Home Informations   Login Register Waiting lists Membership Hall of fame Tournaments Best game Wikichess Rating list Problems Forum   Links   Help About   Game result  (chess) N. Bernal Varela, 2078 S. Marton-Bardocz, 2346 1-0 See game 22851 Armenia wins gold at 38th Chess Olympiad Deep Fritz 11 is available (Chessbase.com) Dominguez-Perez wins World Blitz Championship Hikaru Nakamura wins Cap d'Agde tournament Viswanathan Anand is FIDE world champion 2008 Nigel Short wins Commonwealth Championship Rybka wins World Computer Chess Championship 2008 Topalov tops the October 2008 FIDE rating list Pentala Harikrishna wins Spice Cup in Lubbock GM Jan Werle wins EU Individual Championships more chess news... Oh Chi-Min 7d wins Go-to-Innovation tournament Andy Liu 7d wins Masters Open at NY Go Center Gu Li 9p wins the 10th Chinese Agon Cup Hugh Zhang 6d wins Ing's Cup Youth Go Tournament Zou Jin 6d wins Pandanet Go European Cup more Go news... In the forum... Money games... Moneybookers, Paypal, credit card and bank transfer are available to play money games... Affiliate links... Win E-Points by linking to us as an affiliate, for each new member referred by your link, 1 E-Point will be added to your account... E-Points prizes... Ficgs now offers free games & tournaments with E-Points prizes... Rybka 3, Fritz 12... Rybka 3, Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13, your predictions on forthcoming chess engines... Translators... Translators are needed for chinese, japanese, indian, romanian, polish home pages... Vacation help... Hello all, I've entered a vacation time in error. Is it possible to cancel the vacation ? Last referers : GOOGLE WIKIPEDIA VIKINGSKAK LIVE SPAGHETTICHESS N YAHOO CSCL GO4GO Feel free to link to this page to get referer backlinks to your website ! Want your banner here ? Enter your search terms Web FICGS Submit search form

Forum Back to forum Per Lea    (2006-04-08 23:09:40) Titles A provocative question: Do we really need titles at all? Isn't rating more informative than a title that maybe has been won when the player was at the top of his playing strength, many years ago? I admit the rating system isn't perfect, but I still claim it tells me more than a title. Being a Norwegian I am possibly less obsessed with titles (within all walks of life) than people from other countries? 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 ? Per Lea    (2006-04-15 00:01:42) Minor notational bug... In game 8, I had Rooks on f8 and b8. I played 18...Ra8 on the screen, but when I list the game, the move is recorded as Rba8. The "b" is superfluous, the f8 Rook can't move to a8. In game 13, I had Rooks on d6 and d1 and played 18.Rxd8. This came out as R6xd8. The "6" is superfluous. These are not serious errors, but it is a bit irritating.... Håkon Anda    (2006-04-16 17:20:42) Great Thanks a lot to Thibault for adjusting the features on this server quickly and smooth for best performance and wishes from us players. Great work! Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-25 20:39:39) Hmmm ... yup Graham - I think you summed it perfectly. I have no objection to conditionals nor do I care how much time folks use. What I find "irritating" (the word used in this thread) are those situations where you move and ten minutes later you're back on the clock again. Overused conditionals contribute to the "irritation," but hardly are the root cause. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-17 15:37:39) Best game :-) Maybe we should wonder why players didn't vote for other 'better' games !? A good game doesn't necessarily need to be perfect, but obviously it has to be spectacular. It seems to be the criteria for players. Who said there was no beauty without errors... However, I hope Wikichess and Comments feature will reveal good chess games in another way. 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. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-19 11:09:58) Re: Suggestion Thanks for the suggestion, Wayne. Actually, I'm to implement a "comments" feature (see the discussion in a thread below). I don't think it's a perfect solution ! Of course it's a way to solve this problem, but it will create other problems with other abuses ! Anyway, it's a positive point more for comments. As David Grosdemange said, only players should be able to chat before the game ended. I think I'll do it this way... Daniel De Noose    (2006-05-20 17:55:10) :-( I'm not sure in case of equality we have to give the first place to the best rated. Because if a 1800 player and a 2300 player have the same score we can think the 1800 player makes a performance over his rating (good tournament) and the 2300 player a performance under his own rating (bad tournament). I think it's not correct to give the first position to the player making a bad tournament result and not to the player making a good tournament result. ;-) Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-20 18:39:06) Equality rule Hello Daniel. If the 2300 player scores 5.5 at this tournament, and the 1800 player scores 5, we can imagine the 2300 player makes a bad performance as well (possibly lower than the 1800 player), so the 1800 player should win ? There's no perfect system, only conditions, but this rule prevents from 'accidents' and grants the rating that is the best players strength indicator. I think this is a way to ensure that the best players will reach the final stages. Because this is a world championship... 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') ? Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-06-14 14:40:34) FICGS 1st chess world championship Hello Thibault! Thank you for your answer. Two points: It isn't sure at all that a player with a rating > 2400 will win his group if he had to play a 1st stage group. The CFC-Ch 2003 has shown, that less than 50 percent of the best rating players (even players with rating > 2600) have won their qualification groups. In the moment we have about 100 players with a rating < 2300 who have registered themselves for the wch. Their rating avarage is about 1720 (!). Is that right? This means (if I understand your rules) the wch groups of the 1st stage will have this rating (+ or - some points). In these groups for a 2200 player it is nearly impossible (even as winner of a group) to get a tournament performance > 2050 (I suspect that this is the reason that players with rating > 2300 not have to play this stage). After the first stage the distance to 2300 will be greater than before. I have registered myself and I will play. But I'm not really satisfied with that situation. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-14 15:02:11) Statistics, ELO and performances For sure, there could be a great work to do with statistics to improve little by little the rules, then we have to find the balance between easy-to-run (and understanding) rules and best ones, but I'm not sure we could improve significantly more, I'll explain why just below. Anyway that's good discussion ! :) About performance, that's not quite true a 2200 player couldn't perform more than 2050 in stage 1. The rating system do not take account of wins when the ELO difference is superior to 350 points ! So if a 2200 player win all his games with only 2 games (ie. against 2 players rated 1900) calculated, his performance is more than 2400. Now if a 2500 player play stage 1, probably all his games won't be rated at all... Not very interesting :/ Dorel Oltean    (2006-06-15 13:14:09) Criteria In round-robin qualifing criteria is first number of points and then rating? In round-robin tournaments one can choose other criteria, after points, like Soneborn, number of wins, .., related to the performance one made. In rating list there are a lot of "provisional" ratings , which will become much too important. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-06-14 15:32:51) Rating formula Hello Thibault! Where can I found the exact rating rules of FICGS? I have found only these lines in the Memberships - Terms and Conditions: "11. 7. Rating rules The FICGS rating scheme is a numerical scheme, in which percentage results can be exchanged into rating differences, and rating differences into percentage performance probabilities. It is mainly based on the principles of rating calculations of prof. Arpad Elo. The rating formula : New Elo = ((16 x Elo) + (Games x Perf)) / (16 + Games) ..." What means "mainly based"? You write in another topic "1. The rating system do not take account of wins when the ELO difference is superior to 350 points " Is this valid only for wins or for all games with a rating difference of more than 350 points? Daniel De Noose    (2006-06-15 18:33:39) Perfect ! I think like this it more equal! Don't think I hope to be the 1st champion (I don't have that ambition), but it's just to have all the players on the same level. Thanks to you ! ;-) Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-06-16 13:55:54) Statistics, ELO and performances Hello Thibault! "About performance, that's not quite true a 2200 player couldn't perform more than 2050 in stage" Maybe you are right, if most of the players have an established rating. But you can see at the rating list that more than 50 percent of our ratings are provisional - most of them with 1700. The question is how many of these players are good or very good (like Daniel)? Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-16 14:13:29) Statistics, ELO and performances Time and ratings will answer to that... It takes a few months for ratings to find themselves ! The same in FIDE and wher'ever... Next rating list will be calculated on july 1st. :-) Wayne Lowrance    (2006-06-17 07:36:58) rating calc Welp, I am another innocent victim of starting off at 1400. When I signed on I wanted to start at the beginning, much like daniel. what I really did not pay attention to is the difficulty in climbing the ladder. My chess rating on other sites including CC cite is well over 2200. I started there at the bottom and figured I would do the same here. Not so fast. I have won one tourney here weith 6/6 score tourney allready and am have a perfect scored in a second one with 3 games to go. and yet my expected rating is listed at 1805, cleary I am not a 1800 player. It is not my fault that I was forced to play in a tourney dominated by 1400 players. What you think. Not trying to cause trouble, just venting I guess. and the cite is nice, will continue playing, my best toya Wayne p.s. do you think my playing in a 1400 tourney is fair to those players, hummm? Wolfgang Utesch    (2006-06-19 15:18:50) Chess is a drawn game! Hi, with perfect play on both sides, chess is allways a drawn game - even 1.e4 or 1.d4 (or any others). I'm really sure! The ways to come into theoretical drawn endings are just too many (for the defender). But who is playing perfect? Still waiting for the 32-pieces ending tool ;-), Wolfgang Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-22 17:56:59) King's gambit and statistics... Wayne, where did you find such (wrong) statistics ?? Gambit (the real thing) is IMO first a psychological attack, most useful against a weaker player... "The best way to refute is to accept it", one said... but queen's gambit is NOT a real gambit and for sure 2. ... dxc4 is not the best move... King's gambit is, but a perfect play most probably also leads to a draw. Queen's gambit accepted statistics : 33% (1-0), 48% (1/2-1/2), 17% (0-1) King's gambit statistics : 35% (1-0), 27% (1/2-1/2), 36% (0-1) ... in classical time controls. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-22 18:10:05) Acceptance of gambits... Amir, in my opinion gambit is only a move like another... It is a psychological choice that depends on the opponent strength and play. IMO a gambit is "justified" (like any move) if the game is not lost... nothing more. If a gambit doesn't lead to a draw with a perfect play, it is a fault. And this thread is a troll :) Wayne Lowrance    (2006-06-22 21:11:43) interesting question for the Gambit's a Sir let me explain, the stats are taken from A database of 1600 GM's. the statistic is taken prior to blacks response but assuming pxp. Of course the percentages varies as you go thru the book lines. Where did your statistics come from (e-mail me, dont want to continue with troll)? Kings gambit with perfect play as you say leads to a draw. That does not impress me much. I agree the best defence against a gambit is accept, I usually do. Yes your right the thread is a troll, I apoligize for contributing but I found my self not being able to agree with where the last few topics were heading. I do not accept this mind games thing excet against a very weak player playing a much stronger player. In this case I agree. I end the troll with this...Wayne Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-23 