. If you do not like my IGAME nickname Mobutu, let me play as Ivan.
By the way, a lot of information about IGAME players is available on our cite www.igame.ru: games, results, IGAME ratings and so on. Come and see, we do not hide. :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 18:12:34)
FICGS freestyle cup
Hello to all.
You may have noticed new changes in the waiting lists & tournaments pages. Trying to create more interesting tournaments with entry fee & prize, with different time controls.
The FICGS chess freestyle cup (I did not find a better name yet :)) will be a 6 rounds swiss tournament played from time to time (every month would be great) at a very fast time control : 10 minutes + 20 seconds / move, see the rules in the tournament page in waiting lists. All rounds will be played the same day, about 1 round per hour.
Blitz tournaments have been gathered with lightning ones under the category advanced chess lightning tournaments.
Feel free if you have any idea or suggestion !
Sergey Pligin (2007-06-23 19:18:53)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
Dear chessfriends! My name is Sergey Pligin and I am the co-organizer of this match, representing igame.ru. Originally this match was planned as a friendly rivalry of 2 servers which are igame and FIGCS. The 1st one is Russian, the 2nd one is western. The main idea was to make new foreign friends. This match caused a big avalanche of interest at our server. Unfortunately, not each player can play this match for the teams consist of 25 players only. Some players of igame who are not in have decided to play for your team. I don’t know their motives, but it is their right to play for any team they are willing to play for. Their honest play is the main item to be discussed. On the other hand, several permanent players of the FIGCS have lost an opportunity to participate in this match, as, for instance, was pointed out by Mr. Garvin Gray. I sincerely wish to organize this friendly match with no misunderstanding and beg you to pay attention to Russian players whom you’d like to be in your team.
Garvin Gray (2007-06-24 08:16:23)
suggestion
I believe that everyone has been credited with 2 e-points.
Perhaps an idea to get people more interested in the 'money games' would be to make the tournament entry fee 2 e-points on a one time trial basis.
Those that arent interested after the trial basis will probably never be interested and so have no need to have any e-points. Those that are interested will add more e-points to their account.
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-24 09:55:59)
Hello, Garvin!
Nope, that's only half-truth. I've no idea of the others' motivation but my signing-up on here has nothing to do with an attempt to play versus the IGAME team. The reasons were somewhat different. I didn't come here solely to play in that match, I just love the friendly atmosphere here on FICGS. Cheers, Alex
Thomas Tamayo (2007-06-25 04:07:49)
Recently Completed Games
Just an idea: It would be nice to have a list of recently completed games (last 5 or so). It can be hard to figure out which game ended in a list of 10 or so games.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-25 04:32:14)
Recently Completed Games
Hi Thomas. It is quite easy to order finished games (by date, by tournament or anything), but I'm not sure it's a good idea to have too many options... It is possible to find old finished games in "My tournaments". What's the aim exactly ?!
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-25 17:48:40)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
Let me explain – I don’t want to have any exception rules for me! It’s a principle thing: about 35 years ago I played some few correspondence chess tournaments by postcard (naturally with my real name). After a long period of abstinence (since 1999) I played correspondence chess by Email (IECG/Playchess-Server and ICCF/ICCF-Webserver) – new transport medium but with old real name. So everybody can see my chess history: I’m standing (with my real name) to all my many bad or neutral games as same as to my some very good chess performances. I’ve always used tools (first just books and later also engines), but I’ve always played my games alone (without help by any other person). I think there are many other players with FICGS (i.e. Peter Schuster, Hannes Rada, Harry Ingersol or others more) who have done it similar like me. In contrast, if DONALD DUCK wins and has played a very good game, he likes it to say his real name, if he loses or has played poorly, he is just staying DONALD DUCK. He wouldn’t have to fear to disgrace himself, but there is a real chance for him to gleam! Sorry, but this is not my idea from a friendly match between two serious teams.
Thomas Tamayo (2007-06-26 03:07:27)
Recently Completed Games
If it isn't currently possible, how can I find my completed games? If looking at my tournament history, it is hard to find my own games and harder to find completed ones. The idea is that I would like to read any final comments posted by my opponent and analyze the final position (reason for resignation, etc).
Dinesh De Silva (2007-06-26 09:33:10)
Re:
I think there should be at least an option of an extra 10 days to the current 30 days per year. The point is that there are such things as computers breaking down, computers hit with viruses, business travel commitments, planning a holiday etc. I think the majority are not glued to the internet all the time. These factors far outweigh other things. So to relieve the situation, an extra 10 days might be a good idea.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-26 16:06:08)
Ratings
The discussion of ratings is very problematic. Ratings on different sites are depending on different premises. What entry level was accepted? How long did you playing there – how often? How much thinking time did you spent per move? Is the basic rating you earned over years to be caused by old tournaments with postcards (maybe without any help of engines – and your opponents did it the same way)? How much care did you spent ratings (i.e. Norm tournaments?!)? Are you a member of the exclusive cycle of an organisation, getting invitations to closed high-level rating tournaments? Engines (also Rybka) are playing own styles and it depends on whether you can play better or worse against their special styles (knowing their potencies and weaknesses). Old fashioned players (independent from their ratings) will have much more problems to win or to hold draw against engines than players which have positioning themselves at actual situation. In my opinion today Rybka alone with one week thinking time per every move without any other help will reach a rating of about 2.400 at FICGS SM-tournament with an average rating of 2.450. In an ICCF anniversary tournament (average rating of about 2.600) same Rybka under same conditions will reach a rating about 2.550. I for myself wouldn’t play longer correspondence chess, if I would have the feeling that any engine is playing better without my command. How long will it still take? My engine handling is not in this way, that I am waiting for longer times which move is offer by the engine. I have own ideas and I’m trying their possibilities, investigating positions in depth over many moves in all directions. But sometimes engines have the better ideas and I have to accept this!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-27 03:45:20)
Miguel
I'm sorry if you felt under attack... Of course we're only discussing ideas and I thank you for having submitted this one. I agree that rules are quite hard but it is also quite hard for us to understand how it couldn't be linked to the number of games in any way. There are other factors that we can predict more or less, but it's obviously related IMO. Anyway, maybe 10 days more would help many players to manage their time. Waiting for more opinions...
Amir Bagheri (2007-06-30 14:02:02)
Newsletter and Blog Recruitment
I am trying to set up a Newsletter. This would be an excellent way to spread news amongst ourselves. This newsletter targets primarily The Chess corner Members however I would like to create a column dedicated to the FICGS Members a bit like a gossip page or anything that you would like to share. This Newsletter will be distributed to all my members and to FICGS Member that wishes to receive it To do so I require help from you all we are actively looking for 1) writters 2) editors 3) researchers 4) Designers To express your interest, please go to www.chesscorner.com and fill up the application form. For those of you wiling to help us please bare in mind that I will create a forum where you could share ideas and opinion it is therefore essential that you register on The Chess Corner. All authors will be acknowleged and credit will be given. If you want to help but reckon that a Newsletter maybe a bit out of your league, we are looking for some enthusiasts to look after the Blog. The Blog Regards Amir Bagheri (GM) PS I welcome all comments http://www.thechesscorner.com http://thechesscorner.blogspot.com/
Jason Repa (2007-07-15 20:45:57)
Hillarious!
This is your "argument"? You copy and paste some drivel where they seem to substitute the word "skill" with "intelligence", or perhaps you did that.
You don't provide any sources or qualifications of the author whatsoever.
This is too entertaining and unbelievable to make up!!
in a statement signed by 52 psychologists, published in the December 13, 1994 Wall Street Journal
"1. Intelligence exists as a very general mental capability involving ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. The brain processes involved are little understood.
2. Intelligence can be measured, and IQ tests measure it well. Nonverbal tests can be used where language skills are weak.
3. IQ tests are not culturally biased.
4. IQ is more strongly related than any other measurable human trait to educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Whatever it is that IQ tests measure, it is very important.
5. Genetics plays a bigger role than environment in intelligence, but environment has a strong effect.
6. Individuals are not born with an unchangeable IQ, but it gradually stabilizes during childhood and changes little thereafter."
I think 52 psychologists might be a bit more qualified than the random blog where you copied and pasted from.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-26 12:27:10)
Changes
I suppose there could be another time control for this tournament, maybe 30 minutes + 15 seconds... 6 or 7 rounds to be played during a single day. Any idea ?
Garvin Gray (2007-07-29 07:40:12)
another idea
Thibault de Vassal- It seems this time control is ok for most players who use it (sometimes even too slow yet)... If you feel it's difficult, more reasonable would be to play standard class tournaments.
Another suggestion is that I make sure I play the opening moves of any rapid game rather quickly, so I dont get into time trouble early :)
Artur Saigakov (2007-08-08 23:13:50)
Re
Hello! Please, calm down! I am a command captain on the site of igame.ru of which --- [moderator : name deleted] consisted before. I'm sorry my English is terrible! Paulina and Sex-god (SG) are one person which thus make his own PR and shows the personal offense to --- [moderator : name deleted]. --- [moderator : name deleted] anyway is not connected with drugs, he simply played in my command. I want to underline that my command is AGAINST drugs! Name of command - STOP Narkotics! Motto of our command you can read on igame.ru : "" If you found forces, or search it to give up drugs, this command is for you! This command exists for everybody who gives the vote for nature, for peace, for understanding of our existence, for light ideas, for helping each other, for healthy children and their parents!"" --- [moderator : name deleted] never was drug addict but he just agreed with a command idea. He is 17 years old, he is IM, that's why he was taken in command of igame, and SG wasn't included. SG said that he is gay, then added to the repertoire a word is a drug addict. certainly, he was offended and he said that he would beat SG or he would ask somebody to do it It is not serious, but I think that this fight wouldn't stop even after this speech.
Jason Repa (2007-08-09 21:18:31)
real names
I like your idea, and agree. But don't you think it would be a formidable task to authenticate people? The poker sites sometimes get people to fax in a copy of their ID, but that might be a bit difficult to get chess players to do.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-13 17:59:54)
:)))
Anyway your initial post was deleted. ("possibly" offensive post) :)
Any other idea to write a rule to solve this problem ?
Christophe Czekaj (2007-08-29 18:23:05)
So what ?
Good idea ! Come on FICG'S guys ! Let's do it.
Charlie Neil (2007-08-29 23:18:50)
Trust
I know this is a site for the computer search engine. There are sites elsewhere on the net that don't allow/frown on such assistance. Good idea to try it here though. Good luck everybody. It will be a matter of trusting your oppoenent.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-03 23:27:30)
Adjudication
Hello Andrew.
That's an idea, but your opponent is not supposed to use tablebases, he may just want to see how you'll checkmate him and learn from the game. Correspondence chess shouldn't be more computerized IMO, so only 'obvious' endgames will be adjudicated.
You may call the referee in a few more moves.
Glen D. Shields (2007-09-06 04:20:15)
Engine Use - My Take
The switch from postcard to server chess has been a wonderfully positive experience.
The transition from human chess to silicon chess on the otherhand has left me bored and wondering if there's still a purpose to the game.
Every tournament is the same. The tournament starts with 6 to 10 players. The moves transition out of the opening at lightning speed, then "Fritz and Rybka time" begins. Turn on your favorite engine and there's a >95% probablitity that your opponents' moves mimic the top engines. There are no surprises, nothing interesting, just boring repetition.
Only a few percent of the chess world can outplay the top engines on fast hardware. Human intervention is like adding a drop of water to a bucket of water and thinking you've made a difference. Most matches are one computer versus another computer and the results are predictable: 1-2 wins, 1-2 losses, most of the games drawn.
I don't oppose engine use. There's no way to enforce it, so there's hardly a reason to forbid it. I do question, however, its purpose. It's just as easy and entertaining for me to play against my computer as it is to play your computer ... and I can do it on my timeline not yours.
I played a friendly young man earlier this year in the ICCF. He was vocal and proud of his high rating and good reults. He'd been playing for less than a year. He eventually admitted through our friendly chat that he hardly knew the moves and rules. He had no idea what "en passant" was or the basic theory of the openings. It took everything I had to save my position and earn a draw from him. That game was "my epithany." I made up my mind to take a break and reconsider what CC is all about. Engine use has been a great technical accomplishment, but has it made CC more enjoyable? Not for me. I hope most of you feel differently.
Good luck and good chess to all :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-06 23:53:39)
France
Good idea ! .. and much more difficult...
Christophe Léotard won the previous ICCF world championship, but I must admit I have no idea who is France CC champion !?
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-07 12:44:20)
To Jason
Hello Jason ! It’s just a question to have the possibility to play correspondence chess (for fun, not neccesarily studying or analysis, just the pleasure of finding moves, ideas (you know, what Bronstein called imagination) not rating, not to be classified as expert, or I don’t know what…) with people without computer. If they lie and use computer ; OK, we can’t be sure, but I’m certain you could accept that some players can trust other players when they say they don’t use computers. For example, I trust Philip when he said this, it’s just a question of being a gentleman. If there are cheaters ok, so what… Rybka will win And I don’t undestand your topic about class of players : I hope I‘ve the right of posting some commentaries on this forum, despite the fact being largely behind you in term of rating… I think we can still play chess without computer, and with rating or not, it’s the same game for me. Philip and I just think it could be kind to play with other players with a kind of gentleman’s agreement. Sorry if it bother you
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-09 19:28:27)
Drag and drop
I have to look for a way to implement drag & drop without java. I still have no idea about it... About conditional moves, that's the eternal question. I think I won't implement it, sorry :/
About the graphical interface, why would you like to see it below the chess notation ?! .. Maybe to avoid to scroll down if you write your moves ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-09 19:29:22)
chess diagrams
I have no idea... Anyway, I don't like libraries :)
Hannes Rada (2007-09-09 23:00:48)
unfair ?
Why should conditionals be unfair ? I've no idea why the ICCF guys disabled it. But I know that ICCF is a very bureaucratic organisation and even the smallest change on their server takes a very long time and will be discussed to death ....
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 14:43:59)
Discussing the new rule
About this rule : "Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private."
As a player pointed out that this rule was really hard and suggested to me to punish verbal attacks only, here's my answer (to be discussed, of course) :
I did not ban provocation, I just try to limit the "discussions" that follow... Provocation calls provocation and progressively more and more, I don't think that any argument is useful when the aim is not to convince but only to provoke... So, how to limit that with clear rules ? What's exactly a verbal attack, where is the limit ? Quite hard to say... How to avoid such discussions to burn quickly ?
If you have any idea of a better rule, feel free to suggest... What most players like in this site is the friendly atmosphere... Such discussions are boring for most of them IMO.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 21:05:48)
chess engines
Following Thibault's comments about Rybka having changed correpondence chess I purchased the rybka engine. It is a very good program but I dont see how it has affected cc anymore than Fritz. I have used Fritz 8 and 9 extensively for analysis and have until now no experience of other engines. Although I have just downloaded Toga II which is an excellent engine (and free!!) if anyone wants a free engine this is a top program that downloads in seconds and is up there with the commercial programs. I noticed Rybka seems more conservative evaluating positions than Fritz. However it has blind spots. For an example taken from the current chess cafe "Yasser Annotates" (Ivanchuk Seirawan 1990)after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe 4 Nxe Bc5 5 Ng3 Bg6 6 h5 h6 7 Nf3 Nd7 8 h5 Bh7 9 Bd3 Bxd 10 Qxd Ngf6 11 Bf4 e6 12 0-0-0 Be7 13 c4 b5 Black offers a pawn my reaction is not to take - otb I would never take. Why open the c file for black and grabbing the pawn by Qxb5 looks risky with only 2 pawns to cover the king and open b and c files. Fritz prefers 14 c5 with 14 cxd followed by 15 Kb1 as 2nd choice after 3 minutes ply 15 depth Rybka r chooses 14 cxb cxb then 15 Qxb5?! even after 1 hour at ply 19! In cc I would look at 14cxb and 15 Qxb5 to see if I could survive and win with the extra pawn but working with Fritz it takes but a few minutes to see black has compensation after 15 Qxb5 Nd5. When 16 Be5 gives an inferior endgame for white and 16 Bd2 Rb8 gives an attack for black. The top professionals work with a range of programs Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Hiracs and Rybka to generate ideas. Does anyone have any views on these other program's characteristics?
Graham Woodcock (2007-09-11 16:59:01)
My two penneth
I've never used a chess programme to help me (as anyone that's played me will probably be able to tell!). Unless there's money at stake, what's the point? I would have thought that the idea of playing chess online is to keep your mind active and to improve your own play by playing more frequently...but I guess there are probably a few cyber warriors around that will do whatever it takes to win... But I don't see what pleasure they can take from winning if some highly advanced chess engine has done all the work.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-11 17:18:40)
Best game
There could be also one for Big Chess :/ .. That's a problem, indeed. Also it would be great to find a way to "promote" really good games... I added a message "Don't forget to vote for the best game !" in the new message box already. Any idea ?
Garvin Gray (2007-09-14 18:37:01)
another idea
A possible answer is that once a player has withdrawn themselves from the waiting list for a tournament, they cannot re-enter that same tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-14 19:52:07)
another idea
"make it simple" :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-15 14:27:44)
Status bar
That's an idea... but.. but but.. actually not so easy to do it well, and it may cause some problems.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-18 20:03:22)
download all games
Thanks to you for the good idea :)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-21 18:52:24)
Tie Breaks
Farit just to clarify things, you lost your drawn match against Peter Schuster (despite being the higher rated player) because of the rule that the lower rated player wins in the event of a drawn match, where there has been at least one win by the lower rated player. So the 4 draws by you are drawing attention to the problems with the tie break by rating approach (albeit the higher rated player wins if all games drawn part of the rule) Well at least we understand your side of it - that you were actually making a point. Wolfgang I understand the rule is a compromise no need to cry however surely its right to review the experience and see if we can improve? The problem I have, based on the experience, is that it just makes the site look bad and silly to have 4 identical 15 move games. Thats not chess - in my view its absurd. So lets examine the experience and refine the process. A 2 game play off series at a very fast cc time rate ( 1-5 day reserve + 1 day increment)would, I believe, get a result. Its still a compromise because the time for cc is very short. At the same time lets re -think having the championship every 6 months idea - I think thats a big factor behind Thibault's tie break by rating rule. Its leading to overcrowding and its pretty hard to follow perhaps 1 every 9 months or year? Incidentally Thibault how do you break the tie if both have the same TER? Just a thought!
William Taylor (2007-10-21 01:47:07)
Nice idea
I'd be interested in playing. 5 or 6 games of go in one day sounds a bit tough, unless they were blitz/fast games (considerably quicker than 30 + 10). Go tournaments can be played with fewer rounds than chess tournaments - I'm playing one next weekend which is only 3 rounds, but that does seem too short to guarantee a clear winner.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-02 00:36:19)
Rating range restored
Hi Wayne... Okay, I restored the initial rating range. Just tried to fill this waiting list, which is usually quite slow. Anyway, it was a bad idea as 5 players were already in.
Michael Mueller-Toepler (2007-11-04 13:03:40)
New tournament
Dear Chessfriends, I have an idea for a new tournament. Swiss System: 20 players, 12 rounds 2 games at saturday, 2 games at sunday over three weeks. What is your opinion to my proposal? Greetings from Munich Michael
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-06 16:59:11)
FICGS freestyle cup
That's an idea... and it could work but I'm not sure it is good to melt freestyle chess & correspondence chess results. Anyway, your suggestions are welcome :)
Lincoln Tomlin (2007-11-12 01:01:40)
Number of games limitation
That's fair enough Thibault, I agree. Keeping things simple seems a good policy to stick with. I'm glad that I didn't mention my idea of basing the number of games on what star-sign we are born under now. ;) Link
Dan Rotaru (2007-11-12 01:14:40)
Number of games limitation
I think that limiting the number of games is a good idea, and I have a feeling reading the posts that the issue is not if to do it but the number of games. 40 seems to be a reasonable number. FICGS is still free for corr chess and people are tempted to play too many games at once which not only dilute the quality of the games but leads to too many forfeits. I was horrified some time ago when one of my opponent confessed that he had about 230 games in progress on various sites including FICGS. I believe that even for very strong players too many games will reduce the quality of some games and I am not talking about chess knowledge but about the possibility to do a mistake as the good move in the wrong game.
Don Groves (2007-11-13 22:59:04)
Number of games limitation
Hi, Thibault -- I agree with a limit but not for the reason of protecting a player from himself (or herself) because that cannot be done ;-) But to protect the rest of us from long waits between moves, unnecessary forfeits, poor quality games, etc., it is a good idea.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-11-14 18:23:35)
ummmmm, not a good idea
Doesnt get my vote, sorry Andrew Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-14 18:47:42)
Cross over & rating cut off
Hi Garvin, that's an interesting idea to have different rating cut off for Standard & Rapid tournaments ! .. Cross over is not a problem IMO, but Rapid tournaments could be displayed this way :
1) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (1900-2300), Rapid B (1500-1900) ... ~400
2) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (2100-2300), Rapid B (1900-2100) ... ~200
3) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1700-2100), Rapid B (1300-1700) ... ~400
4) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ... ~200
Make your choice :)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-14 20:32:07)
New Category
I agree with Garvins point completely. I think there are crossover probs. I like Thibaults suggestion for the display of Rapid tournaments - people can then choose there category - great idea. There is plenty of scope for sub 2000 to progress under this format and I dont see any downside.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-11-15 17:40:28)
Sorry I made a mistake misstated 2400
2400 should say 2300, same idea tho.. Wayne
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2007-11-24 12:07:32)
:P
I have an idea, can Mr. Cirulis play only with black?
Pekka I. Turakainen (2007-11-27 22:44:48)
Can u figure this out?
Some time ago we played a game of chess with my friend and after 66. move reached the following position: 6k1/5b2/8/4q3/1K6/8/1RR5/8 w - - 0 1 We agreed that it's a draw. No it isn't! It's white's move and the material looks balanced, but black will have his win after 53 moves (if white has an ideal defence). This is what the almighty Nalimov says. Don't bother to check this out with your multiprocessor chess software...it'll probably take months before it finds the right combination. What to speak of the poor human brain. Feeling humble now....
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2007-12-13 12:06:00)
Just an idea ...
What ever categories we decided, maybe we could add in some cases a "wild card", I mean, allowing one player with lower rating.
Garvin Gray (2007-12-15 17:28:26)
wild cards
I think a wild card would be a good idea for the higher rated tournaments if there was a rating limit to the wild card.
For instance, after a certain amount of time for entries, entry is allowed for one person rated less than 100 points below the lower rating cutoff.
This wild card player will not be outclassed and if a new player might even be quite under rated and competitive in the tournment.
The point is that after a certain time given for normal entries, I think most players already registered in the tournament would rather the tournament to start than to keep waiting around.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-16 16:22:18)
Conditional Moves
Indeed, it has :) .. Conditional moves still brings many questions but I'm still opposed to the idea.
Anyway a new wish list is a good idea ! .. The main issue I'm working on these days is money prizes for WCH & freestyle tournaments, but ideas for improvements are always welcome.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-16 16:31:33)
Make your chess variant :)
"Too many draws, chess is dead", one read such things quite often for a few years. True or not, what about to imagine a new variant like Chess-Vodka (one move or capture, one mouthful.. funny games :))
Ok, I can't implement Zubrowka on this server :) , but we could imagine a funny rule that would let the game rules very near classical chess but with more mad games, less drawish & giving equal chances to both players (main point being FUN)?!
Any ideas ?
Robert Mueller (2007-12-17 05:54:09)
Why are you opposed to the idea?
Now I am puzzled. I thought there were no conditional moves on this server because it is a technical issue. Why would you be opposed to the idea? It is pretty much standard in correspondence chess, even on servers.
Lincoln Tomlin (2007-12-18 20:54:43)
Too many draws
In over the board play, I like Yermolinsky's idea of when two players agree that a position is drawn then the board should be turned around and play continue for at least a preset number of moves. When accepting a draw sometimes a player can see, or thinks he can, some advantage in his opponents position and both players would also have to be confident in what is going on in the position from both sides before offering or accepting.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-20 00:08:53)
Chess variants
I didn't know about Yermolinsky's idea :) .. Yes, it would be great to have another chess variant, but we must find (or create) the very best one. I'm not sure if "Small chess" would work. Atomic chess is great fun.. but but.. too much !? .. don't know.
Dan Rotaru (2007-12-20 03:46:23)
FICGS World Ch.
OK, now it makes sense. Maybe you should have few links: WCH_001 followed by sub links: preliminaries, then Stage 2, candidates final and so on. What about a knock out tourney? Do you think it would be a good idea? I would personally like to play such a tourney. Cheers, Dan
Lincoln Tomlin (2007-12-20 07:44:37)
Chess variants
Many years ago, a friend and I made up a variant with the idea of practicing our endgame technique from a normal starting position. It worked like this: The pieces are setup as usual and the rules are exactly the same as in the normal game with the exception that all major and minor pieces cannot move unless they are capturing. The play then centres on pawn and king moves as if it was a K7vK7 endgame, which would be too easy to draw, but with added strategies of bringing pieces into play via sacrifices to unbalance the position. Which then cannot be moved again unless they take of course.
Yugi Inving (2007-12-21 01:35:19)
3 vs 3
I had just had this idea. this varient of chess have an hexagonal board whit three players playing all for themselves, (no alliance is permitted ). is also have at least six new piece and some new rules or power accorded to some piece. i will decribe it clearly an other time.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-12-26 20:08:02)
conditionals
They are a good idea I think the truth of many cc games is decided in a perimeter of a few moves and Wolfgang is right so much boring and unecessary work is involved in getting to those critical points. After 1 or 2 moves with conditionals you could have gone straight to the draw in some of your games Thibault!! Just joking! Please articulate your opposition to the concept a little more.
Garvin Gray (2008-01-07 18:21:04)
conditional move tournament
Can we have a conditional move non rated tournament to test out the differences as I have never played on a server with conditionals?
Might give some of us more idea of whether to be in favour of it or not.
Hannes Rada (2008-01-08 18:33:08)
Income of top Chess players.
That seems to be peanuts compared with the top Chess players. Any ideas about the income of Kramnik & Co ? > it's really not much money at all to be the very best in the world at your profession! > What's the income of the best cc-player ? van Oosterom's income will be zero ...
Patrick Richardson (2008-01-13 12:32:53)
analyze board
I would second the idea of an analyze board, it would be a nice addition to the other site features. Pat
Konrad Hornung (2008-01-16 07:11:38)
Games Database
Having a user friendly games database, showing the board and position and listing the options of moves played in that position by users of the database, with the option to filter games below a particular rating e.g. 2000, is my next idea to improve this site.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-16 19:32:31)
FICGS rules
Hello Peter, I understand your point of view. Correspondence chess is not OTB (over the board) chess and rules may not go the same way.
FICGS WCH rules can be found here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_wch
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#chess_wch
... so you should have seen it before to enter the waiting list.
The idea in this correspondence chess championship is to find the best player, of course. In correspondence chess, rating is much more important than in OTB chess to know the "current" level of a player, and should be taken in account, just like performance. This rule is quite hard but this way we can organize a new cycle every 6 months, so more chances to reach the final stages. Anyway this issue will be discussed again and again.. and rules are just rules.
Best wishes, Thibault
Christophe Czekaj (2008-01-30 13:34:08)
Chinese Chess
I played some games of chinese chess on itsyourturn, and it could be fun ! I was totally crushed bya asian players :-D But I found a player in Rotterdam who was on the same level (just beginners ;-D) and we had some interesting games. I think its a good idea to play chinese by correspondence because, to say the least, it's not easy to find players in "real life" !
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-07 03:43:44)
Tie break rules
This set of rules favour the players with the highest TER at the start of the cycle (or CER - cycle entry rating), who play the knockout cycle, anyway the challenge for a player coming from the round-robin cycle - so difficult already - is just even more interesting :) .. looking at the first candidates final, I'm not sure at all who's favourite according to these rules. Xavier Pichelin is a dangerous player with an under-evaluated rating yet, he had to win (several) games in all stages of the round-robin tournament and he did it well, now quite the same situation but only one win could put him in a favourable position. He's used to this challenge, I think it is just more challenging and interesting this way. But the main idea is always to favour the highest tournament (here I should say cycle) entry rating.
"Victory belongs to who wants it more" (Bobby Fischer)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-11 02:07:18)
Next thematic tournaments
Any suggestion for the next chess thematic tournament(s) ? The full list of all thematics played at FICGS is available here :
http://www.ficgs.com/wiki_en-thematic-tournaments.html
Thanks for your ideas :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-12 00:56:28)
Bobby Fischer Goes to War
Haha, nice idea... Nicolas Cage could be an interesting Fischer. Elijah Wood may be surprising as Fischer IMO. John Travolta as Boris Spassky ? :) (no, Stallone-Rambo was a bit too much but it quite looks like David vs. Goliath already)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-03-10 07:55:42)
Announcing resignation
Just a thought Thibault, announcing that you "will resign all my ongoing games" - before having done so is this binding? Is it the OTB equivalent of saying I resign presumably not I suppose ideally its better to resign then make the explanation?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-10 14:47:44)
Announcing resignation
That's right, good remark. It is better (ideally) to resign then to make the explanation.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-18 15:53:20)
Rapid categories
Hello Andrew, I remember well our discussion :) I made this quick change because I saw most waiting lists empty and I had no more time, but the idea is still to create 200 points range categories (the only difference is the 2300+ one, I have to find a way to keep quite coherent names and rating ranges, working on, maybe a SM category 2300+).
Mark Hailes (2008-03-20 17:56:40)
Voting for best game
Woops screwed up again. I inadvertantly pressed "vote for best game" on a game in my tournament and immediately got a confirmation of the vote. Sadly i don't think it was one of my own games :-) and in any case the tourney has only just started! I think it might be an idea to have a confirmation dialog with the game information that you are voting for, to make it harder for dense people to screw up. BTW is this option for voting for best game in a tournament or some other criteria?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-20 18:27:02)
Voting for best game
A confirmation dialog is a good idea... but voting will be just more "difficult", so I'm not sure. Any opinion ?
There's no criteria... 'best' game, according to each player :)
William Taylor (2008-03-27 22:01:08)
Good idea
I don't see that any harm could come from adding the ability to challenge people to go games like we can challenge them to chess games now.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-04-06 23:50:54)
checkmate
Hi Thibault I think in the case of checkmate the system should end the game there and then. I say that not because it would necessarily reduce players spinning out games but because playing on a server this should be automated. Isn't checkmate always the end eg in email (ie non server cc)chess?? I had no idea it wasnt here it is on other servers I have played on. actually I think many players dont know that checkmate does not end the game here and that they have to wait for time to elapse so I dont think players would all stop the move before checkmate abd it would reduce time in some games. Incidentally stalemate should also be an automated draw
Garvin Gray (2008-04-07 12:47:43)
freestyle
- I just wonder if an 'open' waiting list is ok for such a tournament : Maybe players shouldn't be able to see the players who already entered the waiting list (cause of course everyone may wait to see who registered before to register...)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I would not recommend denying access to the waiting list. The reason is two fold:
1) Players will be regularly asking, who is playing and how many entrants so far? If these questions are not answered, then it either looks like there is something to hide or that the tournament is not going well.
2) It will just increase your work load of answering more questions.
- Following some improvements, bronze games may become free soon. More players could familiarize with short time controls.
It might be an idea to try the next freestyle tournament as a free entry tournament with the one game per day/long time control idea.
As for the bronze games being free, a trial period has already been offered and success has been limited. This gave everyone a chance to familiarise themselves with how the timed games operated. I do not think many players took this up.
As for paying for competitions, the payment options must become a lot more simple and obvious.
A simple paypal option would probably be best.
From my otb organisational experience, even offering a bank deposit option is beyond some players. And this is in competitions where the players know the organiser in person.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-04-12 02:30:13)
freestyle
"It might be an idea to try the next freestyle tournament as a free entry tournament with the one game per day/long time control idea."
It might be... I'll think aout the other points too. Thanks for sharing your views, Garvin. (also there's a paypal option too)
Ilmars Cirulis (2008-04-18 18:37:37)
Idea..
Hi, Thibault!
What do you think about possibility to save (so, that I can see) message exchange between opponents during the game?
Good luck! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-04-21 21:33:56)
ICCF WebChess open
"Multiple entries are allowed." <- ?! means ?
Good idea anyway !
Volker Koslowski (2008-04-28 10:10:33)
Too much...
Hi Thibault!
The idea is nice but seeing the full conversation history at every move is a little bit to much I think. For me it would be enough to see the last message from my opponent and the message I've sent to him the move before. Maybe it is possible to introduce a new option at the preferences where we can set the number of messages that will be shown at the game?
Regards!
Volker
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-04-28 15:00:21)
Another idea ...
The chat, instead of grouping it by country, would it be possible to group it by language? For example, there are many spanish speaking south american countries, each one maybe too small to keep a comunity going, but maybe togather the y could carry on "talking". Just an idea.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-01 18:58:46)
Country chat
Hi Rodolfo, that's an idea but I think we should keep "closed" chat rooms too (it couldn't be the case with languages), as an alternative.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-01 19:50:21)
Marc
Thanks for the informative reply! I do the interactive walk thing you mentioned its very useful though you need reasonable power to have several engines running at once - this you have! I am afraid I dont know how to organise test matches but sounds good. same with Rybka randomiser I have the engine but no idea how to use the randomiser and get it to play itself. 2 wins from the c3 is good as I think it gives white nothing ..but in the line I chose I noticed that after Gelfand (as black) got a draw against Adams with this line Adams repeated it aginst Kasparov who varied. So I guess Adams had an improvement perhap it was what you played? - as black has to find some very accurate moves . Incidentally I very nearly played 5..g5!!? which is really interesting but as my other games were promising decided to settle for taking a draw I like the Basman-Sale and although I have given up e4 in cc will play e4 if we play again as I have some ideas against it. Thanks for the reply
Jason Repa (2008-05-02 22:36:29)
Lasker Variation of the From's Gambit
My game against Marc-Eric Plante is finally over after more than a year. I've been dabbling with the idea that this line of the From's gambit may be losing by force. If someone can find an improvement for Black with some supporting analysis, I'd love to see it. http://chessmusings.blogspot.com/2008/05/from-night.html
Jason Repa (2008-05-04 07:45:33)
From??
I agree with most of what you said, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to conclude that all variations of the From's Gambit are busted. We might end up finding out that some variations of it are fine for Black.
I also disagree with your statement that "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". Assuming I'm willing to hypothetically go along with the argument that there's supposedly something "wrong" with 1.f4, even though it's at worst a Dutch Defense a move up......you're not taking into consideration the fact that some people actually do more than "play" correspondence chess and want to practice lines they play in live tournaments. 1.f4 has been played by many of the world's greatest players, and in serious competitive tournaments. Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker, and many others have played 1.f4 occasionally, and there are many current IM's and even a GM (Henrik Danielsen) who have played it quite frequently.
Perhaps your idea of "playing chess" is to simply plug a position into various chess engines and mindlessly relay the moves your program suggests, but as for myself, I use the data I acquire from my cc games to prepare for my real chess (chess between human mind vs human mind). Anything other than that is just analysis or group study at best.
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 12:45:03)
Pablo BACKS DOWN!
Your OTB rating is NOT stronger than mine, liar. If it were you'd step up to the plate and play me, instead of backing down as you're doing. You're probably a 1500-1700 elo OTB player. Considering your rather beginnerish question about the Lasker From, I might be giving you too much credit at that. You know as well as I do that you'd be lucky to get a single draw in ten games against me. I'd probably just win all ten.
Do you always run around challenging people to a chess match on the internet, then retreat like a frightened animal, with your tail between your legs, when they accept your challenge? How pathetic is that? I was looking forward to playing some human mind vs human mind chess with you, but the idea of actually having to THINK and use your own mind to come up with the moves was too much for you to deal with, so you BACKED DOWN like a little girl!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 13:10:18)
Declining the From
"From's Gambit ... Hi, is there a valid way to decline the From's Gambit without falling onto the Kings Gambit?"
That's the usual way. Although I can't see why anyone would want to decline the gambit. All variations indeed seem to be quite good for White.
"Even if the Froms Gambit may not be sound, I do not like to be defending, especially against players stronger than myself."
In that case you might want to switch to 1.Nf3 or 1.b3 with the idea of transposing into the Bird's Opening later. This is what I often do in OTB play. Of course Black doesn't necessarily have to allow you to transpose, though.
-------------
Moderator : This topic is closed. As a reminder :
11. 1. Netiquette
(...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.
-------------
Lincoln Tomlin (2008-05-17 19:07:03)
Don, Thibault, Jason...
Thanks. I usually do make a habit of copying to the clipboard before hitting any butons but, well, you know that ONE time you forget etc. :) Not to worry. I just wanted to add what a powerful study tool FICGS can be in analysing structures, plans and ideas in openings for your OTB repertoire. I really think that this form of chess is undervalued in really trying to get an understanding of target middle and endgame positions for use in club and tournament play. I use a lowly 1.7Ghz Celeron based laptop and Chessbase along with an older version of a 'weaker' (not telling which) engine for checking line and ideas but mainly try for lines that I want to head for in games against humans. Unless they prove to be truly disastrous of course. 8|
Benjamin Block (2008-05-18 16:33:33)
New idea!
Hi, I often use the search game button to learing from better player. But i often found a lot games that i don´t want games with lower rating then me. So what about more functioning. examlpe filter game under 2000. and filter game with draw and white in and so on....
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-18 21:40:23)
Ideas
Ok, I'll add some things this way tonight in the next update.. Thanks.
Richard Blank (2008-05-19 16:24:57)
Chess player in Costa Rica.
After reading a few threads, I wanted to introduce myself to this community. I look forward to sharing ideas with other forum members on how to improve my game. I am new and have played very little. Yet, I find the game stimulating and very competitive. Hats off to those that are masters. Quite a gift. Best regards, Richard http://www.costaricascallcenter.com
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-19 16:56:33)
Finished games
Good idea, it is now implemented and will be included in the next update (in a few hours). Thanks !
Benjamin Block (2008-05-24 16:22:36)
New idea
In tournamens if i understand right the player with the best points win but if some have the same the highest ELO win. Why not use the Sonneborn-Bergers (you add oppenents whole points and the half points if it is a draw.) If the Sonneborn-Bergers points is the same you can take the moste wins in the tourney and if they are the same you can use the highest elo win.
Benjamin Block (2008-05-25 15:38:13)
New idea
Hi, Thibault It is very nice with the filter game search. Is it possible to filter the game in "download all games". I want this because i download the games and put it in my openingsbook but i get bad games too. :( Have a nice week end! Benjamin
Benjamin Block (2008-05-25 19:03:50)
very smart!
Thanks a very smart idea.
Mik Kris (2008-05-27 19:51:18)
Thanks for the quick response
I am sorry I did not think my original idea it all the way And forgat my manners for a moment there I wold like to thank you for building this great site and this opportunity for me to meet many intersting people Yes I wold like to be able to challenge some one for a simple rank game without starting a tournament one more thing might be nice is to get an "are youre ready to play" message before a game in a bullet or lightning tournament
Ilmars Cirulis (2008-06-02 17:00:26)
Another one...
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 c5 10.e5 cxd4 11.Nxb5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 axb5 13.O-O Qd5 14.Qe2 Rb8 15.Bg5 h6 16.Bh4 Bd6 17.f4 Kf8!
If not 17.-- Kf8!, white feels good. But Kf8... I can find anything against that. Any idea?
It's just opening analysis. :D
Garvin Gray (2008-06-02 19:19:13)
Open entry tournament
Hello Thibault,
Have been thinking for a while that it might be an idea to set up a tournament where everyone enters and then groups are decided strictly in rating order.
So the top nine? players in rating order play each other, followed by the next nine and so forth.
Have been thinking that this might be worth a try to alleviate the issue of players not entering a waiting list when they are just under the rating cut off.
Advantages:
1) Players will get to play against a full field of similarly rated players
2) Players will not know ahead of time where they will be in the nine player division, so hopefully they will not avoid entering because they are just under the rating cut off.
Ulrich Imbeck (2008-06-03 00:27:34)
yippie yeah
Good idea. You would be a serious offer.
Garvin Gray (2008-06-03 15:06:41)
One division or maybe league play.
Mine was just a one tournament suggestion as a trial and did not envisage any kind of league concept. Thought it might help with the rating entry problems talked about in many threads.
But that has potential too. I thought this was worth a go as a single tournament ie no leagues.
If it succeeds and is popular, then it can go from there. If it fails, so be it, it just disappears into the ether like all other dud ideas.
Arnab Sengupta (2008-06-03 19:43:09)
good
cool....i like the idea.....we can try it.....E-points can be awarded...
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 09:22:21)
Rapid chess entry rating
I disagree with Wayne Lowrance completely. The 2300+ rapid category is an excellent idea. Obviously it's much more difficult to go from 2300-2400 than it is to go from 2200-2300. Without the 2300+ category it's ominously difficult for a 23xx player to get to the next level.
My only complaint is that the standard list doesn't have a 2300+ category as well.
William Taylor (2008-06-04 23:09:47)
Don't like the idea
My initial reaction is that I don't like the idea. Whilst I do enjoy playing poker, I think it would be out of place here. As others have pointed out, there's a lot of luck involved, and (so far anyway) this website is for skill-based abstract strategy games. I also think it would be unsuited to a correspondence time control. Shogi or xiang-qi on the other hand... I'm in favour of introducing them.
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 08:12:28)
Brackets - both Chess and Go
" -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating."
This idea seems interesting, on the surface, but on closer inspection it's not feasible. The FICGS tournament categories are dependent on certain rating averages that determine the level of points required in order to achieve norms for various FICGS titles, starting at class "M" and higher. Throwing in lower rated players would dilute the rating average of the entire tournament. It's also unfair to the rest of the players in that tournament who are legitimately qualified to be there. They are forced to play a lower rated opponent artificially and now THEY are at a big disadvantage in their attempt to gain the points required to get to the next level.
Additionally, I don't think groves thought about this long enough to realize that there is no guarantee that each "A" level tournament will end precisely as each "M" level tournament does. What if two "A" level events are completed in the time it takes for one "M" level event to finish, which isn't an unreasonable possibility as the "M" level players generally take the game more seriously and tend to use their time more? Should we then throw in TWO players into an "M" level event that don't deserve to be there? At any rate, it's a poor idea. If someone is winning tournaments, they're definitely gaining rating points and will qualify legitimately for the next rating level soon enough.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-09 23:36:06)
Invitations
Ok, that's an interesting discussion, the idea is interesting and it has some advantages but in the other hand to limit the number of invited players from a lower rated tournament (like IECG) is a problem. My main argument remains the same : too many rules is not good.
A poll could be instructive anyway.
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 04:52:22)
Senility is a terrible thing
"Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you"
Sorry groves, but I was simply stating facts. It's difficult to find anything to say about you that you won't construe as an "insult". Everything that has spewed out of your keyboard thus far is evidence of your complete lack of reasoning ability, and very modest IQ.
"I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology"
You "think" a lot of nonsense that isn't true, groves. This is nothing new.
"-- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification"
I realize that with your condition you can scarcely recall your own words from moments ago, but it was YOUR idea that the player in question be seeded into the higher rating classification event REGARDLESS of their rating. So now the little light bulb went on in that melon head of yours and you now realize what I was telling you earlier....about there being no guarantee that the tournament winner is rated near the top of his classification? If you're going to change what you proposed earlier, and only allow players who are within 25 elo of the higher classification, what's the point of it? You might as well let him get the remaining 25 elo on his own and enter the higher classification event normally.
I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself.
You're doing an awful lot of apologizing, groves. Your very existence seems to be one big apology. I'm sure quite a few people in your life have to repeat themselves, ad nauseum, for your benefit.
"You can have the last word now"
The last word should have been my previous post. As usual, you've contributed nothing of value here. Just more pathetic whining and blabbering, as per usual.
Pablo Schmid (2008-06-15 10:56:36)
my idea
Maybe it's already exist in another form but I will try."The best correspondance player at chess is not the human who has the best computer but the computer who has the best human".
Andrew Stephenson (2008-06-17 09:43:26)
Conditionals
Yes good idea. IMO no need to trial it though could be limited to rapid tournament where time saving is perhaps more important
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-21 16:45:15)
Always White below
That's an idea, I'll add it.
By the way, do should we call you Dhanish or Bhaskaran as a "first name" ? Indian names are still strange to me :)
Normajean Yates (2008-07-05 20:08:47)
doing both would be an excellent idea
thibault extends closure time to 6 months. Posters would create a new heading saying re:<old topic> and start by giving link to old topic. That should be fine, I think. (in fact this was/is a problem with usenet [newsgroups] - so it is an old problem in a new place :) )
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-05 21:58:53)
Qualification information
Hi Marc, next stages of previous championships will start at the same time, or a few days/weeks after, actually as soon as possible.
Your idea is interesting, not much time right now but let's see what other players think about that.
Anyway, anyone who wants to retire from the waiting list may send a message to me before the start of the tournaments.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-07-15 09:16:50)
Good idea!
We could use it, especially in Thematic Tournament!
Michael Sharland (2008-07-15 20:12:15)
Wouldn't work anyway
If your opponent wanted to stop you they could just push you up against the time limit on one of the games as the mirroring player would always use at least a little more time than the opponent. Once the player has to pick a move, the opponent can diverge. Each player would than have a big time advantage in one game but that wouldn't be a big deal at these controls. Only a vacation balance advantage would allow this idea to still work against determined opposition. Usually, a better stategy is to diverge at the point where you can play a significantly better move than the opponent used and try and win at least one of the games while holding the other.
Benjamin Block (2008-07-16 14:32:33)
New idea
i have think about this a long time but now i think it is time to write it down.
What do you think about make you´re own money price tournament. First you choose e-points fee 10 or 100. Then you choose how many games you want. Of course the site need to have limit so nobody take 100 games. And you choose the highest and lowest rating you want here the site need to take a limit. And the last thing you choose the time control. Here it will be fun if we can take more time control example 30/10 days,50/10 days and 60/10 days.
