Norms discussions

   		Free Internet Chess Games Server

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



Tsumego

                                          
Forum


Back to forum


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    (2006-04-14 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    (2006-04-17 19:25:06)
New features...

Coordinates & last move have been implemented... Now the "live games" concept of the site extends to the home page :)

Also, player informations are 5 successive pages (informations, elo history, title norms, tournaments, games), reachable just by clicking on "ELO" (to improve yet) after clicking the magnifying glass.


Marius Zubac    (2006-09-01 16:19:35)
Title norms page update

Hi, My question is how and when is the title norms information page (from player's statistics) get updated. Thanks


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-01 17:37:52)
FICGS titles update

This site will work by itself soon... :)

Thanks Benjamin. I'll post soon again about the council/staff, moderators etc.. Feel free to tell me if you're interested ;)

About titles, I'll add that players who will get a FICGS title could probably have one at ICCF, so they're invited to try...


The first norms calculation just occured. Here are the result(s) :

FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_M__000001 : Zubac, Marius EM=1,IM=1


Dinesh De Silva    (2006-09-02 11:39:12)
Re: FICGS titles update...........

As a fellow correspondence chess player, let me take this opportunity to CONGRATULATE Marius Zubac for achieving the title norms. Well done!


Marius Zubac    (2006-11-19 19:21:59)
A penalty system is needed

Hello Thibault. I think that time has come for you to add new rules to FICGS and a penalty system (using penalty points) to discourage players from retire-comeback behavior. Loosing some games on time unless provoked by some unforeseen event should be also penalized although less severe. Upon reaching a certain number of penalty points the player should be prevented to register for new FICGS tournaments (let's say a half a year) and on resuming the penalized player should be only allowed to play a limited number of games until the lesson is learned. If you would compare FICGS list with the server-based IECG list you should notice that FICGS is less populated in the strong players section (2200+) than IECG and this has an impact on the quality of high-end tournaments, norms and titles and of course ratings. If we want to improve FICGS some action in this regard must be taken. I sympathize with Mr. Oltean and wish he reconsiders his decision. Marius


Marius Zubac    (2006-11-20 00:25:05)
The penalty system - a proposal

A player that for a (good) reason is not able to continue his games should have two choices: A) Let some games get lost on time and then he would be treated under the penalty system. B) Ask for a retirement and in this case no penalties should be applied. Once a player asks for retirement the following actions should be taken: 1. His status in the rating list should be flagged to retired; perhaps a retired player should not be able to register a new tournament; 2. A retired player could get re-instated by applying directly to the FICGS adjudication commission; 3. All the retired player’s running games should then be frozen and dealt with on a by tournament basis: 3a) if in a tournament the retired player has finished games that are not lost the remaining games should be adjudicated by FICGS for rating purposes. However all the retired player’s games should not be counted for qualification purposes (if the tournament provides qualification to a next stage); how the games are to be considered for norms is a matter to be discussed. 3b) if in a tournament the retired player has finished games that are all lost the tournament director can act as in 3a) or has the option of canceling all the retired player’s games. This proposal is far from perfect but shows that we are not helpless and some action can be taken. The reason I mentioned IECG is because probably on the server the population is roughly equivalent with the FICGS’s one but in IECG’s case the distributed is more favorable in the upper section. This is the reason why there is enough active population at any given time for new tournaments and severe rules are not needed as much as in FICGS’s case in order to maintain a meaningful activity. My belief is that the centaur mode will prove in time to generate stronger games, stronger chess and FICGS will have chances to become in time the most relevant correspondence chess server. The technical conditions are already met. Marius


Marcus Miranda    (2007-02-21 18:01:11)
Unrelated suggestion

This probably has nothing to do with this topic, but one suggestion I would like to make is to put the tournaments won by the player in the player profile. For me it would be kind of cool since I am a bit far from titles or norms. Anyways it's just a thought. And by the way, this site is great, thanks thibault.


Ivan Zarullin    (2007-06-29 11:06:24)
russian norms and titles

Dear Thibault, you can find russian national chess norms at http://www.rossport.ru/pdf/chess.xls. E.g., to become a national master a russian player have to reach 2450 ELO and to accomplish IM norm, or to win World\Europe Championship U16 or U18.