12:25:36) Blindfolded Chess THE chess-world (for there is a "world" in chess as in other matters) has lately been startled by a very extraordinary performance at one of the "divans" of the metropolis. A young American has played ten games at once, against an equal number of players, without, on his part, obtaining a single glimpse at any one of the chess-boards. The feat is not new; but never before was it performed so triumphantly as in the present day. The writers who have ferreted out the early history of this beautiful game have found the name of one Tchelebi, who, nearly nine centuries ago, was able to play at chess without seeing the board. Many persons in the East acquired the art of playing by feeling instead of seeing pieces; but that is a very different affair, since in such a case the sense of touch comes in aid of the memory. In 1266, a Saragen, named Buzecca, came to Florence and at the Palazzo del Popolo played three games at once, looking at one board, but not at the other two. He won two of the games, and made a drawn or abandoned game of the other. As all his competitors were skilful players, his achievement caused irrepressible astonishment. At various times, in later centuries, this mode of play was exhibited by different persons--Ruy Lopez, the author of one of the earliest treatises on chess; Mangiolini of Florence, Zerone, Medrano, Leonardo da Cutri, Paolo Boi, Salvio, and others, many of whom were Spaniards. Boi is reputed to have played three games at once without seeing the board. Damiano, an Italian, who wrote a treatise on chess more than three centuries and a half ago, gave what he called the "Rules" for learning to play without seeing the board; but his rules are worth very little, amounting chiefly to a recommendation to cultivate the memory. Keysler, in his Account of Turin (1749), says: "The late Father Sacchieri, Lecturer on Mathematics at Pavia, was a remarkable instance of the strength of the human understanding, particularly that faculty of the soul we term memory. He could play at chess with three different persons at the same time, even without seeing any one of the three chess-boards. He required no more than that his substitute should tell him what piece his antagonist had moved, and Sacchieri could direct what step was to be taken on his side, holding, at the same time, conversation with the company present. If any dispute arose about the place where any piece should be, he could tell every move that had been made, not only by himself, but by his antagonist, from the beginning of the game, and in this manner incontestably decided the proper place of the piece. This uncommon dexterity at the game of chess appears to me almost the greatest instance that can be produced of a surprising memory." The most celebrated player of the last century, however, in this peculiar achievement, was the Frenchman Andre Danican, who then, and afterwards, was generally known by the name of Philidor. In 1743, when Philidor was about eighteen years old, M. de Legalle asked him whether he had ever tried to play from memory, without seeing the board. The youth replied, that as had calculated moves, and even whole games, at night in bed, he thought he could do it. He immediately played a game with the Abbe Chenard, which he won without seeing the board. After that, a little practice enabled him to play nearly as well in this as in the ordinary fashion--sometimes two games at once. The French Cyclopedie told of a particular game in which a false move was purposely made by his antagonist; Philidor discovered it after many moves, and replaced the pieces in their proper position. Forty years afterwards, he was residing in England, where he astonished English players by his blindfold achievements at a chess-club in St. James' Street. He played three games at once, with Count Bruhl, Mr. Bowdler, and Mr. Maseres, the first two of whom were reputed the best players at that time in England. Philidor won two of the games, and drew the third, all within two hours. On another occasion, in the same year (1788), he played three games at once, blindfold as before, and giving the odds of pawn and move to one of his antagonists; again did he win two of the games, and draw the third. His demeanor during these labors surprised his visitors as much as his skill, for he kept up a lively conversation during his games. Many eminent chess-players, including M'Donnell, La Bourdonnaye, Staunton, etc., have achieved these blindfold wonders, in greater or less degree, since the days of Philidor. M'Donnell, a famous player about thirty years ago, played his moves even more rapidly without than with the board; he did not object to any amount of conversation in the room during his play, but disliked whispers. La Bourdonnaye could play within a shade of his full strength without seeing the board; he won against good players, on some occasions two at a time; but when trying the threefold labor, his brain nearly gave way, and he wisely abandoned all such modes of playing his favorite game. Mr. Staunton, the leading English player at present (but who has almost ceased to play since he undertook the editing of an edition of Shakespeare), some years ago played many blindfold games with Harrwitz and Kieseritzky, foreign players of note. Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-23 12:26:28) Blinfolded chess ( part II ) Very recently, however, all the honors of Europe, in this department of indoor games, have been run away with by two young Americans, Morphy and Paulsen. Paul Morphy, a native of New Orleans, seemed to be born with chess in his blood; he played almost from childhood; and at thirteen years of age he proved a formidable antagonist to Herr Lowenthal, a noted Hungarian. In 1857, when just twenty years of age, Morphy encountered Paulsen, a native of Iowa, only a little older than himself, at a chess congress in New Orleans (Editor: It was New York!). All the gray-beards struck their flag to Paulsen, and then he struck to Morphy. Of Morphy's subsequent achievements in regular play, which stamp him as perhaps the first living chess-player (we say this with fear and trembling; however, for the knights of the game are a sensitive race), we will not speak here, for our purpose is only to notice the blindfold performances. At the chess congress above mentioned, he finely played a blindfold game with