Home
Information
Login
Register
Waiting lists
Membership
Hall of fame
Tournaments
Best game
Wikichess
Rating list
Problems
Forum
Links
Help
About
| Install FICGS apps | |
| play chess online |  |
|
Game result (chess) B. Ozen, 2269 N. Wilson, 2121 1/2-1/2 See game 152323 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Back to forum
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-08 13:10:47)
Things to be implemented...
Hello to all... and thank you for your confidence in this very new server (when no game started yet ! maybe today...)
I expected a high average rating, but not so much :)
The last update provoked the first bug -> in this forum. Sorry to all who tried to post here. It should work now.
Here are things to be implemented in the future :
- Vacations (until, time limit by move is 2 months)
- Conditional moves
- A better interface for the forum...
Don't hesitate if you have ideas to improve the website !
Best wishes.
Sebastian Boehme (2011-04-28 11:02:40)
Active rating lists
Mr Meraiya, please also consider that much effort wss put into this site to bring it to life.
I can not understand how you can use such rude words then, one can also say it in another tone! Words make people.
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?
Per Lea (2006-04-08 23:15:01)
Elo overlap
I think the overlap is a great idea. The ratings may come from a lot of different sources and are therefore not necessarily compatible. My ICCF rating is 2136 (why I was given 5 extra points on FICGS, I cannot explain...), but my Norwegian OTB rating is 1631 or thereabouts. That number is probably more realistic....
Per Lea (2006-04-08 23:23:25)
My messages/My games
I found it extremely confusing that when I wanted to make a move, my games are found under "My messages". To me, the logical place to look is under "My games"... It took me nearly 10 frustrating minutes before I managed to make my first move! Of course, once I know where to look, there's no problem. But it may be a problem for new players!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-09 10:20:52)
ref : Per
Per, your rating on the last ICCF list is 2141.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-09 10:27:28)
TITLES !
I think the rating system tell a lot, titles just tell something more. What I think is to let appear "official" titles EM, IM, SIM, GM (note that I consider IECG titles as official ones)... Titles obtained on FICGS will appear differently (ie. FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM, and in another color..) I think it may fit to everyone, what do you think about ?
Per Lea (2006-04-09 11:41:46)
Rating improvement...
2141? Now you mention it... I had simply forgotten the latest list! (Hooray! I am 5 points stronger than I thought! Everyone in A_000001 beware!)
Hannes Rada (2006-04-10 21:57:30)
Job specification
Generally speaking I am interested. But what about a job specification :-) To be honest, I've no idea about go ..:-) But I've experience in administrating a phpbb - Forum. Hannes
Patrice Verdier (2006-04-10 22:19:36)
Possibility Job
I have been club chess president. I can organize tournaments, proceed rating calculator, write rules, doing relation with others organisation (ICCF, IECG,...). I have some ideas also for tournament with fee and prizes
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-11 05:18:57)
FICGS council / staff
About job specification, as I said, I would like FICGS to be a place that fits to the most, and not under a dictatorship (even mine :)), so the idea to create a council with all members who want to be part of it, voting all decisions relating server rules, tournaments, wch cycles, titles... (or simply opinion poll on the website ? or both...)
The FICGS staff should be able to manage the server (registering new members, moderating the forum, referees...) Nothing difficult, just needs motivation. Most important is that it could completely work without me. Of course, if developers want to help, making a drag & drop interface ie. or improving whatelse..) About "go", we'll see later, Hannes :) (it's a fine game, you should learn !)
Anyway I'll send an email to all players responding in this thread soon. We will discuss about that.
Best wishes & thank you !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-11 13:23:44)
CC players vs. Computers
Hello Marc, the idea is good for sure, but I doubt developers would want to see their "beta babies" to achieve a 2000 ELO rating with pain :) If matches like CC GM - Engines are quite balanced, so would be a CC 1800 - Engines one... Anyway, if you know developers interested, we could envisage something in this way...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-12 11:24:03)
FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM
What do you think about all titles not from FIDE / ICCF to be renamed with 'F' letter added. I tried to add 'I' for IECG, but this is really not convenient for the eye... :/ (see the new rating list)
Dinesh De Silva (2006-04-12 12:27:56)
FEM,FIM,FSM,FGM
I saw the rating list, with the title changes....Interesting idea......But what will the titles be called when some of us eventually gain FICGS titles?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-12 14:02:49)
Solution...
One solution could be to display titles from organizations in separated columns named FICGS, ICCF, FIDE, IECG etc... (as Chessfriend do) It's quite heavy for the rating list page :/ So the idea was to display the player's highest title only, and player is free to mention his titles in his own informations page.
That's not a completely satisfying solution, I agree...
Hannes Rada (2006-04-12 19:15:19)
Titles
>> One solution could be to display titles from organizations in separated columns named FICGS, ICCF, FIDE, IECG etc... (as Chessfriend do) It's quite heavy for the rating list page :/ So the idea was to display the player's highest title only, and player is free to mention his titles in his own informations page.
I think that's the best idea. Maybe you can use smaller fonts, so that all information can be displayed on that page.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-13 15:46:55)
New Titles
Hello Paul-Iosif.
Interesting new idea. In my opinion, there are too many titles & titled players already from official & "non-official" organizations. I think this is a mistake from FIDE / ICCF they couldn't remedy anymore. Titles from other organizations and particularly IECG are not really a problem "more", cause they are hard to achieve (rare), but I don't think this could be so attractive for players. To get a title is a reward itself. Maybe even EM title shouldn't exist.
But I think that ie. a KM title (over GM) could be an interesting idea !
Anyway, I'm ok with the commission idea, we'll vote that too.
Another interesting & controversial idea is (as IECG do) titles not to be awarded for life ! If player's rating decrease, he could lost his title... but I don't think this is very fair.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-13 16:05:35)
I agree...
... that would be unfair.
About players that will never achieve a title, I think most important is to stimulate motivation, and titles (I think) are awarded in this way. Don't you think categories FI, FII, FIII are in a way the rating itself ?
Paul-Iosif Guralivu (2006-04-13 16:25:01)
New Titles
I agree that the rating in a way. I was proposing that because it like in my country where chess players start with a the third category and continue with II and I and cadidate master after which it's coming the Master title. So that will simulate more the country system...
Hakon Anda (2006-04-14 16:52:42)
Some wishes
I think this server works great after so short time online. However I think there are som possible improvements that could be done: 1. Option that can disable e-mail notification of one own moves. 2. It should be possible to take leave. 3. A better list of our own games, like when last move was done, reflection time left and so on. 4. A flag for every player that shows the nationality and other information that could be found in the rating list. Best regards, Hakon Anda
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-16 18:33:01)
Adjudication
Déjà ? :)
So, about games "obviously lost" (somewhat subjective), the council may decide special rules so that referees can grant games that drag out. What do you think is best ? That's a recurrent problem in correspondence chess, and an original policy could make the rating more accurate, as some players may finish "good games" very faster than others... Quite subjective indeed, and not obvious. Where's the limit ? Maybe correspondence chess players should first accept this idea that their "won" games may finish much later...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-18 13:25:56)
Time limit per move
If a player has 60 days and more on his clock, the deadline for one move is 60 days ! This is a provisional (quite good, I think) solution before question of vacation be answered. Many players can't play every day and correspondence chess games usually last several months, often more than 1 year.
It seems server games go much faster than email games, but rules 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves are the same.
Time limit per move in IECG is 30 days. Here, a 60 days limit (a rating period) don't seem too much to me. Players won't feel oppressed (Glen, turn email notification off :)) and I think they won't use it often.
RAPID TOURNAMENTS are an alternative solution.
Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-20 11:59:21)
Cheating / Forfeiting
Hello to all.
The website detected 2 'probable' cheaters registered (one playing), with a 1400 rating.
Of course, FICGS will face problems encountered by all correspondence chess sites but I think it will be minimal here, as I'm enforcing detection rules so that aliases couldn't register anymore.
Important : Games forfeited without a valid explanation won't be rated, and the account for the player closed. A player who may forfeit should send an email with explanation to : ficgs (at) ficgs.com
Thanks.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-25 18:02:08)
1st Rating Calculation - May
Be patient... :) I'm sure you won't have to wait so long. Resigning today or next week doesn't change anything, the first rating calculation will occur the first days of May. Just call referee at the end of april if he didn't resign before.
Amici sumus.
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-28 01:35:12)
Congratulations FICGS!
Congratulations FICG! The rating list now has over 200 members. 200 members in about 1 month of operation. Outstanding :) The more players we can attract, the quicker tournaments will fill.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-01 19:01:58)
Class tournaments
Salut David !
About standard & rapid "class" tournaments, they are open to players with ELO rating included into a range, specified just below the tournament name. (ie. CLASS M : 2200 to 2600 , CLASS A : 2000 to 2400 , CLASS B : 1800 to 2200 etc...)
J'espère que tu nous feras profiter de ton gambit favori ;) Bonnes parties !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-05 16:35:18)
Question...
... from a player :
Who (how many players from each tournament) will play the next stages of the wch ?
Indeed, rules are not clear enough yet, I'll bring changes soon. About "how many players", from ie. a 11 players round-robin tournament : It's stated only one, the player with the highest rating in case of equality. Maybe that's not fair enough, I have to simulate other possibilities.
As June is very near already (too short delay), if there are no players enough at this time, we could pass the first stage but I think it would be better to wait, postponing (one month or two) could be considered...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-09 16:46:25)
Qualifying
I didn't know this system !? Is it really efficient ? How to designate the (4) winners of the round-robin cycle ? Then the semi-final (players bye :/) seems to be a stage more... Means at least 6 months more to end the cycle.
I think the combined round-robin / knockout cycle is fast and fair enough... The 2 first players (designated by the highest ratings in case of equality) of each round-robin tournament will be qualified for the next stage.
The rules for world championship have been updated.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-05-14 00:47:20)
Swiss
Hello Thibault these are the "rules" (see at http://www.chessfriend.com/ and then Tournaments-CFC World-Championship-CFC Championship 2003)
Modus: 3 rounds Swiss à 10 games each. ... Every player is allowed to participate in all 3 rounds. Pairings of the 1st round are based on rating. We will build equal groups where possible. In the second round we will do the pairings so that be build at first 3 groups depending on score and rating. Among this three groups we will build new tournaments which should be of about equal rating.. Third round will be paired in the same way with the exception that the first group will be the strongest (score and rating). Normally two players should play during a championship cycle only one game. If it will be necessary in a following round that two players play a second game, this game should be played with revised colours.
I will send you more information.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-14 16:07:16)
"Blitz" cup...
Thank you Heinz Georg, for the files you sent to me.
Now I understand better the work and ideas of Reimund Lutzenberger in Chessfriend.com, a great experimentation field for sure...
I first concluded some things not to do in FICGS WCH. In example, a player rated 2500 (even provisional rating from fide) shouldn't have to play in the first stage against a low-rated player in a world championship [but that could be possible in a cup tournament cycle]. So I'll add special rules for high rated players (who are not qualified for the WCH knockout tournament) to begin directly in a 2nd stage tournament...
I agree with Dinesh, the aim is not to use the same formulas, even good ones. Anyway I think we can find new interesting (better :)) ones. But as the WCH is already a rapid tournament cycle, the CUP could be an unrated "blitz" (30 days per game with no increment, or even 10 days + 1 hour / move) knockout (2 games / match + playoffs) !! Something quite "brutal" and unfair between correspondence chess & classical rythms. What do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-15 13:48:57)
Building groups / Qualifying
Update for the method building round-robin tournaments groups :
1) Grading players by rating
2) Filling the groups. If there are 4 groups, #1 -> group 1, #2 -> group 2, #3 -> group 3, #4 -> group 4, #5 -> group 4, #6 -> group 3, #7 -> group 2, #8 -> group 1, #9 -> group 2 and so on... A clearest way.
Finally, I came back to my first idea, in round-robin tournaments only one player should qualify for next stage (in case of equality, the highest rated). Not sure it's less fair, it's more logical and it rewards the rating obtained before... After all, even ICCF WCH final tournament designate a unique winner. Wch page has been updated.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-17 20:44:05)
Delay before adjudication request
About the game you request for adjudication, Wayne... I see you played your last move 2 days ago. It's a bit early... Please wait about a ten days before calling referee, even if your opponent takes 5 days for each move... This is correspondence chess... and we have time :) In email games (with the same time) such situations may take much more time... Be patient ! It doesn't prevent you to enter a new tournament, and next rating calculation won't occur before july.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-19 19:04:26)
Future rating !
Hello to all.
I've added a feature to know the future rating, based on games finished since the last rating calculation.
Click on the magnifying glass near the player's name, then click on ELO, it will appear on the elo history page.
http://www.ficgs.com/directory_players.html
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...
Per Lea (2006-05-24 10:14:43)
Elo list no longer searchable by country
The idea to have flags in the rating list looked like a nice feature at first, but the disadvantage is that it is no longer possible to do a quick serach for players from a specific country. For example, it is interesting to find out if there are any new memebers from your own country. So, instead of letting the computer search for "NOR", I now have to manually read through the complete list. A good alternative would be to let the members sort the rating list by country and name (as on Chessfriend.com)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-24 14:46:20)
New features
Here are some new features :
- Countries directory - http://www.ficgs.com/directory_countries.html
(with players sorted by name)
- Players sorted by rating for each country (click on the flags on the rating list)
- More player statistics (results with white and black, elo average opponents)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-26 11:04:11)
Go (weiqi) world championship
Hello to all.
I've updated the rules for go world championship and go tournaments. Now the results in go tournaments qualify for the wch first stage round-robin tournament. See the rules.
It's more logical, as there's no rating system here for Go, and I think more people will play soon...
Have good games !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-28 17:17:21)
Chess & go variants.
Ok David... But Chess 960 isn't chess 'training', as Go 9x9 could be. I think unrated chess tournaments wouldn't have much success.
Let's see if other players want to play go 9x9 ... I think the point is about rating and championship. As there is no rating system and only a title for 19x19, players couldn't be attracted by go 9x9 if there isn't the same challenge. I changed the rules in this way, now more players will play continuously Go tournaments and compete to have a chance to play the Go world championship tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-05 14:11:42)
Rules : Forfeiting / Replacement
Hello to all.
As a few players stopped to play (forfeit) in their games, I answer here to questions from their opponents.
- Rated games lost on time / forfeited are not calculated for the winner's (only) rating if less than 10 moves have been played and position is equal.
- If a player forfeits in a rated tournament without having played a single move, his games will be lost and he will be replaced, ie. FICGS CHESS CLASS B 000003 ... furthermore, his account will be closed. (obvious cheating)
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-06 16:40:04)
Team championship
Many good ideas... :)
I'll post a news soon, inviting players who want to lead their country team to give me an email where they can be contacted by players.
So far, the rules :
- The leader of each team should be from the country he's playing for.
- If several players ask to lead the same team, the current chess rating will decide.
- Leaders will choose candidate players for his team and the "board" (1, 2, 3 or 4) they will play.
- Players from any country can play with another country team. (all players can play for only one team)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-06 18:07:22)
Rules for team championship
I was thinking about... The possibility for players to defend another country is very interesting, but it may have many consequences that could complicate a lot the process for building teams and the choice for players who want to support a team or another, waiting for leaders decision etc... Furthermore, there could be confusion in the crosstables.
Sorry about that Dinesh, but teams should be 4 players from the same country. Maybe you could invite some other players from Sri Lanka ?
So, rules :
- All games (rated) will be played in 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves.
- If several players ask to lead the same team, the current chess rating will decide.
- Leaders will choose players for their team (4 players by team) and the "board" (1, 2, 3 or 4) they will play.
Tommie Derz (2006-06-07 00:05:48)
Go applet, ranking list
I am interested how this chess site could develop into a valid site for playing Go. It obviously started by as a server for Chess enthousiasts, which is ok. I suggest a better separation between Go and Chess on this server, resp. a rating list for Go to. It does not make sense to me to have my 'non'-chess-rating of ELO 1400 entered into a list and being silent of the Go rating of e.g. Florescu, Ion (2600?). The chess applet works well, the Go game replayer not.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-07 00:38:57)
Go / Chess
Hello Tommie.
I chose not to implement a Go rating system for several reasons, first and main is: a quite true correspondence Go rating may be very (!) long to achieve, maybe even impossible. It seems to me that the challenge could be elsewhere ie. tournament results, to qualify for the FICGS championship tournament.
About the rating list, so far all new players appear in a unique rating list, soon there will be an established rating list, a provisional rating list and a new player rating list.
About this rating for Ion (2600), where did you see it exactly ?
... at last what happens with the Go applet ? You have to click on 'game description'. If it doesn't work, feel free to tell me what game you try to watch and what happens... Thanks in advance :)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-14 12:08:12)
FICGS 1st chess world championship
Hello Thibault
I don't like your rules. I think it would have been better if all players start in the 1st wch (this time and in future cycles). It would be more attractive for the most players. What do you think is the rating average of the 1st stage groups?
I cannot remember that the 2300-restriction was in the rules when I have registered ...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-14 13:15:33)
FICGS 1st chess world championship
Hello Heinz-Georg !
It's only a logical extension to the rule that divide the championship in a round-robin and a knockout (for the 8 best rated players) tournament. Of course, there's no rule that fit to everyone, only choices... I hope to make the most balanced ones for the whole site.
By this rule, high rated players have a stage less to play (that they would probably win) and it limits the rating gaps (otherwise it would be more like a cup). In most wch competitions, winners and high rated players/teams are qualified for an advanced stage in the tournament.. A quite common and logical system, used everywhere from football world cup [winner qualified for quarter final] to Roland-Garros [qualifications stage], FIDE world championship etc... 2300 rule is a statistical choice, used in IECG too with more parameters. (nevertheless at IECG high rated players can choose to play the first stage too, but IMO it's quite complicate)
I hope to make it as simple and attractive as possible, believe me ;) Of course (and it is mentioned in the rules- preliminaries) rules could still evolve if improvements are decided by the [future] council.
The only negative point is, indeed, only 2300+ players can play the 1st wch, that is in a way not a "complete" championship. But compared to all other positive points (first, everyone can play now), and as 2nd wch starts at the same time, I think this choice is best.
What I think to do is to send all tournament tables to players who registered on 2006 june 16. If finally there are players who don't want to play it, they'll just have to tell me within days, responding by email. It should avoid any forfeit.
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 :/
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-14 15:20:18)
Rating formula
(repetition)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-14 19:21:53)
Elo rating calculation
I just updated the membership page, with the full rating calculation explained.
It is exactly the rules used by the french federation, except the special rule that makes it easier to win than to loose points (and partly provokes Elo inflation). So only one formula is used here.
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.
Daniel De Noose (2006-06-15 15:17:03)
Not very satisfy too...
Like Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff, when I registered the tournament it was announced as 1st championship and open to everyone. I don't like when rules change after the registration. Secundo, if you only reserve this 1st tournament to players with rating over 2300, you can change my rating : on the "correspondence" chess site chess-mail I'm over 2370. But as I said to you when I began here I want to improve my real rating beginning like an unrated. But if now the rating is so important to play the 1st championship, I prefer to be correctly rated. Hoping you'll change all this and play really the 1st championship with everybody.
My actual rating in "correspondence chess" :
- chess-mail : kasapov (2370)
- echecsemail : danideno (2280)
- echecsnet : danideno (2271; but it is the highest rating of this site)
Daniel
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?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-15 16:36:17)
Criteria
Hello Dorel and Daniel.
As you noticed, rating is quite important in FICGS world championship cycle (particularly established ratings, obtained from IECG / ICCF or after 9 games finished in FICGS) !
I think these rules are really the best choice in order to designate a world champion. It's more logical IMO to favour players who obtained previously the best results in FICGS and recognized organizations, and consequently a high rating. It takes time, of course. Even very strong players starting with a 1700 rating won't achieve a 2300 established rating before months !
Criterias in FICGS wch are (from most important to least) :
1) Winner of the previous cycle (qualify for the final match)
2) The eight best established ratings (play the KO tournament)
3) Points obtained in the wch tournaments
4) The tournament entry rating (TER)
Of course, there are some provisional ratings that will increase a lot, but it is not possible to grant a 2300 rating to any player saying so. It's already a lot of time gained that ratings from FIDE, ICCF, IECG be recognized.
Finally it is the same in IECG / ICCF : it's very hard to achieve a high rating, it's very hard to directly qualify for a 2nd stage too, it takes months, probably years in email chess...
Now, please consider this, if we start 1st wch at stage 1 : It won't change anything for your play, as the 1st stage of the 2nd wch is exactly the same... 2300+ players won't play before months... and if the rule is changed about 2300 mark and everyone playing 1st stage, probably all games for 2300+ players won't be rated with a 100% result... and at last it will be harder for you to qualify for 2nd stage...
It is a hard work to write rules as fair, balanced and interesting as possible. Rules can't satisfy everyone, sorry about that.
Daniel De Noose (2006-06-15 17:23:38)
It is not the same !
Playing 1st or 2nd Championship is not the same because if you play only the second you can't be the first FICGS champion ! ;-) Secundo, as you explained it at the start of the site, everybody can use databases, computers, ... In that case a 1600 can beat a 2300 if he enters correctly parameters in his chess engine. Because the tournament is not again started you can correct this. After the beginning it will be harder. And what's my rating now ? ;-)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-16 11:35:05)
Elo rating calculation
Hello Thibault!
How are provisional ratings are treated?
Two notes to the rules:
1. You write: "Bonus is given by the Percentage (100 * Points / Games) obtained" and "If the percentage is negative, ..." Percentage cannot be negative. I think you mean: If percentage < 50
2. You write "Please note that Bonus is limited to 470 points". Why do you write other values for 96-99 % in the Bonus-Table?
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-16 13:19:00)
the GM class tournament...
I was interested to see that a tourney dedicated to the GMs of this site was available. So I tried to enrol, but my rating is too low :-) but yet I am a GM :-) I think it would be a great thing if we could enrol in it. Merci d'avance thibault
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-16 13:28:21)
FICGS CHESS CLASS M 000005
well apparently I cannot enter the tournament due to rating retrictions
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-16 13:39:02)
GM - SM - M tournaments
Hello Amir.
I don't think a GM tournament begin before a while ;) Actually, not only granmasters can register for this tournament, but players with a rating > 2600 (means who probably have a GM level or title). So far, there's only one player with such a rating. The same for SM tournaments (rating > 2400).
If you liked to play against most probably titled players, you could have registered for a SM tournament (I can change that - exceptionnaly) that should begin in about 3 weeks...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-16 13:46:10)
Right...
Hello Heinz-Georg.
Thanks for help :) Indeed, I've forgotten the parameter for provisional ratings (that evolve quicker than established ratings)... I'll change these points within hours. (right, 95 to 99 values in the bonus table are useless, but it is informative about the formula)
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?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-17 12:39:45)
Correspondence chess
Hello Wayne.
Correspondence chess is definitely a game of patience...
Note : When you register, you can enter your rating ! The rules state a rating not from FIDE / IECG / ICCF gives at most a 1700 rating... So you could have started with a 1700 rating ! Anyway in july (after the next rating calculation) you can play stronger tournaments... and so on..
Wayne Lowrance (2006-06-17 19:02:07)
Rating formula
Okey Dokey, I understand. Wayne
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-18 14:10:23)
FICGS 1st wch (my last try)
Hello to all,
I think it would be better to start our 1st wch with the regular rules (knock-out and round robin)? Players with rating > 2300 who are not starting in the knock-out can start in the 1st stage of the round robin if they want. If they do not win their group they can neverthless start in the second stage (if their rating is > 2300) of the 1st wch. World champion is the winner of a 24 game knock-out between the winner of the 3rd stage round robin and the 3rd stage knock-out.
What do you think about this?
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-19 15:45:34)
FICGS 1st wch
Hello Thibault!
It seems that I haven't really understood what will happen on July 1st. You write "Thus 1st wch is a complete cycle". Does this mean, that the knock-out tournaments of the 8 players with the highest established rating also will start (stage 1)? If not it is not a complete cycle according to FICGS (your) rules - in my opinion.
What happens if a player has a rating > 2300 at the beginning of stage 1 and a rating < 2300 at the beginning of stage 2? May he play stage 2?
What happens if a player has a rating < 2300 at the beginning of stage 1 and a rating > 2300 at the beginning of stage 2? May he play stage 2 even if he hasn't won his round robin group? The rating at which time is essential?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-27 16:58:03)
FICGS world chess championship
A minor update in the rules that fixes many problems for future wch cycles... Nothing has changed in the rules for the 1st cycle that begins in 4 days, changes only concern next cycles, with the extension of the one-time rule mentioned above.
The equation was :
- No confusion with the cycles when entering the waiting list (2300+ players qualified for 2nd stage of the previous cycle is too confusing).
- Avoiding tournaments with too big rating gaps (and encourage high rated players to participate)
- The formula combining knockout tournament, round-robin cycle (so that everyone can play wch, with no more than 5 stages), and the final 2 players matches in the last stages.
- Making it as understable as possible...
It is now mentioned in the rules that 2300+ players will play 1st stage in high rated groups (ratings superior or equal to 2300). Winners of such groups (same criterias) will be qualified for the 3rd stage round-robin tournament, the others will play 2nd stage.
As all games are played with rapid time controls, a new cycle will probably begin every 6 months !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-01 17:44:41)
Format For Championship
Hello John.
After all, if it wasn't unusual, the interest would be lower for sure... :)
So you noticed, the 8 players with the highest established correspondence chess ratings play a pure knockout tournament.
I thought about this format a long time ago (and a long time). Combining a knockout tournament (more "spectacular") and a round-robin cycle (everyone can play, no more than 5 cycles) gather together the advantages of both. It is one of the reasons I made FICGS... I think pure knockout or pure round-robin wch cycle is not efficient enough for chess championships.
The other thing you'll notice in the rules : "The special rule is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."
This rule (in case of equality in the round-robin tournaments, the player with the strongest TER is qualified too) is another way to avoid short draws... It may sound strange at a first sight, but I really think it's fair enough and a good way to find most probably the really strongest players in the last stages. Anyway, it's amazing for sure :)
The FICGS chess wch rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tournament
Peter Konig (2006-07-02 10:50:19)
rules & ratings
Hi, the rules on registration were different, and stating personal rating seemed just to be of informative value, no checking of numbers or anything. Now, it seems that I have a disadvantage by stating that, I feel treated second class (I wholeheartedly ackowledge that there are much stronger players around) and my motivation dropped considerably. it is like in real live. There are people earning more or less money, but they should be equal before the law (rules). That's in the spirit of 1789! Je t'embrasse, Peter Konig
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 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-02 19:26:07)
qualification for 2nd round
Bonjour David !
Maybe it wasn't clear enough yet. The winner and only the winner of each tournament will be qualified for the next stage. As there can't be several, only 1 player per group will be qualified.
"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 7, 9, 11 or 13 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage."
Consequently, there will be at least 17 players from the groups ("at least" : if new groups are created) + players rated >2300 from the high rated groups (but winners).
I expect about 40 to 50 players in stage 2 round-robin tournaments. If the numbers don't fit, there will be an invitation to players 2300+ until it solve the problem.
Sebastian Ilie (2006-07-03 23:01:29)
rating list
For Thibault de Vassal : You could find Florescu Ion's rating at http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/gor.html. And i agree with the the separate rating lists for GO and chess.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 01:25:41)
Go rating list
Hello Sebastian.
So it was a GO rating about Ion... (I did not understand that :/)
Still thinking about a Go rating list... If I implement something would it be better to have only informative ratings (from federations) or rating calculated from the games played here (probably not very relevant) ?
Anyway, players who didn't play a single chess game with a rating <1700 (~not from FIDE / IECG / ICCF) won't appear on the chess rating list in a while.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 18:26:07)
Chess game is a draw...
I understand what you mean... But this is theory. I can't see any pratical example illustrating a real problem with "symmetrical games"... Do you know such an example that happened in ICCF before.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-08 12:33:21)
Fischer clock - Limitation
Hello Marc.
About the adjudication, that's a problem without a real solution IMO. I think human interventions must be reduced as much as possible (null is clearly best), many players agree with that.
I just written you were right and agreed with your first proposal about the accumulation time rule for rapid games. Now I think it just can't solve the problem and wouldn't be efficient enough... In the few cases (ie. yours) a player may last a game, for any reason (maybe manage his rating), changing the time accumulation limitation wouldn't prevent him to last it almost the same, by spacing out his moves...
No solution yet, but we can discuss it, maybe we can improve this point.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-07-12 20:12:40)
Tournament entry rating
Hello Thibault!
Am I right that my TER (tournament entry rating) is not essential for the calculation of my new FIGCS - ELO - rating. If I'm not right, in which variable can I find it? I thought the difference of my opponents and my own rating at the beginning of the tournament would be of importance.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-12 22:54:50)
Tournament entry rating
Hello Heinz-Georg.
Your TER is not taken in account when a rating calculation occurs (your opponent's one is, of course).
But your previous ELO has a weight in the formula...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-15 13:21:58)
Time limit per move
The idea is interesting, however it could be difficult to display the remaining days (confusing)...
About the 60 days limit, I think there are clear advantages, and the bad effects are not so important if you consider there's no real way to prevent a player to last a game and the rating period of 2 months. The point that makes it difficult to compare to other organizations is some FICGS rules are harder : All lost games are rated, forfeits or not... I think this rules takes off some pressure. And many players can't assume regular play. Players who think 60 days per move is too long may play only rapid tournaments...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-19 18:05:41)
FICGS championship : new groups
A new group just started in the 1st FICGS wch :
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_18__000001
Waiting for another player with a ~1700 rating and a new one will start.
As the rating average of new players significantly decreases, I can't guarantee all players (most with a 1200 rating and below) who entered the waiting list after the start of the tournaments will play this first WCH (late groups rating average should be equal or superior to other groups).
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-21 11:24:02)
Mise a jour classement ELO
Bonjour Eric.
Tout est là (11.7) : http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general
"The rating period is 2 months. The first period of a year starts on January 1st. For ratings calculations, the opponents' Tournament Entry Rating (TER), which are valid on the day of the rating run, are used."
La prochaine mise à jour sera donc pour le 1er septembre.
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-22 19:50:51)
Interesting Discussion Topic
Thibault - this is a interesting discussion topic. Of course, no one knows the future with certainty, but we can all offer an opinion :)
I'm nearing my 40th year of correspondence play. Sometime later this year I will complete my 1000th tournament game. All my games were played by postcard until the mid 90's. E-mail dominated my CC schedule from about 1998 until 2002. Now I only play server chess. I've played on the FICGS, IECG, GameKnot, ChessFriend, Schemingmind and ICCF servers.
Contrary to many people who've played as long as I have, I do NOT see chess engines as a threat to the game. I think they've changed the game, but not hurt the game. I believe they've increasd CC's popularity and game quality. The same is true for opening and ending databases.
Some of the changes that will occur in CC the next ten years:
- Servers will improve functionality and ease of use.
- Due to engine use we will grow to accept 2200 as an "average" rating rather than "Master."
- Tournaments will be re-structured to include fewer players per section and shorter tournament durations. This particularly applies to ICCF where 15 player sections and slow time rules to simulate postal chess are used.
- New server functionality will be added to allow players the option to SLOW down the game. It's too easy to get caught in a mindless "server flurry."
- New chess software will be developed to analyze games. This analysis tool will give proability estimates on what engine one's opponent is using. That information will allow one to counter and plan against one's opponent.
- There will be more anti-computer books written and theories developed. We will use these techniques to beat our opponent and and improve our chess planning skills.
Bottomline ... I am excited by the new technology. I see continued advances in the way we manage our gameload, the way we send moves, the way we play, plan and analyze our moves. The way we play in the future will be different and will still be fun for those who embrace new technology. My disappointment is I am an old man and unlikely to enjoy all the advantages the future brings. I hope those who follow me enjoy what I will miss :)
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-24 17:04:52)
Thanks Thibault
Thanks Thibault for the response.
I definitely concur that today's correspondence chess is different than 40 years ago. The two biggest things I miss about today's CC are the 1) blunders and 2) open tournaments. I remember the excitement of getting a postcard and rushing to check my opponent's move. Blunders weren't common, but they occured. Now they're non-existant. Blunders made for great lore!
Why no more open tournaments? Took me 40 years to get my rating where it's at. I'm not a top player, but what I've earned, I've earned mostly the "old fashioned" way. I avoid open tournaments to avoid losing to low rated players who just learned the moves, but because they have a a high powered muti-processor running Deep Fritz they can knock me down a hundred points. I miss chatting with beginners, teaching them the ins and outs of CC. Oh well :)
You mentioned the top CC players winning and then not sticking with the game because winning is too hard due to chess engines. Is the drop out rate at the WC level any different than it was in the past? Berliner won and dropped out 40 years ago. Palciauskas won 30 years ago and then he dropped out. Chess engines were not a factor when they won. I don't think top players drop out because of engines, but because it is too hard to keep a competitive edge to play at a top level for any length of time. Good results are a combination of talent, hard work and good fortune. Keeping all three together for any length of time is a HUGE endeavor.
Personally I think a bigger threat to CC burn-out is not chess engines, but chess servers. Servers make CC too easy. Today's CC today is like Bill Murray in "Ground Hog Day." You wake up to an inbox full of chess moves. You work all day/night replying. Then you wake up the following day to moves from the same people and do it all again. There are no week long breaks breaks between games like in the postcard days. Server chess is burning out everyone, not just the top players. The progressive server owners will need to address this issue someday.
Sooooo ... what's the bottomline for me? I liked the old days better, but the old days are gone. Chess engines are here to stay. Progress is part of life. I embrace progress and am determined to enjoy it. I get my thrills by learning about chess engines and their weaknesses. That gives me an edge and keeps the game fresh. But then that's me :)
Don Burden (2006-07-25 01:25:39)
Handicap moves?
The idea may be a new way to offer a handicap to lower rated players. Maybe for each rating difference of 200 points, the higher rated player must play two moves moving the g8 knight to f6 & back (g1 knight to f3 & back if playing white). To be fair, the lower rated player should not be allowed to capture or give check during each two move sequence of the knight.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-25 01:51:34)
Handicap moves
That's an idea... Actually I don't think many players (benefiting of the handicap moves) with a 200 points lower rating would be interested, cause it's quite "risky" to play with an advantage. If you win, that's just normal, if you loose (even draw): that's a big defeat.
Such matches may be interesting for both masters (2400+) and amateurs (1600-), maybe even in a simultaneous context, so that draws could satisfy everyone.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-07-26 00:32:35)
I'm feeling guilty
I just read The touching story of Glen and frankly I feel guilty. I complained here of basically, having to play a 1400 player. Reason obvious he has a 2800 rated program, but so do I. Glen earned his stature. the old fashon way, brain power, intuition, chess knowledge and a strong memory, putting all these tools to work for many, many years. My CC rating elsewhere is 2200+, sorry to admit my programs got me there. In the fairness vain, I didnt earn such a rating. I sorta like to kid my self that all the players I play use comps too. So I tell my self I earned this rating. I earned it playing on servers against people, just like me doing the same as I, getting help/advise from a program. I do not believe this is right, it is not fair for a player such as Glen. I do not have an answer. I am all in favour of Artificial intelligence and hardware advances applied to chess. I am a EE so it is natural for me to be deeply involved.
