Playing activity top 20 players


Back to forum

Garvin Gray    (2013-05-25)
Playing activity top 20 players

I just had a look at how active the top 20 players on this site are, and apart from one or two players, almost all have either zero or one game active at the moment.

What can be done to make them more active, which gives more opportunities to players lower down the rating list?

Also, with so many not being active, makes it much harder to fill the top divisions.

Robert Knighton    (2013-05-26 18:03:03)
Playing activity top 20 players

maybe they dont want regular running games to deal with when major tournaments come around?

When starting a game means a potentially multi month commitment then I can understand why top players would just save their effort for major tournaments to maximize their concentration on those games.

Mladen Jankovic    (2013-05-26 21:36:20)
Playing activity top 20 players

Speaking of big tournaments, there was no new WCH for a while now, and there used to be 2 starting per year.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-02 23:07:23)
Playing activity top 20 players

The next championships will start on july 1st, 8 months after the previous cycle as usual :) The waiting lists are now open!

Let's see if our top players are interested in this one... Anyway Garvin's question is a tough one, I still have no answer :/

Alvin Alcala    (2013-06-03 02:42:18)
Playing activity top 20 players

Will you change the WCH format to end eros domination?

Neel Basant    (2013-06-03 06:48:54)
Playing activity top 20 players

Will there be rating update before starting of the tournament ?
And i think it is not fair to advance to the next stage .[To the player with the strongest tournament entry rating]
As per FIDE tournament standing ( final Rankig)the lower rated player with the equal points wins because.

Don Groves    (2013-06-03 12:48:23)
Playing activity top 20 players

I agree with Neel. The lower rated player has done a better job to tie the higher rated player and deserves to advance. The current FICGS rules always seem to reward the higher rated players.

Garvin Gray    (2013-06-03 16:34:10)
Playing activity top 20 players

Discussion about tie break rules in the WCH should take place in another thread, or in a current thread that is already dedicated to that topic.

This thread is meant to be about the playing activity of the top 20 players, not for re-discussing old topics on the rules of the WCH.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-03 17:04:04)
Playing activity top 20 players

@ Alvin: No (cf. all discussions on this topic)

@ Neel: Yes for the rating update. About TER / next stage, this point is coherent with the whole scheme that is "the one who has most chances advances..."

Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-06 14:47:11)
Playing activity top 20 players

I know I don't count as one of these "higher rated players." But I have purposefully curtailed my activity here in favor of ICCF. The reason for my decision is because all the rules here are slanted against preventing a person from playing stronger players. The WCH is a perfect example; 2200's are given a free ride to the next stage while a 2150 has to play stage 1 as top seed where he will lose 35 points while WINNING the stage. So never having the opportunity to improve anymore here has forced me to find places where I can achieve that goal.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-07 01:01:26)
Playing activity top 20 players

Hi Daniel,

There are other ways to play 2200 players and gain rating points: class M tournaments (if you win a class A + ticket, or if you are rated 2150+ with a ticket as well), rapid M (2100-2300) tournaments, also the standard open tournament.

Building its rating is not all about the championship.

Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-07 01:07:26)
Playing activity top 20 players

Thib, I already went from a 2100 rating to a 2372 rating (and my rating is still CLIMBING FAST) with to SIM norm events on ICCF in a mere 32 games. While I have played over 200 games on FICGS and have yet to have a SINGLE opportunity to play a strong tournament. My strength grows but my rating does not grow because this site has gone out of its way to establish rating barriers. Why should I push myself to unbelievable lengths to try to break this site's barriers when I have another site that will happily let me play players of my own strength or slightly stronger without any such herculean effort?

Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-07 01:08:56)
Playing activity top 20 players

sorry should say I have played two SIM events (1 of which I should score +5 or +6...)