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-07-11 16:14:00)
Norms

Perhaps you could also explain what a "norm" is, for chess newbies.


Garvin Gray    (2007-07-11 16:15:47)
formula on here for norms

Yeah, it was the formula etc that I was after. I had already seen the information in the link before I asked the question


Garvin Gray    (2007-07-09 17:46:17)
Norms and titles

How do players achieve norms and titles at ficgs? What tournaments do players have to compete in to get norms and titles at ficgs?


Marcus Miranda    (2007-07-09 18:12:25)
Norms and titles

My guess is that you can only achieve norms in the class M, SM, GM and rapid M tournaments. Once the tournament starts you know the number of points you have to win to get a norm.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-07-11 14:29:13)
Norms and titles

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles

.. true, the formula should be fully explained too.


Svante Carl von Erichsen    (2007-09-06 22:04:56)
Norms

What is the exact definition of a "norm"? When googling, I found something along the lines of "a tournament performance indicating that a certain level has been reached", but what does it mean? Winning more than half of the games? How does it depend on the opponents' strength?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-06 22:48:47)
Norms

Actually, title norms (ie. FICGS rated chess tournaments) depend on the number of points achieved in a tournament by a player and generally the elo average of the players in the tournament (that define the number of points required in the tournament for a title norm).

I have to update the rules to explain how it is calculated exactly.


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-09 16:17:20)
Waiting list is open

The rules are : "FICGS chess no engines tournaments are unrated single round-robin tournaments, involving 7 players. The special rule for these tournaments is that chess engines, databases and opening books are strictly forbidden. All games are played in 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves. Norms are not possible."


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-25 21:03:09)
Title norms

Hi Garvin, sorry for the delay :)

A title norm (FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM) can be achieved in a correspondence chess tournament with at least 7 players and 6 games played per player.

More explanations and % table :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-09 22:48:57)
Norms

Hi Wayne, category S is the first category that allow to make a title norm. You just made me notice it is written category -1 in the rules (I'll correct it) :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles

So, you may obtain a FEM norm if you score 4.5 in this tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-30 07:25:30)
Freestyle cup : Rules & start

There was a small conflict in the rules, now corrected : The first game will start at 13:00 server time, not 15:00

Current rules :

FICGS advanced chess "freestyle" cup is a 6 rounds swiss tournament with entry fee and prize, played in a single day. Entry fees are E-Points that you can buy in 'My account'. Read carefully terms and conditions, particularly Entry fees & Prize money sections before to play tournaments with entry fees.

All games are played in 30 minutes + 15 seconds / move. Norms are not possible.

The first round will start at the date and hour (13:00 server time) indicated as "deadline". Next rounds will start at 15:00, 17:00, 19:00, 21:00 and 23:00 server time. Please register carefully as it is not possible to retire from the waiting list. It is strongly recommended to display the chat bar to communicate with the tournament director.

If several players obtain the best score and the best Sonnenborn-Berger, they will share the prize. It is possible to forfeit all next games (that will be unrated for the advanced chess rating list) during the tournament.

FIDE GM & IM, FICGS / ICCF GM, SM & IM are invited to enter the waiting list for free.. Please just send a message to webmaster through My account page to register. You may be asked to send a copy of your passport or ID card. The tournament might be cancelled if less than 7 players registered before the deadline, in this case entry fees will be given back to the players.

An extra fee, usually 30% of the entry fee, will be added to the entry fee 2 days before the start of the tournament.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-05-19 06:35:14)
Major update (may 2008)

Hello to all, a new update including :

- Regular tournaments with prizes (see thread "Free tournaments with prizes")

- Norms, titles and prizes are now announced by email.

- Players with Epoints are shown in the connected players list (My messages).

- Affiliate links : For each new player referred by your link (see My account) posted on the world wide web, 1 Epoint will be added to your account.

- Search games function improved : You can now search games by opening and by rating (White & Black)


All feedback welcome :)


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.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-09 11:05:13)
Brackets - Chess and Go

"Thanks for your reasoned response"

Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word "reason", groves.

"(1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution"

It is very much a dilution. As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.

"Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group"

Total rubbish. You just finished saying, in your previous post, that you propose to allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification REGARDLESS of his/her rating. There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments.

"and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern."

And AGAIN, As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.

"Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below"

Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling. Not that this has any relevance in terms of supporting your position anyway.