What do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-17 14:14:25)
New idea
BTW it may be possible in the future to choose exactly how many E-Points to play but (thinking like a lawyer, Normajean ;)) french laws are still quite hard and fuzzy. There's a difference between entering a tournament with an entry fee & money prize and betting money on a game.
To choose how many games before to decide the result may be possible but there's some work yet... About the lowest and highest rating, I may add this option in a few weeks. Finally about time control, I may add it but is it a good and necessary thing ? I'm not sure.
Thanks for discussing new ideas anyway :)
Normajean Yates (2008-07-26 03:04:48)
then .. {white resigns } 0-1 :)
"white's game in its last throes" so white to save time resigns :)
Although Reti 'quotes' Breyer as above in 'new ideas in chess' - i have a copy (english tr. of 3rd ed. )- but it looks like Reti made it up - Breyer never said or wrote it! [of course he woudnt have written 1. e4? because i think algebraic notation was not popular then :)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-27 19:03:50)
:)
Surely you can track down who said these quotes Normajean? I will give you a clue she is an american professor: "Today, the ideal male is the gay man,and the ideal female is the worker female, the woman who can work in a coal mine just like all the other men." Such is the brave new world of the politically correct!
Normajean Yates (2008-07-27 20:28:23)
adding to Philip Roe 's post...
It is funny that high-school algebraic geometry is more often called analytic geometry; while in algebraic geometry, 'analytic geometry' is the branch that deals with power series in general rather than polynomials ... so what in analytic (power-series) geometry corresponds to Bezout's theorem? (I have no idea...)
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.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-03 21:50:22)
Will try to help!
Hi Marc We were talking about WCH 2 which is history now as the round robin final for which you received a direct entry was won by Francois Caire (equal with Alberto Gueci). As far as WCH 3 is concerned I will do my best to reduce your burden of games by winning my last game:)) But this could be difficult as Janos has other ideas!
Normajean Yates (2008-08-11 09:34:55)
bigchess annotation ?
now bigchess annotation - that's an idea. Start small - maybe Thibault or one of the other top bigchess players could take a sample bigchess game and annotate it ...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-11 18:03:22)
Annotated games
This feature could be interesting, but there are many ways. An idea could be to link moves from any chess game to Wikichess (but Go and Big chess don't have such a wiki), however I'll have to make it easier to enter a complete game.
Normajean Yates (2008-08-12 01:42:02)
very useful latin quote!
pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt.
(may they perish who have expressed our bright ideas before us)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-14 14:00:53)
Contest : FICGS, acronym for...
FICGS, acronym for Free.. French, Fries what ? .. What is it, what should it be, what could it be....... Any ideas ? :)
Sebastian Boehme (2008-08-14 17:36:41)
I think c,)
Hi, it is interesting that c.) appears as a possibility, because Thibault is a strong Go player himself. Now I wonder was maybe his original idea to only make this a Go server? I thus vote for c.) Regards, Sebastian
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-18 16:06:16)
translation
I will have a go off the top of my head at giving a sense of the interview in english (I dont know the phrase tonitruand but I am guessing it means dynamic!)?: Hi Xavier and first of all congratulations on your success in the candidates final match against IM (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru] You had to avoid drawing all the games and finally you succeded with the black pieces. How did that happen? Xavier: Hi thank you. Its true that if all the games had been drawn then under the rules Figlio would have won whereas if the match was drawn but with a win and loss I would win. Because of this I had to take risks and attack. It was with Black that I did this because I thought that Gino would play safely to be sure of a draw. - Tell us how you approched the match and how the different phases of the game went x: Its quite simple, I was not the favorite I have 200 ELO less on FICGS and Gino is an IM on ICCF with a 2480 rating. I did not think I could survive 8 games at once - in a single game anything is possible but 8 games .... it was a big challenge for me! In the openings I chose 4 different moves 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3 Gino chose 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nc3 I was surpised by 1 Nc3 because I was expecting dynamic openings and it was then that I decided I must take some risks with black. I kept most of the games balanced with a draw in hand and concentrated on 2 games 1 white and 1 black to get a result. In the end I got 3 wins which seemed an impossibility given the quality of the games Gino had played on this site to reach the final. - you have not lost any games in the championship and you have fantastic statistics 78% against an average elo of about 2200. What is your secret? x: My secret? I havent any secret and if I did I would not say because I would not win anymore! I think I have been a bit lucky because in the the Round Robin final there were 3 of us on the same score and I went through under the rules because of my rating. As for my statistics I was helped by mistakes by opponents who allowed me to win some drawn games. - What do you think of the system for the FICGS championship (round robin and knock out matches)and what changes would you make? x: Very good question. The matches are a bit too fast for me - 1 day per move when there are hours of analysis needed to exploit a complicated position its difficult when you have several games running Particularly if you are working. Perhaps that is why my opponents have made errors or failed to exploit my mistakes. But this time limit has an advantage over ICCF where it is 5 days per move the games here are 5 times quicker! Having 8 game matches is an excellent idea and obliging the favorite to draw all the games and the challenger to get a at least 1 victory is very well thought out. The change that I would suggest is to have 15 days extra starting time that is 45 days at the start instead of 30 and also the possibilty to take holidays for tournaments for example take 7 days for championship games and to be able to play big chess go or another chess tournament during the holiday. To be able to choose the start of a holiday in advance would also be good. - Why do you like cc and how does it compare to blitz and normal chess? x: I prefer cc because of the time factor. Classical chess is often played at the week end at a fixed time and you have to travel to the tournament. The advantage for me at cc is that I can connect at any time to play a move which allows me for example to have meals with the family at the weekend. Late night moves for example are not possible at classical chess. - You limited the number of your games on the site to a reasonable amount throughout the championship. Do you think nonetheless that cc is addictive? Does it affect your daily life? x: Yes! Limiting the number of my games is essential to try to have games of quality not quantity. Having a lot of games going at the same time is something very difficult to handle. It is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio - I looked at his games - he had not less than 80 games going on at ICCF this must have affected the amount of time he could spend analysing his 8 games at FICGS. The effects on daily life are felt by the family because the reality is if I spend more time analysing the games I spend less time with the family. Thats difficult for me. But when the results come I dont regret it! - What do you think of the role of chess engines (Rybka Fritz etc)in cc. What are for you the important skills of a cc player - to supplement the machine? x: Chess engines are used in cc by 95% of players. You have to adapt yourself and know how to use the engines. To play just the best move of Rybka 3 Fritz 12 or Hiracs 12 without thinking leads to a draw if your opponent does the same or to a loss if your opponent is thinking. You have to choose bewteen 4 or 5 moves with a similer evaluation from the engine during a game and sometimes the best move is not among these. - You play Big chess. Interest or curiosity? What do you think of this strange version of chess? X : Curiosity and amusement and I think Rrybka 3 cannot yet play Big Chess! This version is new and I did not know it and the inventor has done a good job! By the way I would like to ask is it possible to castle at Big Chess? [No its not possible] - Finally the question that everyone is asking particularly Francois and Wolfgang who are contesting the 2nd candidates final. Do think you will be able to defend your title next year? :) x: Definitely I will defend the title I would like to know if possible the date and time limits for the match. I wish Francois and Wolfgang a great match! I would also like to express my appreciation for this tournament which has been well organised! - the match should start in the first week in January next year the time limit will be 30 days plus 1 day per move. Thank you for your answers and once again congratulations on a great performance. x: Thank you. Cheers. Best wishes to everyone and good games!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-19 17:17:59)
Adjudications
Hi Benjamin I am not sure what you mean by help people without asking. The rules refer to adjudications as follows: "11. 5. Adjudications In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious." At the end of 11.5 is states: "There are no time limit for games else but the clocks, but it may be announced that certain multi-stages tournaments will have one. At the end of this time limit, a referee committee will adjudicate games." Obviously it was bit worrying without warning to have an announcement saying hey seems like a draw I am going to adjudicate. A draw would mean that I would not win the tournament - a win means I win the tournament so its an important game. But as I am certain the game is won and can demonstrate this I am not concerned - I have no idea what Janos thinks. I dont think this is the best way to handle this but this is where we are - I am just glad it happened after Janos played 63...Kxf4 which was the losing move. We are only about 12 moves away from 6 man table base wins in almost all cases. Please post any anlysis about the position you would like as Thibault has asked for comment
Ilmars Cirulis (2008-08-22 14:29:05)
Re
I like that idea! :)
Ilmars Cirulis (2008-08-22 15:41:19)
Another idea
... is to make two teams - defenders and refuters. :)
(I don't like to play LG with black.)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-22 17:50:17)
Team challenge : Latvian gambit
Based upon an idea by Ilmars, let's try to create a special Latvian thematic tournament that could start at the beginning of september, consisting in two teams : Latvian gambit "defenders" and latvian gambit "refuters" (that will play either Black or White), this could be interesting to improve the theory in this opening.
Any player who wishes to play this tournament may post in this thread "I am in as White (or Black)" and I'll make pairings in a few days/weeks.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-22 17:51:06)
Latvian teams
That's a very good idea ! .. So it would be created handly as a special tournament, let's try to build teams in this new thread - http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=5566
Michael Aigner (2008-08-22 18:11:08)
Interesting idea :-)
I played the Lavtian Gambit in OTB chess when I was young, therefore I would like to play on the side of the defenders. Whats about time control - are we going to have 40 days for 10 moves? Best regards!
Alexis Bromo (2008-09-01 17:33:44)
Quotes for Thibault
Dear chessfriends, let's help Thibault with quotes. I like it. And I propose everyone to post here interesting quotes with their sources. Isn't it interesting idea? :) And a proposition to Thibault - choose the best and revard author anyhow.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-02 15:14:21)
How good is the program vs the man?
True, I don't know about any recent experience like Hydra-Nickel... We may organize something like that with Rybka 3.0 and why not a strong Go engine too, any idea (rules, time control and so on) ?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-09 23:39:07)
Rybka forum
You may support or discuss the idea of a correspondence chess match between Rybka and a centaur (human + engines) here :
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=7307
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-22 17:07:19)
Big Chess ratings
They are because "provisional big chess ratings" are correspondence (classical) chess ratings minus 300 points. I estimated this was a good idea because Big Chess was quite different but I'm not sure anymore... What do you think ?
William Taylor (2008-09-22 18:36:07)
An idea
We could perhaps use the 'M' class tournament that has just started to decide the first Big Chess champion. Thereafter a challenger could be decided by a similar high-rated tournament, or else by an open tournament or series of tournaments if it's thought that the rating system isn't reliable enough.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-23 16:31:27)
Big Chess Championship
Well, we still do not have big chess players enough but a championship may help after all... We can't have it every 6 months and I assume it would be quite different than the chess championship... How do you see it ? Any ideas welcome :)
Alexis Bromo (2008-09-26 07:31:12)
language
i posted this topic about ukraine as a country. and second official language for country. but it's a good idea to show national statistics on ficgs :)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-09-28 16:45:05)
Big Chess Championship
To drive this theme I propose a champions-league-type tournament with a new round every 18 month. At the beginning the groups can be built according to our rating list.
Other ideas?
Best,
Heinz-Georg
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-09-28 22:33:50)
Big Chess Championship
I don't like the idea to exclude players with a minor rating.
And the length / duration of a Big Chess game does not depend on the mode of the tournament.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-03 09:06:04)
Rules
I think you are right Thibault ie amend the rule as you suggest. However maybe change the wording put EXCEPT instead of BUT ("except games where an advantage is obvious")otherwise the english is difficult to understand (but so much better than my french!!)In this case though perhaps Marius is not going to play anymore moves at all in which case it could be classified as silent withdrawal?? At the level he is at it he surely does not need the time to get the positions the fact is that Marius (probably because he has got lot of games/commitments elsewhere) is not playing much at all in FICGS - looks like he will forfeit in the Round Robin final for example.... The existing rules make a distinction between matches and other tournaments. if you follow the other posters then it seems that they are saying that you should not have the rule for silent withdrawals or even losses under 10 moves?? So I vote for the extension proposed by Thibault it seems logical to me for matches - they are not primarily about rating. The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent when they just stopped playing and it has nothing much to do with relative playing strength. On the other hand Thibault it will give you a cool rating!! :) Both view points are valid - its true time is a part of the game - but rules involve compromise and the proposed amendment just extends the principle already there........
William Taylor (2008-10-03 14:43:56)
Big Chess Championship
I like the idea of making it like the Go championship because it's simple. As for excluding players, I'm not sure there are many more than nine who would want to play anyway. If there are lots of players outside the top 9 who would want to play in the championship, perhaps there could be two stages of tournament. For example, if 21 people entered, we could have 3 groups of 7, with the top 2 from each group advancing to the next stage. Then there would be a six-player tournament to determine the challenger, followed by a match challenger vs previous champion. For the 1st championship the champion could either be the winner of the 2nd-round tournament, or the winner of a match between the top 2 finishers in the 2nd-round tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-03 21:46:16)
Anand vs. Kramnik
While the match Kamsky vs. Topalov still seems uncertain, the match Anand vs. Kramnik for the FIDE world chess championship is quickly approaching... After many good & bad results recently for both players, any favourite ? :)
As for me, I have no idea... chess just looks like lotery sometimes.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-04 19:35:26)
re : In response to Don
You wouldn't be penalized in that case. All this is about 8 games match, as Andrew said "The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent". The whole problem is just to know where to put the limit.
Well, as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too, but 8 wins this way shouldn't be taken in consideration.
Consequently, I propose a new rule, quite reasonable, that could satisfy everyone (finally even my rating :)), here is :
"11.6 "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases, including losses on time whatever the context in a 2 players tournament, ie. chess championship's 8-games matches, except games where an advantage is obvious, in this case at most 2 of these games will be rated."
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-05 18:30:52)
Rule change
Ok, so unless someone has a better idea, I'll change rule 11.6 this way, thanks all for your help :)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-05 20:04:28)
Slight amendment
Thibault thinking about your point that "as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too" I suggest the follwoing "Rating changes will occur, in 2 player matches, for losses on time (whatever the reason) within the following constraints: the game(s) is at least 10 moves, only 1 time loss game will be rated unless there is a game where the winner is clearly better in which case a maximum of 2 games may be rated" My idea is that if someone forefeits all their games on move 11 in a match there should be 1 game rated (as in a tournament) so there is a price to pay but not too distorting. If in the 8 games say 5 are level and 3 (or 2 or 1) are clearly advantageous then 2 games could be rated. Alternatively just give 1 rated game as a max irrespective of advantage or not (ie just the first loss) provided it at least 10 moves. I am thinking of 2 situations a 6-0 result over 10 moves dead equal positions there should be some rating penalty (like tournaments) On the other hand soemone could let the clock run out in 6 games just before being mated in each game to avoid heavy rating penalty they should take a 2 game hit.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-05 20:30:11)
Go ratings, rule update
In order to limit the inflation of Go ratings, I've updated the rules for ratings superior or equal to 2000. The idea of the original rule was to help players to find their rating range more quickly only.
"Go ratings are first estimated from Go ranks (n kyu give a 2100 - 100 * n rating, n dan give a 2000 + 100 * n rating, n dan pro give a 2630 + 30 * n rating), then adjusted in real time after each result :
Performance = Opponent Current Rating + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.
Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10
Case of a loss : New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.
In case of a loss against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 350."
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-14 22:01:56)
exchange slav
Difficult to know what Kramnik was up to in this game. 8 Qb3 has been regarded as pretty harmless and is not much played at GM level - he must have had some new idea - apparently 15 Qxb7 is new but black was always going to get the pawn back. After 6 months preperation and 3 full time seconds a bit strange! I am sure Anand will go full power for the point tomorrow - I still cannot quite believe that Kramnik will play the Petroff he avoided it against Kasparov and I am sure he will avoid it in this match also.
Michael Aigner (2008-10-24 19:38:43)
The only draw wa a lucky one!
Unfortunately I have to say that my draw against Ilmars was lucky becaus he mixed two moves. Until that White was clearly better. I played my games without any information about the openeing theory of the lavtian gambit - only brief analysis. Now I can say this is not enough to defend this opening. On the other hand there might be ways to survive with black if one knows ideas, plans, opening theory .... Is there any good book with more or less reliable analysis of this opening? Next time better opening preparation is definately needed ;-)
Josef Riha (2008-10-30 10:38:45)
Quick chess
Hello Scott, I agree with your idea. Hope that others do so too.
Don Groves (2008-10-30 22:26:08)
To Marc
I like the idea of not allowing one's clock to become greater than the stated length of the game! That should be applied to all games, regardless of length. Right now I have some games with 75 days on my clock. If I decided to quit one of those games, my opponent would have to wait 75 days to get the win!
Normajean Yates (2008-10-31 03:38:44)
similarly,smallest natural *extension*-
similarly, what is the *smallest* natural *extension* of chess? [Again I am reposting this idea - i did it a few months ago]
Think about it this way, as far as way of moving is concerned, [keeping aside pawns for the moment] you have R, B, N moving in essentially different ways. Q = R + B as far as movement is concerned - i.e. a queen can move like a rook or like a bishop, as the player chooses. The movement of the Q is nothing more and nothing less.
So, to extend chess minimally and naturally [therefore extending the symmetry also] IMO the natural choice of new pice would be a piece which I call the superqueen, lets call it U [because S is knight in chess problems and in many non-english roman-script languages..]. The superqueen U moves like a R, a B, or a N, according to mover's choice. In other words, it moves like a Q or a N.
movewise, U = R + B + N = Q + N.
Now keeping symmetry and minimality in mind we get 10x10 chess with the following starting position:
rnbqukqbnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNBQUKQBNR.
In 10x10 castling O-O and O-O-O, it may be more natural for the king to move *three* squares [and the R crosses the king and goes adjacent to the new position of the king, just like in 8x8 chess.]
Actually long ago (1981-82) we tried this 10x10 a few times with some friends - we used to call *this* 10x10 thing 'big chess' :(
[we used a one-pound coin heads-up and tails-up for white and black superqueen resp.]
But the name bigchess is taken [and bigchess is nice :) ] , so I am just calling it 10x10 chess now..
Alexis Bromo (2008-10-31 06:56:13)
good idea
I think it's really interesting. I will try to play these variants.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-11 18:14:29)
God or not God...
Just like in a previous discussion on a similar topic, my point of view is that we have absolutely no idea of what (who, in the very best case) God could be, so IMO he/she/it/they has/have not even a reason to take part of any discussion about the proof of its/their(..) existence [of course, all theories are good to hear]. By the way, is/are it/he/she/they necessary to anywhat ? If not, it should be enough to say it/he/she/they has/have few chances to exist.
Maybe we should open a new topic :)
Denis Ivanchenkov (2008-11-12 06:16:44)
God or not God...
> By the way, is/are it/he/she/they necessary to anywhat ? necessary to pray to during financial crisis.
> Maybe we should open a new topic :) good idea! and then ficgs.com will look even more like igame.ru - there also were endless flames of one notorious user - I think his nick is translated as AllPeopleAreTheOne. Hope he doesn't speak English
Rodolfo d Ettorre > In IGAME.RU there was a player whose nick was "Sexy God", and he definitively existed :))
Denis Ivanchenkov (2008-11-13 22:19:23)
wrszzzzzyrdybooom
>"do you blieve in the wrszzzzzyrdybooom! ?"
God is Who gives sense to man's life.
God (either existing physically or just as guiding idea in head of a man) is who/what struggles against destruction forces of material world.
God is the force that raises man up, that leads man to perfection in both material and spiritual world.
this is my definition of God
Don Groves (2008-11-16 23:43:27)
Organizations become evil
Robert Townsend said it best in Up the Organization; that after some period of time, organizations become more concerned with their own survival than whatever it was they were designed to organize.
Combine this with the idea that power corrupts, and we find that all organizations eventually become corrupt and primarily concerned with retaining power at whatever cost.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-22 13:22:52)
Poker Holdem Championship
Hello all !
The next chess & Go championships waitings lists are now open, this is a good time to share our views for an interesting Poker Holdem world championship scheme (before to open the waiting list)...
It may look like the FICGS Go championship (one round robin tournament involving the 9 highest rated players, then a match between the winner & title holder), or it may be a multi-stages round-robin tournament (with or without a final match).. and so on. What do you think ?
The idea of a cycle looking like the Go championship is that the standard tournaments are in a way also preliminary tournaments of the championship.
Michael Sharland (2008-11-26 20:32:17)
Time controls for Holdem
It seems clear that most holdem tournaments are going to require 200-600 moves to complete. This seems to indicate that the time control probably needs to be accelerated from 1 move / day in order to finish these in a reasonable time. Given that the thinking time needed for poker is only a few seconds rather than hours or days, the time needed for a move should be much less than for Chess or Go.
Some ideas might be to:
1) reduce the time control further to 1 move / 12 hours or even less.
2) cap the maximum days at 30 or so.
3) change the format to 2 out of 3 rather than 3 out of 5.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-11-30 18:48:14)
Caire - Utesch
Thibault, in accordance to your rules I have to avoid any loss in all games of the match. So I decided to play defences with Black where the risk is lower, because general endgame ideas are more important than tactical play with many figures.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-12-01 21:31:30)
15...a5!?
May be easier! Are there known any games? My idea was it to show, that white endgame ressources (neither by material nor by development) are not big enough for a win! Would be a fundamental investigation of this opening's worth. But Hannes is right - better to name it Marshall defence.
Philip Roe (2008-12-11 15:32:43)
Interesting for sure..
Impressive, not so much.
He seems to make a big distinction between conscious and unconscious thought with no real justification. The fact that electrical activity can be detected prior to awareness does not tell us much. Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" is the most satisfactory account that I have read, and his "multiple drafts" theory is not unlike Runes, except that it allows for a more sophisticated interaction. Roughly, the conscious mind sets goals "I want to attack on the k-side" and the subconscious suggests means "How about Qh5" which the conscious rejects or selects for further review by setting a new goal " Lets see if Qh5 works". By ignoring this interplay Rune creates difficulties from which he cannot extricate himself. And Dennett also asks himself much tougher questions like "why is there consciousness at all? What evolutionary purpose could it serve?"
Interestingly, the subconscious seldom suggests really silly ideas, like Qh5 if there is a pawn on g6 and nothing else going on. Indeed, the filtering out of "non-candidates" can be quite impressive. I recall a moment from the BBC TV series The Master Game. Bill Hartston, an IM and a psychologist, was momentarily taken aback by an unexpected move made by his (weaker) opponent. "Why didn't I see that?" A few seconds later "Oh, that's why I didn't see it!" (the move involved an unsound combination) Hartston was about to coauthor a book on chess psychology with John Wason, and his remark was not entirely in jest.
Hartston was suggesting, by his remarks, that he could usually trust his unconscious not to show him anything irrelevant. That, to my mind, is one of the things that characterizes a strong player. The irrelevant moves just don't occur to them.
So then what about blunders? Well, the system is very fallible. It IS just made of meat, and the real surprise is that blunders do not occur more often. But the blunders made by strong players seem different from the blunders made by rabbits. They are usually relevant to something, but they have a hole in them. I dont see anything at all about Runes proposals that would eliminate blunders, except through the indirect route of making you a stronger player.
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2008-12-16 06:43:01)
Alternatives
If you want fast games why not play the 2 hour blitz? Isn't the idea of correspondance games to have time to analysis in depth? I find at least my opponents play to fast, do they really make a concise analysis of a game?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-16 11:18:59)
Wild chess
Good idea, we may try such thematics soon :)
But I have to find a line leading to this position.....
William Taylor (2008-12-17 12:28:22)
I agree
I've certainly done that before. Good idea.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-26 20:26:06)
Pichelin - Utesch
Hi Hannes, as far as I experienced, Xavier is an excellent chess player, beyond Rybka & chess engines, with a very good understanding of the game and very efficient ideas, also in quiet positions. Wolfgang is able to make very deep & accurate analysis in complex or strange positions while playing fastly, really hard to play. Moreover both have a coherent, maybe different, global match strategy.
In my opinion, we may see quite surprising and long games, that could be decided in a way since the opening, I mean psychology could be the key in such a match. The way the pieces will be dealt may show some things.
50 / 50 :)
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.
Ben Milton (2009-01-06 15:24:33)
Thanks
Thank you very much, but the problem is even though i might know what the opponent might play, i still dont know what move to play so it leads to a trap, the best i can do is to go as deep as possible. Also i heard a few things about "IDeA" which is a tool centaurs use to go deeper but unfortunately Fritz 11 does not have that...Any how if youd be willing we can have the games and i am willing to give you all my e-points (12) if you win and if you dont i dont want any e-points in return. I jus want to see the results. How does it sound?
Wayne Lowrance (2009-01-06 23:20:05)
Norms
Thank you Marc, your input is well received. I was a 2300+ rated player on another CC site. I was unaware that I could apply for an appropriate transfer rating. My entry rating here was 1400 which accounts for a mean opponent rating of 2000. I have not cherry picked tournaments, far from it. I always have entered in the highest rated tournament allowed, always. I do not wish special treatment, wont accept it. I think my suggestion is an improvement in this terrific server. Thiabault has always solicited ideas. That was my sole intent, nothing more. I think it is a darn good one. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-08 12:23:20)
No ratings...
Just an idea, this challenge could be played here in this forum, move after move, with the conditions mentioned above (& Rybka 3 analysis in real time, no need to hide it after all). 2 unrated games, 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves. What do you think ?
Hannes Rada (2009-01-08 19:55:05)
Tables
Hi Thibault, Just a few ideas. I mean 'spreadsheet-like' tables with cells where you can not only see the points, but also the results (1,0, 1/2) between all players. Furthermore on the tournament page I would prefer to see the notation first and then diagram of the actual position. I think this is more logical to see first who is playing and what has been played (the moves) and then the actual position. I think it is also an idea to show only the running games on the (main) tournament pages and to show the finished games for a specific tournament on a second page per tournament. Chess fonts (?) on the ICCF Server looks a little bit nicer then those here. I have been playing now my first tournament on the ICCF server where (secret) conditionals are allowed (chessfriend had this feature already many years ago). And I am a big fan of it. Conditionals can help to speed up to game significantly. Some openings like the Grunfeld, the French, and The Sveshnikov really cry for conditionals :-) I don't see any disadvantes regarding the introductions of conditionals (maybe except for the programmer :-). Why are you against them ? But finally I have to say that I really appreciate playing here. I can imagine how tough and how much work it is to maintain such a server as a 'One man show'. I really appreciate your efforts.
Gino Figlio (2009-01-14 01:24:15)
the "cheating" agenda
This has nothing to do with Mr. Smith but I know some people that like to push the idea that use of chess engines is "cheating" because they are also involved in the business of selling services that detect "cheaters". I have heard from this first hand and was even offered the "service" when I was involved in ICCF management. They want to sell their product to webmasters and therefore need to create the right atmosphere in the cc community to serve their business interest. It's a good idea to ask for a disclaimer before discussing this issue with new visitors.
Normajean Yates (2009-01-16 05:49:31)
thanks thib & wayne - I thought so 2...
..except at standard time controls. At standard I thought top GMs would be better even now :(
IMO, two of the reasons why correspondence is still an exception:
1. engines still understand positional aspects in a clumsy way (mainly through eval function even now I think..)[a]
2. top engines are commercial - so they have to 'show off' to compete in the market - 'showing off time' at corrspondence is too long for the software market.. so top engines are tuned towards faster play...
[a] I wish that after copyright etc. expires, commercial chess engine vendors must be legally forced to make public their algorithms.
(Ideally, I wish - no copyright, only moral right of actual authors! - but that needs a diiferent economic system than capitalism)
Normajean Yates (2009-01-20 07:19:07)
nicola [nicola lupinacci ansered it]
nicola lupinacci posted in the international chat in june last year that:
In bigchess, P=1, N=3, B=5, R=8, Q=11.
One of the points is, bigchess is a bigger board, so compared to chess, long-range pieces (B, N, Q)are much more powerful than short-range ones - specially, B is significantly more powerful than N.
I followed nicola's implicit advice, and as you can check, I've won all 6 of my games in one of the two only bigchess tournaments I am playing: FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__000025.
And I have won all 4 of my completed games in the other one. [ FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__000030: all games are in early stages by bigchess standards ]
my two incomplete bigchess games are keenly contested.
In one of them, opp has exchanged two Bs for my two Ns and 2-Pawns: so, that game puts Nicola's idea to test.
Waiting for the top bigchess players to comment on Sophie's and my posts...
Nicola was so good at chess and bigchess, but she stopped playing.
I have pasted her reason (her profile) below: (so why did she stop playing bigchess is what I do not understand. I mean no one has bigchess engine!)
Lupinacci, Nicola (ITA) [member # 1307]
Nicola Lupinacci
I am a chess amateur, playing only for fun! I do not have any chess engine. Good game to everyone!
Normajean Yates (2009-01-29 14:59:36)
re: rybka era v open-source
I've not been keeping in touch with post-2002 developments in chess programming [that is, the literature - I have no energy to try to reverse-engineer closed code, and my skills in that are 15-years out-of-date and out of touch :(]
- Also, I think there are fewer and fewer of comparatively strong enough open-source engines now :(
Which is the strongest *open-souce* engine now, and how does it compare to even rybkas of the 3.1.x generation? I do not know [frankly, since 2002 I am too busy with literature and political activity; even though it looks like I am playing chess all the time ;)]
But I'd be interested in knowing and grateful to everyone who posts info this and related questions...
The questions are of the form of comparative strengths of stongest post-2005 open-source engines versus rybka; and *published* new ideas in chess programming which have been implemented and have been shown to improve engine strength.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-04 13:47:29)
Roadrunner vs. Jaguar
I found these informations on Roadrunner but I must admit I'm unable to compare it with a typical 2GHz processor, any idea on this ?
System Name Roadrunner
Site DOE/NNSA/LANL
System Family IBM Cluster
System Model BladeCenter QS22 Cluster
Computer BladeCenter QS22/LS21 Cluster, PowerXCell 8i 3.2 Ghz / Opteron DC 1.8 GHz , Voltaire Infiniband
Installation Year 2008
Operating System Linux Interconnect Infiniband
Processor PowerXCell 8i 3200 MHz (12.8 GFlops)
http://top500.org/
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-08 17:26:09)
GM quotes trivia
Good idea, but no idea :/ .. maybe before the first game of a world championship. Spassky-Fischer or Karpov-Kasparov ? (so the quote would be from Spassky or Karpov ?)
Josef Riha (2009-03-07 22:33:06)
Unrated...
Good idea, I agree with you. Here we could test ALL kinds of openings.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-07 23:56:15)
Unrated games
Hi Michael, that's a very good idea ! (why didn't I think about it before :))
Now thinking about this : If it is unrated, shoult it be a tournament ?! .. or a 2 players 1 or 2 game match ?
Also we may find a funny category name to suggest that this is a place to test new or unusual openings...
Any ideas ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-11 11:56:26)
(!)
I don't think it would be a good idea cause the page needs to reload to display the (!) .. Imagine you're typing a looooong post (reminds me 2 years ago :)), you're to send it then the page reload "It's your turn".. ;)
As for me, I have one window with the "My games" page, and another one if neeeded with the forum.
Marc Lacrosse (2009-03-15 18:39:01)
OK : better than nothing
A good idea I think. Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-15 18:58:58)
wch cycles & rules
In addition and to make the rules clearer and less hard, we may envisage to launch a wch new cycle every 8 or 9 months - in practice 6 months seems to be really short. There are always a few games that can't be adjudicated before the very end.
About the idea to send an email to qualified players to warn them about the start date of the tournaments, I agree that it would be the best way but it may also delay tournaments (+ spamfolder & so on..). In the news, I wrote that the round-robin final would start as soon as game 22898 finished a while ago, then deleted it, which is not enough also. So if all tournaments surely start when a new cycle starts (clearly announced in the news page), it may solve the problem. What do you think ?
Scott Nichols (2009-03-15 21:05:35)
Excellent solution.
IMO Thibault has come up with exactly the right solution. Maybe there should be a way for all players to withdraw under the same conditions. Sometimes things come up and people can't follow through with what they planned, if they can withdraw without penalty it might save a lot of under 10 move losses and the remaining players just receive a forfeit win. Just an idea.
Marc Lacrosse (2009-03-18 10:48:07)
Yes but ...
Interesting idea but there could be a negative side effect : we could see an increase of the number of players leaving or silently withdrawing which is one of the most annoying aspects of correspondence chess IMHO.
Marc
Nadia Kaif (2009-03-20 04:53:02)
Excellent Idea
I really like this idea
Nadia Kaif (2009-03-20 05:01:56)
Interesting qoute
It is interesting but have no idea
Nadia Kaif (2009-03-20 05:11:08)
Nice idea
Yes a technological inside will be interesting
Nadia Kaif (2009-03-20 05:32:09)
Excellent Idea
Excellent Idea
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-23 15:55:15)
Checkmate detection (finally)
A few improvements to come today !
Checkmate detection : Finally I implemented it even if I like the idea that a player should resign by himself (just like for Go). It will be in test for a few days/weeks so it may not work for everyone during this time.
A few informations more in players statistics (number of advanced chess, Go & poker games won, lost, running...)
In Go games, a reminder will appear when a player "pass" (one player has to resign or call referee to end the game, with a link to the Go scorer)
Thank you all for making suggestions that help to improve the site, I know there are many others to implement (e.g. challenges option & so on...), be patient :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-28 19:30:21)
New category : Unrated tournaments
Finally, a new chess tournaments category : "Unrated tournaments" in FICGS__CHESS__SPECIAL__TOURNAMENTS
A place to test new ideas & openings... Thanks to Michael Aigner for the good idea :)
Denis Ivanchenkov (2009-03-29 14:14:21)
Wayne Lowrance
>By the way, Thibault if you want to increase participation, open up some faster tournament bases.
imho 1 day/move, 2 day/move or 3 day/move - these time conntrols more demanding for players.
and I'd like to suggest one more idea - so call ladder tournaments (well, this may be too complicated to develop corresponding soft - but this is just a suggestion). so the essence of such tournament is that we have "ladder" classes H (lowest), G, F, ... and A - the highest one. In the beginning all players belong to H class. And there are open 5/7/9-player tournaments starting in each class - they are just waiting until filled and then open again. each tournament is all-play-all 1 game with fast (1 d/m 2d/m 3d/m) control. When tournament is finnished the winner (or several winners in case of a tier) is promoted one class up. Similarly, the player (players) occupying the last position is demoted one class down (except for H classers). So winning the tournaments is actually a "climbing" the ladder.
this scheme was used in igame.ru and was pretty popular among players. i suggested this scheme to chess-online.ru - unfortunately they were pretty hesitant as to realization (maybe due to soft development complexity?)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-05 21:23:03)
Rating calculation : real time or not
Hi Scott, it would be not a nightmare for sure. But the way correspondence chess ratings are calculated is more a question of history IMO, just like FIDE WCH. Many players would probably think this is just a nonsense, while the others may find good reasons for this change. It seems to me that correspondence chess ratings have always been calculated every 2 or 6 months according to the organization. I thought about this question already, there are advantages in both solutions, so I'm not against the idea to open this (big) debate.
Robert Mueller (2009-04-12 16:30:07)
Great Idea!
I like it.
Vadim Khachaturov (2009-04-12 18:31:48)
FICGS Olympiad
Nice idea! I hope, there will be not only pure national teams, otherwise some players will be unable to participate.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-12 18:49:01)
Olympiads in a previous discussion
Hi William, this has been discussed already but it's always a good idea to try to bring new arguments. In my opinion FICGS still has to grow before to envisage it anyway, but first of all you may read the previous discussion and particularly Marc Lacrosse's point :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=294
William Taylor (2009-04-12 20:04:06)
I still like the idea
I still like the idea of country teams and an Olympiad-like format. I've read Marc's post and can't imagine nationalism would be a problem on a friendly site like FICGS. However, it would be a shame for countries which only have one or two players at FICGS not to be able to play. How about a team championship along the lines of other chess team championships such as the Russian one which has just finished? i.e. teams are made up of invited players from all over the world. Anyone could be a team captain and enter a team if they could get one together. There could be an entry fee and captains might even then pay a fee to top FICGS players to be on their team in an effort to win the FICGS team trophy and prize money. ;) I'm not saying an entry fee would be a good idea - just mentioning it as a possibility. Anyway, I think a team championship of some kind, Olympiad-format or not, or both, would be interesting, exciting, and good for building the sense of community on FICGS.
Nick Burrows (2009-04-12 21:16:56)
Olympiad
I think it's a good idea also
I am alligned with Marc's anti-nationalistic thinking in a political sense, but here it is simply a 'construct' to initiate some camaraderie and interest.
after all we still all enjoy the olympiad, and playing for club teams can be fun, because chess is such an individualistic pursuit that any opportunity to play in a team, is really just an opportunity to socialise with people that you have a shared interest with.
Pitting players from different countries against each other, has no ultimate meaning - but at least it's an idea that will initiate interest and is therefore positive.
For the people without enough countrymen for a team, why not a UnitedNations team? so all can be included.
Denis Ivanchenkov (2009-04-12 22:11:51)
idea!!!
Maybe instead of national teams tournament it is better to organize just TEAMS tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-14 20:23:03)
Time control in Poker games, new rule ?
Hi all,
The first poker holdem games started a few months ago, it may be time to discuss new improvements around time controls in "correspondence" (> 1 day) poker games.
The problem is obviously that the dead man defence [to last the game until death when losing] could apply, at least theorically. In my opinion, we should try to find an idea to reduce the thinking time for the players who are in an inferior "position", or for both players, or maybe the maximum total time accumulated (now 100 days) and/or the time to play a single move (now 60 days)... well, actually there are many possibilities but I can't find one simple, clear & fair enough. To change the basic time control 30 days + 1 day/move would not be a good idea IMO, an inferior increment would bring problems also.
Ideas are welcome !
William Taylor (2009-04-14 20:26:59)
draw offer
Definitely not number 2. Either number 1 or 3 would be fine. Ideally a draw offer would be binding, but I can see that there could be problems if it's worded slightly strangely. For example, it might look like a clear draw offer but the person who wrote it might not speak English as their first language and might not have intended it as such. Perhaps number 1 would create more problems than it would solve.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-15 13:48:07)
shortest possible bigchess checkmates
Good question & good idea to develop the bigchess theory :)
I don't know, no time to think about it today but it may be not so easy to do it in less than the obvious 11 half-moves checkmate for White.
Don Groves (2009-04-19 08:25:32)
I like it!
A great idea, Scott!
Wayne Lowrance (2009-04-21 18:47:25)
FICGS Olympiad
Number of players decided upon needs careful consideration. 4 players per team would mean many countries would be left off because not four players signing up/available. I like the idea of as many countries as possible with teams. Of course on the other side of the coin only two players per country would mean many players not getting a chance to play and represent their country. Delicate balance in my view. Having said this, I prefer in favor of many countries therefore 2 players per country. What ya think ? Wayne
Daniel Parmet (2009-04-21 19:26:04)
team league 1st then olympiad later
the olympiad sounds like a great idea except I think Thibault is right there still needs to be more players sign up for countries and teams of 4. Maybe just a team league for now for u2200 and u1800 would be coool.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-04-21 20:25:51)
Team chess league
I don't like the idea of national teams even if "my" team exists only of players of one single country. If four players decide to play in a team, then this team should also be able to take part in this team competition.
William Taylor (2009-04-21 20:54:07)
Teams
Let's get a team league going and then an olympiad can come later if people want it. I don't like the idea of 2-player teams at all, so perhaps an olympiad should wait until we've got more players. 4 players sounds fine for the team league (5 or 6 would be fine too - I wouldn't go lower than 4).
Wayne Lowrance (2009-04-22 00:41:19)
FICGS Olympiad
I do not care for the idea of forming teams regardless of rating nationality . We already have this in a sense, It is called "the rating lists". The original proposal was a unique novelty idea, that I liked. I seem to be in minority on 2 person nationalistic teams. So How about a compromise of 4 person nationalistic teams. I Would my self like to play in it representing USA. How many players per teams is part "B" of the idea. Part "A" is making the Olympiad nationalistic. Speaking for my self if we drop this attribute to the idea then I lose interest. My ideas on it Wayne
William Taylor (2009-04-23 00:27:47)
Both interesting
I really don't understand either of the extreme positions on this.
To those who say they are opposed to an olympiad (i.e. national teams) - why is that? Would you refuse to take part in the real chess olympiad if you were asked? Are you against all forms of competition between countries?
To those who say they are not interested in a mixed-team competition of some kind - fair enough, but I think there are plenty of people who are. To Wayne - I fail to see how this idea is comparable to a rating list.
Personally I think both ideas would be fun and interesting, and I would certainly compete in either. Whether there is enough interest to run both at the moment I'm not sure.
Wayne Lowrance (2009-04-23 00:52:43)
FICGS Olympiad
Okey Dokey fair enough. As I said I liked the original proposal, I thought it was a unique idea and an "Olympiad" similiar to Olympics Chess, country against country. I was always very active in sports in my youth. Maybe that is why I perked up when I read Mr Taylor's post. I am usually involved in a lot of tournament chess and outside activities and would make an entry for an "Olympiad event" despite my heavy work loads. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-27 14:29:37)
Normajean,
Once more, I do not know you well of course, but I could have said it also *because* IMHO there's no need of great reasonings to make one's own idea about you by reading this forum, your verve helps a lot and you said many things about yourself.
As far as I know Don (mostly through this forum - noone knows how you actually know him [point 1, btw "I don't really know him" and "Don Groves is obviously..." is quite ambitious :)]), you're totally wrong in your point 2, of course I may be wrong myself but by reading his posts in this forum, I have a very different idea.
Finally everyone makes his own opinion, no matter, but whatever this sentence was familiar or insulting, noone but yourself can approve or disapprove here so I don't see the point to respond in this thread indeed, a private discussion would have been ok to disentangle all this, I suppose :)
Normajean Yates (2009-04-29 13:48:23)
Nick Burrows, great idea!
"Maybe you two can share a joint sometime? ;-))" - yes, that works.
Thib is a real sage; truly said Scott!
And Don,I agree "all we need is weed" - as long as it is not jimsonweed (Datura) - I tried it three times and I think that is two times more than one should in a lifetime... oh I dont know, some people *can* handle it, so who am I to advise them ? [in case any datura-veteran happens to read this]
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-29 14:17:53)
1st team tournament !
Hello all,
As you may have read in the forum previously, the idea of a team chess tournament came up (originally Olympiad, maybe later).
The 1st FICGS CHESS TEAM TOURNAMENT will start on May 15th, 2009. Each team must be made of 4 players, whatever their ratings.
The tournament will be a single round-robin tournament, games will be unrated (just for fun !), time control : 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves.
You may contact other players through the form in My Messages (bottom) or just make a call here in this thread or in the chat bar to find partners, the definitive teams should be announced with their name in this thread to be in !
We might also vote for the funniest team name after the tournament started, be aware ;)
Have fun :-)
Will Denayer (2009-05-02 03:11:11)
Olympiad
Nice idea indeed, but I am the only person from Ireland here and I am not even Irish! Perhaps there is some other national team which would like to adopt me? :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-02 23:08:45)
Engines
Maybe next time, could be an idea !
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-11 23:05:09)
Poker & chance
90% luck ? This is true when you're talking about a certain number of hands, not in all cases of course.. So when you consider several tournaments (norms), so ie. 6 games * 6 tournaments * 600 moves (let's say 300 hands), we're talking about 10,000 hands .. The chancy factor "disappears" when you play 500,000 hands. I do not pretend to explain anything about poker theory, but it is quite clear to me that theorically the possibility of norms is not a totally stupid idea (but it still has to be discussed for sure).
Daniel Parmet (2009-05-11 15:47:19)
Silly
I think this idea is terrible and over the top.
Sophie Leclerc (2009-05-11 18:09:13)
Good idea
I do not believe this to be silly, in fact, this may be a rather good idea since poker is not really a game of luck.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-11 21:12:38)
Poker titles
This is a good idea ! We still need some time to see how ratings evolve but it may be an interesting innovation... To be continued !
Sophie Leclerc (2009-05-23 07:43:14)
I good games
»I think there will plenty of interessing games.
I find it strange to play on table 3, but it may be true that yugi is stronger then me, I just have his number...
Why I could not play versus you thibeault.....
I am not worry, I will hold still for sometimes.
Our team king. what a name to use, ho well, good idea, never tought about it... it feel not original, but it is.
Good games for everyone.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-27 23:17:28)
FICGS & chess.com
The example of chess.com is very interesting, I looked at this site (from time to time) growing very fastly, most probably because of investments for good SEO (search engines optimisation) - to start with the domain name - but it still looks like a MFA (Made For Adsense) website even if I'm sure that Eric made good work to offer plenty of services related to chess. Well, I did not check it for a while...
Speaking of auction at chess.com, that's a funny idea and I just wonder why I did not think about a system where you can bet some epoints at any time in any game... maybe I'll think about that, but that's not really important (the very large majority of players do not play for money but for the love of games only).
Normajean Yates (2009-05-28 03:40:31)
Thib, my auction suggestion was sarcasm!
Thib. please read it again (the part where I suggested auction at chess.com - or you can loook at my thread on this there - it is called 'the best chess money can buy' ;)
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/the-best-chess-money-can-buy
(I am not sure whether the link works for members only or for everyone; anyway free membership is a 5-minute process..)
That was sarcasm! I meant this: suppose you are left with K+Q v K. Sure win for you, no? At least you can't lose, even on time (insuff. material) ? Now my sarcastic suggestion was that: opponent bids €20 for the game, now if you cannot bid higher then opponent *wins* the game automatically!
Of course I thought until yesterday that no chess site will offer *that* kind of auction! but you said:
>Speaking of auction at chess.com, that's a funny idea and I just wonder why I did not think about a system where you can bet some epoints at any time in any game...