And I was just using the WCH as an example of one of the rating barriers, there are plenty of rating barriers here.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-09 01:46:15)
Playing activity top 20 players

I guess there are more strong players at ICCF to build rapid tournaments with more rating ranges, sorry for not being able to do that here :/

Finally, many players got a 2400 rating while starting at 1800 or even less... so maybe than playing a few games at standard time control would have brought you faster results than playing 200 games at rapid time control.

Sorry about that in all cases.

Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-09 01:53:58)
Playing activity top 20 players

Please Thib, I do not point out these problems to complain or make you feel bad. I just want you to know where you can improve. I also want you to know you've done an amazing job here and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If you need volunteer time/help, I will be one of the first to come forward to aid you. None of these comments are made as an attack on you, I want you to know I appreciate what you have done.

Regarding rapid/classical time controls, I did not care which I played. The fact that I ended up playing more rapid than classical has to do with the fact I always chose the HARDER option available to me in terms of opponent strength. Since you alternate the rating bands via rapid vs classical - that usually meant only one time control was available to me.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-10 00:16:11)
Playing activity top 20 players

I do understand that you choose the stronger opponents (like most strong players), that's why you could have chosen the class M tournament with the ticket opportunity... That's the point I still don't get.

Thanks for your words and your proposal... I'm always looking for ideas to spread the word about FICGS in the chess world. The more players, the more fun for everyone!

Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-10 06:20:38)
Playing activity top 20 players

Well part of the problem is I don't see where it says I have these "tickets" to move up. I knew of the rule but had no awareness if I had ever actually won one to use.

The other part of the problem is the rating bands. By alternating rating bands between time controls, all the people over 2100 want to play 2100-2300 all the people over 2000 want to play 2000-2200 all the people over 2200 want to play only 2200-2400 or norm events. So effectively instead of 200 point bands you've create ONE HUNDRED point bands. The 2100-2300 band see only those rated 2100-2200.

Robert Knighton    (2013-06-10 14:57:48)
Playing activity top 20 players

I admit that makes no sense to me either... why do we have different rating bands for different time controls?

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-10 22:25:14)
Playing activity top 20 players

If I remember well, that was a request to help players to reach the next rating band (200 points is a lot when most players who enter waiting lists are near the low limit).

Anyway, now I cannot find any argument to have the same rating ranges for rapid and standard tournaments (maybe "coherence" only).

Don Groves    (2013-06-11 06:09:20)
Playing activity top 20 players

To whom is may concern:

There is no one set of rules that will be acceptable to everyone. There are many game sites on the Internet, so pick one that comes closest to your desired set of rules and be satisfied. That is as close as you will ever get.

Either that or form your own site and discover what Thibault knows far too well - that you will get more complaints than compliments.

Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-11 06:20:32)
Playing activity top 20 players

As stated by both Garvin and I many many times, we are not trying to "file complaints" ... we are trying to make THIS site better.

Attila Ba    (2013-06-11 10:10:18)
Playing activity top 20 players

As to 'create your own site of you are not satisfied' I'm seriously considering setting up a big chess site of my own. I like the idea of engine free chess very much but I can't get a tournament running here for half a year or so.

My site is not fully working as yet but has fragments that work (you can sign up, modify your profile, create challenges, view the board and make moves on it etc.).

Should you have any comments on the design it has a forum.

you can find it here:

Don Groves    (2013-06-11 12:49:47)
Playing activity top 20 players

Daniel: Better in whose opinion? You're trying to make Thibault's site fit your expectations. As I wrote above, no site will ever meet all your expectations unless it's your own site.

Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-15 04:38:44)
Playing activity top 20 players

Typical trash response there Don.

I have *already* moved on to ICCF because it fit MY NEEDS. Did you even read this thread? This thread was something Garvin started to make players more active. I responded as player who chose to become INACTIVE to explain that decision. If this site does not change one bit, then fine by me... I have already discovered a site that fulfills my needs. On the other hand, if this site wants to IMPROVE - I want Thib to know I will come support him.