"The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament."

I just finished explaining to you that there is no guarantee that the "M" class tournaments will end at the same time as the "A" class tournaments. Not only do "M" class players tend to take the game more seriously and move slower, but there are more "A" class players than "M" so it takes longer to fill an "M" class list, hence less "M" class tournaments are played. If you propose to have only one "A" class player sent to an "M" class tournament at a time, then you'll quickly accumulate a waiting list backlog of "A" class players waiting to be seeded into a tournament they don't legitimately qualify for, stretching for decades. The other reasons I mentioned are MORE than enough reason to ditch this suggestion. This is just gravy.

Additionally, and once again, as I just finished explaining to you, if someone is winning tournaments, they're gaining rating points and will soon be able to qualify for the new rating category through legitimate means. So there is no reason at all to provide such "handouts".

I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you.


Garvin Gray    (2008-07-04 16:49:20)
norms?

Are norms available from Class M tournaments?


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-07-04 22:54:33)
norms in Class M

It all depends on the rating average.

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-10-13 07:33:14)
Hello Thibault

I am just curious. I just realized that I am getting close to 3 norms for FEM. In Tournament M #15 I have already enough points for a FEM norm. In Tournament M #21 I will earn a FEM and possibly FIM norm. In M #19 it is possible I could earn FEM norm. Question: in the M #15 tournament I have not been notified about qualifying. ( and I have). Which brings up the question. Do you notify the players of norm status. And should a player earn enough to get 3 FEM norms does the server notify that player, and how often are Status achievments upgraded. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-10-13 12:31:56)
Hello Wayne :)

The norms calculation occur about once per month but it just consider tournaments where you have no more running games !

I just launched a calculation so you should see the changes now (and you must have been warnt by email for your norms and title). Well, actually I see no norm for you so you must have at least one running game in this tournament.

My best,
Thibault


Wayne Lowrance    (2008-10-13 17:15:58)
norms

thank you Thibault. Yes, I see, in M #15 I still do have one running game. I am 5/5 in that tournament so I do have one more game to complete. Wayne


Wolfgang Utesch    (2008-12-22 17:08:59)
Outstanding future rating 2.610 by ...

Michael Aigner!!! And 2 GM-norms!!! Congratulations, Wolfgang


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-01-06 00:56:30)
Norms

I have no norms credidted to me, why ? Tournament M000015 finished with 5.5/6, a Norm, no/yes ?I understand that one must finish all of his/her games to get the credit , or is the tournament needed to be ended by all players, gad I hope not that ? What about the case where a norm is guaranteed, but a players games within a Tournament are not complete. I have always had confusion on this topic. Bah humbug Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-06 13:56:32)
Norms

Hi Wayne, norms are calculated regularly, from every week to every month AFTER the end of the tournament.


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-01-06 17:52:36)
Norms

Good grief! Thank you, i can just sit back for a couple of years before those 3 norms I expect to materialize. It is ok though, no problem, but i cannot agree with with the reasoning. The Tournament info, for example said norm requirement for, example FEM is a resutt of " ". so if a player has achieved the required points, why should that player wait until some ding dong, uninterested guy finish his games. I don't want to make waves Thibaut. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-06 18:57:29)
Norms

No problem :) Well, I just can't find another way while saving processor time...


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-01-06 19:32:00)
Norm

Okey Dokie, I understand that problem. I will ask both of my Sons (programmars) what they think about your problem, culling tournaments for Norm achievements before tourney is complete and thus occupy cpu time. The way you now have it implemented, the culling is simple, "tournament complete" look for norms. I am a retired EE and not a programmer, but I think your evaluation is not valid. you only have to do this culling, say once a month and besides it is not that much cpu time overall. Wayne


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-01-06 19:36:19)
Norms

Make the change one of your next surprise achievment's for your server :) Wayne


Marc Lacrosse    (2009-01-06 21:30:45)
Wayne ...