Surely *you* don't want *that* kind of auction here, do you? ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-28 19:27:25)
Sarcasm :)
Of course it was a sarcasm, that's why it is funny :) .. the idea it gave me was quite different though, it is just like silver games.. nothing to do with "to buy a result".
Scott Nichols (2009-06-03 03:09:30)
Chess is dead? Not hardly.
In his book "The world of chess" by Anthony Saidy the following paragraph appears. "Later in his (Capablanca) career, his play became ever more technical and drawish. He expressed the idea that with the perfection of modern knowledge it would soon be impossible to win a game against a master. Chess would soon reach a "draw death". He even proposed interchanging the initial positions of the Bishops and Knights to inject new life into the game."
An exact quote found earlier in this same book exemplifies more of what this thread is about---In reply to a Steinitz comment Tchigorin replied "Chess is a limitless forum for the human imagination. Each position is a fresh challenge. Rules and book openings, to the creative player, are no more than guidelines to be transcended. Individualize. Each position is new--terra incognita that may contain the seed of a beautiful combination. Gladly give up a pawn in return for the attack. Play chess with joy."
Hannes Rada (2009-06-03 18:55:58)
Dead positions/openings
Hi Thibault,
Which positions -respectively we should also talk about openings - do you think are dead ?
I have some ideas about dead openings, but would like to hear your opinion first :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-05 13:13:41)
"reformed chess", "improved chess"
Speaking of rook endings, of course some -maybe most- are dead or at least understood positions, some are very complex for the human brain... I don't think chess is so unfair even with 2 pawns more, every good player has to know the endgames theory, that's the most important part of the game IMO (at least when learning), such draws only show that one didn't manage to complexify the game enough.
Nice ideas in these links Hannes, and there are many others even without changing the way the pieces move (e.g. time handicap..) but it is harder in correspondence chess. Actually we may regret that chess is chess in this current version. As chess rules are everything but "natural", it could have been different, maybe it should have been. It is too late to change anything now because most people want to play the same game than Fischer and Spassky :) .. History prevails, even very intelligent recent games like Blokus will never be the king of the game.
By the way does anyone know about the drawish problem in Xiangqi and Shogi ?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-05 14:02:03)
draw offer+timeout
There's no problem with violating FIDE rules as long as it is the best choice for correspondence chess (ie. 50 moves rule), on this suggestion for these rare cases, the player should accept the draw himself in my opinion to deserve the result but well, if most players think that's a good idea, I may change that.
Michael Aigner (2009-06-10 21:13:32)
Good idea !
This "feature" is a very good idea to protect players from such assaults.
This kind of attacks can be very disturbing and was in my case the reason why i stopped playing blitz at the chessbase server.
Normajean Yates (2009-06-12 09:04:06)
1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3: hyper-hyprmodern?
In the 1950-60s larry evans once wrote that 1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3 will be the openings of the 21st century. [in 'New Ideas in Chess (1958)' IIRC]. Well not even 9 years have passed, so...
(The 1st century began on 1 AD (retroactively) as there was no 'year 0'. So the 21st cent. began in 2001.)
[2001 joke: y2k+1 problem: how to provideemployment to people who were trained only to deal with the y2k problem :)]
Robert Gally (2009-06-17 18:17:09)
First!
Thibault, that would be great actually!
Don, All he has to do is check 'last logged in timestamp' if there is a 2nd e-mail after that time, don't send it! Doesn't matter if I read it, just that I have too many in my inbox without having come here to make a move!
Daniel, I have no idea how to configure a filter to accept 1 message of a certain subject, but not any others until the first is deleted... sounds way to complicated for gmail to attempt!
Daniel Parmet (2009-06-22 03:12:33)
yes!
Excellent idea Michael!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-23 17:00:16)
Strange Joseki
GoPosition (see diagram)
(reminder : see Help to know how to post a diagram)
Hi Ulrich, that's why I like Go :) .. It reminds me certain gambits in chess.. theorically inferior (actually I'm not even sure here) but if you don't know the lines, you're done !
Don Groves played this joseki against me a few weeks ago (games 30935 & 30934) for the first time, obviously it is very interesting against a player who did not experience it before... If White plays q3 or q17 after that (which I did), he may have no space enough quickly and Black may build big shapes. Well, I'm not strong enough to bring an interesting comment on this joseki anyway, maybe Mikhail can share some ideas on this :)
Wilhelm Schuett (2009-06-27 19:45:23)
Armenian Variation
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Ba5 is a good idea. I never played it before. Even with the white pieces. But White has to be prepared.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2009-06-30 13:09:01)
The Bucharest gambit?
Good idea, I think
Nick Burrows (2009-07-04 07:55:18)
Minimum rating idea
A common problem encountered in correspondance chess is that of strong players forefitting several games and their rating dropping by hundreds of points
This spoils the tourny for lower rated players who often have a 2200 rated player in their group with a misleading rating of 1600.
It also de-stabilises the ratings across the whole site as many players grades are false.
Lastly, and of least concern because players who made the drop deserve some handicap - the artificially low-graded player has a whole year of uncompetitive matches as he waits to regain points.
In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level.
The equivalent here would be that your rating has a minimum value, equal to the highest rating requirement of a tournament class you have previously won.
This seems to solve the problems experienced by many on this site.
It may be said that the rating drop is a necessary deterrent to prevent players from doing this. My experience is that it occurs from factors out of one's control (illness) and any deterrant is irrelevant - just as a death penalty doesn't stop heroin addicts from stealing!
What d'yall think?
Scott Nichols (2009-07-05 15:49:11)
Good idea!
I brought this up one other time Nick. Thib wanted more discussion on it. Maybe a players rating could be "provisional" until he has played 20 games and then it could become "established" rating. I think a player should never drop more than one class below his/her highest established rating. If the classes are 1600-1799, 1800-1999 etc. Then a player who reached for example 1983 could never drop below 1600. Or, if a player reached 2001, he/she could never drop below 1800.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-07-05 23:14:20)
Interesting idea
"In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level."
I quite like the idea in this way. Maybe it can be improved even without complicating the rules too much. Anyway if someone wants to make trouble in some tournaments (it did happen), there's no perfect way to prevent him and it is better in class B or A (2000+) than in class 2400+ IMO.
Normajean Yates (2009-07-10 19:58:45)
chomsky on Obama v Bush; 'idea' of USA
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/21609
William Taylor (2009-08-10 16:16:54)
Poker engine
I've played poker against a computer before (several computer opponents). I think the program I used was called 'Tik's Texas Hold'em', but I've no idea what the best poker program is. I seem to remember reading something in either a poker magazine or a poker website a while ago about a match between top pros and top programs, and I don't think it was a one-sided encounter.
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-11 20:08:24)
Quotes!
The following 11 quotes are all by me:
1- "Experiences are the keys to life."
2- "Happy endings are just stories that haven't finished yet."
3- "If you expect nothing then the following will happen: either 1) you will receive nothing and thus can be happy your expectations were met or 2) You will receive something and thus be happy you have received something. And.... Happiness ensues..."
4- "Step up and face your fear or you will never be what you should be."
5- "A mistake is only a mistake if you let it happen twice. Otherwise it is a learning experience. your experience."
6- "Life is painting a picture over many years with different paints and tools."
7- ""Horney concluded that love was at least a temporary escape from all her anxiety and insecurity" - Karen Horney
Does anyone else think that someoe named 'Horney' shouldn't be talking about love?"
8- "Take each event in a singularity and say if time passes will any of this matter?"
9- "Plans are ideas that never come to fruition."
10- "You should only get upset about the little things cause you have no control over the big things."
11- "Causing another problem without fixing the initial problem just makes the initial problem worse as time continues"
The following are classic quotes:
11- "If you lose the game you should win the analysis!"
12- "Every passing minute is a chance to turn it all around." - Vanilla Sky
13- "Life is pain my dear and anyone who says otherwise is selling something." - Princess Bride
14- "The 7ps: Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance" - U.S. Military
15- "Water water everywhere but not a drop to drink!" - Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner
16- "You can get in way more trouble with a good idea than a bad idea cause you forget the good idea has limits" - Warren Buffet
17- "Teach a child to be polite and courteous and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto the freeway."
18- "Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone."
19- "There is no tomorrow without the pains and pleasures of today" - Gabriel
20- "If life weren't this complicated, it would be nowhere near as fun. Why? WHY NOT!" - Catch-22
21- "When you've done things right people won't know you've done anything at all." - Futurama
22- "The right perception of any matter and a misunderstanding of the same matter do not wholly exclude each other." - Kafka's the trial
23- "the Trausi follow the normal practices of Thracians in general, except in one particular- their behaviour, namely, on the occasion of a birth or a death. When a baby is born the family sits round and mourns at the thought of the sufferings the infant must endure now that it has entered the world, and goes through the whole catalogue of human sorrows; but when somebody dies, they bury him with merriment and rejoicing, and point out how happy he now is and how many miseries he has at last escaped." -Herodotus Viv
24- "When a Persian herald demanded the surrender of arms, the king shouted back 'come here to get them'; and when he had seen that he was surrounded, he commanded his men to have a good breakfast since their dinner would be served in hell." - Herodotus
25- "I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
26- "Why, we don't even know what living means now, what it is, and what it is called? Leave us alone without books and we shall be lost and in confusion at once. We shall not know what to join on to, what to cling to, what to love and what to hate, what to respect and what to despise." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky Notes from the Underground
27- "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." - Scott Adams
28- "Nobody is always a winner and anyone who says otherwise either is a liar or doesn't play poker."
29- “The darkness immutable tranquility holds sway.” - Jun’ichiro Tanizaki
30- “People who are constantly asking 'why' are like tourists who stand in front of a building reading Baedeker and are so busy reading the history of its construction, etc., that they are prevented from seeing the building.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
31- “Either move or be moved.” - Ezra Pound
32- "The real meditation is the meditation of one's identity..... You try finding out why you're you and not somebody else. And who in the blazes are you anyhow??" - Ezra Pound.
33- “The image is more than an idea. It is a vortex or cluster of fused ideas and is endowed with energy.” - Ezra Pound
34- “The thought working its way towards the light.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
35- “There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.” - Ansel Adams
36- “When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.” - Ansel Adams
37- "Wanting to think is one thing; having a talent for thinking is another." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
38- “Philosophers use a language that is already deformed as though by shoes that are too tight” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
39- “Nothing is more important for teaching us to understand the concepts we have than constructing fictitious ones” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
40- “don’t for heaven’s sake, be afraid of talking nonsense! But you must pay attention to your nonsense” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
41- “In a conversation: One person throws a ball; the other does not know: whether he is supposed to throw it back, or throw it to a third person, or leave it on the ground, or pick it up and put it in his pocket, etc” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
42- “I really do think with my pen, because my head often knows nothing about what my hand is writing” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
43- “What I am writing here may be feeble stuff; well, then I am just not capable of bringing the big, important thing to light. But hidden in these feeble remarks are great prospects.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
44- “I ask countless irrelevant questions. If only I can succeed in hacking my way through this forest!” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
45- “Even to have expressed a false thought boldly and clearly is already to have gained a great deal” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
46- “Don’t concern yourself with what, presumably no one but you grasps!” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
47- “when you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
48- "You cannot step into the same river twice." - Heraclitus
49- "Eternity is a child playing, playing checkers; the kingdom belongs to a child." - Heraclitus
50- "Nothing endures but change." - Heraclitus
51- "For a guest remembers all his days the hospitable man who showed him kindness." - Odyssey Book 15 Line 75
52- "Watching [GM Nigel] Short peruse the photos of young women, I had a fanciful notion that the development of specialized skills and character traits in early childhood is like a country fair in which you are alotted a fixed number of tickets to spend on the various concessions. This particular fixed number of tickets to spend on the various concessions. This particular fair is of short duration and happens only once in a lifetime. Nigel took the chess roller-coaster a dozen times, and rode the honesty ride twice, and so he had insufficient tickets left to take the Train Beyond Adolescence more than a stop or two. I myself missed the athletic concession, and I should have ridden -damn it- the chess coaster three or four times." - King's Gambit: A Son, A Father, and the World's Most Dangerous Game by Paul Hoffman page335
53- “I don’t know, but I do know with great precision why nobody else knows either.” - John H. Cochrane
54- "One must have chaos within oneself, to give birth to a dancing star." - Friedrich Nietsche
55- "I created chaos on the chess board and my strength lay in finding hidden harmonies. I always cultivated being at peace in chaos. manifest your unique character on the chess board." - Josh Waitzkin
56- "Leave numbers behind and ride the wave of the game." - Josh Waitzkin
57- "The weakness of an artist is dogma." - Josh Waitzkin
58- "Everything i've learned, i've eventually unlearned. I spend more time unlearning than learning. You must challenge your own micro thought constructs." - Josh Waitzkin
59- "It is like a tunnel, the deeper you get into the more you see there is to learn." - Josh Waitzkin
60- "Your emotions are there for a reason. Observe their ripple." - Josh Waitzkin
61- "The same mold, teachers have learned a certain way. great teachers should listen first." - Josh Waitzkin
62- "Change from psychology and technical errors, transition from opening prep to first middlegame decision or tactical to strategical." - Josh Waitzkin
63- "There is some part about any discipline that should appeal to any person." - Josh Waitzkin
64- "Identify thematic connections by breaking down the walls between different disciplines." - Josh Waitzkin
65- "You know your country is dying when you have to make a distinction between what is moral and ethical, and what is legal." - John de Armond
66- "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
67- "When you stop learning you start dying." - Scott Adams
68- "If you could buy some people for what they are worth, and sell them for what they "think" they are worth, there would always be a profit margin."
69- "Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about."
70- "Life is too short to waste time hating anyone."
71- "When in doubt, just take the next small step."
72- "When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer."
73- "Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will this matter?" - Ellis
74- "If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back."
75- "Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need."
76- "There are three sides to every story: your side, their side and the truth." - Bablyon 5
77- "Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher." - Japanese Proverb
My apologies if some of the classics are in the ficgs quote file already as I just keep my own (and pull quotes from everywhere). I tried to cull out the duplicates.
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-19 01:53:58)
Idea: Unr, No Comp, Match
I was wondering if it was possible to setup a new competition option for chess.
Just a 2 game unrated match where both players agree no computer. Each person has W&B.
This is more appealing to me than No engine tournament where the ratings/pairings are from people that have played rated corr w/comps. We can agree to play friends in 2 games.
Thoughts?
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-24 20:27:31)
Re: Thib
Understood, maybe it is an idea you can hold in your back pocket until later. I think it would be cool to have eventually but I see you have more pressing concerns.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-30 01:24:36)
Issue for 2150 rated players
That's why WCH round-robin groups are useful to help players to find more quickly their rating... Unfortunately, it seems we go towards a 8 months cycle instead of 6 months.
So your idea is to make the rapid tournaments like the standard (class) ones with 400 points bands -am I right- ?
I'm not sure it will solve the problem but we may try, why not... Any opinion ?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-31 13:54:30)
200 or 400 points bands
I think I now understand what you mean, in my opinion it wouldn't change many things, in both cases by the way. There are some quite small advantages & inconvenients in both cases. So if anyone has some more ideas on what is best and why, (s)he's welcome... :)
Garvin Gray (2009-09-02 07:33:40)
to be clear
Apologies if my post irks anyone, but just to be clear, the standard and rapid rating cutoffs have to at the opposite 100 point bands.
So as I said previously,
It is only that in the standard time control that the bands be 1700-1899, 1900-2099, 2100-2299, 2300-2499 etc and for rapid it would be 1800-1999, 2000-2199, 2200-2399, 2400-2599.
Of course this idea also works if Thibault decides to have the standard tournaments using an even rating cutoff ie 1800-1999, 2000-2199 etc.
Wayne Lowrance (2009-09-07 23:52:52)
A Big Mouth on Rybka Forum
Howdy Thibault & all.
There is a poster on the Rybka forum who has sort of a big mouth. He claims that Rybka IA feature is not best for CC games, claims it is too time consuming and at any rate he blubbers and brags that those who use IA are not able to defeat him. I am using my own language here in a jist of the conversation of his. He further says that he never spends more that a matter of hours cogitating his move using a 3 tear "long game" approach to working his moves. Timers such at 60' 40 moves @ 1st tier etc (don't remember his 2nd tier timer. In any case he claims he can get to depth 40 in mid game situations using a "long game" three tier mode. and finds moves that are superior to IA running a day or more (he doesn't seem to understand that most CC players use IA in a special Centaur way and the Program is a tool. He gives little respect for 2500 CC rated Centaur players using the feature IA. He beats such players all of the time, he say's with his Rybka usage with his very modest hardware against 2500 players using IA. I am skeptical. I asked where he plays CC (out of courosity) and he will not tell where. a Poster in response to his post believe he plays CC where computers are not allowed, I have no idea in this regard. I told him that I play at FICGS where computers are welcome and a 2500 rating on this server is very high. There are many well known players held in high regard playing at FICGS that would "clean his clock" with him playing as he say's he does. So what is my point. I am wondering if I can invite this guy to join FICGS and that his lofty rating can be accepted. I shall invite him to Join our SM #11 tourney. Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2009-09-08 02:09:18)
Big mouth
Hi Tribault, No I dont think so, but that is a good idea. Maybe he will share a game or 2 with us
Wayne
Garvin Gray (2009-09-13 17:08:24)
to all players
Thibault,
In regards to the recent changes, I am not sure how many players on here would be aware that the rating cutoffs have changed in the waiting lists.
I think it might be a good idea to send a general message via email to all members informing them of the change, so then they are aware of it.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-16 13:23:31)
Quick Corr. Chess
Hi Scott :)
Why not playing blitz games between your correspondence moves ?
IMO the problem with that idea is :
1) If the quick corr. chess games share the corr. chess rating list, it may bring trouble in it with many losses on time. Some other servers offer this kind of time control & it is not serious IMHO.
2) If the quick corr. chess games do not share the corr. chess rating list, it will be less interesting for most players and it means another rating list, probably the one too much.
In all cases, it will be more waiting lists to fill. At a 2000+ level, it is never so easy.
Waiting for more opinions...
Scott Nichols (2009-09-18 02:11:45)
Obviously....
This idea does not have near the backing I thought it would. Gave it a shot, right? And since this is the best site on the planet, no way would go elsewhere. So I will be content to wait for my next move, SIGH....:(
Don Groves (2009-09-19 10:00:50)
ICCF
I brought this up a couple of years ago but it met some resistance ;-) I still think it's a good idea as it gives more reason to try to win games rather than settle for draws. Obviously, it also rewards those who win a tournament.
The biggest objection earlier was that higher rated players may be forced to play against far lower rated players, but with 200 point rating bands now instead of 400, that objection is greatly lessened.
Thibault, will you reconsider?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-19 22:14:20)
Rating bands
Well, you have to win even more games to enter the upper rating category and I'm not sure it is always a fair system for the winner of a tournament to access it, based on the argument you quoted & also is it fair to play more games to finally win one tournament and lose elo points because of the number of games played at the same time, what happens if 3 or 4 players win a tournament ? (we could use the WCH tournament rules but is it appropriate in this case)
Moreover IMHO, such a rule wouldn't be necessary for ratings below 2200. On the other hand, it may be envisaged to casually offer to the winner of a 2000+ tournament to enter an upper waiting list to complete a waiting list in certain conditions, eg. if his rating is not more than 100 points below the upper rating band (it may be an idea to launch the 11th class SM tournament), what do you think ?
Daniel Parmet (2009-09-25 18:07:10)
good idea
yes please add java script to resign as confirm box.
John Smith (2009-09-28 22:32:58)
Human only games/Centaur
Hi all,
Initially when I registered I was under the impression that (e.g. like RHP) engines are not allowed. Then I saw a flag NO_ENGINES, which seems to imply that in other tournaments engines are allowed.
I would like to ask which types of tournaments are for Centaurs and which are human-only. Stepping into a Centaur tournament would not be a good idea as I don't think any amateur stands a chance vs a 2800+ Centaur.
So obviously NO_ENGINES are normal tournamets, are thematic tournaments normal tournaments as well? which ones are for Centaurs?
William Taylor (2010-06-11 15:08:41)
FICGS chess database
Hi Thib,
Would it be possible to make 2 options - a database with only correspondence games, and one including bullet/blitz/lightning/freestyle cup? (Or a database just of those games.) I think it's a good idea to have a database without them, but I for one would like the option of downloading them.
Will
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-05 21:13:50)
TCCMB hacked
It looks like the correspondence chess message board (TCCMB) has been hacked for a while... Does anyone have an idea on when it happened ?
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-22 20:41:56)
Huayong Yang is the new Go WCH finalist
Congrats to Huayong Yang who made it in the Go WCH 4 preliminary tournament with an outstanding 8/8 !
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WCH_TOURNAMENT__000004
He will play Svante Carl von Erichsen in the next Go WCH final match...
Huayong started with the minimal authorized rank (10 kyu) without an official rating but obviously he's much much stronger ... His current rating is 2334 (3 dan) already, so the question is : do his opponents have an idea on his real strength ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-30 17:44:53)
Coming Thematics
Thanks again for the suggestions ;) Any other idea ?
John Smith (2009-11-02 02:23:14)
coming thematics
I second the Grunfeld thematic, other ideas:
* Tarrasch variation - Queen's Gambit Declined.
* Slav & Semi-Slav (all in one, 1.d4 d5. 2.c4 c6 being the starting position).
* Nimzoindian thematic.
* King's Indian thematic
Iouri Basiliev (2009-11-03 15:51:48)
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUPS
when the second stage expected to start? Any ideas?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-03 19:10:11)
FICGS WCH 6 stage 2
I finally built 5 groups of 7 players (=35 players) for the 2nd stage of the 6th chess championship.
As you probably noticed, we had much less players in the 6th championship than in the 7th, also as there was 9 players by group, there was much less groups in the 6th championship.
Finally the choice was to build groups of 5 players playing a double round-robin tournament (wch rules have been updated for this case) with a few players invited, or to invite 10 more players from stage 1 in order to build 5 groups of 7 players. This last choice was best & more natural IMO to limit the number of games by player and to follow the idea to have more chances to see the very best players in the final stages.
Consequently the 3rd stage of WCH 6 (round-robin final) will be most probably a double round-robin tournament including the winners of these 5 tournaments (as there will be no need to invite any player to complete this group)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-04 16:58:01)
Advanced games (blitz) : improvements
Hi all,
You probably noticed that there was many forfeits in advanced games as :
1) Many new players try it but do not read the instructions.
2) The system is not efficient enough to warn the players when a game starts.
The facts :
a) When you enter a waiting list for an advanced (blitz, lightning, bullet) game, you HAVE to withdraw before leaving, or the game may start without you - the way to do it may not be clear enough.
b) When you challenge a player, you may leave the computer, the system will not start the game without you (or in rare cases).
The idea of FICGS is to provide a web interface without any software to download, consequently everything is not possible... Now it only opens a pop up (if possible) & sends an email when a game starts, and it updates the page if you are in My Games.
Possible improvements :
1) To add a sound or voice message when a game starts.
2) To close advanced games waiting lists :/
3) ...
Well, it looks like I need some ideas. Anybody help ? :)
Hannes Rada (2009-11-05 18:31:09)
Knockout Final 05
Maybe it's an idea to contact him by email to inform him that the final has already started ...
Wayne Lowrance (2009-11-13 18:42:00)
Centaur Chess
Howdy John, I will try and give maybe a little more detail to the best my ability.
1) Rybka is probably best up to "end game" and in end game I like Naum and Zappa.
2) Stonewall: , do not know best engine, but probably not Rybka
3.) Not enough information and again it depends on Engine Tactics. But in general, probably is worth looking into deep P.V.
4) Have no idea
5) No idea.
6) Out of book move "repeat/improvement recognition" as far as I know is not a feature. You as the Centaur of course should recognize this.
7) Well, you will get big arguments here. Many will tell you Aquarium (if you can master it).
8) NO In CC chess, the book is probably the most important thing to study and improve.As mentioned, experience is number one. Dont know if this post is of any value Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-17 12:15:57)
One engine vs. several engines
Naum discontinued ? Really ? That would be bad news...
In my experience, other engines do not really give "additional informations". One chess engine give informations, several chess engines give odds. Other (weaker) chess engines may give bad odds as well and actually quite often. Only your analysis will give you true informations, you just have to explore not only the best variant provided by your engine.
Finally most important is to NOT trust chess engines IMO. In most cases at correspondence chess against strong players, in some ways "I" won some games (by analysis and ideas) and "engines" made me lose some others, that's correspondence chess... (hear me, of course it was my entire responsibility in all my losses & I wouldn't have been able to get good results without the help of engines :))
Scott Nichols (2009-12-03 06:35:24)
E-Points
Hello Thibault, After having been a member here for a few years, I've been fortunate enough to collect a few E-points. There is a small problem, there is nothing to spend them on! Can you come up with ideas to correct this?, e.g., Tournaments with entry fee, books and chess equipment, wild women etc.? :) Any ideas out there...
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-04 13:09:53)
E-Points
Hi Scott, well actually there are tournaments with entry fee (silver, gold.. as you know). By winning some tournaments with entry fee & prize, you may ask for a money prize... This is the only way to spend E-Points at the moment, but any idea is welcome.
I should be able to play lightning games in a few weeks... still waiting for a large broadband at home :/
Scott Nichols (2009-12-05 22:43:42)
Another...
"A belief is an idea the mind possesses, an idea that possesses the mind." (Robert Oxden Bolton)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-06 16:45:22)
Idea to avoid DMD at Poker holdem
Maybe an idea to avoid the "Dead Man Defence" at poker... I feel that this is not employed really often actually (at 2000+ ratings at least) as it is not at the player's advantage after a while but it may be an improvement anyway.
The idea is to keep the same time control but to force players to play a certain pending move before to play a new move in his other games again. In example, I have a pending move in poker games 1,2,5,6 : I play my move in games 1 & 2, my opponents play their moves, then I cannot play in games 1 & 2 again (the symbol in My games wouldn't be "!" but "#") before I played the other moves. Atually it wouldn't be so simple as it may be quite uncomfortable at every move, but something like this if I can detect real DMD.
What do you think about it? BTW did you notice that some of your opponents may use DMD while playing other games?
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-12-06 23:50:19)
Idea to avoid DMD at Poker holdem
Does it mean: first in, first out (to answer first in the "oldest" game)? Have I to answer in a predefined order? In this case I would say: no, this is not what I want.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-08 21:58:39)
Magnus Carlsen vs. Pat Cash
Great idea, a chess champion plays with a tennis legend to promote the tourney (and the player).. way to go !
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5969
Too bad, I did not find the result of the tennis match :)
Wayne Lowrance (2009-12-11 18:26:41)
Rent Rybka4
Well, I have been very vocal on the rybka forum. I have told Vas the rental idea is crazy and I wont subscribe to it. Furthermore I am reluctant to spend my hard earned retirement resources for a dumbed down R4.
Michael Aigner (2009-12-11 18:58:46)
Rybka + a lot of MIPS
As far as I understood the renting idea is not about renting only the software but Rybka on a very powerfull hardware (a lot of CPUs).
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-27 01:50:07)
Chess rating calculation
Hello Pablo! Bonnes fêtes également :)
All rating rules are explained here (there's a french version), feel free to ask if you have any question.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
About the 10 moves rule, why 10 more than 9 or 8... well there must be a clear rule & easy to remember. I don't think that miniatures are a big problem, there may be an "unfair" situation in some rare cases, but it shouldn't happen at 2100+ elo ratings. The rule may be not perfect but I did not find a better one yet (any idea? :)).
Pablo Schmid (2009-12-27 02:02:01)
rules of 10 moves
Thanks for the quick response, my proposition would be no limit of move at all to win points, as in OTB chess. Maybe an idea could be to not make winning points in a game where the player did not connect for a long time before the tournament begin as it is clear that it is a "forfeit", as in OTB when someone don't come.
But maybe you will convince me that your idea is better than mine?
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (2009-12-28 05:07:00)
I'm jalous
Seeing match like that, make me want to play in one of those match, I like the idea of playing 7 match with the same opponent.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-01-07 00:40:28)
Fed Up
I am sick and tired of all this forbidden stuff. Hell everyone here knows who the clone is, if it is a clone. Chess for us is a hobby, for Vas it is his income, but he is gonna have to deal with it, as he is with the cloud idea. If he has a legal case with certain developments then he should put up or shut up. This not gonna be popular with all the rybka chess nurds on the Rybka forum, it is just the position I have slowly grown into. Vas has made promises which he cannot/will not honor. So I show him no Honor. I am making reference to all the deleted, hush hush bickering and restrictions of naming suspected Rybka clones.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-01-14 19:57:37)
Simpsons
Very good quote & idea :) I'll find some more from the Simpsons!
Nick Burrows (2010-01-14 20:27:42)
Simpsons
"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."
"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Daniel Parmet (2010-01-26 01:01:46)
SuperGMs watch Corr?!
Carlsen mentioned to the media after his game with Shirov that the improvement in the game of 22... Bc3 was taken from a Correspondence game he found. (Carlsen's own old novelty was 22... Be5 where he lost to Shirov). This is at least the third time i've heard Carlsen using correspondence games for his own opening research and I know also Peter Leko does this. How many supergms you think are accessing all the correspondence sites around the world looking at our opening ideas?! Cute thought!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-02-05 21:48:48)
Advanced games : Problems & solutions
Hi all,
There's a real problem with the advanced games so far, anyone who tested it lost on time at least once without having played and/or won a game because his opponent forgot to play or to retire from the waiting list.
The challenges partly solves the problem as the program verifies if both players are connected to the server (also I added some warning messages explaining how to use the advanced games) but it seems it is far to be enough.....
Anyway I agree that a web interface is not really designed to such games, particularly when it is hard to find an opponent for these games (which is probably the main problem).
Whatever the way, both opponents should probably be able to discuss just before their game in the chat bar, so one solution would be to verify if the players wrote (or even posted a kind of "start" message) in the chat bar during the last few minutes, it would be a way to be "SURE" that both players are ready to play, even if I'm not sure that it would be enough again.
In my opinion, no more advanced game should start if both opponents did not confirm their presence to the other player in the chat bar.
Any opinion on this ? Any other idea to solve this ?
Thanks in advance and sorry again to all players who experienced this.
Garvin Gray (2010-02-09 16:08:18)
Advanced games : Problems & solutions
An idea might be set a time period that challenges are valid for ie after a person sends out challenges or joins the waiting list, if no one has accepted inside a certain time period (say 15 minutes) the challenge automatically expires.
If the challenger wants to keep their challenge going, they have to re-send, helping to ensure that they are online, or at least near the computer.
Scott Nichols (2010-02-22 22:03:31)
E-point tournament
I like this idea also. I would like the Rapid format. Also, maybe give 45 points for first and 20 for second.
Alexander Blinchevsky (2010-02-26 12:29:28)
E-point tournament
I like this idea too. Agreed with Scott on Rapid format and 1st and 2nd place prizes as well
Pablo Schmid (2010-03-03 14:43:42)
Conditionnal moves
Hello Thibault, I think this feature might be useful for everybody: a chess board for the analysis where we can just play moves and why not put comments with the positions. I say that to be able to find ideas when I just have an internet page outside. What do you think?
William Taylor (2010-03-03 15:21:08)
E-point tournament
Good idea. I'd definitely play tournaments with 1-2 e-point entry fees, and would be quite likely to play higher ones too. I like Scott's prize structure.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-13 21:43:04)
Rating calculation
You have to make the difference between ratings updated in real time (like advanced chess ratings) & the FICGS correspondence chess rating calculation, the idea of those ratings updated every 2 months is to avoid peaks, consequently when you win, draw or lose three games after the last rating calculation, your future rating does not take account of the first result THEN the second one THEN the third one, it is actually completely recalculated by taking account of all results at the same time, so you DO NOT win or lose points AFTER EACH result, your performance is recalculated according to the formula explained in the rules & that looks like the french FIDE rating calculation. One thing that explains "strange" variations after 2 or 3 results only is that the rating calculation is just more accurate when you have many results & particularly when your score is near 50%.
That should answer to the discussions I had with Kamesh & Ralph, but maybe my explanations are not so clear, sorry about that again.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-01 00:16:00)
Download 6 pieces tablebases
It would probably be a good idea to gather links where to download 3,4,5 & 6 pieces tablebases. Just found this one :
http://tablebase.sesse.net
Do you know any others?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-10 14:20:52)
Freestyle vs. Access providers
It looks like that access providers are a real problem during freestyle tournaments... In 4 rounds, 2 players (at least) lost a game on time because of them and 1 other had to play with his mobile phone card because his access provider was not able to see ficgs.com during a few hours.
It is possible that week-ends are a quite bad choice to play as most internet providers encounter most problems from friday evening to monday (and take much more time to solve it).
I do not see a clear rule that could solve all this, maybe more rounds would attenuate the problem... If you have any idea, let's discuss it!
Thanks.
William Taylor (2010-04-10 18:27:50)
Challenges
I'll second this request. Another related issue which I and several other players have been experiencing recently is that of repeated spam challenges (i.e. a player keeps sending challenges even when they are turned down). Perhaps it would also be a good idea to be able to exclude certain players from challenging you (like an ICC 'noplay list').
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-11 20:59:51)
Match Against Rybka Forum
Oh ok, thanks Robert, I didn't see this discussion at Rybkaforum before...
The idea discussed with "Vytron" is : Half players would play their game here at FICGS, and the other half would play their game at the Rybka forum... Of course there would be a kind of time control there but this would be a friendly match before all!
So please post here if you're interested to play in the FICGS team and specify if you would be ok to play your game at the Rybkaforum.
I'm in, of course (if my new rating allow me to play :)), and I'm ok to play at the Rybkaforum.
Scott Nichols (2010-04-12 03:59:40)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
First of all, thanks to Thibault for having this tournament. I have some ideas for the next one for us to kick around. First and foremost we know the connection issues need to be resolved. Second, the time control. I've played both 30 & 60 minutes with 15 second increments and my preference would be the 60+15, but 30+15 is ok also, not a big deal for me. As for the time to have it, (days of the week, hour of the day), I think there is no way to satisfy everyone because of the wide range of time zones, so you just have to make a time and we will find a way to make it. -----The main new idea I have is to make it an open tournament. This means anyone can join, but only those who pay the entry fee will be eligible for prizes. The reason is to get many more players involved, but only the highest entry-paying player will win prize money. Since there are far more players here without any E-points than those with. It might even inspire more to buy points.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-12 06:02:19)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
I would certainly prefer only one or two games per night a longer time control.
I am strongly against the idea of allowing free entries whilst other pay. With allowing free entries, they have not done anything to show their commitment to finishing the tournament and could just withdraw/not show up at any stage.
While this can also happen for those who have paid an entry fee, at least these players would lose their entry fee.
Also, I am strongly against this idea of free entries and no chance to win prizes as it means some players can just play risk free with no concern for their overall tournament standing, whilst those competing for prizes have to be mindful of their tournament position.
In effect it will create two different mini tournaments and some players will be adversely affected.
I would rather a smaller tournament, but where all the players are playing under the same conditions ie time control, entry fee, ability to win prizes.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-12 14:49:55)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
Scott, that is an interesting idea but I follow Garvin on his points.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-21 21:30:59)
Wider rating range tournaments
Returning to the 400 rating range will not help for two reasons.
1) Players have shown with both the 400 and now 200 rating ranges that they will not join a tournament if most of the other players are rated below them, even if e-points are offered for winning the tournament
This will not change by going back to 400 point rating bands.
2) The only time players participate in tournaments where they could lose rating points is in the World Champ tourneys, where the prize (qualifying for next round and six games against strong opponents) is greater than the risk of losing rating points.
Hence why I have at least brought up the idea of another set of tournaments. The idea would be every one enters, players are allocated to groups (each group is as equal as possible), then the winners of each group go through to another round robin final group.
The difference between this and the World Champs is that there is no knockout stages and everyone starts from stage one. This means even the 2400's would have to play in stage one to win the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-21 23:49:04)
FICGS Cup or Open tournament
Here comes back the idea of a FICGS cup or whatever the name... I'm not sure if this is a good idea as WCH tournaments take a lot of time to most of us already, best is to gather most players in the same competition IMO.
Of course I could create a rated category with no rating range at all in Special tournaments, but I'm not sure if there is really an interest in it, any opinion ?
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-23 01:11:29)
Wider rating range tournaments
Garvin, you have a very good point. I have been there and so I know how your feeling. It is very difficult to advance that is for sure.
Garvin It can be overcome, I have! please refer to my rating climb. I started off at rock bottom despite the fact that I had a rating of 2300++ going in here at ficgs. I did know know I could transfer part of my rating (1800 I Think) but I started at the bottom (1500 if memory serves).It has taken me for what seems forever to arrive to where I am now. I have worked very hard to achieve the Title and it's rating. I have a nice comp now, but the first couple of years I grew in stature with a 1.8 ghz single cpu. Have used that cpu most of my stay here.
What is my secret ?. Answer I have non. First is I have a excellent CC book (lousy for blitzing). I feel the real only way to advance here on FICS is outbook and out think your opponent in opening lines (ask Thibault :) So MY thoughts are that it would follow that I am not in favor of your proposal. Having said that, I will support what ever way Thibault goes with your ideas. Good luck my friend, I am behind you, but honestly cannot say I will support any new rating grading. Wayne
Garvin Gray (2010-04-22 17:01:33)
Wider rating range tournaments
An all in rated category would not work.
I understand that the World Champs is meant to be the focal point and the main tournament, I am certainly not trying to take away from that.
Just that I am seeing an issue that has to be bugging people more than just me and trying to find a solution to this.
If you need help with setting up the groups and making pairings, I am willing to help with that to get the idea of the ground.
As for workload for the players, well I guess that is for each player to decide. If they think it is too much, then they will not play and the tournament goes no further than one trial.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 17:02:39)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Tano-Urayoán just posted an interesting idea in the following discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8507
I was totally opposed to this idea at a first sight, but after a while I found some real advantages.
The idea : Any player could pay an entry fee to enter a high class chess tournament (e.g. 20 Euros for class M, 40 for class SM, 60 for class GM), whatever his rating.
Of course what we all see first is : Anyone can pay to make increase his rating faster, that is just unfair!
But let's imagine that a player rated 1800 pays an entry fee of 40 Euros to enter the class SM waiting list.
1) The waiting list will be filled faster!
2) If this player is actually stronger than its rating show, he'll find its place faster (the other players will not lose so many points because their ratings are protected - see rating calculation rules).
3) There could be such an extra rule: Players who are already in the waiting list or who will play the tournament may share 50% of the entry fee in Epoints, which would be a kind of compensation for them.
4) These entry fees will help to have more prizes in free tournaments (another compensation) and bigger prizes in e.g. freestyle cups, although I don't have any idea on how many players would be interested in this, so the site will become more popular and so on...
Anyway, please share your views if you have any idea to improve this one, and your opinion is needed here of course!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 17:04:09)
Wider rating range tournaments
Tano-Urayoán, your idea (with some changes) may be worth to be discussed after all!
Let's discuss it here:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8545
Thanks!
Garvin Gray (2010-04-24 12:03:25)
Wider rating range tournaments
Thumbs down for the paying an entry fee to get into a higher rating.
It just seems to me that it goes against the whole idea of earning your way into a higher rating group by improving your play and rating to justify an opportunity in the higher group.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-24 12:08:38)
Wider rating range tournaments
Thibault,
The idea of qualification for a higher rating group might get people entering more tournaments in their 'correct' rating group.
Also, even if there is just one lower rated player in a higher group (earned by winning), is that really so bad as it at least gets that division playing, rather than sitting around waiting for someone to join.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 14:27:23)
Wider rating range tournaments
:o) .. that's a very good commercial idea, Tano-Urayoán ;) Unfortunately I'm afraid Garvin's right on this point.
You make another good point Garvin IMO.
Don Groves (2010-04-25 01:45:46)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I still like the idea of allowing the winner of a tournament to enter the next higher level one time. It serves the same purpose as this suggestion but is limited to one player at a time so it doesn't dilute the level of play in the higher tournament. It also helps a new player find their appropriate level faster.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 02:52:37)
FICGS
I understand you Wayne, I don't want to make such mistakes and that's why we talk so much about these changes in this forum :)
On entry fees for a higher class tournament, I agree on the main point of course, but some advantages had to be discussed. The success of this site is also money and money prizes in the future IMO so I prefer to discuss such ideas than to do nothing.
That was the first point. Then there are some other points that remain to be discussed IMO : 1) Maybe correspondence chess ratings should increase (in average) as engines become stronger. 2) Titles calculation rules should probably be harder as a consequence, maybe it should have been changed already.
Correspondence/Advanced chess is constantly evolving, our marks move fast, so rules may have to change. I don't think that FICGS can turn into a kind of Yahoo chess (I did not ever play there btw), the most important thing is the atmosphere and I know that if I make a mistake, someone will let me know very quickly as it happened once a few months ago. We all make that success in that way!
Scott Nichols (2010-04-25 10:43:52)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
An annual membership fee is not a good idea at all IMO. Then you would change the whole concept of the "free" international games server. However I am a firm supporter of a small "take" from the entry fees for tournaments and E-point games.
Michel van der Kemp (2010-04-27 10:44:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
For reasons already mentioned by others I would be opposed to people being able to buy themselves tickets to higher tournaments.
The idea of earning a ticket for a higher tournament by winning a tournament seems fair, and seems similar to what ICCF has. I would be in favour of that idea.
Hannes Rada (2010-04-27 23:52:33)
interesting games and rating
I think interesting games as well as boring games can be played in every class ...:-)
And rating means nothing nowadays.
1800 Elo player can be as strong or weak as a 2600 Elo rated player.
It's quite interesting: on the ICCF-forum the people are complaining that it is not possible to win a cc-game anymore.
Here people are claiming that it is not possible to increase the rating anymore.
Guys simply play chess, try different openings + ideas and you will have again fun, even if you don't win the game or you don't increase your rating :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-02 15:39:35)
Speeding up Poker games
We could try to change the standard poker time control to e.g. 10 days + 12 hours per move (instead of 30 days + 1 day per move)... I'm not sure if this will be enough and if it will have bad effects, the fact is I do not find a better idea :/
All opinions are welcome...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-02 16:40:48)
Speeding up Poker games
I'm afraid that a few tournaments would not be enough as a test... 2 time controls would be a good idea but I'm not sure if the rating lists would be filled fast enough so if you think that this new one would not bring real problems, maybe we should change the time control for all poker standard tournaments... then the experience will tell what to do!?
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-02 16:58:28)
Speeding up Poker games
I think it is a good idea Thib!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-02 22:01:16)
Speeding up Poker games
Nice idea... well, definitely I'll have to implement these conditional moves, but I'm afraid that will not be enough to speed up these poker games.
Ryan Cross (2010-05-02 22:20:58)
Speeding up Poker games
Well, some other random ideas: Decrease the amount of time available to take any single move, currently 60 days, to something like 10 days, 14 days, whatever.
Or, play to one point instead of three. Or simply best out of three.
Somewhat off topic, I notice that when one player scores a point, one player starts with 101 chips (100 in hand and one in pot) and the other with 99 chips (97 in hand, 2 in pot). Seems like a bug to me.
Ryan Cross (2010-05-02 22:24:38)
Speeding up Poker games
...Furthermore, another idea would be raising blinds to 2/4 after hand 25 or thirty, then 4/8 after hand 50, raising every ten hands after that. Blinds at 2/4 seem to be incentive to make bets much bigger often enough.
Admittedly, I haven't been playing poker here long enough to have a fine tuned idea of what exactly the problem is as far as poker games taking too long, so I'm just throwing these out there.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-03 15:11:14)
Careful what you do with our loved F
I was only bumping this thread to try and get an update to the idea of earning entry to the next division up.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-08 21:08:51)
New proposition
Here's a new idea, based on the fact that I don't think I'll have time (before a while, at least) to implement a script that would allow 1 or 2 tournament's winners to enter a higher class waiting list... many particular cases, not so easy.
The idea :
We could allow one (actually 2 would be still ok IMO) tournament's winner to enter a higher class waiting list for 10 Epoints (not Euros, big difference as most Epoints are won in free tournaments and cannot be cashed out if not played in tournaments with entry fee). I would place the players in the waiting lists by myself but finally it may satisfy everyone -> A player rated 1900 could enter a 2000+ waiting list but could not enter a 2200+ waiting list, the server can offer more Epoints prizes (that just increased for chess tournaments, by the way), and players could find their place more easily in the ratings.
Any opinion?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-09 23:24:12)
How many games at once?
Of course it is laughable, I took the extreme opposites but while everything goes faster & faster on the internet and everyone MUST become more & more addicted so that the world runs fine (just meaning more money), my choice is definitely not to follow that way, also because this system will not work so long IMO. People will slowly quit Facebook after a time or at least will not use it the same way, and many already started to stop to play all these thousands stupid applications. Maybe it cannot be really a good comparison but the idea is there.
Correspondence chess was much slower before email chess & server chess, and it is now fast enough IMO. I don't know how other players feel it, some ones have time for sure, as for me I have some time to play but a 14 days limit per move would be really stressful to me though... I cannot imagine how many games more I would have lost with such a rule.
I know that a few players would like faster moves, however I feel that most players are fine with the current rules and I really want everyone to be cool here. We've lost a bunch of good players because of the previous rules such as unlimited number of games.
Now we should debate it game after game as most players who would like faster moves at chess still play in class tournaments (while rapid category was designed for them). Go is a game of patience definitely, but I have some work to do to accelerate some games (something towards automatic adjudication), and the major problem will be for poker games.
So, what are we talking about? :)
Garvin Gray (2010-05-10 14:42:11)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
First of all, can we change the incorrect spelling in the thread title, it is start to shit me lol
Anyways, on to the thread topic.
Ok, now I understand what you are talking about Thib. Different tournament winners decide to exercise their right to enter the next highest division at the same time.
Rule One: Winning a tournament entitles you to enter the next highest division up. This is valid for the next tournament only in the division you have qualified for.
Upper qualification can not be stored for use at any future time.