a leading German player. Early in 1858, he struck the New Orleanists with amazement by playing six games simultaneously, without seeing any other the boards; winning five of them, and exhibiting beautiful play throughout. He then came to Europe, not only to "lick the Britishers," but "all creation;" and it must be admitted that he made great progress towards that achievement. At a meeting of the Chess Association at Birmingham, in August 1858, he played eight games simultaneously, without sight of the boards. His opponents were Lord Lyttelton, and seven other persons, mostly presidents or secretaries of provincial chess clubs. Against such players, and under such tremendous conditions, he won no less than six games out of the eight, drawing a seventh, and losing the eighth. In the following month, he went over and astonished the Parisians in a similar way; he contended blindfold against eight practised players at once, at the Cafe de la Regence, a famous resort of chess-players; and out of these did not lose even one; he was the victor in six, and drew the other two. In the spring of 1859, Morphy contended against eight of the most experienced members of the London Chess Club, including Mr. Mongredien and Mr. Walker, two distinguished players. He won two games, and drew the other six--all the players except himself being wearied out by a very protracted sitting. A few days afterwards, he played with eight members of the St. George's Chess Club, including Lord Cremorne, Lord Arthur Hay, and Captain Kennedy; he won five, and the rest were drawn through want of time to finish them. Nevertheless, inconceivable as these mental labors are, Morphy yields to Paulsen in blindfold play. There are whispers of twelve or fifteen games having been tried simultaneously by the latter; but the number ten has been most certainly reached, under conditions of the utmost publicity. On the 7th of October in the present year, at a Divan in the Strand, ten players accepted Mr. Paulsen's challenge to grapple with them all simultaneously, the boards being placed out of his sight. One of the players was M. Sabouroff, secretary to the Russian Embassy in London; the other nine comprised many names well known among chess-players. Ten chess-boards were placed on ten tables in the room. An arm-chair, turned away towards a window, was mounted on a dais. At two o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Paulsen, a quiet, courteous young man, with not a trace of "brag" in him, took his seat in this arm-chair. For twelve mortal hours he never rose, never ate, never smoked, and drank nothing but a little lemonade. What were his mental labors during that time, we shall see. His ten antagonists took their seats at the ten tables; and each table speedily became the centre of a group of spectators, whose comments were not always so silent as in fairness they ought to have been. Paulsen could not see any of the chess-boards. Herr Kling, a noted player and teacher of chess, acted as general manager. He called the boards by numbers--No. 1 to No. 10. Paulsen audibly announced his first move for board No. 1; Kling made that move; the antagonist replied to it; Kling audibly announced the reply; Paulsen considered what should be his second move, and when he had audibly announced his decision, Kling made the proper move on the board. Here No. 1 rested for awhile. No. 2 now made his move, leading to the same course of proceeding as before. Then No. 3 in the same way; then No. 4; and so on to No. 10; after which No. 1 began a new cycle, by playing a second move; and thus they proceeded over and over again. Now let us see what all this implies and involves. Chess is not one of the most frolicsome of games; indeed, ladies generally declare it to be very dull, seeing that a chess-player is apt to be "grumpy" if spoken to on other matters while playing. The truth is, there is a demand for much mental work in managing a game well; the combinations and subtleties, the attacks and counter-attacks, are so numerous and varied, as to keep the mind pretty fully occupied. Nevertheless, a fine game between two fine players is mere child's play compared with this wonderful achievement of Paulsen. He was obliged to form ten mental pictures; and every picture changed with every move, like the colored bits in a kaleidoscope. Most persons, even though knowing nothing of the game, are aware that it begins with thirty-two pieces of different colors and forms, and that these move about over a board of sixty-four squares. After every change of position in any one of the pieces, Paulsen must have changed his mental picture of the board, the field of battle, and then made that a fixture until the next move was made. This is hard enough in even one game, against an antagonist who has his eyes to help him in planning attacks and defences; but how hard must it be against ten! It is difficult to conceive what is the condition of the mental machinery under such circumstances; and yet, there he sat, the calmest man in the room. When told of his antagonist's doings, one by one, he looked quietly out of window, and rubbed his chin, as a man often does when thinking, and then announced his move--never mistaking No. 1 for No. 7, No. 9 for No. 3--never failing to recover the proper mental picture, and making the proper change in it; never embarrassed; never making an unlawful move, or likely to lose sight (mental sight) of any unlawful move made by his antagonists. Nor did he obtain the least pause for mental rest. Without one minute's interval, as soon as he had announced a move for one board, he was required to attend to the move of another antagonist at another board. Hour after hour did this continue--all the afternoon, all the evening, midnight, until two in the morning. He made two hundred and seventy moves in the twelve hours, twenty-seven per game average; this gave two minutes and a quarter for the consideration of each move. As all his moves were met by corresponding moves on the part of his antagonists, he was called upon to form five hundred and forty complete mental pictures in twelve consecutive hours, each picture representing the exact mode in which all of the sixty-four squares of a chess-board were occupied. Paulsen won two games, lost three, and drew five. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-02 12:52:15) rules & ratings Hello Peter. Indeed, you were one of the very first registered players. I have fixed the rules since this time, though it seems to me this point was the same already. Anyway, ratings of course are not only informative (like in life :)), as it allows to play class tournaments. Now, there must be a way to choose a winner in certain cases, even if there's no "perfect" way. But if you win the tournament, there's no discussion. It only lights the battle a little more... When a player register he can ask for a >1700 rating only if he has got an "official" rating already, so the influence of choice is not so important at registration. Your reference to 1789 is amazing, but actually we ARE equal before the law (rules). Doesn't mean the law is perfectly fair, that's impossible, of course. Like in life... The rules slightly favourize the best players. Je t'embrasse itou :) 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 21:19:14) statistics Dear Thibault, I don't have the answer, I suspect there is no solution for this problem. If you apply statistics to extreme situations, there will always be some outliers that will prove your prediction wrong. One good example is ICC(internet chess club) and their self-proclaimed perfect method to detect online cheaters. I can tell you some OTB 2100-2300 players can perform sometimes close to 2600 strength, and sometimes more than 95% of their moves coincide with one of the chess engines...statistically you can call this a cheater, but reality is not respectful of normal distributions Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-07-09 00:46:13) Leave/Reflection Time Dear chessfriends! In my dreams a perfect server has the following time rules. Normal tournaments: - 30 days with an increment of 30 days/ 10 moves - 100 days maximum accumulated time - 30 days maximum limit for one move - 4 weeks leave per tournament (!) for every year since the start of the tournament - no time lost or added during leaves - a move in a tournament during a leave stops the leave in all games of this tournament - all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes Rapid tournaments - 30 days start +1 day added per move - 45 days maximum accumulated time - 30 days maximum limit for one move - no leave - all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes By the way, the world championship should not be a rapid tournament. But how I said these are my dreams ... Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-07-10 20:06:15) Vacation and reflection time Hi Thibault Vacation seems to be a great problem on all chess servers. The way you manage it is very special. I don't think, that your way is "hard to use". Of course you can always abuse vacation to have more time in time trouble. But your way is very easy. Take 10 days of vacation and play on. And at the end of a year add the not consumed vacation to the reflection time of all of your games. Now you suggest that a player can not play during his vacation. That is ok. But if the player starts playing during his vacation "loosing the days leave taken and not used yet" is not ok. "Maybe it won't be appreciated in some particular cases". Too much and unnecessary administration. Let the server work. You don't want to give up your concept (adding vacation time to the reflection time), am I right? You already have announced the corrections on "My messages". If you must change your concept, you would have to rewrite parts of the software. Nevertheless I would like to say how I imagine the vacation rules on my "perfect server". I can make the following things with my 4 weeks of holiday: - If I'm on holiday far away from home or don't like to play chess for a while, I can take a leave in all tournaments. - If I have much work (sorry - I had to earn money and my employer doesn't take it into consideration, that I would like to play more chess) and can't take care of all tournaments for a while, I take a leave in single tournaments. If the overload is past, I play on without losing the vacation which I perhaps haven't taken. - I cannot take a leave in a rapid tournament. That is ok - rapid means rapid. There shouldn't be any way to get more time for reflection in this kind of tournament. It's a pity that no more players express their opinion on this topic in this forum. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-22 18:31:31) What future for correspondence chess ? You may have noticed this "grave" question on the home page... :) --------- Are draws and chess engines killing chess game, are the level and play simply standardized by Deep Fritz and Rybka... Is the extraordinary performance by Christophe Léotard at XIX th. ICCF correspondence chess world championship 'chancy', a statistical happening, or is there a place yet for human play in modern correspondence chess ? "I really believe that Go is destined to take the place of Chess as the leading intellectual game of the Occident, just as it has reigned supreme in the Orient for some four thousand years." (Edward Lasker, international chess master) "... {it is} something unearthly... if there are sentient beings on other planets, then they play go." (Emanuel Lasker, chess world champion) It had been said that Chess 960 would replace Chess too. I don't think so... Any predictions ? Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-02 23:38:35) Patience... what limit ? Hello Graham. Actually, he did break the rules... (obvious result + 30 days lasting) so game has been adjudicated. But this may be ambiguous in some cases... Not perfect for sure. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-08-24 20:32:23) Re: Why do you play corr-chess ? Because there are no chess players where I live... :) And maybe because I'm quite perfectionist too ;) Julien Baudement    (2006-08-28 17:21:40) Go rules : no pass option A little problem with the go games : It's possible to move, to resign, but not to pass. I remember that it was extisting before because one of my opponents did it! Thibaut: je t'aurai... dans quelques années mr Kobayashi m'a suggéré un site pour se perfectionner ! Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-09-12 13:19:57) Math... *sigh* LOL Thibault, I guess it was. I'm no mathematician (far from it), but I don't think that this theory will turn out to be true anytime in the near future, even in a "predictable" game like chess. Even chess engines depend on the skill of their programmers to find new ways to make their search algorithms become reliable and faster, and tablebase development is still petabytes away from being complete. Anyway, I guess the future generations will have to tell us if it worked or not. Only God knows what can get in the way of this "gaming nirvana" as they call, and after I heard that it was proven possible that a computer user can subconciously influenciate the way an idle machine performs, I don't feel like trying to impersonate Baba Vanga on this subject! ;) Dirk Ghysens    (2006-09-18 10:33:56) Not all, Henri I know of two exceptions: 1. Yelena Dembo, FIDE rating 2466, WGM, IM, and a GM norm; rating at Gameknot 1775; 2. Marius Ceteras, FIDE rating 2427, FM (he missed IM title due to a strange decision by FIDE officials), very well-known correspondence chess personality, chess publisher, organiser etc.; rating at Gameknot 1740 (not in top 2000 there and loses regularly against 1800 rated patzers). Unfortunately Yelena Dembo is no longer playing at Gameknot; they threw her out. Also Marius Ceteras has no ongoing games there during the past month. So you may be right after all: most players above 1600 are using a chess engine (except the WIMs, WGMs, FMs, and IMs rated below 1800), and certainly all players above 1800 (with one possible exception, a WIM from Holland/Russia, who managed a rating slightly above 1800, but she got thrown out also, for being a nuisance). BTW, it boggles my mind why the use of tablebases is allowed there; unlike engines, tablebases tell you the perfect move to play and what the outcome will be with 100% certainty. Marc Lacrosse    (2006-10-04 18:55:32) Rybka and others I use rybka 1.1 and quite a few other ones :-) I am pretty sure that rybka is stronger than all other engines but this does not in any way say that rybka's play is perfect. A problem with the practical use of rybka is the fact that it has something like a different scaling of his assessments than most others. +0.10 is a large advantage for rybka! and often he gives almost the same score to several candidate moves whereas other engines more clearly differentiate the value of different potential continuations. Rybka often misses evidently promising tactical continuations if you do not give him a much longer thinking time than requested by some competitors So I think Rybka is a powerful tool but not the only one to have for computer help Marc Marc Lacrosse    (2006-10-04 22:50:34) How many people actually use chessengine I do, and I cannot even understand why some feel it is not fair : it is explicitly allowed here. My feeling is that most (if not all) my opponents do use them also. And this is perfectly OK for me. For several reasons : 1. I prefer not to have worked hard on a game and then win it because a sudden tactical error leads to a premature end after months of intense struggle. 2. I am far from being able on my own forces to have such interesting games as those that I play with help of engines. 3. Being on almost the same basis of computer help as my opponents, I feel that the human touch is clearly decisive in these computer-assisted correspondence games : it's precisely there that the difference can be made. Marc Glen D. Shields    (2006-10-05 05:25:52) Wayne no one ... Wayne - no one is time trouble because no one is using their time. That's the point! "Correspondence chess" on a server has basically become an OTB match between chess engines. Players in all organizations are complaining about server burnout. Players who swore off postal are re-considering their decision. What Thibault is trying to find out is how prevalent is the burnout. What I'm proposing any player can do manually, but why should it be done manually when the server can do it for us? Isn't automation the whole purpose of the server? Help from the server to manage the pace (and one's game load) is a perfectly logical extension of server play. If you want to play fast, play fast. If you want to play slow, slow the pace, use the server to do it for you. Why is that bothersome? No one is suggesting a change from the 40/10 limit. There's no proposal to deviate from the 100 maximum accumulated days (great rule - every server should follow this rule!). What am I missing? I really don't get it :) Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-18 21:31:24) Re: Kick this player !!! Thank you... That was my first impression too, but I was not sure. The 'filter' is not perfect yet ;) Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-23 18:00:29) Rating / 8-game match Hello Wolfgang. (FICGS, not FICS ;)) In these 1st FICGS WCH quarter finals, there were 2 forfeit cases & 1 match with 6 games out of 8 lost on time. In the first 2 cases, not all games were rated as a win (according to the 8-game match rule), the last case was a bit different but as far as I remember, the winner had a better position (winning or small advantage) in all games... Anyway, ratings wouldn't change significantly if 2 wins were not rated. The real question is about 8-game matchs & fast time control 30 days + 1 day / move (quite hard). There's no perfect rule & particular cases could happen, but that's really interesting IMO & the number of games with rapid time controls are probably enough to balance ratings in time. We'll see... Anyway, several players were surprised by the difficulty of this time control, I hope it won't happen again during the next cycle (that should start in january)... Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-24 13:06:31) Anatoly Karpov, world champion... ... signing 1951 copies of the book (written by David Llada) "Karpov, el camino de una voluntad" - record of most books autographed by a celebrity.. previous holder was Bill Cullen, who signed 1848 copies of his book "Golden Apples" in april 2005. Quite funny & great performance :) .. this chess festival in Mexico city obviously was a nice event : Simultaneous exhibition with 14,000 participants (world record), rapid chess tournament with Korchnoi, Kosteniuk, Karjakin & Hernandez... http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3446 Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-30 08:54:15) Re: JUDIT POLGAR Hi Dinesh. Seems to be a question a money ?! .. If I remember correctly, Sergey Karjakin was to play Topalov with a 1 M$ prize fund (?), so why not a Judit Polgar vs. Vladimir Kramnik match... She (probably) only needs a good sponsor and a serious preparation to create such an interesting event... I'm sure Kramnik would play it. I don't remember Judit playing a 6+ game match, but I feel it would be hard for her, first because of Kramnik style (& Judit's). Anyway, great performance at Essent with a 2-0 mini-match against V. Topalov and I. Sokolov ! Sebastian Palozzi    (2006-11-05 14:29:19) A Moment of Clarity I find it interesting that no matter how bizzare his life and his thoughts might be I can usually find a moment of perfect clarity and thought; his description of Capablanca's style and ability coincide very nicely with the latest computer analysis of World Champion strength and style as posted on Chessbase. It seems to me that putting aside all questions of strength or playing ability Fischer has a profound knowledge and love of chess. If he is wrong about anything he is wrong about his own feelings about the game. 