Don Groves    (2013-06-15 06:27:50)
Playing activity top 20 players

Not trash, Daniel, just simple logic. Do you deny that "better" is an opinion? Do you really think Thibault needs your help to improve his site? He did very well before you ever started playing here and I'm sure he can continue just fine without you.

Daniel Parmet    (2013-06-15 16:39:29)
Playing activity top 20 players

Well Don the good news for you is that today my last game officially finished and now I have no reason to connect to this site again! Congratulations Don!

The bad news is that even though I am gone this event in no way improves your lack of logic skills. You will have to improve these yourself.

I know quite well Thib does not *need my help.* And I outlined above my thanks for the amazing job he has done with this place. I merely said if he could use my help that it was at his disposal.

Don Groves    (2013-06-15 19:17:27)
Playing activity top 20 players

Goodbye and good luck, Daniel.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-15 23:42:26)
Playing activity top 20 players

I repeat here that I never had the intention to do "better" than ICCF or whatever... When I played at IECG before FICGS, I thought that some things could be different and fit more to a certain number of players (starting by me), so I did it.

I see absolutely no interest to make another IECG or ICCF with less players or so. Consequently, it is fully understandable that ICCF is much better for many players. That's cool! :)

I know that Daniel has a great experience in many chess fields and I always read his posts carefully (whatever my opinion), all opinions and posts in this forum always helped much and I thank you all for this...

Scott Nichols    (2013-06-18 20:44:03)
Playing activity top 20 players

I have a couple of thoughts. First is ICCF is not better for me than anywhere. The games just take too long. More to Daniels taste for sure. To help this site out, I will say it again, there needs to be at least one fast playing category. Like 10 days, with 1 day increment. This time control is very popular at other sites. Blitz CC is the wave of the future, even in OTB they don't play that slow chess anymore. Another idea is large cash prizes, :), to draw in the big guns. People are willing to pay more to get more. A couple of small things you could do Thib is offer a 2 e-point prize for most active player in a rating cycle and one for the player who improved the most in that same cycle for all 3 categories, chess, go and poker. Just some ideas...

Robert Knighton    (2013-06-19 02:22:03)
Playing activity top 20 players

I found iccf website to be mildly confusing to navigate and the inability to play games without paying money on iccf is annoying as well thus I don't play there.

The ability to play faster time controls like Scott suggested would be nice particularly if there were a 1v1 option like what we have for advanced games now.

Alvin Alcala    (2013-06-21 18:51:04)
Playing activity top 20 players

Blitz and Rapid Fide events are becoming popular fast. I agree with you Scott, Thib should grabe this opportunity I'm sure a surge of new faces will com to play in this site.

Thibault de Vassal    (2013-06-21 19:48:27)
Playing activity top 20 players

@ Alvin: you mean Iccf events?! what are Fide rapid events if not games played in less than 1 day?

@ Robert: for 1v1 we have rapid silver tournaments, but there is a stake of 10 epoints (or it would be unrated for obvious reasons).

@ Scott: 10 days + 1 day/move does not seem very different from 30 days + 1 day/move, I doubt it can bring more players. Standard time control remain even more popular here. On large cash prizes, I agree for sure :) ...

Peter W. Anderson    (2013-06-22 18:45:26)
Playing activity top 20 players

At the risk of intertwining two separate threads....

10+1 would be very different from 30+1 if your 10+1 clocks kept running whislt you were on vacation (i.e. effectively no vacation in 10+1). This might appeal to people who like a fairly quick rate of play.

If it were done like that I would most likely play in a few 10+1 tournaments.

Scott Nichols    (2013-06-22 19:26:43)
Playing activity top 20 players

+1 to that Peter.

Robert Knighton    (2013-06-24 14:59:21)
Playing activity top 20 players

20 days removed is a lot of time.

A tournament class which disallows vacation time would in itself be interesting.

combining the two would make for a very different tournament class.