Pablo Schmid (2006-07-28 21:57:37)
..
J'ai finalement constaté qu'un de mes adversaires avait un rating inférieur de plus de 350 pts (pas dans le TER), c'est probablement l'explication, affaire reglée ;)
Peter Konig (2006-07-30 21:42:51)
edit article
I'd like to insert a few comments on the French Winaver variation. For example after e4 e6, d4 d5, Nc3 Bb4. Prsently the whole comment is: " ============ Contributors : Toncho Tenev " I see that Tenev has a mich higher rating than me. Only he did not say anything on this line. And I can not modify this non existent article!? - This is not in the spirit of quality assurance.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-08-02 16:10:49)
Inactive Rating List
Thibault, I see that some players don't seem to be playing in any of the tournaments! though they are listed in the Rating List. Any future plans to list them under an Inactive Rating List perhaps?! Just a suggestion.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-02 20:36:00)
Chess WCH waiting list
Hello José Antonio.
Players who had not entered chess wch waiting list before July 1st (start of the 1st wch) can do it before August 15, in order to start more tournaments (july was a bit early to start). Most players who entered it lately already play in new groups or have replaced players who didn't make a single move in their games (and lost on time). If this is the point you're talking about, it's difficult to consider a game without a move has been really played. Replacements (particularly players rated 1200: beginners) allow to low rated players to enter this 1st WCH tournaments cycle, otherwise new groups wouldn't have the necessary rating average.
Finally, everyone play a 6-games tournament in this first round. So, why 12 games ? Maybe I did not understand well... :/
Marc Lacrosse (2006-08-02 23:52:15)
Adjudication
Thanks Thibault.
I was not aware of the 11.5 rule which is very good IMHO and I am very glad that you agreed to apply it in my game.
I think this is a good rule "as is" and it does not need to be changed.
To Graham : Sure you are right.
But it's the same in OTB play : almost nobody waits until the final mate move.
However when one disgracefully requires you go until mate has effectively been done, you just have to wait for less than a few hours at most.
In my case the win was evident for more than two months and my opponent still meticulously waited until he only had a few hours left...
Did he wish to wait for a new rating,did he wish to have won other games to take the lead in the tournament : I really don't know (and I truly cannot fully understand)...
In any case the rules were respected...
Maybe this could be an additional argument for limiting the maximum amount of accumulated thinking time ?
Marc
Marc Lacrosse (2006-08-04 17:05:33)
WCH tournaments
In the 7-players qualification tournaments for the Wch there are usually two 2100+ players together with five players with a much lower rating.
As there is only one player qualified for the next step, isn't there an enormous advantage for the one of the two better rated players who happens to be white in the game with the other higher rated player (assuming that both can hope for very good results against lower-rated players)?
This is probably unavoidable ...
Marc
PS what does happen if two players finish 1st ex aequo with a draw in their mutual encounter and similar results against all others?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-04 17:47:56)
WCH tournaments
Hello Marc.
The new group you're playing in (probably the last built before august 15) has a bigger gap ("écart-type") than others.. It was not possible to build it in another way.
The advantage is given by the rating to the 'best' player in all stages (knockout or round-robin), but that's the challenge, and the way of these WCH rules.. (see previous threads about WCH)
However, it's not obvious that top players win all other games... A single draw should decide.
Jaimie Wilson (2006-08-11 16:10:55)
Unrated miniatures
I read that games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit or obvious cheating). So if my opponent plays brilliantly, lures me into a catastrophic error and mates me on move 9, then he or she would not get any rating benefit.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-11 17:14:15)
Unrated miniatures
Hello Jaimie.
Absolutely... This is clearly a 'statistical' choice...
A chess server need rules like this one to avoid most human decisions. I think this is a good one so far. About this unfair case (at first sight), if you resign in less than 10 moves (it happens not so often in CC above elo 1600, except forfeits), your opponent is obviously much stronger than you, so chances for him to already have a rating superior to yours + 350 points are very high... so the game wouldn't be rated anyway !
Benjamin Aldag (2006-08-17 19:42:02)
Ratings ???!!!
Hello, i have a question about the Rating-System here. There are many players here, with an offical FIDE or NATIONAL ratingnumber under 1800. Some of these players have here at FICGS a ratingnumber over 2000 !!! Of course, this is correspondence-chess, but it would be a nice ratingfeature, to include the official FIDE/NATIONAL ratingnumber at the FICS-Ratingformula. Benny
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-17 21:57:51)
Ratings FIDE / ICCF
Hello Benjamin.
These players probably have an established correspondence chess rating over 2000 at ICCF or IECG. Players can't be forced to specify their FIDE rating, but they can do it in the 'player informations' text area.
Jaimie Wilson (2006-08-19 17:42:17)
Ratings
I understand that the ratings on here are special ficgs ratings that are brought up to date every two months.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-08-22 03:34:48)
Future Rating
I did not want to post this. I tried to find your e-mail address but could not. How ofton is Future Rating updated. Immediate ? My game 2179 was agreed draw. The result has not appeared in future Rating. It should as I understand it. Future rating for game 2163 was accounted for in future rating. It is the only game (1 game) that is credited. Again wish I could have kept this private via email Thank you Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-22 14:45:55)
Future Rating
Hi Wayne.
Reason is game 2179 was not agreed as a draw yet... It's your turn, so you may have forgotten to confirm your move ;)
Future rating is updated instantly.
You can email me at : info [at] ficgs.com
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-22 14:55:18)
How to know future rating
Hello to all.
A reminder about future rating and personal statistics... You can check it by going into Preferences, click on the picture just after your chess rating, a new window will appear, then click on "elo"... Several pages with different informations will be displayed.
You can check these informations for any player, by clicking on this pic in the rating list.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-08-22 16:50:00)
Future Rating
I am very sorry. it is game 2177 Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-22 17:52:30)
Future Rating
You were right, there was a small bug in the last update... That's fixed.
Thanks !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-01 17:11:46)
Go / Weiqi tournaments : New categories
Hello to all.
New Go tournament categories have been created.
PRO category, for players ranked 1 dan and above (Go elo > 2099)
DAN category, for players ranked 10 kyu and above (Go elo > 1099).
KYU category, for all Go players, whatever their rating...
Rules have been updated for the rating calculation and Go championship (a win in a KYU tournament = 1 point, a win in a DAN tournament = 2 points, a win in a PRO tournament = 3 points).
Feel free to post here any suggestion to improve this site for Go game...
(& don't forget this is not a chess variant ;))
Kind regards.
Joachim Nettelbeck (2006-09-03 16:33:42)
First mover loses
I think that besides the entry fees there is areason, why nobody seems to enter these tournaments: First mover loses! When I see someone with, let's say, a rating of 2000 has entered a tournament, and I'm below that, I will never enter it, too. Not if it's about money. So only people with higher ratings will enter, and the first mover is likely to lose his money. Thus nobody enters first. There is a procedure needed which guarantees that the opponents in this kind of tournaments are close to each other in their rating. Or at least the ones who enter will need to be invisible...
Benjamin Aldag (2006-09-04 16:52:11)
Cheaters ?!
Hey Charlie,
i understand your opinion about computer-assistence. But we are no cheaters ! The difference between the cheaters and us is, that you will often lose your games, when you will only play computermoves. A good chessplayer with a good machine, will ever win versus a bad chessplayer with a good machine. You would kill yourself, when u ever play only computermoves. Ask yourself, why some of corr-chess players have a rating between 2600 and 2700 or more and many players "just" 2300 ? Are the players with a rating over 2600 the better hardware and the better chessengine ? I say NO ! These playres know, how to win versus all these little computermovers. A Computer will ever make mistakes and in corr-games its an interessting part, to search for these mistakes. A Human-Chess-Brain and a computer can be an unbeatable team !
Benny
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-05 16:21:34)
Tournament winners & leaders displayed !
Hello to all.
Tournament winners & leaders (2 at most) are now displayed in all tournament categories. Just click 'Tournaments' and see...
These informations are not displayed in real time, but will be updated at least every 2 months (while chess rating calculation)
All comments welcome.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-07 14:11:14)
Re:
Thibault, regarding your question..... I was 3rd in that Candidates Final. I was just 1/2 point short of getting into the top 2 and automatically qualifying for the FINAL. But as the first placed Nigel Robson is also qualified by another cycle, and as my rating is quite high now, I might get a chance to play in the FINAL there.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-08 18:10:52)
Chess tournament : Zero-sum or not ?
While discussing about Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", and the question "Is the best player always the champion ?" (of course not IMO) , I was argued that any chess tournament "was" (actually could be "reduced to") a zero-sum game :
"In 1944 John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern proved that any zero-sum game involving n players is in fact a generalised form of a zero-sum game for two persons, and that any non-zero-sum game for n players can be reduced to a zero-sum game for n + 1 players; the (n + 1) player representing the global profit or loss. This suggests that the zero-sum game for two players forms the essential core of mathematical game theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum_game
It seems to me that it's out of topic, but I couldn't say exactly why... In my opinion, a tournament is nearer life than game, at least quite far from it. Much more rules, often complex ones, and results that depend on many parameters you couldn't influence...
The word "champion" depends on accurate rules (the best player could finish 2nd, even if he wins all games ie. in an open tournament..), the "best player" depends on general opinion (most commonly through ratings), ie. Topalov vs. Kasparov ...
What do you think ? :-)
Where the discussion started from :
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060907/sirlin_01.shtml
I agree with many points about how to win, but the use of some words seems to be dubious...
I like much this quote :
"I was surprised to see that Capablanca did not initiate any active maneuvers and instead adopted a waiting game. In the end, his opponent made an imprecise move; the Cuban won a second pawn and soon the game. “Why didn’t you try to convert your material advantage straight away?” I ventured to ask the great chess virtuoso. He smiled indulgently. “It was more practical to wait.” "
—Mikhail Botvinnik, 6th World Chess Champion
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-12 03:42:57)
Match FICGS vs. GameKnot
Dear chessfriends, a match FICGS vs. GameKnot may start in a few weeks ! The idea is to oppose players in different rating categories (1200 to 2400+ elo), playing one game with Black on FICGS, one game with White on GameKnot.com ... Please send an email to info (at) ficgs.com (specifying your name) if you're interested. More info in a few days & weeks...
It seems that many players from GameKnot want to play this match, we need a large team ! :)
Alarich Lenz (2006-09-13 11:07:04)
Elo calculation
why did my provisional rating (fide 2196) change, despite the fact that i didnt loose a singl game until now? best regards al
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-13 12:36:32)
Re: Elo
Hello Alarich.
You finished 4 games until now. 3 of these ones are unrated (win & elo difference > 350 points OR win & less than 10 moves played).
1 rated game has been taken in account when the last rating calculation occured : Game 2177 (draw)
That's ok :)
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-14 05:19:28)
Greetings from GameKnot :)
Hello friends, my name is Thomas, and I am the representative from GameKnot. We look forward to playing a match against you! GameKnot has played two matches vs. other sites in the past, and we have enjoyed the competition very much. It is my sincere hope that we can pull this thing off! As FICGS is a newer site with a smaller community than ours, we hope that you guys can field a team of approximately 12-20 players of ALL ratings ranges. We intend to put up at least 2 players in each of 7 ratings classes (U2400, U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400, and U1200). The rules of the match are currently being negotiated between Thibault and myself, and we would like to commence as soon as possible. I highly encourage the members of FICGS to participate, as these matches are a lot of fun! You guys will get a chance to visit our site, and we yours. Please contact Thibault and sign on! We look forward to seeing you OTB :)
Miguel Pires (2006-09-15 02:50:58)
well
you are the boss, if say soo, for me is ok. But for shure some not going to do that. And now we have a big problem, the OTB Vs CC rating. Cairo from GK have an elo in OTB +2300, mor or less the same at GK an ICCF, but others, the thing's are different. Like me, i'm a +1700 in otb, and + 2000 in this site, and in GK i'm a +1900 (a lot of timeouts put my rating in 1756 now). soo playng in CC without any help (databases like i play in GK) is hard to play at + 2000. And we need players with good OTB rating's to. Like i say, you are the boss. what time controls we going to use?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-15 03:08:36)
Ratings used
It's logical IMO to consider OTB ratings if we all play in OTB conditions, without computer assistance... FIDE or self-estimated OTB ratings should prevail over CC ratings (ICCF, FICGS or so) for the pairings.
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-16 23:46:58)
Udate from GameKnot:
I just wanted to give you guys a heads up as to the players from my site that are being CONSIDERED for playing in the match. As ratings fluctuate, I have simply rounded and given approximate strength: mateintwo - 2400+ cyrano - 2400+ cairo - 2300+ fmgaigin - 2300+ drdesoto - 2300+ papani - 2300+ harlekin - 2300+ nestorix - 2300+ drunken_rabbit - 2200+ kumpan - 2200+ grandpatzer - 2200+ os5213 - 2200+ carlosmart - 2200+ chrisp - 2100+ nottop - 2100+ gloomy_den - 1900+ thumper - 1700+ gwalchmai - 1600+ tugger - 1600+ yanm - 1500+ mattw - 1500+ patagusto - 1500+ tag1153 - 1400+ cjjpeterson - 1400+ simian9 - 1400+ eqj2 - 1400+ hollcanna - 1300+ dewillget8 - 1200+ mozz - 1200+ These GameKnot players have expressed an interest in playing. More will sign on I'm sure, as I have set Oct 1, 2006 as the sign up deadline. I will put together our team during the first week of October, and will be ready to commence play by the second week of October. During the interim, Thibault and I will finalize the details of the match. I realize that this short list is very master and expert heavy, but have no worries - I will be contacting more of our A, B, C, and D class players and asking them to participate. We look forward to the match:) Thomas
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-18 01:03:29)
Thibault
If possible, could you post the names and ratings of those players from FICGS who are interested in playing against GameKnot? I would like to go ahead and get some idea of the pairing possibilities. Thanks:) Thomas
Henri Muller (2006-09-18 09:39:42)
match vs gameKnot
I have a great experience to play in Gameknot and can say that ALL( or MIN 95%) players with a rating above 1600 elo uses a chess-engine !!
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.
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-18 12:55:35)
My friends at FICGS:
I am a little concerned, yet understanding, of your feelings about the possibility of cheating in our proposed match. Please understand that there are two sides to the suspicion coin. For those of you who are not familiar with the GameKnot website, let me assure you that I will only be putting up players who I am familiar with, and who have proven themselves to play honorably. I am a three year veteran of GameKnot, and play on the site daily. I will be selecting my team from players whom I feel confident will conduct themselves within the rules we agree on. The intent of arranging this match is NOT to simply put up all of our master level players and attempt to whitewash you guys 100-0. The intent is to provide as MANY matches of ALL ratings ranges for a fun, competetive match. If we lose every match we will have no hard feelings towards you. As the game results in our proposed match will have no bearing on ratings changes, we view the match as a simple, friendly exercise. So, having said all of that, we hope that FICGS will offer up as many people as possible, and Thibault and myself will pair them with my guys in such a way that is FAIR and equitable to both sides. Should anyone here at FICGS have any questions, please feel free to post them here or in the GameKnot forum (in the GameKnot Related threads). Thanks:) - Thomas
James Stripes (2006-09-18 13:46:35)
excessive fears
Of course cheating is always a danger, but I doubt more than a small minority of players do it. Chess appeals to those who enjoy solving problems more than to those who need to maintain a artificial number (rating) alongside a fictitious name. Cheaters likely lose interest fairly quickly. I've played at GameKnot and many similar sites. If any more than a half-dozen of my 300 or so opponents were cheating, they were doing so badly.
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-18 13:52:13)
Dinesh
FYI it was not I who brought up GameKnot players being expelled from our site, but I can comment on it. Players have been expelled from GameKnot for numerous reasons. Some include 1) ratings manipulation, 2) using computers to recommend moves (our webmaster investigates all complaints re: games where, say, a 1300 player defeats a master, etc...), 3) foul language and/or intimidating behavior, and 4) general behavior that is unsportsmanlike. We pride ourselves at GameKnot on playing honorably, and do not tolerate otherwise. :) Thomas
James Stripes (2006-09-19 14:40:17)
Cheating data
95% is an interesting figure and quite an accusation. Could you provide some evidence to support this contention, or at least explain the reasons for your belief? I would say from looking at the blunders during my brief stint at GK that if any players between 1600 and 2100 were cheating, they were incompetent engine users. I cannot imagine using an engine for assistance and achieving a rating below 2100 there.
Marcin Kasperski (2006-10-04 12:27:12)
Exaggerating?
I googled this thread accidentally, and ... I would like to say that some opinions here seem to be going too far. I am just an amateur player (no FIDE rating, but according to my results on FICS and Playchess I would estimate myself about elo 1900). I play on a few servers including gameknot (my nick there is Mekk). I have never used chess engine there (or anywhere), and I am at the moment rated 1654 on gameknot, I also happened to win and draw some games against 17xx rated players. Surely they were not using engines, if they were, I would lost those games - my results on IECG (where I lost everything I tried to play) show this clearly. Of course my claim, that I am not using an engine, is just my claim - but you can take a look at my games, if you like...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-12 21:33:52)
Cyrano
Oops, I meant 'cyrano'...
Anyway I'd like to create Glen & Miguel's games first so that it's easier to follow on the tournament page - games ordered by ratings... We're late (sorry to all players), but it's probably better that most games start at the same time !?
Graham Wyborn (2006-10-17 12:24:05)
Top of Rating List
How can Atalik, Suat be top of the rating list, when this player has never played a game on this site? Or have I got these facts wrong!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-17 12:43:42)
GM Suat Atalik
GM Suat Atalik is about OTB #100 ranked player in the world (GM FIDE), and one of the first players who registered at FICGS. Ratings & titles are also displayed in an informative way, some other strong players will probably register when it will be possible to play unrated simultaneous games for money, but they'll keep a provisional rating. I still have to separate the rating lists, but provisional ratings aren't displayed the same way already.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-10-19 18:56:33)
Game of time ?!?!
Try and relax a little Utesch, I know it can be frustrating, it would frustrate me also. But De Silva seems sincere to me. Just my two cents worth my friend....Wayne
Scott Prestwood (2006-10-21 02:42:17)
Moderation in everything
I find it easy to take on too many correspondence games my self. I prefer to have time to analyze as this is the tradition of coorespondence chess. I often feel busy (zeitnot as you call it) with just 15 games with long time controls. Some principals I use in moderating my challenge rate are; 1) I dont start new games if I have a game under 15 moves in progress, opening require less analysis, and the mid game is where most of the work is done. 2) whatever the estimated days per moves is I limit myself to 1/4th of that as my limit of games. i.e. if the average days per moves is 12 days I will try to keep around 3 games going if possible. These limits work well and I'm on several coorespondence sites.
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-10-23 11:13:43)
Rating / 8-game match
Hello Thibault, it doesn't make any sense to count all results for the rating, independent whether generated by playing out or forfeits about time issues. At least one rating seems to be very excessive affected by this practise in the FICS Chess Championship! Wolfgang
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)...
Peter Schuster (2006-10-24 12:57:17)
Rating / 8-game-match
Hallo Wolfgang, ich fuehle mich durch Deinen Beitrag angesprochen. Alle meine Spiele sollten fuer das Rating gewertet werden. Dass SF Cinca ein sehr unangenehmer Mensch (ich hatte leider in einem GM-Normturnier schon mal mit Ihm zu tun) und aeusserst unsportlicher Gegner ist, kann nicht mir angelastet werden. Nach 2 Remis stand ich in 2 weitern Partien klar auf Gewinn und haette keines der restlichen Spiele verloren. Als er das eingesehen hat, hat er einfach aufgehoehrt zu ziehen und seine Zeit ablaufen lassen. Ich hoffe, dass solche Unsportlichkeit auch entsprechend bestraft wird. Viele Gruesse Peter
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-10-24 20:14:40)
Rating / 8-game match
Hallo Peter, nein - du warst nicht gemeint - dein Rating ist vollauf verdient! Ich meinte das stark gestiegene Rating von Balabaev. Gruß, Wolfgang ........................................................ Hello Peter, no - I didn't mean you - your rating is hard earned! I meant the considerable increase of rating of Balabaev. Greetings, Wolfgang
Farit Balabaev (2006-10-25 08:28:49)
Rating / 8-game match
Hello Wolfgang, Thank you for the message. 1. John resigned 8 games 2. If you see carefully these 8 games, you make certain of in games 1793,1797,1798 I have a decisive advantage, in games 1791,1792,1794,1796 I have the upper hand, the game 1795 is even (as was established in game Lautier-Leko Batumi 1999) As a result, expected score might be between 7,5 : 0,5 and 5,5 : 2,5 up to me Best , Farit.
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-10-25 12:32:12)
Rating / 8-game match
Hello Farit, the problem with rating of contests by duels is a generally: If one player knows that the whole duel is no to win he will abandon all games - independent from the particular situation in all of the open games! Greetings, Wolfgang
Dinesh De Silva (2006-10-25 12:55:01)
Re: Rating / 8-game match........
What Utesch says is quite true. But of course it's not the fault of the players of the duels. Simply, the duels system does seem to be a flawed concept!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-25 13:37:13)
Rating / 8-game match
Anyway this result is quite unusual in correspondence chess... :)
Conditions were best to realize such an increase of rating, and a part of the forfeit reasons are probably out of the match (a flag gate)... 6 games out of 8 were rated as a win in this match between Farit & John, with no other result for Farit when the rating calculation occured. It happened, it can happen, I think it won't happen often (I would be surprised if such a case occurs in semi-finals) but in all ways : That's great ! .. IMO :)
There's a part of "injustice" in all most watched sports and games, it's an essential element ! .. The biggest one 'strangely' is in soccer. At another level, chess stars choose their tournaments and manage their FIDE rating, remember ie. this match Etienne Bacrot (2470) vs. Vassily Smyslov (2510, wch) in Albert, with this result 5-1
An obvious, topical and nearer example : FIDE classical (old) world championship system is deeply unfair (for the challenger) but it MUST be kept !
As I said above, the concept (added to fast time control) may create some - rare - rating peaks, but effects are limited and I'm convinced it's interesting enough to try it.
To be continued... in a few years ? ;)
Don Burden (2006-10-26 02:32:25)
Rating / 8-game-match
Seems to me that the large jump in ratings is the result of a problem, where the root problem seems to be that there are just way too many players on here that for whatever reason just drop out and don't want to finish their games. Don't know how you would fix that.
In my WCH Stage 1 section that I just finished, two of the top 3 rated players in my section both gave up and quit. One player without playing a single move. The rules say that in the case of tied scores, only the higher rated player advances. There are two players in my section, myself and another, both finishing with 5.5 points out of 6. I think that's a pretty good score, but apparently it's not good enough because only one advances. If all 7 players had played all games to completion, the chances of having a clear winner, and a final score somewhat lower than 5.5 out of 6 would have been much greater.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-26 15:20:20)
Re: Rating / 8-game-match
That's not right.
These quarter finals are particular cases because there were no forfeit before move 10 in all games... (games with less than 10 moves played are not rated for the winner) That's why there's a special rule 'general forfeit' for 8+ games matches.
Moreover, the waiting list for the 1st FICGS WCH remained open from april to july, maybe it was a too long period, that's why the waiting list for the 2nd FICGS WCH (that could begin in january) is still closed.
Pekka I. Turakainen (2006-10-26 18:04:25)
Reveal your software
Engines against engines....please, at least tell what chess engine you're using, so that your opponent knows which engine defeated his engine....like Shredder 10 vs. Shredder 10 1-0. Better advise: If you want to know which engine is strongest, please don't play here, visit some site that has ratings for chessengines.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-30 20:20:03)
2nd FICGS chess WCH waiting list is open
Hello to all.
The waiting list for the 2nd FICGS chess world championship is open !
The 2nd stage of the first cycle may begin before the end of 2006. Thus, a new WCH cycle should begin every 6 months !
A small update in the rules : "A player can't be involved in two consecutive knockout tournaments." (of course, the 8 players involved in the quarter finals during the last cycle can enter the round-robin tournaments cycle)
Several logical reasons to this change : More fun & more chances for more high-rated players, decreasing the risk of rating peaks & to see a world champion involved in several knockout tournaments & candidates finals... to play the final match against himself :)
[edit : this rule is no more effective, simulations show the results wouldn't be interesting enough, and as it will be hard to start a new WCH cycle every 6 months, it's simply better to see the highest rated players in the knockout tournament, whatever the consequences]
Good luck & best wishes to all...
John Acre (2006-10-30 22:09:15)
lowball
I absolutely use an engine. The permitted use of engines is the only reason I'm at this site to begin with..... ........... ........... ........... ............. .............. ........... Engine assisted games can be a great study tool, if used correctly. I analyze each position to the best of my ability, record my candidate moves. Select one, record it, and then feed the position into Fritz to see how it evaluates the position......... ........... ............ ............. ........... ............. ............... ............. If my move is in the same ballpark, I make my selected move, I feel fricking great, and I await my opponent's reply. If my move is substantially inferior to Fritz's selection, I try to figure out why, and then I play Fritz's move. This way, not only do I get to understand the positions rising out of my chosen opening in a depth I could otherwise never approach without professional guidance, but each step of the way, I learn to play the next move's position as if the strongest move had been played............. ............ ........... ............. ............ ........... ........... .......... .......... If an opponent blunders in a big way, I mostly let Fritz finish him off, because the game is of no study value to me beyond that point. I don't care what my rating is, except that it be at a number where I can join a variety of rated tournaments (to face a variety of opposition). I don't play at this site to win, or to lose. I play here to get as close as a ~1600 OTB player like me can get to understanding the objective truth of the game............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ............. ............ ........ Sorry if that upsets anybody, but that's the whole reason I'm here. The community isn't big enough to have much independent value as a non-engine-assisted place to play correspondence matches. And why would one bother? There are a million of those places on the web. This place, however, is a one-of-a-kind goldmine. If engine play were to dry up or be outlawed here, what would be the point?....... ........... .......... ........ ........... ......... ........ ........... ............ .......... Anyway, to answer, from my viewpoint, another question asked in this thread, I'm currently self-rated at 1500 for this site. I'm playing in tournaments at about that level, and am admittedly using Fritz 9. My record, out of 20 or so games, looks like it's going to be about 4 wins, 6 losses, and 10 draws......... ............ ........... ............ ............ ............ ........... ............. ...... Only two of those wins are going to be miniatures, and both of those against the same guy. So playing with engine-assisted strength of around 2500 on my slow-ish machine, I'm going to score around 45%, with about 17 out of 18 opponents playing at or above my machine-enhanced strength............... ........... ............. ............ ........ ............ ........... People guessing 50% of users here use engines are lowballing, bigtime. I estimate around 95%. And I have no problem saying that I'm one of them.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-31 09:58:18)
2nd FICGS chess WCH waiting list is open
Hello Wayne.
I can do this tomorrow. If the issue is about rating, please note that ratings taken in account at the start of the tournaments (TER : Tournament Entry Rating) are current ones at this time - november rating if this cycle starts ie. on december 15) - so ratings will be automatically updated in the waiting list...
Kind regards.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-10-31 21:49:40)
2nd FICGS chess WCYH waiting list is ope
Ahhhh, that was the reason. I wanted to enter with my best rating. If I understood you correct, That wont be a problem, given that the waiting lists ratings are updated. I would like to re-submit my name, can you do it, or should I resubmit ? Thank you Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-01 01:20:00)
Re:
Hi Wayne.
Ratings have just been updated. Feel free to re-enter the waiting list :)
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-03 04:18:01)
Rating change
Hello, sorry, but try as I do I have difficulty with the rating calculaltion here. I am in a dead draw game with a player rated 1765 at table 236. I wonder if you would not mind giving me my expected loss in rating points with this draw. My rating is 2005. By way of information, I have offered twice now, but he plays on. That is ok, that is his privilage. Thank you Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-03 11:32:37)
Rating change
Rating : 2005 , 1400 = (only result) will give a rating of 1969...
Of course it depends on the other results calculated, we couldn't say it means exactly a 36 points loss in all cases. (I think)
Hmm... What about a rating simulator...
Don Burden (2006-11-03 14:20:07)
Only 965 ?!
I noticed it too. It was the rating list page. It's back showing over 1000 now, but it definitely was showing under 1000 players for a few days. I think it was the 1st and 2nd of this month.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-03 14:55:07)
Only 965 ?!
About the chess rating list, I updated the code a few days ago. It is now "semi-static" (automatically updated every 6 hours at most)
6 hours, that was theory... I just found the small bug, thanks :)
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-03 18:00:26)
Rating change
Oooops, did you use his rating of 1400 ? it is 1769. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-03 18:19:26)
Rating change
TER (Tournament Entry Rating) is used for rating calculation, not current rating !
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-03 20:18:14)
Rating change
Ahhhhhh. I just dont understand this I guess, I am confused, my TER at start of tourny was also 1400. This does not make sense to me. Guess the only way I am gonna find out is for this guy to draw. In that vain I will force a playing draw, if the 50 rule does not do it for me. Thank you Wayne
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-05 20:25:29)
Fischer : "Now chess is completely dead"
Why should be a (very, very) good chess player also a wise person? Bobby by himself has showed us that there are no correlation between theese abilities. It must be very frustrating for a grandmaster that very weak players can tell him for many positions (but far from all positions!!!) on an easy way by using chess engines what had been his mistakes in last competition!
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 :)
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-16 01:26:09)
Players needed
Hello all. We need 4 more players to fill out the Class A 000009 tournament rating range is 2000-2400. It should be a nice tourney. Wayne Lowrance
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-16 13:02:24)
Suggestion
The idea to jump the first time control (not to add 40 days at move 10) would have been interesting if we knew 'where' ends the opening, but that's quite impossible... The real problem is some players can't connect so often, or play so quickly !
It may be frustrating in some cases but that's correspondence chess... I connect about 20 times a day but I have many games and I feel in zeitnot in some of them. As for me it depends more on the game than on the time control...
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-17 17:51:23)
Need one more player
Class A 000009. We have 6 strong players. Need one more. rating 2000-2200 welcome Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-17 17:53:24)
Need one more player
Correction, sorry. Rating for tournament is 2000-2400. Wayne
Mikhail Ruzin (2006-11-19 09:22:47)
Rating change (Go)
Hello Thibault. It is not normal! My initial raring was 1800. Then I lost the rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT__000008 against a player rated 1900 and my rating changed to 1780. It is normal. But then I win the rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN__000001 against a player rated 1600 and my rating changed to 1752. It is not normal.
Mikhail Ruzin (2006-11-18 21:05:44)
Rating change
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN__000001 Ruzin, Mikhail TER=1780 Rating=1752 Points=1/1 How can be such?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-18 22:38:06)
Rating change (Go)
Hello Mikhail.
Looks quite normal :
You won a rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN__000001 against a player rated (TER) 1600 and you lost a rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT__000008 against a player rated 1900... The rating average of your opponents is inferior to your initial rating (1800).
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-19 14:41:48)
Rating change (Go)
Thanks & sorry, you were right !
You were in a small rating difference range that provoked this strange result. Elo rating system has to be used carefully :/
I just updated the program & rules. Your rating has been corrected according to this change.
Thanks for feedback.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-19 15:35:57)
Where else do/did you play corr. chess ?
:)))
Hello Marc.
That's funny you ask me... Hard to find correspondence chess info about me & indeed I did not play at AJEC & ICCF yet. That's not a secret, many of you already know that I made several movies, some (last one was a kind of parody of Stanley Kubrick's "A clockwork orange") under my name, others - english speaking ones - under my "real" director's name that I used on most chess servers & in another correspondence chess organization, where I achieved about the same rating. (damn, I may be disqualified for the WC final :))
Of course I tried a lot of correspondence chess places before, but none was interesting or challenging enough to me, that's why FICGS and its tournament & WCH rules.
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
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-20 00:10:19)
WCH qualifications
Hi Miguel.
I'm afraid not :( ... I understand this is quite disappointing but I'm sure these rules that favorise ratings combined to the WCH rhythm (a new cycle every 6 months) give chances to everyone. The idea is statistical, your rating will increase so you will have more chances during the next cycle, and your opponent has more chances to win 2nd stage.
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
Don Groves (2006-11-20 07:33:54)
Go : Komi
I feel 7.5 points komi is too much for some Go games. Since we do not use handicaps (which is good, IMHO) should not komi be reduced if White is a higher rated player than Black? For players of equal ability, 7.5 komi is fine, but when I must give Sebastian Ilie 7.5 points, it seems a joke. He beats me by 200 anyway ;-) I suggest komi be reduced by one point for every 100 (or perhaps 200) rating points difference (to a minimum of 0.5) when White is the superior player. What do others think about this?
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 21:57:03)
Go handicap and rating
Is handicap Go really nonsensical in rated tournaments?
While it seems so in a world championship, where the aim is to determine the stronger player in an absolute sense, why should it be so in a tournament, where the aim is to determine the best player in a relative sense... hum, not a very clean or clear sentence, but I hope you got the idea :-)
In face to face Go, in most amateur tournaments, it is not a problem, and you can win or loose a tournament, win or loose points, playing with an handicap (some tournaments set a limit lower than 9 in the number of handicap stones). I do not know the formulae used to compute the knew ratings, but in practice it works well. (and the same thing works also in Shogi tournaments)
Before WWII, even pros played with handicap (one or two stones at most, more commonly with a fixed color and no komi) and that *for money*!! Nowadays this is not the case anymore: maybe the increase of pro-tournament prizes change the noble way to be the best of two players fighting *their best* at their *respective* level!
Anyway, I think such an idea may be interresting to motivate players: when weaker, I will fight my best because I have a chance to win, and when stronger, I *have* to fight well :-)
We could think of a rating system where you play your first, say, 20 games without handicap to get a starting rating, and then to receive or give handicaps automatically in tournaments. We could then consider a rating as fixed after a bunch of 20 more games...
Or any other system that will always generate tense and dangerous games! That will be, at least for me, a great motivation to play more :-)
(but then I do not care much for my rating :-))
Don Groves (2006-11-21 00:45:58)
Go: Komi
Hi Thibault, I'm confused as to why elo ratings matter. Go has used komi a long time to compensate for the first move while chess never has. But in chess, you have narrower rating groups, so practically never is an expert matched against a novice. Since in Go we have only three rating groups, these uneven matches happen many times. Until we have enough Go players to have more rating groups, a sliding komi scale would be a way to level the playing field a bit. PS - I'm not interested in traditional Go handicap games -- the empty board is the only true way to begin, IMHO.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-21 11:22:58)
Go handicap and rating
It makes sense. That's an interesting idea.