... We all had to wait according to these rules that are present since the very beginning of FICGS
I do not see why your impatience deserves changing what has been running for years.
If I see well you have one FEM norm recorded and wish to see the second one recorded as soon as possible
So far you played against a mean 2000 rated opponents
Most top accounts have mean opponent rating higher than 2200
This is probably the reason why you do not achieve more master norms at a faster pace
Do play in higher rated tournaments and you will soon earn as many norms as you wish if your playing strength is OK against stronger opponents
The best way to enter high-rated tournaments here is to go as often as possible in Ficgs-Wch qualifications tournaments
Marc


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


Wayne Lowrance    (2009-01-07 00:38:53)
Norms

Okey Dokie Tribault, good reason, never considered that aspect. I am now sorry I opened up this can of worms, accept my regrets. Wayne


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-01-07 11:16:13)
Norms

You're always welcome Wayne :) .. One time I'll have some reason, one time I'll make an update !


Robert Mueller    (2009-02-21 06:30:07)
Norms and Titles

For obtaining a title (e.g. FEM) you need three FEM norms. Does winning a FIM norm automatically give you a FEM norm too? In other words: if I have two FEM norms and then get a FIM norm, do I get the FEM title?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-21 16:57:08)
Norms and Titles

Hello Robert, yes it does (it is specified in the Help section) ;)

By the way, if you just finished a tournament, you still have to wait a few more days to see your norms & title updated - the script runs about every 15 days.


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).


Scott Nichols    (2009-05-11 14:19:28)
Poker norms?

Since corr. poker is so new and innovative, do you think Thib that you can come up with some levels that we could earn poker IM, or poker GM titles?


Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman    (2009-06-08 09:08:57)
Grateful

Thank you Mr(s) Yates, I appreciate your solidarity. I still do not understand this ISO norms that will not let puertoricans use their own flag.


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.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-10-12 01:40:51)
Road to Grandmaster

You know this little blog and chessbase article has sparked a debate on whether people believe in whether its possible for a 1900 21 yearold to ever make GM.

Despite the fact I've constantly said it is. I've been told i'm flat wrong again and again by every person i've talked to. But I don't understand why, Kasparov said Talent is all a matter of time and effort. I don't see why not. The reason kids excel at chess is because they have no responsibilities. They have PURE time and when a kid gets attached to something... their effort is also unwavering.

I have offered the answer that the problems with adults improving is mostly the fact they have too many demands on their time already (work, family, school, other hobbies) or lack proper motivation (getting too easily discouraged or not wanting to work on their weaknesses).

However, I've noticed the naysayers tend to fall into three camps. 1) The camp that says talent is genetic and you can't make up for it regardless of how much you work. 2) People that say 21 is too old, only kids can improve. These people irk me the most. I have only been playing chess for 2 years and I went from 1000 to 1900 in under a year because I spent alot of time on it. I see no reason why any other adult can't do the exact same. Granted 1000 to 1900 is not 1900 to 2500 + 3 norms... but the point remains the same: time and hardwork. I think here multiple studies about the 10,000 hours required to master an activity is relevant. 3) People that are flat out freaking jealous. They know they themselves won't make GM or maybe even IM so they decry anyone else that wants to try.

Anyways, curious what others peoples thoughts are?


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-10-12 09:35:56)
Road to Grandmaster

IMHO point 1 is partly true and point 2 should be said "kids can improve more easily"... Anyway things have changed so much with computers & the value of norms, it is not easy to say if anybody can become a Granmaster nowadays but I bet on you :)


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-25 15:42:00)
Achieving playing norms

I have just started playing in tournaments on here that are able to earn norms and looking at the score for getting a norm, they seem rather high.

For getting a FEM norm, with a field of 2200+, the score is 4.5/6. Considering how many games are actually won between players over 2200, achieving a score of 4.5/6 seems very difficult indeed, unless someone forfeits all their games, or some games are somehow otherwise affected.

I am wondering, do others think that score is too high and 4/6 might be more realistic for one norm.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-26 15:14:54)
Achieving playing norms

I did not invent the process, that's just unlucky for this tourney... In another tournament with a slightly higher rating average, it will be easier...


Alvin Alcala    (2011-12-26 18:07:46)
Achieving playing norms

I wonder how Scott manage to have so much norms. His very near to his goal now of becoming a ficgs master.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-26 18:15:15)
Achieving playing norms

Now that you reached 2200 it shouldn't be long for you guys :)


Alvin Alcala    (2011-12-26 18:17:34)
Achieving playing norms

This is my goal for 2012 :)


Garvin Gray    (2011-12-27 08:52:26)
Achieving playing norms

Is there a table to see what it takes to get the titles?