The qualification only exists in the section you qualified in ie standard or rapid. It can not be transferred to the other section.
Thib, I do not think there will be ever be a situation where 5 players try and exercise their qualification rights into the exact same tournament at the same time.
Also the two rules above should help in reducing the chances of this happening.
In cases where two or more players do attempt to enter the same 'upper' division, the first person to pay their entry fee will get entry.
The idea of first person to pay is the earlier the commitment, the more benefit the 'committer' receives.
I have not yet come up with an idea for those who try to exercise their earnt option and miss out. Should they lose their opportunity, or it retained for the next tournament that they could enter.
Could be quite a long reserve list and also by the beginning of the 2nd tournament, the player may have lost more rating points and it can be shown by their results that they probably should not be going up.
Maybe on the reserves list, it should be listed by TER and the highest TER gets first option when it comes to second tournaments.
Does this make sense?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 15:14:35)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Garvin, you can change the title for your posts in the discussion :)
Well, all your ideas may work fine, let's discuss it again in the original discussion on this topic :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8545
I just made a new proposal there.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 15:16:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Well, the discussion continued in another thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8555
Garvin's ideas may work fine, but while some players will like the benefits, some others will be deceived not to be able to take advantage of it (quite a chancy factor)...
Here is my new proposal (based on a few Epoints, not real money) :
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Please correct anything that looks unclear and let's discuss it again :) Thanks for all your help Garvin & all!
I'd like to have Wayne, Michel's & other opinions on the proposed changes, is this at least more acceptable according to you?
Michel van der Kemp (2010-05-11 16:42:20)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I just dont like the possibility to buy oneself tickets for higher tournaments. What's next? Next FIDE world championship challenger is going to be the one that brings the largest bag of money to the table?
Perhaps a commercial aspect to this justifies this idea. I know it's a lot of work to keep a site like this running, and FICGS gets many improvements all the time. It makes sense to get some revenue out of it, to compensate so much work.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 18:01:16)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Hi Michel! Thanks again for discussing it.
> What's next? Next FIDE world championship challenger is going to be the one that brings the largest bag of money to the table?
I don't know if this was designed to be humor (I guess, but maybe you meant FICGS instead of FIDE?) but in the context of current FIDE rules I find it very funny :) .. by the way if the same rules were applied at FICGS, anyone could challenge the champion for the title for $500,000 or something like this. Of course that would be great for FICGS and the current champion may appreciate such a prize as well, but that's not the point here.
However yes this FIDE rule may be compared to my suggestion, at a very different level though (the basic idea is the same: to build prizes for more interesting [free?] competitions), in my opinion an entry fee of 10 Epoints is quite different from what I suggested before already. Note that even if FICGS was not free, it would not justify such special entry fee more (not saying it cannot be justified!), after all there's an entry fee in the vast majority of OTB tournaments, if you don't pay it (but GM/IM that are generally invited to play for free - and most often take the prize), you cannot improve your rating, the problem is that the entry fee depends on the tournament, and the entry fee for closed tournaments (the main/only way to get norms) is often much higer.
I agree that things are somewhat different here as the main idea of FICGS is to be completely free. So the real question is : "Is FICGS still 'free' if a tournament's winner can choose to pay an entry fee in a virtual money (by the way it is quite easy to get Epoints without having to pay anything) to enter the next tournaments category".
- If despite of all the answer is "no", then FICGS is NOT free right now anyway as any player can play a rated 2 games match RAPID SILVER with an entry fee against a higher rated player to have more chances to win elo points. This way even IECG was not free (chessfriend), and even if something is really 100% free, it still doesn't mean fair, which is the main point here. Even if a tournament's winner could enter the next tournament's category for free, such a rule would NEVER be completely fair, as I described the particular cases.
Quite complex :)
Finally I'm not saying you're wrong in any way. Free or not free is a really complex question IMO, in my point of view, FICGS will remain free as noone needs to pay to become champion or to achieve the highest ratings (unlike FIDE). But if it is 99% free only while offering money prizes, I'd choose it anyway for sure.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-11 18:25:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Michel van der Kemp - I think you need to read, or re-read all of the comments and proposals, discussions again.
The key feature of this is that a person has to win their own rating group tournament in either standard or rapid before being able to enter a higher division.
There is no case where anyone can just buy a spot into a higher division. They have to first earn the privilege. Then in simple terms they would only be using the epoints collected from their win of said division.
I really do hope you have read the previous comments over the few threads that have eventuated on this topic, as they are crucial to understand the concept.
I have spent quite a lot of time typing out proposals and thoughts on this idea, so if you have not read them and instead just come into the forum and protested at the first thing you think it wrong, then I will be rather pissed off at you and anyone else that does it.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 18:48:52)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Stéphane, please specify if you agree any conditions (which ones?) described a few posts above... that's the main point.
Garvin, I need some opinions like Michel's one (even if I cannot convince him), it helps me to make my ideas clearer and to bring better arguments. I feel that we approach something now, but we really have to specify what conditions we're talking about (e.g. entry fee in Epoints or real money) when discussing. So should I understand that you agree my previous posts?
Stephane Legrand (2010-05-11 19:09:42)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I was totally opposed to the idea of entry fee at a first sight, but after a while maybe you can propose the 2 solutions for tournaments (entry fee possible or not to enter a high class chess tournament)
Garvin Gray (2010-05-12 08:59:48)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Thib- I really think this voting idea is the wrong direction indeed.
The number of votes that you will receive will be so small as a representative of the whole site that it is not representative at all.
Furthermore, those voting most likely will not have read all of the history, counter-arguments and posts that have been made explaining why things are being proposed.
I am getting quite frustrated at reading some of the posts. I really would just like to see option 1 enacted by yourself, even for a trial period of one year.
One year might seem like a long time, but considering that this rule would only apply from when new tournaments have started, it could take a while for tournament winners to become apparent and then for them to accept their entry and then for those 'going up' to have achieved results that are worthy of analysis.
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-12 20:25:24)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I think option1 is the best. But I completely agree with Garvin. Why not try it? We tried those silly rating band idea even though we knew it was bad. Why not try this? I think its a good idea. I agree that options 2-5 are silly.
Right now as it stands, you get nothing for winning a tournament, you might not even get many points either. If you are 1990ish and beat 6 1800s. They might have been much stronger than 1800 but the results also came in slowly 1/1 for each rating period... you don't stand to gain very many points maybe not even enough to get you to the next rating band... but you would be guaranteed to play the next rating band for sure because you won the tournament. I think you'll see alot of the invitations into the rating bands helping people out that are only missing it by a few rating points anyways. Besides its a REAL prize for winning the tournament, right now all we give is a pat on the back!
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-13 18:20:15)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Been giving a lot of thought to this post. At first I was opposed to it. I think primarily maybe I was influenced by my thinking " I climbed through the levels", so anyone can if they dedicate the effort as I did.
Now I am swayed to support Garvin Grey posting ideas.
I recognize very well that there are many players qualified to move up but find it frustrating to make headway.
It comes down to this. Chances are if they win a class tournament, they probably deserve to advance an level. If not competitive, they will not stay at that level. So anyhow I am posting as to what I believe the proposal #1 is in fact.
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints. That is a paste of your thread Thibault. If that is what you and Garvin want or close to it then I say why not ! Give it a go. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-13 23:09:38)
Big chess engine
I'm very curious to see if this idea to see a Big Chess engine will give something one day :)
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34284
It could be a new challenge for programmers...
Garvin Gray (2010-05-15 11:43:02)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Thank you for your compliment Wayne.
Another benefit is that it will allow the higher divisions to fill quicker, allowing more games between the top players.
I quite often see posts asking for more players to join the top divisions. With this idea, while it will mean one person from the lower group, it will still allow more games between the 6 'genuine' people in that division.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-15 11:45:34)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Just thought of another benefit. This idea might also get those who are just under the rating cutoff to start joining tournaments where they think there is nothing to gain except loss of rating points.
So in a 2000-2200 rating division, 2150+ might start entering knowing that they can win that division and get to the next upper division, rather than just having to get there on rating alone.
So this idea could provide a compensatory return for being in a group with 6 other people rated lower.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-15 13:22:39)
Garvin's idea
Hi Garvin, that's another interesting idea, indeed. Somewhere between choices #1 and #4, much less unfair than choice #4 though.
I have to think about it also, any opinion on this?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-17 23:18:18)
Question
Still thinking about the last Garvin's idea... the real question is IMO: can one estimate that it is fair that a player who is 50 elo points below the rating cutoff, let's say a player rated 2150, have the same right than the winner of a previous class A tournament to buy a ticket for the next class M tournament?
There are advantages to this idea of course, a problem is that there will be even less possibilites for tournaments winners to have a ticket... (well, it goes in the other way also)
I like the idea though... My personal answer to this question would be probably: All this is far too complicated to be summarized this way to this question, winning a tournament IS a matter of chance also, winning a game IS a matter of chance (we prefer to call it statistics) also, and this rule, whatever the details, IS unfair anyway. So there is no clear answer IMHO, but if someone has one, please share it now :)
Don Groves (2010-06-17 01:25:53)
10 moves rule for Poker
I agree with Francisco on this. The length of a poker match should be decided by the cards that are dealt and the players' betting decisions with those cards. To make an artificial limit opposes this basic idea.
Poker is not like Chess and Go where games normally never end in less than ten moves. In those games, the ten move rule makes sense for the cases of silent withdrawals and players who never even begin a game.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-28 20:44:06)
Encyclopedia of gambits
I guess that many of you read the interesting Chessbase article by Kavalek :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6460
The link to the encyclopedia of gambits by Marco Saba was a surprise to me... really interesting, and a huge work!
http://studimonetari.org/edg/
I picked up a few ideas for the next chess thematic tournaments, so there may be the next ones in the future :
Aasum [Van Geet: Hector Gambit] 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 de4 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.f3
Abonyi-Tennison [Reti: Tennison Gambit Accepted] 1.Nf3 d5 2.e4 de4 3.Ng5
[KGA: Allgaier Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ng5 h6 6.Nf7
"Anti-Stonewall" [Dutch: Alapin] 1.d4 f5 2.Qd3 d5 3.g4
[Budapest: Alekhine, Balogh Gambit] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.de5 Ng4 4.e4 d6
Banzai-Leong [French] 1.e4 e6 2.b4
Batavo [Bird: Batavo Gambit] 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.e4
Beyer c.g. [Blackmar-Diemer: Beyer Countergambit] 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5
Birmingham [Polish: Birmingham Gambit] 1.b4 c5
Blackburne - I [Scandinavian: 2.exd5] 1.e4 d5 2.ed5 c6
Böhnke [Scandinavian: Böhnke Gambit] 1.e4 d5 2.ed5 e5
Breyer [KGA: Breyer Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Qf3
De Smet [Nimzowitsch Defence: 2.d4 e5 3.dxe5] 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.de5 d6
[Diemer-Duhm Gambit (DDG) vs. Slav/Caro-Kann] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e4
Gaga [King's Gambit Accepted (KGA)] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.g3
Halasz - II [Sicilian: Halasz Gambit] 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cd4 3.f4
Hickmann [English: Anglo-Dutch] 1.c4 f5 2.e4 fe4 3.d3
Hjoerring c.g. [Benko Gambit] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.e4
Jerome [Giuoco Piano: Jerome Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bf7
Krejcik [Dutch: Krejcik Gambit] 1.d4 f5 2.g4
Lasa [Open Game: Lopez/Mcleod, Lasa Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.c3 f5
Lasker - III [Bird: From Gambit Accepted] 1.f4 e5 2.fe5 f6
Omega [Indian: Omega Gambit] 1.d4 Nf6 2.e4
Vector [English: Vector] 1.c4 d5 2.cd5 c6
Wheeler [Nimzowitsch Defence: Wheeler Gambit] 1.e4 Nc6 2.b4
Zilbermints - III [Queen's Gambit] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 b5
"Zurigo" [Queen's Pawn Game] 1.d4 d5 2.g4
If you notice more interesting openings, do not hesitate to suggest it here...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-07 13:33:08)
Round-robin stages in the chess WCH
Just a word on stage 1 & stage 2 for the chess WCH round-robin tournaments: I understand the disappointment of players who share 1st place but do not qualify while some others do... Sometimes we need a few more players to build 7 players tournaments, in this case most often players who share 1st place are ordered by place in the tournament, then by current rating. As there are many special & complex cases though, the official rule is "Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player".
I know that the round-robin system may be quite frustrating (that's why I wanted the knockout in parallel that I'm sure now it's more interesting & fair) for the players who share 1st place, particularly in the round-robin final (Alberto Gueci knows that..... he shared many first places before to play the knockout matches), but the round-robin is the only way so that everyone can play and once again the idea is: "if you share first place but you didn't qualify, at least you won rating points for the next cycle". I have no idea of a better system...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-14 18:15:14)
Wch 7 Group N 01 (chess)
Hi Jeroen, yes it was not the initial idea (it could have been though), but I had to "invite" one player from the N group to build a 7 players group for the future round-robin final (did not forgot you :))... but this was fully deserved anyway!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-28 16:21:55)
Match vs. ICCF
No, there were no FICGS vs. ICCF match yet. We lost our two previous matches against IGAME.RU (with engines, against a very strong team mainly from Ukraine! the site died since that time) & GAMEKNOT (without engines).
I doubt that ICCF will be interested in playing such a match (maybe Gino or anyone involved can say it), but maybe someone can throw the idea in the ICCF forum, like I did in RybkaForum... who knows after all.
Sebastian Boehme (2010-07-28 19:56:33)
Match vs. ICCF
Hello there,
great idea indeed. Facing the 2600 elo giants of ICCF.
Maybe even J. van Osteroom would play (although I doubt it a little bit ;-) )
I am looking forward to future matches and would feel honoured to be a part of the FICGS team in these.
Go FICGS Go! ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-28 21:28:52)
Match vs. ICCF
Well, no hurry... let's see how this discussion evolve before to do anything. But your ideas are worth a try, undoubtly.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-07-28 21:37:36)
Match vs. ICCF
Unfortunately, I have this tendency of getting carried away too far in minutes.. Perhaps i was born a Rocket last birth. I just gave an idea, which will develop further (i hope atleast) and for the time being, I will try to control myself :)
Ruben Comes (2010-07-29 07:43:42)
Match vs. ICCF
Seems like a good idea.
But Thib said I do not think they are interested, at least institutionally.
Perhaps they can form a team of ICCF private.
Of course, I would play for Ficgs team, I'm not sure if I have the strength you need.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-01 15:50:59)
Match vs. ICCF
Salut Xavier ! Merci pour la proposition, et en effet (mis à part le fait que j'aie du mal à trouver de bonnes raisons à l'ICCF de jouer un tel match - à part la passion de la compétition) l'un des problemes majeurs dans l'idée est que quasiment tous les meilleurs joueurs du site sont également actifs à l'ICCF... A chacun de choisir peut être, ou bien seuls les joueurs actifs sur un site seulement pourraient jouer, pas de choix simple :/
________
Well, Xavier may submit the idea directly to the ICCF president, but one more obvious problem is that most of the best FICGS players are also active members at ICCF... If such a match would happen, the selected players would have to choose... Or only players active at one server only may be included in a team... no easy choice :/
Or maybe FICGS, ICCF and players wouldn't care about all this and only want a nice match that wouldn't mean anything, why not :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-03 11:49:16)
Match vs. ICCF
Hi Gino, thanks for your precious advices... Good ideas, and indeed ICCF could host the whole event (if they wish).
Still thinking about it... another idea (among others) : if only FICGS players who are not members of ICCF could enter the FICGS team, maybe the experience could be interesting as well as I feel that many 2200-2300 players here are getting stronger [maybe also due to the increasing level of engines] and will probably reach 2400 in a while, so they would have a chance to play a match against very strong ICCF players... The idea would be to see the real strength difference between these 2 categories of players (ICCF would be almost sure not to lose but for us the challenge would be even greater).
The other idea behind this is that ICCF may see an opportunity to make discover their server to these new players.
Finally we may suggest several ideas to ICCF, Gino's one, this one & maybe others... Whatever they choose, it could be interesting for the players, what do you think?
Steve Vollmer (2010-08-16 11:59:20)
Quote festival, part 6
Sir Frances Galton:
Men who leave their mark on the world are very often those who, being gifted and full of nervous power, are at the same time haunted and driven by a dominant idea, and are therefore within a measurable distance of insanity
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-18 00:07:41)
Speeding up Poker games
"Correspondence Poker" is not a so easy idea, even if I like the possibility to play only a few hands from time to time... Definitely some changes are needed, but we still need the good idea. Patience ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-19 00:58:36)
Speeding up Poker games
Actually I do not like it right now :/ .. Maybe "fold" in grey would be better in this case... Any other idea/opinion?
Scott Nichols (2010-08-19 01:15:30)
Speeding up Poker games
I agree with Heinz, (even tho it was my idea, :) I am ok with just typing it in if needed.
Sebastian Boehme (2010-08-19 01:29:35)
Speeding up Poker games
Maybe bringing up another idea related to speed up poker games.
What about creating an "upper time limit" for each poker game?!
Say 90 days per player for the entire game or another more suitable number. (matter of discussion and wishes of the community of course)
Just my 50 bucks added. ;-)
Don Groves (2010-08-19 05:00:07)
Speeding up Poker games
If I hit "fold" by mistake, does it ask if I really mean it, like "resign?" If Not, I don't like the idea.
Daniel Parmet (2010-08-27 09:42:06)
Quote festival, part 6
-Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
-Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
-We live in a society where pizza gets to your house before the police.
-The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.
-If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
-Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
-Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason.
-Evening news is where they begin with 'Good evening', and then proceed to tell you why it isn't.
-I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted pay checks.
-A bank is a place that will lend you money, if you can prove that you don't need it.
-A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
-God must love stupid people. He made SO many.
-The sole purpose of a child's middle name, is so he can tell when he's really in trouble.
-The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
-You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
Sebastian Boehme (2010-08-31 16:23:08)
Latest deletions of chat
Hi everyone,
is it just a feeling or does it so happen that more and more chat is simply being deleted?
I thought the idea of deleting chat was to get rid of very abusing chat only.
It seems this option is being abused though and now even used on rather neutral or friendly chat. What can there be done?
Philip Roe (2010-09-01 04:27:05)
Latest deletions of chat
If I'm right, chat messages are deleted by clicking on the triangle to the left. I have no idea whether this is some kind of standard practice, but I must admit that once (long ago) I wondered "What happens if I click on this? Oh dear, I seem to have deleted it" I feel sure that others must have done the same.
So, Thibault, you have to work around the ignorance of people like me.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-17 00:29:38)
Svante Carl von Erichsen on Go WCH #4
As you probably read in the news, Svante Carl von Erichsen won the 4th FICGS Go WCH, beating his challenger Huayong Yang 3-2, Svante Carl wins the Go championship for the 4th time in a row!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match & computer Go:
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, congratulations once again for winning this match against a surprising challenger who started here a few months ago with a 10 kyu rank, Huayong Yang, now rated 2438 after scoring 2 points in your 5 games match (which is a great achievement for sure). What did you think about his play & yours in these games?
Svante Carl - I think that he greatly underestimated his rank initially. As far as I know, he had not played for a long time and believed that his ability had therefore deteriorated. I do not think that you can drop more than one or at most two stones, though -- it is like cycling or swimming, you never unlearn it. I had the impression that we were quite evenly matched in summa, but our strengths are in different aspects of the game; I cannot really put my finger on the difference, though.
FICGS - After a previous win, you said that you spend a quite long time to analyze, which probably helps you to reach a higher level than 2 dan (your EGF rating) compared to OTB play... It looks obvious to me that correspondence chess moves generally ask for much more time than Go moves at a high level but I may be wrong, how much time did you spend on your longest analysis during the match? Do you remember for which move?
Svante Carl - I usually spend at least a few minutes on each move, except when the continuation is obvious. I often use more, and if I do not find a satisfactory move then, I will even postpone the move to another day, so that I can sleep over it and let my subconcious work on it.
FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your future opponent before starting your match? Do you think that this is really important in preparation like it can be in Correspondence chess?
Svante Carl - I sometimes glance over the games in the championship qualification tournament, but I do not try to prepare this way. I do not think that such preparation has any value in Go, especially in correspondence Go, since you have time during the game to do deep analysis. I usually try to take each game out of standard fuseki patterns pretty quickly, anyway. Of course, I know that my opponents in these title matches are always very tough and demand my utmost respect.
FICGS - Do you still follow the recent developments in computer Go? What do you think about the latest Go engines? How much time do we have yet before the best Go players are caught by computers according to you?
Svante Carl - I have the impression that the currently most promising technology (Monte Carlo/UCT) has the potential to achieve a rank of about 2 or 3 dan (EGF/KGS). I think that the next fundamentally new idea or breakthrough might add 2 stones, to get to 4 or 5 dan. I do not have any idea where it might go from that, but I think that it gets always harder.
What I would find interesting is having more intermediate board sizes. The best bots are almost on par with the best professionals on 9x9 now. I would propose to try to achieve a similar level on 11x11, then 13x13, then 15x15 etc.. Regarding 9x9, I think that the currently predominant komi of 7.5 points is too big, and that this has a negative impact on the experiments because the bots do not play in a balanced environment. It might be worthwhile to introduce the Taiwan rule (last move compensation) to get more fine-grained scores.
FICGS - What programs did you use this year to analyze? (just trying, of course it may be part of your secrets ;))
Svante Carl - It is not a secret. I just use an editor, usually EidoGo or CGoban3, to visualize the variations I imagine.
FICGS - Finally, what thoughts would you like to share on your 5 games, that could help us not to miss the best times or to help us to understand the most complex moves...
Svante Carl - I cannot give a detailed commentary, but I can try to summarize my impressions.
I think that Game 5 was quite balanced until move 21, but I think that the white invasion was a bit ambitious then. Of course, White did not need to die there, but after moves 32-33 I think that Black had a good result anyway (move 32 should go out faster in my opinion; note how E14 helps Black in enclosing White).
In Game 3, I think things got quite difficult for White in the lower left, but I let him take the initiative by backing off at move 35 (I should have simply closed off F10 then). White gained control of the centre as a result, and in the large endgame, I lost too many points there.
In Game 4, I fell behind in the opening through some slow moves (there was some discussion on the Life-in-19x19 forum about this, see the link in the comments of that game). In the endgame, Black then lost some points in the centre, so that I was a bit ahead when the game timed out.
In Game 1, I made some bad decisions on the left side, and never managed to turn things around. I think I was behind by about 5 points in the end.
In Game 2, I think that Black should not have ignored move 24. After I got quite some territory from my moyo and also reduced his top side, I could play it safe.
I look forward to the games with Olivier Drouot that recently started, but I also hope that Yang Huayong will re-enter the championship cycle.
Sebastian Boehme (2010-09-17 19:25:48)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Good idea Scott!
Here comes my 50 Pence about this.
# A short welcome message at the start of the game is matter of politeness and shows respect to your opponent, the way you would want to be respected.
Sadly used by not all players.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-18 19:23:42)
Corr. Chess Maxims
I disagree with two of your ideas Scott. The first player to offer a draw should be the higher rated is wrong. And a draw can only be offered every 10 moves. These are clearly wrong ideas.
In fact you may recall from our own game, where you admitted to being wrong on said issue.
In general, I think it should be the person with the reason to play on should be the one to offer a draw. If its clearly so dead equal then either player. Definitely not by rating though.
Scott Nichols (2010-09-19 00:07:15)
Corr. Chess Maxims
It is precisely our game Daniel which brought up the draw offer maxim idea. To offer a draw every move or two is clearly distracting. Plus it also included the other maxim about rating differences. You were Black, about 80 points lower in rating, so I had the most to lose by accepting any draw offer.
Maybe in the endgame when it is a book draw, either player can offer the draw "once". But our game was barely out of the opening. Of course these are just "general rules of conduct" and each game is different. So I stand by my original ideas.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 00:57:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims
upon looking through my games I found only one instance where I went overboard on draw offers and my opponent asked me to stop at which point I did (it should also be noted I managed to lose the drawn position in the end though I was playing way too many games at once close 150).
Anyways, I know to some Corr ratings are the end all be all of life but to me they are the most meaningless rating I have. Even my blitz ratings are more meaningful. Because, corr is where I test ideas and see if they work or not. I'm never playing seriously and I really don't care about the results hence you see me in way more thematics and unrated events than rated events.
But I will say this, the difference in strength between a 1800 and 2100 is almost zilch. OTB that difference is HUGE. Corr it is meaningless. 80 pts? This difference is less zilch, you might as well be the same rating. So when you talk about "the right" to offer draws based on rating, I have to laugh at you. These are certainly unacceptable "maxims" and if you want maxims to be followed they have to be acceptable otherwise they will simply be ignored.
I played OTB two weekends ago against a player who outrated me by 400 pts. I was crushing him. In his lost position, he offered me 7! Draws. After I beat him, several players came up to me stated I should have called the TD over the repeated draw offers. Being a TD myself, I replied the ambiguity of the situation. It is his RIGHT to offer those draws. I was by no means forced to accept them (and did not). But there is a gray area in the rules that repeated draw offers (in the rule book it says LITERALLY every single move for 10 moves) the td could rule as distraction and issue nothing more than a warning. A second offense also the punishment is only a warning. ONLY on a third offense can the td actually do anything punitive.
So the real answer is, if you don't want a draw. Turn it down. If you don't want to be offered two draws, tell your opponent so. Each person is different and views their scenarios differently. But trying to make up a rule that no one will follow is beyond silly. I will offer a draw to someone whether they are 1000 pts above or below me if I think the position is drawn.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 22:34:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims
The more you talk Scott the less you make sense. You should just stop. Your idea for Corr Maxims is good and your #1 Maxim makes sense. The fact that #2 & #3 don't just means you made a mistake. Everyone makes mistake. But okay on to your rambling points.
What does Obama or IL have to do with anything? I don't even get it.
Hmm bad analogy time, okay yes talking on your cell phone in a theater gets you kicked out. At small establishments even just banned. Certainly not a right nor is it proclaimed as such anywhere. It is not "protected" and is well known to be improper. Unlike offering a draw being 80 pts lower has no negative connotation anywhere. Its not illegal. It is protected by the rules. It is not known to be improper. Incorrect analogy.
Driving slow in the fast lane. Highways actually have minimum speed limits and I have seen people get tickets for going below the minimum. On top of that, most states have laws about he fast lane being for passing purposes so they have rules about "slower" traffic keep right (state dependent). So not only is it again something protected by law, it is improper, it can be illegal (state dependent). So again an incorrect analogy.
As much as you wish to live in this strange world where you have to be a higher rated to offer draws, thats not how the rules of chess work. In fact, I would quit playing chess if things did work that way (because it makes no sense). I know people that have as their personal rule not to accept draws if they are the higher rated (fine, thats silly but your choice) (and it always backfires too since they usually end up losing the trying position so badly trying to win it as the "higher" rated should). But at least in the end the rules are preserved - my right to offer a draw was not revoked. You seem to be missing the point that at move 1, ONE player would always be at a disadvantage under your system of only the higher rated being allowed to offer draws. This is quite silly because as all chess players know - no rating system is perfect. Trying to tell someone that a 1989 is 100% better than a 1988 is impossible yet you willing to deny the 1988 his rights of offering draws when he plays that person 1 pt above him? You might just be better off declaring you don't accept draws (I know players like that too). But then you might see people head towards drawish positions knowing your policy and playing them for 200 moves until you're bored. You starting to see the point yet? Whatever system you concoct, there are tradeoffs. The one you proposes has tradeoffs that make no sense for anyone.
Scott Nichols (2010-09-19 23:57:43)
Corr. Chess Maxims
I'll finish this ridiculous argument with another quote, "Those who attack first admits his ideas have given out".
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-20 00:13:09)
Corr. Chess Maxims
I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your silly ideas which I've proven 100% wrong and you have yet to defend in any way. You are attacking me. Therefore, your own quote defeats yourself. Irony for you.
I think its best to finish this note on the fact that most players who play this game have never read the rules. Not for USCF, FIDE, or any of the sites they play on. Try looking up the draw rules sometimes, you might be shocked to find out about the fact that no place would ever honor your maxim.
Scott Nichols (2010-09-20 02:33:24)
Corr. Chess Maxims
You have totally ruined what started off as a well meaning idea trying to defend an indefensible position with your psychotic ramblings.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-20 02:41:00)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Um... you mean your indefensible position? Like I said your #1 is a good idea and both Garvin and Sebastian added good ideas too. You just need to give up your #2  as I've proved repeatedly. I'm sorry that your and my insults derailed this thread. I really shouldn't have responded to your insults but i'm not used to putting refusing to use any kind of logic whatsoever. I apologize for going down to your level. At any rate, it is you as I said before that went off on psychotic ramblings not I. I just repeatedly proved you wrong.
"Adults are stupid and must be destroyed!" - Stewie Griffin
Don Groves (2010-09-23 07:57:36)
Quote festival, part 6
If I was "attacking" anything it's the idea that reason is the greatest human achievement. There are a great many important things in life that are unreasonable.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-23 11:03:26)
Road to Grandmaster
Very good idea! The site is nice and I'm surprised not being able to find a few other blogs like this one... and it will motivate you even more to reach the 2500 mark for sure! Please keep us aware :)
Scott Nichols (2010-09-24 15:51:16)
Best Games
Thib, I've tried to think about this. First, I believe we should have all the votes we need to use. Second, I don't think poker games need to be voted on for best game. If we could get this more popular we could add some interesting ideas.
I would like to see a "Featured Game", both in Go and Chess to come out every 2 months with the rating cycle. This would be the game voted on the most by players. Ideally, it could be annotated by the victor.
The games here are of the highest quality. Even GM's could benefit from some of the novelties that have come up here. It would also give people incentive to be honored with being the feature game.
Jonathan Gresham (2013-10-12 23:24:13)
Communism
I've been reading about Communism and have concluded that I agree with a lot of the points that the book brings up in favor of it. The working class would overthrow the middle or rich class and thus establishing a one class system. The only thing that would have to be sacrificed would be freedom of speech but when it comes down to it freedom of speech can be sacrificed justly. In exchange for that you would get free education, healthcare etc. Things would be communal being that you would work within communities and share the wealth. This kind of idea has been put forward before and has failed but I believe that with the right leader it is possible.
Garvin Gray (2010-09-30 20:37:21)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
I wish to propose that the stage one groups starting from the next WCH tournament be paired differently.
Currently, from my understanding, all the players who have not qualified for the high rated round robins or elimination matches are paired into separate round robins of about seven players in each group.
Seed number 1 is in group 1 and so forth until all groups have been allocated.
The idea of this being to try and ensure that each of the groups is of equal strength.
Where I think this falls down is the issue of players with provisional ratings ie players with new ratings of 1800, 1500.
I have had the experience of having one or more of these 1800's in my group and after the group is finished, it is clear that the 1800 player has achieved a rating of 2100 plus, meaning that my group had three players with playing ability over 2100, meaning my qual group was unfairly disadvantaged.
How I would like the stage one qualifying to work from now is:
1) All players with recognised ratings are paired as per normal.
2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves.
Then normal qualification rules apply for getting to stage 2.
It is highly unlikely that a low rated player will qualify from the provisional rated groups as someone from each of those groups will be about 2100 or so by the end of the first qualifying stage.
I do ask for this to be endorsed for the next WCH.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-01 17:51:59)
On colour allocation
On colour allocations, there was numerous discussions on this topic during the 1st year of the server. Well, I cannot remember exactly all my arguments, but briefly 1) Double round-robin is too much effort for the players while it does not eliminate totally the chancy factor. 2) On Berger, the whole FICGS WCH idea is to give more importance to the non-WCH tournaments, the very best player must be champion IMO, not only the winner of a few tournaments, that's why ratings are so important in the tie breaks (and that's why my first idea was to give White to the top seed in round robin groups)!
Less games for everyone per cycle + More cycles = More chances to find the real champion (and more fun :)) !
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 13:09:20)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Hi Garvin, to continue on your original point, I don't think that a player provisionally rated 1800 in a WCH group is a real problem: It is not a significant advantage for anyone in the tournament (the chancy factor always exists in 7 players tournaments anyway), there is a rule [for ~2 years now] that prevents high rated players to lose many points in case of a loss or draw against such a 1800 player who is actually worth 2300 or more (there are other occasions to get free points btw e.g. general forfeits), and WCH groups help these players to find their real rating quicker. As I said the number of cycles is the point, giving more chances to everyone.
But it is true that the colors (top seed playing White against seed 2) may be reversed, so far the idea was "the rating does count to give more chances to the best player to become champion" but maybe the advantage is too big. It still needs to be discussed though.
Philip Roe (2010-10-05 17:20:42)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
I think that the management of the WCH should not be too heavily weighted toward ensuring that "the best player" wins. On behalf of the underdogs, I would like us to have at least a sporting chance. If the cards are too much stacked against us the idea of an "open" tournament is lost, and we won't enter.
I looked at the statistics for cycle 000007. The top seed won outright 7 times, and tied for first on 7 other occasions. The second seed won outright twice, and tied first 7 times. The third seed won 5 times and tied twice. The fourth seed won once and tied twice. Out of all the winners, only the the two fourth seeds who tied had provisional 1800 ratings.
Are these numbers really a cause for concern?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 17:58:43)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Hi Philip, thanks for taking some time to give us these numbers, really appreciated!
Well, I did not hide that I thought about this championship this way, simply because I wanted it also to look like the old classical chess championship. The point that is discussed here is a tiny detail only compared to the whole idea... Of course the 8 players of the knockout cycle have much better chances to reach the final, and the current champion is by far the favourite. Why to play a WCH that would be a boring copy of IECG & ICCF WCH?
I think that everyone has a real chance though, maybe hardly on 1 cycle but by playing 2 or 3! Have a look at Edward Kotlyanskiy's tournaments, he started WCH 3 with a rating of 2132, seed #2 in a RR group... he is champion!
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_10__000003.html
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 21:22:04)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Okay, the numbers must be taken carefully, 2 wins 7 ties for seed 2 do not necessarily mean 2 went on... And I just counted for WCH 6:
Seed 1 - 2 wins 4 ties 6 qualified
Seed 2 - 2 wins 1 ties 3 qualified
Seed 3 - 5 wins 3 ties 5 qualified
Seed 4 - 1 wins 0 ties 1 qualified
Seed 5 - 0 wins 1 ties 1 qualified
Seed 6 - 0 wins 1 ties 0 qualified
Seed 7 - 1 wins 0 ties 1 qualified
And for WCH 5:
Seed 1 - 2 wins 2 ties 4 qualified
Seed 2 - 3 wins 2 ties 3 qualified
Seed 3 - 2 wins 3 ties 4 qualified
Seed 4 - 0 wins 0 ties 0 qualified
Seed 5 - 2 wins 2 ties 2 qualified
Seed 6 - 2 wins 0 ties 2 qualified
Definitely everything can happen in these groups, and I did not count the players invited to join stage 2, that do not favour top seed and that actually favour seed 2 over seed 3... Anyway as I said, I'm ok to discuss the idea to reverse colors in a new topic.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-06 08:39:16)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins
Hi again Garvin, I must say I didn't even know the Berger pairing tables, very interesting to pair 6,8,10,12... players, but maybe not so interesting for 5,7,9,11... as there is a bye.
Anyway, I may try to code it for these cases!
On the original topic, the discussion should continue on the question: Must we reverse the colors in WCH round-robin groups so that Seed #2 play White against Seed #1, as the tiebreak (TER: Tournament Entry Rating) is an advantage for Seed #1 already.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=9097
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=9093
As I explained in the other discussions (you can find some statistics in the first one), the whole idea of the chess championship is to find the best player, and rating is an important element in the process IMO. By the way I'm not sure if such an update would change the results significally.
Reverse or not reverse the colors in WCH groups, we need your opinion on this point!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-06 15:29:07)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins
No table, only a simple algorithm (with eg. $p1 = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6...) :
for ($p1=0;$p1<$players_count;$p1++)
{
for ($p2=$p1+1;$p2<$players_count;$p2++)
{
for ($round=1;$round<=$rounds;$round++)
{
if (NOT $reverse AND ($round+$p2-$p1)/2 is EVEN) OR (YES $reverse AND ($round+$p2-$p1)/2 is ODD)
{ $player[$p1] plays White against $player[$p2] }
else { $player[$p1] plays Black against $player[$p2] }
}
}
}
Games are created the order they appear in the tournament. (may be hard to read, the idea may look like obvious to you though)
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-16 04:16:12)
It is NOT Chess
http://www.notchess.com/rules.php
check it out looks a big chess variation of Yasser Seirawan's idea with a few other quirks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nht2TqabPr0
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-21 23:01:49)
ICCF forum closed
Hi Hannes,
What happened there?! Any idea?
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-22 20:56:57)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Hi,
Gary- Thanks for your interest, I do remember to some of your replies to the FICGS vs Rybka Forum match. As you are a guy who likes some order in the matches. When I make the the pairings for the tournament I will be taking into account of ratings. And will make them fair. There are a couple of people who may not have official rating on the rybka forum, but I have a good idea of there strength :) One of them is actually playing reben a great game in the B90 a variation.
Daniel Parmet- Thanks for your interest I have you down.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-25 01:30:27)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Thanks for your continue interested Wayne! Yeah as of now. I think we are doing a two game per round(1 white and 1 black) set. And I think there are players who will being playing a one game at time approach. And to help with the time difference we are working on a quicker format to help offset the time difference. I still believe that Havery Williamson will still consider playing if the gameload is not that great. Even if he still declines I think with yourself I have 3 or 4 players that are inside the top 25 on this site. I'm hopeful that devassal thibault can help me get the word to the other top players in a effort to get a couple more of the top 50. It will help when I finally can have a 100% idea of the format. I'll you posted on here or on the Rybka Forum. When we finally have more or all the details worked out.
Jimmy
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-25 08:28:18)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Thanks Thibault, My hope is to finish the details within the next 2 weeks. No not a round-robin, because that would simply be to much and to long. So I have gone with Vytron idea of a type of Elimination/Knockout tournament that is currently being discuss. As you are good about getting tournaments formed if you can read the current discussion and give some feedback on here or the rybka forum I would be grateful! It is in the corr chess section on the rybka forum.
Here are some of the key points and some interesting ideas that are being thrown around.
As I know most of the FICGS players play a lot of games so I have made a system that you play a 2 game match per round (One white and One Black). This would usually be a bad idea because of CC high draw rates. But we are thinking of using a unique draw odds system. Thought to many this may sounds a little strange its actually a great idea to inspire fighting chess for both sides. The idea was given by FICGS player Gino Figlio
"The scoring system idea- to draw with white (0.4), draw with black (0.6), win with white (1.0), win with black (1.1), loss with white (-0.1), loss with black (0.0)"
Another thing we are working on is the pairing system. As of now the only idea is to use a swiss pairing system after the first round.
Time Control- Since this is going to be called a "World Blitz Correspondence Chess Championship" The time controls are going to be a little faster than normal corr chess. It will be 48hr per move. But there will be a bluff time in here to help AN critical positions. This is also being debated. Right now we are looking at something between 1 weeks to 2 weeks(168 hours to 336 hours).
I had announce on the Rybka Forum in the last couple of days that a prize fund was being offer. I haven't had all my sources comeback to me yet. But as of know the fund is $1500 USD. It could be more, but I'll make official amount known before the tournament will start. I would say the winners share will be between 500 to 750. It all depends on what info I get back. I'm going to try and make all the prizes reasonable. And try and make it for the top 8 or 10 players. Also the winner will be announced the "World Blitz Correspondence Chess Champion"
I will be trying to finalize the details of the tournament in a quick fashion so I can figure out if the players interested would want to play or not. The tournament will begin just after the new year. It will be flexiable so get all the players in and know who they are playing.
The final details are that we are working hard to make the Rybka Forum really to play this kind of tournament. There is a new sub forum that will be made to help with out the traffic that would be going on with all the games. There is almost plans on getting a clock system work out. As at these time controls that would be critical.
Thanks in advance for any feedback form Thibault de Vassal and any other FICGS player!
Jimmy
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-26 01:10:12)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
oh my apologies I thought it said lower rating not lower score. You'd be surprised some people are in favor of such crazy ideas.
Scott Nichols (2010-10-26 05:33:11)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I very much like the idea of giving more weight to Black, whether it is a win or draw. I agree it will make for fighting chess and possibly make White (or Black) try some different variations to go for the win.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-26 19:37:21)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
TDV- An open swiss would take just as long as a DE.
In regards to your comment about not understanding how this tournament will be run, are you asking about the concept of double elimination formats as a general idea, or you do understand about DE formats and are wanting more information about this tournament specifically?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-27 01:07:49)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Ooooook... just read this interesting article on double elimination "knockout":
http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/sonas010704.html
I must admit I did not hear about this one before, very interesting idea even if it looks quite unnatural (I mean not "beautiful") to me and longer than the usual knockout. Anyway IMO it is probably too long for a correspondence chess tournament.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-27 06:16:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Who is Eros? I don't care about names when it comes to strong chess. What I see is blood on board and fear in my opponent's eyes. May be with IDEA technology, I may have to think again :)
But, come what may, I am prepared
Oh forgot (baning my head again)
And also btw, to whom it is intended ............. :-o
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 11:40:25)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The tournament format has been decide. It will be a 2 game a round swiss tournament. Now my working on a pairing system as we spoke. I've been told by garvin gray that he is an official FIDE arbiter who has the latest programs to be used on swiss tournaments. I'll keep that in mind going forward. As everyone here has official rating. It will be my job to work something out with the other players on my forum who don't have ratings. This being a Swiss tournament with having a chance to play with both colors. I should be about to just do subjective pairings and be fine. I have a pretty good idea of were the players stand rating wise. I hope everyone is really for an competitive and enjoyable tournament!
Jimmy
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-31 13:27:35)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Your right Thib, there are going to be some risks in playing in this kind of tournament. I had to think about a lot of things. I would love to do a round robin system as this is probably the most flexible of all of them. By a majority was against it because there would just be to many games to play and not enough time to go around for all of them. I to have a lot of ideas to make a swiss system work. I believe with the input I have gotten back. That all the players that are playing are going to play and if they couldn't that wouldn't play. I know as well as you that in the end there really isn't one system that is 100% prefect. And you just have to make adjustments. Dadi Jonsson is working very hard to get the time system to work 100%. So yes the flag will be in. If not then such a tournament probably couldn't happen.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-11-02 10:33:17)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
14 days + 2 days / move is much longer than 30 days + 1 day / move. Maybe 20 days + 1 day / move, or 10 days + 1 day / move could be ok... 1 day increment is the strict min. 10 days initial clock is min as well IMO. So a game could last ~180 days at most = 6 months anyway !
Honestly, maybe you should give up the idea that everyone (eg. me) should be able to play, if you think that most players interested are ready to play a really fast corr. time control, maybe you should do it this way but IMO an increment less than 12 hours may lead to many losses on time.
Garvin Gray (2010-11-02 10:42:21)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
TDV- Honestly, maybe you should give up the idea that everyone (eg. me)
GG- Who is you? in the quote above?
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 10:50:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
I can always say you have a very honest opinion. I can bet even if you decide not to play. You will be watching with interest. I know players like Wayne Lowrance liked the idea of a little faster controls. Gino, Scott, and David Evans like to play a little bit faster controls. And they will make this a very strong tournament anyway. And yes the add one day per move looks to be the min. It will just be looking at the total time.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 15:37:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Your doing a good job Garvin, everyone thought your idea of ending the game at 6 man tablebase positions was great 100%. And you more or less suggested the 2 game a Round Swiss was taken very well to. Maybe I should let you be my TD lol. I think I can let you do my Pairings to if you want. My only question to you is what rating list would be the best to use? As far as the ratings of the Rybka Forum players I'll have to give you my ideal ratings for them.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-11-02 16:33:06)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Nice idea Garvin, (6 man). It means a lot of work for some one to check it. Not all players I think have very many six man, including me (about 30 of em). How would that workout ?
Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2010-11-02 22:18:30)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
yep, I am aware of both sites. That is not the problem as I see it.
Those sites are good if you have arrived at 6 man positions. The problem occurs far before that during analysis. Example player(a) in deep analysis with his hardware/programs determines that a 6 man tablebase will occur and player (b) with his hardware/program is unable to verify that and thus will object to 6 man ruling as He cannot verify it. Not much time will be saved I am afraid if the game continue until the current position is a 6 man position.
Of course a lot of communication can resolve it for player (b) but that is a big work load for someone. So I am very much in favor of the idea, but do not see clear solution to it.
Wayne
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-06 03:44:55)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Well Thib it looks like a lot of people like the idea of doing 30days + 1day per move. That may open the door for you to play if you wanted to.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-06 07:30:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
You make a good point about Christmas and even sometimes people do things on the New Year. I have to probably go with the January 14th idea. If only because I would like to give Dadi as much time as he needs to get the clock system to work. By I will leave a line on the Forum and see what people say. As for the give a week to get play to reply. I had already decide on that. I will be so much easily to do it that way. As to have to repair 2 or 3 times.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-07 22:53:20)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?
Good idea! So one more correspondence chess event to come...
Hi Sebi, I don't know Ruben's play enough that's right, but I guessed that his preparations for advanced (blitz) chess may be sort of trap for himself, corr. chess is really different. The point is IMO that for some reasons Wayne will play correspondence chess in this tournament while many others may play something between advanced chess and correspondence chess... Question of time also... But as Jimmy said, this would be a "slight" advantage after all, everything can happen and you have good chances too!
Kamesh Nookala (2010-12-10 18:41:26)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?
Like the heavyweight boxing championship, I throw a challenge to any of the former or current champs to play a game vs. me.....
Ehem Ehem,, sorry out of context... btw, all and any rules always make me sick, so i hate reading them :-p
Hmmmm, who is Eros? any idea?