However I feel it could be quite difficult to balance the handicap with ratings and to keep the results of the games coherent. Finally, it is another rating system. Thinking about that...
Previous thread - http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_1611-Go-Komi.html
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-21 11:32:39)
Go: Komi
Stones handicap or Komi handicap is handicap anyway... I'm not sure it makes sense to change the Komi (Lionel would agree, I think).
As I just said in another thread, if we add a handicap system which gives chances enough to weak players against strong players, I'm afraid results & ratings / ranks don't mean anything anymore then, at least more aleatory. This is another game... (and such 'strange' rules might frighten beginners).
I think it could be ok (as another challenge) in an unrated tournaments category.
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-21 14:00:19)
French Go Federation rating
Here is a link that shows an example of rating that include handicap-go games
http://ffg.jeudego.org/echelle/echelle_algo.php
Just food for thought, but I like this system because of the balance betwenn fairness and challenge involved.
(sorry but these pages are in french only, but maybe we could check the ratings formulae in AGA?)
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-02 09:54:32)
A lone engine in CC :-)
Suppose I make the following test (it has certainily be proposed before, but let's do it again, for the fun of the argument):
- I buy a recent engine (say the new Fritz10)
- I play in some CC tournaments (I do not want to pay fees, so let's say, here at FICGS of course :-), and at iecg)
- I choose the first moves of all my games based on some statistics made on a CC base (just to avoid some openings statistically bad in CC)
- starting from a few moves before the engine goes out of its opening book (to be defined, maybe 4 moves) I let my average computer run 10 hours by move (around one night per move... I know, I sleep too much :-)
- I *always* play the very move the engine finds as best
- I play as many tournaments as I can, considering the time constraint that limits the number of games (just to get a meaningful rating as fast as possible)
Now, what rating do you think I can reach at most, strictly following these guidelines?
(note that if I know some basic maths to do the stats, I do not even have to know chess rules... although a basic knowledge is assumed to ease the play in practice)
Are you ready to bet on your guess ? :-)
In pratice, the test does not work, because the tester dies from boredom long before he gets any rating :-))
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-02 13:40:46)
Chess engines CC ratings
It is my estimation. 3 out of 4 represents about 200 elo points. I doubt Chessbase will organize a Man(+Machine) vs. Machine correspondence chess match... However there are a few examples : Arno Nickel - Hydra (2,5-0,5), Hydra which beat Adams over the board 5,5-0,5 ... And I suppose Arno Nickel did not have access to the program, but knowing better his opponent I'm sure it's possible to reach such a score against any program.
About your test, it's been discussed here already :) .. In my opinion such a player's rating would travel between 2200 and 2400 (at most) mark !
Waiting for a match against Rykba :)
Don Groves (2006-12-04 05:25:01)
Intuition
A good definition of intuition is the immediate knowing of something without the conscious use of reasoning. This leads to two observations: (1) Computers cannot do anything without reasoning (programming) and thus cannot act intuitively. (2) Intuition can be trained by practice. The more intimately we are familiar with anything (say a game), the more likely our first impression (immediate knowing) will be correct. So, I think intuition gained through experience plays a large role and an intuitive player can go far in Chess or Go. At some point, however, one must become a good analyst to progress further. I would be interested in opinions about how far in each game (elo rating) a purely intuitive player might progress.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-12-05 03:26:24)
Chess Engines CC Ratings
Waiting for a match against Rybka ? :) hummmm Wayne
Mladen Jankovic (2006-12-08 18:56:16)
Re:
It's realy a problem of inadequate conditions (like not owning a chess board and connecting only from public computers). And playing too much games like that can be a frustrating experience, last time I started making dumb moves to just to end games, and reduce the presure.
James Stripes (2006-12-16 16:21:38)
Rybka vs Kramnik
When Rybka defeats the top human in a match, it will earn something far more important than demonstrating its prowess over silicone opponents.
Jason Repa (2006-12-27 20:07:53)
Ratings
When is the next rating update expected to occur? Also, How are the ratings calculated? Are there provisional ratings? If so, how many games must be completed until the rating is regular. Thanks, Jason
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-27 20:51:21)
Ratings
Hello Jason.
Next rating calculation will occur on 2007, january 1st
All informations about rating calculation are here :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating
How many games must be completed until the rating is regular : 9 rated games
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-02 15:13:01)
Re: No winner?
Hello Francesco.
It's a design issue... Winner(s) / Leader(s) are displayed if no more than 2 players have the best score in the tournament. In this tournament, 3 players scored 5 out of 6 points.
Anyway, FICGS WCH rules state there's only one winner in WCH tournaments (according to tournament entry rating), so the result displayed may be not accurate in some cases.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-03 14:25:14)
Elo Question
Hi Miguel.
TER (tournament entry rating) is used for chess, while the current rating is used for Go... Ratings are updated after each game for Go.
Miguel Pires (2007-01-03 15:26:23)
Elo Question
So, if i correctly understand, in chess is used the TER. After the new rating was calculated i drew this game: http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=2849 My opponent have a higer elo then me, soo whay, if the new rating list was calculated today, i lose elo? Best regard's Miguel Pires
Miguel Pires (2007-01-03 16:47:20)
Elo Question
Sorry. I'm going to try to explain (in portuguese is more easy): In 01/01/2007 my rating is 2160 In 02/01/2007 i drew a game against an opponent: His TER 2053 mine 2019 Now if i'm going to see my next rating calculation i see i lost 7 point's, but if the elo is calculated with the TER i can't lose point's, correct? This is the point Miguel Pires PS: Sorry my bad english
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-03 18:14:36)
Elo questiion
Interesting Pires. I have similiar experience I drew a game with a higher TER than m e, yet I lost points, no many though. I give up trying to figure out the rating scheme knowing that it applies to us all equally, thats enough for me cheers Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-03 20:27:56)
Rating calculation
Rating calculation use your opponents TER and your current rating !
So this is quite normal :)
Miguel Pires (2007-01-03 21:05:01)
Rating calculation
Thank's. Now i understand :)
Charlie Neil (2007-01-03 23:04:06)
Blitz Chess on Ficgs
Hello Thibault and New Year greetings to you and your team. Blitz on ficgs. I've beeen thinking, would it be possible to have "real time" games? The human element is the difficult one there. As for the tournament set-up, how about a six round swiss system? Speaking as one down in the ratings basement, single pairings with a rapid time limit in the swiss pairing set-up would be fun. Setting games between opponents on a real time basis I imagine will be very difficult so, what about a really rapid time limit tourney 10 days plus a day a move. I'm sure there lots of options available. Well it's just a thought. No one likes drawing in a Swiss tourney, you have to play for the win!
Charlie Neil (2007-01-04 12:07:29)
Blitz Chess on Ficgs
Hello Thibault, By "Real Time" I mean both players are on the site, at the board at the same time. " The rendez-vous system" as you called it. The Swiss system of pairings by rating and then the second round having the winnners play the winners and those with no points play each other and so on into the next 4 rounds just may work I think, draws are then discouraged. If it is possible to play 40 moves in two hours on this site that would be brilliant! But how about 2 hours each for the whole game! Games lasting 4 hours maximum would be a challenge, and maybe fun. Along with the correspendence chess features. Ficgs would have it all! But then "you may call me a dreamer but I'm not the only one".
Kieran Child (2007-01-07 12:14:08)
Rating
Would it be possible for the sign-up page to have a feature for entering your rating as a BCF rating rather than FIDE? I'm more used to BCF ratings and had to times it by five and add 80 then subtract 22% of my birthday before entering my rating - 'twould be much easier if the website did it for you.
This is just a suggestion though. I'm aware we're a minority.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-07 21:59:00)
Draw
Hmm... I suppose this draw was just satisfying both players, saving energy and ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-07 22:03:50)
BCF ratings
Hello Kieran.
I have to enquiry about BCF ratings, I must admit I don't know much about it :/
Jaimie Wilson (2007-01-08 18:00:37)
ECF ratings
There seem to be two formulae for converting between ECF (formerly the BCF) and FIDE ratings. The old one which still seems to be in use is ECF x 8 + 600 = FIDE ELO. A Newer formula I have seen is ECF x 5 + 1250 = FIDE ELO. This newer formula rates ECF players higher on the FIDE scale than the old one did. I don't know which is more accurate although I certainly like to believe that the old formula underestimates us a little bit. It's as clear as mud.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-08 18:17:48)
ECF ratings
Thanks for info, Jaimie !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-17 23:59:52)
Chess engines ratings
Some useful links about ratings and statistics for all well known chess engines : Rybka (2.2, 2.1 ..), Deep Fritz 10, Deep Shredder 10, Deep Junior 10, Hiarcs 11, Zap!Chess paderborn, Loop 10.32, Toga II, Fruit 2.2, Glaurung 1.2, Spike 1.2, Smarthink, Naum 2.0, Ktulu 8.0, CM9000, CM10th, Fritz 9, Chess Tiger 15, Chess Tiger 2007, Ruffian 2.1, List 11 and many others...
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_120_ratinglist/ratinglist/rangliste.html
http://web.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/list.htm
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-18 01:19:11)
Chess engines rating
Very nice information. A great big word of caution. We play coorespondence games here. Those engine-engine tournaments do not indicate directly which program is best suited for correspondence deep analysis, I do not have enough experience with the engines except earlier versions of Fritz, shredder, Hiarc, Junior and of course Dr Robert Hyatts Various versions of Crafty and Rybka. Rybka is top rated eng-eng program for fast time controls. But not sure that it is best for deep analysis. My guess is that Latest Fritz is at least as well suited for deep analysis and perhaps better. Then their is Shredder another top eng-eng program that is very very good at deep analysis. From what I read and for what it is worth those are the best engines. But if you want the strongest program for 40/120 time control down to bullet chess,then the clear winner is Rybka by Vas. Hope this is of interest. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-18 01:22:34)
Chess engines ratings
+1
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-18 11:58:31)
Titles update from FIDE / ICCF / IECG
Hello to all.
A reminder : "It is possible to update the best title obtained from FIDE, ICCF or IECG just by sending an email to FICGS."
Rule 11.8 - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating
I just updated titles from IECG for Dinesh de Silva (FIM), Harry Ingersol (FIM) and Wolfgang Riemer (FEM). Congrats :)
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-18 02:13:03)
Chess engines rating
+1......huh ?
Don Groves (2007-01-18 07:29:24)
Entering a class tournament
Click on "Waiting lists" then "FICGS Chess Class Tournaments." Click on the tournament that fits your rating and confirm your entry.
Spiros Lois (2007-01-21 12:09:13)
rank explanation
what are the SM, FEM, FIM ranks in some players in the rating list? i only know GM = grandmaster IM = international master
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-21 13:48:44)
Go and chess, IGN Goama newsletter
From IGN Goama newsletter by Alexander Dinerchtein - http://www.gogame.info
Go and Chess Two Games, Shared Experiences
Chess and go show are similar in many ways, yet it's always strange to see how the masters of each game try to "invent the wheel", instead of benefiting from the knowledge of their colleagues.
Let's consider sharing experiences!
These ideas can be useful even for strong Asian Go professionals:
1. Currently, only a few pros use Go databases and programs for studying. It is easy to find commentaries, written by 9-dan masters, which state that a move is new and has never been played before. Yet if one checks such moves in Go databases, one can sometimes find up to 100 examples from professional games. How can they cheat the readers who study these commentaries?
Once in Korea, I showed the Bigo Assistant program (similar to GoGod, MoyoGo and SmartGo) to Lee Sedol's brother Lee Sanghun, 5-dan, who is the director of a large children's Go school. He was surprised and said that the program looked very useful, and he added that he had never met this kind of program before. He even suggested deleting all amateur games and games played on Go servers, because of their low quality. I promised to order the programs and to install them on the school's computers if he liked this idea, but he did not follow up. Lee Sanghun, 5-dan was not able to break the traditions of his forefathers …
2. Even such top chess players as Kasparov, Kramnik and Topalov enlist the support of trainers during important tournaments and matches. During the Communist era, almost every Russian grandmaster worked on behalf of world championship candidates. Our government forced them to help, to show them new moves and ideas. Those who refused to help were punished severely: for example, sometimes a player would be prohibited from playing in tournaments abroad and would be refused foreign visas.
We do not see this in Go. Everyone thinks only about his or her own self. Do you know who is currently assisting Lee Changho? I don't know, either!
3. I would like to say a few words about playing technique. Chess players often used to write the move on paper first and then make it on the board. This helps to avoid impulsive moves and to prevent blunders. Go masters record the game afterwards, and so one can often find terrible mistakes, such as overlooking ataris and recapturing ko without playing a ko threat first. As an example you may see Black's move number 271 from this game: http://www.go4go.net/v2/modules/collection/sgfview.php?id=10828 I am sure that if a player looked at their move at least twice before they write it on paper and after they would not make such mistakes.
4. Even top Go tournaments are usually run by the knock-out system so we often see sensational results. Mightn’t it be reasonable to think about increasing the number of games in each round? If rounds were best-of-three (in case of time constraints, it would be possible to use blitz time controls for the third game), it would help to minimize sensations.
How about organising a definitive World Go Championship? Chess players have contested one for more than 100 years, and competitions for this World Championship have revealed the very best players of each generation. In Go it's harder to tell which player is true champion. In 2006, for instance, one international tournament was won by Lee Changho and another one by Lee Sedol, while Cho U won the largest amount of prize money. Whom can we call the World Champion? Who can say which tournament is the most important : LG, Samsung, Fujitsu, Chunlan or another? We don't even have a unified rating system …
If we determined a single World Go Champion, he might earn the same degree of popularity as Garry Kasparov achieved in chess, and this could have a very positive influence on Go popularity around the world!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-21 13:59:06)
FICGS titles
Hello Spiros.
FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM are titles awarded by FICGS.
Requirements are not the same as in ICCF but it quite looks like : ICCF titles are EM (Email Master), IM (International Master), SM (Senior Master), GM (Gran Master).
Note : In rating list, a GM player could be a FIDE GM or ICCF GM...
See rules (11.7 - 11.8) :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-21 14:31:00)
Chess ratings
Hello to all.
I have been submitted this case :
"Rating system: Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200, 10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+ Case 1: Finished games: 01.01-28.02: 9= --> New rating 01.03: 2200 01.03., no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228 Case 2: Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2200 --> New rating 01.03. 2214 In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14. IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you finish in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod. That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings."
This result looks quite normal to me as a player's level may increase as time passes. Rating calculations are done after periods long enough to avoid big differences... I don't know if you're right about IECG rating calculation, FICGS ratings seem to evolve quicker and I think it's best. By the way this system is used by several chess federations.
Best wishes.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-01-21 15:16:26)
Chess ratings
I have formatted my message (and partly corrected) to be able to read the text better.
Rating system:
Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200,
10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+
Case 1: Finished games:
01.01-28.02: 9= New rating 01.03: 2200
01.03. 1+, no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228
Case 2:
Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2214
In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14.
IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you have finished in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like
NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod.
That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings.
Dan Rotaru (2007-01-24 16:42:19)
Suggestion for rating period
I would suggest that the rating period to be monthly instead of every 2 months. I understand the reason for longer periods between calculation being to avoid big differences but 2 months seems a little bit too long for me. I have noticed that some players with high provisional ratings or who started with high provisional ratings still have a much higher rate after they lost all or almost all their games, and players which started with, let’s say, standard 1400 still have lower ratings even they won all the games. And there is no such a difference between the Elo average of the opponents. My point is that a monthly period will increase the dynamic of the ratings and eventually will lead to a much realistic overall ratings and why not to a more challenging environment.. Of course the number of games played will have the biggest impact on re-adjusting the ratings based on results, but a month period will help for example a player to obtain a higher TER sooner and eventually play on a higher ELO bracket tournament. The other reason is that I believe many players will want to see how their rating evolves and a month seems more reasonable. As I said it is just a suggestion, others may not agree with me. Thanks, Dan
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-25 11:54:20)
Rating period
2 months is definitely a good rating period IMO.
The dynamic of the ratings is quite high already, higher than ie. at IECG. "More challenging environment", quite true but it would lead to more lasting games for sure... About your last points, you're right but I'm convinced it would have some bad consequences too.
World championship tournaments also help to find quicker your rating.
Anyway, waiting for other feedback about this point.
Correspondence chess is definitely a game of patience :)
Mladen Jankovic (2007-01-25 15:58:46)
Horrible players wanted ;)
Horrible players wanted to start the Class G tournament no. 10.
We'll also take anyone whose rating currently sucks, n00bs, and generaly just anyone who has ELO rating 1200 or less.
Jaimie Wilson (2007-01-25 22:06:54)
rating period
In England, our otb grades are only updated once a year (!), so we have it pretty good here IMO. :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-26 00:25:02)
rating period
Really ??
Is there any reason for this 'choice' ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-29 13:24:51)
Advanced chess
Hi Benny.
I think so :) .. however this is not the way it goes, I don't think it could be serious enough and it could be quite confusing.. by the way there are many places where computers are not allowed. In this case, rating is not so important, so just don't use it !?
Benjamin Aldag (2007-01-29 14:24:07)
engine-free area
Thank You Thibi, for your fast answer. I believe, its more interesting to play vs. Opponents between 800 and 1600 rating. This area is in my opinion "engine-free". yk
Ron Keyston (2007-01-29 17:27:38)
"Major" Deep Fritz 10 Bug
I've confirmed this problem on two different computers with completely different hardware and different operating systems. I've also sent the problem off to Chessbase, but have not yet gotten much of a response. If anyone else has Deep Fritz 10, would you mind giving this a try and reporting back with your results? Also, if anyone has the non-Deep version of Fritz 10, I'd be interested in knowing if it is also affected by this problem.
Input a game into Deep Fritz 10 and get to a point in the game where it is possible for black to castle long. Now save the game into a database, close the game and then open it back up from the database. If you either turn on infinite analysis, or just try to make the move, black is not able to castle long...Fritz assumes that it is an illegal move.
Furthermore, if you castle long BEFORE saving the game into the database, then save it and re-open it, then go to the position after black has castled queenside and turn on infinite analysis, the analysis is "messed up." Either the analysis text is invisible, or it reports impossible lines, or the evaluation score is very obviously wrong. This should be enough info for anyone to give the test a try, but if you want some specific examples, please let me know.
Ron
Benjamin Aldag (2007-02-04 22:26:09)
To Marc Lacrosse
Hey guy, come down !
I just say, it makes more fun to play without computer-assistence.
I play here, because i will never reach the level of computerplayers and my opponents are in 99% free of computer-assistence. I dont want to be a slave of my computer and in my opinion is this the right way.
I know 9 people here with an official rating between 1500 and 1600 ELO(DWZ) and here they have a rating between 2200 and 2300. :-D<br
You say, with only computermoves you will never reach the highest level here and i can say - YOU ARE RIGHT !
Players with a FIDE ELO 2200 and higher will have here a rating over 2600 and they will not only play computermoves. But i play chess for two years and have an official FIDE rating of 1822 and believe me, it makes no sense for me to play with computer-assistence.
yk
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-05 12:34:53)
Correspondence chess / OTB chess
Quote : "Players with a FIDE ELO 2200 and higher will have here a rating over 2600 and they will not only play computermoves."
Benny, this is just wrong ;) .. There are many examples, here and everywhere... Best correspondence chess players are not best chess players with computer assistance, they are 'only' the best correspondence chess players.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-10 03:08:52)
Rybka, Fritz and future...
Computerchess is definitely an exciting challenge... The community is fast-growing, new versions of chess engines appear every day, many dream to be the next Vasik Rajlich and to produce an engine that would beat the well-known Chessbase engines and the famous Rybka.
These days, I had a look at Fruit 2.1, TogaII and Crafty source code that are available to download, and started to implement new search & evaluation functions. It's quite easy to understand why chess programming is so addictive, so much done and so much to do... finally I did not enter this mad race without an ending, probably for the same reasons Anthony Cozzie (the author of Zap! Chess Zanzibar) and many others retired.
However here are my feelings about future of chess engines, and the fight that just started between most probably Chessbase engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior and Hiarcs) and a new era of chess engines that started with Rybka...
First, it's quite obvious to me that Rybka (now Rybka 2.3) is only another one of a long series of chess engines always stronger than each others ! .. I expect the next ones to reach 50, 100 then 200 points more (and maybe more) on the next chess engines elo rating lists, a scale that definitely can't be compared to human elo rating list ! .. Several reasons to this : (1) Chess engines are human killers at standard time controls, but chess engines are far to play perfect chess yet. (2) The way ratings are calculated.
Rybka taught us several things IMO :
- Algorithms and evaluation functions are no more enough. Now chess engines have to play chess, not only search a tree of chess positions... That's probably what Rybka brought to computerchess. Since Fruit 2.1 & Toga II source code is available, and computerchess community is constantly discussing improvements in algorithms, evaluations of positions and new ideas, to implement a chess engine becomes easier so I have no doubt that new very strong chess engines like Rybka will come.
- To become famous, a chess engine must 'also' beat his rivals. I first thought that Rybka was designed to be an engines killer only (at least before to be an analysis tool) with some tricks exploiting most engines weaknesses. No, Rybka is also a great UCI engine, simply stronger and with many options & features. Like Vasik Rajlich, who is engineer and international chess master, you'll have not only to think like an engineer to create such an engine. However I still don't think it is the best analysis tool for correspondence chess, it doesn't play really better chess and in all cases it is not enough. More, Rybka 3, 4, 5 shouldn't influence correspondence chess (maybe even human vs. machine) much... Computerchess influences computerchess first.
It's written sometimes that the strongest chess engines could reach a IM, even GM level at correspondence chess. I definitely disagree with that, at least for the moment (it will take a long time yet), but as chess engines results tend to approach correspondence chess ones (means more and more draws), I do think chess engines have much to learn from correspondence chess players way of thinking, meaning : A more psychological approach, bonus for traps detection. Evaluate moves, not only positions. A more complex search, not 'only' iterative (brute force is definitely useless). No more anti-human style, speculative moves (=weakness, ie. Deep Junior) for speculative results against strongest chess engines, draws are prefered. To avoid positions not understood by the engine. Longer games, closed games (if supported)... Opening books should look like correspondence chess GMs ones (of course according to the engine's style of play) and no more been made of FIDE GM games. A better time management... Future of computerGo may teach to computerchess about some evaluations.
A chess engine must play good moves AND try to win (which is not always the same). It seems Fruit & Rybka play solid and are waiting to exploit their opponent's weaknesses thanks to a better "chess" algorithm/knowledge. As far as I have seen, Shredder & Fritz still have the best 'eye', they see far but fuzzy. Quite the same about Fruit & Toga developped by a great engineer, Fabien Letouzey : Less chess knowledge but an improved algorithm. As for Rybka, a great chess knowledge and probably a smarter algorithm (not better, smarter !) were probably enough already. The future best chess engines will be made by good chess players...
An interesting point is it could be not so easy, maybe even nonsense, to create the best analysis tool that would also obtain the best results against other chess engines. My first prediction is Rybka won't be the top rated chess engine ever, hundreds of new ideas will appear in all parts of chess programming, slowly breaking Rybka secrets, then speed will be a factor again. Deep Fritz, Junior, Fruit or Hydra are most probably the core of the next generations of chess engines... but there's a lot of work yet :)
My two cents.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-15 14:26:23)
Engine free area
Definitely, there won't be a (C) mark as computer, (F) as Fritz, (B) as books or (D) as databasen, (C+B), (F+D+B) and so on :) .. It makes sense in blitz / bullet chess on Playchess ie., not in correspondence chess, as human makes the real decision.
Definitely, I agree with Marc. I had some experience in the past in organizations that forbid computer assistance, I'm convinced it's no use to separate rating lists. Actually, it would even lose some interest for many players.
Anyway, if you do not take care about top ratings, just play chess without computer assistance (it is allowed too) :)
Pablo Schmid (2007-02-15 23:32:13)
A solution?
For players like Aldag, it might be possible to host a tournament "without computers", so Thibault would not have to change something in his system, rules or rating..
Dan Rotaru (2007-02-16 00:32:00)
Rating list
I think it would be nice to have a second rating list for established ratings. I have noticed that there are quite many players in the actual rating list who haven’t played yet a single game on FICGS. This list would also give an accurate picture of how many players are actually playing. Maybe this list can be implemented when the list will be updated at the beginning of March? Thanks, Dan
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-16 01:14:10)
Active player list
Hello Dan.
I don't think it's a good idea to have several rating lists (many reasons to this), but I can easily add in statistics the numbers of active players. Now, after which period of time a player should be considered as inactive at correspondence time controls... 3 months is not enough IMO, some players regularly connect and ie. wait for WCH tournaments to start, 1 year is still more than the age of FICGS.
Dan Rotaru (2007-02-16 01:44:17)
Established rating list
I didn't suggest to have more than two rating list but just two: 1. First list with all the players registered on FICGS which is the actual Rating List. 2. Established Rating list (after playing at least 9 games). Once a player ends up on this list he can stay there for ever.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-16 02:09:40)
Established rating list
Of course it's a good idea, and it can be discussed. So far, three main reasons for not doing this change :
1) One rating list is much clearer and easier to reach than two.
2) Provisional and established ratings are easy to distinguish already. (grey or not)
3) There could be more strong players in future who will play unrated games -only- at standard time control (2 hours / 40 moves, soon available) and in my opinion, the rating list is first a way to show who is playing there.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-02-16 10:11:57)
A suggestion
a simple suggestion : add two column to the rating list :
- one with the number of finished games on FICGS
-one with the number of running games
Your opinion ?
Elmer Valderrama (2007-02-17 10:59:30)
like a no-smoking zone?
I believe what Aldag want is a place with a sign "computer-free chess" just like those pubs, restaurants, trains, etc use a "no-smoking zone" sign. It will be visible so that it will deter smokers/engine-users to enter that zone.
To make it less attractive to engine assistance, these games should be unrated, with player automatically losing their current ELO (that ELO rating could have been "won" using engines previously anyway) so just their names will suffice, and there should not be no tournaments --so that there is no "winners" as this will trigger the use of engines-- The players will only challenge each other and the winner will not be known to anybody except the players, and the games will not be recorded in the general database and they will not be shown live: all this will for certain deter any need to use an engine i.e. 'winning' means nothing literally and it will look as if it never happened
This way chess without engines will be as if doing something clever when actually it is a loss of time -can't remember who said this about chess 8-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-20 17:44:50)
Rybka 2.2 stronger than Rybka 2.3
Rybka 2.3 weaker than Rybka 2.2 ??
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=340#fp
CEGT computer chess rating lists :
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_4_Ratinglist/40_4_AllVersion/rangliste.html
Waiting for HIARCS 12 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-22 17:34:01)
Zap! Chess Zanzibar
Nice results for Zap!Chess Zanzibar chess engine, that now appears 2nd (Rybka 1st, of course) on all CEGT (Chess Engines Grand Tournament) rating lists.
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn
Definitely, that's a pity Anthony Cozzie can't give more time to computer chess.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-10 22:51:55)
Anand virtually ranked #1
After Morelia-Linares 2007 tournament, Viswanathan is virtually ranked #1 on the next FIDE rating list (2007, April). Great achievement :)
Quite funny to see the separated results of Morelia & Linares tournament, particularly performances for Alexander Morozevich (!)
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3722
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-19 18:30:34)
Tournament performance
Perf in crosstable is the tournament performance. It is calculated exactly the same way chess ratings are calculated every 2 months. It uses your TER (tournament entry rating) and TER of your opponents.
Charlie Neil (2007-03-21 22:13:20)
Blaise Pascal
Maybe he was right. My rating is 1242!
Don Groves (2007-03-26 22:13:24)
Chess and politics
Elmer wrote: "Was Churchill a chess Master? if that is so, then Bush and Blair must be ELO 1200 ;-)" LOL! I can't speak about Blair but you are overrating Bush by several hundred points.
Don Groves (2007-03-28 08:46:47)
Chess and politics
Then other country's leaders must stop cooperating with Bush! Unless they do, the US will continue on this path of world domination. There was a report today that Russian intelligence says Bush will bomb Iran on April 6th. The entire world must condemn this action starting now! US military is overxtended and if other countries will just refuse to support more US aggression, it will have to stop at Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-28 15:46:28)
Droppers
I feel that for at least 3 players in this tournament the problem is they had too many games at the same time ! (FICGS + IECG + ICCF ;))
What is strange is they all came back a few months later and registered for new tournaments. This is a real problem... The best answer to this in my opinion is rating that can decrease quite quickly, some will have to fight hard to enter a class M tournament again. In some cases of course there are personal reasons, it is hard to know and that's a pity to ban such players... :/
So it wasn't a good tournament, sorry about that. Still thinking about a new rule.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-29 05:28:00)
Droppers : New rule
Hello to all.
I'm to add a new rule to minimize the effects of silent withdrawals & forfeits without an explanation. The aim is first to guarantee to players they will not play again with droppers before a while... Rule is : "Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament will get an instant rating penalty of 200 points."
Thus, players go at least one category down. Of course it could be easier to ban players for a while, but just trying to avoid this.
All comments and suggestions are welcome.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-29 14:48:46)
Another try
Of course there's always a bad part to a rule : finding the way to go round it.. and of course only serial droppers will, so to divide it in 2 parts may be useless :/
Another try : "Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament could get a limited access to the server and couldn't enter waiting lists anymore during a period of 2 months, at the referee's discretion."
Thus, when a dropper returns (after the next rating calculation), his rating will probably prevent him to enter the same category of tournaments - which is the initial aim.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-30 00:00:10)
Fast double RR at five players
My prediction for such tournaments : More droppers / silent withdrawals (what difference with losing on time then) after the 10 first moves... More unfair rating changes. This is no more correspondence chess IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-30 17:17:32)
Correspondence Chess time controls
Correspondence Chess means quite long time controls, traditionnally... You must always have time to analyze well your moves. By the way, rated games with too different time controls would lead to quite strange ratings. 30 days + 1 day per move (60 days limit per move) is fast enough IMO.
I understand your feeling about the simulatneous games :) .. But faster time controls (longer than real-time chess, ie. money tournaments time controls) would lead to many forfeits, quite sure about it.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-01 15:21:45)
Anand number one, or not...
Vishwanathan Anand was announced to be ranked #1 on the next FIDE rating list. Finally, Veselin Topalov is still ranked first on the list that was published yesterday. Protestations by the indian federation... The results of Morelia-Linares should be included in the next list to be published very soon. Quite strange mistake !? :)
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3768
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-05 01:58:22)
Big Chess championship
Hello to all.
You may have seen in the chat bar the idea to organize a Big Chess championship at FICGS is in the air.
It could be interesting for several reasons, the first one of course is there's no engine to help players :) .. by the way, it may be really hard to program a good Big Chess engine, it should use some Go concepts combined to a powerful chess engine (with quite different parameters).
Now there are some questions :
- What rules for a Big Chess championship ?
- What about a Big Chess rating ?
In my opinion, there shouldn't be a Big Chess rating. That's a pity, but "simple" chess should remain the main rated game here. Actually, the nature of this game (and time control) makes me think it should remain a friendly game first. However there could a championship for fun...
About the rules for such a championship, it could look like the Go championship : A two-stages tournament, first stage would be a single round-robin tournament with the 7 players who won most Big Chess tournaments (will help to promote tournaments ;)), second stage would be a 6 games match against current champion (if the final score is a draw, the current champion will keep his title).
What do you think ?
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-04-05 16:06:36)
BigChess Championship
Hello to all.
BigChess is a great game. No books, no engines, and no ratings!
A BigChess Championship is an excellent idea. I think that everyone should be able to take part in this tournament. And - if possible - it should start as soon as possible. If we must wait until 7 different players (not seven times Thibault :-) ) have won a tournament, then the Championship probably starts only in 2009.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-06 04:50:07)
Rating calculation (algorithm update)
A small (but necessary) improvement in rating calculation algorithm for chess & Go : "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 350"
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating
In example, if a player rated 2000 loses to a player - most probably a new player helped by a strong engine - rated 1400, the rating considered in calculation will be 1650. It should help to keep ratings more coherent.
All chess results since March 1st will be affected by this change. Next rating calculation will occur on May 1st.
You can see your future chess rating (calculated on the basis of your results since last rating calculation) by clicking on the magnifying glass in "Preferences", then "ELO".
Jason Repa (2007-04-07 06:44:52)
demo
I'm willing to try out the new "blitz" time control. Out of curiousity, are these games rated? And if so, are you going to have more than one tier of rating, or do all time controls count towards the same rating?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-07 13:17:00)
demo
Hi Jason, thanks for helping :)
No blitz/lightning games will be rated, ratings wouldn't be coherent if so. These time controls will be used for money games only.
At last there will be only 1 rating, the correspondence chess one.
Another taker for this demo game ?
Wayne Lowrance (2007-04-10 20:48:29)
Rating calculation (algorithm update)
I think I will never understand FICS rating system. I gave up long, long time ago. Now it is changed again I guess. No matter, it is what it is. :) Thibault I will play, you and your server rate em.. heheheh Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-10 21:24:09)
Rating calculation (algorithm update)
:) ... the same about FICS / FICGS, obviously ;)
It was a minor change that affects a few unlikely results and actually everyone will benefit (if you meet ie. a new player with a low provisional rating) from that change. The aim is to make the ratings most coherent only.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-11 01:20:30)
Active players rating list
Hello to all.
For information only at the moment but it will replace the current list as the "main" list, here is the active players rating list (displaying players who connected to the server these last 30 days) for chess :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=rating_list&active=1
It is about 1/3 of the members, so not bad "for a start" in my opinion.. :)
To be continued.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-04-13 01:20:14)
Active players rating list
Because of the 60-days rule maybe you should display the players who connected to the server during the last 60 days?
Dan Rotaru (2007-04-13 02:34:33)
Active players rating list
An maybe add one more condition: players who have finished at least one game or have unfinished games. There are players who keep connecting to the server but haven't played a single game yet.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-16 05:44:13)
Active players rating list
Ok, 60 days and 'at least 1 rated game' is probably more logical, it will be updated soon.
Thanks for help.
Achim Mueller (2007-04-21 09:39:24)
WCH Stage 1 rules
Hi all,
a few words regarding the rules for WCH Stage 1. As far as I know now one player (out of 7) qualifies for the 2nd stage. In case of having 2 or more players with the same points at the top the player with the highest rating will qualify.
This is already difficult enough for newbies (with lower raing) because their opponents will have an advantage of 0.5 points in these 6 games. It's getting nearly impossible if you play in a group, where three players lost all their games on time within 10 moves (so they didn't play a single game seriously).
You can't afford a single draw in the remaining three games then, because in reality you play a tournament with only four players, where at least one player has a nominell advantage of nearly 20%!
I for myself now decided not to play future tournaments having this exceptionell ruling. Sorry to say so, but I don't see a realistic chance of winning all three games in correspondence chess nowadays, but what is needed to have a chance.