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 19:27:15) Chess tournaments : Performances Hello to all. Performances are now displayed for chess tournaments in the tournament crosstable pages.. (click the picture near the tournament name) It doesn't mean anything for the rating calculation as games taken in account depend on tournament entry ratings (TER). Informative only :) Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-19 17:56:13) Retire and come back. Hello Dorel. I'm very sorry about that, but actually Charlie just said everything. "It is just one of the drawbacks of having a free site on the internet." This was only an obvious example, but the problem is quite more complex... What about a player who just looses a game on time and continue his other games. Farther, why a player should draw to another one and win to a third. Any result in any round-robin tournament is partly 'aleatory' and depends on many other factors than chess, particularly rules. It also happens in over the board tournaments to get prizes, it can happen everywhere and at ICCF too... That's why I prefer knockout system. Of course, I'd like to solve all problems, but no rules are perfect. (by the way all suggestions are welcome) The original post was in 'temps de réflexion' thread : http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=1453 Best wishes. 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 Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-20 15:59:46) Go : Komi Komi 7.5 points is the 'estimated' fair value while playing perfect (at least pro)... Since we use elo rating system for Go, I think any handicap (stones or komi) is nonsense, but maybe we could create an unrated category of tournaments, simultaneous games or matches with a handicap... Could be fun & more interesting in some cases. Lionel Vidal    (2006-11-20 21:29:31) You seems in advance :-) Well, considering the results of last year pro games (almost a perfect 50-50 result, according to my rather large but admittedly incomplete database) I am not sure a komi change from 6.5 will occur soon, at least in the japanese pro scene... And the number of recent games in gobase that ends in 1 or 1/2 points difference is astonishing :-) (not really significant, I know, as pros have the capacity to keep a tiny edge till the end, reducing it to simplify the game... but still :-)) Anyway, for us, simple and humble go mortals, that does not change much :-) (but even at my low level I tend to be more aggressive in my fuseki while playing with an opponent of my level or stronger when the komi is 7.5 instead of say 5.5... so considering the increase/decrease (black/white) of aggressive attitude, maybe it is important for most of us because the feeling of a game might eventually change) Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-21 21:24:02) Poker, chess & chance As many of you, I regularly read Chessbase news and I was quite surprised to read this article "A chess master's poker tour" by Almira Skripchenko about World Poker Championship, french celebrities and so on... (a way to popularize chess ? or is it only Almira ? :)) I used to play stud poker and I was just looking informations about the part of chance in games. I only found this article written in french (sorry) : http://jeuxstrategie.free.fr/page_le_jeu_de_strategie_cest_quoi.php If you know something about that or an article on the internet, I'm quite interested in. Here is a personal estimation - at first sight - of the part of chance (opposed to a perfect play) in some games : Chess, Go (& all determined games) : 0 % Scrabble, Trivial pursuit : 20 % Poker : 30 % Monopoly : 70 % Roulette, Loto (& all chancy games) : 100 % Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-29 12:16:21) "Next" request Actually, it depends on quite aleatory factors. "Next" request can't predict what game you want to avoid to play particularly :/ .. In my opinion, this change makes it better. Of course not perfect. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-12-04 01:27:44) Reminds me something... Ok, now I'm afraid conditions are 'ok' so that Kramnik looses this match... Let's say game 6 is a draw, Deep Fritz 10 wins the match by score 3,5-2,5 first program on a normal computer to beat a world champion. Great... However Vladimir Kramnik can be satisfied of his performance, he obtained a completely winning position and didn't really loose any game. He just gave his opponent a full point in a draw position. Honor is safe, everyone wins. Like the song, what a wonderful world :) Elmer Valderrama    (2006-12-04 14:18:02) intuition I disagree, chess knowledge can't be equated to intuition, here is my long post about it (why am I writing about the same things all over and over and at the same time of year, I dunno ;) 1. Players without any intuition whatsoever but great working capabilitites (as Botvinnik, Fischer, Kasparov, ..engines..) -they never relie on intuition (they dont have any at all after all) so everything must be subject to calculation, they have the "hardware" (perfect body and mental conditions, rigorous training, perfect visual/realistic representation of positions and a great chess knowledge which must be kept fresh in mind -if not, they wouldn't have reference points to judge/evaluate resulting positions. When on top form they can beat anybody and I mean ANY body: human, extraterrestial, ultragalactic, trans-natural, hyper-divine,etc, and for an overwhelming score, like 6-0 ;)..well you know what I mean. The drawback