Scott Nichols (2010-12-15 23:20:40)
Chess positions too complex for engines
Hi Thib. This is one of the main games I had in mind when I responded to your quote.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__BLITZ_SILVER__000019
Or Game #40749
After 50. ...Be2 Rybka could only think of lines keeping the King close to the g4 pawn. Try it yourself anybody, the engine just didn't get it. It was a blitz game, but even at that time control I could see that my black Bishop could guard against the pawn advance from afar. So the winning strategy was to march the King to the other side of the board and escort the a-pawn to the queening square. This idea obviously was far beyond the engines horizon. After that game, my respect for Rybka's endgame play went down considerably.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-18 12:17:25)
Go in a french movie : Le hérisson
Few days ago I watched a nice french movie "Le hérisson" (with Josiane Balasko & Togo Igawa) where the game of Go appears, with what it seems to be a real game (taken from where, I have no idea). Nice ad for the game :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-09 20:28:47)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Okay, after another long thinking on the different effects of the possible changes, I think that we should try in a first time the following (something between proposals 2 & 4 plus minor improvements):
"All 2150+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) will play M & N class groups at stage 1. The two players with the highest scores (or TER in case of equality) of the M group will qualify for the round-robin final, while the player with the lowest score (or TER in case of equality) will be eliminated, the others will qualify for stage 2. The winner of the N group will qualify for the round-robin final and at most half the players in the group will qualify for stage 2, the others will be eliminated.
Also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000."
Let's see the effects during the next cycle, if things are not ok we'll reconsider the idea to prevent the provisionals to enter the wch waiting list. I don't like complex rules but I like the idea of "progressive" rules. Any argument in another way is always welcome.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-30 21:07:31)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his win in the 4th FICGS chess WCH, and explained how one particular game influenced another one that he finally won:
- Hi Eros, first of all congratulations for your latest outstanding results at FICGS, you won the Freestyle tournament, now two chess championships in a row... When the privilege of the champion is to defend his title without playing the preliminary tournaments, you are involved in all championship cycles & a few regular tournaments, do you plan to avoid that anyone can even reach the championship final in the future? :-)
Thanks! I must admit that this is really a magic moment for me in chess... if you consider that despite my recent ICCF Grand Master Title, probably I will also soon win my third italian Correspondence Champion Title out of three participations in the Italian Final Tournaments. And now also this huge satisfaction of being the FICGS Champion! I look forward to seeing a new challenger soon, I wonder who he will be, but let me enjoy the next few months for now ;-)
- What are your impressions on the games? Did you have any strategy from the beginning to the end? Finally did it work or was there another factor? (without revealing your secrets, of course :))
The games in the opening were as I expected, all Najdorf Sicilians except one game where I played 1.d4. My goal was to win at least one game, so I tried different aggressive variations as White (6.Bg5, 6.f3, 6.Be3 and 6.h3) with the hope of catching Edward unprepared on at least one of these, but uff, he was very well prepared on each one of them! A curious thing is that my biggest chance of winning happened in a game where I had the Black pieces! So Edward had to take some risks in one of his games where he had Black (the games where he had White were already finished or all very drawish) he was forced to avoid an easy draw he had (the 6.h3 game) and eventually he lost that game. Happy of having reached my goal of winning at least one game, I accepted his draw offer in that other game (6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Be2) where I had good winning chances.
- You probably noticed, like many correspondence chess players, that the hardware still fastly improves while chess engines are continuously getting stronger, particularly since that "supposed" clones of Rybka (some may be even stronger than Rybka herself) appeared in the race. Do you think that the rate of draws will be so high soon that it may definitely kill correspondence chess? Do you have any opinion on these new engines?
I think that despite the big improvement of Hardwares and engines, we are still very far (and we will still be in the next 5 years, hopefully) from a situation where all the games will most probably end in a draw. So I think we can enjoy correspondence chess for many more years in the future, even if of course the Draw percentage at the highest levels will be higher and higher.
- I remember that you were surprised to win your match against Alberto in the Candidates Final of the 5th cycle (the reason why you do not even have to defend your title this time), the WCH rules (particularly the co-existence of the round-robin tournament & knockout tournament) are obviously not well understood by all players, what do you think about this system and the tie in 8 games matches? Are there changes you'd like to see in the future?
Yes, I really was! We were both convinced that with all draws, the higher rated player would have won (Alberto was higher rated than me in that match). Anyway it was our fault, as we didn't read the rules carefully. I am not sure what changes could be done in the future... maybe this is anyway the best setup, no new ideas are coming to my mind right now.
- Do you have a few more words for Edward after these nice games? Maybe also for your future opponents? :)
It was a real pleasure for me to play him, not only for the interesting games we played, but also for the friendly chats we had during the exchanges of the moves. I hope to play him again in the future for a rematch.
- Thanks for your answers and congratulations again!
Welcome, and thanks ;-)
_________
It is very interesting to see that a even a player like Eros prefered to minimize the risks (avoiding mouse drops or whatever) as much as possible by accepting a draw in a game where he had winning chances. Correspondence chess is definitely not all about chess, that's probably the lesson.
Also it is reassuring to read that correspondence chess is NOT dead yet, nor soon :)
George Clement (2011-02-05 17:03:13)
Segregation of Games on this Server
I think that is an excellent idea Kam. We'll have to see what Tibault thinks I guess.
Kamesh Nookala (2011-02-06 04:14:32)
Segregation of Games on this Server
Thib,
I will tell why i face the difficulty with my database. I have one single database, which is a collection of games from everywhere, be it Correspondence or be it games from playchess. Then, whenever i download games, i happen to merge them into my main single database. Everytime, i have to run a doubles check.
There is also a funny thing which i noticed. The game file for these games from FICGS is always chess.pgn. I have to create a new DB with crap name (remember: not identical to any name of the DB from which i earlier merged games to my single DB, reason is though the games are different, based on the import database name, the games will be marked doubles) and then merge them to the single DB. Again filtering applies. So, we can help you a bit with ideas to create a collection of games, as I hope everyone deletes the LINE games, which are still underway :)
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-12 04:18:32)
WBCCC Round 1 Update
This is the first update for the WBCCC, I guess some of you have been following some of the games there. There have been a lot of interesting games and some surprises a lot the way. As I'm reporting on the FICGS forum I will make most of this about the FICGS side. Here are some results so far and starting at the top boards.
B2 Uly(Vytron) vs Gino Figlio- Gino does a good job of defending a ..2.e6 line of the Sicilian. And both players agree to a draw after 34 moves.
B4 Daniel Parmet vs Sebastian Boehme- This was a Poison Pawn line of the Sicilian. The game ended before it even got out of book. A short draw, I think both people agreed that it was a good result for each player.
B6- Matt O'Brein vs Omprakash- A surprise if only for how short the game was. Matt shows his tactual muscles when his higher rated opponent much of had and oversight in this defense. As 23.g6! h6 24.Bxh6! and it looks like black has burned his bridges in this game.
B8-Stephanie vs Ruben Comes- This maybe the biggest surprise in round at least in terms of the bigger name on the FICGS side. Stephanie what looks to be a prefect opening all of the B90 lines and everyone agrees 32.Bc3! to be a new novelty and a very good one at that. Stephanie went on to grind Ruben down to a lost endgame. I very interesting game that has be to be seen to believe, I guess this going to show, that not all B90 lines lend to draws.
B13-Scott Nichols vs indrajit_sg- This was a long fought draw. When looking at the game early I thought white may have some chance to take advantage of his open g-file. But not a lot materialize later in the endgame(form the engines point of view).
B14-donkasand vs David Evans- David enter into dangerous territory with this B90 line. At move 19 he played ..Rb8 which looks to be a move to get out of book, because the other moves didn't look so good. Credit to David for finding a draw line in this game. Its another game with a look.
Kamesh Nookala vs Jimmy Huggins- What can I say I played an experimental opening and it backfired :) A well played game by Kamesh. Thanks for the chance to have a good fight with you.
Now on the 2nd set of games(Each player has 2 games in each round)
B3 Ramil Germanes vs Moz- Ramil here played a safe line in the B90 form the white side. So this looked like and easy draw.
B4 Sebastian Boehme vs Uly(Vytron)- Vytron plays and interesting side line of the Crao-Kann and play was very shape, but I got the feeling black played to ambitiously and had the worse of the position. He found a good defensive sacrifice and the good was hold to a draw. I think Sebi had winning chances, but I will have to look over the game to come up with an idea on that one. Anyway a great game to look over.
Ruben Comes vs Matthew O'Berin- Maybe the sharpest and most ambitious game in round 1. This goes in the the B97 lines, but Ruben goes for the Qf3 side line and produces a complex position after Rd3. I love this game so much I want to post the link again for everyone to please watch this game and post a comment about it.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20213
B13 Fulcrum2000 vs Scott Nichols- Scott tries his luck to be ambitious and backfires with his Bh4 idea. Even when looking at the game. I was thinking it to be a good idea, but as it turns out. It goes as just losing a tempo. I thought this was one of the more instructive games of the round. I liked the way white played the endgame.
And the last result I have for the round for the FICGS players is
B17-indrajit_sg vs Kamesh Nookala- This was an interesting draw were white plays and early sideline in the Sicilian that tends to be drawish unless black forces the play. Another well played game by both sides.
I just want to say there are a lot of games one should look at. As more results come in on the FICGS side I will posted. In my opinion one should follow Wayne's games I have enjoyed his play so far. He had to comeback some in his wild game with black vs deka, but I get the feeling this game will ended in a draw. I would also follow the underrated Matt O'Berin in games to come. He has proven to be a great player so far.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-17 02:10:17)
request again tour
Looks like a very interesting idea!
Any other takers for such hard style tournaments? :)
Scott Nichols (2011-02-17 16:00:54)
request again tour
Just another quick thought. The guys at ChessPlanet did a great job in very little time to make the WBCCC the success it is.
But FICGS IMHO is simply the best interface on the web. Throughout the years Thib has make little tweeks and improvements to make it what it is today. So I see other places and ideas and think, how nice it would be to use those ideas on FICGS.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-17 16:46:15)
Silver chess games, W/B balance
Just an idea... as the Epoints balance for White and Black may be not fair enough (as a reminder the current rule for e.g. bullet/lightning/blitz is: "1 game match (regular) - In case of a draw, the prize is divided, however player Black will fully get back his E-Points whereas player White will get the rest."), what would be a better system according to you?
On the basis of 19.8 Epoints at the end of the game, maybe we could try:
If result is 1-0, W+ 19.0 / B+ 0.8
If result is 1/2-1/2, W+ 9 / B+ 10.8
If result is 0-1, W+ 0 / B+ 19.8
or...
If result is 1-0, W+ 18.0 / B+ 1.8
If result is 1/2-1/2, W+ 8 / B+ 11.8
If result is 0-1, W+ 0 / B+ 19.8
Any idea?
Scott Nichols (2011-02-17 19:18:19)
Friends, let's revolutionaize FICGS!!!!
FICGS has a warmth like home base. Lots of friends who are easy to talk to, and so many things to do! Eros is a GM at ICCF, but he still hangs here and plays many tours.
Getting the word out is key I think. Kam's idea is a good way to start.
Daniel Parmet (2011-02-17 20:10:42)
Friends, let's revolutionaize FICGS!!!!
I think this is a great idea. I would love to play some of these matches too despite my weaker strength. Let me know how I can help. I love FICGS!
Daniel Parmet (2011-02-17 20:13:16)
request again tour
I think increment of 8 hours is a good idea. I find on average I lose 8 hours in my WBCCC game just cause of time difference. He moves literally 5minutes after I go to sleep.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-17 20:26:59)
Silver chess games, W/B balance
the idea is good but unfortunately it is not so easy & it would change too many things... the result is the same anyway.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-23 18:31:34)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I hope there will be as few changes as possible. The "history" of the championships will be clearer this way.
I still have no idea of a better & clearer system for provisionally rated players but all ideas are welcome...
Garvin Gray (2011-02-25 00:55:15)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I really would like to see the idea of those who are provisionally rated playing in groups by themselves, while everyone is seeded normally.
There should only be two or three groups of provisionally rated players, especially if they are seeded in groups of 9 players.
A second possibility= remove the exemption for players around 2300 so that they have to qualify just like everyone else.
This might even reduce the number of stages by 1, shortening the whole cycle.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-26 22:44:09)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Okay, I'm really thinking about a solution but right now I'm not completely satisfied with this option of having these groups of provisionnaly rated players. I really think that it just moves & postpons the problem while losing some advantages, by the way many established ratings are still underestimated...
I would like to try to explain again my whole point of view on the current wch rules. The way I've been thinking this championship is purely statistical, the idea was to find the best chances to see ALL the best players in the final rounds about each 2 years. It worked quite well so far IMO, actually my main regret is not to be able to extend the knockout tournament of 1 round (we would have 16 players instead of 8), that's why it is not possible anyway to have less than 5 rounds for the whole cycle. Each one is 30 to 40 months long, it could be worse. So the whole cycle's aim is not only to find the best player of the cycle but to give chances enough as quickly as possible to the new underrated players for the next cycles!
On this point, I'm quite glad to see players like Wayne who made it the very hard way, starting from ELO 1400 (!) to reach 2540 in about 3 years only. The WCH cycle helped many other players to find their place quite quickly in the rating list, also over 2400, and I have no doubt that the best players of the round-robin cycle play the round-robin final. Usually none of these new underrated players play the RR final, they have less chances than 2200 ones to play the 2nd round because of the TER rule but they win some elo points during the 1st round. That is fair IMO, some logical improvements now protect the ratings of 2200-2300 players but I agree that it is still hard to cross certain rating ranges because ratings do not inflate the same way than advanced chess, Go or poker ones.
In summary, let's say that it is unfair that 2200 players play 1 or 2 underrated players + one player rated about 2000 who may be worth 2100 or 2200, 2300 & more... He will probably lose some rating points during round 1. However he has more chances to reach round 2 with few chances to win but more chances to get some/many elo points back.
I do not say that there is no "problem" with the current WCH rules set (there will always be border effects, whatever the rules) but my point is that I'm not sure that any change that will have heavy consequences will have good effects enough.
Finally, if the most is favourable to such a change, it looks more logical to me to forbid the provisionnaly rated players to enter the wch waiting list. By the way we will have less forfeits during round 1, so the quality of the results may be improved. What do you think?
Garvin Gray (2011-02-27 02:47:16)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Thib, I have explained my point of view quite a few times and when you reply you keep either accidently mis-interpreting it, or are doing it deliberately.
I suspect there might be a language issue between English as a first language and French as a first language.
My issue is with the first stage groups, to which most of the players are allocated.
In none of my previous posts have I mentioned UNDERRATED players ie those who have established ratings on here, but most likely their true playing standard is higher than their rating.
I will try and explain my position again and I now see I am not alone in having this opinion.
With 15 or so groups in the first stage and having some players provisionally rated at 1800, this means those '1800' are seeded in the different groups at player number 3 or 4.
But a few of the '1800's' turn out to be quite stronger than that rating, meaning the genuine rated 2100's in that group get another person who can play to their level, whereas in another group which did not have an '1800er', the group that did not have the provisional 1800 gets a statistical advantage by having one less stronger player to qualify for round two.
Now to the argument that putting the provisionals in groups by themselves only delays the problem.
If there are only one or two provisional groups, then this means that only one or two provisionals make it through to round two.
While this idea makes those groups of questionable standard, it is extremely likely that whoever comes out of the provi groups is going to be of decent standard.
Garvin Gray (2011-02-27 09:28:07)
Plea for classical rating help
I do not have a solution for what I am about to whinge about, but it is a situation I am getting a little tired of on this site and I see the situation as rather terminal to my participation here.
For the last 12 rating periods, I have had a rating between 2100 and 2200. In the one tournament where I got to play a field with consistent 2200's, I scored 50% or better.
What I am noticing more and more is that for me it is impossible to get opportunities to find out what my true standard is on here.
I am continually having to play people rated around myself or below and these includes those who are provisionally rated 1800 or 2100. When these games are drawn or lost, my rating is dragged down quite a bit.
I do not ever get the opportunity get those points back by playing people above 2200.
It is an issue that I am so sick of and I feel that my progress is being stunted because of it. My rating progress is certainly being stunted.
We do have the higher ticket idea, but that still takes six months to win one and that does NOT help a persons rating all that much.
With the WCH cycle as it is, I also do not have an opportunity to qualify straight through to group 2, like those with higher ratings do.
As I said, this is a bit of a whinge, but I really am sick of this issue and would like some more opportunities to try and find out what I am like against higher rated opponents.
It is part of the reason why I have also asked that the top rateds in the WCH are not segregated from the lower rated as they are atm. I think they should be made to start from stage 1.
Only the defending champion and possibly the defeated previous finalist should receive preferential treatment.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-27 21:20:59)
Plea for classical rating help
I don't know if only the defending champion and/or finalist "should" have any treatment after all... That's the whole debate of the FIDE WCH and I wanted to make it quite the opposite way.
On the opportunities for 2100-2200 players to cross the 2200 barrier, your last 4 ratings were 2160, 2157, 2160 & 2135. The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150. I'm not trying to sell anything there but it is an option that is dedicated to help in such cases.
On the WCH cycle, maybe another idea would be to "extend" the M Groups idea to the 2200-2300 players. With 2200 to ~2400 players in these groups, there will be more strong players in Stage 2... I'm not sure about the whole consequences but it may be worth a try, what do you think?
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-28 04:38:07)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Thib I feel for you :) Making a good tournament format is very hard. I know I pulled teeth to try and make my format. I had to do two things for my. 1.Make few games as possible and 2.Make it a reasonable time table for a blitz world championship. I believe Garvin did a great job with this in the parings. Lucky we didn't have a lot of unrated players. So Thib I would like to help, but can I ask a favor to you. Is it possible to get a breakdown of the ratings of the players for the last Wch? I think this would be helpful to maybe coming up with a solution. So maybe like..
What was the number of.
2300's+
2200's
2100's
2000's
1900's
1800's
below 1800's
provisional's
I know this maybe some work, but this breakdown can give us a picture of what you have. Personally speaking I think Garvin's idea is decent. Were you can put the highest advance provisional player in the lower stage round 2 bracket and the same for the lowest provisional player to go to the higher round 2 bracket, by performance of stage 1. I guess when you talk about statistical merits for your Wch tournament. You are trying to get the lowest error rate, but get the best value to it.
Daniel Parmet (2011-02-28 23:29:13)
Plea for classical rating help
I feel I have the same problem as Garvin. But it does not bother me as much as I consider playing otb the real place for improvement. I just use corr as a chance to test my otb ideas. However, I still try to seek out the strongest players I am allowed to play. The restrictions I have found in most correspondence sites though is that I am not allowed to play the stronger players. The 2150 rule does not help me as I am at a mere 2100.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-01 11:17:27)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
The idea of this championship was to have a tournament looking like the old classical FIDE WCH, so it would be a non-sense to me to make such changes (the chess world will always be divided into 2 categories on this point :)), I'm not opposed to create something like a Cup tournament (the Freestyle tournament is one example) but it would be probably too much already for the addicted players that we are, so the WBCCC is a good alternative.
Glad to see that Daniel agrees on the 2000 prov. rating, does anyone have any opinion on the suggestions I made just after "@Garvin:" in my previous post?
Garvin Gray (2011-03-05 11:48:40)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I do not think the proposed idea of TDV solves anything at all. Instead all it does is move the issue from the 2100's to the 2000's.
I am not in favour of this idea that a rating is dependant on whether a person declares if they are using a chess engine or not. What happens if they do not declare, then start using one? Are they kicked out of the tournament? How do you prove the issue?
I think that solution creates more issues than it solves.
More and more I am in favour of the idea from a couple of others than players need to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH.
Garvin Gray (2011-03-05 11:51:24)
Plea for classical rating help
Been thinking about this issue a bit more.
I think the only solution is that more tournaments are specially run where players from the different rating bands meet more often.
So there should be a couple of more tournaments where there are no special divisions where the top players are put together against each other, rather than having to fight it out from round one with the rest of the riff raff.
This idea seems great, but the old question comes up, it only works for the intended purpose if players from the top end of the rating list actually participate.
Would they? I am sceptical.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-05 13:43:30)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
There is no similar issue for 2000's IMHO, it is probably easier to cross the 2000-2100 barrier than the 2100-2200 and of course 2200-2300. And once again they would lose much less rating points against these new 2000 provisionally rated players (that's mathematical).
On provisional ratings depending on if players declare if an engine is used, even ICCF (as far as I know) grants a 2000 prov. rating to some players, I was not convinced so far but finally... Of course new players can "lie" or change their mind on using an engine, they'll not be kicked out of any tournament but such a rule is surely better than nothing to get ratings more coherent, btw it is just an improvement of the current rule (new players who have no rating anywhere can choose their first rating between 1200 & 1800, and of course I fix it if e.g. the player declares to play with an engine with a new rating of 1200).
Anyway the idea of players needing to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH is also fine to me. Let's just try to have more opinions on this.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-07 21:45:17)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Well, I see that the idea of "equal chances for everyone" is still in the debate, that's quite strange as I thought it was obvious & accepted that such a thing cannot exist in correspondence chess.
No correspondence chess championship format can give equal chances to everyone because there is no time for this, and to try to do it only gives less chances to the best player to win it.
The way IECG & ICCF do it has probably as many advantages & inconvenients as we do it at FICGS but at the end the efficiency is quite similar to find as accurately as possible the best player among the highest rated ones IMO & everyone have NOT equal chances (either you have to play a few rounds more or there is a TER rule or whatever).
I'm not saying that one format is better than others, some will like the FICGS format, some will prefer other formats, that's all IMO. Do not think that the WBCCC format solves all problems, it tries to avoid the time problem but the number of players is very limited in the running edition.
Finally, why to play another ICCF/IECG championship here?
I think that there is no argument that can justify that all players (including the 8 players of the knockout after all) should play in regular groups, as well as no argument can justify the opposite. It was just a choice to make it different and somewhat looking like the old FIDE championship.
That's why choices 2) & 4) are really best to me. 2) may be better because the range 2100-2400~ may be too large for M groups, but another solution may be to build M (2250-2400)& N (2100-2250) groups like it was done in one WCH cycle, where the number of qualified players were different. Actually the idea of class groups with different numbers of qualified players is really interesting but of course, the chances are not the same for everyone once again.
Whatever the choice, surely it will not be ok for some players for any reason, but I'm now quite sure that a change should be done.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-15 14:08:19)
ChessVibes openings (get 10 issues free)
For correspondence chess fans who like to follow the openings theory, I just received an interesting offer from ChessVibes that I copy/paste here:
__________
Dear correspondence chess lovers,
First, we'd like to thank the administrator of this forum for giving us the opportunity to showcase our product which is especially interesting for this audience, we think. So, here we go:
Subscribe to ChessVibes Openings and get ten issues for free!
Which openings are hot in top level chess? Which are not? Receive the latest opening novelties right in your mailbox with ChessVibes Openings, a weekly PDF magazine (+ PGN!) covering the latest openings news, co-authored by International Masters Merijn van Delft and Robert Ris and published by ChessVibes since January 2009. If you subscribe and mention 'ficgs' in an email to us, you'll receive the last ten issues for free!
What is it?
Every issue consists of a PDF Magazine and the accompanying PGN file. The PDF consists of four pages (A4 size) with the following contents:
- What’s hot? A round-up of this week’s important opening developments, with statistics about the frequence and score of the week’s most important opening novelty (page 1)
- What’s not? Which openings are not recommended at the moment, according to the top players? And why not? (page 1)
Game of the week Each week you’ll find the theoretically most important game analysed by our two IMs, with a detailed survey of the opening phase (page 2).
- This week’s harvest Four more new important opening ideas from this week (page 3) revealed and described with explanation of the opening and early middlegame (page 3).
- It’s Your Move An interactive element: every week two exercises, of which the solutions/explanations will follow one week later. This will improve your understanding of certain opening, middlegame or even endgame themes even further.
Which opening variations have been discussed so far?
You can download an index in PDF here.
http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/cvo/CVO_index_114.pdf
More info & subscribe: You can find more information about ChessVibes Openings, and subscribe, at:
http://www.chessvibes.com/openings/
By subscribing you would join several GMs and IMs, who have responded very positively to our relatively new chess magazine!
Best regards,
Peter Doggers
Editor-in-chief,
ChessVibes
P.S.
If you subscribe and mention 'ficgs' in an email to us at info {at} chessvibes.com, you'll receive the last ten issues for free!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-24 15:36:57)
5th Go WCH, analysis by SC. von Erichsen
Svante Carl von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion... for the 5th time! After his win in the match that opposed him to Olivier Drouot, here are his analysis on the games:
_______________________
- Congratulations for this 5th win in the FICGS Go championship! By seeing the score you give less and less chances to your opponents who seem stronger each time though... Several games may look quite mysterious to weaker players. What happened during these games?
- Svante Carl von Erichsen:
Hi!
I do not have the impression that my opponents have less and less
chances. I also make many mistakes, and was in a clearly bad position
in at least one game. Olivier made many very unusual moves in the
opening, which were difficult to handle in a calm manner.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47578
In game 3 (47578), this is apparent at move 18. White has gone for a
very centre-oriented game, while Black has made more direct profit.
It is difficult to say who got the better deal. Move 18 itself is
very unusual, and I am not sure whether the result was satisfactory
for me. I think that moves 41 and 43 were important, as stabilizing
the group in the centre takes priority when the centre is dominated by
White like this. At move 53, it is clear that Black needs to stabilize
the top group, but D18 seems more important in retrospect. Move 62 is
a bit odd---I think that living with S16 instead would be better. I
think that Black got a territorial advantage here. Since White got
additional central strength, Black turned to make his central group
safe again, which should be enough to win now. White 94 tries to
shake up things again, but getting separated on the lower side makes
it very hard for him.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47580
In game 5 (47580), Olivier chose a very unusual move again at move 8.
I think that the outcome until move 17 favours Black, however. At
move 36, it looks like Black will have to live in the corner, but the
white enclosure does have its holes. Alas, White's response to the
forcing move at P10 was a severe blunder, as Black can take back the
right side. Move 55 was big, but I had not anticipated that the fight
after move 56 would be so hard for me. I think that after move 93,
White put too much emphasis on hollowing out what once seemed like
prospective black territory. The ponnuki in the centre was worth much
more than what White made on the second line. With that strength,
reducing the white framework on the left was no question. I think
that White then tried too hard in the centre.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47576
Game 1 (47576) was characterized by a big fight starting from the
joseki in the lower right corner. I guess that a stronger player
could point out several mistakes by both sides. It resulted in a big
exchange, where quite some aji remained in both positions. Move 90 is
an unusual idea, it would be more normal to extend on the side. 91
and 95 were intended as forcing moves to give some support to the top
side. I think that Black has good prospects after move 99 and
especially after 113. White started an interesting invasion on the
left then, which was however stopped by the blunder at 138.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47579
Game 4 (47579) again featured some unusual moves in the opening,
namely moves 7 and 9. I think that immediately plunging through at 10
was not good. It was quite difficult for me to keep territorial
balance afterwards. I think that my invasion at the top was
premature, but it seemed like I could not keep up without it. The
attack at L13 was severe. I got lucky that Black kept back a bit, so
that I could get the cut at E7, which was more important than the six
stones around N13. It would have been possible to save them at move
98, but at the cost of letting Black break through L10. Sacrificing
them allowed me to cement the centre to put me comfortably ahead. L9
was then the start of a desperate attempt to reduce the centre. I was
quite sure that I could capture it, even though simply connecting
would most likely have been enough. I then made a big blunder again
with move 130 (I had to double hane), allowing a game-deciding ko.
Black had a lot of threats against the lower right corner, and I think
that this exchange would have put him ahead. However, he thought he
had an internal threat at D10, which I think was not one, as there was
no additional eye in the centre yet.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47577
In game 2 (47577), he got me in the opening with another of his
experiments (move 7). I think that I could have been satisfied if I
simply played the keima to P2 at move 14. However, I activated the
central stone instead, which led to Black getting solid positions on
both sides, while I lived small in the corner and struggled in the
centre. I then succeeded in making him overconcentrated on the lower
side, but at the expense of a quite large corner and not making many
points myself. Move 80 tries to stir things up more. I think that if
Black had secured O13 with move 97, the game would have been over.
However, things only began to look good for White after move 127,
which had to be played at R8 (it is sente against the middle group
then, so Black can live with S5). It is still not over, however, as
White has two weak groups to take care of. The lower side group can
live locally with a ko at G1, but the other group has to struggle---it
would be nice to find a clean sacrifice plan here, because it is hard
for the two groups not to compete for eye space. This was the last
game to end, and my opponent seems to have chosen to resign all when
he did not see a way to win the overall match anymore.
All in all, these were very interesting games where I think I learnt a
lot. I wish to thank my opponent, who played very well.
Thanks!
Svante
William Taylor (2011-04-01 20:19:14)
FICGS Birthday?
Good idea Don. Looks like my first games started on Christmas day '06.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-03 01:53:04)
FICGS Birthday?
Ah! You challenge me Sebi :) I was not even able to find an april fool joke good enough this time... but I'll try! A special tournament wouldn't be a good idea right now though :/
Don, I can do this! Cheers at 00:00 April 5th!
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-29 11:23:50)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
Hello everyone! Its been a while since the last time I have updated. I would like to talk about recent happening. Then I will give an update on the games for this round.
I have had some talks with a few players. And I would like to announce that starting next year there will be more prizes. Besides the money prize next year. I haven't decide yet how many of these I will have yet. And its possible there could be more ideas to come by. Please also know that there will be money prizes still this is just something on also to add to the interests.
1.Subscriptions to annotated games. For example Chess Today, Chessvibes, chesspublishing.com and Opening Master. There can be others, these are just examples. If you have other good ideas here please post. Most likely this will be a combined prize here.
2.Rental time on the new Rybka Cluster- Not sure how exactly this one would work. It could be a lot different in a years time for the Rybka Cluster. But I think this would have some interests.
3.Hardware- Again not sure how I would do this. But I would probably have it as a middle to high end setup for a prize. Hardware is always a every changing process its hard to know what is good at that time.
Any other suggests are welcome. Probably the best realistic prize is the first one. If I have multiple prizes like this. The way it would probably play out is like a lottery system. Start with the winner and work your way down. On what they want and go 2nd, 3rd etc...
The last prize to talk about.(And maybe the best) I have had talks with the people of chesspublishing.com and next year. Whatever game is voted for "best game of the round". Will have there game analyzed, by one of the titled players on that site and have the game published. I will try and have it open to everyone that follows the games for the WBCCC.
The next thing of interest for next year. Is that we will have a conditional move system in place. It was thought in a blitz setting to be a great asset to have. For example if your opponent is in a different time zone than you and the next move to you would be a force move. It would be nice to have this option to make the forced play. Without having to say up late at night to make this obvious move. This is all the new stuff. Round 2 Update to come.
Paul Valle (2011-05-03 23:40:03)
Starting Rating
First of all: This is a great site, and love the fact that the Thib interacts with users to improve the site. Many decent chess sites out there, but this is rare.
When it comes to starting ratings, I would like to add some ideas for improvement:
The point of ratings is that they should reflect playing strength.
Likewise, the goal with starting ratings is that it should reflect actual playing strength.
Rules for both should be as equal and fair as possible.
Assumption:
I) the composition of «Active Players» and their ratings here on FICGS, are a valuable source in guesstimating a new players rating. Most players here play aided by an engine and the site is free, so players here should reflect what comes in the door.
(BTW My minimum definition of an «Active Player», is someone who has made at least one move in the period leading up to the official rating list.)
II) Lightning rating is a good estimate of Correspondence Rating.
I further believe that any choices or complications made to the FIDE rules of one starting rating fits all, should mostly be done to aid good Advanced Chess Players, and good OTB-players. Such complications might not be fair, but essential for FICGS to be relevant to the elite.
My proposal:
«Newly Regs» have a choice of THREE options upon starting to play correspondence CHESS on FICGS:
A) Start with a set rating. I would suggest this be set at the average or median off all Active players. Or a fixed numerical constant times this average. You could of course set up all kinds of formulas, but the main point in should reflect the current composition of FICGS members and not estimates based on unverifiable data given by the player.
Some players might feel that they are way better than this and might be discouraged to join and fight for a long time to reach the top tournaments they feel they are entitiled to play. The seccond option is created to encourage these players to join, and give them a choice to prove their skill relativly quickly and accurately.
B) Play 10 preliminary lightning games (starting with the same rating as in A), and then using the end lightning rating as the starting rating for normal tournaments. These players will get a much more accurate starting rating, and may be well motivated to put in the effort if they care. (If all the 10 games went close to 60 moves, and both players used all their time, the playing time would be around 16 hours)
Then there are the top international correspondence or Over-The-Board players. Why bother these with 10 lightning games?
C) Titled players can start in Master with a higher fixed rating (same as in option A, but multiplied with a higher constant), but must register by credit card to prove identity.
Possible drawbacks and problems
1) Assumption I and/or II is flawed
2) A poor player might be highly overrated choosing option A)
3) Players can dump lightning rating points to a friend
4) Implementation cost – development
-What ya think folks?
reg, Paul
Thibault de Vassal (2011-05-10 12:09:36)
Big Chess championships 1 & 2
Hello all,
Finally the 2nd Big Chess championship started, with 3 players who should replace forfeiting players within 15 days. You still can enter the waiting list for replacements. Sorry for this month late :/
The final tournament of the 1st championship started as well... There was kind of a dilemma as I'm not comfortable with the idea of inviting myself to complete a tournament, but best was IMO to follow the current rules (tournaments of at least 7 players) so I had to invite 2 players. For the 2nd one, with 4 groups only I'll have to invite 3 players (most probably 2 players with 5 points out of 6 and the highest Big Chess rating when the tournament starts).
Thibault de Vassal (2011-05-10 12:38:23)
Active rating lists
Hi guys, sorry for the delay for this one... :/
@Don : it may take a while, but I don't feel it's so hard for a good poker player... but it's kind of hard to say anyway.
@Paul : thanks for such a post with many ideas & questions! this issue is really complex of course but I made some observations during these years and my conclusions were:
- in average, self-estimated ratings are best. during the first years all players with no FIDE/IECG/ICCF ratings started at 1400 or 1700 and it quite distorted the list as many strong centaurs started from the bottom. your idea makes sense but it looks more "esthetic" for a centaur with no official rating to start with a 1900 or 2000 rating than e.g. 1937 :/
- your idea of 10 lightning games is very interesting! but not many players are involved in these games (I guess because of the time they spend on corr. games) and not many would accept to play unrated or low-rated players. I'll think about that though...
- about option C, there were early general forfeits by players FIDE rated over 2200, that's a pity and it distorted (not so much) a few ratings temporarily [actually it also helps to maintain a small inflation of ratings, which is logical] but in the other hand FIDE/ICCF ratings given as provisional ratings help to build a rating list with ratings that "tell" something... such choices are not obvious, obviously :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-05-20 13:38:04)
E point encouragement
That's another good idea made in Gray's industries :)
Okay, I'll do something like this!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-05-24 02:41:34)
E point encouragement
Actually that's the case for a while :) .. And that's the aim... I hope to offer more and more prizes (Epoints or Money) in the future, even if it is quite slow for the moment. So I think that Garvin's idea is compatible with the current rules (by the way I offered many times up to 25% Epoints more when buying some)
Sebastian Boehme (2011-06-08 02:45:02)
Improving visibility of draw offers
Hi guys,
have posted it in chat and thought I give it another shot here in forum too.
Sometimes players can maybe not see the draw offer, due to stress, playing the move quickly...
I know there is the little message box, like a letter below the game board that says "Draw has been offered".
But maybe there can be an improvement,i.e. a sort of colour....have seen it from other chess sites and there for example a red button
above the board has been implemented.
Or maybe some sort of red frame around the board in design could work it out. So in case of draw offerit gets visible.
I do not want to say players are too stupid to see a draw offer or anything like this, but maybe see it as a simplification for your eyes.
Just a wild idea, looking for comments, or not. ;)
Cheers,
Sebastian
Thibault de Vassal (2011-06-17 20:48:51)
Unable to login for several days?
I would be surprised (even if everything can happen with IE :)), as Gino says it is probably ISP related but why.... !? I have no idea yet.
Don Groves (2011-07-13 08:36:20)
Shogi in ficgs?
I will second that idea.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-13 23:27:51)
Shogi in ficgs?
Sure, all players are invited to give their opinion on this point, I'm not really convinced by the idea for the same old reasons (too many similar games kill the games) but I'm always able to change my mind :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-23 01:45:13)
No more draws (over the board)
An interesting idea by Rustam Kasimdzhanov to avoid draws in classical chess tournaments...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7387
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-10 03:42:40)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
I have been pretty busy lately, and have been thinking about a lot of different things chess related. Some of you know that I have talked about and planed for a freestyle chess tournament in the near future. Here is a few notes for it and I would like to pass on some ideas and get some opinions. I can safely say that we can have a freestyle event between Nov-Dec and the 2nd part of it is that it won't be around Christmas. Oh ok here is what I would like to get an opinion on. 2 questions
1) What tournament timeline sounds better? (a) A Saturday-Sunday tournament or (b) Saturday-Next Saturday. I would say that 5 or 6 rounds is what we would go with. That should be plenty for a 20-30 person first tournament. That is what I'm predicting I don't know for sure.
2nd Question- What is a reason time control?
Oh ok the leading time control idea for me is 60min+30sec per move. Anyone see a problem with this one? I like this because its not a huge time spent and there is still room for the human element in the freestyle game.
All comments are welcome thanks for any input! :)
Jimmy
Scott Nichols (2011-08-10 03:51:08)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
#1. I vote for (b)
#2. (60 min+30sec) I would vote for.
#3. (my suggestion) NO anonymous players.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-10 04:02:33)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Thanks Scott, I didn't really throw all a lot of ideas for time controls. I'm open to hear other ideas.
Of course No anonymous players.
Garvin Gray (2011-08-10 04:25:32)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
I vote for no anonymous players. Can I vote early and often on that one? :)
The time control needs to be long enough to make it a real centaur battle. Quite a few freestyles have been held where the time control has been short and it is just humans mainly putting in engine moves.
I think 60 mins plus 30 secs is fine, but would prefer 90 mins plus 30 secs.
If we did 60 plus 30, then running it over three days with 3 rounds per day would be better, in my opinion.
The biggest and number one issue is starting time.
Don Groves (2011-08-10 04:47:14)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Yes, how do you handle all FICGS time zones?
Alvin Alcala (2011-08-10 05:23:24)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
60min+30sec per move is reasonable for me and two rounds per day. The time schedule will be critical as you know all of us are in different time zones.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-08-10 11:00:24)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Round 1 in the latest freestyle cup started at 1pm server time. Looked not so bad...
With 60 mins plus 30 secs, a few players will spend the whole night or almost but I agree this is best for freestyle.
Alvin Alcala (2011-08-10 11:30:23)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
In free style cup section why not make an option of a freestyle tour so anyone online can immediately arrange a tour with entry fee of say 10 e-points or even bronze. Then the format would be minimum 2 players or even number of players. Money prizes will be broken down accordingly. I loved to play advance chess a lot but it will be more exciting if you will play more people.
Garvin Gray (2011-08-10 11:40:07)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Alvin, this is going to be hard enough to organise with only one concept and a few straight forward ideas to sort out.
It will not help if we start talking about a whole lot of different formats and other ideas.
I just do not want to see this thread branching off into tangets and variations and the few ideas that Jimmy has raised not being discussed much.
Alvin Alcala (2011-08-10 14:30:59)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Correct. sorry for the off-topic.
Gino Figlio (2011-08-10 22:33:36)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
If it will be a 2-day event why not play the second day +12 hours start time compared to the first day?
This way players on different time zones may not have to wake up too early or stay up too late both days.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-11 00:10:16)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
@Gino- That sounds like a decent idea. I kind of liked the thought of playing on back to back Saturdays. Maybe I'm wrong, I find it easier sometimes to give a few hours on one weekend day than to do it on a Saturday and Sunday. Of course if we agreed to Sat-Sun I could do it as well.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-11 00:17:07)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Here is around idea that could help some. Would anyone be in favor of closing the entry a week or so before the event to know what the 1st round pairings are and possibly give a little time to prepare for an opponent.
This has the advantage for the organizers to get everything ready. I know we will have something to discuss, before the event starts.
Garvin Gray (2011-08-12 16:22:08)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
I think if you are going to close entries early and post pairings for round one, then there will need to be a decent entry fee.
If entry is free and pairings are posted early, it is extremely likely that one or more people will pull out through dis-interest, when in all likelihood they were not that interested in the first place and as soon as the pairings are posted, they realise the full magnitude of having entered the competition.
While an entry fee will reduce the total number of entries, it will certainly make your life easier in actually running the competition.
Another idea is to introduce a bond system. Everyone pays a set amount up front and then those who have played all rounds get their money back. Those who do not complete the competition for any reason do not get their money back.
Especially relevant with more than one night competitions.
Thinking more about time zones, for what I favour depends on number of days and number of rounds.
If just two days, then I favour Saturday/Saturday. If more than two days, I favour Friday/Saturday/Saturday.
Alvin Alcala (2011-08-13 11:11:47)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Also can we have a voting for the timing? We can make a survey of the best timing possible.
David Evans (2011-08-13 15:12:03)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
I hate to play fridays hated the last freestyle that played fridays as i work it becomes a pain.
If played on a friday i would not enter simple really good luck with this....................
Garvin Gray (2011-08-13 18:07:21)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
With so many competing interests and ideas, I think the best idea is for Jimmy to just set the format, time control and all other conditions way in advance and then let all players decide if they want to play.
If then quite a few players start flagging the same issue for non-participation, then that issue alone could be looked at.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-13 23:38:58)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Oh ok if I had to swing in right now. It would be a Sat-->Sat event. 5 or 6 rounds depending on how many want to play. The time control at the moment would be 60+30sec. It seemed to work for FICGS freestyle cup. I guess the question is how many hours are we willing to go for a day.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-13 23:41:04)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
I guess the only real difference at the moment form my tournament to the FICGS freestyle cup is doing it on 2 Saturdays instead of Saturday and Sunday. I feel like this is a slight benefit that most seem to agree with.
Garvin Gray (2011-08-14 03:11:54)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
6 rounds for me, more the better. Feel free to have three Saturdays for nine rounds if you wish :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-08-19 11:43:45)
Rybka banned from ICGA
Clone or not clone, I'm not sure if this question is worth something in computer chess but ICGA did it: Rybka was banned and stripped of titles...
I just partly read RybkaInvestigation document, a few points are particularly ridiculous (like 2.2 "Sudden Strength Increase"), I have no idea on the other ones and I'm not sure if this is really important in the real world.
Finally, the punishment:
- to strip Rajlich of all ICGA Tournament Titles and,
- force the return of trophies and prize funds to the ICGA and,
- ban his programs from future competitions until he can satisfy the ICGA that they are no longer derivatives and that he has satisfied the conditions of any other penalties the ICGA imposes.
- encourage other tournaments (Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, TACCL, etc.) to disallow the entry of Rybka until it is proven “clean”.
ICGA Panel Members
The Secretariat members:
Robert Hyatt - (Crafty, Cray Blitz, World Computer Chess Champion in 1983 and 1986)
Mark Lefler (author of Now)
Harvey Williamson (part of Hiarcs Team)
Panel members:
Albert Silver (software designer for Chess Assistant (1999-2002); currently editor of
Chessbase News (2010-present))
Amir Ban (author of Junior: World Champion 2002, 2004, 2006, World microcomputer
Champion 1997, 2001)
Charles Roberson (author of NoonianChess)
Christophe Theron (author of Chess Tiger)
Dariusz Czechowski (author of Darmenios)
Don Dailey (author of Cilkchess, Star Socrates, Rex, Komodo)
Eric Hallsworth (part of Hiarcs Team, Publisher of Selective Search magazine)
Fabien Letousky (author of Fruit)
Frederic Friedel (Chessbase.com)
Gerd Isenberg (author of IsiChess)
Gyula Horvath (author of Pandix, Brainstorm)
Ingo Bauer (Shredder team)
Jan Krabbenbos (Tournament Director of Leiden tournaments)
Kai Himstedt (author of Gridchess and Cluster Toga)
Ken Thompson (creator of Belle Chess Machine, World Computer Chess Champion
1980, Turing Award winner 1983, creator of B and C programming languages,
Unix and Plan 9 developer).
Marcel van Kervinck (author of Rookie)
Maciej Szmit (assistant professor at Technical University of Lodz)
Mark Watkins (MAGMA Computer Algebra Group, School of Mathematics and
Statistics, University of Sydney)
Mark Uniacke (Hiarcs, World Microcomputer Champion 1993)
Mincho Georgiev (Pawny)
Olivier Deville (Tournament Director of ChessWars)
Omid David (author of Falcon)
Peter Skinner (Tournament Director of CCT--the major annual online computer chess
tournament)
Ralf Schäfer (author of Spike)
Richard Vida (author of Critter)
Richard Pijl (author of The Baron)
Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (author of Shredder, multiple world champions from 1996-2007)
Thomas Mayer (author of Quark)
Tord Romstad (author of Stockfish, Glaurung)
Tom Pronk (ProChess, Much)
Vladan Vuckovic (Axon, Achilles)
Wylie Garvin (game Programmer at Ubisoft Montreal)
Yngvi Björnsson (The Turk)
Zach Wegner (author of ZCT and Rondo, an upgraded version of Anthony Cozzie’s
Zappa program, which was world champion in 2005)
ICGA Board
President - David N.L. Levy
Vice-President: Yngvi Björnsson
Secretary-Treasurer: Hiroyuki Iida
Programmers Representative: Rémi Coulom
WCCC Tournament Director
Jaap van den Herik
http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/rybkaevidence/RybkaInvestigation.pdf
http://www.chess.com/news/rybka-banned-and-stripped-of-titles-3798
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQshTNJ4pSM
Garvin Gray (2012-10-02 08:50:00)
A radical idea?