Ciao acepoint
Achim Mueller (2007-04-21 09:59:26)
One additional thought
Take this sample of group 12, where we actually play a tournament with 4 participants. A player with the nominell highest rating can easily play on draw (using todays computer programs) in the one or two important games.
You all probably know how difficult it is to win against such a blocking guy, no matter whether your "realistic" rating would be equal to his or 200 ELO points better.
Ciao
acepoint
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-21 10:08:48)
WCH Stage 1 rules
Hello Achim.
I understand, it may look really difficult at first sight, the ideas behind this are first to make cycles not too long in order to organize a new one every 6 months (so you have more chances), second to have best chances to find the very best players in the final stages - this is the aim of a championship IMO.
Anyway, that's right the fight is often between the 3 top-rated players in these groups. So the easiest way : To get a good rating first (at least you can win some points in these groups).
It could be great to organize another event (like a cup) with different rules. Waiting for more players :)
Jason Repa (2007-04-21 10:35:27)
WCH Rules
Achim Mueller wrote: "In case of having 2 or more players with the same points at the top the player with the highest rating will qualify." This is completely logical. The higher rated player will tend to be the stronger of the group, especially if he isn't outscored by the lower rated player, so it's obvious that if you have to choose between two that are equal in points, you take the one that is more likely to be stronger. Can you think of a better and more fair way to choose between the two? Also, I disagree with your comments about how someone "can easily play on draw". This is completely wrong. Even with the Black pieces, games can be and are won all the time, even at the very highest level of chess. Top GM's constantly are winning with black, and what is arguably considered the top computer in the world "Hydra" was defeated more than once by a garden-variety GM who had the black pieces. Regardless of color and regardless of rating, chess is a game of skill and if you need a win against a certain opponent, the onus is on you to draw on all of your resources, including choosing the type of oppening that will not lend itself to an easy draw. A weak player who doesn't understand these concepts will have no chance in subsequent rounds in a tournament anyway and shouldn't worry about advancing. My experience is proof also. I had the black pieces against a significantly higher rated opponent in my WCH group and I beat him to secure my advancement.
Jason Repa (2007-04-21 12:16:39)
WCH Rules
I honestly can't see a more logical way to deal with a tie. My only complaint, as has been discussed in a previous thread, is that I prefer double RR's. But that's been mentioned already. Baring that I can't see a more fair way to proceed. Are you supposed to advance the lower rated opponent and punish players for doing well and getting a high rating? Alternatively, if you advance all the high scoring players in a group, too many will advance and the tournaments will take too long. What else can be done?
Achim Mueller (2007-04-21 14:50:38)
Some answers
1) If the "higher rating" rule is best practise, as some players here do state, why isn't it used at _any_ FIDE tournaments? They have everything from SB, direct result, more wins, more wins with black pieces, but never ever used rating.
2) Even if it may not that easy to play for a draw ... I guess besides the fact that you get half a point as a gift it's also undoubtfull an advantage at least in correspondence chess to _know_ that a draw will help you, if you are the better rated player.
And this is definitely true in a tournament with only 4 players where there is only one qualifier.
Nonetheless you have all the right to use every rule you like. And as long as a player participates he "accepts" theses rules. That's what I also do, though I didn't know before that we are only 4 players and though I wasn't aware of this certain rule before.
But I also have all the rights to make future decisions regarding playing a qualifier here depending on the rules.
Ciao
acepoint
Don Burden (2007-04-21 16:56:18)
WCH Rules
In the first WCH tournament, I had a tied high score (5.5 out of 6), but didn't advance because of my lower rating. With only 7 players in each group, the chance seems to be very high that we will have matching high scores, especially if some players drop out. It makes sense (in my opinion) that the chance could be lowered significantly if the number of players are increased to 11 or 13.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-21 19:46:04)
Rules
Why FIDE didn't use such rules... Interesting question : IMO because OTB (over the board) chess is simply so different ! .. It is quite logical to use SB in open tournaments because it helps the player who is probably best "at this particular moment", meaning the best player of the event. In correspondence chess, it is quite different, I think using SB makes less sense here.
About draws, I think there's a real trap :) .. A player who thinks 'I must draw' will have difficulties against a good CC player IMO. And you probably noticed the players ratings in 7-players groups.. Even if all players fight, in most groups only 2 or 3 players probably really hope to win the tournament, the others have (at least) an opportunity to play stronger players and win some points... And you may be right (Don), 11 players groups may be more interesting. Maybe the next one...
Achim Mueller (2007-04-22 18:10:20)
I still don't see the point
Regarding the rating as a decision maker I have one questions: Who showed the better performance if two players have the same number of points at the end? The player with the higher or the player with the lower rating? @Mikhail Ruzin I don't see what you mean.
Mikhail Ruzin (2007-04-22 19:39:29)
WCH Rules
If you stronger simply win the game. Or increase you rating and get advantage. =) Sorry, my english wery bad.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-23 01:05:39)
Performance / Rating
Achim, you just pointed it : "Regarding the rating as a decision maker I have one questions: Who showed the better performance if two players have the same number of points at the end? The player with the higher or the player with the lower rating?" .. of course the player with the lower rating :)
Once more, the aim of these rules is to find the very best player, NOT the best 'performer' in a group, tournament, match or whatever... ICCF & IECG do it well already and I thought this system could be more exciting. Maybe there could be some improvements in the rules yet, but the idea makes sense IMO. Does it really make sense to speak of performance in correspondence chess ? .. It makes sense in OTB chess because it reflects the level of players at a particular moment. But you can play a good CC tournament and a bad one at the same time...
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-23 22:31:50)
Rybka tops SSDF rating list
2007 april 21 - New SSDF computer chess rating list is out !
http://web.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/list.htm
Rybka 2.3.1 tops the list with 2962 elo, followed by a surprising Hiarcs 11.1 with 2871 elo. Then, Junior 10.1 and Fruit 2.2.1 followed by Shredder 10. That's a pity Fritz 10 and probably Zap! chess Zanzibar are not rated yet.
The king Rybka will probably have serious opponents soon...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-27 03:09:26)
Elo calculation
Hello Nicola.
Elo calculation must be a clear and fair algorith as much as possible... These rules are statistically quite good IMO (and I suppose not many players will ask for less points ;)) because rating is quite dynamic (if your rating is really too high, you'll most probably quickly lose points until the next update) then most forfeits are done before the 10 first moves. In a way, you deserved these points because you played moves enough in these games, otherwise ie. what would happen if a player forfeits after 40 moves in a drawn or lost position ? .. Is the game unrated, rated as a win, a draw ? .. It would be unrated in some other places, that's not fair IMO. There are more complex cases. One thing most important is to make rating calculation 100% automatic (no human decision is a very asked 'feature'), this way there can't be any complaint about ratings as the future rating option makes it clear.
Best, Thibault
Matt Lasley (2007-04-27 15:24:15)
Reward consistency
You could say that the forfeiture points are awarded for consistency. That's a valuable trait. Perhaps such points may not reflect play yet, but the consistency that lead to their award will show up in your game play in the long run. So, the points are deserved either way. And as T said, the algorithm takes care of it anyway. Ratings are a measure of history, not a measure of skill.
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-04-27 21:30:34)
Elo
Yes, I agree whit you Matt when you said "Ratings are a measure of history, not a measure of skill", IMO elo is only a statistic of our results...
Chess skill is more complex and it can't been explained only whit a number...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-30 14:05:46)
The meaning of Go for modern Russia
An interesting (as usual) article from IGN "Goama" newsletter - http://gogame.info
Alexander Rodin, the member of Go Federation
"The meaning of Go for modern Russia"
I'll try to state my thoughts about the meaning of the Go for modern Russia.
To begin with I suggested that we extrapolate Go models on the political and economical maps. These maps are very important as the spheres of social life, because the questions that are discussed at political and economical levels touch upon our lives, the lives of ordinary Russian citizens. In these spheres they continue the fierce struggle for life and death; in these spheres rivalry is especially keen and the made decisions define the vectors of our country development.
Let's imagine a situation if somebody inadequate came to power and set the totalitarian regime! Then all social "dissident" institution would start dying and so would do the Go Federation as a phenomenon which unifies people with independent thinking. Then it would be inevitable to start "hiding in basements" to keep the organization and set the secret addresses. Under conditions of modern Russia such kind of reasoning seems to be mostly fantastic than real. But if we look behind into our history we’ll remember that we have already had this phase of social development and know everything about it.
I am for that only "adequate" people, patriots, must hold power (I mean all its levels: federal, regional, local and busyness elite as well). These people must think independently and it would be just perfect if they were the people who both understand the very notion of strategy and use in their activity all the arsenal of strategic instruments and among them principles, stratagems and Go philosophy.
Someone can argue: "What are the patriots who set Japan draughts?" the heart of the problem is not in the fact that somebody sets draughts and even the Japan ones. The matter of fact is that there is a "pacific" model the centre of which is the idea of balance and peaceful division of the territory and influence. If someone of us can offer something better, so let him rule. In my opinion, it's the same as to rewrite the Bible or "The Treatise of Military Art" Soun Tsi.
The Go essence manifests in the state scale in the following aspects:
The first one is historical and cultural. The game has a great history and longstanding traditions. Go is no less than a civil game with the development of which hand by hand goes statehood making in many countries. Besides, it's followed by strengthening of spirituality and moral principles of society.
The second aspect is social. Go unifies people, sets friendly relationships between them. Through Go a man manifests quickly, through it s/he can see his/her reflection. Owing to "open spiritual fight" your adversary is likely to become your best friend without saying a word during a game.
The third aspect is pedagogical. Through Go they bring up the grown generations and form their active civil position. Like chess, Go forms and consolidates dynamical stereotypes showing in following behavioral models of people. Penetrating and consolidation happen imperceptibly when sleeping, during the junction of conscious and unconscious.
The fourth aspect is economical. Why are business people interested in Go? Because through the game model a man learns how to manage material and non-material resources. Via the game s/he realizes economical and management notions: market (territory), economical integration, SWOT-analysis (the analysis of weak and strong aspects) etc. Managers start realizing the importance of interconnection and interaction of structural subdivisions ensuring. These subdivisions shouldn't be isolated from each other. They should work time in time like a well-tuned tuning fork.
The fifth aspect is political. The idea of community in politics is as relevant as the idea of group of stones. When a group is weak there is always a possibility of dividing it and this is a sign for the whole group. When our country, being a federal union of equitable subjects, was going through its stage of making a number of subjects had a wish to use the weakness of this chain. So, in 1992 1994 for the first time after the collapsing of the USSR there appeared first separatist tendencies. E.Rossel, the governor of Sverdlovskaya region, A. Philipenko, the governor of HMAO, claimed about the possibility of Ural republic creation. The emissary of Chechen separatists Gokhar Dudaev proclaimed the independence of Chechen-Ingush republic. The detachment didn't happen but the country paid with blood for it. Nowadays we can see demonstration of political integration and isolation on the modern political world map. Take a strong unity of the European Union and states-outsiders: Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Iran.
In terms of remaining of the USA's striving for establishment of world hegemony (from V.V.Putin's speech at the recent Munich conference), Russia needs the processes of integration and consolidation with other countries aimed at its strengthening. The unified countries have a lot of dame. Now we can observe the stronger split in the CIS as a consequence of energetic and territorial policy of Russia that uses economical instruments of pressure upon "unfriendly and opposing" countries. Is it good or not? It's more likely that it‘s bad. But there are some positive tendencies: the role of the EurAsEC as a community which's built not on the basis of "strange brotherhood" and the role of Russia in it are increasing. Go is an ideological and spiritual base making us related to the countries of Asia-Pacific region. Go teaches how to see and distinguish creative and destroying processes.
The sixth aspect is psychological. The game develops thinking, in particular such processes as analysis and synthesis. It develops the ability of seeing the whole board and its details, the ability of seeing processes proceeding at global and local levels.
The seventh aspect is verbal and lexical or even philosophical. Through studying of the game theory we realize such categories as life and death, territory and influence, reliability, stability, the whole and the parts etc.
So, what is the Go meaning on the country scale? I assume that Go, as philosophy (an ideological and spiritual base), is a very important instrument of upbringing of strategic leaders, those who make decisions at high economical and political levels that influence the country's fate. Because in Go the idea of peaceful co-existence shows the way to harmony. The most pleasant is the fact the "Go way" doesn't have an end and there sky's the limit.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-04-30 17:32:08)
Rules and morals
Rules just have to be clear before a tournament starts – whether this rules are bad or good will be defined by the individual sight of everyone, so never mind because the rules are known and accepted by all members. Just a bad looser is searching his lost by the rules! Another thing is the abuse of rules – you can play in accordance with the rules and nevertheless break moral fundamentals. I.e. definitely lost or drawn games (known by both opponents) will not finished (by resign or draw offer/accept) because of the hope that the opponent will have a heart attack before the time control is coming. Or taking care of your rating, it will be done in next rating period later on. Perhaps it is purely a matter of taste!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-01 00:57:44)
Achim's answer
Achim Mueller asked to close his account, but he wanted to respond to Wolfgang & Sandor, here's his answer :
"A last clarification:
@Wolfgang Utesch: I wasn't aware of the "ELO-prefering" rule and I still don't find it here on the webpage. I opened a thread here in this forum and besides "then win all your games" or "in this case we ensure that the better player will qualify" there were no substantial arguments for this pretty unused and unknown rule (not that I agree with these two "arguments"!). Nonetheless I accepted the rule for this tournament.
My decision to give up and leave this server is based on an easy calculation how many games I have to play here to get a - what I call - competitive rating that somehow equals the advantage, players with a nominal rating of 2200 - 2500 will have in every tournament where this rule exists. Because my time is limited my decision was to leave the server, that's all. I don't complain, I don't take anything as an excuse. It's simple as it is: I gave it a try here, became aware of the rule and decided this is the wrong place for me, ok?
@Sandor Marton-Bardocz : I didn't say with any word that you are a blocking guy. This was a _general_ thesis how the player with the best rating can take an overwhelming advantage at this ruling. All good players (ask anyone in the region of 2400up at remoteschach, dbf, iecg or iccf) will confirm that it is most difficult to get 3.5 point out of 4 if at least 2 players know how to use computers and choose certain openings.
Finally ... ficgs is a nice place to play, the interface is good and I assume Thibault put a lot of work into it. So, enjoy your games here, but also accept that from time to time there might be players that will leave because of certain issues.
Ciao
Achim"
Rules (and chess WCH rules) - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Thanks Achim. Best wishes & have good games :)
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-05-01 08:28:28)
Rules
@Achim: It is just your failure to start in a tournament without knowing the rules! @Thibault: I think, in our match we need not the use of the special rule. :-) A problem in corresponding game is, that rating is showing the right strongness seldom. By the way, you should put the rules on the home page!
Garvin Gray (2007-05-02 18:48:43)
sb tie breaks
I notice that for deciding ties for first in the round robin sections of the wch, the sb tie break, followed by number of wins, has only been mentioned once or twice.
I think it really does deserve more consideration. It is my opinion that the current way of deciding who goes through to the next round- higher rating- is patently unfair. While I understand some of the arguments for (higher rating), I still think it is unfair to reward someone for something they did outside of the round robin group play.
In their rr group, they were not good enough to achieve first place on their own, so a player should not advance based on results achieved outside of that rr group.
In my opinion the tie break order should be: 1) Berger tie break 2) Total number of wins in the group 3) Result between the two or more players.
I also noticed that a few people have mentioned that more players are required in each rr group. I certainly agree with this.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-02 19:10:02)
sb tie breaks
... it will be discussed every 6 months for sure ;)
While writing WCH rules, the main goal was not only (or firstly) to make it fair. It should be a spectacular and exciting challenge first ! .. Nothing was more unfair than the old FIDE WCH cycle and that was great. Once more these rules have not be designed to 'choose' the best player in the tournament, but more probably the best player. Another advantage of rating preference is you know the challenge when each group starts, result is not decided during the tournament, according to the games of your opponents with the same number of points.
At last, I just wanted to make it different. So you may play in the ICCF & IECG world championship tournaments if you prefer the classical round-robin system :)
Dan Rotaru (2007-05-03 00:32:46)
sb tie breaks
I believe that Garvin’s idea regarding the tie break makes sense. The higher rated player in a group is not always the best player, especially in correspondence chess where it takes time to achieve one’s real rating or players can get an established equal rating from ICCF or IECG. I also believe that games will be spectacular and exciting even with new rules. I played to win in both my games against the highest rated players in my group and wouldn’t have played different no matter the rules. In the end the rules are rules and equal for everybody so we must obey. However from the number of replies it seems that the topic is hot and maybe it is worth debating for the next WCH. I don’t want to play in the ICCF & IECG world championship tournaments because I enjoy FICGS too much :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-03 02:13:44)
Go championship cycle
1st FICGS go WCH will start in a few months, but I'm still not really satisfied with current rules :
"FICGS world Go championship is first a round-robin tournament, involving 11 players including the 6 players who won or lead most Go tournaments started during the previous year and the 5 highest rated players, among players who entered the waiting list. If more than 2 players win (or lead) a tournament with equal score, no win is granted. A win in a "pro" tournament is worth 9 "kyu" wins. A win in a "dan" tournament is worth 3 "kyu" wins. In case of equality, the next places will be taken in account.
The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the winner is the player with the highest tournament entry rating (TER), If this rule can't designate a unique challenger, current ratings will be considered. If current world champion defends his title, they will play a 6 games match. In case of equality (3-3), the winner is the former world champion.
All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Komi is 7.5 points. Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association."
Not clear enough, quite complicate and strange, even if I like the idea of a 2-stages tournament (round-robin tournament then challenger vs. champion match) and to give the opportunity to the best rated Go players to enter it without playing tournaments before... Other questions, double round-robin or not, should it be open to all players.. Feel free to suggest your ideas for a nice Go WCH cycle ! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-05 15:43:46)
Go championship cycle
Finally ratings could be enough to give the best chances to the best players... Consequently the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list would play the round-robin tournament. That's a pity everyone can't play with this formula, but anyway chances to see 'surprises' is much lower in Go than in correspondence chess.
Dinesh De Silva (2007-05-07 11:44:31)
Re:
Hi, IDA Click on "Waiting lists" & choose a tournament that fits your rating. Once you get used to it, it's easy.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-15 18:37:06)
Tablebases 5-pieces
Well, quite strange.. Shredderchess.com tablebases don't give a result anymore for the current 7-pieces position !? .. Was it a bug or...
Indeed it is mate in about 37 moves, but my engine with 5-pieces tablebases can't see it. If the game is not finished in a while (before the next rating calculation), you can call referee for adjudication.
Garvin Gray (2007-05-15 23:53:11)
order
Hello,
Would it be possible to also show the waiting list in rating order? Not just in entry order.
At least something to click on that will show the players in rating order?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-20 14:25:05)
Opponent dragging out lost game
Hello Robert.
According to the rules, in a lost position your opponent has at most 1 month to finish the game after you called referee a first time (done). Feel free to ask for an adjudication in about one month, or at least before the next rating calculation.
Best wishes, Thibault.
Robert Mueller (2007-05-20 20:37:14)
Thank you :)
Thank you, that was very helpful. At least the game will be over before the next rating list update.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-21 20:27:04)
Topalov wins M-Tel Masters
... incredible outcome, Topalov takes sole victory in M-Tel Masters with a surprising 5,5 / 10 !
Also his performance is 2751 while his rating is 2772, so he'll lose some points because of this tournament...
Svante Carl von Erichsen (2007-06-01 12:26:32)
Go championship
I think that the current rules are quite good. For the current user base, 9 players round robin is enough.
If the user base gets bigger and stronger, you could introduce preliminary stages. Example: sort all players who entered the waiting list by rating, then the final league consists of the 5 strongest players plus 4 players who placed first in the preliminary (which might be a knockout, or another league).
One thing I would change in the current system: the usual custom for multi-game matches between two players is to determine colours randomly for the first game, then alternate. If an uneven number of games is played, then in the last game, colours are chosen randomly again.
As I interpret the rules in that way that all five final games are played simultaneously, I would propose that one of those games is played with random colours.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-01 17:56:58)
Final match
Hello Svante Carl, thanks for sharing your views !
I agree about the round-robin tournament, it could evolve according to the rating list...
About the final match, I have good reasons for not introducing any chancy factor in tournaments (anyway I think it's better this way), I finally agreed with players about the 5-games match but it was hard for me to consider this non symmetrical schedule... Making it different is not a problem IMO, a (2xn)-games final match with equality favourable to former champion - like FICGS chess WCH - was ok for me but 6 games may be too few, giving a too big advantage to the former winner of the tournament.
Anyway, there will be no final match in this 1st championship, it will be probably discussed again & again :)
Garvin Gray (2007-06-04 11:41:42)
Wch 3 in rating order
KAZ Balabaev, Farit 2580
FRA de Vassal, Thibault 2512
USA Ingersol, Harry 2502
NZL Noble, Mark 2497
DEU Schuster, Peter 2480
POL Ostrowski, Leszek 2458
ARG Brunsteins, Daniel 2452
CAN Zubac, Marius 2415
ROU Mathe, Iosif 2414
UKR Khokhlov, Igor 2370
MLT Sammut, Ronald 2362
ROU Helmer, Janos 2343
PRT Pires, Miguel 2270
LKA De Silva, Dinesh 2235
POL Sanner, Zdzislaw 2219
RUS Dyakov, Alexander 2217
DEU Schiller, Wilfried 2217
DEU Koslowski, Volker 2204
DZA Ould Ahmed, Samy 2195
FRA Appendino, Jérome 2192
GBR Taylor, William 2182
GRC Bleker, Frits 2171
DNK Jorgensen, Poulerik 2168
DEU Kesselheim, Peter 2149
CAN Repa, Jason 2144
PRT Louro, Eugénio 2123
USA Kotlyansky, Edward 2114
DEU Markus, Roland 2103
FRA Czekaj, Christophe 2098
AUT Dudulec, Konstantin 2084
CAN Plante, Marc-Eric 2079
LVA Borisovs, Leonids 2078
AUT Mueller, Robert 2069
DEU Unger, Peter 2065
AUT Riha, Josef 2019
POL Skwarczylo, Marek 2018
MUS Stephenson, Andrew 2000
CZE Stanislav, Musil 1990
SCG Vidanovic, Djordje 1966
USA Burden, Don 1959
DEU Haluschka, Rainer 1950
CAN Rotaru, Dan 1937
GBR Wyborn, Graham 1890
GBR Burrows, Nick 1884
POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 1879
BIH Dautovic, Dzenan 1875
AUS Gray, Garvin 1863
USA Minkin, Alexander 1850
GBR Josse, Mark 1806
ARM Khachaturov, Vadim 1803
USA Kotlyanskiy, Ilya 1800
DEU Krueger, Karsten 1800
PRT Vasquez, Fernando 1775
DZA Toutaoui, Khaled 1763
DEU Wosch, Arkadiusz 1746
TUR Yuvarlak, Ugur 1732
ROU Hrubaru, Mircea 1726
ARG Carrizo, José 1724
USA Phillip, Lennox 1700
ROU Kondort, Mihai 1700
ROU Ioan, Bucsa 1700
BRA Miranda, Marcus 1691
VEN Flores, Luis 1680
RUS Ruzin, Mikhail 1639
DEU Faust, Dieter 1627
MYS Behrmann, Klaus 1617
FRA Bellanger, Michel 1606
POL Bester, Kazimierz 1600
DEU Nent, Alexander 1593
PRT Oliveira, Carlos 1586
HUN Nagy, Attila 1549
ROU Ionescu, Catalin 1535
HUN Kis-Kos, Laszlo 1512
ITA Lupinacci, Nicola 1492
BEL De Groof, Pieter 1465
DEU Odendahl, Marcel 1462
USA Hendricks, Richard 1459
BRA Queiroz, Florencio 1444
CZE Pech, Jaroslav 1433
USA Goodwin, Adam 1415
HUN Csoma, Robert 1400
USA Gillz, Nicolas 1400
BGR Toktas, Ibrahim Ugras 1400
IND Veeraiah, Karuppaiah 1400
MEX Ortiz Durán, Esteban 1400
TUR Ilhan, Alper 1400
CHE Margot, Alain 1400
TUR Erdonho, Erdinç 1400
USA Lipsits, Sasha 1400
BRA B. Lima, Edmilson 1400
DEU von Buttlar, Paul 1386
HUN Fenyves, Adam 1330
BGR Stoianov, Stoian 1316
GRC Serd, Than 1300
TUR Ak, Murat 1300
GBR Willoughby, Peter 1294
ARG Orden, Jorge 1264
GBR Neil, Charlie 1212
NLD Oldenhof, Dwight 1203
USA Greer, Stephen 1200
BRA Barradas, Anderson 1194
IND Malvankar, Vikrant 1188
BEL Tuteleers, Bruno 1145
DEU Bothe, Matthias 1143
BGR Stoyanov, Zdravko 1136
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-04 17:03:06)
Wch 3 in rating order
Well, by using the future ratings, I'm not in second place anymore. Anyway the final rating order will be known on July 1st.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-12 19:11:21)
More rating lists ?
What about more rating lists at FICGS ?
- Correspondence chess active & inactive players lists
- Blitz & lightning rating list
- Big chess rating list (class tournaments !?)
- Go rating list
Also there could be casual blitz & lightning chess tournaments with entry fee & prizes, blitz & lightning games with a tiny entry fee (no prize) and more ways to win E-Points...
Feel free if you have any comment or idea...
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-12 21:21:20)
Rating list
I think FICGS needs a rating list for active players with an established rating (more than 15 or 30 rated games) like other organizations.
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-13 00:50:47)
Rating list
An established rating list would be a very good idea. Therefore maybe people will play more games:-)
Don Groves (2007-06-13 09:22:01)
Rating lists for established players
I agree with this also. Either that or remove inactive players from the current lists. If a person wants to establish an FICGS rating, let them play some FICGS games!
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-13 09:33:55)
Rating list
Rating of new players is very uncertain before they have finished a limit of rated games. After i.e. 30 games it is stabilized, so you can say more about the real strength. In the WC cycle (k.o. matches) rating has an anormous importance. Now is it often accidentally whether someone is high rated or not.
Hannes Rada (2007-06-14 21:12:49)
Figlio - Schuster
<< but according to the WCH rule, Peter qualifies for the next round >> because of his lower rating ?
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-14 22:45:22)
Figlio - Schuster
Have a look into the WCH tournament rules: "The knockout tournament is played into 8 games matches. The special rule (avoiding short draws) is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage." Any questions?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-15 14:32:49)
Strelka 1.0
Some interesting readings in Talkchess & Rybka forums about this new engine : Strelka 1.0 x32
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=9297
http://216.25.93.108/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117821
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404/
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%20Rating%20List/40_40%20BestVersion/rangliste.html
Is Strelka only a joke about Rybka (and a clone of an earlier version) or the 'little arrow' (Strelka in russian) that will catch Rybka in future...
I don't know much about this one but its first ratings are "not bad" ! .. Any informations more ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-15 17:12:39)
Online chess today
A few links to discussions at TCCMB (The Correspondence Chess Message Board) on chess servers nowadays, future of ICCF, correspondence chess [once more] and so on...
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=105.0
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.0
In the second discussion I tried to answer on the future of correspondence chess & chess engines :
1) Like the 'tour de France', it is impossible to organize a "bicycle race" at chess without doping today IMO. Also there are so many 'products' : Various books, databases, engines, human help.. so it seems to me that it is a non-sense to try to make it like an OTB tournament. Online chess is "motorcycle races" & freestyle, nothing else.
2) The ratio of wins does not decrease much in computer games & advanced chess (blitz), and correspondence chess games will never be all drawn IMO. We just have to follow the horizon line... Engines still have difficulties when there are 32 pieces on the board... Make the position more and more complex & critical, play Benoni structures, East indians and English openings... There will probably be more and more draws but when looking at CC 2500+ games, the ratio is still quite good. The problem at CC is mainly the style of play with humans 'humanly' trying to remain in known positions where they can win and can't lose.
'The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy', 'Opportunities multiply as they are seized' (Sun Tzu)
A solution is to make rules that motivate players to avoid draws, particularly when playing against a higher rated opponent. (ie. the rule for FICGS 8-games matches)
3) We feel that engines play almost perfect chess because of our poor human's level of play (I should say ratings)... But engines & computers have to improve a lot yet - not obvious they can do it in a more or less near future -, the horizon line is not so far, each version of Rybka wins about 30 elo points... We'll see engines at level 3200, 3300 maybe much more... (4000 ?)
4) If too many players have their CC rating between 2750-2800 in future, we can make new rules : Ratings wouldn't be calculated on the basis of each game, but on the basis of ie. 8-games matches... Then strategy would be more important & we would see rating gaps again between the best players...
Finally if I'm completely wrong, play Big Chess ;D
Hannes Rada (2007-06-15 20:19:19)
Figlio - Schuster
4:4 is imho a draw notwithstanding a rating difference. And both player oder no player should have the right to get to the next stage.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-15 21:09:10)
Figlio - Schuster
Initial rating (before starting the match) is deciding!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-16 02:23:50)
Dead Man's Defense
Ok, that's an interesting topic.. and should be discussed for sure !
Once more, there are 6 pieces on the board and even if it is an obvious win, my engine doesn't say Mate in # moves (so your opponent may not see the mate too).
How to react ? .. No hypocrisy, IMO there's no perfect way to answer this problem. If the DMD doesn't work after tablebases, it will work well before, so players will last the game earlier. Of course it's a way to manage rating and so on... Is it really possible to avoid this ?
Any suggestions ?
Be patient anyway... :)
Nick Burrows (2007-06-16 04:01:51)
DMD
I think it is still valid to play on in a 'lost position'. People play for different reasons. Some to improve their over the board play. If you always resign in losing positions, you may never learn how to fight when you still have practical chances.
if he is just managing his rating, this is different, but can you ever force someone to resign over a matter of etiquette?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-16 15:45:46)
FICGS 3.0 , novelties & advanced chess
Dear chessfriends, the new FICGS version is installed :) ... Improvements :
- New random design (see preferences) after each login, great IMO :)
- Correspondence chess established, preliminary & complete rating lists (user mode)
- Big chess rating list
- http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_big_chess
- Rated big chess tournaments (no more unrated)
- Advanced ches rating list
- http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess
- Rated advanced chess tournaments (money blitz & lightning games)
- New advanced chess games category : CHESS MONEY BRONZE (entry fee 0,2 E-Point)
Advanced chess games are chess games played at Lightning (30 minutes + 1 minute / move) or Blitz (2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves) time control. Computer assistance is encouraged. See rating rules for advanced chess, everyone gets a rating (first estimated from your correspondence chess rating) after you played your first game.
Every member now has 2 free E-Points to play 10 free CHESS MONEY BRONZE (advanced chess) games. Consequently the FICGS advanced chess server is not free of charge after this free trial.
This is a major improvement, so there will be some adjustments during the next days, particularly to reorganize money tournaments.
Feel free if you have any comment or suggestion...
Have good games :)
Graham Cridland (2007-06-16 23:51:04)
I would play
My rating probably understates my strength but I suspect you can still do better for a 25 player team. Still, I would enjoy being involved.
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-17 00:21:41)
Rating lists
Hi Thibault, What is the difference between established and preliminary rating lists? Also I think that filtering players who haven't logon in the last two months is a little bit too restrictive. Maybe 6 months or a year would be reasonable? (just a suggestion). If I win the lottery (and really hope so) and I decide to spend three motnhs on an isolated island with no internet access i wouldn't want to loose my established rating.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-17 01:49:16)
Rating lists
Hi Dan, yes it may be not clear enough yet. I'll add this post somewhere in the rules when I'm sure about this.
- Established rating list displays players who finished at least 9 rated games (or who obtained an established rating at ICCF / IECG) and who connected during the last 2 years.
- Preliminary rating list is actually more an active players list, it displays players who finished at least 1 rated game (or who obtained an established rating at ICCF / IECG) and who connected during the last 2 months.
Well, maybe I should set the filter to 2 years also, or rename the list as active players list, but it's not very coherent too... :/
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-17 03:10:29)
Rating lists
Thank you for clarification, it makes sense now and I believe it is a nice feature to have these lists. Maybe you should rename "preliminary /active players" list?
Alexander Nent (2007-06-17 11:00:10)
Thibault de Vassal
I would be very happy if I could play. My rating is lagging behind (ask Nick Burrows :-) ), because I'm new at FICGS.
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-17 13:47:10)
New tournaments
Hi Thibault, What about organizing some Swiss tournaments? I think that a Swiss for Money tournaments would generate a lot of interest because the more players participate the bigger the prize fund would be. I would also enjoy playing a Correspondence chess Swiss tournament let's say: “FICGS Annual Open Tournament”. Therefore players from different rating brackets can play against each other, apart from the WCH. Right now in the class tournaments I keep playing against few players again and again.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-06-18 03:53:01)
World Computer Chess Championship (wccc)
Thibault, I dont care for your notion here. It is WCCC and should not be downgraded because ChessBase and program authors of Hiarcs, junior & fritz did not enter. Those programs have the big rep';s, but in actuality you should check out all of the rating sites. Zappa ranks Higher that those three programs for example. There is a thing called GridChess, which is very strong, beat shreddar. Oh I dunno, I could go on. Mostly I object to chesbase direct or indirect control of the chess engine tournaments. And to make things worse you and others posts nonsense as this. My two cents my friend. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 05:41:30)
New update !
"Tournaments" page and waiting lists have been completely re-organized by time control ! (more coherent and clear IMO)
Also a new rating list : Active players list.
- Active players list displays players who connected during the last 2 months... Right now almost 700 of 2100 which is quite good IMO :)
- Preliminary rating list now displays players who finished at least 1 rated game, less than 9 rated games and who connected during the last 2 years. (which is much more interesting)
At last, the rating rules for advanced chess (blitz & lightning) have been improved. Now a fair performance bonus for Black, see rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess
And now, I'm going to sleep... Good night everyone :)
Dirk Ghysens (2007-06-18 06:11:14)
Top programs
According to the CCRL rating list, the top programs today are: 1 Rybka 2 Zap!Chess 3 Hiarcs 4 Naum 5 Loop 6 Deep Shredder Fritz (7th) and Junior (8th) are so weak, that they cannot play a significant role in a world championship. The latest version of Rybka (2.3.2) can be estimated at more than 200 Elo points above Deep Fritz and Deep Junior. The SSDF rating list is unreliable IMO, as they are using antiquated hardware, and several of the best programs are missing.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 06:26:11)
WCCC
Computerchess rating lists are very different from human's ones. Fritz & Junior are not so weak (ok, maybe Junior is :)) .. At least they can beat Loop and Naum. Anyway I meant that more strong programs should play at the WCCC, the results can't be significant this year because too few interesting games will be played (and there was a bug in some Rybka game). At last I agree about CCRL, it is more trustable than SSDF rating list.