Fide has tables for what it takes to qualify for different playing norms: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=58&view=article

so I am wondering if there are similar ficgs tables.

Of most interest is at what average rating does the score move from 4.5/6 to 4/6 and so forth.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-27 18:52:14)
Achieving playing norms

It is all explained here :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles


Scott Nichols    (2011-12-27 19:50:26)
Achieving playing norms

As soon as Class_M__000044 finishes I should get my third FEM norm, :)) I needed 4.5 of 6 and I finished 5.0 of 6. I think it is my style Alvin, I go out on many limbs trying for the win instead of draw. I have went 6/6 in M class, but on the other hand I've went 2/6 and maybe lower. The titles are HARD to get and something to be proud of.


Alvin Alcala    (2011-12-27 19:52:09)
Achieving playing norms

Congratulations!!! I'm proud of you man. Well done! :)


Don Groves    (2011-12-28 06:45:31)
Achieving playing norms

Way to go Scott !


Jimmy Huggins    (2011-12-28 12:22:45)
Achieving playing norms

Thib how many people have ever gotten a FICGS GM norm?


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-12-28 14:30:49)
Achieving playing norms

3 ... and not the least : Eros Riccio, Michael Aigner & Peter Schuster !

You can find the full list of norms at :

http://www.ficgs.com/titles.html

There's a link (just fixed it) to :

http://www.ficgs.com/display_titles.php


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-26 21:40:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

One more concern while writing these cup rules: Are norms fair while having one game more with white or black in tournaments? There never was the case before here.


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-26 23:35:08)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

In otb tournaments, norms are completely valid regardless of colour balance. So that is no issue.

As I have said before, the tournament can start with 11 players, then someone does not start and that makes it a 10 person round robin, but the norms still count, even though colour balance technically for the actual games played was uneven.


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-01-27 00:38:13)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

Ok, I agree with that.

Here is a first try for FICGS cup rules:

"FICGS world cup championship is a multi stages tournament. All players who entered the waiting list are involved in single round-robin tournaments (2 stages or more will probably be necessary). All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Stockfish, Houdini, Rybka...) is allowed and encouraged in cup tournaments. Norms are possible according to FICGS general rules.

Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5 to 33 players (most probably 7 to 13). The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with most wins (and if necessary the player with the lowest tournament entry rating, then the lowest current rating) among the best scores, is declared winner and qualified for the next stage if any. Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. There will be no replacements in these tournaments.

In the case of a withdrawal, the games won't be rated if a player warns the referee before the tournament starts and at most 15 days after a new stage started but the first one."


Anything to add?


Garvin Gray    (2016-01-27 03:38:32)
FICGS chess cup : proposal

I think I have a different view on a couple of points, based in part in relation to the feedback I read to comments about TER.

Also, it comes from how I view the structure of the first stage, which is only a few groups and large numbers in each group ie 6 groups of 11 players, rather than 11 groups of 6 players.
========================================

FICGS world cup championship is a two stages tournament. All players who entered the waiting list are involved in single round-robin tournaments.

All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Stockfish, Houdini, Rybka...) is allowed and encouraged in cup tournaments.
Norms are possible according to FICGS general rules.

Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5 to 33 players (most probably 7 to 13). The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. If there is a tie for first place in a group, each player advances to the second stage.
Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. There will be no replacements in these tournaments.

=======================================

Effects- with only a small number of groups, and ties for first progressing, it is possible the second stage final could have 7,8,9 or 13 players. That will be determined.

But what I see is the main factor is that with large groups and ties going through, is all the players know they have to make a decent score to advance from the start. A good TER will not get the job done.

Also, if the scores at the top of a group are close, there is more incentive for players to attempt to get a score from their games as being the only one to advance knocks out everyone else, without any complaints about TER rules.

An entry limit will need to be put on when the final stage is double round robin. If there are six qualifiers to the final stage, then it should be DRR. 7 players in the final would make 12 games. Is that too much?


Thibault de Vassal    (2016-05-26 02:19:21)
FICGS restarts (2016 May 25)

Ratings / norms / tournaments results have not been updated yet, I have to examine codes further before the calculations, sorry for the delay.


Garvin Gray    (2018-02-22 11:22:43)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?