Clearly too radical for comment :o :P
Thibault de Vassal (2011-09-20 14:43:35)
Phantom ficgs
I have no idea yet on how to solve this rare (obviously) problem :/ Did you try Garvin's suggestion to use https ?
It started recently only? So it worked on the same computer before?! Don't you have any idea of what changed at this moment on your computer? (installation of java any addon...)
Stephane Legrand (2011-10-01 23:12:24)
Feature request
i had the same idea than Don, but Thib explanations are good ...
Thibault de Vassal (2011-10-11 11:37:09)
Go Komi 7.5, advantage for Black/White?
A topic on the game of Go.
Someone suggested that the current FICGS Go champion should be able to decide the color of the 1st game (the WCH final match is played in 5 games) because the komi may be an advantage for White.
I'm not favourable to this idea because IMO the komi "may be" an advantage for White or Black according to the players level, and it should be about equal for top players (9p, theorically). Anyway, I guess that the champion has quite an advantage already by playing the final match only.
Any opinion on this?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-10-12 11:25:21)
Go Komi 7.5, advantage for Black/White?
Sure, but the komi may have a different impact on 5 dan players than on 9p ones. Actually I have no idea, maybe the top players here have an opinion on this?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-04 16:35:34)
4th FICGS freestyle cup
Idea to be discussed Garvin! Interesting...
Graham Philips (2011-12-05 17:22:45)
Who wants a Freestyle GO tournament soon?
Yeah, sounds like a good idea, not sure enough how the timing works for them though ?
Don Groves (2011-12-14 10:35:28)
5 player double round robins
The same idea should be tried in Go also. Some Go tournaments can be very slow to fill up to 7 players.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-14 16:23:23)
5 player double round robins
Not a big fan of the idea of games starting at different times as more players join the tournament.
I could see that after a while and if a player is involved in a few tournaments, that it just feels like they are playing in different individual games, and new games join the list at random times.
With the way things are done at the moment, a new set of games are started when a new tournament begins, so it is obvious that the tournament you entered has started.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-15 13:11:44)
5 player double round robins
Yes, William & Garvin answered to both points better than I did :)
Replacing e.g. single RR standard SM tourney only by a double RR would bring some confusion in the structure... But the idea is good anyway. Maybe we could create an entire category (standard, rapid, now standard double) for double RR with only a SM class (while closing the SM class single RR)... I'm not so favourable though. What do you think?
Garvin Gray (2011-12-15 18:10:53)
5 player double round robins
Thib, are you saying that you are considering creating a whole new third category of chess tournaments?
We currently have standard and rapid, all seven player tournaments. Are you proposing that we have a third category, which are five player double round robins?
If you are proposing a whole new third category, then I am not in favour of this idea. We are having enough issues filling the tournaments we already have, I think adding a whole new set of tournaments will just make this situation worse, where players are sprinkled around the three events, but not enough join one particular one to get any of them started.
We have enough players on this site that tournaments should be able to start. So it is not like we are completely short of players in certain categories.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-15 20:58:46)
Holiday
Any other opinion? The idea looks interesting even if I'm not favourable to such a rule change that would make things a little bit more complicated... and rapid time control is hard enough IMO, it seems just fair to me to be able to have some extra time at the end of the year (which is not the case for everyone).
Interesting anyway!
Don Groves (2011-12-16 05:24:46)
5 player double round robins
We are short of players in some categories, such as the Go Dan tournaments. It might be a good place to experiment with the double round robin idea.
Stephane Legrand (2011-12-21 10:27:59)
5 player double round robins
Of course it is a good idea adding tournaments reduced to 5 players and offered as a double round robin!
Effectively, it would slow down even more the other tournaments... but because it is actually a better solution!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-22 18:47:03)
5 player double round robins
I agree that more regular games would be played on the site (on the white/black advantage also), but wouldn't it mean less players in the championship cycles?
It would be somewhat more difficult to control the number of total running games and IMO it's less fun also but anyway I'm ready to consider a change for the whole tournaments structure (for chess & maybe Go) if most players think it's a good idea, I'll send an email to all players about that (and other things) very soon.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-24 17:42:57)
money prize tournaments
Hello Alexis,
Yes, it would be very easy to create such tournaments. We had no players with Epoints enough a few years ago for this. Maybe it is time now.
Who would enter such a waiting list among these possibilities?
1. Rated 7 players single round robin tournament, no rating range, 20 epoints entry fee
2. Unrated 7 players single round robin tournament, no rating range, 20 epoints entry fee
3. Rated 5 players double round robin tournament, no rating range, 30 epoints entry fee
4. Unrated 5 players double round robin tournament, no rating range, 30 epoints entry fee
Both rated & unrated options have inconvenients IMO... Any better idea? The prize would be about 96 to 100% entry fees.
(by the way, this may partly solve the problem of the other discussion about double round robin tournaments)
Scott Nichols (2011-12-28 21:21:04)
5 player double round robins
Another idea which I brought up a while back is to replace the unpopular Rapid_Silver 2-man with a Rapid_Silver tournament. There would be an entry fee, say 10 E-points, with the prize money going to the winner or the top 2. It would be unrated, only need e-points to join. No rating restrictions. Players like me and Ruben and others would jump right in. It would give lower rated a chance to play the top guns. I bet a lot of them would go for it, even if it cost them some money, it could be considered like a "lesson". Plus, I'm sure the top players would go for it also, easy money! You could make it from 5 up to 11 players.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-28 21:45:00)
5 player double round robins
We agree on the idea, but do you think that it would at least partly solve the main problem of the discussion? I can prepare that within the next days.
Scott Nichols (2011-12-28 22:48:20)
5 player double round robins
I do think it would, at least in part solve the main problem, nothing is 100% as we are finding out on that forum tournament. I think these days, seriously, if you put 10 Chessplayers in a room, you would have 9 different opinions. Maybe we could have a test to see if any of these ideas work. We need more input... If these ideas don't work, it's no big deal. This is still the best site out there IMHO, :)
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 10:24:38)
5 player double round robins
I would still prefer 5 player drr's, but 4 player drr is acceptable.
All I want is this idea to start, whether it is 5P, 4P or Thib's idea of Maybe we have a beginning of answer in this new discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10165
Do you think that rated or unrated 5 players double round-robin would (partly) solve the problem?
=======================
The only issue I have with this idea is the unrated part. All games need to be rated.
If its not rated, its not real :) and also it unrated games do not solve some of the rating band issues all of us have discussed previously.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-29 14:48:20)
5 player double round robins
I agree on "if it's not rated, it's not real" but the fact is that many players are afraid to lose many points against maybe strong 1800 players... Actually the rules evolved about 2 years ago to avoid this, ratings are quite protected (never enough) in such cases but it looks like it is not well intergrated yet.
On the other hand, if there's an entry fee & prize, it's even more real... If we start with that idea, maybe it can be unrated. I'm still not sure...
Your opinion for a double round robin with entry fee & money prize, should it be unrated or rated?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-30 20:27:13)
Different tournament format
Well, let's see if the rated double round-robin tournament with entry fee works well, it will be a good start to discuss it.
I think this is a very good idea in theory, but it is quite hard to predict how many non-titled players (who would pay an entry fee) and how many titled players (invited or paying an entry fee as well) would play...
Maybe I can create a waiting list later and see how it goes, without the guarantee that the tournament can really start.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-02 01:30:16)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
Here it is... Any idea anyone?
Garvin Gray (2012-01-02 02:05:43)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
I do not agree at all. I think there needs to be consequences for a person's actions, not just let off with no consequences, perhaps even get an advantage.
If there are mass time-outs, their rating should be returned to where it was (that is their correct playing standard), which means they can not enter the lower waiting list.
The idea that losing on time is part of the game only applies if the game was about 100 moves long and the game was short of time and someone used too much time on one or more moves.
But mass timing out of games is not a general part of the game at all. It is poor form and disrespectful to the site and the other opponents in the tournament and should be punished as such.
If they remain on the same rating, then they should certainly not be allowed to play in the event where they previously entered.
If a player has a legitimate reason for timing out so many games, they can take it up with the site administrator. That option always exists.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-18 17:03:41)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Well, I really don't mind if the entry fee is 10 or 30 euro... it could be even free, but would it work? As we had silver & gold games, I just tried to find something between (and it had to be of interest for strong players to play lower rated ones).
The path towards a paid site (as far as I know, much more Epoints are given than taken) will be very... very long :)
The reason for this tournament was mainly that you asked for such a tournament so that more games can start & more quickly, it is also a good experience before to make such drastic changes to modify a whole tournaments category. I'm still not sure it would be a good idea!
Scott Nichols (2012-01-18 17:37:40)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I agree to the idea to change it to 10 Euro entry fee, 30 seems a bit high.
Scott Nichols (2012-01-18 20:57:37)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Hmmm, I must not be as strong as I thought, :) J/k, I know what you mean. BUT, the whole idea was to get a more variety here, all the free games haven't gone away, you just added something new, which IMO was sorely needed. If you look at the stats Thib, probably last year my games here dropped off, not because I wasn't entering, but because it was hard to find a game. Plus the WBCCC had an impact, at least IMO, I don't know the stats. I still play for the home team as always will as long as you are here Thib, but I also admit, I learned a lot at that forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-20 16:11:36)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I meant 2400+ players, those who will surely lose elo points against you in this open tournament :) Epoints had to be a kind of compensation for those players (if they win btw), that was the idea. And 10 Epoints is really few for 8 standard games, meaning much efforts. Just my opinion of course...
Garvin Gray (2012-01-20 17:45:57)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I do not think a few e points either way are going to make a difference to the 2400 players. What most likely matters to them is winning tournaments and titles.
So either way they were not going to enter these events.
Just to start stratching the record ;) my original idea was for these double round robins was for one of the divisions to be replaced with them, not to create a whole new division.
As it currently stands, I really do not see the point of this change as it feels like duplications of other areas of the site.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-21 15:26:16)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I partly agree with you Garvin, but if only one of them is interested in money, it will make these open tournaments quite interesting. I'm still not sure which entry fee is best but it's worth a try with 30 Epoints IMO. By the way I don't think that these tournaments will start so often due to the time control. Let's wait and see.
About changing a whole division, I'm still not so favourable to this. Actually best would be to have 4 divisions (rapid DRR, rapid SRR, standard DRR & standard SRR but we have no players enough for this) but I'm not even sure if class DRR tournaments would be a good thing.
I prefered single round-robin from the start because it was the best way to prevent cheating, it is really hard to win points even with 3 or 4 accounts.
Still thinking about it anyway. (I know, it means delayed for a few months but I don't have a better idea right now :/)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-02 00:47:23)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Well, finally the most seems to want a change of the entry fee & prize. I'm not sure if it's a good idea but let's do it...
For technical reasons the entry fee & prize for the 1st tournament will change too, the 5 players just got back 20 Epoints each.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-07 14:51:01)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
Hello Mario,
Sure, feel free to suggest new thematic tournaments in this discussion or by email, we always need good ideas :)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 23:46:04)
Folding in Poker
Yeah, that's another "interesting" point. The law is still quite fuzzy in France on all this but it seems that the government is decided to stop every money game including chess... I have no idea if they can do it (and it will probably change in a few months) but I prefer not to take any risk.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-25 14:23:18)
Folding in Poker
Previous ratings shouldn't be "deleted" IMO. We try some things and we cannot delete everything that happened before each time. Anyway poker ratings will continue to move up & down as chance goes.
I still have no idea of what is more accurate, probably it doesn't mean much for poker... All I have is a feeling and I feel that the current rules may be better at 55/45 than the old ones, so I'll change it if the most want it.
Scott Nichols (2012-02-25 16:21:49)
Folding in Poker
I think Garvin's idea were the most sensible I have ever heard from him. He obviously took a lot of time with this one.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-05 20:50:17)
50+ Poker Games
I agree with Stephane... by the way if you search the forum you'll find the reasons why we limited the number to 50, I think that it would be a very bad idea to change that.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-06 17:48:01)
50+ Poker Games
!!!!!!!!!
Very good idea, Paul !
I think I'll make such an update soon...
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2012-03-07 18:27:21)
50+ Poker Games
I like Paul's idea of special counting the number of running game. This eliminates 5 of my games.
But I hope, that the idea to estimate poker games, will not be implemented. That is not a solution of the problem.
In some of my games my opponent and I can move only once per day, because we have a different rhythm of life. My opponents are playing in the morning and I at night. So we are online rarely at the same time. Furthermore, my games often last longer than 1000 moves. Therefore, it is only natural that these games take a long time. I don't like that these games will be estimated after a year.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-07 21:48:29)
50+ Poker Games
Don, it would be easy to manipulate such a rule... most important is to avoid any human (referee) intervention in the results. We have to find something better. Paul's idea is a first step.
Paul Campanella (2012-03-07 22:05:46)
50+ Poker Games
Hopefully my idea will be put into practice soon! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-07 23:02:18)
50+ Poker Games
I'm not sure yet, both seem fine to me, I prefer round numbers though. It shouldn't be possible to accumulate too many games, the idea is only that fast players can always play with other fast players... any opinion?
Alvin Alcala (2012-03-30 19:47:38)
Thematic request- Sicilian Dragon
Good idea! The chinese dragon (a6 idea) facinates me.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-21 01:30:16)
Slow tournament entries
Well, about the WCH that's quite hard to say, maybe the last rules changes (in this way but everyone may not agree) helped to have more participants but actually I'm not sure at all. But it is clear that those WCH games take a lot of time to all players, so less registrations for other tournaments...
But you're probably right about the time to fill waiting lists... so more players would help anyway. It is true also that many registered players do not actually play, any idea to motivate them is welcome :)
Thanks Ramil for sharing your views!
Garvin Gray (2012-04-21 16:42:15)
Slow tournament entries
I am a fan of the ficgs wch and I think it has many positives. One negative I am starting to notice is that since I am now above 2200, I am getting exactly the same opponents (give or take one or two) who I play in the normal tournaments.
So the groups start to blend into one and it can be difficult to remember if I am playing a wch game, or a normal game, against the same opponent.
I think it would be an interesting exercise to see if the same person can win both events.
The ficgs wch could be held twice a year, and this idea could be held in the other quarter of the year (twice a year also).
Then after some time, see which format gets the most entries and positive reviews.
George Clement (2012-04-22 19:19:23)
LSS Move Rule
" violating the 30-days-rule. The server automatically stopped the game and awarded the point to the opponent, independent from the position. The server also imposed the two week suspension to start a new tournament. The 30-days-rule was installed at IECG more than 10 years ago and I had included it into LSS right from the beginning."
I like the idea behind this rule on LSS, IMHO it would solve some of the slow entry problems by making players move faster, which is a big part of the entry problem. I think anyone can make a least 1 move in 10 days, using todays hardware/software and communications. What do you think fellow members? I have no problem with players using time off thier clock but why wait 30 days make 10 moves then wait another 30 days?
Scott Nichols (2012-04-24 18:38:51)
Do the cards really matter?
My original idea was born after watching 2 "pros" in a heads up match on TV. The way they were betting, and seeing the hole cards, the commentator said the cards didn't matter, it was a lot of posturing etc.
Scott Nichols (2012-04-24 18:52:36)
Ficgs World Cup
Sounds intriguing. I assume it would be Rapid time control like the Wch. Just one little idea, would an entry fee of 2 E-points be good? Everybody that signs up here gets 2 free E-points, it would be a good way to use them and also it would cut down on the people that start and don't finish.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-04-24 22:58:29)
Ficgs World Cup
Sounds like a good idea to me. Big groups are a good idea - it gives more chance of getting a clear group winner without tie breaks.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-25 00:26:09)
Ficgs World Cup
Who thinks that a limited number of places (81 = 9x9 or 121 = 11x11 or 169 = 13x13 according to how the waiting list fills) would be a good idea?
And what about a rating band to avoid forfeits by casual players? Maybe ratings above 2000... In some ways it could be a real alternative to the WCH for all players rated from 2000 to 2200, and there would be less games to play at the same time (less frightening to entry)... just a thought.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-25 01:52:44)
Ficgs World Cup
Seen a few ideas, some that I thought would not be popular are been suggested as to give it a go. Good:)
There is a simple solution to keeping it to 2 stages. Just announce there will be 11 groups and leave the number of players in each group till when you know the final numbers.
So 220 players would be 11 groups of 20 players. That might be too much for some people, but you get the general idea.
Perhaps with 20 player groups (hypothetical of course), a slightly longer time control would be a good idea, perhaps 30 days initial plus 3 day increment ;)
Thib: I was thinking about the issue of the number of groups and I think it has to be eleven groups in the first stage. Then each of the 1st place group winners go through to final stage.
I am against any concept of rating bands, or even the mention of the concept. That is totally against the principle, design and point of this format.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-25 18:04:47)
Ficgs World Cup
To simplify the activity requirement, it can be that all players must have an established rating. No provisionals and no estimated ratings.
An issue regarding number of groups is, what if we 50 or so entries. 11 groups of 5 seems rather silly, so I think it would have to be 5 groups of 11, with 2 players qualifying for the final stage.
While having 2 players qualify is not ideal, it is better than having 11 groups of 5 players, which defeats one of the purposes of giving more games across different rating groups.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-26 01:13:45)
Ficgs World Cup
Great idea Garvin.
As far as activity goes, I think it should be either an established rating with a history of no time forfeits. It definitely should not be calculated based on RATED games. This is silly. I play many unrated games these days because its the only way to play strong players. I don't play rated here anymore because of the rating bands. So your activity requirement would exclude the very type of player you are trying to grab.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-25 09:16:51)
Ficgs World Cup
Ahh now I think I understand some of the previous comments.
What you guys are talking about is a rating floor, not a rating band. With a rating floor of say 1999. So all players must be rated above 1999 to participate.
Not a big fan of a rating floor for this as it goes against the original objective, which is to provide more opportunities for players of different ratings to compete against each other. This does not only apply to 2000's v 2200's, but also applies further down the rating list as well.
The effect is not as pronounced, but still applies for the original objective.
I am in favour of an activity requirement. The standard in otb chess is that a player must have played nine rated games to get a rating, so the minimum activity could be ten completed games.
I am not as strong on the idea of an activity requirement as I am on no rating bands (which is very different to rating floor).
Garvin Gray (2012-04-27 04:16:52)
Ficgs World Cup
Please, no replacements. If people can not organise themselves to add themselves to the entry list before the close of entries, they do not deserve to enter.
I think it is fairer to have one or two players not participate in a group than it is to add players after the event has started.
Please do not use replacements. This concept is meant to be the opposite in almost every way to WCH, and the main idea is to keep it as simple as possible.
Having replacements add a complication that is not required. It will also distort the balance on ratings of each group where forfeited players occur.
How do you ensure that each group where a forfeited player occurs and get a replacement? Otherwise you have filled some groups and not others.
See the hornets nest that is created by using replacements. Please do not use replacements, just let the normal standard tournament factors decide the final placings and people in the final stage.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-27 20:45:16)
Ficgs World Cup
Okay, anyway I like the idea to do very different of the FICGS WCH!
Garvin Gray (2012-04-29 15:18:06)
Slow tournament entries
The concept of reducing the groups down to 5 players to get tournaments moving was discussed in detail a few months ago and gave birth to the standard open division.
So that item has been done to death. FWIW, I am in favour of changing the main list groups to 5 DRR's, but Thib is not, so it is what it is.
The idea of starting games asap and letting the group fill as it goes has also been discussed previously (like almost all ideas).
Scott Nichols (2012-04-29 23:37:18)
Slow tournament entries
Maybe not all ideas. Have you ever thought of a "swiss system" tournament Thib? Make an open tournament with as many players as you can get. And then pair it according to the swiss system, :) 5 or 6 rounds would be plenty to achieve a champion.
Don Groves (2012-04-30 05:23:35)
Slow tournament entries
The only idea that seems to please everyone is penalizing slow players. But not everyone agrees on what "slow" means. The current rules say it is 60 days per move. But others think it should be 30 days or even less.
My own feeling is that having too many games causes most slow play, so slow players should not able to begin new games until all their games over a certain age are finished.
Perhaps a better method would be to put an upper limit on the average number of days between moves in a game.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-30 20:32:31)
Slow tournament entries
I really have no idea if something can be improved there. One thing is sure, the average time for a game is not the same according to the rating... I guess that it would be not reasonable to set a rule for each category so...
About the standard time control, if a player has 74 days on his clock and is to add 40 more days, he'll never have more than 100 days anyway.
Maybe this limit can be changed but once more players are free to choose the rapid time control and as for me I really appreciate not to feel too much time pressure in my games and I know that many share this view. Let's not forget that the FICGS Chess WCH is (as far as I remember) much faster than e.g. IECG or ICCF Championships...
Garvin Gray (2012-05-03 04:23:36)
Slow tournament entries
Gino: That is because you are high rated and so play only other high rated players.
Which is good for you, but I am not sure if that is in the best interests of the site as a whole when it is one of the only formats offered.
Scott: I would like to use swiss pairings and have one game paired a time with a time control of something like 20 days plus 1 hour increment. It short, fast and with only one game, the time control should be long enough.
It will take more than 1 year, but that is not so much of a concern here.
I proposed the group and final idea to fit in with existing arrangements on here.
I would also be willing to do swiss pairings on here, like I do on WBCCC.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-05-03 18:28:20)
Slow tournament entries
Of course there is no perfect time limit. What is too slow for one person will be too fast for some others. The current Rapid speed seems to get the balance about right - quick enough to allow a sensible length to the tournament but slow enough to allow some real thought even if you are working or have significant family commitments.
But perhaps the acid test is how many people are prepared to play at that speed. It does not seem to put people off playing in the current WCH, so whilst it will not be everyone's favourite, it does seem to have a broad enough appeal.
In terms of format, I think large groups (say 11+ people in each group) work well and I think better serve the idea of giving people a chance to play stronger players better than a Swiss, which is fine for a game or two and then flattens out.
In summary, I think Garvin's original suggestion works well.
Viktor Shishkin (2012-05-07 19:56:11)
Thematic request- Sicilian Dragon
good idea!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-09 21:54:16)
Xiao Tong on his win in 6th FICGS Go WCH
I agree also... Well, I should add some words on that when new players login for the first times. But many are quickly discouraged as they do not find any opponent. But maybe we just need (much) more players.
As for me I'd like to play more live Go games, I only need more time mainly because of my correspondence tournaments :/
Any other ideas are welcome...
Garvin Gray (2012-05-12 17:26:45)
Playing poker for e-points
Paul,
In general parlance, poker is regarded as a gambling game and so the idea that poker is also played in classic tournament fashion, just like every other sport, has never really caught on in legal terms.
The general version is more of the casino style with players joining in whenever they want and leaving whenever they want (or have lost their cash), rather than tournaments where everyone pays an entry fee and there is a winner at the end.
Combined with that is that chess has never been associated as a 'gambling' game or sport.
Remember also that in quite a lot of countries chess is a full recognised sport, or at least mindsport. So in those countries if playing for money in chess was illegal, then so would playing for money in all sports.
Thib- I wonder if playing for epoints in classic tournament fashion is legal, just like in irl poker tournaments?
That could be one option.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-14 17:41:36)
Faster Refresh Time
You mean in the My games page? Well, sure I could make it even lower when there are few games (or none) displayed on the page, good idea!
Paul Campanella (2012-05-15 14:07:37)
Faster Refresh Time
Here is an example of why I consider the 30 second refresh time to be bad...
Example: Pretend someone is playing 10 poker games on FICGS simultaneously.
Having the refresh time take so long is quite annoying due to the fact that nothing appears during the 30 second time interval, but after the 30 seconds are over... the page gets refreshed... then all 10 moves appear at once and it is difficult to manage.
Perhaps if we shorten the time to 15 seconds, it would end up being easier for everyone who is playing multiple games at once due to the fact that they can see their opponents moves as soon as they are made. 10 seconds is obviously too short of an amount of time to consider but I can't understand why the 15 second rule would be a problem for anyone trying to chat because it does not take 15 seconds to type a few words and hit the enter key.
If people still think that 15 seconds is too fast, then how about we make it 20 seconds? That could be an ideal amount of time to consider because it is faster than 15 but slower than 30 seconds.
What does everyone think?
Garvin Gray (2012-06-06 13:53:31)
Second match v Rybka Forum
Hello all,
Current discussion here: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=24942
Following discussions on RF and now what looks like a completely different format to what I was proposing and ideas I had in mind and seeing what looks like a no compromise situation from the RF side, it looks almost certain that I will not be having anything to do with organising this event, or participating for either side.
When I first came up with this idea of trying to get a second match going, one of the main ideas was to help promote both forums and playing clients to a wider audience, and especially to the better players for both sites.
Now that I see what RF seems to have in mind, or at least what they are willing to accept for playing conditions, I find them wholly unacceptable and contrary to the ideas and purposes originally intended.
The current proposed design really does have a pro RF feel about it, in that FICGS players will have to learn how to use xfccplay to play on here, plus possibly sign up an account, but RF players will not have to do the same at FICGS. I am also wondering, what happens if the high majority of players from both sites say they only want to play on their own forum. This whole competition falls over.
RF 'bosses' have been kind enough to allow xfccplay to be used for these games to make them a better product. I do not think it is unreasonable for RF players to play some of their games on FICGS.
Secondly, the current proposed design also goes competely against another original idea, which was to have the top player from RF competing against the top player from FICGS. And so on down the boards. This current design will most likely result in random board pairings and henceforth likely mis-matches, rather than having showpiece games and at the same time having the bottom players from both sides games counting as much as the top board. Potentially it could now be the top player from FICGS against the two bottom players from RF and vice versa. That is ridiculous.
So all in all, I have proposed a format originally on both sites. I do not see the current proposed format as achieving anything substantial and certainly not in the vein of the original ideas. Had I known the current structure was going to be proposed, I never would have bothered proposing this in the first place.
Unless the current structure changes, I hereby resign as overall organiser and go between for both forums and also as a participant in the second match.
Kind regards,
Garvin Gray
Garvin Gray (2012-07-29 10:12:48)
Reset tournament waiting lists
I think it might be a good idea to reset the tournament waiting lists, rather than keeping the ones we have now.
The reason being that with it being so long between when they entered and now that it is highly likely that a lot of the players are going to forfeit games.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-08-12 10:18:23)
Premium site?
This is a good idea Alvin! We'll do that but unfortunately it will not avoid unexpected problems and short periods of down time.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-08-18 22:50:27)
This is Russia :(
I have no clear idea yet on Kasparov's way in politics & in Russia, but surely I agree with you Rolf on Grandmaster Flash vs. Pussy Riot feat. Grandmaster Gary !
Thibault de Vassal (2012-08-20 12:02:20)
What happened to Boris Spassky?
This was quite a joke of course, it all depends on what we hear by "brainwashed", this is very complex. In practice money and dictatorship probably look like each other quite often (I prefer the first one though, probably just because I'm in, but I understand the other choice - none is ideal), everyone just tries to find his interest whatever the context.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-08-21 16:23:20)
This is politics
I remember this interview of Kramnik with very good things said (I have no idea on the last part though, even if I have no doubt that things went in the right direction... fast enough or not. Quote: "nowadays eighty percent of the Russian population is not forced to fight for their existence, as they had to, some ten, fifteen years ago.")
But if things must not evolve too fast (as it probably happened in Russia 15-20 years ago), it is likely that both US (or European countries) & Russia don't even envisage to go the right way these times on political issues, mainly because the ones who control it don't want it. There are many more or less complex & historical reasons to this of course, completely logical, but anyway it could be better and even if Kasparov was paid by US or whoever, it looks quite logical & reasonable to ask for some deep changes in Russia too...
I try to keep a sociological view rather than an ideological one. I do not defend one existing system more than other ones, but unfortunately in most situations the power tends to protect itself too much "in order to" protect citizens, that is true in a good part but there also start many problems. It is still fine to me when citizens have choice and can leave easily but that's not so easy in our world.
Michael Rogers (2012-08-24 20:47:47)
money prize tournaments
Very good idea, Thibault. This would certainly create more interest in the tournaments. I prefer one and two but would accept three and four.
Don Groves (2012-09-21 05:06:44)
A radical idea?
Since not all Chess players seem to agree on the best set of "advanced" games, why not allow the players in a game to decide on their own game parameters? If Scott and Alvin want to play a 15 minute game with 5 seconds added per move, let them do that.
Only the ratings of the two players involved are affected, so it seems this idea would not interfere with ratings and could be popular.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-21 12:06:44)
A radical idea?
Good idea, quite possible but would need some deep changes.
Don Groves (2012-09-21 13:42:54)
A radical idea?
If the parameters of games are stored in variables for each game (good idea anyway), it should only need a new dialog for the new parameters to be entered. Of course, I am not aware of your code ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-21 14:31:25)
A radical idea?
Yes, it is stored for each game, but the waiting list system does not work this way and the opponent must not miss the time control (in challenges or in the waiting list). But that's possible.
Garvin Gray (2012-09-22 08:40:14)
A radical idea?
How this could be done is as follows:
Player A (person sending challenge)specifies what time control they want.
This would do away with the concept of bullet, lightning and blitz as player can choose whatever time control they want.
The three terms are not required as there is no weighting for rating purposes in advanced chess based on the the time control.
Then the challenged player can accept the challenge, or propose a new time control or parameter.
The clocks would only start after the challenge has been offered and agreed to.
This would eliminate time forfeits.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-25 23:30:02)
Limit number of poker games
Finally I've decided to change the limit number of poker games from 50 to 100, temporarily or not (we'll see if it has more good effects than bad ones).
But we can continue the discussion, still looking for good ideas.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-10-02 11:38:49)
A radical idea?
Nope, the idea is not radical at all... Now I know that I can do it quite easily in the waiting list system (not challenges)!
I can't do it right now but do not hesitate to harass me :)
Garvin Gray (2012-10-02 18:04:17)
A radical idea?
Thibault- I can't do it right now but do not hesitate to harass me :)
I can do that :)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-10-09 18:52:25)
WCH Final match
Of course this correspondence chess championship is very different from FIDE WCH, but it seems to me that 12 games is still enough (24 games would be quite inhuman by the way), the score in the latest final matches was not significant on the draws issue, particularly now that we all know how Eros deals with it (in a smart way that can be compared to Kramnik's strategy in his match vs. Kasparov: draw with Berlin's defence, fight with White if no risk). IMO the champion has nothing to prove as he made it in a whole cycle and by beating the previous one, while a challenger should at least be able to win one game out of 12.
Actually the real evolution should have been towards freestyle chess, but it has no success enough to organize a whole cycle and it looks like Eros is the king as well. Also I don't like the idea to melt different time controls like FIDE does. The whole challenge is about one thing, not 3 or 4 differents kinds of games.
I love the past tradition not because it is a tradition, but because I really think it is the best system so far! If a new system proves to be better to me (there will always be a question of taste though, of course) then we would have to discuss it here.
The only way to encourage players to try for wins is to go towards the ICCF format, that has other issues that I wanted to avoid at any price. And why to do the same?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-10-11 13:04:50)
for 2013 poker tourneys
Hello Jay,
Good idea, and anyway if we cannot deduct x hours from a clock (a game could be lost this way), maybe we can divide the amount of time on both clocks by 1.5 or 2 every 10 moves...
Maybe we have an idea there!
Let's dig it... Any opinion?
Garvin Gray (2012-10-13 12:44:33)
for 2013 poker tourneys
I do not understand this idea at all, please explain in simpler or more refined detail
Garvin Gray (2012-10-13 12:49:22)
WCH Final match
Neel, I have no particular issue with draw odds. Being corro, it is not possible to organise anything that might be still decent corro, but is at a more rapid time control to get a tie break going.
My issue is that as Eros's comments have shown, he was not even slightly forced to try and win any of the games.
So I think the rules should be made more attractive to try and get players to win games (and yes put on a show too).
Another idea could be to start eight games, if the champion is ahead, the match is over and if still tied, start games 9 to 16.
If the challenger is ahead after game 8, games 9 to 16 are still played, and now the champion would have to go all out to win a game to at least draw level.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-10-15 12:58:54)
for 2013 poker tourneys
The idea is to have less time to finish a poker game, particularly when we play many moves a day... But mathematically the 1 move per day problem will probably remain :/
Don is right, the longest poker game so far here is more than 3300 moves (probably more than 500 hands), it can take a while to play it.
Michael Aigner (2012-11-06 15:34:52)
The very unofficial World Championship
Hello everybody,
the computer chess enthusiast of the CSS forum are trying to organise a match "Houdini 3 versus Rybka Cluster".
The initiative came from the maintainer of the renowned IPON rating list. His estimation for two long games is 864 ducats. There more the better. I didn't observe how much was donated already, but quite a lot, and there is big enthusiasm about it. It seems that very good hardware for the Houdini side, and a way to collect the ducats at Playchess, have already been organized.
For details, see http://forum.computerschach.de/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?tid=5093
(I guess Google translation can help if required, with the usual quirks.)
If somebody likes the idea it would be easy to participate there too.
All the best, Michael
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-02 00:50:54)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Hello all,
As I mentioned in the chat bar, there is a problem to build new groups as I usually do a few weeks after the start of the chess championship...
Players who entered the waiting list for replacements are:
AUT Rada, Hannes 2465
ISR Blinchevsky, Alexander 2206
ITA Bonoldi, Fabio 2049
DEU Wolf, Bernd 2113
ARG Reboredo, Daniel 1941
ITA Fabris, Alberto 1995
ITA Piantadosi, Angelo 1319
UKR Simashkevitch, Mykola 1987
DEU Lommler, Jan Peter 1860
BEL Pepermans, Toon 2000
USA Batal, Jean 1960
GBR Hancock, Sarah 1614
USA Johnson, Bobby 2412
GBR Burrows, Nick 1935
UKR Malish, Dmitriy 1146
COL Rey, Eduardo 1800
FRA Satonnet, Patrick 1351
GBR Soszynski, Marek 2143
POL Nig, Piotr 2028
USA Davis, Mark 1192
FRA Estieu, Frederick 1383
USA Lovelace, Randy 1504
CAN Deline, Ralph 2179
UKR Bromo, Alexis 1129
BIH Dautovic, Dzenan 1653
USA Knighton, Robert 1950
4 players rated 1500-1800 already replaced those who were to lose their games on time... As a result, we have many players rated 1900-2100 and too few with low ratings. Of course players rated 2400+ will not like to play in regular groups.
Right now I could create only one group with a similar rating average, nothing more but I would have to choose a few players only, which is not a great solution. I tried several combinations, M groups and so on.
I know that a few players would prefer not to see these new groups created and right now I see no solution good enough to create it.
If I cannot find any idea, I think there won't be new groups this time.
Any suggestion?
Garvin Gray (2012-12-02 13:51:13)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Nick- Did not have the oppportunity???? The waiting list for the wch is open for a month, sometimes even more. Any player who wants to enter can do so at any stage between when the waiting list opens and when it closes. So they have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for four or more weeks to enter.
It is not like the entry period for the waiting list is only open for a couple of days.
The only people who could claim they did not have much opportunity to enter were those who only just joined the site before the waiting list closed.
As for why some of us might be 'getting too uptight'. Those who entered by the deadline have been seeded correctly as per the rules. Which means for some they have been placed in M groups with all those players being rated over 2200.
To now see the possibility of having a weak M group, which means those who have entered by the deadline have now been substantially disadvantaged compared to those who entered late.
I really do not care at all for your 'we are getting too uptight' argument Nick.
Those who respond have every right to debate the pros and cons of what is being proposed.
If you have something to actually add to this issue in terms of finding an acceptable answer for Thibault's conundrum, or wish to try and point out why his solution is not a good one, then feel free to add something to the debate and thread.
A few of us have pointed issues with Thibault's idea and our disagreement with the whole approach. That is our right to do so.
None of us have been abusive, derogatory or demeaning of anyone else, even if we disagree with the other viewpoints.
If I am an example of getting too uptight, in your opinion, so be it, but I do not like at all when players are able to enter late and even more when they look like, or are, getting an advantage they would not have gotten if they entered before the deadline.
Garvin Gray (2012-12-13 02:19:32)
Improving visibility of draw offers
I think some kind of pop up is a good idea, where the draw receiver has to confirm they are declining or accepting a draw to continue play.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-21 00:56:41)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Dear chessfriends,
I just received this proposition to play a "Chess Server Team Tournament" that would be played on ICCF web server:
Any opinion? Who would be interested to play such a tournament?
____________________________
Dear Thibault!
In recent years many friendly matches between different chess servers have been played. It has become a good tradition to organize such matches. A very good idea is to organize a round-robin tournament to find out the strongest team of a chess server.
We invite a team of your server to take part in the first unofficial correspondence chess championship for chess servers.
The championship is unofficial, because ICCF Officials do not head it.
The Organizer and Tournament Director is Pavlikov Andrey Nikolaevich who is experienced in organizing and directing both domestic (Russian) and international correspondence chess tournaments.
Invitations have been sent to administrators of the following chess servers:
Bestlogic – http://www.bestlogic.ru/
Chesshere – http://www.chesshere.com/
FICGS – http://www.ficgs.com/
GameKnot – http://gameknot.com/
LSS – http://www.chess-server.net/
SchemingMind – http://www.schemingmind.com/
Chess Planet – http://chessplanet.ru/pages/game-zone (to play chess on this server one must have a client program which is free to download at main page of the site)
If you have a proposal to add any chess server, it will be taken in consideration.
Regulations of the event
http://www.mocorrchess.narod.ru/wccstc/en/regen.html
Information on the event may be seen at http://www.mocorrchess.narod.ru/wccstc/wccstc.html
Best wishes, Andrey Pavlikov,
Russian Correspondence Chess Association Vice-President,
The Organizer of the event
Thibault de Vassal (2015-07-30 23:40:31)
Team tournment
Why not... if we find a good idea :)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-29 22:46:10)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Well, actually many answers are in the tournament regulations...
If I understand well, each player should play from 8 games (!) to 16 games according to the number of servers participating (from 4 to 8), which is a lot...
- Is this ICCF rated? It seems that it is.
- How many boards in the teams? I read 30, which is a lot! Maybe too much.
- Will the teams play in rating order? I have no idea.
If we have players enough to enter this tournament then we can vote for a captain if several players want to be. As for me, I won't be able to play it.
The real question is who will be able to play 8 to 16 games on the ICCF server... As far as I can remember, we never found 30 players for a team event so far, without counting the forfeits.
So far, it seems that 2 servers accepted to participate while Chess.com declined the invitation.
Regulations:
http://www.mocorrchess.narod.ru/wccstc/en/regen.html
5.1. No less than 4 and no more than 8 teams to play the event. The teams represent chess servers. No one server is allowed to enter the event with no more than 1 team. Teams play each other in an each-to-each round-robin tournament.
5.2. Each team plays each team in a team match on 30 boards. Each player of a team plays 2 games (one with White pieces, one with Black pieces) with one player of the other team. Reserve players are prohibited to begin the games.
5.3. The team consists of 30 players. No more than 5 reserve players may be added in a team squad.
5.4. The games are rated for ICCF rating.
5.5. Time control is 30 days for 10 moves (with duplication after 20 days is used for a single move).
5.6. 30 days of leave per year are available for each player.
5.7. The team mates and captain can see the games live. Live transmission for public is delayed by 5 moves.
5.8. ICCF Playing rules are applied for the event. The playing rules may be seen at special page
George Clement (2013-01-07 19:27:15)
Show opponents time
Thibault have you made any progress on this as an option yet? I think it is a real good idea.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-16 13:58:15)
FICGS admin scam me
About the button, I have no idea... What's the point here? If there were a button, it would follow the exact terms and conditions. It changes nothing.
What do you mean by "security system"? We use SSL, like many other sites. What's the point here?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-16 17:14:06)
FICGS admin scam me
Well, obviously you do not have any idea about what computer chess is... there are thousands of fans all over the world, full forums only about that, even the very best chess players in the world like to play it (Kasparov, Anand, Polgar, Ivanchuk...)
You still do not understand that this has nothing to do with avarice. Noone here wants to see such a system to be implemented.... first of all because it cannot be 100% sure (it would be very easy to cheat anyway), then everyone would suspect everyone to cheat... FICGS is a peaceful place (without counting 2 or 3 players out of hundreds/thousands) so this is fine like it is. For information we also offer NO_ENGINES_TOURNAMENTS for those who want to play with their brain only, but it is not rated... for the same reasons.
We have no problem that a few players cannot understand it at the end, but we do not need to hear again and again that computer chess is "lazy" or "dishonest", that is just untrue and insulting.
About your 7 euros, all has been said, I've nothing to add. This is not a bank, if you want a money prize, you know what to do (starting to read the terms & conditions).
Garvin Gray (2013-01-25 12:30:04)
Show opponents time
@Don: I did not say it was the first time.
@Thib: The last time a user generated forum idea was modifying the groups, which lead to the idea of the highly successful standard open format :o lol
Thibault de Vassal (2013-03-10 16:34:51)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
Hello all,
It seems that the current vacation system can be used in various ways to recover days at the clock while it is not particularly dedicated to.
We have 45 days of vacation per year, it is now possible to leave 45 times 1 day.
An idea could be to take a minimum of 3 days while there are more than 2 days remaining. Thus one could leave a maximum of 15 times.
Any opinion on this possible change?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-03-10 18:29:58)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
It seems just more realistic this way, why are you against this idea?
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-20 00:33:56)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
Also, I have to comment on Garvin's idea. I love Garvin. He does wonderful volunteer work. He is a good player. And I've been on a team with him. But that idea is atrocious, why would you eliminate vacation entirely?! I request here and now for my account to be deleted the very second vacation is deleted.
Garvin Gray (2013-03-29 06:50:22)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
I am not sure about the others, but I have mentioned anything about a board position, or a result from it.
That has nothing to do with the subject, in my opinion.
The issue is solely to do with players, who generally, allow their clocks to get very low on time, then use vacation time to avoid timing out.
There is no objection whatsoever to a player using vacation time when they go on vacation, or who needs to take a few days off for whatever reason. That is not the issue.
I only proposed a work around idea to this issue of having no vacation time at all and instead adding more initial time.
I do believe there should be a limit to the number of times a person can be on vacation in a single game.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-07 13:17:57)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
As you may know, Eros Riccio won the 8th FICGS chess championship by beating Jeroen Van Assche (who remains undeafeated though, he did not lose a single chess game at FICGS yet) in the candidates final, preventing him to play Eros again in the final.
Eros kindly accepted to answer a few questions:
- Hello Eros. First of all, congratulations for winning this 8th FICGS correspondence chess championship. Once again, you did not even have to play the 12 games match to defend your title as you won the qualifying tournament. In these conditions, the challenge was really tough for Jeroen Van Assche, in despite of his prodigious chess. He had to beat you consecutively in the candidates final (8 games match), then in the final (12 games match). How did things go in this candidates final?
Eros: Hi Thibault, thanks again! I was also worried to have to play a very strong player like Van Assche, but fortunately I had again the advantage that all draws were enough to win, and so my strategy was again not to take risks in all my games. As White it was easy... and surprisingly also as Black. The only game where I had to be more careful than others was this one: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qf3 h6 8.Be3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.Qg3 b5 11.a3 Rb8. Here Jeroen surprised me with an interesting novelty, 12.Kb1. The two times I had played this position I was White against Gueci and Kruse, and in both games I continued with 12.Bxb5 but couldn't get more than a draw. The idea of 12.Kb1 is to sacrifice a Pawn for the initiative after 12...b4 13.axb4 Rxb4 14.Nb3 Nxe4. The White Bishops are very strong after 15.Nxe4 Rxe4 16.Bd3 Ra4 17.Bd4 and fully compensate the Pawn less. Anyway I managed to defend, and when I was finally able to trade the Queens we agreed for the Draw.
- You also won the ICCF Umansky Memorial a few weeks ago, the italian correspondence chess championship (again) as well, obviously you played numerous games last year, what do you plan for the next months? By the way, Jeroen already qualified for the candidates final of the 9th cycle, meaning that he may play you in the final match next year if you defend your title again, is there a chance that we can see a revenge?
Eros: Yes, like in the past, also last year I have played a lot of games... anyway for the future I am planning to reduce my games a lot. At the moment, except a few games in minor tournaments, I am only playing for the italian colors at the Olympiads and European Championship, for ICCF. I didn't register for the new Italian Championship this time... I prefer to wait that another individual top ICCF Tournament starts. And of course I am also waiting to meet my next challenger for the FICGS Final! Maybe it will be Van Assche again, we have to see if he beats his opponent in the semifinal (actually next candidates final).
- It looks like a few chess engines reached a certain maturity, I mean algorithms. As a consequence, the computer speed may become the major evolution factor during the next years, that is generally slower than the program's improvements (but the future may have surprises, of course). What do you expect from the computer chess world in the next few years and its impact on correspondence chess?
Eros: As I have already said in a previous interview, being chess probably a draw with perfect play, the more engines get stronger, the more draws we will see. That's quite obvious.
- You probably do not play chess over the board so often, yet you have a quite good ELO! (about 2200, while many correspondence chess masters are rated below 2000 or not rated at all) By the way, I can certify that you are a strong blitz player after we met a few years ago. Do you still play tournaments?
Eros: I am not playing otb chess for a few years, my peak was 22... and a few points, I don't remember exactly. One of the main reasons why I stopped is because later, when analyzing my games with an engine... every time I got frustrated a lot seeing all the blunders I was making.
- Do you estimate that playing OTB chess is good to improve at correspondence chess?
Eros: Yes, it's useful especially if you develop a strategical style, then also in your corr. games you can see more easily "long-term-strategy" plans, which is still the "weakest strenght" in all engines.
- Do you feel that you're still improving at correspondence chess? If yes, is it mainly a question of opening book or something else?