Don Groves (2007-06-18 08:24:45)
New Go rating lists, please
Hi Thibault. The new rating lists are nice! I hope you can find the time to extend them to Go as well as Chess :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 16:50:43)
Rybka vs. Chessbase
Hello Alexander.
Rybka tops all computer chess rating lists for 18 months already, and by about 100 points ! ... It is the best playing program, maybe (I'm not sure yet) the best analysis tool for correspondence chess.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 16:55:18)
Go rating lists
Hi Don. I couldn't make an established and preliminary rating list for Go, but an active players list is possible.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-19 04:53:47)
Chatter robot
Well, you just gave me an idea : A robot will announce any entry (name + rating) for a blitz or lightning game in the chat bar. I hope it will help... :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-19 17:57:07)
GM_FICGS__CHESS__RAPID
Hello Viktor.
Well, it would be great to organize such a tournament :) .. But GM Atalik did not connect for at least 1 year.
See active players list - http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=rating_lists
Anyway, if the other players agree, why not (prize would be inf. to 800 E-Points with 8 players)... Also I'm sure that many players would be interested to play a 2, 4 or 8-games match with an entry fee / prize with you.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-06-19 18:28:48)
May I join ?
If my modest rating is enough, I surely would be glad to join such a high-level rapid tournament. Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-19 18:53:49)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
The tables will be ordered by ratings, we'll show the complete list in a few days.
Don Groves (2007-06-20 09:42:19)
Go rating lists
An active players list for Go would be excellent, Thibault. There are so many inactive players at some ratings that it takes a few "page downs" to get through them all ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-20 15:05:27)
Go rating lists
Ok, it will be added in a few hours :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-20 15:46:39)
Players for FICGS team (by rating)
Here is the complete list of players who registered for the FICGS vs IGAME.RU match. Unfortunately, a few players couldn't play :( .. I think our team is strong enough, as rating rules are quite hard at FICGS and some ratings are still provisional.
I don't know how players will be distributed on "tables", if it's freestyle I think Wolfgang should play at table 1.
I am also surprised to see players coming from IGAME.RU or russian forums who entered FICGS team !? .. Anyway, I'm sure there are no spies :)
Thibault de Vassal (2512)
Mark Noble (2496)
Wolfgang Utesch (2466)
Albert Popov (2463)
Michael Aigner (2354)
Janos Helmer (2343)
Miguel Pires (2270)
Leszek Tymcio (2270)
Alexander Shalamanov (2252)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2246)
Silviu Nenciulescu (2194)
William Taylor (2182)
Poulerik Jorgensen (2168)
Wayne Lowrance (2124)
Edward Kotlyansky (2114)
Christophe Czekaj (2098)
Konstantin Dudulec (2084)
Polina Romanova (2000)
Dan Rotaru (1937)
Nick Burrows (1884)
Garvin Gray (1863)
Vadim Khachaturov (1803)
Janusz Kepinski (1599)
Alexander Nent (1593)
Graham Cridland (1406)
Edmilson B. Lima (1400)
Sasha Lipsits (1400)
Ilmars Cirulis (1305 ~ >2100)
Than Serd (1300)
Charlie Neil (1212)
Phil Cook (1132)
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-20 16:34:00)
Hello Thibault and all!
First of all, thanx for letting me defend the colours of FICGS Team. Oh, no, no spies on the parts the Russian players in our team. We will play fair and at our strongest. And I want to warn you that the IGAME team is really pretty strong and made of tough titled Russian players: GM, IM or GM, although they didn't feel like exposing their correct data or rating. You know, they feel they can win that match, on the one hand, and want to obtain some advantage in case we underestimate their chess strength, on the other hand. After all, honesty is not their best feature, alas. So be on guard, folks! The foe is at our gateway! Lol! Anyways, I want this match to be a fair play one and run with the ICCF motto: Amici sumus! (We are friends!). Good luck to anyone and interesting and exciting games to you! Remember, this match is a good point to win new friends over the globe behind the game of correspondence chess! Play at your strongest but bear in mind your match opponents are likely your partners in chess masterpieces than bitterest enemies. Be happy and have a fine day!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-20 22:54:33)
Internet chess
Well, the discussion with Tryfon Gavriel continues at TCCMB. As I had to explain the way I make FICGS, I copy my responses here :
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.15
Hello again Tryfon !
That's a very interesting discussion...
Actually I have to explain FICGS in its whole to respond :) .. To be continued for sure..
While registering a new member wrote to me a few months ago "Thanks for creating this ultimate chess challenge" or so... That's exactly what I try to do, mostly with the FICGS championship knockout & round-robin rules... Players just want challenge, that's the only assumption I start with, so I try to create interesting challenges. About the intellectual part, you're right but I'm quite sure that top level correspondence chess players still consider their game as an intellectual challenge, much more than a brute force or computer skills one. That's not the case for Advanced chess with fast time controls.
Let's take a look at the bicycle races again... The "Tour de France" is dying IMO.. because everyone understood we "don't know" if the champion is ok.. If doping was allowed (it would be a scandal for health of course), I'm sure the interest would raise again ! I think it is the same for chess & for everything else... The "Tour de France" syndrom happened in Elista with the match Kramnik vs. Topalov... It will have consequences. We need champions and we want true champions, every means are ok for this ! .. So the "engines allowed" rule is the only one possible or reasonable in my opinion.
Of course, chess & correspondence chess are changing, because these "walls" are nearer & nearer... maybe chess will die, maybe not.. The main problem is that in 1997, a super computer became World Champion... this year a "simple" computer Deep Fritz became world champion, soon Rybka on a cellular phone... :) Who is really interested to be a champion in "human category" ? FIDE world chess championship will continue to progressively lose its interest IMO...
Correspondence chess is just starting to grow in popularity and is told to be dying already. Surely correspondence chess will ask more & more time at a high level to win a few points, but it is possible to create more challenge by ie. changing the rating rules (the "design" of Elo rating system will become a problem).. Then, if it is not enough, we'll look for other challenges... It's told for years that Go (Weiqi) will replace chess in western countries... why not Big chess as the "brain only" game if there can't be doping in it.. just trying, as there's no other solution :)
A word about Poker of course, as it's probably the fastest growing game in popularity : IMO this game is at a stade like chess in year 1900, but the same problem will happen, even quicker. At a high level the game will be just more and more boring (if you wish to win real money) or chancy (in a wch tournament), or you'll have to always find weak players (well, not very challenging).
About the simultaneous exhibition against Alekhine or Capablanca, I'm not sure at all they would crush everyone at our chess servers, they are undoubtly more talented than all of us, but I feel it wouldn't be enough in all cases to win against correspondence chess style of play & knowledge accumulated for 50 years... A few players rated OTB 2000-2200 could draw against them IMO...
At last, yes I'm a fan of Sun Tzu's "The art of war" :) .. I strongly believe that correspondence chess will not die in the next few years because players will follow its principles more and more, as the only way to win ! .. Big chess follows the same principles... and Go is the most challenging game because of it too !
Tryfon, I'm not sure that we're opposite in our vision of chess ! .. Our servers have obviousy different goals, nothing more.. I do enjoy playing mad blitz games without chess engines... I just believe that the future of internet chess is "serious (engines allowed, rated) correspondence chess" on one hand and "human chess for fun (no engines, unrated)" on the other hand... The other ways look like nonsense to me.
I hope it responds.
Best wishes, Thibault
Garvin Gray (2007-06-21 01:24:53)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
I meant to add to previous post (damn- no edit feature, so now have to make new post).
We should play in rating order, no juggling around. That way it doesn't look like we have tried to be 'smart' and grab a few 'cheap' victories.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-21 01:29:52)
Tables ordered by rating... or not
Well, it wasn't obvious indeed ;)
I agree, not very important, but your opinion is welcome.
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-21 08:31:01)
Salut, Thibault!
Je crois que les memebres de notre equippes doit ordonnees par les ratings. De cette facons nous pourrons tenir le principe de bonne guerre. Salutations amicales, Sacha
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-21 08:46:21)
The rating principle is a must
Hi, mates! I sincerely believe the rating principle should be a concern when arranging the team members in a match challenge. That way we would provide for the fair play principle. It doesn't make any sense to try gaining cheap wins. Remember, honesty is the best policy. Cheers, Alex
Andrey Sumets (2007-06-21 09:34:40)
Alex
Don't worry, be happy:) I think it makes no difference what handle or what rating had been indicated by any of our players. If you gonna play chess - do it! Honest or not quite honest - anyway you play against pieces! Best wishes in forthcoming battle! (sorry for my imperfective English)
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-21 11:00:16)
I've got your point, Andy :)
Why no, noone's trying to push you or anyone else in your team how to line-up. I was just saying we in our team should keep to the rating line-up principle one way or the other. And, yes, it was how I do feel about it. Anyways, it's up to Thibault to decide on the matter. Cheers, Alex
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-21 11:43:55)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
In one week we'll have a new (the actual) rating list and there you will see the order as Thibault has proposed.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-21 15:21:45)
Ratings
Yes, actually I just wanted to order the first players by their future rating. Wolfgang has made a great performance these last 2 months (future rating 2544) :
http://www.ficgs.com/players/utesch_wolfgang/history.html
Salut Sacha-Alexander :) .. C'est agréable de lire du français venu d'aussi loin ! J'avais quelques notions de russe il y a longtemps mais j'ai oublié depuis :/ .. A bientôt !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-22 01:51:23)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls
That's an idea, but I'm making some changes to help to find opponents more easily. I hope it will help...
First, experience shows that rating rules are still too hard IMO : A player winning or drawing against another one rated 350 points more most often means the lower rated player should be rated higher, not the contrary... A few games only are concerned, but with provisional ratings such results are still not fair, and many players rated 2100 to 2300 fear to lose points in the chess WCH, even if they win their groups. This rule should allow strong players not to fear (too much :)) to play against anyone in rated tournaments without rating restrictions, like blitz & lightning ones.
Consequently, the rule "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 350" will be changed to "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 200" in a few hours.
The entry fees & prizes (E-Points) will change also, most important is to attract more players to start more advanced chess games.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-22 20:30:57)
Rybka's strength at CC time controls
An interesting poll, following a discussion at TCCMB :
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.msg809
Let's say Rybka playing alone, running 4 days per move (quite useless IMO) on a multi-processor computer, which rating would it/she achieve at FICGS ?
In my opinion, 2200 (with some peaks to 2300) would be great already... What do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-22 20:58:23)
About real names...
Ok, a few words about real names :
While registering, using your real name is really appreciated and helps to build this friendly atmosphere, not using your real name is tolerated if you don't abuse of it...
... but it is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to use dictators or any other famous people names !
If you feel concerned or notice such a name I wouldn't have noticed in the rating lists, please warn me through the message form in "My account" or by email.
Thanks in advance.
Nick Burrows (2007-06-22 23:35:27)
engine strength..
Surely if different engines beat a correspondance GM at 24 hours per move, then their est. rating on 4 days per move should be higher than 2200-2300. Especially Rybka.
Glen D. Shields (2007-06-23 00:14:24)
Chess Engine Strength
Thibault - I've been following the TCCMB discussion. I think it's impossible to answer the question what rating Rybka can achieve under the uncontrolled circumstances we play. If Rybka were playing only against humans, it would achieve a 2600+ rating. Since it plays mostly against itself and other top engines (with little human intervention), the typical results are win a few games, lose a few games and draw a lot.
Since tournaments are mostly set up so that players face opponents with similar ratings, a 2220 rated player using Rybka enters a tournament against other 2200 players. That player wins a few games, loses a few, draws a lot and leaves the tournament at approximately 2200. We conclude from that pattern that Rybka can achieve a 2200 rating.
Conversely, a player (like Uri Blass) who enters tournaments at 2600 and plays other 2600 rated opponents using Rybka wins a few games, loses a few games and draws a lot. He leaves the tournament rated approximately 2600. We conclude for that situation Rybka is rated 2600.
IMHO, it is impossible to answer the Rybka rating question under our typical tournament circumstances.
I think an even better question than worrying about Rybka's strength is "does anyone REALLY enjoy CC anymore?" Today's CC's is a race to buy the fastest hardware and make sure SSDF's top rated programs are installed. I'm playing beginners who can't explain what "en passant" is, but by parroting Rybka they compete in top tournaments and claim to hold titles that once upon a time had to be earned through hard work. After passing through the opening, it doesn't take much effort to figure out what program your opponent is using. At that point one can predict with high probablitlty every move your opponent will make for the rest of the game. Rarely do I see a move that I can can beat. The games are boring and pedictable. Those blunders and surprises that we once wrote funny stories about are long gone. IMO so is the fun.
Sorry to sound so "pessimistic," but until these problems are addressed and the fun is restored I find it just as easy to play against my computer. I can play at my pace, chose the engine I want to play, and unless my computer crashes I no longer have to worry about DMD :-)
Thanks for such a well run place to play chess. You do a great job maintaining it.
My best,
Glen
Ivan Poddubnyi (2007-06-23 00:55:24)
2 Thibault de Vassal:
Unfortunately, IGAME players are not understood here in correct way. Let me clear our position about names.
Of course I respect your idea of creating a friendly atmosphere on your cite by giving real names. If I will decide to stay here, I will play under my real name. But now I am your guest and would like to play under a nick-name. I hope, you can respect our IGAME customs. If you do not like my IGAME nickname Mobutu, let me play as Ivan.
By the way, a lot of information about IGAME players is available on our cite www.igame.ru: games, results, IGAME ratings and so on. Come and see, we do not hide. :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 06:06:29)
Chess Engine Strength
Hello Glen !
I see your point, that's quite true and a consequence is what I called at TCCMB "the extensive nature of elo rating", however rating rules are more dynamic at FICGS.. So, let's say Rybka playing the FICGS championship against players of all kinds of ratings in the round-robin cycle... Anyway 2200 is only my feeling.
I understand your views about "rybka" [correspondence] chess nowadays, even if I don't agree with it completely. I saw some of your CC games played at IECG, and it looks much more like 'good old' chess with some unusual and beautiful tactical openings than typical 'correspondence computer chess' nowadays. I do believe there will be a place in the next CC years for more weird openings like bird, king's gambit, english... Also take a look at Peter Schuster and Wladyslav Krol games here !? .. Nothing boring with them, chess engine or not :)
Also advanced chess games with fast time controls could be quite interesting to watch in future as a way to see granmaster games with chess engines avoiding blunders 'only' (ok a bit more). We don't know exactly the human part in it, but draws won't be the rule for sure.
What is "boring" at correspondence chess (not new) is that achieving a top rating take a long... very long time ! .. But this is a great challenge yet IMO.
At last, thanks for you kind words :)
Best, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 06:54:16)
Nicknames
A few words about real names, asked at registration :
While registering, using your real name is really appreciated and helps to build this friendly atmosphere, not using your real name is tolerated if you don't abuse of it...
... but it is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN to use dictators or any other famous people names !
If you feel concerned or notice such a name I wouldn't have noticed in the rating lists, please warn me through the message form in "My account" or by email.
Thanks in advance.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-23 14:04:05)
Nicknames
by the way, Thibault de Vassal: What is your real name (?) - I can't find you in rating lists of ICCF and IECG. But you've said already, that your rating here about the same as in other organisations.
Ivan Sukhov (2007-06-23 16:14:30)
I am Ivan Sukhov now! :-)
People know me as Mobutu Sese Seco and Ivan Poddubnyi. A litle problem: why can't I find myself in the rating-list?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 16:20:04)
Rating list
If your rating is provisional, see in the complete rating list. It is updated about every 6 hours, so your name should appear soon !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 18:35:15)
Rating rules update
Hello to all.
As I said in another thread, experience shows that rating rules were still too hard IMO : A player winning or drawing against another one rated 350 points more most often means the lower rated player should be rated higher, not the contrary... A few games only are concerned, but with provisional ratings such results are still not fair, and many players rated 2100 to 2300 fear to lose points in the chess WCH, even if they win their groups. The new rule should allow strong players not to fear (too much :)) to play against anyone in rated tournaments without rating restrictions, like wch, blitz & lightning ones.
Consequently, the rule "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 350" has been changed to "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 200"
All correspondence chess results of these last 2 months & in the future will be affected, as well as future advanced chess & big chess results.
Charlie Neil (2007-06-25 14:45:39)
Ficgs vs Igame.ru
Is this the most replied to forum in Ficgs history? Regarding nicknames so what? It's a friendly match. Amici Sumus. (And psychology in chess still can win the game before the first move!) As far as I am aware you must give your real name to the administrators on the site before you can use nicknames. So there you go. Now play the board and not the man.........Look at my rating very very low but I have fun! it's only a game.
Garvin Gray (2007-06-25 18:53:46)
next rating list
Robert Mueller (2007-06-25 16:57:08) Ficgs vs Igame.ru With all the discussion about nicknames we seem to be a bit off topic: when does the match start and who is playing?
I believe that the ficgs team will be confirmed once the new rating list is released on July 1st.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-25 19:14:57)
Startdate
See above ;) .. "The startdate of the match has been decided : 2007 june 27, Wednesday."
Of course, the games will be unrated, this is a friendly match and our opponents ratings are provisional. I'll post the teams and pairings wednesday.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-26 14:28:24)
Correspondence chess / Rybka
The Rybka's correspondence chess rating discussion moved from TCCMB to Rybka forum :)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=1516#fp
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-26 16:06:08)
Ratings
The discussion of ratings is very problematic. Ratings on different sites are depending on different premises. What entry level was accepted? How long did you playing there – how often? How much thinking time did you spent per move? Is the basic rating you earned over years to be caused by old tournaments with postcards (maybe without any help of engines – and your opponents did it the same way)? How much care did you spent ratings (i.e. Norm tournaments?!)? Are you a member of the exclusive cycle of an organisation, getting invitations to closed high-level rating tournaments? Engines (also Rybka) are playing own styles and it depends on whether you can play better or worse against their special styles (knowing their potencies and weaknesses). Old fashioned players (independent from their ratings) will have much more problems to win or to hold draw against engines than players which have positioning themselves at actual situation. In my opinion today Rybka alone with one week thinking time per every move without any other help will reach a rating of about 2.400 at FICGS SM-tournament with an average rating of 2.450. In an ICCF anniversary tournament (average rating of about 2.600) same Rybka under same conditions will reach a rating about 2.550. I for myself wouldn’t play longer correspondence chess, if I would have the feeling that any engine is playing better without my command. How long will it still take? My engine handling is not in this way, that I am waiting for longer times which move is offer by the engine. I have own ideas and I’m trying their possibilities, investigating positions in depth over many moves in all directions. But sometimes engines have the better ideas and I have to accept this!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-26 16:28:41)
Ratings
Fully agreed ! .. By the way, what performance could achieve Rybka (mp) in a CLASS M or CLASS A tournament. Finally, in average about 2200-2300 IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-27 04:02:55)
DMD / DMA : Dead Man's Attack :)
You know the DMD - Dead Man's Defense... but do you know the Dead Man's Attack ? :))
Dinesh opponents may know this "funny" situation, but this time I prefered to wait the next rating calculation... Sorry Dinesh, I hope you did not sacrifice your sleep this last month (sure not) ;) .. Quite strange anyway, I'm curious to understand.
http://www.ficgs.com/game_2931.html
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-27 06:19:40)
Bullet games & prizes
Hello to all.
A few new changes and one more time control in lightning tournaments category :
- Bullet games (available for chess & Go), 10 minutes + 20 seconds / move.
- Bronze bullet Go games are available... Everyone can test it for free.
- Bullet & lightning Go games are now rated (same rating list).
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-27 21:18:36)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU, the games
Hello to all.
The friendly match between FICGS & IGAME.RU teams just started :)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_IGAME_RU_MATCH.html
I'd like to thank Sergey Pligin for organizing this match and all players who registered to play. I apologize to the players who couldn't play :/ .. 25 boards was not enough this time. To build FICGS team I selected players with the highest ratings but one cause his rating should be clearly >2000 already. Also IM Mark Noble plays at table 6 because his opponent is another FIDE IM.
I wish good games to everyone, this is a great opportunity for us to meet russian chessfriends.
Amici Sumus !
... quote of the day : "Top boards make the show, last ones win matches." :-)
Here are the complete teams :
FICGS :
1. Thibault de Vassal # 1
2. Michael Aigner # 139
3. Peter Schuster SM # 323
4. Janos Helmer # 47
5. Miguel Pires # 83
6. Mark Noble IM # 1991
7. Leszek Tymcio # 2151
8. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff # 142
9. Silviu Nenciulescu # 1319
10. William Taylor # 1232
11. Poulerik Jorgensen # 940
12. Wayne Lowrance # 135
13. Edward Kotlyansky # 1140
14. Christophe Czekaj # 1193
15. Konstantin Dudulec # 1329
16. Robert Mueller # 1233
17. Josef Riha # 157
18. Dan Rotaru # 1394
19. Garvin Gray # 1363
20. Nick Burrows # 1643
21. Vadim Khachaturov # 1078
22. Daniel Khayman # 1032
23. Gaetano Laghetti # 138
24. Alexander Nent # 1411
25. Ilmars Cirulis # 533
IGAME.RU :
1. Sumets Andrey, Member # 2137, GM
2. Pljusnin Ivan, Member # 2147
3. Pligin Sergey, Member # 2189
4. Doinikov Owl, Member # 2191
5. Romitsin Nikolay Sergeevich, Member # 2159
6. Vovk Andrey, Member # 2144, IM
7. Yunusov Adkham, Member # 2124
8. Pavlikov Andrey Nikolayevich, Member # 2157
9. Leskiv Miroslav, Member # 2133
10. Domanov Dmitry, Member # 2130
11. Kragujevcanin Stole, Member # 2148 12. Silkin Aleksey, Member # 2198
13. Orlov Sergei, Member # 2207
14. Kim Vladimir, Member # 2139
15. Gerasimov Vladimir, Member # 2190
16. Larin Igor, Member # 2193
17. Zarullin Ivan, Member # 2203
18. Filimonov Evgeny, Member # 2176
19. Pezikov Evgeny, Member # 2174
20. Stork Denis, Member # 2180
21. Mancubov Boris, Member # 2156
22. Ilyuschenko Yury, Member # 2168
23. Prokopenko Alex, Member # 2182
24. Basiliev Iouri, Member # 2205
25. Shpakovsky Alexander, Member # 2185
Edit : There was a mistake while building the games, I had to make a replacement at board 23.
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-28 03:30:01)
IGAME team
Apart from Member # can the ratings be revealed for each player: IGAME rating, FIDE / ICCF ratings if available? It would be fair at least to know the strength of our oponents. The rating registered on FICGS for some players is provisional and it doesn't tell anything. IGAME players have free access to this information so it has to be reciprocal.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-28 04:07:04)
IGAME team
I don't think IGAME team has to provide more information... The match started, once more that's internet chess, we have to accept this part of uncertainty. You may search ratings for players mentioned above (using their real name), but anyway IMO at least 1 player (not me :)) in FICGS team does not use his real name too, moreover a few players in our team still have a provisional or under-estimated rating... Any player can start with a 1600 rating here if he does not mention his FIDE rating, so the same for IGAME players. This is part of the challenge, so let's just play :)
Garvin Gray (2007-06-28 06:10:18)
board orders
Hello,
I have a real problem with the board orders that igame have put in.
Why is a 2200 elo player on board 25 for igame.
I was not aware that this team match was going to be played in this fashion. I thought it was a simple principle that both sides play in roughly rating order.
Not impressed at all!
If igame wants to win that badly that they are playing one of their best players on the bottom board, they can have two wins right now as far as I am concerned.
Ivan Zarullin (2007-06-28 07:09:17)
2 Garvin
Hello, Garvin, most of our players have not got fide rating since they quited active chess before acquiring the rating. Even now most tourneys in Russia are not calculated by fide. Our team is ordered by a player performance on igame. Since our players typically played a hundred of games on igame, this performance most adequately shows our correspondence chess skill.
Vadim Khachaturov (2007-06-28 22:44:14)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
Dan, Your opponent uses nickname filler on IGAME.RU. His rating is 2241. One of the lowest in their team.Here is his stats : win 18 draw 8 lost 1.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-14 01:39:07)
SSDF changed its url
You can now find the top chess programs SSDF rating list here :
http://ssdf.bosjo.net
April 2007 :
1 Rybka 2.3.1 Arena 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2962
2 Rybka 1.2 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2909
3 Hiarcs 11.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2871
4 Junior 10.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2867
5 Junior 10 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2851
6 Hiarcs 10 HypMod 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2845
7 Fruit 2.2.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2837
8 Shredder 10 UCI 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2830
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-15 12:25:27)
Invitation in WCH 1 stage 3 round-robin
Hello to all.
As I've been asked, in WCH 1 round-robin final tournament there are 2 players from WCH 1 stage 2 group 3 because it was not possible (at least desirable) to adjudicate game 8029 in its current position (move 36)... So it is not possible to tell who wins the group yet. However if I had to adjudicate this game, it would be a draw so Alberto Gueci would win the tournament. As WCH 1 stage 3 must start now and as I needed one more player to fill the group, according to the rules Francois Caire (due to his position of possible -likely- winner in the tournament and his rating) was invited to solve game 8029 problem.
William Taylor (2007-07-15 16:47:23)
Go ratings
At the moment only ELO ratings are shown beside players' names when viewing a go tournament. I would prefer dan/kyu rank to be shown than ELO rating (or both). Discuss.
Nick Burrows (2007-07-15 19:04:34)
Fisher
Oh abrasive Dr Repa,
Your proof of Fishers intelligence were the accomplishments of winning some games and designing a chess clock.
It is my opinion that liberating a sub-continent from imperial rule is a much greater accomplishment.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-15 19:33:36)
Go ratings
Hello William.
Yes, quite hard to find a design with enough place to display all informations :)
The main problem is it wouldn't be coherent with other games tournaments.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-07-15 20:11:04)
Lack of logic
If your logic is better than mine, you should have also a better chess rating than me. Is that logically??? :-)
Jason Repa (2007-07-15 20:18:33)
Pure Stupidity!
So what you're saying is that chess alone is a perfect barometer of logic ability, and additionally, that a chess rating on a correspondence site where who knows who or what is playing the moves for you....not to mention you've only gained around 100 elo since you've been playing here compared to my 500+ elo and still gaining is proof of your "superior chess", LMAO!!
Wolfgang, are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really your mentality?
Jason Repa (2007-07-15 21:18:20)
IQ is intelligence. Skills are Skills
You're resorting to telling blatant lies again eh burrows? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is what you were doing before when you painted yourself into a corner.
I in in way, shape, or form said that "chess ratings prove nothing". You need to re-read my post and stop teling lies. That's very pathetic behavoir.
As I said, it's clear now why you're an under 100 BCF player.
Jason Repa (2007-07-16 01:50:57)
IQ is intelligence. Skills are Skills
Well Cirulis, I don't like you at all, I mean ZERO. But I can see why you agree with burrows, even though he didn't make a shred of sense.....you're two peas in a pod.
Nice 1510 rating.
Don Groves (2007-07-20 07:43:36)
Go ratings
Hi WIlliam -- To convert from ELO to dan/kyu simply compare the ELO rating to 2100. ELO 400 corresponds to 17 kyu; ELO 1100 corresponds to 10 kyu; ELO 2100 corresponds to 1 dan; ELO 2400 corresponds to 3 dan; etc.
Garvin Gray (2007-07-28 04:47:26)
a new time control perhaps
Well it could be for a new set of general tournaments with different rating bands than the current ones.
Perhaps a wider rating band to provide opportunities for more opportunities to play different people.
We shall see what Thibault says.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-30 23:19:04)
Rapid tournaments
:-)
Anyway this time control is quite difficult IMO.
About rating bands, unrated and WCH tournaments are a way for players with different ratings to meet themselves.
Polina Stefanova (2007-08-02 16:13:21)
Threatened to kill the person
...in Moskow.
Unfortunately I inform, that --- [moderator : name deleted] from Ukraine promised to employ killers and to kill in Moscow the strongest chess player Igame - Sex God (2 place in rating Igame).
Sex God should play for command Igame against ficgs on the third board.
Sex God was against participation --- [moderator : name deleted] in match Igame – ficgs, because he supports addicts and played for a command which captain is the sick person and addict R2.
In Russia against a narcotism, including this illness a harm, however the command headed by addict R2, exists on Igame till now :(
As a result captain Igame, being afraid for a life and health Sex God has been compelled to exclude Sex God from a command.
Best wishes, Polina Stefanova (the leader of rating Igame)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-05 13:12:04)
Unrated
Cause many strong players from Igame started with a 1600 rating... (it would have been unfair to play rated 2 games matches IMO)
Dwight Oldenhof (2007-08-06 15:05:52)
future rating
What happens when I win a game (e.g. game 11686) and nothing changes the number of games calculated or my future ELO rating? That number was 3 before I won the match and unfortunately stayed 3. Consequently, future ELO and performance rating didn't change either.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-06 23:42:20)
future rating
Hello Dwight.
According to the rules, the game is not rated if less than 10 moves have been played by your opponent.
Ivan Pljusnin (2007-08-09 01:49:06)
Igame ratings
In order to make this topic more exiting I give the igame ratings of the opponents:
Sex_God: 2463 (+111, =63, -3)
RODINKA (aka ---): 2369 (+69, =29, -3)
Polina is our rating-leader (2536; +173, =1, -1), but most of igame players consider her rating unfair because she have played many games with weak opponents. Some people also say that she is another nickname of Sex_God but I don't believe it.
There was a conflict between Sex_God and RODINKA (aka ---). They have abused each other, and our cap decided to expel Sex_God from the team in spite of his higher rating. Unfortunately, this strong igame chessplayer does not take part in our great match.
Ivan Pljusnin (2007-08-10 01:06:34)
2 Dinesh De Silva
As an IGAME player I express my opinion. Everything is not so simple!
1. Some strong chessplayers like Morozevich on ICC would not like to show their real names. Should they all be driven away from all chess cites? I am not sure. :-)
2. Your rating-leader is Viktor Savinov, he have not played a single game here. Our rating-leader is Polina. Are you sure that they should be the captains of our teams?
3,4. Legendary chessplayers like Viktor Kortchnoj or Bobby Fischer are sometimes abusive. But I am not sure that they should be driven away.
5. There is no any titles on IGAME. We are anonymous Russian amateours.
In general, I think that chess cites of all kinds are necessary and useful. And a chessplayer must have a choice: FICGS, IGAME, ICCF, GAMEKNOT, PLAYCHESS.DE, CHESSHERE and so on. Each cite has its own customs and traditions.
By the way, it makes matches between them more interesting. I believe in IGAME anonymous fighters. :-)
Best wishes, Mobutu (my IGAME nickname)
Ivan Pljusnin (2007-08-10 16:21:13)
IGAME ratings
Polina is not published in IGAME rating-list because she has finished her last game more than three months ago. Here is her last game:
http://www.igame.ru/chess/gm.htm?gid=350240
Full IGAME rating-list looks as follows:
1. Polina (2536)
2. curator (2513)
3. GipsyFlame (2495, plays as Sergey Pligin)
4. Mobutu (2476, = Pljusnin Ivan)
5. Many (2475)
6. Sex_God (2463)
7. abc0123 (2461)
8. owl (2461, plays as Dojnikov)
9. klio (2457)
10. Vovanchiki (2455, plays as Kim Vladimir)
...
I do not think that IGAME ratings show real chess strength. For example, Polina and Many haven't played any games with serious opponents. curator, abc0123 and some other players have high ratings because they have finished many hundreds games. And some really strong players have comparatively low ratings. For example, our first board in the team, Vladimir_Lenin (=GM Andrey Sumets) has IGAME rating 2403, #35 in the full rating-list.
Vitalii Bocharov (2007-08-10 22:34:42)
+
I have been afflicted, when have seen --- [moderator : name deleted]'s message at a forum: http://igt.forum24.ru in which IM --- [moderator : name deleted] publicly, promised to kill Dmitry. In this case it is necessary to address in court, I the lawyer. Similar cases already were, when a mad star, sentenced to the large penalty and socially useful works - the life of people is more dear than ranks and ratings.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-08-11 23:40:27)
IGame ratings
Just curious but is the player curator listed as no 2 in IGAME ratings (2513) the same player curator on chess-mail.com rated at no 3 (2530)? On chess mail curator plays under an israeli flag.
Charlie Neil (2007-08-19 16:56:18)
Draws and wins
Hello Everyone. I have just checked my chess rating and win/loss/draw ratio. I haven't 'won' that many games. The vast majority are 'time-outs' as my opponents silently withdraw. Well, that's how it is at the bottom of the table. Are there a lot of 'time-outs' elsewhere on Ficgs?. You can expect that in a free site and players do go for whatever reasons. But my number of draws, 6, I think. Very low. I don't engage in chats with my opponents very much, just because I can barely concentrate on the game. anyway the question(s) is(are) why so few draws? Are Ficgs players so good?
Thomas Tamayo (2007-08-21 04:06:48)
Separate for Chess/Go too...
I'm not sure if it'd be worth it, but Go games would be nice to keep separate from these rankings as well... then maybe they'd be worth rating.
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-01 12:43:09)
Free of chess engine
Thanks Thibault for reconducing me to this past forum. Very interesting. The part about "real" elo and correspondance elo is edifying. I know correspondence players could have a huge better elo than their real life one (if they have any) : more time to think, no stress, no pressure (or less) but I believe players who play without engines have a coorespondence rating approximately equal to their over the board one. Personnaly, I play coorespondence chess to try new opening, to train generally since I cannot play over the board so often since 2 years. I often play from the office, wtih sometimes a couple of minutes on a move, or sometimes I go home with the moves to think about my response in over the board conditions (30 minutes maximum on one move). My correspondence elo is around 2000 (with a good start with a peak to 2098, but declining since ;-D) and my over the board rating is now 1990 (with a peak to 2040 last year, and a rapid elo around 2100). So I sometimes feel a bit fed up with playing against chess engines, notably, but perhaps I'm wrong I have remarked that since I got an advantage, often opponents defend very very well, like computers in fact. Ok it's part of the game, and I know t could be a good training, fight hard to win a game, display a good technique, etc. but it could be disappointing to have the impression of play with a human opponent and have to finish with an another, i.e. the computer. Perhaps could we compare over the board elo, with correspondence elo to know if there is computer help or not ? Anyway, a special category of tournament will be great, and I'm eager to play with other ficgs "OTB-correspondence" players.