In looking at the current group/event that I am playing in, which is Rapid SM 15, according to the current way FICGS sets the scores for norms, to get a FIM norm for that event, FEM is at 4 and FIM as at 4.5 for all players.

It has occurred to me that this is different to how fide works out norm opportunities in round robin and swiss events.

In those events, each players average rating of their opponents is worked out and then that is plugged into the system and then that expected score is used to work out what score they need to get a FEM or FIM norm or higher.

To explain further as that might be unclear.

In the group I am talking about, PoulErik Jorgensen has an equal chance of getting an FEM or FIM norm than someone who is rated lower than him, even though that other player is playing a field who is stronger.

So using the FIDE way and the percentages for FEM and FIM norm, I play and average rating field of 2337.8, round up to 2338. This means that in a category 4 event, I need to score 56 percent, or 3.5 for an FEM and 67 percent or 4 points, not 4.5 for a FIM norm.

Now also doing some further calculating, Alex Wosch is able to score a FSM norm as his average rating of opponents is 2,329 and would then need to score 4.5. Under the current arrangement, he is deprived of this opportunity.

Therefore, I could give a rundown of all players, but I am of the conclusion that the current method of calculating Norm qualifications is inadequate and needs to be refined.

My thoughts were triggered to this from the FICGS world cup when any player to reach a FEM norm needed to score 12/16, which was clearly an outlandish score given the field.


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-02-25 22:44:25)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?

Hi Garvin! FIDE ? I'm not really surprised... As for ICCF, I don't know much the way it calculates norms but FICGS algorithm looks like the way IECG did it. Anyway I understand your point and that makes sense, of course. I guess that this rule was designed to be not too complex to display and understandable as well. I'm not sure yet about what to conclude on this, but anyway that's true, there is something to dig.


Daniel Parmet    (2020-04-28 22:59:06)
The State of correspondence chess

I have played correspondence chess now for 13 years. During that time, I have played 983 correspondence games. These days I mostly play at ICCF and some of these issues may be ICCF specific... but since ICCF has no forum and I want to get a sense of the health of correspondence chess in general... I posit my thoughts here.

First of all, I think the number of correspondence players and the number of correspondence games are decreasing across the board on all correspondence websites due to the things I want to talk about.

Second, I primarily shifted my playing to ICCF years ago for two reasons: 1) The higher level of competition available; 2) The norms available. Although I was concerned with their fees which are usually minor but, in many cases, certain organizers do construct outlandish tournaments that you need to be wary of (looking at you Venezuela).

On the first point, I think ICCF is a little more open to high caliber players competing up until a point (they really try to prevent you from playing a 2450+ player until you are 2450+ yourself). And the rating protections get tougher and tougher the further you go but they make it easy to play 2300 players. While most websites outside of ICCF, usually have one annual Cup / WCH or Thematics, these other websites usually make it impossible to play anyone more than a few hundred points above you no matter your rating outside of these few events.

On the second point, I think ICCF norms are somewhat of an illusion. They’ve always been hard and much harder to achieve than OTB norms which received a watering down of requirements of decades ago. In fact, ICCF norms are so much harder than FIDE norms that one actually needs to achieve two norms to receive the prerequisite title in ICCF vs the standard three norms required by FIDE. In the US, for example, there are 116 ICCF Titled players in history (13 GMs, 25 SIM, 78 IMs) vs 828 FIDE Titled players in present (101 GMs 166 IM 561 FMs) [https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml]. Now however, there is a proposal, for the ICCF GM Title only, proposed by Dennis Doren, ICCF Rules Commissioner who really does a lot for correspondence chess, and SIM Uwe Staroske, ICCF Qualifications and Ratings Commissioner, to remove the requirement to have to play GMs to get the GM Title [leaving IM and SIM untouched] [https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1280]. This proposal states, “A search of the ICCF data indicates that 21 players obtained at least 2 GM norms across 24 games but failed to get the GM title because of the requirement of "5 GM" opponents. (Only 5 of those players are currently active).” Leaving aside the fact that this proposal violates the very definition of the GM Title, one must beat the club in order to join it, the proposal further outlines the real problems without addressing them, “The GM Title has already become far harder to earn than it used to be, due to the rating suppression caused by the increase in draws.” Wow, let’s unpack that one line because it is a doozy!