Eros: Improving at corr. chess... hmm... I will surprise you with my thought about this matter! I think I can evaluate my strenght according to the speed of the computer I am analyzing my games with. When I bought this computer, 3 years ago, I felt like I could beat the corr. World Champion. Now... as my computer is becoming older and older, I feel like my play is getting weaker each day it passes. So my answer is that I am still getting worse at corr. chess, not improving.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-09 17:57:09)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Eros just told me that he will try to answer all questions (by FICGS players) in this discussion... so if you have any idea to try to discover his secrets, please just ask! :)
Garvin Gray (2013-05-10 04:42:58)
Thematic tournaments?
I think one idea that could be worth exploring with these thematics is to set up some kind of opening position that is topical, or could help to explore a bit more.
I think just saying lets have a french, or sicilian does not mean much as players get them in their normal games.
These thematics should have some goal more than just more games, like contributing to expanding opening theory.
Some kind of endgame thematic could be worth exploring as well.
This being said, I do fear that we could have too many options, so playing resources are spread too thin and very few can get regular corro games.
Attila Ba (2013-05-10 14:50:30)
Thematic tournaments?
Good point. Thematic tournaments would help to find out whether some radical ideas like Brooklyn defense ( 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8 ) can be defended against engine play.
Eros Riccio (2013-05-15 15:29:16)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Hi Daniel,
in the past I have been playing something like 100 games at the same time. That was my maximum, and I really felt some pressure with that quantity of games, and I also felt that my overall play was reduced quite a lot. Anyway that happened when I still had a low ICCF rating, so playing many games back then was a good idea in order to raise my elo quickly. Playing so many games now that I am over 2600 wouldn't be such a good idea anymore, as with almost every draw I would lose points (not to count the losses!) because I would likely have a higher rating than most of my opponents.
Everyone has his own limit of games, but a thing seems logical for everyone: the more you play the more your quality of play is reduced. I think I can handle up to 50 games at the same time without a big loss of quality of play, and without feeling much pressure. Above that number, things would become difficult for me. Anyway it's very possible that, as at the moment I am only playing 16 games, (all for iccf) even playing (only) 30 games would give me some pressure. I am getting old :-)
Attila Ba (2013-05-15 17:41:52)
Deep analysis - can it be improved?
The idea behind deep analysis is to store engine evaluations of chess positions in a permanent way and build an analysis tree out of them. Deep analysis is an improvement over simple engine analysis in two ways:
1) Permanent storage of analysis results makes them reusable. You don't have to analyse the same position from scratch over and over again (which is a waste of valuable CPU resources) rather you can build and improve upon your earlier results.
2) The search is configurable. You have control over which positions are examined and in what way. This gives you freedom to tailor the analyis to your own needs not having to rely on the defaults provided by your engine.
This idea is presented in a revolutionary way in the Deep Rybka Aquarium GUI. However using this framework I have encountered some problems. The lesser one and non lethal one is that draws by repetition are not handled correctly. This is for a reason: moves in the transposition table should be valued in an absolute way (regardless of the line which lead to them) in order to preserve the integrity of the tree. Since Aquarium has no means to incorporate lines, it simply ignores them
My other problem is that though the search is configurable I'm not absolutely certain about what is going on. It is not entirely clear to me exactly which nodes are selected for analysis.
These problems made me to try to come up with a deep analyis program of my own. After several failed attempts finally I have on my hand a solution which is not only capable of performing deep analysis but overcomes some of the difficulties of Interactive Deep Analyis (IDeA) provided by the Aquarium framework.
First I introduced a mechanism that can handle repetitions. In order to achieve this I attribute not one but two scores to each move and re-define the concept of root position already present in IdeA. The first score which I call 'idea' score is the same as presented in IdeA. The second is what I call 'alpha' score is calculated by minimaxing the tree from the root position taking into account repetitions.
Consider the following game:
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Nf8
The value of move 2. ... Nf8 at depth 18 by Houdini 3.0 is -19 centipawns. So the idea score of this move at depth 0 should be -19. Yet 2. ... Nf8 repeats the starting position. Therefore its alpha score with respect to a root equaling the starting position should be 0 centipawn which is exactly what my program calculates for it. ( For the sake of simplicity I don't require threefold repetition, since you would never allow your opponent to repeat a position if you have better ideas. )
So when my programs lists the tree it will present both scores for every move (which in most of the cases are equal of course - therefore this is mostly an aesthetic improvement rather than being a substantial one).
The improvement which I'm most interested in is that having full control of node selection now I have freedom to shape the tree search.
In order to keeps things simple I have only three parameters characterising the search:
1) engine depth
2) move distance (centipawns)
3) search depth
Engine depth means a fixed depth at which each move is analyzed. After long experimenting I have arrived at depth 18 as a good default for Houdini 3.0.
Move distance is a tolerance up to which moves are allowed into the analyis. For each position first the best move is determined. The search for alternative moves is continued until a move is found that has a valuation less than the valuation of the best move by 'move distance' centipawns (it is this 'distance' away from being the best move). The tree is then expanded for moves within 'move distance'.
To compensate for exponential growth of analyzed nodes I use a simple technique: at each ply after ply 1 the move distance is halved. So if the move distance at ply 0 and ply 1 is 20 centipawns, it will be 10 centipawns for ply 2, 5 centipawns for ply 3 and so on. This means that at greater depth less and less moves are allowed per position. So the analysis with greater depth slowly evolves into 'autoplay' rather than 'tree search'.
The other method to reduce exponential growth is the well known beta cut provided by alphabeta search. In order that all candidate moves in the root position and all candidate responses to them get proper values, I only allow beta cuts with ply 2 and deeper.
Once an alphabeta search of certain depth is carried out, the whole tree is mimimaxed out for the root. Now the initial evaluations of the root moves may change. This may make moves which initially fall out of the 'move distance' to become viable. So the search has to be repeated for those moves as well. This has to be done at every ply level.
My iterative search at a certain depth only ends when no new nodes are added by the alphabeta search (the tree is 'settled' for this depth). Only then the program is allowed to deepen the search (this I call 'refined' search).
With engine depth of 18 and move distance of 10 centipawns an average position can be analyzed to depth 10 within a matter of hours. This means a couple of hundred (possibly a couple of thousand) positions are analyzed to depth 18. Depth 10 deep analyis means an ultimate depth of 28 if you take into account that the engine depth is 18.
Whether this method has added ELO value over simple engine search is yet to be tested.
Michael Aigner (2013-05-16 21:57:51)
PGN notation for draw offers
Hi everybody!
As it is nowadays mandatory to document draw offers in the notation of otb games I would find it a good idea (and an interesting piece of information during a later study of the games )to do so in our correspondence games too.
What do you think about it?
Michael Aigner (2013-06-06 11:45:47)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
Hello everybody,
I read the whole thread and in my opinion it is not clear what we are discussing about. The trigger for the discussion was some kind of abuse of the existing rules but I, and I guess some others too, got no idea what the problem is.
Could someone please describe how the existing rules can be used in an unfair way. Before that happened we will run in circels.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-08 17:41:10)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
That is if one believes that is an abuse of vacation... I do not. Both players started with the same amount of vacation time and employed it for uses and different times. I think that is the whole idea behind vacation. For some people, vacation is finding a beach to lay on. For others, vacation would be freeing their normal hectic 16 hour that involves 1 hour of corr analysis and turning that day into a 17 hour corr analysis pound house.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-10 00:16:11)
Playing activity top 20 players
I do understand that you choose the stronger opponents (like most strong players), that's why you could have chosen the class M tournament with the ticket opportunity... That's the point I still don't get.
Thanks for your words and your proposal... I'm always looking for ideas to spread the word about FICGS in the chess world. The more players, the more fun for everyone!
Attila Ba (2013-06-11 10:10:18)
Playing activity top 20 players
As to 'create your own site of you are not satisfied' I'm seriously considering setting up a big chess site of my own. I like the idea of engine free chess very much but I can't get a tournament running here for half a year or so.
My site is not fully working as yet but has fragments that work (you can sign up, modify your profile, create challenges, view the board and make moves on it etc.).
Should you have any comments on the design it has a forum.
you can find it here:
baatti.com
Philip Roe (2013-06-11 14:08:13)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
There are players, who I could name, who always run their clocks very low and use vacation a day or two at a time to avoid loss. I have absolutely no idea why they do that. They gain no advantage, and in fact frequently lose on time. In consequence they are greatly underrated. Paired against one of them, you may in fact lose (against a low-rated player) or gain an unsatisfying forfeit. This behavior is legitimate under the current rules but extremely irritating.
It is true that all rules can be abused, but it is not unreasonable to set up rules so that abuse is less likely.
Scott Nichols (2013-06-18 20:44:03)
Playing activity top 20 players
I have a couple of thoughts. First is ICCF is not better for me than anywhere. The games just take too long. More to Daniels taste for sure. To help this site out, I will say it again, there needs to be at least one fast playing category. Like 10 days, with 1 day increment. This time control is very popular at other sites. Blitz CC is the wave of the future, even in OTB they don't play that slow chess anymore. Another idea is large cash prizes, :), to draw in the big guns. People are willing to pay more to get more. A couple of small things you could do Thib is offer a 2 e-point prize for most active player in a rating cycle and one for the player who improved the most in that same cycle for all 3 categories, chess, go and poker. Just some ideas...
Garvin Gray (2013-06-23 03:33:23)
Anyone play Semi Slav Botvinnik as black
I have had quite a few Semi Slav Botvinnik's on here. I play the SSB as black, but then when I am white I can not find anyone who plays it as black.
So I am wondering, are most cc'ers considering the SSB unsound for black?
I have a few ideas I would like to try as white, but never get the chance.
Maybe this could be a thematic, but would need to start after 10. Bxg5
Attila Ba (2013-07-18 10:12:31)
Looking for big chess partners
Looking for big chess partners
I like very much the idea presented by this site of chess played on a bigger than normal board. Since Chess960 destroys theory but does not destroy engines (playing Chess960 for an engine is easy as pie) the only anti-engine way is to go for bigger board sizes. In this way you can measure your true correspondence chess skills independent of engines (on one hand no professional would go and write an engine for a game that is played by very few, on the other hand the number of possibilities soon grow out of hand on bigger boards making the tree search very difficult).
Out of my 18 big chess games on this site I have won 17 and lost 1 making it my most succesful type of game here. But with low player turnouts I simply can't get a tournament running (for half a year or so).
In order to have the possibility to play I have created a site solely for the purpose of playing rated big chess games on a single game basis with wide choice of timers and board sizes.
If anyone is interested please come to baatti.com and let's play big chess.
Jose Carrizo (2013-07-19 23:13:11)
Anyone play Semi Slav Botvinnik as black
Hi Garvin, I play Semi Slav Botvinnik as black. A thematic tournament is a nice idea.
Ilmars Cirulis (2013-08-01 17:00:15)
Gossip about Evans gambit
So about the thematic tournament: with black I am going to play 4... Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 and hope to get to this position/variation:
With white I plan to play or check my skill/luck against other retreats of bishop from b4.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-08-06 00:42:13)
Next WCH Stage start
Yes, there will be a replacement for Kamesh very soon!
How do you organize swiss tournaments at correspondence time controls?
Well, the original idea was to give a chance to everyone (including to climb the elo scale)...
Alvin Alcala (2013-08-31 18:26:35)
New my games feature requested
Good idea garvin!
Philip Roe (2013-10-03 21:01:42)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
Bogoljub,
When you enter the tournament by clicking on the waiting list, you are told that "chess engines, databases and opening books are strictly forbidden". I guess the idea is to reproduce OTB conditions as closely as possible.
Scott Nichols (2013-10-08 16:52:38)
Best Freestyle Site
This site is still IMHO the best site for Freestyle. The interface is easy to understand and everything is clear, that's important to any site.
That's why I don't understand why the traffic has dwindled so. I'm sure we could come up with something to increase the Freestyle on here.
I'll start with my idea, :) Have a monthly Freestyle OPEN tournament. The only requirent is a 2 E-point entry fee. The winner gets 90%, FICGS gets 10%. The time controls would have to be bullet, 5 min with 15 second increment. If 8 players or less, it could be a round robin. 9 players or more, even up to a hundred!, would play a swiss style. Make it unrated so anybody could join. Have it on the first Sat. of the month. It would have to start at least by 1800 server time to get all the rounds in in ONE DAY.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-10-13 13:37:38)
Communism
And when the right leader dies or is plotted against?
The problem is that you are left with a structure that is horribly open to abuse and history has shown that the abuse happens, e.g. under Lenin is was about OK, under Stalin it was a nightmare.
The ideals behind communism are good and all the problems pointed out with capitalism in Das Kapital are fair and as valid today as when it was written. Its just that in practice communism hasn't worked and I doubt it ever will.
Nonethless, Das Kapital is an excellent read for anyone with an even vaguely open mind and does show that we need a diffrent direction than we have today in the west.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-11-21 18:38:54)
World chess championship Anand / Carlsen
Yes, looks familiar Thib. Interesting choice indeed. Carlsen played really solidly in game 8 and then this sharp line in game 9.
By the way, I wasn't really convinced about Ra2. I know the idea - swing it over to e2 or f2 but in the lines I looked at it never got there without a lot of simplications first.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-12-26 11:55:26)
FICGS World Chess Championship results
I thought it would be a good idea to have a record of the FICGS world chess championship results somewhere in an easily digested form. So I have compiled them and published them on a blog.
I have done this mainly for people who are already members here but also wrote an introduction to FICGS for those who may not be familiar with it. Who knows, it might leads to some new members :)
You can see the article here
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4640212584288527521#editor/target=post;postID=4543488454188377326;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname
The link to the championship results is at the bottom. I hope someone finds it interesting. I have beeen quite careful in compiling it but I expect there may be a few small errors in it. Please let me know if there are and I will make the necessary corrections.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-12-26 21:59:43)
FICGS Facebook app in question
Hello all,
As you probably have noticed, we have less and less new players and it seems that many correspondence chess sites encounter the same problem (but chess.com, maybe gameknot... mainly).
Nowadays, it seems that everything goes with Facebook and Facebook applications (even if Facebook enforced their rules in many ways around apps), so I'm thinking about making one... somewhat against my principles. In my opinion, there may be many other reasons why chess sites lose popularity but that's another story.
So I'd like to know your opinion on Facebook applications (well, most are spammy and with one goal, gathering personal data... that's quite obvious) and why not we could share ideas to make it useful and viral as much as possible...
Alvin Alcala (2013-12-27 07:06:40)
FICGS Facebook app in question
Thib good idea. It's an option we can choose where we are more comfortable.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-27 17:23:41)
FICGS Facebook app in question
Facebook is a very good medium and does not have to be 'spammy'. People have the ability to control what other see by controlling their settings.
The group admin can also decide who is able to enter a group, either by having the group as open or closed group.
Since pinterest was a bust, and I think facebook is the way to go, this idea should certainly be advanced.
I can see possibilities where it could help not just ficgs, but other sites as well as there are going to be players on facebook who are from other sites who are not on ficgs.
So I think it has the potential to be a win all round.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-28 02:42:08)
Ficgs World Championship 13
Been asked in the results thread, thought I would bring it across to here.
When is it going to start?
I have a secondary comment and suggestion that relates to starting time. Number 12 and the groups from 10 and 11 all started at the same time. That loaded a lot of games at the same time, which I certainly found to be a huge impost and impacted on the standard of play.
I went in one day from only having a few games, to having 10 Round Robin Final games, a second stage final plus a first stage M division all started at the same time.
All these games were started at exactly the same time. Not even a week apart from each other.
I really do wish for this upcoming cycle that the divisions do not start at the same time.
For instances, there is no reason why entries for number 13 could not be open now with the idea of starting February 1.
Then all the second stages/knockouts from previous groups could start in March, which has been commented on by Thib in the chat bar.
Charlie Neil (2014-01-01 22:44:54)
Thematic tournaments?
McCutcheon good idea! And Steinitz Petroff 3. d4
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-08 16:11:32)
Standard time control abusers
Changing the time control will not avoid the ways to abuse it... And we can always complexify rules (e.g. vacation) but it will always be possible to use it to gain time on difficult moves. All this reminds me the way we are governed in France, with the well known no-results...
Finally, I must say that you often had very good ideas for this site (even if many cannot be used yet because we have no players enough) but I think that your view on time controls is really subjective, probably most of us are really ok with the current rules and we can observe alternatives (iccf, wbccc, other sites).
Garvin Gray (2014-03-02 04:03:47)
Standard time control abusers
I see the idea of a vote as ridiculous and a waste of time. What it could lead to is people voting to keep the class A, M and SM tournaments open because they do not want to deprive the opportunity of someone to play in them, but the status quo remains that no one is joining them.
And what happens if you only get a couple of responses, which is exactly what could happen because of general site apathy?
If you want knowledge of how people feel about these matters, but do not want to publicly speak about the matter because they are afraid to offend the site administrator because they are afraid.
I have given you the absolute 'rounds of the kitchen' repeatedly and often on this issue and have not let up over a number of weeks.
It is natural on the internet that when someone is pushing that hard against the efforts of a volunteer site admin that there will be blowback and the 'pusher (me)' will cop criticism in return.
So far there has been little to none. In fact some of the regulars have been stating that there is an issue as well.
Instead of calling for votes that could just leave all of us in the same ridiculous situation, take the feedback I have provided, and also the inactivity of the groups as the votes that really count ie the marketplace has decided that they do not want those groups, and close the class SM, class M and class A groups immediately.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-03 23:41:34)
Standard time control abusers
At least you join Garvin on the WCH groups point (and consequently the Cup idea)...
Anyway, as there are very few new strong chess players yet, this is a quite good time to try this change. Let's see in a few weeks/months if it has first effects.
Jing Huang (2014-03-04 00:14:15)
Standard time control abusers
I agree with this - "I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case."
I also like the cup idea :)
Michael Sayers (2014-04-21 18:45:39)
Standard time control abusers
Hi Timofey,
These are just ideas off the top of my head. I don't know what a solution would be to the issues mentioned in the thread. FYI, I don't work for ficgs and am just a fellow member commenting on things :)
Real cc needs three days per move + no big delays except in rare instances (and maybe a courteous message would help, such as "I hope you don't mind but I need a few more days here to figure out what to do", et c.). Courtsey and sincere communication make a lot of things much smoother!
All The Best,
Michael
Thibault de Vassal (2014-06-11 01:57:46)
100 point rating bands
To be honest, I have no idea or almost... As far as I can remember, ICCF does not have such limits, IECG always used the 200 points rating division. We could also wonder what about a 50 points rating division.
But for a coherence purpose (and not by lazyness), I wouldn't favor such a BIG change :)
Garvin Gray (2014-07-08 17:01:05)
FICGS WCh results summary updated
Timofey: That format could result in more short draws as the players see it as a way to get through the early games faster.
The better format would be to have it as 12 games, but if one player is ahead after eight games have been concluded, the match is over.
The second idea would be to play an eight game match, and then if the result is 4-4, another four games are played.
That would encourage both players in the first eight games to try and win more games as they would know that agreeing to short draws does not shorten the match length, in fact it could lengthen it.
Garvin Gray (2014-07-08 17:04:32)
FICGS WCh results summary updated
Thib, I know you are going to defend the status quo on everything. That is what you do. You do it on everything, so I have pretty much lost interest in trying to change or improve things around here.
The site with either live or die as is. I am finishing up my games and then seeing what happens. My participation is coming to an end. I am finding it has stagnated overall in terms of site progression, ideas and overall administration.
It has become stale for ideas and the format is dead. Time to move on me thinks.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-07-11 01:06:42)
Call referee button, response time
30 days was chosen because it was the initial number of vacation days (as far as I remember). What if a player takes successive days of vacation? What if a player cannot play during this short period? We had many discussions that concluded into the idea that the human (referee) factor should be reduced at minimum. This clearly goes the other way.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-28 12:50:46)
Standard time control abusers
Alexis Alban: I dont you have read the whole thread and the comments from other posters who have talked about the habits of other players.
There is even a term for this behaviour. It is called DMD- dead mans defense.
And it is described very well.
They sit on their games for 35 days, make no moves, then suddenly are able to make 9 moves in 5 days, then make no more moves for 35 days and then make another 9 moves in 35 days and then it is rinse and repeat, time control and time control.
Meanwhile this is being done in positions where they are in dead lost positions ie mate in 30. They idea is solely to just piss off their opponents, nothing more.
So please do not just try and make this about one player. Standard time control abusers are a cancer on this and other corro chess sites and they should be gotten rid of as fast as possible.
They spread misery and suffering everywhere they go and the only person that really suffers is the opponent, who has to wait and wait for the games to finish, whilst the site admin sits back, does nothing and is just as guilty and the person doing the action.
At the end of the day, the person in charge who sits back and does nothing when they know of poor conduct under their watch is taking place is just as guilty, if not more so, than the original offender. This is because they create the culture that says it is permissable and says to everyone else that this behaviour is tolerated and the site is not to be taken seriously.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:37:06)
Standard time control abusers
As for the idea of the rapid time control- I love the rapid time control, it is just that for my rating, and those around my rating range, very few tournaments start at all.
So to get our fix, we have to look to the standard time control events, and then we run into these issues.
I maintain that you stopped the trail of closing the standard time control divisions wayyyy too early.
Nothing at the top is really starting at this point in time, even though players on this site are active, or trying to be.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-11-02 14:19:06)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess
About repetition and number of moves without a pawn move or capture, FICGS rules already specify that it does not apply here so there is no change to make.
The rest of your message explains the context I was talking about. But we don't have to agree on anything: As I explained when FICGS started and many times after that, I wanted to make it (particularly the championship cycle) different from what already exists (and closer to previous FIDE cycle). Obviously, you prefer the other way, that's not a big deal, and there is ICCF or LSS. I would have been ok to make a cup cycle if we had players enough but that's definitely not the case. What to add? There are many reasons why FICGS has quite few members (real names to start...) but there are well known advantages to this. Otherwise there are chess.com, gameknot, so many sites full of players. Finally, complaining players are probably the most important ones here because they constantly bring ideas. There was many many improvements in the first years and it did not go against the coherence of the site. Your cup cycle idea does not even go against the coherence of the original idea of the site, only the context is wrong here. Changing the WCH cycle for a ICCF-like one would be the worst thing to do in this point of view. But that's only a point of view.
Alex Getman (2015-01-05 07:29:02)
Business Idea - Chess education
Let us introduce you our small idea of chess education web-site
Interactivity at this level is an untouched niche that will give you
the stable income
and the satisfaction of being relevant to somebody – “the live” work
Details of ideas on a page on LiveJournal >> http://greathumility.livejournal.com/910.html
will hear good criticism with pleasure
To moderator:
am not a spammer but a member of the team, working on the site (the mentioned email is my personal one)
We don’t place full text on your sites,
because it is constantly being improved
So, our request to you is to treat us with understanding, please
Charlie Neil (2015-04-01 18:48:59)
Thematic tournaments?
Yes, good idea. The Noteboom was played at the last Super GM tourney.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-06-19 02:16:28)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Ah... I must say this is an interesting idea. Actually it changes many things! This is a deep change in the whole game after all (in my view).
Any opinion?
Peter W. Anderson (2015-07-09 09:35:12)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I have avoided commenting further on this idea because I wanted to see what other people had to say. But now I will reply to the points made.
“Giving a bonus for stalemate is almost like playing for stalemating your opponent, which is not the aim of the game and this would change the game deeply.”
As I said I am against a points bonus, but am in favour of using stalemates for tie breaks. The real question is would someone start a game aiming for stalemate as opposed to start the game trying to win? I am not sure how you would do that – either way you have to try to build up an advantage and if it gets big enough it will lead to mate and if it is not quite big enough it might lead to stalemate. Anyone who gets the choice between a win and stalemate will presumably always take the win.
The one way I think this will really affect the game is by discouraging some very deeply analysed defences that are known to drawn or close to drawn but will almost certainly lead to stalemate. Personally I think this is a good thing, but I accept that the opposite view could be taken :)
“I think you overlooking a little that a good defense leading to stalemate means showing great skill. It´s not all about luck.”
Reaching stalemate as the defending side can be very simple (e.g. king and pawn vs king) or can indeed show great skill. It is almost never down to luck. In the case where great skill is shown that skill earns you half a point instead of no points. Nonetheless, the very fact that you needed great skill to save the game shows how close you came to losing, so I see no reason not to use this as a tiebreak rule.
“And stalemating gamepoints definitely will favour stupid engine playing and not human thinking with endgame skill”.
Like Pablo, I think quite the opposite is true. In fact one of my motivations for suggesting the change was to increase the human element in the game.
“According to me, stalemating an opponent (or having King + Bishop vs. King) reflects who played better ONLY IF rules say it before the game. In some cases, it actually reflects a better play, but in some others, it only shows that the stalemated player (or naked king) found a clever way to draw the game by giving the opponent the illusion of an advantage. Isn't it quite subjective after all?”
I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. If we could play perfect chess and at the start of the game someone decided to take the draw by allowing themselves to be stalemated then that would be a very good example supporting that view. However, I think the reality is different. In most cases when someone gets stalemated (or would be stalemated if the game was played through to its conclusion) it is because they have got a worse position and have little choice if they want to save the game.
If the defending side could achieve a draw by stalemate or by other means, then under today’s rules they could choose either way. Under my proposed rules they might be wise to choose the other method, unless of course they were confident of achieving more wins in the match.
“Maybe the games become more interesting if instead give small extra score for win with black!? Encourage black to play for a better score, just as UEFA do in football.”
This might be helpful for tournaments but I don’t think it helps at all for match play. In reality, if you can win just one game in a match you will most likely win the match. Therefore you don’t need a bonus to play for a win with black in a match situation.
However, I think this point indirectly touches on an issue with match play and how hard people try to win, and I do think the stalemate tiebreak rules would help a little with this.
The problem as it stands is that the higher rated player (or the champion in the case of the tile match) knows that if all games are drawn he will win the match. The higher rated player (or champion) can therefore take a low risk approach to the match, with both black and white (actually I think the low risk approach with white is just as much a problem).
If the higher rated player (or champion) was not certain that all draws would win them the match then they would probably try harder to win. This would give a better chance of decisive games in matches.
One way of a achieving this would be through a toss of a coin if the match is tied with all draws. Personally I would not find this satisfactory.
Whilst the likelihood of stalemate is quite low, it will nonetheless be there, so this rule might encourage the higher rated player or champion to try harder for a win.
I will speak from personal experience on this matter. In most of my recent matches I have been the higher rated player. I still play some relatively risky defences as black (e.g. the modern against 1.e4) and I always try to win with white. However, I have to be honest, if I am the higher rated player, I do not always play the very sharpest lines as white and I do not often play some of my riskier defences to 1.d4. If the stalemate tiebreak rule was in place, I would be taking more chances with both white and black.
So whilst I accept that it is not perfect, I still think the stalemate tie-break rule is a good idea. However, as nobody else has spoken out in favour of it I accept that it is very unlikely to be implemented and I won’t write any more on this matter unless someone asks me a direct question. It is time to concentrate on my matches under the existing rules! :)
Alvin Alcala (2015-07-10 14:46:26)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Hi everyone. GM Arno wants to post in this thread as he has trouble logging in.
Introducing a 3/4-1/4 score for stalemate does not mean changing the whole game. Lasker and Réti, the fathers of this idea, knew quite well what they did, when they said, it's only a minor change (btw following the ancient chess, when mates were rare and a stalemated player had to pay half of his stake).
Some people on ChessBase argued and feared that the game might become bloodless as players would fear to sacrify material. But that's a wrong assessment.
Here is a "normal" classical GM game with a Morra Gambit, that could have happened the same way under the new rule:
E.Berg - S. Rocha (POR 2013)
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 7.0–0 Nf6 8.Bf4 Bg4 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 e6 11.Rfd1 Qc7 12.Rac1 Be7 13.Bb3 Rc8 14.Nd5 exd5 15.exd5 Ne5 16.Qe3 Qd7 17.Rxc8+ Qxc8 18.Bxe5 0–0 19.Bf4 Qd7 20.Rc1 Bd8 21.Qd4 Re8 22.Qb4 Be7 23.Ba4 b5 24.Bb3 Rc8 25.Rxc8+ Qxc8 26.a4 Qc5 27.Qe1 Kf8 28.Be3 Qc7 29.axb5 axb5 30.Qb4 Qb7 31.g4 h6 32.Qd4 Nd7 33.Qe4 Bf6 34.Qb4 Qa6 35.Bc2 Ne5 36.Kg2 Nc4 37.Bc1 g5 38.Bd3 Qa1 39.Bxc4 bxc4 40.Qxc4 Bxb2 41.Be3 Bf6 42.Qc8+ Kg7 43.Qf5 Qc3 44.Qe4 Qb2 45.Qf5 Qc3 46.Qe4 Qb2 47.h4 gxh4 48.Qf4 Qe5 49.Qxh6+ Kg8 50.Kg1 h3 51.Qxh3 ½–½
Follow the comments in the MegaBase.
White sacrifies a pawn at move 3. He regains it at move 18 by a typical piece sacrifice. Later White, who is pressing a lot, while Black defends quite well, could have won a pawn by 38.b3 (instead of 38.Bd3?): e.g. 38...Qa1 39.Bxg5 hxg5 40.bxc4 bxc4 41.Qxc4.
Berg argues he might have had practical winning chances. Either 1-0 or 1/2. So what is the big difference, if we would say: either 1-0, 3/4 or 1/2? It's just making the game more exciting, more fair and a bit less drawish, what is badly needed for correspondence chess. The basic wrong assessment is that it might be significantly easier to achieve a stalemate advantage. But it isn't (and that's why only a small percentage of games will end like that). Last but not least, players who achieve a clear endgame advantage deserve a 3/4 point instead of 1/2. K+P, K+B, K+N vs. K should be a difference to K vs. K." Thanks again, Arno
Thibault de Vassal (2015-07-11 02:18:11)
E. Riccio on his win in the 10th CC WCH
Once again, Eros kindly answered a few questions after his win in the 10th FICGS correspondence chess championship. His answer on tie break rules meets the discussion in this thread:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11773
____________________________
- Hello Eros and congrats again for this new win in the FICGS correspondence chess championship! This time, your opponent was Peter W. Anderson and you're playing him once again in the next final match. Actually, all games finished in less than 3 months, which looks like superfast, how did it happen?
Hello once again Thibault! Yes, the match with Anderson was very quick. The reasons are that he moves very fast, and like me, I don't seem to remember that he took any day of leave.
Also, our games were not played until the very end; many draws were agreed with many pieces on the board, as soon as we thought that none of us had winning chances.
- For many players, it is quite impossible to beat you in such a 12 games match (probably because of the tie rule). After all these won matches do you start to think that the advantage is too big?
It's a fact that a very high percentage of correspondence games played at the top level ends up in a draw... (and that percentage is even higher in my case, as my strategy is to avoid taking risks) so yes, talking against my interests, I think that something in the rules should be changed.
- By the way, your opponent suggested an interesting tie rule in the forum ( Chess, Poker & Go forum - Topic 11773 ), in the context of more general new ideas for correspondence chess rules (e.g. article by GM Arno Nickel - Correspondence Chess – the draw problem ) in order to increase the interest of the game. Do you have any opinion on all this?
The idea GM Nickel launched could be interesting, even if before we can say for sure if it can be applied in serious tournaments, it needs to be tested.
If I understood correctly, having a piece more in a draw endgame, after the game is over, a little plus on the score would be given to the player who had the small advantage.
I always thought like: How unfair! That player had King and two Knights against a lone King of his opponent... still he only got a half point anyway! Or even worse, in theory, one player could have this position: King in e1, Bishop in h1 and 6 Pawns from h2 to h7. (Black King in h8) Counting the value of pieces that would be a a +9 advantage, like a Queen more, but still it would be a draw. Another crazy scenario, more common, are those blocked positions were 16 pawns block the center (or more simply any fortress position) and not rarely it happens that a color has a huge material advantage but can't break through in any way. In this last case the player with material disadvantage could have found a genial idea to reach that blocked position, should his opponent with extra pieces still be given an advantage after the game?
Another important consideration is that this rule could discourage attacking players to play gambits or make sacrifices, as if the attack fails, their efforts to try to win would be punished! This last case would even increase the draw rate.
Probably Nickel didn't talk about giving a plus after games finished with advantage but still many pieces on board, anyway those positions (except the 16 Pawns one) could very well be played on until only one piece would be left.
After these examples we can see that there are so many different ways that a position with material advantage can be reached... but it's not always fair that the player with the advantage should be given a plus after the game. As a paradox, an advantage should be given to the opponent if he smartly managed to sacrifice one or more pieces in order to reach a draw endgame which he would have lost if he didn't give away material.
- Of course, the level of chess programs is for much in it. Do you feel that high level correspondence chess and centaur chess evolved much this year, or did it reach a kind of peak?
The level of correspondence chess increases in a parallel way as computers, databases and chess programs improve. Slowly everything keeps improving. Of course, due to the more thinking time, correspondence chess will always have a higher draw percentage than blitz games played by computers.
- Finally, what can you tell us about your correspondence chess path this year, particularly at ICCF where you're currently ranked #13?
On ICCF I am fighting with the Italian Team (I am playing in second board behind the World Champion Finocchiaro) in the 9th European Team Championship.
---> https://www.iccf.com/event?id=44123
Scott Nichols (2015-09-12 01:24:12)
New quotes?
OK, I'll start, :)
Blitz chess kills your ideas. (Bobby Fischer)
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-08 18:11:38)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Your idea is attractive Garvin! But, it is a question of time also, and organisation of championships cycles... I don't see a satisfying solution with this one.
Scott's idea looks like the original FICGS cup's idea... and ICCF WCH. Just one more correspondence chess RR championship.
Alvin's idea is exactly what a correspondence chess champ. should avoid (IMHO), I mean server or internet provider problems... It would be a shame that it decides a winner (like it may have happened in freestyle tournaments). Also, this is just not correspondence chess anymore.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-14 02:29:41)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Garvin's last idea is actually really interesting in my opinion. I always thought that 12 games should be enough, but I would be ready to change it to 16 if a majority approves... Any opinions on this (and on Scott's remark as well)?
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-16 01:12:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hi all,
The recent discussions on FICGS chess wch tie break rules just gave me an idea...
Obviously, there are no satisfying solution (for everyone I mean) for a change in the wch rules. In my opinion, wch rules are great already, even if there are too many draws in matches.
The idea of a cup tournament is here for years but I didn't see any way to include it, in a several rounds version at least, in our calendar because of the wch cycle, the slowly decreasing number of active players, and so on...
But what do you think about this cup format:
An enormous round robin tournament with the 33 (1 player for each piece on the board, it's a symbol but the number is to be discussed) highest rated players who entered the waiting list. It is 32 games per player for 1 round only, duration of games could be the standard one (because there is one round only), longer but maybe fits more the number of games and additional games in other tournaments.
Looks like a great challenge and a real alternative, with very few risks of draw odds, cheating or whatever... It may be the biggest correspondence chess round robin tournament on the internet.
Any opinion? Would you play such tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-16 01:12:57)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Finally, this discussion inspired me an idea on a possible FICGS cup:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11877
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-17 18:23:12)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Yes, we may use an intermediate time control, any idea on this is welcome.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-23 22:10:19)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Could someone copy-paste Garvin's original idea for the cup tournament? I'm not sure which thread deals with it (even if I think I remember the main scheme)...
By the way, I agree with your points Garvin, finally question is what tournament do we want? ... Surely we'll have many different answers. Multi-rounds tournaments bring many problems (first is IMO that next rounds start-date still surprise many players), that's what I thought one round could be interesting. Also, it looks like a big challenge with a fast result. But I agree that many top players would think twice before to enter it, but wouldn't they do the same in a multi-round similar event? To be continued.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-27 23:03:32)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hi Garvin... Surely not!
Well, just read your cup idea again, here are my thoughts:
- In my opinion, in both ways, top players will probably ignore such a tournament. So, the challenge point may be most important.
- In my opinion, the 33 players round robin is even more simple (and avoiding complicate cases depending on the number of entries), more different from FICGS WCH, faster (no choice to make about playing 2 cycles at once) and with more chances of clear victory, but does it really bring something in both cases? Quite subjective at the end.
Sergey Zemlyanov (2015-11-16 22:09:27)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hi all. I try to express my opinion.
The main idea of mass round-robin tournament is good but
I think that the strong players might reject it.
As it seems, I see 2 different ways here:
1st. To have a strong tournament with top players.
2nd. To have a mass tournament just for fun.
In order to organize the 1st tournament you should do the next things:
1. To set up money prizes for winners (more prizes -> more top players might be interested in).
2. To send out invitations for players by email and etc.
3. The time control should not be too fast here if you want a qualitative games
and good tournament.
4. About splitting into the groups.
4.1 Semifinal stage.
I offer to play several qualifying semifinal rounds with 2-3 chessplayers coming into the Final stage.
For example, we have 50 players. So we can create 5 Semifinal groups with 10 players in each with 3 coming out places for the Final.
The time control here I offer 10+2/21 with vacation.
4.2 The Final stage.
I offer 15 players for the Final stage and 14 games for everyone,
or, another variant is 7-8 finalists and 14-16 games with color change for everyone.
About the 2nd tournament my opinion is:
1. To set up money prizes depending on entry fees, for each player.
2. To play mass round robin tournament with 1 game against each player
with faster time control, 10+1/21 for example.
In 1st variant you need to find a contributor to organize the tournament.
But it should be interesting. The 2nd variant with entry fees is interesting too, I think.
AMICI SUMUS,
Sergey Zemlyanov.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-12-02 02:48:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Finally... after a way too long thought on this FICGS cup idea and FICGS wch format, I think that Garvin's idea for this new tournament should be tried.
1) Eros just won the latest WCH with all games drawn again, but not all games in the knockout tournament are draws (e.g. latest candidates final). I think that we must keep this original format because it doesn't exist elsewhere and because it is a real challenge (and it must be possible to beat Eros in 1 game... one day :)) ! Of course, the other reason is that I didn't find any other acceptable way in case of equality.
2) I still think that there are problems in both my cup idea and Garvin's idea in the current context, but this cup will be different enough from the WCH, so the two formats should probably coexist so that each player can choose (or play both).
Thibault de Vassal (2015-12-08 00:14:54)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
What do you think about the entry fee idea, Garvin? Scott, do you have any prediction on the number of players according to the entry fee?
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-05 17:58:28)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Well, my feeling is that the number of players may be more varying in percentage with an entry fee (we still miss players)... on the other hand, it may more probably look like my idea of a 1-round-big-round-robin... Now I say why not after all. But would it be satisfying for the most? That is the question.
Herbert Kruse (2016-01-09 22:36:31)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
my ideas:
no change in running cycles, but the new one´s should be with lesser time and more games per opponnent
Ilmars Cirulis (2016-01-11 23:10:13)
Thematic tournaments?
Yes, it's good idea to add 3... Nf6 and 4.Bb2.
About 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 ... - I believe that 2.a3 is better choice and that after 2.Bb2 have more problems. It's only an opinion, of course.
Alexis Alban (2016-01-17 15:37:10)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I disagree with the idea that a champion should have to start over from the beginning each year and have to work his way up to retain the title every year.
I however think that it is wrong for a champion to only need to play one match to defend his title. I think the 2015 champion should have to play in the 2016 quarterfinals and work his way up from there.
If that seems unfair then just make the champion play in the semifinals.
Ilmars Cirulis (2016-01-18 09:52:30)
(Random idea)
Endgame "tablebases" on arbitrary big (N*N) board.
Is there anything like this?
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2016-01-18 22:43:27)
(Random idea)
I don't think so, but you could ask in a computer chess forum. For example in http://talkchess.com/forum/index.php or http://www.open-chess.org
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-19 00:14:29)
(Random idea)
Looking for Big chess tablebases ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-19 00:25:30)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Yes, correct. Thanks for this answer!
Isn't it a problem that in a few groups, half players take White one time more than Black? ... and some to have one game/opponent less than in other groups? (by the way, a bit harder to code/launch the games)
These points (equity) were always of first importance to me in all tournaments and I don't remember having seen this elsewhere (but I can be wrong, I'm not used to ICCF tournaments, for example). What do you think? Why is it such a problem for you to wait a few more days to "complete" a waiting list? Please note that I'm not really opposed to this idea, I just want to be sure that not all players disagree with this.
Ilmars Cirulis (2016-01-20 20:35:12)
(Random idea)
More like a program that plays given endgame perfectly for any board size.
Chess Programming wiki had something about it;.
Ilmars Cirulis (2016-01-22 11:52:43)
(Random idea)
For example, for KRk: https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/KRK
Interesting read. :)
Scott Nichols (2016-01-22 16:33:30)
(Random idea)
ChessOK.com has a board that will solve all up to six-man.
Ilmars Cirulis (2016-01-27 16:52:41)
(Random idea)
ChessOK and other sites have it only for 8*8 board. Big Chess, for example, is bigger.
Garvin Gray (2016-02-09 03:24:17)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
And then you will just have more complaints about the faster time control and the title being decided by speed of the computer, superior engine.
Also there will be issues of trying to find an acceptable time for all participants. How do you find an acceptable time if players live in USA, Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Oceania region.
If the games are all held at the same time for an accelerated time control, similar to the freestyle concept, then that is dramatically different to the original format.
Rapid playoffs are not ideal in OTB chess, but at least they are played at the same time of day as the original games, and some of the players are not forced to play at 3am, where others get to play at 3pm.
Also, all this requires extra organisation on Thibault's part, unless he writes into the original rules about when the finals will be, but still the playoffs will be still be unfair for the stated reasons.
A different idea could be to have a third round involving those who tied from the second stage. So if three players tied, they would play each other four times.
1 v 2
2 v 3
3 v 1
2 v 1
3 v 2
1 v 3
1 v 2
2 v 3
3 v 1
2 v 1
3 v 2
1 v 3
Garvin Gray (2016-04-01 01:14:32)
Get rid of the new 'advert' button
There has been a new button appear just below the game board, offering suggestions like- would you like to play GM Riccio? Take Back?
I want this removed, or the option to be able to remove it. It is a distraction to the game board, and also the idea that now take backs are allowed is not on.
Get rid of it.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-05-11 21:21:49)
Server crash (april 2016)
Good idea David, I open a forum discussion for this!
Thibault de Vassal (2016-05-26 21:49:03)
FICGS restarts (2016 May 25)
Thank you very much Herbert & all for the encouragements, it always goes right in the heart and helps me to find solutions, even in desperate situations :)
George, your idea makes sense a lot but such habits are difficult to change, I'm too afraid to forget and make a mistake in the future :/
Jan Ohlin (2016-09-08 20:16:14)
Player of the Year
Anyhow, it could be a good idea to have a topic in the forum where it is allowed to brag about one's own excellence. Maybe also a way to make the "best game" more worth reading, it´s so very boring now.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-09-12 17:40:02)
Player of the Year
Yeah, good idea to find such objective criterias. I hope it will be possible to code a few ones.
George Jempty (2016-09-20 09:06:10)
Missing chat
Well that's as close to an admission you've made, laced with abuse as it is. I didn't abuse anyone except maybe to call you a troll though maybe I did abuse the system. I thought we'd come to some agreement when I came up with the idea of a system where it took two people to delete a chat message and you said "good idea", but then when a bunch of messages subsequently got deleted, you went on to falsely accuse me. Thib could put this all to rest by telling us who deleted the messages on that particular day, but it wasn't me. Could we just agree to a cease fire in the meantime?
Scott Nichols (2016-11-07 21:57:16)
Poker Poll
My idea was just a heads up match between 2 players who both feel they are the best:) No ratings, no money, everything just stays the same. The reason I offer this is because I'm 99% mathematically sure with this rating system, reaching 2400 would be next to impossible with everyone so much lower rated.
On the other hand, all I have to do is win a dozen or so games quickly and there it is. I feel it is an unfair advantage to me.
David Fierry Fraillon (2016-12-04 07:24:53)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Ok it can be very long then ...
I am not happy with banishment solution ... i guess the idea is to have a lot of players ... and more.
IF you look at some rating evolution you will see that some player just stop corresponding chess and are back few months later and sometimes more ...
I will do it myself as soon as i will finish my games because i have to prepare myself to normal chess ...
So i think it is normal for many reason to leave corresponding chess for a few months and be back ... i think also that it is normal to resign if you can ... but as Thibault wrote you can find many reason to not be able to do it .... By the way : Thibault, can you solve the trick of creating a new account when a player is banished ? I have only two solution in mind : reducing the maximal time allowed to one move to 30 (i do not like it because i use it sometimes when i am on the X9th move ... :-) ) and reducing time for adjudication ...
Scott Nichols (2017-01-07 15:20:42)
Defeating Draw Death
Maybe some new ideas can be shared here. Here is one, 2 players play a 2 game or even more game match where Black gives up the f7 Pawn. Or a set of the first 6 moves very wild in nature and then each player will have to play the same first six moves. They alternate colors of course, :)
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-11 15:38:14)
Defeating Draw Death
The wild 6 first moves idea should be possible with thematic tournaments... Maybe the f7 pawn is possible this way as well. Why not... Scott's 2nd idea reminds me the silver thematic chess (now Traxler).
Jan, I did not miss your ideas in the chat on wins / draws... It may be very interesting and funny to try but it changes really everything, the game is not the same according to me, and the code should be rewritten in good part. And well, isn't it a question of taste before everything? As for me, I'm quite sure I would play it like atomic chess, then would come back to the original game.
Roger Llull (2017-01-18 04:33:20)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
I have an idea. Make it more of an spectator sport like engine vs engine is, by letting people offer Epoints to the winners of thematic tournaments in the openings they choose. Let others interested in the same opening add to those Epoints and discuss changes in time controls, starting position and Elo limit. Those studying openings can this way effectively pay for great line analysis, and if this is done well and takes traction, it could even be a source of income for the best players.
George Jempty (2017-01-19 01:12:18)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
I like your idea Scott I just posted something similar in your other thread
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-19 21:33:23)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Hmm... I didn't think about a FULL THEMATIC CHAMPIONSHIP before, that's an interesting idea from Pablo IMO (that would invite us to play -still classical chess- romantic style chess).