Philip Roe (2007-09-01 20:04:25)
engine-free chess
When I started playing here about three months ago I did not realise that engine use was allowed (or even encouraged, according to some) What did attract me were some features like being able to see ongoing games of other players, which makes the experience more like a "real" OTB event. I have played on other sites (IECG,ICC) where engines are forbidden, and ICC at least claims to have software that detects cheating. I play without an engine (but using books)simply because I enjoy it more. I dont care all that much what you do as long as you play interesting moves. It seems very clear from the games that lower-rated players certainly dont use engines and higher-rated players probably have to. At my kind of level (1900ish) it seems optional, but the suspicion that my opponent analyses with an engine steers me away from certain types of position (speculative sacs, or clear strategy but complex tactics) which is a shame because that may be where the position wants to go. The previous thread got very heated, and Im not sure why. One suggestion was to let non-computer users go away and play funny little unrated games by themselves. That is not attractive. Im not interested in playing walkover games against weak opponents. Rating is essential. Other than that, Im very interested to find out what other people think. That will determine whether or not I come to feel at home here.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-02 13:26:25)
Ratings
Christophe, do you use no chess engines here ?
About ratings, probably most 2000+ correspondence chess players use chess engines whereas 1800- don't, so OTB players shouldn't play rated games with centaurs so often. Maybe new players should start with a 1800 rating (like ICCF) instead of 1600 so that most OTB players can't meet centaurs, what do you think ?
"ICC at least claims to have software that detects cheating" : You mean 'obvious' cheating... :)
Viktor Savinov (2007-09-03 12:27:34)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001
Two months tournament FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001 is not formed. Perhaps, to lower a rating of the admission up to 2490-2470? To admit in tournament of GM FIDE & GM ICCF, having put them a conditional rating 2500? Perhaps, to dispatch players personal invitations?
Philip Roe (2007-09-03 18:59:27)
CC without engines
Thibault, Christophe, All I did was to pass on that ICC CLAIMS to be able detect computer use. They dont say how they do it. Maybe they are just bluffing, or maybe they have an algorithm that kind of works and they dont want people to work around it by knowing how it works. The reason I dont use engines is because I want to take full credit for any wins I get. I can imagine using an engine and telling myself that I will just use it to prevent oversights. But I cant control what the engine will tell me. It might recommend a move that tells me that I am planning to attack the wrong target. If I then switch plans and win, what is left for me to feel proud of? But I can understand that others may feel differently, and there is much to be said for a site where everything is allowed because it gets around the issue of making a rule that is certainly very hard to enforce. But just because that rule does not exist on FICGS, it seems to me that if somebody on FICGS says that they are not using an engine, then you can probably believe them. The problem with other sites is that if a player with an umimpressive rating fires back a series of accurate moves very quickly in a difficult situation then you suspect that he is using an engine (although he promised not to) and there is not much you can do about it. If the same thing happens on FICGS you are pretty sure that he is using an engine, but you have already agreed that he can, so it doesnt irritate you. For that reason, I think that a computers-barred tournament might actually make sense on FICGS because those who want to use engines can legitimately do so. But for me, it would need to be chess that means something, with at least rating points at stake. Interestingly, Christophe and I are drawn in the same tournament, so we can declare at least that one game computer-free!
Glen D. Shields (2007-09-06 04:20:15)
Engine Use - My Take
The switch from postcard to server chess has been a wonderfully positive experience.
The transition from human chess to silicon chess on the otherhand has left me bored and wondering if there's still a purpose to the game.
Every tournament is the same. The tournament starts with 6 to 10 players. The moves transition out of the opening at lightning speed, then "Fritz and Rybka time" begins. Turn on your favorite engine and there's a >95% probablitity that your opponents' moves mimic the top engines. There are no surprises, nothing interesting, just boring repetition.
Only a few percent of the chess world can outplay the top engines on fast hardware. Human intervention is like adding a drop of water to a bucket of water and thinking you've made a difference. Most matches are one computer versus another computer and the results are predictable: 1-2 wins, 1-2 losses, most of the games drawn.
I don't oppose engine use. There's no way to enforce it, so there's hardly a reason to forbid it. I do question, however, its purpose. It's just as easy and entertaining for me to play against my computer as it is to play your computer ... and I can do it on my timeline not yours.
I played a friendly young man earlier this year in the ICCF. He was vocal and proud of his high rating and good reults. He'd been playing for less than a year. He eventually admitted through our friendly chat that he hardly knew the moves and rules. He had no idea what "en passant" was or the basic theory of the openings. It took everything I had to save my position and earn a draw from him. That game was "my epithany." I made up my mind to take a break and reconsider what CC is all about. Engine use has been a great technical accomplishment, but has it made CC more enjoyable? Not for me. I hope most of you feel differently.
Good luck and good chess to all :-)
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-07 12:44:20)
To Jason
Hello Jason ! It’s just a question to have the possibility to play correspondence chess (for fun, not neccesarily studying or analysis, just the pleasure of finding moves, ideas (you know, what Bronstein called imagination) not rating, not to be classified as expert, or I don’t know what…) with people without computer. If they lie and use computer ; OK, we can’t be sure, but I’m certain you could accept that some players can trust other players when they say they don’t use computers. For example, I trust Philip when he said this, it’s just a question of being a gentleman. If there are cheaters ok, so what… Rybka will win And I don’t undestand your topic about class of players : I hope I‘ve the right of posting some commentaries on this forum, despite the fact being largely behind you in term of rating… I think we can still play chess without computer, and with rating or not, it’s the same game for me. Philip and I just think it could be kind to play with other players with a kind of gentleman’s agreement. Sorry if it bother you
Jason Repa (2007-09-08 12:26:56)
"No engines" Tournaments
I suspect you'll get a whole new breed of forum posts where accusations will be disguised as compliments such as: "Johnny So and So really played an excellent game! He was accurate like a machine against me", etc.
You'll also hear allot of twisted soapbox rants about how "morally superior" the allegedly non engine consulting players are.
This is what the forums on second rate sits such as RedHotPawn, ChessHere, etc are filled with, in addition to absurd claims of so-called "engine detection technology", which is obviously impossible. On RHP in particular, the site admin are software developers with extremely modest uscf ratings in the C-class range, yet somehow they deem themselves qualified to make such difficult judgment calls, which are at best a probability guess, even for a strong chess player.
I thought it was precisely this kind of nonsense you were trying to avoid when you decided to make it an up front policy of "freestyle" chess at will at FICGS.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-08 12:56:34)
No engines tournaments
Jason, of course you may be right ! .. We'll see, but I think the experience may be interesting anyway. As Philip said, FICGS main tournaments are designed for centaurs, and basically these "no engines" unrated tournaments are really just for fun... Unlike some of the other sites you mentioned, where to be ranked 1st may incite to use chess engines, I feel that these tournaments (with no rating ranges) will not attract many centaurs, simply because there's no interest at all for them...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-09 15:28:33)
FICGS update & wish list
Hello to all.
You probably noticed a new extension to the chat bar, it delivers some random messages and news (forum, problems, public comments, entries, login). It also automatically warns a player if he started an advanced tournament [bullet, lightning or blitz games], which is more convenient... As it refreshes every minute, you shouldn't log out automatically anymore until you close the chat bar.
Other changes :
- Serbia & Montenegro (SCG) has become Serbia (SRB) and Montenegro (MNE).
- New players will start with a 1800 chess rating.
- Lightning tournaments become Advanced tournaments (blitz, lightning, bullet)
- New quotes added from the forum :)
- Some Google optimizations...
- Waiting list for unrated no-engines tournaments is open !
- Minor bugs corrected.
I did not implement the private messages facility yet... I feel it could create some problems (not technically), I still have to think about it.
This is probably a good moment to open a wish list and discuss all changes you'd like to see on the site...
Best wishes, Thibault
Mladen Jankovic (2007-09-10 00:55:51)
Rating lists problem
The rating lists no longer display all of the players that should be displayed. Even with all filters off it only displays 518 players. Is this intentional?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 01:35:31)
Rating lists problem
No, it isn't... Thanks, I'll arrange that.
Mladen Jankovic (2007-09-10 01:54:09)
Confessions of a Magic 8 Ball ;)
Well, first off I started with the provisional rating of 1200, then I signed up for a bunch of tournaments and started playing 60+ games. Next, add irregular Internet access with no conditions to perform any reasonable analysis of games in progress and the pressing requirement to answer 40 moves in one go, only to go trough the same at the next soonest opportunity.
I "solved" the problem by not playing and forgetting about the server for about a month (needed that). For that reason I lost more than 250 points (254 to be exact).
Needless to say, the recovery of my rating to any decent level is slow, as, in the meantime I have gone trough periods when I played little chess here, or even none, with games in progress.
Your speculated reasons for my supposed intrusion here (it might be argued that your first post here is the real intrusion) are just plain wrong.
I also don't find ELO ratings to be a valid measure of a man. The real reason I "intrude" in the matter is that I like the general atmosphere here. I am also quiet aware that I am probably the lowest rated poster here, but, before few minutes ago, I was not aware of your rating (good job, while we're on the subject) or Garvin's, for that matter.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 02:59:54)
New rule
Mladen and Jason, there's no need to add or respond to the provocation. Feel free to discuss the (IQ / chess rating) formula anywhere else.
I'm to add a new 'rule' in the terms & conditions : "Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator in private."
Of course, provocation is strictly forbidden also, at the moderator's discretion.
In example, in this thread : Mladen, Garvin and Jason would get a limited access this time.
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 03:14:13)
[moderator : partly deleted]
"I also don't find ELO ratings to be a valid measure of a man."
Of course you don't. (...)
Your "supposed" intrusion? (...) Garvin was way out of line and posted pure harassment that had nothing to do with the thread, or my post. I replied and gave it right back to him. It could have, and should have ended there, as Thibault pointed out. (...)
My post was indeed topical and perfectly legitimate for this thread. It was a valid question to ask what the reason for scanning the server might be.
(...)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 18:20:05)
Insults
Thibault you have been over tolerant of abusive posting in the forum already and that has contributed to the situation. Sorry to say that but it must be obvious to anyone who has read the discussions. The key problem is personal attacks on people and not provocation. It is not acceptable to respond to a point with a string of insults denigrating person. Incidentally Thibault is it not possible simply to deny someone access to the blog so there posts cannot be seen by anyone as a punishment and they receive a message to that effect? No need to deny or retrict them access to the server as a whole. This is what ICC do in the same situation. Also if someone is punished in this way there is no need for it to be broadcast it is enough they know that their posts or responses cannot be read. So the offender carries on using the server and playing chess but cannot make posts - but of course they can read them!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 18:39:27)
Insults
Hello Andrew.
"Limited access to the server" means (like ICC) that a player still can play his moves, but can't post anymore, ie. on the forum. About tolerance, I have been less tolerant in the past, but like in any game, some turned round the rules and the result was not so good. Trust me, it is not possible to say after 15 messages (provocation -> insults) who "started" and who must be banned.
Anyway, "I will always beat you ! - Show me, let's play a game !" won't be considered as provocation, but provocation about the person (including the IQ / rating 'formula') has not its place in this forum IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 22:42:32)
chess engines
First of all, every chess engines is a choice, ie. about selectivity, and has consequences & weaknesses in particular positions. Fruit/Toga algorithm is really good but it has probably still much less chess knowledge than Rybka. I think Rybka's algorithm is really better also, Vasik Rajlich added some "human features" while other programs still think about chess like mathematics.
Rybka changed correspondence chess because Fritz or Junior (very strong chess machines) added to a good chess player makes a good centaur while Rybka is "almost" a centaur itself... Consequently a weak chess player can reach quite easily a 2100/2200 rating. That's the main reason...
Of course Rybka will always make some bad moves, but it/she builds an advantage move after move against other engines in most cases in 'calm' positions. HIARCS, that was told during a long time to think most like a human, was not a strong 'chess machine'. I don't know much about Hiarcs 11/12, but Rybka is a major improvement in this way IMO.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 23:31:53)
chess engines
Hi Jason As Thibault post indicates Toga is a fruit flavour ie fruit variant. Check CEGT rating list for single version engines (http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating.htm) Toga II is at no3 and Fruit 2.3 is at no 5 position. As for our game no engine is ever going to save me! Maybe 28 ..Rc8 would have held but earlier on 14 exd6 Bf6 15 Bxf8 Kxf6 16 Qf3 looks really disgusting for black. I am not going to blame the opening but Fritz and I are back to the Najdorf! Apparently Aagard had a book out on offbeat sicilianl ines in which he could find no way for white to gain an advantage in this Prins line hmm Im sceptical. Thibault - thanks for expanding on your comments. I note your point about calm positions. The game I cited is the sort of wild position where Rybka is not so good later in the game it is convinced that 19 ..Nxf2 is good for black a move which loses and which fritz rejects fairly quickly.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-11 22:04:32)
Chess comp ratings
Rybka is most dominant in the single processor versions when it comes to multi processor versions the gap is less and suddenly Zap chess appears. I am not sure why this is. Another point thats interesting is Rybkas endgame evaluations there is some significant difference with Fritz here. It seems a bit overoptimistic but sometimes it seems right. Finally a striking point when using Rybka is how comparatively few positions it is analysing per second compared to Fritz maybe only 10%. This illustrates Thibaults point about Rybka's far greater reliance on chess knowledge.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-11 22:12:31)
Chess comp ratings
"when it comes to multi processor versions the gap is less" .. maybe because the Rybka mp version in CEGT rating list uses 2 CPU while Zap! and other engines use 4 !?
Gene Sensabaugh (2007-09-12 16:18:56)
Gene Sensabaugh
I am still trying to make a decision to use a chess engine or not.If for example my moves are the majority of the time according to Fritz10 are inferior I can't see how it's going to help me accept to gain rating points.Say during a game I consult Fritz and for example I have overlooked a mate in 10.Which move would you choose?I have serious doubts that many people on here can beat Fritz10 unless they are grandmaster class.In a game you consult your engine select between it's choices and select one of"it's" choices.You receive a move and the process repeats.So why compete against human players most likely inferior to engine analysis?
Philip Roe (2007-09-13 00:37:23)
Andrew Stephenson
You post makes a lot of sense, and I can absolutely agree that being a centaur can be fun and educational (Centaurs in Greek mythology, by the way, were a highly respected race, and usually described as happy) However, I am puzzled by something which maybe you or someone else can explain.
You and others assert that playing the engines first choice every time will drop points against an intelligent centaur. Does it not follow that a centaur should have a higher rating than its engine? But in fact the ratings quoted for the top engines are substantially higher than the ratings of anyone on FICGS, which seems a paradox.
Does the explanation lie in unsynchronized rating systems, or am I just missing something? This question has nothing to do with value judgements, merely with satisfying a curiosity.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-13 00:41:26)
Chess engines ratings
"unsynchronized rating systems" : undoubtly :)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-13 06:35:12)
Ratings
Hi Phillip I don't know what "an unsynchronised rating system" is. However at the rate of play 40/20 for example I am not sure I would be able to improve so much on the engines first choices. At the free style tournament stand alones do pretty well. If I needed 45 minutes to find one best move in the Topalov Kramnik line..... So yes a centaur can easily have a higher rating than the engine(s) he is using at cc time rates (on the same hardware). For one thing the centaur can use different engines and for another its a bit like taking a move back all the time and pushing past any horizon limitations plus there is the restrictions of opening books that all engines have. However I am not going to play my own cc games against Fritz 10 (Fritz 9 in my case)by giving it 1 day or even 10 minutes per move because I am not motivated - you need the human element for that. Hope that helps.
Philip Roe (2007-09-14 17:53:56)
Andrew Stephenson
Thanks for your explanations. They were helpful. Let me try to say what I meant by unsynchronised rating systems (maybe I could have found a better word)
The difference between your rating and mine is a measure of how likely you are to beat me, and that relationship between rating difference and percentage score is similar for any system I have come across.
However, the absolute numbers mean little if anything. There was a widespead belief for some time that US players were overrated, even though the system worked fine internally. My understanding is that from time to time organisations check to see if they have drifted too far from FIDE standards.
This sort of calibration works fine for human OTB games, but for anything else it is not easy to see how to "set the zero", and that possible mismatch is what I called "unsynchronised".
I think that standard CC practice is to try to give each player a rating similar to their OTB rating. I do not know how the engine ratings quoted were tied down, and I imagine that centaur ratings are very difficult to calibrate.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-15 12:59:08)
IECG WC 2006 final
As the IECG WC 2006 final just started, this is a good time to end the game. Quite surprising but finally, after 2 or 3 discussions about it, noone solved it and found me (some really looked for though) ;)
Clues were : Playing this year in a world championship final, birthdate (1973-04-13), first FICGS rating (2407, IECG rating), movies (a few players at IECG and FICGS knew about it, the trailer of 'A Clockwork Orange' where the other name is mentioned...
Here is the message I sent to my opponents :
"Dear chessfriends,
That's a real pleasure and honor to play my first IECG WC final with you all. Dinesh, Carlos, Farit, Massimiliano and John, nice to play again :)
I'm 34, single, living in the center of France... I play correspondence chess since 2002, IECG is the place I started with.
I made a few strange movies and videos a few years ago (soon available on the internet) :)
http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/psi_divx411_vost_720x360.avi
http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/A_clockwork_orange_2005__teaser.avi
http://www.ficgs.com/psi/download/Aphex_Twin_-_Inkeys_video_clip.avi
I wanted to play correspondence chess under my director's name but I'm now more known in our small CC world as Thibault de Vassal... I'm the webmaster of FICGS - http://www.ficgs.com , another Correspondence Chess Server, where I knew some of you :) .. Sorry about the confusion. I don't know how IECG rules will apply, I hope I can play this tournament anyway.
Best of luck to all !
David Gordh."
TS: Gordon Evans
+---------------------------------+---+----+----+---+---+----+----+------+-----+
|IECG WC-2006-F-00001 1 1 1 1 1 1 | | | |WC 2006 Tournament # 00001 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 | Tot | Plc |
+---------------------------------+---+----+----+---+---+----+----+------|-----|
| 18149 Robson, Nigel ENG 2646 | # | 0,0 | |
| 16702 Sirota, Anatoli AUS 2553 | # | 0,0 | |
| 19142 Pappier, Carlos ARG 2518 | # | 0,0 | |
| 18096 Chovanec, Milan SVK 2508 | # | 0,0 | |
| 15446 Makovsky, Petr CZE 2500 | # | 0,0 | |
| 11273 Blanco, Cesar GUA 2451 | # | 0,0 | |
| 13336 Gordh, David FRA 2443 | # | 0,0 | |
| 17738 De Silva, Dines SRI 2425 | # | 0,0 | |
| 10969 Rocca, Horacio ARG 2422 | # | 0,0 | |
| 17342 Perez, Brigilia PHI 2410 | # | 0,0 | |
| 16273 Fiala, Jaroslav CZE 2406 | # | 0,0 | |
| 13552 Claridge, John WLS 2403 | # | 0,0 | |
| 21524 Balabaev, Farit KAZ 2398 | # | 0,0 | |
| 15174 Massimini Gerbi ITA 2363 | # | 0,0 | |
| 18311 Bendig, Frank GER 2341 | # | 0,0 | |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------+------+-----+
Rating Average = 2452 Category = 9 Start date: 12.09.2007
I didn't know that I would create FICGS when I registered at IECG and I prefered to use my director's name. I hope you don't mind. Sorry to Igor Khokhlov, Harry Ingersol and Farit Balabaev (I played them under both names).
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-16 18:22:12)
Figlio - Schuster
Untrue, tournament entry ratings (TER) are 2576 (Gino) and 2516 (Peter)... Peter had to avoid draws.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-17 05:35:42)
To tie or not to tie
Hi Gino !
"I'm in advantage from the start given the tournament rules" : Untrue IMO, according to the current situation (not all games are draw), if the match ends at tie, you'll lose it - at least qualification - in all cases ;)
In 8-games matches, like every WC round-robin tournament, fighting for the score and (&&) for ratings looks quite normal, there's no dishonor to tie, winning or losing the right to move to the next round. Definitely rules have something to do with honor, at least with victory. Is there no honor to win a chess game with White pieces and its small advantage ?
What about ICCF WC tournaments and Sonnenborn-Berger ? .. Somewhat more complex, but ratings decide according to the situation also. What about FIDE World Championship ? .. Did Kramnik win his title / tie his match against Leko without honor ? .. FICGS rules are not more unfair than FIDE WCH ones, I'm playing an 8-games match against Farit Balabaev, his strategy is clearly to draw the 8 games and it may work, there's no dishonor in it, only good strategy IMHO.
But, of course, that's more a question of human feeling than mathematics, so only my point of view :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-17 16:18:47)
Schuster-Figlio
I have... Definitely I don't like the "speed up" formula, that happened ie. in the Kramnik vs. Topalov match, it changes the nature of the match and adds some more 'random' factors, up to sudden death - White must win - which is no more chess. In our case this wouldn't be correspondence chess anymore (added to potential difficulties to play blitz games).
Anyway no rule can break the tie "properly", at least this rule allows the strongest player by rating (in case of 8 draws) to move to the next stage, which is quite logical IMO.
Gino Figlio (2007-09-18 06:53:43)
Tie breaks
Rodrigo, I agree there must be better ways of doing this.
As far as the current match, the rules cannot be changed and I guess I will not have to withdraw since I will lose with the tie. I can see the challenge for the tournament organizer but we have to also realize that FICGS is relatively new and its ratings do not necessarily reflect player strength.
How can we decide a match based on something less than representative even if we don't have anything better?. I believe for the future ties must be broken playing chess even if it's "blitz" cc.
I also would like to stop making comments on this unfinished match, I don't want to get distracted nor distract Peter from our competition.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-20 16:06:36)
Chessfriend.com
That's right, I remember this opposite rule at Chessfriend server. By the way it may have incited players to lose games to decrease their rating, which is somewhat easier than to increase it.
About my quarter final against Farit, it seems we both had really too many games at this moment, that explains (from me at least) these 4 short draws.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-20 19:32:38)
chessfriend
I dont think its plausible that the rule inspired anyone to lose Thibault -it was for a memorial tournament and although there were (supposedly) cash prizes (which never trasnpired)I think it just inspired the people with the higher rating to try to win. As for your explanation as to why you just bailed out on 4 games its difficult to respond other than to say it doesn't show you supporting your own concept of an 8 game match or the importance of the FICGS "world championship" stage that you had reached. I guess you will take the IECG "world championship" more seriously. I think having 2 game play offs at a fast time rate to a decision is a better way to go.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-20 20:39:56)
chessfriend
As far as I can remember, this way to break the tie was used in most Chessfriend round-robin money tournaments. I have no doubt that some players would have sacrificed their ratings for more chances to win cash prizes... Highest rated players were attracted anyway because they were invited.
About my match, I was simply glad to get these 4 draws easily with the black pieces, it gave me more time to try to win with White (I was in time trouble at this moment). GM Farit Balabaev is a strong correspondence chess player, even if I lose the match, I have no regret about it. Surely I won't play my FICGS WCH games less seriously than my IECG WCH ones :) .. By the way I still hope to play the first candidates final against Gino or Peter :p
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-21 00:09:15)
Knockout
Surely knockout format (FICGS rules or not) is not perfect, like round-robin. In this case ratings are important and a new cycle starts every 6 months. Let's agree to differ :)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-21 18:52:24)
Tie Breaks
Farit just to clarify things, you lost your drawn match against Peter Schuster (despite being the higher rated player) because of the rule that the lower rated player wins in the event of a drawn match, where there has been at least one win by the lower rated player. So the 4 draws by you are drawing attention to the problems with the tie break by rating approach (albeit the higher rated player wins if all games drawn part of the rule) Well at least we understand your side of it - that you were actually making a point. Wolfgang I understand the rule is a compromise no need to cry however surely its right to review the experience and see if we can improve? The problem I have, based on the experience, is that it just makes the site look bad and silly to have 4 identical 15 move games. Thats not chess - in my view its absurd. So lets examine the experience and refine the process. A 2 game play off series at a very fast cc time rate ( 1-5 day reserve + 1 day increment)would, I believe, get a result. Its still a compromise because the time for cc is very short. At the same time lets re -think having the championship every 6 months idea - I think thats a big factor behind Thibault's tie break by rating rule. Its leading to overcrowding and its pretty hard to follow perhaps 1 every 9 months or year? Incidentally Thibault how do you break the tie if both have the same TER? Just a thought!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-21 19:57:01)
Tie Breaks
A 2 game play off series at a very fast cc time rate ie. 1 day + 1 day / move would delay the next stages by up to 6 months (by stage)... I think that players would prefer to defend their chances - as you understood it - more often, and simply would prefer to play !
In case of equal TER : "If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account."
Finally, draws usually happen more often in matches, that's a fact. The special rule, at least, force one player to avoid it. We'll see if these short draws happen again and what are the consequences. At last, as Wolfgang said, the tie break rule is not "unfair", it is only a rule.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-21 20:34:37)
Tie Breaks
Thansk for the reply Thibault. on the delay front I think it would be less than 6 months maybe 1 or 2 months. First the effect of this delay would impact on only very few top players in completing the final stages. Overall the quantity of chess games and opportunities would be unaffected as new championships start every 6 months so the amount of playing is the same. Second "If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account." Ok this will be rare but you cannot really be saying that a match would be decided perhaps 1 or 2 months after completion when the next rating is done? Third "The special rule, at least, force one player to avoid it." yes but it didn't did it? You took the 4 draws in 15 moves because you had too many games and your opponent was a strong player! My point is not about the unfairness of the rule Thibault its the effect of it - in this case 4 identical 15 move draws is not a good advert for the site, the World Championship FICGS or the players.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-02 03:45:44)
Update : Crosstables and Big Chess
A new update, now tournament crosstables link to games (in a new window), which is a more convenient way to find a particular game in a tournament. Click the magnifying glass next to the tournament's name, then on a symbol (1, 0, =, *) in the crosstable and a new window will appear with the game.
Also a new category in special tournaments : Big Chess masters (2000+), waiting for a complete category for Big Chess. Reminder : Your first Big Chess rating is your current Correspondence Chess rating - 300 (see your ratings in Preferences), so a player CC rated 2300+ without a Big Chess rating can enter the Big Chess masters waiting list.
Don Groves (2007-10-02 05:32:52)
Rating lists
It is good to have a rating list now for active players, that list is much shorter. But still, I see a problem. I checked only one person for this but I'm sure there are others -- this person is playing several games of Chess and no games of Go, yet is on the list of active Go players. IMHO, the active players lists should be limited to those currently active in each game.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-02 13:08:20)
Rating lists
Hi Don, that's right ! .. I'll have to make some changes in the database to take account of this.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-02 19:33:41)
CC / OTB ratings
Since strong engines appeared, there's no more a clear relation between OTB and CC ratings IMO. A few months ago, GM Nigel Davies explained that he gave up correspondence chess because it simply asks too much energy and time.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-03 15:16:42)
Update : Rating changes
Rating changes for advanced chess (bullet, lightning, blitz), big chess & Go are now mentioned in emails when a game is finished.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-30 04:16:49)
Go tournaments : New categories
I'm to add new categories for Go tournaments and to change rating ranges for PRO, DAN & KYU tournaments, it should help players to get a more accurate rating.
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_PRO : 2600+
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN : 2100+
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_III : 1600-2600
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_II : 1100-2100
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_I : 0600-1600
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU : 0000-1100
Feel free if you have any suggestion...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-31 18:51:22)
Deep Shredder 11 available
Amsterdam 2007 blitz world champion, Mainz 2006 World Computer Chess960 Champion, Reykjavik 2005 blitz world champion, Tel Aviv 2004 blitz world champion, Graz 2003 computer chess world champion & blitz world champion and so on...
No, that is not Rybka :) .. Deep Shredder 11 is now available and said by Chessbase to have an improved strength of 100 points elo, actually about 80 according to CEGT computer chess 40/20 rating list, which is not bad at all ! .. Evaluation function (passed pawns..) seems to be the main improved part of the engine.
Congrats to Stefan Meyer-Kahlen.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4218
Did someone try the new engine ?
Don Burden (2007-11-01 17:04:22)
Tournament categories
I think they might have entered when their ratings were > 2200, but with the latest ratings recalculation today, their ratings dropped below 2200.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-01 21:56:57)
Ratings in waiting lists
Hello Marc,
As Don said, ratings displayed in waiting lists are current ratings, so it happens when players enter a waiting list before their rating decrease.
Anyway, I changed the rating range for CHESS RAPID M category to 2100 to find more players, if this is not ok for you, I can remove you from the list.
Best wishes, Thibault
Marc Lacrosse (2007-11-01 22:56:53)
??
"if this is not ok for you, I can remove you from the list."
I never enrolled for this tournament and I am not on the list ...
I just had a look as I was searching for a possible new tournament with higher ratings ...
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-02 00:36:19)
Rating range restored
Hi Wayne... Okay, I restored the initial rating range. Just tried to fill this waiting list, which is usually quite slow. Anyway, it was a bad idea as 5 players were already in.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-07 15:37:51)
New category (chess rapid 2000-2200)
Hello Andrew. True, but I don't think it is good to develop rapid tournaments too much, simply because it is quite hard to play, the risk is to see more forfeits on time & to concurrence the chess world championship as it is really hard to play 2 or 3 rapid tournaments at the same time. Also the more categories & players in rapid tournaments, the less in standard ones. Rapid tournaments are designed for players rated 1400-2200 who want to establish their rating quickly or to try the chess wch time control.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-14 12:54:32)
new rapid category
Thibault please reconsider your decision and set up a 2000 - 2200 rapid tournament which I think will fill up quickly. there are about 60 active players rated 2000 - 2200 and of these about 5 have more than 10 games going. 2 of these (Jason and Sandor) probably wont enter a 2000-2200 rapid as they are qualified and down for higher level tournaments.If the rapids are for players up to 2200 why have you got higher rated rapid tournaments? Lets get more chess played isnt that what its all about? Incidentally the standard ratings of 2000-2400 and 2200-2600 seems a mistake as no one above 2200 will enter the 2200-2400 tournament. Has anyone else got any views on having a 2000-2200 rapid category?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-14 16:13:39)
new rapid categories
Poll : Do you think that rating ranges for Rapid chess tournaments should be 200 instead of 400 points, like in Standard tournaments (I mean the rating range that separate tournament categories)
Thanks for opinions.
Garvin Gray (2007-11-14 18:26:42)
related issue
I think there is a bigger issue here. It is very rare to see a player who is just under the rating cut off enter said tournament.
For example: Tournament rating range is 1600-2000. It would be very rare indeed for a 1950+ player enter this type of tournament.
Maybe all the rating bands for tournaments need to change ie be moved to 200 points difference, with no cross over.
So the standard tournaments are:
1600- 1799
1800- 1999
2000- 2199
and so on upwards.
Rapid tournaments are:
1700-1899
1900-2099
2100-2299
and so on upwards.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-14 18:47:42)
Cross over & rating cut off
Hi Garvin, that's an interesting idea to have different rating cut off for Standard & Rapid tournaments ! .. Cross over is not a problem IMO, but Rapid tournaments could be displayed this way :
1) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (1900-2300), Rapid B (1500-1900) ... ~400
2) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (2100-2300), Rapid B (1900-2100) ... ~200
3) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1700-2100), Rapid B (1300-1700) ... ~400
4) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ... ~200
Make your choice :)
Lincoln Tomlin (2007-11-14 19:40:32)
The thing is...
If even fewer ~2000 players enter rapid tournaments won't that make it harder for those who enjoy rapids to rise through the ranks, improve their rating to similar levels and even improve their play in general?
Garvin Gray (2007-11-15 04:54:50)
Option 2 for me
Option 2 for me. That being said, the rating cut offs should be 1799 and then the next group starts at 1800. Currently some players could have the option of two groups.
Garvin Gray (2007-11-16 06:14:13)
Just say yes :)
same vote as before, Option 2.
Will the standard tournaments be different rating cut off to the rapids? Please say yes :)
Robert Mueller (2007-11-18 08:52:18)
Class M Waiting List
Hello Thibault, I noticed that in the Chess Class M (ELO 2200-2600) Waiting List there are two players with a rating of well under 2200 (2174 and 2147). I suppose, they had a rating higher that 2200 when they signed up, but dropped under 2200 before the tournament was started. Shouldn't they be removed from the waiting list now?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-18 15:21:04)
Class M Waiting List
Hello Robert, it wouldn't be conventional to remove players from waiting lists IMO. These players just lost their 2200+ rating but they probably deserve to play this tournament. Rating considered is the one you have when you enter a waiting list. Kind of "last chance" :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-19 01:52:29)
how to start a Go game
Hello Xuan.
This server is mainly a correspondence chess & Go server, then a real time chess & Go server.
You may enter a tournament in "Waiting lists", Go tournaments are below chess tournaments. "Advanced tournaments" are real time tournaments, but most are tournaments with entry fee & prizes, you can play 20 "bronze" games free with your 2 E-Points.
Feel free to enter a Dan, Kyu III, Kyu II, Kyu I tournament, according to your provisional rating.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-19 02:50:40)
Fritz 11
Fritz 11 is now available... I just noticed that it already has a 2914 rating (single processor) at CEGT 4/40 (2 GHz), better than Shredder 11 and Hiarcs 11.1, but not better than Rybka 1.01, to be continued as this time control is usually not the best one for Fritz.
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_4_Ratinglist/40_4_AllVersion/rangliste.html
Glen D. Shields (2007-11-23 00:57:19)
I Can't Login Either
Dinesh - it's about 7 PM Eastern US time Nov 22nd and I'm not able to log in to the IECG server either. I'm sure that's frustrating if you want to get some moves entered. Good luck.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-24 16:33:54)
SC. von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion !
Svante Carl von Erichsen 4d is the first FICGS Go world champion, congratulations :)
According to the rules : "In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage."
As Svante Carl now leads the tournament by 7/7, even if he loses his last game and another player also finishes with 7/8, the TER decides. And as there's no previous winner to defend his title...
After the second championship (the level should increase), we may have the first 5 games match between two very strong players :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-26 23:36:46)
Wilkes-Barre Furor
The next thematic tournament is a very interesting line of the Sicilian poisoned pawn variation : 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5
See in Waiting list >> Special chess tournaments
If you want to play a "one-game" match with Ilmars, you may try in Advanced chess tournaments >> Bronze lightning .. and play Traxler, if you don't care about your blitz chess rating :) .. or Thematic lightning but with entry fee & prize (10 E-Points) & White must win rule.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-12 05:36:58)
Fritz 11 near Rybka 2.3.2a
I just discovered the CEGT 40/20 new rating for Fritz 11, it confirms that Rybka will have serious opponents soon !
CEGT 40/20 : Rybka 2.3.2a - 2971, Fritz 11 - 2921 (50 points diff. only)
Waiting for Fritz 11 rating in CEGT 40/120 rating list.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-12 16:14:36)
5 vs. 7
5 players would be great this way, but it has many other effects including on tournaments results & cheating attempts.. 7 players is best for fair ratings IMO.
Garvin Gray (2007-12-12 16:40:02)
5 over 7 as a trial :)
7 players is best for fair ratings IMO.
I do not disagree one bit. The more games and more players in a touranment, the better rating outcomes and fairer tournament all round.