Really, this one line, that is easily overlooked, is two huge problems that correspondence is facing: 1) death by one thousand draw paper cuts and 2) rating deflation. I will argue later that there is a third huge problem but let’s start with the ones acknowledged by ICCF itself. Every correspondence player knows the draw rate is going up. As engines and hardware get stronger, players are able to save positions that in the past would have been lost and we are finding ever easier ways to head straight towards 0.00 as Black. I would love to see a detailed analysis that describes how much harder it has become to win as Black against a decent correspondence player (let’s say someone 2300+). In the last five years, I have beaten three 2300+ players as Black without counting mouseslips (one in 2015, one in 2016 and one any day now in 2020) despite playing extremely aggressive openings like the KID (for the record that’s three Black wins out 103 Black draws or 2.91% Win rate). That may be part of the draw problem, but I have witnessed my own draw rate skyrocket 2014: 82.4% 2015: 86.7% 2016: 90.2% 2017: 90.6% 2018: 91% 2019 is still in progress. Often for these norms, you need to score +2, +3, +4 or +5 despite the fact that +1 usually wins the event… and with the draw rate North of 90% in a 12-13 game event that means you are likely to win 1 game on average… but in many events the entire cross table often sees one to three entire wins (look at a recently completed tournament here where I scored my first IM norm that required +0 and I scored +1). My win was one of five wins in the entire tournament 100/105 = 95.2% draw rate! [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=73482]. People love to tell me that’s fine because we are talking about such a weak event as Category 8 [2449 was the rating average]. Fine, I do not accept your argument but let’s look at the World Championship then shall we? Let’s look at the most recently concluded World Championship 30 which finished on 10/2/2019, Category 13 [2562 was the rating average]. This event was won by the new World Champion SIM Kochemasov, Andrey Leonidovich 2540 [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745]. Congrats to the new World Champion on his two wins! The event had 8 decisive games out 136 or a draw rate of 91.2% (not far off my own). But wait did I say SIM? I did. In fact, congratulations to the World Champion on scoring his final GM norm as well! This World Championship saw 5 SIMs compete in a field with 12 GMs. While 3 of the SIMs finished 1st 2nd and 3rd, only our new World Champion scored a GM norm. The problem is with all the draws that norms are not just becoming hard, but maintaining or increasing one’s rating is becoming hard. And one’s rating is how one receives any decent invites to have a chance at a norm in the first place.

The draws are a death by one thousand cuts as I recently played one of the ICCF’s proposal’s outlined “21 players that could have obtained a GM norm.” My rating is 2389 and his rating is 2504 (although SIM, he is recognized by all his peers as a GM caliber player). As Black, I obtained an easy draw without ever being in any trouble at all. The player had a rather angry initial discussion with me post mortem about how he felt it was wrong that a 2504 should have to play a player as weak as 2389 where the draw would kill his rating. He felt that his rating was being destroyed by these draws with weaker players and that ICCF should protect him from us. He felt I have it easier as a lower rated player because I can gain rating from these draws. Let’s look at his argument that one is causing the other and it is only happening to those 2500+. At the time that draw occurred, I gained exactly 1.17915 rating points from it (and he lost the same); however, this was the first draw in over 40 games in which I *gained* rating points (this statement is no longer true as a few higher rated players have since given me draws but at the time of the game’s conclusion this was the case). Yes, that’s right, ICCF already does such a good job of protecting higher rated players that it actively hands out advice to new players to be very particular about what invites and events they play because the draws could kill their initial rating. I too have experienced a net negative loss of rating points from draws and still seen my rating going up only due to the fact that wins are easier and ever so slightly more common to come by at my level. However, it means I am not exempt from the draw problem. It is patently false that this problem is limited to those 2500+ as in my last 43 draws, I lost rating in 42 of them and gained rating from 1 of them. Therefore, it appears draws are causing rating deflation and this is the real problem in both norms and correspondence in general. With the exception of matches, perhaps there is a way to have draws not count against one’s rating since there are so many of them? It kind of blends the Chess rating concept with that of Bridge where one cannot lose rating points once earned. What we can see is that the player’s argument that draws are causing rating deflation is probably true. One problem is at least partly causing the other one.