well you already know it, it last a mig, except for the engines, no-one can keep up with this regime (GK could for a long time, but resorting to short breaks (not playing for WC, choosing carefully where to play etc,) But most important it's impossible to implement for long if the "hardware" -see above- starts to "leak oil" then it's all over.. This can be brought up to an art, like Kasparov or Fischer, it is more powerful than understanding chess as a natural tongue (as intuitive players) because the "top-form" competitive element is always present and the "hardware" works in pristine conditions. From the above it follows of course that engines are the ultimate chess warrior over the board at least (and only there, not in CC) 2. Those who have strategical intuition. (Capablanca, Petrosian, Karpov maybe Anand..)The general impression is that they are simply lazy people: not need to work out any thing as they just "know" where pieces should go and what the point is of their moves, usually there is no need for deep calculations, just two or three moves (4 to 6 plies) to corroborate the "feeling" and the game is won. The "feeling" is hard to express in words, and usually is lost if expressed in words ;). It goes beyond a simply pattern recognition, or a full database of chess knowledge, it is about predicting the future possibilities (not having real positions in mind, just the "possibilities" or general lines of play in future positions which may or may not happen to appear for real in the game. They can play for long long time and win a lot of tournaments (Karpov I believe have the record of won tournaments) 3. Those who have special understanding in unbalanced positions (Alekhine, Tal, Korchnoi..) They are dynamic players who love to calculate but not for the sake of finding the best of the best of the best of the moves (as those in group 1 would do), they calculate SOME variations, those who have meaning to them I see them as players of group 2 with a more or less working "hardware" i.e they are not going to trust 2 or 3 moves variations neither they are going to speculate on the future possibilities without any ground/basic calculation under it. Their "feeling" is again hard to express in words, but I believe it is something like calculating a 10-12 plies variation with every position in-between being subconciously excrutinated for crushing unexpected turning moves (this is not done by players of group 1, they would calculate "normal replies" in that 10-12 plies variation and would have to go deeper (like 20-30 plies to see the point ;) So that "feeling" is what enable us to compose music, create art etc but also it is something that enable us to err like fools :( Whether it can be mimicked by software or not it's an open question but as I said a calculation 40-50 plies deep it's practically equal to using intuition... Obviously the above classification of G Kasparov it's a bit rough in the sense that there are very few "pure intuitive" players (of either group 2 or 3) as mentioned by Don in his post most of the players is a mix of talent I believe, if I had to choose a pure intuitive player from those groups I would point Capablanca and Korchnoi, and of course Kasparov of group 1 Nigel Davies    (2007-01-20 07:42:54) Correspondence Chess Hi Thibault, I picked up your message and I would agree in terms that an OTB player should not try to play 'perfectly'. The point of my article was that correspondence chess can help cure OTB players of becoming 'too practical' at the expense of good moves. A lot of OTB players will develop defective (but dangerous) methods to score heavily against weaker players but get cut to ribbons when they use the same methods against a stronger player. This is particularly noticeable on the ICC, where some players will just try to win on the clock regardless of the objective strength of their moves, and most of the time it works. But their 'chess habits' suffer mightily as a result. Best wishes, Nigel Elmer Valderrama    (2007-01-20 10:48:05) practical play I believe this can happen at all levels: at +2700 level for example, A Morozevich illustrates the case, +2951 Perf in Pamplona, not too awesome in big events, Linares or WCs :/ -I think he might be easily the Most Practical Player of All Time --if that award exists-- Ron Keyston    (2007-01-29 19:04:14) Specifics and Examples OK, one PC is a 3.2GHz P4 w/1GB RAM running XP Pro. 256MB Hashtables with an ~800MB Maximum possible. The other PC is an Athlon X2 4600+ w/2GB RAM running Vista Ultimate (RTM.) It has 1GB Hashtables with ~1.5GB Maximum Possible. I can pretty much guarantee that it is not a hashtable issue though as the problem is with the legality of a move and only arises after saving into a database, closing the game and then re-opening it from the database. Also, if I open the same saved game from the database into Fritz 9, castling long as black is perfectly OK. As for some examples, I will give the same five games that I sent to Chessbase. Some of these are contrived examples, whereas some are from my games here at FICGS: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Bg4 6.O-O Nc6 7.d4 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 7.Nf3 b6 8.Bc4 Bb7 9.Qe2 Nd7 10.O-O-O c6 11.Rhe1 Qc7 12.g3 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c4 7.Qg4 g6 8.Nf3 Qa5 9.Bd2 Nh6 10.Qh3 Nf5 11.g4 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Qb6 13.Bg2 Nc6 14.Qh6 Nxd4 15.O-O Bd7 16.Bg5 Ba4 17.Nxd4 Qxd4 18.Qg7 Rf8 19.Be3 Qxg4 20.Bc5 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 a6 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Qd2 Bf5 8.Bd3 Bg4 9.Be2 e6 10.O-O-O 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c4 7.Qg4 g6 8.Nf3 Qa5 9.Bd2 Nh6 10.Qh3 Nf5 11.g4 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Qb6 13.Bg2 Nc6 14.Qh6 Nxd4 15.O-O Bd7 16.Qg7 In all five examples, it is black to move from the final position. Also, in all five examples, castling long/queen-side is perfectly legal and likely one of the best moves. BEFORE the game(s) is/are saved into the database, Fritz allows black to castle long (and it is at or near the top line in infinite analysis mode.) AFTER saving the game into a database, closing the game window, and re-opening the game from the database, Fritz treats castling long as an illegal move. 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    (2007-02-07 18:26:15)