That being said, I think this does need to be balanced against both how long it takes to get a tournament started (which can be quite a while in some cases) and keeping new players on the site by being able to get them some starting games sooner. This has to also be good for accurate ratings as it increases the pool of potential players.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2007-12-13 12:06:00)
Just an idea ...
What ever categories we decided, maybe we could add in some cases a "wild card", I mean, allowing one player with lower rating.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-13 17:59:07)
Wild cards & cheating
I don't think wild cards are useful (but wch cycle, maybe) cause ratings move quite fast, simple rules is best IMO, also to let the program apply accurate rules without human decision, as far as possible...
About cheating, if a player manage to play from several accounts that the program couldn't detect, the effects are negligible in 7-players tournaments, even more at a high level, so he'll stop quite quickly as it requires even more time.
Garvin Gray (2007-12-15 17:28:26)
wild cards
I think a wild card would be a good idea for the higher rated tournaments if there was a rating limit to the wild card.
For instance, after a certain amount of time for entries, entry is allowed for one person rated less than 100 points below the lower rating cutoff.
This wild card player will not be outclassed and if a new player might even be quite under rated and competitive in the tournment.
The point is that after a certain time given for normal entries, I think most players already registered in the tournament would rather the tournament to start than to keep waiting around.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-12-19 08:03:06)
High level performance
This extra high performance is a result about forfeiting of the two both best rating participants of the tournament. Anyway comgratulations tu Marius Zubac!
Marc Lacrosse (2007-12-19 12:14:58)
corrected
"This extra high performance is a result about forfeiting of the two both best rating participants of the tournament."
Right.
Still 2550 if you consider his 4.5/6 against 2357
Not that bad ...
Dinesh De Silva (2007-12-22 09:22:06)
Re:
I think the player with the higher entry rating in that stage.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-22 14:26:28)
Highest TER qualifies
Dinesh is right. There was many discussions to justify this rule in the forum. Statistically (for correspondence chess) the rating may be more important than performance to know who has more chances to win a tournament. Anyway this is only a rule.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-28 14:11:54)
option 4
I tried to change the rating ranges but a few 2200+ players would retire from the rapid M tournament... I'm afraid we have to wait. Anyway I'm to make a major update (challenges) and other improvements on the server, so I can't do it right now.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-29 23:27:34)
Major update : challenges
Hello to all.
Now it is possible to challenge connected players for bullet / lightning / blitz games (advanced chess tournaments - note : please verify time controls, ie. blitz games are played in 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves) with White or Black.
Many improvements to come (when I find some time), to display ratings and so on... All feedback welcome.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-01-07 06:34:46)
First FICGS GM tournament
There will be a forfeit by Viktor Savinov (Rating 2668 !!!) - good for ratings of the other players in this tournament! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-09 04:08:20)
Incomes of top chess players
"lol", Don ! .. show me your car and I'll tell you your rating !
Actually, it is quite possible that the most dangerous cars could be found in average between 2400 and 2500 elo :) .. just joking ?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-14 16:19:56)
challenges
Hi Andrew, yes players are ordered by login time (then roll so looks like random) while they most probably should be ordered by rating. Maybe soon... If a player challenges you, a line with an "accept" option appears below the box. If you challenge a player, a line that you can remove by clicking the double arrows appears below the box and your opponent is warned. But I have to make new improvements to increase the interest of these bullet/blitz bronze games - maybe it should be free after all :) .. Now, the empty games (without any moves) will be deleted by new ones...
Konrad Hornung (2008-01-16 07:11:38)
Games Database
Having a user friendly games database, showing the board and position and listing the options of moves played in that position by users of the database, with the option to filter games below a particular rating e.g. 2000, is my next idea to improve this site.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-16 19:32:31)
FICGS rules
Hello Peter, I understand your point of view. Correspondence chess is not OTB (over the board) chess and rules may not go the same way.
FICGS WCH rules can be found here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_wch
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#chess_wch
... so you should have seen it before to enter the waiting list.
The idea in this correspondence chess championship is to find the best player, of course. In correspondence chess, rating is much more important than in OTB chess to know the "current" level of a player, and should be taken in account, just like performance. This rule is quite hard but this way we can organize a new cycle every 6 months, so more chances to reach the final stages. Anyway this issue will be discussed again and again.. and rules are just rules.
Best wishes, Thibault
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-17 14:04:20)
Result
TER stands for tournament entry rating ie the rating you had when the tournament starts. It is shown in the tournament crosstable along with the current rating. This TER is what decides in the event of a tie. However there is a slight contradiction when this rule is applied in matches. In this situation in the event of a tie the higher TER wins EXCEPT if there has been a result on both sides ie not all games were drawn then the lower TER player goes through. By analogy with Peters situation I think the rule might be ammended so that the higher TER goes through except when one of the tied players has beaten another tied player and in this situation is deemed to have a higher TER (as between them)for the purpose of the tie break. The point of this ammendment is that it still gives a tie break winner BUT it reflects the result bewteen individuals for tie break purposes as the result might indicate that the entry TER is not reflective of current relative strength. To late for you Peter I am afraid but worth a thought.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-01-25 11:59:22)
Rating rules
Hi Thibault, will games rated also if one player withdraws without any move (or only a few moves < 10)? I can understand that the withdrawing player should be penalized by negative rating, but not if the "winner" will get positive rating! Otherwise the FIGCS ratings will be a farce or better a gamble! i.e. Ingersol - Popov 8:0 without any move by Popov (TER 2463) in WC quarter final 4-000003
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-27 05:17:56)
23-th board
Undoubtly, he is :)
Well, I can't remember the reason (last minute, replacement, ... ?) but anyway Gaetano's rating was a trap, it increased by more than 300 points since his first game here, if he manages to qualify for the WCH-final against Gino, it could reach 2450-2500 after about 35 games only...
Ivan Pljusnin (2008-01-27 16:43:11)
Team complectation
FICGS team could be much stronger, I think. Some of your players have lost their games by time. Imagine, you replace them with winners of FICGS World Championship and other strong tournaments of FICGS. FICGS result would be much better...
In fact I do not believe neither in official correspondence chess titles nor in ratings. They do not show real strength very often. On IGAME the best part of our team is anonymous players, I think. Their achievements in this match are just fantastic. 9 members of IGAME team who play under imaginary names have now 14.5 of 17! Owl (here he is "Dojnikov") is going to win his last game. Probably he is our best fighter.
P.S. If I was allowed to play as Mobutu, I'd play stronger!:-)
Hao Nhien Nguyen (2008-01-30 10:02:33)
Rating from the other site.
I've got a rating of 1834 in chesshere.com. Can I get this rating here?
Nicola Lupinacci (2008-01-30 12:18:55)
Under-10-move checkmate
I think checkmate under 10 moves will be counted in rating variations, becouse if you checkmate a player you do not win automatically the game: he has to resign.
I don't now perfectly how rating works but in my opinion rating variation is not cuonted only in games that endend before the 10th move with one player losing on time
Is it correct?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-30 19:20:03)
Provisional rating
Hello Hao Nhien, your provisional rating is now 1800 : Ratings not from FIDE / ICCF / IECG give at most a 1800 provisional rating...
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-30 19:31:12)
Under-10-move checkmate
To resign or not to resign, is that the question ? :) .. Such case is quite unlikely to happen : If a player resigns in less than 10 moves, it is most probably a forfeit, if the game is lost anyway his rating is 'most' probably 350 points below his oppoent's rating, at least it should, so this game won't be rated for the winner, too easy :)
Wayne Lowrance (2008-02-02 19:15:42)
Rating from the other side
Congratulations Hao, when I joined I had a CC rating of 2300 at another CC site that I played at for years and years. I started here at 1400,,,,did not know any better. Wayne
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-02-03 14:00:21)
First FICGS GM tournament
again - There will be a forfeit by Viktor Savinov (Rating 2668 !!!) - good for ratings of the other players in this tournament! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-03 22:22:25)
Rating change
Ok, it seems that Viktor will forfeit his games. Before to find a new rule that could decrease the effects of such a general forfeit, I think it is reasonable to change Viktor's TER & rating to 2507 (current FIDE rating) instead of 2667 (provisional ICCF rating). I think it is fair in this rare case.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-03 22:27:43)
Rules change
:) ..
Actually provisional rating rules & registration page (default value) have changed between the time Wayne registered and Hao registered...
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-06 21:07:47)
WCH candidates final tie break rule
Thibault I noticed on reading the rules for the candidates final that "the knockout tournament winner is qualified for stage 5 if all games are draw, the round-robin cycle winner if not all games are draw." Why did you not just stick with the tie break rule that applies for all other matches? Namely the higher TER (tournament entry rating)goes through on even score if all games drawn or lower TER on even score if not all drawn? Why have you made a special different tie break rule for the candidates final match?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-07 01:41:22)
WCH candidates final tie break rule
Good question... Well, it seems coherent : WCH rules favour ratings, it is very unlikely to happen that the knockout cycle winner's rating is inferior to the round-robin cycle winner's one, anyway the rules clearly favour the highest TER, which is the one of the knockout cycle winner at the beginning of the cycle.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-07 02:59:03)
Tie break rules
Yes knock out winner likely to have higher rating. However the round robin winner might have increased rating in getting to the candidate final. For example in 000002 Harry Ingersol could draw all his games in the knockout final and drop from his rating of TER 2555 and go through to candidate final (his future rating at the moment predicted at 2493)The other contestant Wolfgang has a predicted rating at 2489. Whereas Daniel Brunsteins could put in a strong showing winning the round robin final and improve his TER of 2476 (future rating estimated at 2487)Its quite possible that he could go into a candidates match with the higher TER and lose where all the games are drawn under the present rule. Why not just keep to the higher TER winner for an even result with draws and the lower TER tie break winning in a tie where the ganes were not all drawn
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-07 03:43:44)
Tie break rules
This set of rules favour the players with the highest TER at the start of the cycle (or CER - cycle entry rating), who play the knockout cycle, anyway the challenge for a player coming from the round-robin cycle - so difficult already - is just even more interesting :) .. looking at the first candidates final, I'm not sure at all who's favourite according to these rules. Xavier Pichelin is a dangerous player with an under-evaluated rating yet, he had to win (several) games in all stages of the round-robin tournament and he did it well, now quite the same situation but only one win could put him in a favourable position. He's used to this challenge, I think it is just more challenging and interesting this way. But the main idea is always to favour the highest tournament (here I should say cycle) entry rating.
"Victory belongs to who wants it more" (Bobby Fischer)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-07 09:33:55)
cycle entry rating??
Thibault now your really confusing me?? I do not think there is any concept of cycle entry rating being followed in your WC system! In the knockout stages players ratings change so there entry rating changes in different stages. eg Wolfgang entered the quarter finals for 000002 with a TER of 2460 he was successful (against you)and played the semi final with improved TER 2523 and for the the knockout TER was the same 2523 with Harry had TER with 2456 for quarters but went to semis with TER 2459 and for knockout final his TER changed again to 2555. Now if CER is operating Thibault, the knockout final match should contain entry ratings at the start of the cycle ...this is extremely important because that would have wolfgang on 2460 and Harry on 2456 which will make a difference as it reverses the TER at present showing in that match leading to opposite results in the event of a tie. The same occurs for the stages and round robin finals - updated ratings are used for tie breaks at each stage. Anyway for the next cycle why do you not just change the candidate tie break rule to make it consistent with all the other tie break rules ie based on TER at the time the stage commences. It does not make any sense to give an advantage to say the no 8 rated player at the start of the cycle who goes into knockout over the no 9 rated player going into the stage and round robin. Both players will benefit from improved TER during the course of the cycle before they meet in the candidates final where there strength at that entry point should be a tie breaking factor and not where there rating was 1 year or more years earlier- the more so as their changed ratings since will/may have been used as tie breakers along the way anyway. Either that or introduce cycle entry ratings concept and keep ratings fixed for the duration of the cycle for tie break purposes for all matches and stages!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-14 13:40:04)
ratings
Hi thibault some time ago I think you suggested that you were going to start people at a higher rating? Maybe 1800? At present you have some players starting at very low ratings who are obviously going to be strong cc players. One outstanding example is Zack Stephen at 1300. He won the PAL/CSS frestyle advanced chess tournament in 2005 and as ZackS has remained at the top getting high places each year Just a thought .....
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-14 15:02:47)
provisional ratings
Hi Andrew, yes new players usually start with a 1800 rating, but if the player specify a rating below (or an official rating). I did not notice Zack's provisional rating, quite strange, but anyway it should increase very fast.
Garvin Gray (2008-02-14 19:02:16)
re-ratings
Hello Thibault, In these cases, cant you re-rate these 'type of players when you receive further information regarding their standard of play?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-15 01:03:12)
ratings
Well, it should be really exceptional, actually I don't understand why so strong players did not ask for this provisional rating change before starting to play (volunteer ? ;)) .. Anyway, as no rated result has been recorded in this case, a standard 1800 provisional rating seems ok.
Johnathon Ballard (2008-02-15 01:22:36)
ratings
It would be nice to have frequent rating updates besides every 2 months, like once a month. In 2 months some players ratings change quite a bit. Like playing an opponent who is rated at 2000 but is actually 2120 when it is updated.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-15 01:43:20)
ratings
Hello Jonathon. This is one major point in correspondence chess, I can't even explain all the reasons why 2 months is probably the best rating change period, but there are many cases that justify it.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-02-15 18:57:08)
ratings
Thibault you say you don't understand why a strong player would not ask for a provisional rating change when coming aboard.... Easy to answer Thibault, most people feel like rules are rules, and won't challenge them. At least that is why I didnt ask for a rating upgrade when I first came aboard. As I said earlier that when I came aboard my rating was 2300+ on another CC site I played on for humpteen years. Anyway I was confident in my CC chess ability and figured it would not take long to get to a decent rating, I wanted to more or less prove my self here. I guess that is basic to what you have answered. Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2008-02-15 19:03:50)
Rating
On the rating update interval. It seems to me that every 2 months is better than once every month. Every two months sort of serves to integrate the rating changes to a smoother progression, Just an ole retired EE point of view. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-15 21:31:39)
ratings
Hi Wayne. About provisional ratings, you started with the default rating at that time (1400, max. provisional rating was 1700 though), as every player do in any organization, now why a strong player delete the default rating (1800) when registering ? .. I understand this as "no rating, beginner", this is most probably what happened with Zack's rating.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-02-18 23:00:14)
ratings
Thibault, it is not important anyhow, but I do not know exactly what you mean. In my case I didnt delete 1800 provisional or override anything. I just play chess. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-03 12:38:05)
2nd GM standard tournament
Hello Marius, yes it is closed now. The reason is it (most probably) won't be filled before a very long time - we have more and more 2300/2400+ players but not enough yet. Maybe we can change the rating range but it is quite difficult already to fill the next SM tournament waiting list. Any opinion welcome.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-15 12:43:07)
Unfought draws & rating calculation
An interesting article at Chessbase.com on unfought draws (mathematical, logical and practical considerations), also called "grandmaster draw" in the article, and ways to avoid it, by mathematician and logician Kung-Ming Tiong, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4513
I notice that the main solution proposed just looks like FICGS rules for advanced chess (Performance +/- delta according to the color) :-D .. Anyway I still have to take some time to make this part of the server more attractive.
This thread may be a good place to ask for a feedback about FICGS current rating rules (for both chess & Go), what do you think ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-17 15:08:09)
Chess rapid tournaments : Rating ranges
Chess Rapid M waiting list has been deleted in order to change rating ranges for all rapid tournaments (increased by 100 points), sorry about that.
It should help players to reach the 2400, 2000 and 1600 elo barriers...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-18 15:53:20)
Rapid categories
Hello Andrew, I remember well our discussion :) I made this quick change because I saw most waiting lists empty and I had no more time, but the idea is still to create 200 points range categories (the only difference is the 2300+ one, I have to find a way to keep quite coherent names and rating ranges, working on, maybe a SM category 2300+).
Wayne Lowrance (2008-03-19 05:43:02)
rapid Categories
Thibault you can never make everyone happy. I would like to have seen a rapid rating starting at 2200. But never mind, I wont be entering in any for quite sometime until hopefully when I get to the 2300 barrier. Gonna be very difficult. Impossible in any of the rapid tourney windows. Wayne
Vjacheslav Perevozchikov (2008-03-27 11:14:31)
Ratings
I have played more than 40 games. 30 wins & only 1 loss (misclick :)), and don't understand one simple thing: why my rating is so small - 1867 points. I saw other members with much worse performance & much more rating? What's wrong here? Thanx
Garvin Gray (2008-03-27 15:38:36)
??
What were the ratings of your opponents. It is your performance rating that matters, not your win loss record.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-27 23:03:53)
Future rating & statistics
Hello Vjacheslav, everything's ok : Your rating first depends on your opponents ratings, obviously it will increase during next months :
http://www.ficgs.com/display_history.php?member=2290
ELO : 1867
Future rating : 1922
Games calculated : 9
Result : 77 %
Elo opponents : 1809
Performance : 2020
Rating history (from first to last) :
1600 1696 1740 1823 1867
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-29 19:36:02)
performance calculation
Hello Yugi. All explained here :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
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.
Lincoln Tomlin (2008-04-06 11:47:44)
...
Julien. If games miss the next rating cycle because 1) someone cannot be polite enough to resign a game they clearly no longer have any interest in or 2) resign a game they have already lost because they are in Checkmate and 3) because these games are not included in the next cycle you are 1 or 2 games short of a rating allowing you to participate against stiifer opposition then 4) yes it is a problem and as mentioned above unsporting behaviour. ;-)
Julien Coll (2008-04-07 12:02:41)
Hi Lincoln :)
OK for checkmates. ... --Does 1 or 2 games really change sthg about the rating? -Taking into account the rating is very often updted here- -- -- Is it really sthg about politeness/unsporting behaviour? I don't think so: for example, is it unsporting and not polite to lack time?-- --It's just a game after all.-- Friendly ;-)
Lincoln Tomlin (2008-04-07 13:07:31)
...
Hi Julien. Each cycle requires that you play at least 9 games otherwise you will have an 'estimated' rating. This could prevent you entering certain tournaments for another couple of months because of games hanging in the air through no fault of your own. Yes, it should be a friendly game and people leaving games hanging is not really solveable. However, games that have checkmate positions when the ratings are calculated every 2 months should automatically be ended, imo.
Arnab Sengupta (2008-04-15 08:23:25)
RATING
please tell me is the ICCF or FICGS rating recognised by FIDE?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-04-15 10:33:37)
Rating
The ICCF is the only body sanctioned for correspondence chess by FIDE. All ICCF titles, championships and ratings are recognised by FIDE - this is what Wikipedia says and I believe it is correct.
Garvin Gray (2008-04-15 11:46:49)
otb v iccf ratings
To add a bit more to Andrew's answer.
While ICCF is fide recognised?, it does not mean an online player can turn up to an over the board tournament and use that ICCF rating or ICCF title in an otb tournament.
Only ratings attained over the board can be used for other otb tournaments.
Arnab Sengupta (2008-04-15 18:07:00)
RATING
Thanks guys..... well it would be nice if FIDE itself starts a correspondence game system....
Thibault de Vassal (2008-04-27 00:52:53)
blitz
Hi Garvin, the reason why blitz games shouldn't be free is the 2 hours time limit for the 1st move. I'm not sure anyone would wait so much time to save a few rating points ;)
Benjamin Block (2008-04-29 17:32:19)
Is it a joke.
No i don´t need more to get i play vs low rated player my future ELO is over 1700 so i don´t need more time. I will analysis more and more when i get higer rating.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-01 13:42:03)
time controls
The server is accessed on the site, you can tick the box on log in and then your password will come up automatically, once in you go to waiting lists and enter a tournament that your starting rating permits, the time controls are described under the categories (world championship is the same as the rapid time control), check the my games to see when you have games click on the game and you can play with the server keeping all the records. Hope that helps
Jason Repa (2008-05-03 07:23:18)
Rating List
Only players 2400+ are shown now?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-03 09:09:01)
Rating list
Hi Jason, this is a temporary bug that should be corrected in a few hours...
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 15:01:06)
A bird in the hand
I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable - they are both off beat openings. On the question of chess knowledge I do not know how much he knows about b4? It can also be a dangerous practical weapon and can pose the black player more problems than f4. It is played by serious professional chess players in tournaments eg GM Christian Bauer (2626) has played it several times successfully this year and quite a few IM's regularly play it with success. Now to comparing rating sizes something I confess to not having done since I was in short trousers. My current rating is 2225 with a future rating of 2247 but with 2 rapid games in the pipe line this should be a future rating of 2300 + shortly lets see. Mr Repas rating is 2281 with a future rating at the moment of 2316. How significant is that? Well I had the opportunity to look at his games to see what his rating is made up of. 10 of his wins have come against the same opponent Sandor Porkolab and in 7 of these Mr Porkolab abandoned the games in level, drawn or in some cases better position for him. Given that in these "wins" he was often rated over 2100 or in one case over 2200 this has boosted Mr Repa's rating significantly. He has not so far had much success in WCC not having got past stage 2. As reference to my loss was made I can say that this was in a variation (the Prins of the sicilian) that I believe is unsound. Actually I overstepped the time limit while on vacation although I think the game could not be saved I learnt my lesson and do not play dodgy openings any more. I have never on the other hand been busted after 17 moves in a main line opening at cc as sadly Mr Repa found himslef against Bucsa Loan (Game 1249),then rated 1700. Then again I have stopped trusting the books and analyse for myself. Still less could I imagine being lost in a cc game after 16 moves in an exchange French (by tranposition) An instructive loss to Torsten Opas ( game 4388)- won with simple developing moves - worth playing over. Incidentally proves what I was saying about the exchange french it can be dangerous - although not of course, at cc. Finally there is Mr Repa's pet Bird shot down by Mr Kotlyansky in the approved way as follows 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 g7 4 Be2 Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d4 c5 7 dxc5 Qc7 and Black was fine winning in 72 moves. Never having lost with f4 did not include this because I suppose it was a bullet bronze game. I am afraid I am naive enough to think that people play chess on the server to win and increase their rating - clearly there are people who play to learn and strengthen their game and for whom results and rating are secondary. No doubt such people would not be interested in anything so vulgar as comparing ratings. Neverthe less its all just opinion and we are all free to express it within the rules of the server. So: f4 is a waste of time at cc little more than an invitation to draw and the From is unsound and almost like resigning.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 23:08:30)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!
"I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable"
You would. But we all know what happened to you when you and I played chess. I beat you in 33 moves. And we can see how not only do you not provide a game that's at least somewhat representative of the critical lines of the opening, but you can't even figure out when the supposed game was played, or whether or not White or Black won, and you only post a tiny fraction of it to boot. So evidently, what YOU think is not exactly to be regarded in high esteem here. Most people wouldn't have required my explanation where I described quite clearly how there have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today. They would already understand on their own, or would at least be intelligent enough to look up the information without having to have their hand held and have it spoon fed to them. But even after all this, you STILL don't understand. And you mention Christian Bauer who only pissed around with 1.b4 when he was playing opponents 400 elo LOWER RATED! One of his fabulous wins this year, that you were alluding to, was against 1861 rated Jacques Decamps, lol. The rest of the time they were 2100-2300. Has he ever played 1.b4 against another GM? (never mind super GM, as 1.f4 has many times been played against)
An opening move like 1.b4 might be fairly compared to something such as 1.g4. You won't see any dedicated chapter in MCO to either of those openings, but they're at least interesting enough to warrant some discussion in the "misc flank openings" chapter. 1.f4 might better be compared to something like Larsen's 1.b3. A sound sideline.
You want to talk about ratings? I've had to build up my rating from starting at the default of 1700, by winning 117 games (one of them against you), because I wasn't aware when I opened the account that the admin would let you start with your established elo. It's not surprising I played Sandor Porkulab a lot of times, as we both were very active playing a lot of games. Unlike you who started with the advantage of an inflated rating, which was somewhat tempered after that beating I gave you last year.
Sometimes in correspondence chess people abandon games and don't log in again. This was the case with Sandor Porkulab, although I had already beaten him a few times in games that were played to completion, and he wasn't better in any of the games that were abandoned. You're lying through your teeth there, or perhaps you're just too incompetent and dishonest to assess the games objectively. Why would Porkulab have 7 games against me where he was "level or better" when I had already beaten the guy every time we played before that? Did you even look at those games? Or is this just your pathetic way of trying to "score points" by using lies and deception? Additionally, the way the elo system works is that even if you do get a few easy points from say a win from an abandoned game that perhaps might have ended in a draw, that gain is quickly diluted and your rating naturalized as you play more games, because you win less points when you win,(or draw a higher rated opponent) and lose more when you lose (or draw a lower rated opponent), than you would have if you didn't receive those points. I've played many games since then and my rating here is probably where it would have been If I had not played Porkulab at all. Or if not already will soon be. So this is a pretty weak argument from you. A better argument is the fact that I CRUSHED you in 33 moves when we played. Porkolab at least gave me a decent fight when I played him. That's more than I can say for you. I felt like all I had to do was outsmart a machine when you and I played. I didn't have to worry about any human judgment from a real chess player getting in the way of my victory!
As for me getting a lost position after 17 moves against someone? For starters, I've played about 190 games here. What have you played.....32? And I think that's a testament to the fact that, unlike you, I'm a REAL chess player, so my goal here isn't to simply try to win the most online CC games to try to give myself some artificial illusion of ability. I don't always play what I consider to be the objectively best moves because I like to experiment and LEARN SOMETHING from the time I spend here. But having said that, I STILL outperform you greatly, and crushed you when we played last year. I'm also higher rated with a higher future rating, even though you had the advantage of started with a boosted initial rating. So much for what you "think" you know about the strongest moves in cc, lol. And your future rating is only 2247, not 2300+. If you want to discuss what might happen after some of your current games are resolved, don't sell me short at 2316, which is already a given. Talk about the 2370+ I expect to have after some of MY current games are resolved. If you want to argue/debate with someone, learn to do it in an intelligent and fair way. So far all you've accomplished is to lose the paltry amount of credibility you once had.
Pablo Schmid (2008-05-07 00:34:11)
...
"Actually you're wrong once again Pablo. I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site" Yeah, on this site... I began here as a 1700 (the first rating here) and I lost many games on time or because I was very busy and in a hurry to play a move without checking seriously to not lose on time. And corr rating does not mean everything. I play OTB too. Do you? I would be happy to play with you, even if you seems a bit arrogant when I see the way you speak in general. And still, when I read that: "FYI, 5...Nc6 doesn't "put up more of a fight". It loses immediately to 6.Bxg5. I rarely have anyone play that badly against me in an online bullet game, let alone a cc game. and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back. " There is not discussion about material, you seems to judge the position on the fact that Black could not regain the pawn, so they are worse...
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 01:09:36)
Step up, or shut up!
"I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site" Yeah, on this site... I began here as a 1700 (the first rating here)"
Join the club. I started as a 1700 player also. You've lost over 25% of your games. And to weak opponents at that. So I'm quite justified in assuming that I'm a better chess player than you, and by a very wide margin also. The fact that you couldn't figure out on your own why 10...Bf5 is no improvement over 10...Qe7 is just icing on the cake.
But anyway, I've had enough of you whining about your low rating and making excuses for your poor performance in chess. Excuses are for losers.
And there was nothing "arrogant" in any of my statements. The problem here is your stupidity and incapability at understanding what has been said to you. I've already explained to you TWICE that you were wrong in assuming that there was an implication that "material is everything" when I was discussing the recovery of material. That was not said nor implied. What part of this isn't sinking into your skull? How many more times does it need to be repeated for you to be able to understand???
I don't normally give free chess lessons to insolent patzers like you, but I'd be willing to have you a few bullet games on a secure server like playchess.com where in bullet time controls you won't be able to use your chess program to do the thinking for you like you do here. I've already had this type of thing go down with another motormouth on this site. I beat him 100% of the games and posted a link to them. At least he was man enough to step up to the plate and play me. You made the challenge so don't back down with any excuses, like the excuses you used to explain your paltry 1912 rating. And obviously if we're going to play real-time chess with the assumption is that its going to be human mind vs human mind chess, it's going to have to be fast bullet games. Not standard blitz where you have time to see what rybka running on your other computer suggests. Let me know what your playchess.com account name is and when you're able to play.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-07 05:15:58)
f4 or not f4
1.0 Pablo here is a link you should read: http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-analysis/A_BRAND_NEW_Chessbase_9_for_sale_on_eBay_92649.html 2.0 Mr Repa here is a comment about the Dutch defense: "Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4 3.0 Mr Repa's chess federation of canada rating is listed as 2010 with an active rating of 1737. If he reaches am expected rating here of, by his account, 2370+ then everyone will be impressed particularly as Mr Repa says "I think I'm a bit out gunned here.I'm running BATTLE CHESS on a Commodore 64. I believe its running at 1.023 MHz." 4.0 It might be battle chess that accounted for the following cc (!) game as black he played against Torsten Opas 1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Be7 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 a6 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.Re1 Re8 13.Qf3 Qd6 14.Re3 Qb4 15.Rae1 Bd8 16.Qf5 Qxd4 (oops)17.Bxf6 Bxf6 and the game is already lost 5.0 Together with his loss with 1f4 that he forgot about here is another example of the correct treatment of f4 by black against Mr Repa 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.b3 Bg7 5.Bb2 O-O 6.Be2 b6 7.O-O Bb7 8.d3 c5 9.Ne5 Nfd7 10.d4 e6 11.Nd2 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 completely dead for white no prospects and duly drawn. Like I said 1 f4 is a waste at cc. I doubt we shall see Mr Repa use it again against a good opponent on this site. 6.0 All the games I referred to were white victories OTB with 1. f4 "Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny - thats the whole point. At cc Sengupta's play would not be impressive but otb it was effective. Incidentally the game was played in 2004 in India 8.0 1 g4 is like 1 b4? Well that is clearly wrong. There have been no GM - GM encounters with 1 g4 there have been several with 1 b4 including Topalov v Malakhatsov. Over 50 IM's and a dozen GM's have played 1 b4 very few have ever played g4. 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly. 9.0 "What is weird is that the conversation began with quite civil exchanges before tiny criticisms quickly escalated to nuclear mode despite my genuine and exhaustive efforts at diffusion and removal of misinterpretation" Can anyone guess who is being written about here on another chess site?
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:46:43)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:52:38)
Don't be a poor loser Stephenson!
The conversation was civil, until you flipped your lid when I reminded you about the beating I gave you over the chess board. You also couldn't handle being proven wrong about what you said about the Bird's Opening.
Can anyone guess why this coward won't post HIS national rating???
Go ahead, repost my loss to Torsten Opus a few more times. Until everyone reading this thread knows what kind of a waste of skin you are. See if posting that game over and over again gets them to forget about the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess and am much higher rated than you are.
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:57:07)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
Pablo Schmid (2008-05-07 08:29:01)
My last message to you
Too much insults. My OTB rating is stronger than yours, but I don't wanna tell you my life. But even the level is not the problem. Every GM that played against me always respected me, so they can be better and sympathic. Before a chessplayer, I am an human and I hope in real life you don't speak like that to the people. No need to insult, I never did to you and I won't even if you did. Now I won't speak with you anymore and if I play with you one day by the server, I will try my best to beat your machines. Thibaut De Vassal, j'espère que tu vas réagir face à un tel comportement, car je pense que tu es d'accord avec moi que c'est intolérable, un tel manque de respect.
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 12:45:03)
Pablo BACKS DOWN!
Your OTB rating is NOT stronger than mine, liar. If it were you'd step up to the plate and play me, instead of backing down as you're doing. You're probably a 1500-1700 elo OTB player. Considering your rather beginnerish question about the Lasker From, I might be giving you too much credit at that. You know as well as I do that you'd be lucky to get a single draw in ten games against me. I'd probably just win all ten.
Do you always run around challenging people to a chess match on the internet, then retreat like a frightened animal, with your tail between your legs, when they accept your challenge? How pathetic is that? I was looking forward to playing some human mind vs human mind chess with you, but the idea of actually having to THINK and use your own mind to come up with the moves was too much for you to deal with, so you BACKED DOWN like a little girl!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-08 20:29:35)
Rating calculation & categories
Hello to all, I think it is a good time to gather feedbacks about chess (& Go) rating calculation and tournament categories. A player reported to me it was very difficult for a 2200-2400 player to reach the 2400 mark. Now we have a 2300+ rapid category, it may help but it is not very popular yet...
All feedbacks welcome :)
Best wishes, Thibault
Paul-Iosif Guralivu (2008-05-10 21:24:00)
Patches
My own laws of murphy about patches(being a programmer) - from my own experience:
1. A patch will allways replace a bug with more.
2. A patch will make your program taking more space on hdd, and more memory while running.
Effects: Higher probability of operating system to crash, because of lake of resources Therefore the probability of program to crash is direct proportional with the number and the size of patches.
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 01:14:13)
Rating changes
Could you write a script that removes players whose rating falls below the requirements before the tournament starts? It doesn't seem fair that a 2100 player should be playing in a tournament intended for 2200-2600 players.
Don Groves (2008-05-12 03:26:14)
Rating changes
I disagree. The rule has always been that TER (tournament entry rating) is what counts. I vote to keep it that way. Sometimes tournaments can wait weeks before starting and I don't think anyone should be penalized for losing a game while waiting.
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 10:14:41)
Rating changes
1) There was never a "rule" stating that a player has carte blanche to drop as many rating points as they want and still enter a tournament for which they do not meet the rating criterion.
2) Thibault has already manually removed players from rating lists for this reason. Nobody is being "penalized" except the players who are legitimately qualified to play in that category and who must play with the lower category player. The rating average is being erroneously brought down. The player who's rating was lowered is free to enter the correct waiting list for which his rating qualifies.
3) Your "C" class rating category is hardly comparable to the "M" class category where this has been an issue, so your opinion, even if it did have a shred of merit, which I proved it doesn't, is moot anyway.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-12 11:40:20)
Rating changes
I agree with Don Groves - there is no need to make the change suggested IMO
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 11:53:52)
Rating changes
Its predictable that someone who expects to be falling under 2200 soon would possibly like to cheat the system and stay on a waiting list they are not qualified to be on.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-12 14:40:08)
Rating changes
"11. 1. Netiquette (...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden (...). In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private."
Don the more I think about it the more I think your view is correct there is no need to make the drastic change that was proposed. I have a current rating of 2225 and future rating of 2247 but have no problem with a person whose rating falls after they enter a 2200 tournament I am in. However it would be good to get other players views as this proposed change would affect players of all levels.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-05-12 20:02:28)
Rating changes
Hello to all,
I think a player should be removed from the waiting list if his rating is out of the restriction of the tournament.
In my opinion TER means the rating at the start of the tournament not at the entry into the waiting list. If the tournament starts the current rating is used as TER.