And last but not least, it would be possible here (while solutions with fractions of points are much more complicated to code & organize).
Pablo Schmid (2017-01-19 22:32:57)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
How to choose the opening, maybe random in a pre select list, or the whole small selected list, or the choice of the players like 4 choices each. For example I could ask 'I want this subline of the king's gambit" and I should not ask a too risky one because the idea is to try to win the Black(or even White) side while surviving when the color is reversed.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-19 23:40:00)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
:) Yes... I understand the idea, but it should be unrated IMO, just like thematic tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-20 17:31:22)
Thematic with lowest chances of draw
Poll! :)
According to you, what are the most interesting chess thematics that are the less drawish (with the lowest chances of draw)...
Of course, this is in the idea of a possible future championship that would keep the historical part of chess & chess openings (chess 960 is another game IMO). But this is only an option for now.
As for me, I'll start with King's gambit, that is not only chess, but (IMHO) the most romantic & beautiful part of chess...
Your opinion?
Pablo Schmid (2017-01-20 18:05:27)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Why would a thematic disfavour Black? That's not logical, it just depends of the thematic! If we take the King's gambit accepred as example, Black is not worse and may be the opposite! Even if you lose as Black because of the thematuc, you have chance to win the game where you have White against it... At least the idea would be interesting to play very interesting lines and games that fear does not allow in normal time and to contribue to chess theory in wild opening.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-22 19:00:28)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hi Garvin! I'm just still open to ideas and was curious about your opinion (it could have been different after all)...
This discussion is still fresh, so let's see how it evolves, let's start this cup as it was decided and maybe we'll have a change in the WCH format or maybe we'll have later a kind of "King's championship" on the King's gambit with a different format, to be sure to try everything ^^
Herbert Kruse (2017-01-22 19:57:43)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
my last idea:
lets play many more games against each opp and there cannot be the same position from move 3 on
Peter W. Anderson (2017-04-19 16:03:14)
WCh and other ramblings
To my mind big hardware only helps a little bit at FICGS speeds. Yes if you space bar everything then it might make a lot of difference but if you are prepared to work hard analysing variations properly then I think much less so - working hard is far more important than having a big computer.
For me it is more a question of how often whilst analysing those variations I can see a mis-evaluation or come up with an idea that the engines miss. It still happens but less often now than 5 years ago.
But I take your point about poker. And at faster chess speeds big comps are essential. The ideal configuration for the Infinity chess tour? - a strong human player who is experienced at advanced chess and 6 (or more) big comps running :)
Thibault de Vassal (2017-11-25 21:05:20)
The older rating lists
At last, all correspondence chess rating lists (from the server start, march 2006) are available by clicking "Rating lists" and following "The older rating lists"... 1 year of ratings by page.
As it was asked by a few players for a long time, only players who were REALLY active (who finished at least one game at most 1 year before or 1 year after the period) are listed in.
Many informations and good memories :) The worst part is that I can see clearly the reality: About 50% players left in about 4 or 5 years. The peak was about 900 players, there are now only 261 active correspondence chess players. Time to find new ideas, definitely.
Ilmars Cirulis (2017-12-08 21:23:22)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish
There will be some more matches, I hope. I expect that at least some criticism about settings and machine of chess engine will be heard.
Also more serious paper about AlphaZero (chess/shogi/go) will be publised.
And then Deepmind are going to leave chess in the past, in the same way as it did with go. At the best, it will be used for testing some of next research ideas, and we will get few more games to look at.
And then it will make a superhuman Starcraft player, then maybe some AI that can do math research like the humans do (I would like to live so far :D), then maybe computer will learn languages properly... :)
Chess is just random checkpoint for Deepmind. We will have to make our own AlphaZero to play with, anyway. :)
Ilmars Cirulis (2017-12-10 01:03:35)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish
No idea how much would 2000 core machine cost. :)
Thibault de Vassal (2017-12-22 23:28:18)
Monte Carlo Analysis
Oh wow, it looks like I have no more idea of what Fritz Gui looks like nowadays... Is there a "Monte Carlo" engine or is it a Fritz option? Or is it the old option allowing engines to play each other in tournaments on various openings & positions?
Actually, I don't see the interest of a 'pure' Monte Carlo method in chess as it just looks like a non-optimized search. But it seems to me that it's a long time that engines use algorithms that look like it when it may be useful (particularly in calm positions & endgames). So, it's just a "plus" if you have some processing time to do it (like AlphaZero, having a much more powerful hardware), otherwise...
Right now, I must say I still have no accurate idea of how AlphaZero plays chess.
Daniel Parmet (2017-12-24 18:51:20)
Monte Carlo Analysis
I thought the whole idea of IDEA was a human thought merge of computer analysis through MCA?
I had the thought about using MCA with chess engines as the brain nearly 5 years ago at work. My boss loved the idea and tasked me with it. However, I have no coding skills so my ability was limited to what was available which was extremely limited at the time.
The best way to think of MCA is to accept that we don't know what move is best (hence why Alphazero didn't have or want an opening book or games database). From here now, it's like trying to predict what's best and what will come from flipping a coin 5 million times. You know in a coin scenario that it is 50%. But what about the stock market? A lottery ticket? A game of black jack? Or Chess? Each individual decision could yield 50.1% in favor and by MCA you will find it. It will create a tree that shows a RANGE of your worst possibilities to best on a probalistic manner. The most common use is for wealth management investing.
As for how to change off the Fritz engine, I don't know. I could never figure that out (though I only have the Fritz 13 gui). I guess I was hoping this feature would be improved over time. Perhaps now due to Alphazero, it will be.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-11 03:13:36)
1st King Supertournament
Hi Christoph,
I agree that engines may be there anyway (I added a permanent warning in the "move_express" page), and also that King's Gambit needs to be analyzed again and again :)
There are several reasons for this choice for this particular tournament...
1. The tournament's format: The number of games may be huge and practically impossible to manage with databases & engines analysis. At least, it could be dissuasive! By the way, there are regularly King's gambit thematic in the Special Chess Tournaments category.
2. The "applications friendly" idea: Unlike most other tournaments, this one will be particulary playable just for fun from anywhere with a phone.
And before everything, this is just an experiment...
Let's try something new :)
Kym Farnik (2018-01-15 07:11:04)
Conditional chess moves (again)
Hi
I've used a site in the past with conditional moves. VERY handy!
Especially for forced moves or obvious moves.
For those against the idea - you don't have to use the feature :)
It would speed up games for those that want to use it.
I'm a software developer with PHP experience and would be happy to help implement the feature!
(Yes, putting my money where my mouth is so to speak)
Thanks!
Herbert Kruse (2018-01-15 12:21:57)
Conditional chess moves (again)
i like that idea :)
Kym Farnik (2018-01-17 02:35:24)
Spice up chess? More members
OTB and online chess have moved to faster format games.
The use of rapid, blitz, bullet, and even Armageddon (tie break) games are very common.
An idea to get more involved... 'Super rapid' say 10 days + 12hours / move
Thoughts?
Clodomiro Ortiz (2018-01-17 11:59:10)
Spice up chess? More members
I like the idea of a SUPER RAPID TOUR..of course, it is lead to the segment of population with enough available time...remember that sometimes losing on time is a decision some people prefer as a tactic to delay defeat.Anyway, everyone should be responsible for the tour selected...
Garvin Gray (2018-01-17 12:57:54)
Conditional chess moves (again)
Kym: Point 2- regarding whether to allow more than one line of conditional moves.
I think it is important to introduce a concept now called project scope. What this means is setting the outer limits of the project and also what are the main aims, or purpose of the project.
Anything that is outside of these aims, is outside of the project scope and is rejected.
As was stated by yourself in the first post:
I've used a site in the past with conditional moves. VERY handy!
Especially for forced moves or obvious moves.
For those against the idea - you don't have to use the feature :)
It would speed up games for those that want to use it.
And then Herbert Kruse said- I like that idea.
So that gives a very good idea of what the project scope is, or the reason for allowing conditional moves- to allow players to make forced moves or obvious moves through conditional moves.
An issue that already occurs in correspondence chess is players either resigning by mistake, move slips, or other mistakes.
Introducing conditional moves will increase the possibility of this occurring. This is why the number of conditional moves must be kept to a minimum, hence why I believe the requirement for linear conditional moves.
This also makes it much easier to deal with draw offers.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-21 23:55:52)
Conditional chess moves (again)
Sure, it's feasible but the idea was to not implement this rule :) (correspondence chess is quite different from otb chess after all)
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-22 00:51:19)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
New topic to discuss what should be done when chess engines are probably or obviously used in no engines tournaments. Not so easy to judge, and it would be easy to make it quite invisible IMHO.
- Elo rating points loss?
- Loss of all games in the tournament?
- Nothing (comments will be enough)
Any other idea or preference?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-28 02:00:36)
FICGS Android APP beta version
That's not what the app is supposed to do... it should be the "My games" pages actually. Is the login page's background blue or grey?
Navigation at the top may be a good idea, I'll try this (but I can't add the whole menu there, it would take too much place IMO, it wouldn't be easy to "click" with fingers on tactile screens).
Kym Farnik (2018-02-16 09:21:20)
Stockfish 9 released
FYI Development builds now have dynamic contempt.
Author: Stefano Cardanobile
Date: Fri Feb 9 19:07:19 2018 +0100
Timestamp: 1518199639
Introduce dynamic contempt
Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position.
The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide
on the contempt to use during a search :
contempt = x + y * eval
where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option,
and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of
the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch,
we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go
from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20
centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns.
To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if
Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-14 23:12:38)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela
Nelson Bernal Varela is an early FICGS correspondence chess player, now rated 2277 but also rated 2359 at ICCF (Correspondence Chess Master - CCM).
Last but not least, and as all poker holdem players here probably noticed, he is also our ranked #1 for years, who just reached an outstanding poker rating of 2382, while number two is now rated "only" 2212. A good occasion to ask him a few questions, that he kindly accepted to answer.
-----------------------
- Hello Nelson! You are the 2nd most active player at FICGS for years now. Everyone here probably noticed your incredible results in poker tournaments. "Correspondence poker holdem" was probably a strange idea as it is very unusual and very different from "Internet poker". What's your opinion on this and on the presence of a card game (played without money) at FICGS?
NBV: There are more important things than money and one of those is HONOR; It is honorable to be a chess master, international master, grandmaster, world chess champion at ICCF and at FICGS and to be number one in the ranking. It is honorable to be a FICGS world champion at Go and to be first in the ranking, it is honorable to be poker world champion at FICGS poker and in my case, it is an honor to be number one at poker here at FICGS during the last years, understanding that our general level of play has improved remarkably. None of these activities produces money, but to achieve any of the mentioned titles, it is necessary to have extraordinary abilities.
When I was about 18 years old, I had the opportunity to meet a person with immense material wealth, we spent whole evenings playing chess and then I told him my perceptions about each movement of the game. He thanked me for my chess explanations and paid me with good money. That wealthy man in his turn told me about life and recommended that I should always be proud of the gifts I had, since he knew, with all the money he had and being able to hire the best grandmasters in the world, that it could hardly come at the level of chess master. That person told me that the intellect can be turned into money whenever you want.
Now, by playing poker without money at FICGS, I understood that it was my extraordinary and wonderful opportunity to study-learn-perfect and test my poker theories without costing me a single dollar. In FICGS there is no money, but thanks to the knowledge I gained playing poker in FICGS, today I can go after the money in online poker rooms and probably in OTB poker tournaments. I am studying the possibility of becoming a professional poker player.
- The understanding of your opponent's behaviour is usually quite important at Poker. Do you manage to establish some profiles while playing so many simultaneous hands & games? Did you build any method?
NBV: Today I am sure that the most important thing to raise, and keep raising my level in poker, has been to build a psychological profile of mine, to get to know Nelson Bernal Varela in depth and above all to understand me, accept me, love me and be work every day eliminating my technical errors, strategic, psychological that make me play badly. I am aware that in poker I can play perfectly and still lose, what I can not forgive me is playing badly, which is why I work hard correcting my wrong decisions.
Of course, there is a space in my brain where I have built a psychological profile of each contender, that profile I have been able to elaborate with all the information that is provided to me in each hand we play. The way each of us plays, gives reliable information about our personality.
About my method I can write the following: A few years ago, I created a table in excel, where I had all the games with each contender, I identified them with the FICGS numeration and each movement in each hand (preflop, flop, turn, river ) it I was writing and studying; I started to add technical-psychological variables that seemed important to me, resulting in 20 variables that I had to qualify in each movement. With the passage of time and my effort, I no longer needed the excel table and I did not use it again (it was exhausting and time consuming) because I was assimilating things faster and with greater depth. Today I can say that I evaluate these 20 variables in a natural way, as if I was breathing and that when I am at a poker table, online or real, after a few minutes I get the psychological profile of the table and each of my opponents. In the pocket of my shirt I keep a small paper with the list of variables, periodically reread it and I wonder if I should modify, remove or add something.
- You won 1007 poker games, and lost only 380, with a ratio usually going from 57% to 80% according to your best opponents. Undoubtly you know the mathematics hidden behind poker but that may not explain everything. How did you learn to play?
NBV: Mathematics is an ingredient in poker, in the same way that my psychological aspects and of my opponents (I recommend reading-studying about four times the book “The Poker mindset†of Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger), it is vital to understand the Law of Large Numbers. Next I make a list of topics that I consider important to raise the level of poker; compete with EV+ cards, you have to know the small ball theory of Negreanu (but not apply it, hahaha) you have to always look at the texture of the board, you have to evaluate your reality and your future, also that of your opponents (act and power), the position to talk is important, the stack, the personality of the table, know who has the panic button on. All these and other variables must be evaluated in the few seconds they have to make a move and the only important thing is to make the right decision according to the circumstances. There is a good list of poker books to read... it is mandatory to have read about 15 poker books.
- As for me, I may be wrong but I can't imagine that you reached such a rating without special techniques & maybe by optimizing it in some ways... Of course, "rating management" is not a problem, and it is only one thing with a limited impact, but maybe you have some other secrets? What about this "+1" technique that I noticed in many of our games, if this is not a secret? :)
NBV: In these years I have used different techniques that I had to read, study, learn, repeat, modify, invent and sometimes eliminate. Poker is a sport that seems easy, with time one manages to understand that it has an amazing complexity, today I consider poker to be as complex as chess and I study them in a "similar" way. As an example, I have tried to create "openings in poker"; based only on probabilities I invented something that I called mirror theory and another "opening" that I called opposite outs. I am fascinated by mathematics and from the mathematical perspective they are perfect "theories-openings", but I have lost tournaments and a lot of money for applying such theories in mistaken emotional moments. In poker it is important to never lose sight of the Law of Large Numbers and be aware that this LAW likes to make fun of each one of us... I am working on giving an emotional nuance to my theories "mirror" and "opposite outs". There are moments when perfect mathematics becomes an unforgivable psychological error...
For the last few months I have modified my way of playing and my results have improved; Today it must be much more difficult to win a game me, thanks to small and imperceptible adjustments that of course only I know, because I have followed my mistakes-successes-evolution in the game over several years.
- Isn't it too frustrating for you to play heads up only (here at least) ? Of course it is a way to improve this important technical case but we know that many complexities come with 3 to 8 players on the table, which is the most common case in professional poker tournaments.
NBV: Currently I spend little time every day playing heads-up in FICGS, thanks to the fact that I have the profile of each contender. The 4-5 hours that I study poker daily, include practice in micro limits in cash tables of 6 players and tournaments in tables of 8-9 players. I think I'm covering the whole range of possibilities, experiencing game situations between 1 and 8 contenders.
- What do you think about computer analysis in poker? Do you think it could make a difference here just like the way we play advanced chess?
NBV: I think the algorithms are ready to be written in machine language and the question is where are those algorithms? Well, in the brains of the best players in the world and in their games compiled in huge databases. But programming language can be accelerated with artificial intelligence brains, making A.I. studying databases of the best professionals, playing with itself millions of games and building an invincible TACTIC-STRATEGIC SYSTEM, similar to chess software and GO... I think preflop and flop play would be very similar between humans and artificial intelligence, but on the turn and on the river artificial intelligence would take considerable advantage, but in the short time the level of human poker would rise because artificial intelligence would teach us to play poker, this event that would diminish the profits of the professionals. It will always be said in favor of poker that because it is an incomplete game of information, to make computer algorithms are quite complicated, but despite that, I am sure that artificial intelligence will far surpass the best human poker player. It is possible that an artificial intelligence that plays a perfect poker already exists, but unlike GO and chess, poker does produce a lot of money. Due to the money factor, in today's world, it is very difficult that there is a Prometheus willing to steal fire from the gods and give it to mankind...
- How would you describe your relation to games in general?
NBV: I can summarize it in one of the first chess books I had the fortune to read, by the great Danish master Bent Larsen, "I play to win"
- When did you start to play chess & poker? Do you play other games?
NBV: My first contact with chess was at the age of nine, it was love at first sight and until death separates us; I must confess that for some years we have been separated, due to my stupidity and my erroneous decisions. I have always been self-taught in any subject, my method is to buy about 10 to 15 books of the subject that interests me and I read them thoroughly, sometimes 3 or 4 times; already with that information in my head and thanks to the constant practice, I build MY SYSTEM (Nimzowitch) according to my personality, my dreams, my desires, my anguish, my fears... I was youth champion of Bogotá, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.
I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.
I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.
- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?
NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).
I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.
In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.
In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...
- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?
NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha
- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)
I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...
- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)
NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha
- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-15 19:22:45)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela
Of course it is possible but I don't think it would be efficient enough (but I understand the idea to reduce the total time) while creating other problems. I hope more players will try bullet games in the future.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-04-09 03:55:44)
Real Poker Game
Hmm hmm, that's an interesting idea to dig! But there are many instant questions, starting with legality :) FICGS cannot organize any poker tournament with money prize, real or not. But there may be other ways.
And such a meeting wouldn't be easy for sure as we're quite far from each other (not speaking about me, out of the top 10 :))
About promotion, I just don't know if FICGS is kind of a "real" poker site but one thing is sure, it was time to come back to fundamentals (chess). Now that things are going better, I'll focus this way for the moment to attract more and more players, then the next goal will be to increase prizes (a lot).
Nelson Bernal Varela (2018-04-11 01:39:13)
Real Poker Game
Excellent idea, it would be a kind of world championship FICGS ... if it were possible
Thibault de Vassal (2018-05-13 23:58:43)
New domain names for FICGS apps
I have no idea but that is not the aim... by the way, if they did not buy it, most probably they don't care about it.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-08-14 19:59:12)
7 pieces tablebases
I always thought that this rule was a bit unfair for players who actually just want to play the game, particularly when not using any engine and/or when rated below 2200... but maybe we could add this rule only when both players are rated over 2200 (or 2000). Any idea?
Christoph Schroeder (2018-08-18 01:03:49)
7 pieces tablebases
Regarding the argument that this rule might be unfair for players who don't want to use engines/databases, I would like answer with a comparison:
If I participate in a bicycle race - but as a runner (without a bicycle), this is strange enough, but maybe allowed. Much more strange, however, is the idea that the organizer of the bicycle race could be urged to adjust the bicycle race rules for the needs of the runners.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-07 16:57:06)
Netiquette reinforcement
Hi all,
Following a few problems of provocation and repeated draw offers, I propose to reinforce and specify the netiquette to help players finding the right things to do according to the situation...
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general
Particularly this paragraph:
"It is possible to leave public comments for your games and to send private messages to other members. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Also, no player will make draw offers repeatedly, particularly serveral times in a row. Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game, and/or being immediately and permanently banned.
If a player receives such a message, he may use the "report" link and accepts to use the "block" link that appears then (when playing a move) rather than replying to it. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and may lead to get a limited access to the server during a few weeks, at the moderator's discretion. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.
To maintain a friendly community, any cheating complaint should be addressed to the referee and should not be made publicly in games comments or in the forum, otherwise with the same consequences. Please note that no time will be added to any clock in any case, the game will continue in all cases, in example arguing to wait for the referee's decision will not be accepted. Finally, you agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit.
Publication of a private message without the authors expressed permission is strictly forbidden."
A big difference (I hope) is in the small add "Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game (...)". Better or worst? Any opinions or ideas?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-07 20:40:30)
Netiquette reinforcement
I agree, but it should be avoided that a few understand there that "any kind of message that seem provocative according to anyone will lead to instantly lose a game"... only a moderator/referee should decide it, probably.
Even if this remains quite fuzzy in all cases, the main idea is here: a threat is stronger than execution.
But... you may be right at the end, we'll see... I'll update it if this reveals to be not efficient enough.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-10-23 17:58:03)
Resigning in poker
Well, let's see how this discussion evolves (any other opinion?).
My first idea would be to let it like in other games for more coherence... but I'm not really opposed to remove it (maybe when there's no message from the opponent at least) if the most agrees with that.
William Taylor (2018-10-28 23:09:11)
World Championship Tie-breaks
I'm not sure that's appropriate for a chess event, but it has given me another idea: a mixed game tournament for the overall FICGS WC title.
Zack Stephen (2018-10-30 13:14:19)
World Championship Tie-breaks
agree with William, eros can draw these matches with his eyes closed at this point, he can easily be champion for the foreseeable future unless a format change is made.
Some other ideas for consideration: Force specific opening thematics in the final (ie each has to play black/white of a kings gambit, or other speculative openings
Don't provide the +1 day for each move. Make the games a set amount of time say 45 days for 60 moves
Make each side play BIG, random, or other variants as tie breaker until a winner is determined
Thibault de Vassal (2018-10-31 03:04:21)
World Championship Tie-breaks
Well, the 1 day per move rule has several reasons to remain (including avoiding more forfeits/losses on time), and coherence is really important IMO. I do not agree that Eros cannot be beaten (I couldn't do it by myself though ^^), I trust Murphy's law :) I see several reasons to all these consecutive victories, Eros explained many by himself, and I don't think it's enough to change the format, by the way we now have the CUP format for all players who prefer other parameters (thanks Garvin!).
As for Twitch & other good ideas like this, truth is that there should have been many Freestyle tournaments these last years but I couldn't organize it anymore and still can't at the moment :/ But most important is that despite of computers supremacy in correspondence chess, now Go & poker holdem, I'm convinced that the best years of FICGS are to come, and it will bring more competition, new champions & good things. Let's wait & see!
Garvin Gray (2018-11-18 03:12:48)
World Championship Groups
I see in the chat box there is a comment about adding players for a new group in the WCH.
This should not be allowed and is a bad idea. The original groups were worked out based on ratings available at the close of entry.
And also now this new group will be a rating scattered group, rather than being similar to the others.
Players have protested before about adding players and new groups well after the entry deadline has passed. I have frankly had a gutful of having to protest about it.
It is one of main things that is turning me off this site. Having to keep protesting against items on this site when others have said similar viewpoints to mine, but the site owner keeps trying to sneak in his ideas via the backdoor.
Thibault de Vassal (2019-03-18 22:59:01)
Leela Chess Zero & neural networks
Month after month, it looks like Leela Chess Zero is taking on computer chess... what do you think? Actually neural networks engines could even solve the future CPU problem (i9 and Threadripper seem much stronger than the first versions of i7 but what next... technology seems to reach some limits) by using GPU in an efficient way instead.
Does anyone use it to analyze correspondence chess games already?
In my opinion, most top centaur players will use Leela or another neural network chess engine (more or less based on ideas that made the success of AlphaZero) within 1 year...
Actually, I'm more and more concerned with the spectacular way & speed A.I. now improves, I just spent some time to understand it better and I wouldn't be surprised if our societies are really shaked in many ways (and more and more) within the next few years.
Wilhelm Schuett (2020-02-28 05:34:25)
Thematic tournaments?
two english ideas: 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 3.g3 d5 (and e6 4.Nf3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7) 4.cd5 Nxd5 5.Bg2 Nc7
Thibault de Vassal (2020-03-07 22:53:49)
Wch groups, less than 7 players
Well, I can't remember it has been discussed before, but I agree anyway... Unless other players think & argue that it is not a good idea, rules will be updated.
Thanks Garvin!
Thibault de Vassal (2020-07-29 11:48:26)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?
Hah, good idea... I should find the longest by time as well (at least 3 years I think), but there are vacations.
Thibault de Vassal (2020-12-08 15:33:13)
What happened to all the players?
Thanks for the enlightments!
1) Interesting idea, I did not think it this way but that sounds credible.
2) Too many possible reasons IMHO, first could be the lower rate benefits/investment, added to the constantly growing place of chess engines (particularly since the Rybka era) in the game and the way our lives changed all over the years (real life, social networks, Netflix & so on).
3) That's quite surprising to me but well, at least chess found a way :)
4) I did not hear about that rule yet, what's the idea?
Thibault de Vassal (2020-12-13 11:59:19)
What happened to all the players?
That is a tough choice from Ortwin, obviously... I agree with him on the idea that any rule can/will be enforced, but I'm not sure I can agree with this "unknown" rule, indeed. But it may work.
Thanks to Daniel for the quote and to all for the comments on this difficult issue. That's matter to think about.
Daniel Parmet (2021-04-15 22:41:32)
Poker Rating
Half rating games seems like a potential equitable solution where you at least gain 1 rating point / an idea anyways. It's merits TBD.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-16 14:35:19)
Poker Rating
To graduate a %-rated according to the number of moves played would not be a bad idea... why not.
Garvin Gray (2021-04-18 17:28:11)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
I do not disagree with your general sentiment, but as someone who has been on this site a long time, I have experienced a lot of negotiations and discussions like this, where the discussions end up going nowhere, or some kind of 'change' is promised , and then after a while, those format changes are walked back.
Therefore, I have become rather jaded by this entire process and I am now of the opinion that Thibault just offers these discussions in an attempt to make it look like he is entertaining differing opinions, when really he TRULY can not bring himself to make the changes that some of these discussions are asking for as he already believes that the site is perfect as it is.
So, you are then treating the forum posters like mugs if you are saying, lets discuss the topic and come up with new ideas, if you have no genuine intention of embracing any of the ideas proposed.
I have now said my last post on this matter for quite a while.
I have made it clear what I think of these forum discussions and their purpose, so there is now no further requirement for me to reply.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-18 22:39:47)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
With all my respect Garvin, you couldn't be more wrong on that one... To me, FICGS is everything but perfect. Actually it is so heavy (mainly because it was coded very very fast - way too fast - with the [bad] idea to make it simple and to save as much processor & memory as possible) that some changes are very difficult to make. In this way, some good ideas could be very hard to bring to life.
But these 2 changes asked in the 2 running threads would be very easy to make! So it is only a question of time (it is most often bad to make a change fastly). For now, I have no clear opinion in this discussion and we could easily add a rule that states that any stage could start as fast as possible. And in the other discussion, the 10 moves rule could disappear even if I think it wouldn't be a good idea. Or it could evolve as it has been mentioned.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-05-07 01:34:51)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
I understand your frustration Garvin, thanks for explaining your views once again and I'll try to answer each point (even if you do not answer anymore):
a) You were right on the Cup format Garvin, obviously. Probably on (many) other ideas... I just can't say.
b) I always thought & said that stable rules were important in many ways (that I explained), which is frustrating, I understand that.
c) As far as I remember, I added the possibility of double round-robin for 5-players groups after that discussion but indeed it was (probably) never used. Maybe the rule should be changed to "always double-robin for 5-players groups", that would be easy to do. A fact is that it is difficult to gather more than 3 or 4 opinions in this forum these times :/ By the way, if anyone can find this discussion where I agreeded something else than a possibility, then (my bad) I'll change it immediately.
d) I do think that a multi-stages tournament should have a pre-determined number of stages... (players should know what kind of engagement it represents) Maybe I just missed that point and a rule specifying that stage 1 groups will be built so that x to y players (no less, no more) will play round 2 could be added. Why not.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-09 01:59:50)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Of course you make a point there, but it also questions 7 players groups (after all, rating difference between seed 1 & seed 2 is not much lower in average, and 12 games is still feasible in regular groups).
When groups should be double RR or not? Well, I agree that simple RR is not the most fair way, but as I explained about a decade ago, the idea of this championship was not to be the most fair, it was to multiply occurences without loading a too large number of games (and keeping rules as simple as possible, which was not a great success there by the way ^^).
Anyway, I won't say you're wrong, I think it was just a choice like another one.
But we can give it a try (maybe it will be a way to get some impressions & comments), so we'll have 5 players double RR tomorrow if it has to happen.
Ilmars Cirulis (2022-02-27 13:50:13)
Ukrainian players clocks during war
I support this idea.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-02-27 14:00:58)
FICGS support to Ukraine
I must say I'm not used at all to merge politics &/or war to chess... I'm not sure if FICGS should display a ukrainian flag during these obviously very sad times. But I'll do it if the most think it's a good idea. Personally I do support civil people under bombs, probably in all cases.
Also it is quite tough to understand what happens there from 2014 & Minsk agreements... I discussed about it with russians, ukrainians, read many news & fake news, much complexity. I do not think this is the place to discuss about it though, so let's just decide about a way to support or if we should stop players clocks only.
Jan Talek (2022-02-27 17:00:59)
FICGS support to Ukraine
I fully agree with Bahadir's ideas.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-02-28 01:18:10)
FICGS support to Ukraine
Bahadir's point 3 may be tough to me... I have to think about it. More opinions are welcome.
Point 4 may be a nice idea but I'm not sure if it would be significatively efficient. We can do this anyway if players enough ask for it.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2022-02-28 12:29:24)
FICGS support to Ukraine
Let me explain about the idea of a beneficiary tournament: the entrance fee, will ensure immediate money for refugees. While there could be no prize.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-02-28 21:33:03)
FICGS support to Ukraine
That is a nice idea from LSS server. Though I'm still not sure about what to do on this point.
The idea of a beneficiary tournament remains interesting but is it time for chess games during these trouble times (that might extend to Europe) while there may be other ways to help... I'll think about it further.
I'm also thinking about postponing WCH tournaments, any opinion is welcome.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-03-02 19:50:53)
Russian flag replaced
I understand your point but it seems to be more complicated... At tennis, in example, Elina Svitolina (UKR) didn't want to play Anastasia Potapova (RUS) yesterday, but federation of tennis "removed" russian flag for individual players... the match finally happened (Svitolina won 6-2 6-1 by the way). All russians I know do not support this war, so I think it is a good sign of support from them to join this idea, kind of support for peace.
If any russian player is pro-Poutine or supports this war, of course he can talk to me and ask for his flag (not meaning he'll get it).
Thibault de Vassal (2022-03-02 19:54:37)
FICGS support to Ukraine
Clocks for ukrainian players in activity have been stopped yesterday (45 days of special "vacation", can be renewed if necessary).
I don't hold any of this against russian players as well. As I said in the other post:
"(...) At tennis, in example, Elina Svitolina (UKR) didn't want to play Anastasia Potapova (RUS) yesterday, but federation of tennis "removed" russian flag for individual players... the match finally happened (Svitolina won 6-2 6-1 by the way). All russians I know do not support this war, so I think it is a good sign of support from them to join this idea, kind of support for peace.
If any russian player is pro-Poutine or supports this war, of course he can talk to me and ask for his flag (not meaning he'll get it)."
Thibault de Vassal (2022-05-10 01:15:10)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN
In my opinion, each "war" (war against what?) is different from each other, I have no idea on that point.
Herbert Kruse (2022-08-17 07:35:37)
poker reflection time
yes, that would be about the same effect - with 30 days - as my idea
Thibault de Vassal (2022-09-26 14:24:10)
Magnus Carlsen vs. Hans Niemann
I guess that everyone here is aware about the Carlsen-Niemann drama... Of course, it is still difficult to make a clear idea, so what do you think about this video (in french but you can get subtitles)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PqORG75Cr4
If you know a video in english that say about the same (in brief, Niemann would have a 100% correlation with Stockfish 15 in several recent games, even more than in the cheating case in Paris few years ago, which is very very unlikely), thanks for sharing some more links...
Thibault de Vassal (2022-10-25 23:44:07)
respectful legacy
That is a very tough question, it may have many consequences in case of a rules change...
In all cases, I have no idea about Luis situation, so if anyone knows, feel free to send me a private message.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-22 15:22:57)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Here's another idea. We start with two pools of starting positions. One pool where white has an advantage that may or may not be winning. Another pool where black has the advantage. First player picks a position from either pool. Let's say the first player picks from the white advantage pool (on the border between winning advantage for white and draw). Second player gets to choose which side of that position they want to play. They can either play white but then they have to win, or black but then all they need to do is draw. So no matter the outcome, each match will be decisive. We'd just have to populate the pool of opening positions first.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-22 16:00:33)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Even the idea of having preset pools of starting positions isn't necessary. Going off my previous post, the first player selects any starting position they like (has to be a position that can be reached in an actual game of chess, so let's say the first player gives a sequence of opening moves that results in the position). First player wants to pick a position right on the border between win and draw, but they don't even need to stipulate which side is playing for the win, because a chess engine can run a quick search and determine that automatically. So the first player submits an opening sequence of moves, the FICGS server runs a quick evaluation with Stockfish or whatever just to decide which side has advantage, and the second player chooses between playing the advantaged side for a win or the disadvantaged side for a draw.
Ilmars Cirulis (2023-06-03 02:37:55)
GUI for Big Chess?
And now you can move pieces around. But don't ask me about making variations, because Winboard's idea of that is awful. :(
Ilmars Cirulis (2023-06-18 18:59:07)
GUI for Big Chess?
One idea: maybe it is possible to automatically generate FEN for Big Chess game's current position?
It's would make analyzing ongoing games much easier. What do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2023-07-05 03:11:05)
GUI for Big Chess?
I guess it must be possible... Actually this may be a good idea for regular chess games as well.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-07-27 19:06:48)
FIDE rating change proposal
Maybe you heard about this strange proposal made by a mathematician to make FIDE ratings (<2000) more coherent against some deflation...
http://en.chessbase.com/post/fide-seeks-proposals-rating-changes
http://www.chess.com/news/view/fide-mathematician-proposes-changes-to-improve-rating-accuracy
I'm somewhat doubtful about this idea to change some data rather than the algorithm, what do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2024-03-27 02:27:15)
Big Chess in NebiyuAlien engine
Never heard of this engine before... I have no idea :/
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2024-05-06 10:42:34)
Looking for opponent in 1v1 match
Yes I played a couple of matches against Herbert Kruse. I tried out some ideas, but all games were drawn. Maybe in the first round of current WCC, I might win a game or two.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2025-10-07 09:44:32)
Next thematic tournament
@George, I think it's a bit too tame. Maybe this is an idea: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 c5 5. d5 b5 after which black has several options. This is much more double-edged.
George Jempty (2025-10-07 17:15:16)
Next thematic tournament
Yeah probably too tame for correspondence, interestingly I do intend to play 4.f3 for the most part, but I came up with the 4.Bf4 idea when investgating the Leningrad variation. After 4.Bg5 c5 now 5.d5?! which had been the standard is considered sub-optimal by the engine which prefers 5.e3, and after 5...h6, I concluded that White didn't have to play 6.Bxf6 or 6.Bh4, which is when I started investigating 4.Bf4. I actually may start playing this in FIDE tournaments where I will probably be much lower rated, exactly to get into such a tame line
George Jempty (2025-10-08 17:21:57)
Next thematic tournament
Ah, right. In any case, tinkering around with the Leningrad, I came up with the idea of 4.Bf4
Thibault de Vassal (2025-10-21 17:27:39)
DNS failure last week
Hello everyone...
Finally FICGS is back!
Noone should have lost any game on time, I added about 7 days to all players expected to move, and 2 days to their opponents (time for new DNS to spread all over the internet)
I still have no idea why previous DNS ns.ficgs.com didn't work anymore, but well, I had to change it after having solved another (bigger) issue with the server provider.
Sorry all for the inconvenience...
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-18 10:33:59)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I demand a button that buys a ticket automatically when a player is elegible for playing a higher rated tournament and the Epoints to pay it are available, because right now, I have no idea how to do such a feat, in that case, Jempty outsmarted us all, unironically.
Not that my demands have any weight, I think people's lives have gotten better since they ignored me, and perhaps it'd be better for everyone if these rules remained hidden and nobody ever used them again (except Jempty would continue to play a tier up when able), but it's worth a try.
I don't have a bad taste but this has caused me physical pain in the lower back part of my head, is it stressful?
It's nothing personal against George, it's just that climbing the rating ladder is one of the most difficult tasks one can do in life, so when one sees a 2400 player, one respects them, because of all the time and effort they had to put to get there, which, for all players below that tier is immeasurable, if we could measure it we could have that rating too.
But someone getting there by buying tickets that allowed them to face higher rated opposition and take shortcuts to avoid dealing with lower rated players does cheapen the meaning of the number.
I guess it's all about the money, pay to win iff someone buys the Epoints for this reason, and holds a higher rating to skip a tier (note I said iff, not if, not accusing anybody of doing that.)
It's like buying a car instead of running the marathon, and the rating doesn't actually reflect chess skill anymore.
George Jempty (2025-11-20 22:23:26)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I guess I "opened a can of worms" by exercising the rule regarding the ability to enter a higher rated group. But in my case specifically, my future rating is now over 2200, so I personally believe there has been NO HARM DONE. But I intend to continue to use this rule, for instance to enter >=2300 tourneys, if/when I get to 2250, there are already five entrants, and I pay the requisite e-points. I didn't outsmart anybody, I just found the necessary rule at https://ficgs.com/membership.html#tickets. A button or some other mechanism however would be a great idea
Yeturu Aahlad (2025-11-25 23:27:25)
Poker ELO
Proposal: re-examine Poker ELO
Why? ELO is a heuristic designed for full information games involving no element of chance. In that space, it has stood the test of time. For games incorporating an element of chance, such as Poker, it is not ideal. As a data point, my evidence from FICGS is that a Poker player who goes all-in on every hand converges to an ELO of slightly over 2000. My last observation is from a long time ago, and one of these players (the much better one) has abandoned this strategy since then. There are many earnest players who deserve to out-rank such a simplistic strategy but don't.
Action: This subject has been studied, and the emerging recommendation is a simple change to the heuristic for games which incorporate elements of chance.
Research: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZXdehn029SaV6a5mxsn7WAMsxYNZPGHzZHKiBbeaxrw/edit?usp=sharing
George Jempty (2025-11-26 13:19:19)
New Tie Break System
I still like my idea of using it based on performance rating FIRST, I don't see how it gives the lowest entrant an advantage if the tournament ends in a tie between all players.
But lets say two players tie, and one of them has a higher performance rating because they beat a stronger player than the other, that ALSO does not give an advantage to the lower rated player that I can see. Rather, that player must have beaten a higher rated player than the other in order to have a higher performance rating. So if the higher rated player beat a higher rated player rated player than the lower rated player did, the higher rated player would advance.
Perhaps Garvin can weigh in a little more specifically about how being lower rated gives an advantage. But, under his idea, my proposed order would be, 1) Number of wins, 2) performance rating, 3) Sonnen-berger, etc.
George Jempty (2025-12-10 00:40:04)
Too many groups for tourneys
So from the sidebar there are only 30 active players rated 2306 and above. Something clearly needs to be done. My idea of one group 2300+ might work as might additonally allow 2250+ players in under certain conditions. Maybe there could also be a 2400+ for those elite players who would prefer to play other such elite plaers.
Garvin Gray (2026-01-28 17:36:07)
Too many groups for tourneys
Time to wind the clock back quite a few years. What I suggested as a solution to this issue was that the rating bands for the class tourneys and the rapid tourneys should have rating bands of 200 point differences, but they be at a different cut off.
What this meant in practice is.
Class tournaments
2600 +
2599 - 2400
2399 - 2200
2199 - 2000
1999 - 1800
and so forth
And then the rapids would be
2500 +
2499 - 2300
2299 - 2100
2099 - 1900
1899 - 1700
and so forth I think after quite a bit of discussion, Thibault decided that this idea was either too much effort, or that the rating bands I was proposing was too restrictive. I think the evidence over the years has proven my conclusions more correct. Players do not enter the rating band tournaments when there is a 400 point difference. These events only get filled by players who have a ticket from a lower tourney win, or they buy their way in by being less than 50 points in. But, to beat the drum again. If Thibault is not on board, it does not happen. And at this point in time, I am more concerned with fixing the 5 player round robin WCH group issue.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-31 22:56:08)
Poker ELO
Hello Yeturu & very sorry, for some reason I completely overlooked that post.
Of course I agree that ELO is not ideal for poker, I quickly changed some parameters to make it a bit more stable.
There are many many ways to do it different & probably better, particularly when not only H2H is played, but the idea was to do it looking like chess, so this is just a choice among many others.
Reaching elo 2000 with constant all-in does not shock me much as players under this rating probably do not play as many as hands (it takes time & many games to gain points)...
Thibault de Vassal (2026-03-13 23:17:02)
Post-tickets FICGS
The long answer:
FICGS story is a quite simple & classic one, the reasons why it's declining are quite obvious, and unfortunately the solutions aren't. A bit of story:
1. Luckily, FICGS.com was created when there were a demand, just after IECG stopped... It grew very quickly, and I was in a rush to code it (FICGS was the very first dynamic website I ran from A to Z), there were ideas from everywhere. FICGS.com was the shortest domain name available, but not a so good one. Quite hard to remember, hard to tell, not clear for search engines (unlike chess.com which is a perfect one). Maybe it was a mistake to choose it, I can't tell. Either it meant "Free Internet Chess Games Server" or "Free Internet Correspondence Games Server", so I added another game, Go (Weiqi), to FICGS, which is a quite heavy decision: After that, FICGS is not only a chess server anymore.
2. A few years after, there are several thousands players (a few hundreds active). The number of new players slowly decreases month after month but a few sponsors come. Obviously, the way I coded FICGS made it more and more difficult to fully update from a PHP version to another one, or to change it in deep. Even now, I'm not sure to regret it though cause I couldn't have done it differently, so it is what it is. At this time, chess.com was less interesting than FICGS (my taste), but success is already here thanks to a perfect marketing formula: best domain name & pay for options. On the contrary, I chose to keep FICGS completely free.
3. Chess engines explode, correspondence chess continues its evolution (human's thinking decreases in moves decision), finally I add another game that is in a hype: poker texas holdem. New sponsors come, I still play correspondence chess myself but now I play another game even more: Google. FICGS also extends this way and it works in some ways. At its peak, FICGS is about the 32,000th most visited website worldwide. But the number of players continues to decrease, Android & phones started to change the landscape already. Chess.com released its app and added probably its best feature: a quick Stockfish analysis with evaluation & explanation for each move (which is excellent for blitz games but quite a non-sense for a correspondence chess website).
4. The number of players suddenly declines very quickly, I react by creating FICGS apps for Android, a dozen apps... On some apps, you can play against the machine, virtual opponents, chess 960, blindfold & so on. But the way to maintain it is not easy at all for many reasons, but the main one is that Google (Playstore) constantly change technical things & rules. After a few years, I even have to completely remake it, losing what was acquired. And some apps still fail to re-appear at Playstore, that's why I just made the APK files available to direct download. But these applications confirm something clear: blitz is more fun and attracts much more players. Changing rating ranges for correspondence chess tournaments or championships formats won't be a solution for this.
5. FICGS is now 20 years old! Internet completely changed over the years but it survived longer than Messenger, Skype & many other great services. If you look at many websites, new versions of their modern interfaces are often worst (bugs or options) than previous ones. FICGS was never perfect, maybe even clear, but at least it remained coherent. Now Google (just like all major services) is mainly governed by AI, sponsors left - that does not change anything, FICGS will continue to run. I created other websites, but none so far successfully helped in a way or another to solve the problem we encounter here: how to increase the number of correspondence chess, Go or poker players again? If FICGS becomes a pure correspondence chess site again with a brand new interface, I'm quite sure that wouldn't change anything or almost. I might be wrong of course, but according to me, this is a deep problem, connected to society evolutions, computers, phones, our attention, time, even health & so on... In my personal case, I wish to play correspondence chess again, but still cannot find the time to do it. Finally I have no idea what internet will look like within 5 years, but FICGS will be there. Maybe an AI will find a solution soon ^^ Meanwhile, I received many ideas to improve FICGS and I have to thank you very much for this. Few ideas were released for reasons I explained here (but new ones are always wecome), I hope you'll better understand it by reading this.
Have good games & take care!
Alan Ludgate (2026-04-01 05:26:40)
Post-tickets FICGS
Thanks for this post. Here are my ideas.
The problem for the 2400+ rated players is:-
most have left or stopped playing (not sure why) - so those who want to play have to reduce their activity or (probably) lose rating points. This is leading to a downward spiral.
To get more games played, how about:-
1. Award rating points as prizes.
And/or 2. Allow players to buy rating points, say 30 per year, provided they play at least say 10 games that year.
And/or 3. Players who play no games in a year to lose say 30 rating points. Players who play say 10 or more games in a year to get 30 rating points reward.
Adjust the numbers after a trial period.
George Jempty (2026-05-28 12:40:02)
Next thematic tournament
Glad somebody else likes the idea of 1.b4 c6, but Thib needs to change the line for the thematic tournaments right after a section fills up. Another line I'd like to suggest is the Schallop defense in the KGA: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nf6
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
Social network : create your photo albums, discuss with your friends...
Hot news & buzz : discover the latest news and buzz on the internet...
Discussions : questions and answers, forums on almost everything...
Seo forums : search engines optimisation forums, web directory...
Play the strongest international correspondence chess players !
|
Gueci, Alberto (ITA) [member # 185] Correspondence chess : 2580 FEM Ranked # 6 in the rating list. Rating history : No change this year. Go : 1496 Advanced chess : 2153 I'm 59 years old and i live in Palermo (Sicily). I'm quite weak on the board so I'm engines dependent ;-) This member has no profile in the social network. |
 | Correspondence chess World championship Play chess games Go (weiqi, baduk) Advanced chess Play big chess Chess trainer apk Rated tournaments Poker texas hold'em Fischer random chess | |