There is a third more devious problem worse than the two outlined above in my opinion. While rating deflation, draws, less players and norms are real issues… they are dwarfed by the change in behavior caused by these issues. I know it is a bit overdramatic to talk about such issues in a time of COVID, but there has been a great increase in the number of players playing Dead Man Defense (often shortened by correspondence players to DMD+ and DMD=). It is important to note that the death rate in COVID for those in the elderly category is markedly higher and the correspondence community in general is also markedly higher. I have heard estimates of the average age of correspondence player being 70-75 range though I haven’t seen any data. Back to DMD, what is DMD and why is it such awful behavior? The players are hoping you die before you win so they can claim either a win on time or if it goes to adjudication then at least claim a draw. The other hope is that you might mouse slip by being forced to play more moves which while that would never happen over the board does surprisingly account for a large portion of wins in ICCF correspondence high-level play. One of the main problems this issue causes is that if someone takes an early draw against a player who then goes on to die, the entire rest of the field gets a free half point and you are punished for playing your game quicker than your peers. Often, players over the board resign once mate is unstoppable or a simple endgame is reached in which the result is known to players of all levels. In correspondence, often even sooner than these players will resign or offer draws, knowing that perpetual check is unavoidable should we play another 10 moves past the piece sac against a bare king? How about when the engine reads +25 +30 or +40? So, for the most, correspondence players draw or resign much earlier than one might over the board due to engine and tablebase assistance. On that note, depending on the tournament, players can outright claim wins and draws either on the 6-piece tablebase (always allowed) or the sometimes allowed on an event by event basis the 7-piece tablebase. It is considered out right rude to make a player play all the way to the 6-piece tablebase to claim. I recently claimed one win in a six piece tablebase up an entire piece where my jolly opponent wanted to discuss the game in a post mortem (rarely done in correspondence in general anyways). I declined to even respond to him even though I was already having a very lively and fun post mortem with a Venezuelan on our extremely interesting draw. A worse example is the 92 move game I played with opposite colored bishops where I had two extra pawns. I offered a draw as white and the higher rated player to my lower rated opponent who declined it, forcing me to play to a 7-piece tablebase claim to end the game. This kind of behavior used to be quite rare. In the past, I would say it happened in 1 out of every 100 games… these days it seems to happen in every other game (1/2!). I have seven different opponents right now that are DMD+ against me where the engine reads +148 (or in some cases even sees mate! The 2504 player that complained about my rating earlier also complained someone was DMD+ him… I remarked that I have no less than 7 players DMD+ me and if they would resign? My rating would be about 2450 right which sort of eliminates his claim about our “giant” rating difference). The issue is that due to rating deflation these players need to artificially keep their rating high as long as they can because that’s how they will get their next invite. With the new terrible time control that is not yet Official (although there is a proposal to make it Official: https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1282), players only need to make a move once every 50 days to pointlessly extend the game. I have a DMD= draw currently going on 16 months now where the player is just moving Kg1 Kf1 Kg1 every 50 days. This time control exasperates the DMD problem. When I contacted ICCF Officials to point out the severity of this problem, I was told that I should report it to the TD on a case by case basis only if it is DMD+ as they will not look at DMD= at all. However, it is usually the TDs that are the biggest offenders (6 of the 7 players described above were TDs). In fact, it is usually the same general casts of characters which allows for an easy black list to be created that bars these players from play until they can fix their atrocious behavior. This behavior needs to be punished. These players need to be reprimanded. In the end, lack of norms, rating deflation and the draw death will not make me quit correspondence chess. It is DMD+/DMD= that will make me quit. This experience is my personal experience with high level correspondence over thirteen years and I would love to hear from other correspondence players concerning these problems.


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-04-05 02:19:38)
TITLE FEM

If it was 2 norms, a third is required to obtain the title. That seems on the right way :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2022-08-19 00:40:38)
FICGS Titles

Hello Frey,

You can find all details about FICGS titles and norms here:

https://ficgs.com/membership.html#titles
...or...
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles








 		 
 
Support to all people under attack    




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 !


Simal Moreira, Leonardo     (BRA)        [member # 10062]

Correspondence chess : 2374      

Ranked  #  107   in the rating list.

Rating history :   2326 2361 2358 2360 2374 2374 2374




Graph





This member has no profile in the social network.




FICGS Go server, weiqi baduk banner facebook      
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

       FICGS correspondence chess banner facebook