For example in FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000015 the games with Jason (!) and Sandor were rated with 2174 and 2147 and not with >= 2200 (their ratings when they entered the waiting list).
No words in the rules about this theme?
Best, Heinz-Georg
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-12 20:43:04)
Rating changes, TER
About TER, it is fair IMO that a player who entered a waiting list with ie. a 2200+ rating can play the 2200+ tournament even if his rating decreases before it starts. There will be no change (it would have too many other bad consequences anyway).
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 21:42:44)
Rating changes
Nice of you to quote the one single solitary "M" class tournament that I was a few points short of 2200, out of the 7 such tournaments that I've played in, Mr. Lehnhoff, But my point stands. I would have had no problem waiting one more rating cycle back then if the rules were such to maintain the integrity of the rating categories.
As for the provocation that's going on here....It's amazing the lengths someone will go to for petty "revenge" after you beat them in chess.
Also, there is no point in quoting a "future rating" if you're not taking into consideration your losing games, some of which may end before the next rating cycle begins, that may indeed put someone under 2200.
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 22:10:21)
Rating changes
Thibault, I'm curious as to what the bad consequences you speak of are, with regard to removing players who's rating falls short of the category requirements?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-12 22:43:14)
Rating changes
I think thats the right the decision Thibault to leave the TER rule as it stands. As for the issue of provocation there is no place for insults or abuse towards anybody. Everyone should feel free to express an opinion about a subject without facing ridicule or abuse. Debate can be robust but it should be courteous. As for responding - I am happy to act in the face of insults etc as if nothing has been said and leave it up to Thibault to take action. At the same time I feel completely free to agree/disagree with any view thats posted and will continue to do so. If thats not possible then its not a forum anymore
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 23:25:56)
Rating changes
It's amusing to witness the hypocrisy of someone who is perpetually provoking, ridiculing, and abusing to speak of there being no place for such offenses. And anyone who resorts to posting links to random, off-topic internet conversations from half a decade ago that have no relevance to the thread they are posting in, in order to try to get revenge for losing a chess game to the thread starter, is the lowest form of troll. I don't doubt that Thibault is aware of the intent of such an element, or the numerous and sundry ways they continue to try to provoke. In the end, we have to look at the results on the chess board. The fair medium for settling disputes. After all, that's why we're here in the first place (no offense GO players)....to play chess. In this arena, I have soundly defeated my opposition.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 12:32:23)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What's clear, Stephenson, is that you're a very sad and pathetic individual. You obviously have no life whatsoever. You've been harassing me and trying to provoke me nonstop. First you start this troll behavior in the other thread....now you're doing it here as well. Is this what you do to everyone who outsmarts you and beats you in chess, as I have done?
It's one thing to follow me around from thread to thread and harass me, but the brown-nosing and whining to the admin you've been doing has made me lose all respect for you entirely. Not that I had much to begin with.
You even go so far as to obsessively comb through all of my games, just to try to find one that you think will someone embarrass or offend me. You even start a thread featuring one of my games. Obviously none of your own games are worthy of mentioning, so you focus on me and my chess games, lol. Well I have news for you Stephenson, I'm not embarrassed at all about my correspondence chess game losses (or any losses in chess for that matter). I've learned a lot more from my losses than my wins. My 6 losses on FICGS have taught me more than my 118 wins here, including the easy win against you and your chess program.
Perhaps others can benefit from my 6 losses as well. Do the FICGS community a favor and post my other five losses, not just the French Defense I played against Bucsa Ioan, that you felt warranted starting a thread to discuss.
Unlike you, I'm a real chess player. I enjoy learning and wish to take my OTB game to the next level and I believe that correspondence chess is helping me to do just that.
What is YOUR OTB chess rating? Interestingly you didn't respond to that question when it was asked of you more than once previously, lol. Big surprise!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 13:22:56)
Provocation
I am sorry I cannot respond to a lot of what you have posted as such a response would breach the rules. I have not examined all your losses - just the French games - so I do not know how instructive they are I will try to review them later but I can't promise anything. However I am a great believer in checking lines I play with the database to see whats been learnt and how the top GM's handle the particular lines. All I learnt from my loss was not to play that particular line and to cut out all dodgy openings. In fact the line you played is not the strongest and I believe black can equalise - unfortunately I found an even stronger line for white which seems to refute the entire variation. There is however a book by an english GM from 2007 which looks at sicilian side lines and claims that there is no refutation. When I have time I will stick all the analysis up and people can make up their own minds. On correspondence taking someone's OTB chess to the next level I am a bit sceptical. It definitely has a significant effect on the accuracy of opening play and this can get some valuable wins by itself. But other progress needs separate study and training. Silmans Reassess your chess for example will increase the rating of any one below FIDE 2300 if studied intensively IMO.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 13:37:50)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
It's interesting how you feel qualified to post my games for analysis, when I ALREADY BEAT YOU in chess, lol. In fact I have a perfect score against you Stephenson. I'm also higher rated than you are to boot. So what you "claim to be a great believer in" is hardly of interest to anyone.
What IS of interest is the fact that you still refuse to answer the question of what YOUR otb rating is, after being asked three times. One can only conclude that you are embarrassed about how low it is. Under 1500?
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 14:17:46)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
I really couldn't care less what an internet troll with a <1500 otb chess rating, whom I've already crushed in correspondence chess, thinks about anything. Send emails to GM Dreev and GM Marjanovic, who have also played 13...0-0 and see if they feel differently.
Re-read my post a few times until you're able to understand what I said. Everything I stated is correct. I'm not going to hold your hand and spoon-feed everything to you.
As I said before Stephenson, it's sad that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. I've never met anyone this obsessed with me. I don't think it's very healthy for you. In more ways than one.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 14:22:42)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
Actually, you really don't have a point Stephenson. You're a <1500 otb player with delusions of grandeur, nothing more. I've already beaten you and your chess program in correspondence chess, and I'm more than 500 elo stronger than you in otb chess, so what exactly was your "point" again?
I can't speak about what correspondence chess could do for a <1500 otb player such as yourself. But for someone with an otb rating >2000, such as myself, cc chess is valuable in many ways, not just for opening accuracy.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 14:50:21)
ELO ratings
I believe ELO ratings are used for FIDE ratings I did not know you had a FIDE rating. I must say that ELO 2000 is an average to good club player and over 2200 in my experience is a good OTB rating. But looking at some of your OTB games between 1900 - 2000 seems to be the level of chess that I can see. Its ok - but the reality is that players do not improve very much after a certain age ...... Anyway at cc people tend to have it both ways if they win its because they are better players if they lose or draw its not real chess its just computers and it does not mean anything. I am sure we will play again at cc and then you can demonstrate your skill. If I win I will not place a great emphasis on it. It not difficult to draw a cc game if you have the resources to hand.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:08:20)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a <1500 otb player, such as yourself Mr. Stephenson, wouldn't be able to figure out something that any normal 6 year old child would have no difficulty with. But then again, during our chess game in which I crushed you, I had the feeling I wasn't dealing with a mental heavyweight, to put it mildly. I'll hold your hand and explain it to you since there is probably no 6 year old child where you live to help you:
The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess, GO, backgammon, etc."Elo" is often written in capital letters (ELO), but it is not an acronym. It is the family name of the system's creator, Arpad Elo (1903–1992, born as Élő Árpád), a Hungarian-born American physics professor. The Elo rating system has been adopted by many different organizations, including the USCF, CFC, FIDE, and others, as well as various online gaming servers.
My national elo rating is indeed over 2000, Stephenson. And yours is under 1500, as you've already confirmed.
I already beat you very easily in chess Stephenson. You're the little guy with something to prove here, not me.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:25:34)
Elo rating system
I trust I didn't use any "biggie" words you were unable to comprehend Stephenson. Hopefully you now understand your error and realize that the elo system is not only peculiar to FIDE chess ratings, but indeed used by many chess organizations, as well as other games.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 15:47:39)
Mr cfc
Frankly I have alway taken someone saying they have an ELO rating to refer to having a FIDE rating and not a national rating I understand that you need to deduct about 35 points from sub 2200 ratings to get a FIDE equivalent. Well I have never met anyone before who thought that FIDE 2000 was such a high rating I dont mean that in a bad way I am just surprised that you think this is high. As for beating me at chess I thought this was not real chess? Well like I said there is a sense in having it both ways. Look we could easily organise a money match at cc say for Euro 1000 6, 8, 10 games whatever you want, rapid time limit you can have white in every game and I can give you 3 to 1 odds. You win 1 game you get Euro 3000 you fail to win a game I get Euro 1000. All you have to do is win a game you can even lose all the other games. Well like I said it does not prove anything - its a research competition. I dont want to hustle you but you have been making a lot of statements so if you are interested ....... But please dont challenge me to bullet games on playchess......
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 16:00:22)
ELO
Well like I stated elsewhere talking of ELO points I take to refer to FIDE rating not national ratings irrespective of the underlying methodology used to calculate the national rating. I guess we will have to agree to differ on that one. Sorry I cannot respond to the grammer stuff - its against the rules. On the game we played check out the available database games and that may give you an answer. Like I said in another post the line I believe is the refutation is not what you played - I will put up the analysis when I have more time. At the risk of repeating myself I still dont understand why you cannot find a 2001 game or what sort of databases you are looking at but I guess we have reached a dead end there too.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:16:02)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
No, as I just explained to you in the way a small child should be able to understand, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings. Not even exclusive to chess in fact. I realized you weren't overly intelligent when we played chess and I crushed you, but this is ridiculous. This has been explained to you already. Do some research and see for yourself.
I normally don't go after someone for grammar, but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base, I ask myself who's wiping the drool from their chin.
I'm not about to do any serious chess analysis with you. I don't give free chess lessons. Post whatever you like. It won't change the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess. Fair and square.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:36:18)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What a <1500 player like yourself "has always taken" is meaningless. What is objectively true and factual is what counts. As has been explained to you repeatedly, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings, not even to chess in fact. Are you beginning to understand or still confused?
Also, there is no simple (deduct x) formula to get a FIDE equivalent. Sometimes a national rating is worth more than a FIDE rating. There are various factors to consider.
There is no "magic" about a FIDE rating. You just need to play in FIDE rated events. I've beaten many FIDE rated players otb, including FMs. It's really no big deal.
I never said 2000 was some sort of "high rating", so don't start with the lies again Stephenson. But compared to a guy like you who is rated under 1500, I'm like a more evolved being. Is that why you're so frustrated to the point of stalking me as you're doing? Is it a combination of that and the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess? When are you going to get over that? When are you going to stop whining and crying?
Why don't we play fact to face otb chess, if you have lots of Euro to throw around as you're claiming. Fly to Canada and I'll play you a match for 5000 euro. First to win 6 games or something like that. I'd probably have to spot you 5/6 just to make the match somewhat competitive.
I never challenged you to bullet chess, my <1500 rated acquaintance, but that would be the only other way to play human mind vs human mind chess. I'm certainly not about to fly to the third world country you live in, just to beat some "C" class chess player in person.
Let's take a little tally here. I've already beaten you at correspondence chess, and you've made it clear you want no part of playing chess at time controls that doesn't allow you to consult your program, so I've effectively won that as well. What is left? Arm wrestling? I kinda like my chances there too!
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 00:35:54)
Re: Hannes query
I'm not "afraid" of playing anyone, and the FICGS rating points are only a means with which to play the stronger players. As I stated earlier, and in other threads, my primary interest in correspondence chess is to do research for my otb chess. Having said that I'm interested in playing the strongest players possible.
It's simple common sense that if a rating category says 2200-2600, then it should have players who are rated 2200-2600. Lower rated players are free to sign up for the category that they qualify for.
Do you play otb chess Hannes? You don't seem to have any otb rating as far as I can tell.
Hannes Rada (2008-05-14 20:10:41)
Jason's query
Jason, I gave up OTB chess some 20 years ago. So I have no OTB rating (anymore) Playing in my chessclub was not and ist not compatible with my working hours. CC is perfect for me. Analyzing and making move later in the evening when I am returning from work, or whenever I can find time. It's wise to play the strongest possible opponents. But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength. Too many variables may influence the players chess abilities. (Too many games at the same time, lack of motivation, ....) On the other side an ambitious 1800 Elo newcomer can sometimes more dangerous than an "old" CC-GM. FICGS is quite a nice community. Here you have the chance to raise your rating and play against the higher rated players pretty soon compared with ICCF. But your "strong opponent experience" will end here around 2500 - 2550. Raising your rating in ICCF takes much more time (because tournaments are slower) but when you've established yourselve at a certain level than you have the chance to play the > 2700 guys like van Osteroom & Co :-) But at this level correspondence chess is no fun anymore. I've talked to GM Peter Hertel from Germany several years ago and he told me that he had to analyze and work on his cc - chess positions around 10 hours per day to compete at this level .... if you are retired or jobless and a billionaire (van Osteroom) than you have the best chances of winning an ICCF championship final .... :-) Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities ? I've talked to several players regarding this issue and I received different answers. From: Yes I benefit from my cc-opening experience To: No, these are absolutely different stories. OTB requires the abilites to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours. All things which are absolutely not necessary for cc. My experience for the short time frame when I played both otb + cc is that for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc.
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb
"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."
I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.
But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.
"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"
I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.
"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"
I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.
I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.
"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."
I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-05-15 19:45:42)
Rating calculation
Hello all. I have been reading the discussions here and did not intend to add my t hought. But I guess I am anyhow. Chess is about having fun, making new friends, competing with your peers, last but not least improving your skill. I am playing in several M tournaments, a couple have players whose ratings have dropped below 2200. This not a problem for me. I think they should be allowed to play. With respect Wayne
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-15 23:14:37)
Books and databases
This thread is really about how reliance on books and lack of research can get someone into trouble ie a lost position after 13 moves in a main line opening - even with plenty of time and powerful chess engines available. Actually its not even necessary to own an up to date database to avoid this - the resources are freely available to anyone with an internet connection. The point about ELO is dead I think referring to ELO points is associated with FIDE ratings irrespective of the fact that most national rating systems use ELO's methodology. Mr Repa does not agree - thats it. "but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base ..." I don't read anything into the omission of the word "someone" here nor the numerous spelling mistakes that have cropped up. Incidentally the book I referred to with analysis of the dodgy siscilain variation is called Experts V the Sicilian with different chapters by various GM's and IM's including a chapter on the pin variation about which one reviewer says: "we get no less than 12 pages on the “silly” Pin Variation, and in the end Aagaard seems unable to prove a certain advantage!" Whatever the truth about that variation its highly risky and not recommended for cc!
Marc Lacrosse (2008-05-15 23:29:59)
no taboos !
Hi Hannes
Although I am not a top level cc player, I still feel I do not too badly here (I will be over 2400 at next rating)...
... and I _never_ play main stream openings!
In fact I played quite a few disreputed lines here like these:
- 1.Nc3
- 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d3?! Nf6 4. Be2 ?! or 4.Bd3 !?
- 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3. d4 cd 4.Nxd4 Bc5 !?
- 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.Qd3 !?
My one and only loss in 43 games at FICGS was in a very doubtful but interesting gambit against one of the strongest players here.
So I cannot see why such evidently interesting openings like non-Najdorf-non-Sveshnikov sicilians should not be played at cc chess any more...
at least at my modest ~2400 Elo level ...
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-16 00:15:26)
Openings
Here are the current openings statistics (see /about.html) .. sorry, it is not Chessbase but I'll try to improve it with ie. a formula with ratings to see better what is played most at top level.
Chess openings :
Opening_name #games Line
Scandinavian 310 1.e4 d5
Modern 127 1.e4 g6
Pirc 260 1.e4 d6
Alekhine 208 1.e4 Nf6
French 674 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5
Caro-Kann 487 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5
Grand prix attack 91 1.e4 c5 2.f4
Morra gambit 173 1.e4 c5 2.d4
Alapin 196 1.e4 c5 2.c3
Closed sicilian 228 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3
Sicilian ...d6 1323 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6
Sicilian ...e6 243 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6
Sicilian ...Nc6 759 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6
Petroff 355 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6
Spanish 1038 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5
Italian 354 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
Ponziani 18 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3
Scotch 224 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4
King's gambit 207 1.e4 e5 2.f4
Vienna game 89 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3
Other e4 ... 1524 1.e4 ...
Dutch 181 1.d4 f5
Slav 353 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6
Queen's gambit acc. 181 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4
Queen's gambit dec. 353 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6
Albins counter gambit 18 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5
King's indian 203 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7
Grünfeld 104 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5
Catalan 36 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3
Nimzo-indian 302 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4
Benoni defense 136 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5
Budapest gambit 22 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5
King's knight opening 601 1.d4 Nf6 (... d5) 2.Nf3
Other d4 ... 1442 1.d4 ...
Reti opening 691 1.Nf3
Sleipner 136 1.Nc3
English 858 1.c4
Bird 177 1.f4
King's indian attack 84 1.g3
Orang Utan 143 1.b4
Grob's attack 12 1.g4
French attack 21 1.e3
Mieses opening 10 1.d3
Anderssen 21 1.a3
Jason Repa (2008-05-16 00:23:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
Geez Stephenson, I thought you were done stalking and harassing me and had found something else to amuse your little mind with. Something shiny and metallic perhaps? But here you are continuing your trollish ways.
Actually, what this thread is REALLY about, is a pathetic little character who doesn't handle losing at chess very well. As was stated before, it's pretty sad that you don't have any chess games of your own worthy of publication or discussion, so you post one of mine and continue to rant, and rant, and rant about nonsense. I already BEAT YOU in chess. Quite easily, in fact. Could there be anything more ridiculous than a guy who loses at chess criticizing the play of the victor?
Normally when someone obsesses over me like this it's a female doing the obsessing. But hey, each to their own.
And yeah, it's pretty obvious you're someone with a lot of time on your hands. Nice of you to share that with us. But you only speak for yourself in that regard. Even with all your free time I was still able to beat you easily when we played chess.
Just look at this latest drivel you're posting. You go on and on and on about why I shouldn't have lost a chess game I played a year ago like this is some life and death event for you. It's really not a big deal to me. So why is MY game such a big deal to you? If you're trying to make an argument that I'm such a terrible correspondence chess player based on this game, why did I beat you so easily when you and I played? I'm also higher rated than you as well. If you're going to harass me with one of my losing games, at least have enough intelligence and imagination to vary the game once in awhile. You have 5 more to choose from.
Sorry but I've never met anyone clued out enough to put DOWN LOAD and DATA BASE before. This isn’t a minor spelling mistake or typo. This is a surprising lack of education. What’s next, “COMP -UTER”? A chess player should especially be familiar with the word DATABASE. But as I said earlier, some people mindlessly trust machines, and don't have the capacity to think for themselves. People like that like to brag about their meticulous spelling, because even a chromosome-deficient inebriate can figure out how to use spelling software. Most of us couldn't be bothered, because we realize that spelling is not important when making casual internet forum posts.
And no, Stephenson, the "point" about ELO is not dead. It's your ability to learn and understand simple concepts that appears quite dead here. This has nothing to do with me not "agreeing" with you. This has to do with objective fact. An ELO rating could be talking about GO, Backgammon, or other games, that FIDE has absolutely nothing to do with, in addition to national rating organizations. You were wrong. End of story. Continuing to defend your ignorance of the meaning of ELO is just making it all the more obvious what it is you are to everyone reading this. Again, Stephenson, LOOK IT UP.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-16 14:05:58)
Rated Chess 960
Hello Joaquim, I don't think we would have players enough to create rating categories, so it would be difficult to obtain significant ratings :/
Benjamin Block (2008-05-18 16:33:33)
New idea!
Hi, I often use the search game button to learing from better player. But i often found a lot games that i don´t want games with lower rating then me. So what about more functioning. examlpe filter game under 2000. and filter game with draw and white in and so on....
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-19 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 :)
Benjamin Block (2008-05-19 15:06:03)
Nice!
why have the GM class 2600+ in rating? Nobody in this site have that high rating?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-19 21:54:37)
Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Junior 12
While Rybka 2.3.2a w32 1CPU/mp still leads CEGT rating lists, Fritz 11 is now only about 50 elo points behind...
CEGT 40/20 (AMD 4200+)
Rybka 2.3.2a w32 1CPU - 2966
Fritz 11 - 2913
Naum 3.1 w32 1CPU - 2890
Deep Shredder 11 w32 1CPU - 2890
Hiarcs 12 SP 1CPU - 2869
Toga II 1.4.2JD 1CPU - 2864
Fruit 2.4 Beta A w32 1CPU - 2864
Zappa Mexico II w32 1CPU - 2844
Any predictions on the future ratings of Rybka 3 & Chessbase engines : Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Junior 12, Hiarcs 13, Zappa or other free engines ?
I can't find a rating for Junior 11 in CEGT rating lists, does anyone know it ?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-24 16:36:19)
Tournament winner in WCH
This is true in WCH round-robin tournaments only !
I explained why I've chosen this rule in previous threads, ie. :
>>
As you noticed, rating is quite important in FICGS world championship cycle (particularly established ratings, obtained from IECG / ICCF or after 9 games finished in FICGS) !
I think these rules are really the best choice in order to designate a world champion. It's more logical IMO to favour players who obtained previously the best results at FICGS and recognized organizations, and consequently a high rating. It takes time, of course. Even very strong players starting with a 1700 rating won't achieve a 2300 established rating before months !
Criterias in FICGS wch are (from most important to least) :
1) Winner of the previous cycle (qualify for the final match)
2) The eight best established ratings (play the KO tournament)
3) Points obtained in the wch tournaments
4) The tournament entry rating (TER)
<<
Benjamin Block (2008-05-26 17:12:58)
Why can new player choose elo?
Some players just choose ELO? Some players just take a very low rating even if they have a real high. Why not let the people choose a ELO only if they already have a ICCF rating or fide?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-26 17:37:24)
Provisional rating
"Some players just take a very low rating even if they have a real high", well that's a quite strange choice but at least it helps to start tournaments quickly :)
Benjamin Block (2008-05-27 16:26:24)
Provisional rating
Yes but it will get a very big inflation.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-27 17:18:27)
Provisional rating
Not so big IMO. Ratings move fast, it doesn't take a long time to move to a higher category at this level (for a strong player / centaur).
Benjamin Block (2008-05-27 17:58:30)
Provisional rating
But bad players how choose a high rating? They will give other players lots of rating.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-27 19:02:42)
Provisional rating
1800 is quite usual as a provisional rating in correspondence chess, some sites prefer to ignore games played by players who don't have an established rating in rating calculation. In my opinion, the effects are quite small here and ratings move faster this way.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-06-02 18:54:39)
Rapid chess entry rating
I sure do not like the entry 2100-2300. I guarantee you, I will not enter here, and I doubt that any other mid 2200 player will enter either, It is a opportunity bracket for 2100 players. It is not easy I know to managed rating requirements for tournaments. But the proper bracket for the 2300 entry tourney should be 2200-2400. That is my opinion. So it the rating entry of 2100-2300 will attract 2100 players for the most part, a great opportunity for them to advance and a darn good chance that a 2200+ player to loose points (guaranteed) cause rybka prevails, in the hands of a 2100 Player. Bravo Rybka ! With respect Wayne
Garvin Gray (2008-06-02 19:14:39)
response
Wayne, this is an enternal problem and while you complain about it for the rating group 2100-2300, saying that only 2100 will benefit from it.
No matter what the rating bracket, it has been shown on this site many times that very few players will enter a waiting list when their entry is just below the cut off.
So changing the rating limits to 2200-2400 will not change this behaviour, all it will do is move the 'problem'.
Garvin Gray (2008-06-02 19:19:13)
Open entry tournament
Hello Thibault,
Have been thinking for a while that it might be an idea to set up a tournament where everyone enters and then groups are decided strictly in rating order.
So the top nine? players in rating order play each other, followed by the next nine and so forth.
Have been thinking that this might be worth a try to alleviate the issue of players not entering a waiting list when they are just under the rating cut off.
Advantages:
1) Players will get to play against a full field of similarly rated players
2) Players will not know ahead of time where they will be in the nine player division, so hopefully they will not avoid entering because they are just under the rating cut off.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-02 20:56:43)
Entry rating
Hi Wayne !
You're probably right and I agree with Garvin, every range is a opportunity bracket. Well, probably more (all) players have a opportunity bracket this way.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-03 02:59:46)
Internet poker
Hi Jason, that's an interesting view and I agree with that, particularly on internet poker. That's why I'm thinking about a typical "FICGS" way to play it, ie. tables with 2 players only, with a ELO rating system (without money, does this exist elsewhere ?), a championship, eventually E-Points (without entry fees) and so on... What do you think ?
Jason Repa (2008-06-03 03:14:01)
Poker at FICGS
I've never heard of poker having an elo rating system. There is too much of a luck factor in order for that to be meaningful IMO. Obviously there is some skill in poker, but the fruits of this only manifest in the "long-run". Even top professionals have had losing periods in excess of a year in duration.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-06-03 03:56:21)
Entry Rating
Okey Dokey Gavin, your right of course. I just feel like fewer players are inflicted with this misery at 2200-2400. I guess I am biased tho. I forsee that for me reaching 2300 will be almost impossible with the new bracket...I am in several tournaments at the previous bracket rating system, my hope is I can make it in this way, just dunno Thank you Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-03 03:56:28)
Poker at FICGS
True. A year ? Huh, really long periods. I've read somewhere (maybe on this forum) that about 150,000 hands were necessary to 'forget' the chancy factor, and the rating differences would probably be much smaller than in chess. Hmmm
Garvin Gray (2008-06-03 15:06:41)
One division or maybe league play.
Mine was just a one tournament suggestion as a trial and did not envisage any kind of league concept. Thought it might help with the rating entry problems talked about in many threads.
But that has potential too. I thought this was worth a go as a single tournament ie no leagues.
If it succeeds and is popular, then it can go from there. If it fails, so be it, it just disappears into the ether like all other dud ideas.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-03 18:00:59)
Correspondence Poker
Live time is easier, a problem is that correspondence poker may be very long : ~6 moves by hand by player, let's say from 10 or 20 hands to 100 hands and more in one game, so many moves :/ .. but it may be possible to limit the number of hands and calculate ratings also by taking account of what is left after ie. 100 hands - which is quite few anyway.
Don Groves (2008-06-04 07:18:03)
Poker
As usual, Mr. Repa, you eventually turn every disagreement into a personal attack. I'm surprised you didn't mention how much higher your chess rating is than mine. You prove my point about bluffing when you say that poker is more a psychological game than a mathematical one. That is one thing we can agree on. Yes, I'm quite sure Barry Greenstein knows a bit more about the game than I do, and I'm just as sure he knows at least that much more about it than you.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 09:22:21)
Rapid chess entry rating
I disagree with Wayne Lowrance completely. The 2300+ rapid category is an excellent idea. Obviously it's much more difficult to go from 2300-2400 than it is to go from 2200-2300. Without the 2300+ category it's ominously difficult for a 23xx player to get to the next level.
My only complaint is that the standard list doesn't have a 2300+ category as well.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 10:02:42)
Poker
Groves, it's pretty sad if you aren't capable of understanding what you did. But in your case I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
And I don't need to meet you in person to know what you're all about. Your words speak volumes. And FYI chess ratings aren't obtained by flipping coins. You're a mere 1600 and change player. It's not the result of "bad luck".
You equate the stating of facts with "insulting". The problem is when I'm dealing with a very modest individual like you, every objective fact I state is interpreted as an insult.
As I said, read a poker book, or get someone to read one to you so that you can learn the basics of the game. Perhaps then you'll understand that there is more to the game than simply managing your money and knowing when to bluff.
Don Groves (2008-06-04 18:58:24)
Poker
Repa, there you go again, bringing my Chess rating into something it has nothing to do with. I haven't played Chess in over two years but you still keep bringing it up. You do that so often it could make others think you define yourself in terms of ratings. Look up "argumentum ad hominem." You're very good at it -- so good you should consider going into politics.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 19:21:48)
Poker
As was just explained to you, groves, you're not a 1600 chess player as the result of "bad luck". You have the rating you do for a reason. The fact that you're not intelligent enough to get your chess rating up to even a modest level does indeed relate to your inability to understand concepts in other areas. Go back to your original post and try to understand what this "discussion" is all about. It's about the fact that you can't comprehend my statement that poker is a game which involves more than just knowing when to bluff and managing your money. I even went so far as to try to explain the concept of EV to you as I wasn't confident you would figure out how to look that up on your own.
What's very telling here is that all of my posts contain discussion of poker whereas your just keep trying to be offensive and whining about how you feel "insulted" when I've done nothing but state objective facts about you. I suppose referring to you as a 1600 chess player is also an "insult" Your last two posts are completely devoid of any discussion of poker whatsoever.
I'd tell you to grow up, groves, but at your age I think it's a bit too late for you.
Don Groves (2008-06-04 19:59:07)
Poker
Your definition of "objective facts" is a bit weak, Repa. You state that I'm not intelligent enough to get my Chess rating higher yet I just told you I don't play Chess anymore. Besides that, my meager rating was achieved without the use of computers. One of the reasons I switched to Go is because Go is not yet dominated by computer programs. Why don't you try Go yourself and see how high a rating you can achieve without the aid of a computer? Also, in my second post, I agreed with you there is more to poker than just bluffing, etc. I said my comments were meant for players who already had mastered the mechanics and mathematics of the game. Rather than acknowledging this, you commenced with an ad hominem attack so typical of you. I stand by my original statement that the stakes in poker must be high enough to make bluffing possible or the game becomes nothing but chance where the best hand wins every pot. The best psychological game of poker is five-card draw with pot-limit and table-stakes. Playing with cards dealt face-up as in stud or hold-em (which is a form of 7-card stud) is for those who can't handle the uncertainty of not knowing for sure when they have a lock or at least that the odds are heavily in their favor.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 20:22:20)
Poker
No, your ability to understand simple concepts is what is weak here groves. You keep whining that your paltry 1600 chess rating shouldn't matter because you haven't played chess in a couple of years, but what difference does that make? Are elo points easier to obtain now? And what about Go? You play that game regularly, yet you have a pathetic 1300 rating at that as well. You better open a window before you think up another lame excuse....I wouldn't want you to die from smoke inhalation.
I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating myself in order for the point to penetrate your skull, but your comment about "mastering the mechanics" of the game is pure nonsense. You speak as if the entirety of poker theory can be equated to memorizing basic strategy in blackjack. You seem to think the discussion of calculating EV is based purely on figuring out pot-odds and how that relates to the number of outs, etc, but if you had the incipience of a clue about the game you'd realize that there is much MORE involved than that. Poker is an information game and all the information you have at your disposal, such as the temperament and mood of your opponent(s), your perceived table image (or at least your interpretation of it), the history of the action that has occurred so far, the tells that you pick up and the false tells that you may be sending to your opponents, etc, goes into the calculation of the EV on any given play. The better a player is able to conduct these evaluations and convert them into value, at least intuitively....the better a poker player they are. Even online poker has some tell/false-tell action as the response time can be varied.
Re-read my previous post where I mentioned that mistakes can take various forms. I clearly state, and in simple terms such that even you should be able to grasp, that there is more to the game than straightforward arithmetic calculations.
And I realize that you don't work, but geez, can you not find something better to do with your time than try to provoke people on the internet? Why don't you use all that free time you have on your hands to learn how to play Chess or Go beyond the level of a rank beginner?
Don Groves (2008-06-04 20:50:02)
Poker
Yada, yada, more of the same from Repa. If you think 1300 is such a poor Go rating, let's see what you can do. We know you're great at computer-aided Chess, maybe that will translate well to Go. We really do need more good Go players here. There are Go programs that play at or above my current level. You could use one and get a head start.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 20:56:31)
Poker
I don't "think" 1300 is a mediocre Go rating, any more than I "think" 1600 is a mediocre chess rating. But a guy like you is used to being below average at the things you do, so I guess you're comfortable with that.
I've proven myself for years at live OTB chess with no computer assistance whatsoever little guy. You're only making a fool of yourself with such comments. I'm in the top 1% of all tournament chess players in my province at slow chess. And I'm a several time provincial champion at blitz chess.
Did I use any words too complex for you to understand in my previous post? I tried to explain to you what goes into making poker decisions, in the way a 4 year old should be able to understand. Was I overly optimistic?
Marc Lacrosse (2008-06-04 23:50:50)
Why so few top players in Wch 5 ?
In the present "active" players rating list there are 38 players with a 2300+ rating.
So far only three of them registered for the soon to begin 5th "world championship".
I just wonder why ...
Marc
Wayne Lowrance (2008-06-08 06:24:35)
Rapid chess entry rating
Jayson Repa has a point but I think he is missing my point. If Engine help was not allowed, I would agree 100%. But with engine help, in practice mostly Rybka, a 2100 player is grossly under rated, I mean gross. So that is a huge barrier to overcome for a 2200+ rated player. It is not obvious that a 2300 player climbing the ranks against 2400 players has a larger barrier than a 2200 player reaching 2300. \The point I am making is: It matters little the ratings in correspondence chess with very very long time controls. Rybka does not know or care, the lil girl just makes best moves anyhow. The skill comes in when the human selects the best opening and is the most capable of steering his engine consistant with his chess knowledge. Heck Mr Repa I would love to play 2400 players, my chance of loosing is no greater than losing to a 2100 player, both would be using Rybka or engine of their choice. With respect sir Wayne
Jason Repa (2008-06-08 20:37:40)
Rapid chess entry rating
No, Lowrance, you're the one missing the point here. And you're using engine assistance as much as anyone here, so don't pretend like you're somehow at a disadvantage. I've played you, and you're 100% program. Perhaps that's the problem.
Thibault mentioned once that a weak player running Rybka can get to around 2100 or so. To get beyond that requires some chess knowledge. While he may not be precisely accurate about the number....perhaps it's 2200 instead......nonetheless, the point is accurate. Everyone who's above 2000 on this site is consulting chess engines, but in corr. chess simply running a program alone is not the strongest way to play. You make it sound as though Rybka plays the perfect chess game. If that were the case everyone on this site would be rated about the same. It should be quite obvious to you that to go from 2300 to 2400 is much more difficult than going from 2200-2300. As a higher rated player, you get less points for winning or drawing, and lose more when you lose. As for your chances against 2400 players being the same as against 2100 players, that's pure nonsense. You'd be lucky to get the occasional draw against a 2400 player, (one who's really earned their rating and not just started with an artificially high rating as is the case with more than a few on this site) whilst you will lost most of those games. A higher rated player is higher rated for a reason. They win more games.
The correct spelling of my name should also be obvious to you, as it's on the same page that you're entering text into.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-06-08 22:59:52)
Rapid chess entry rating
Sorry for mispelled name, not my intention. This my last post here with you, I do not wish to engage in insults. I have never claimed to not use a engine. of course I do. I do not know your rating, not bothering to look it up. I am so very busy with my tourny games I have no time for you. I will not forget your last post my friend. After I get a little free time from games I will challenge you to some match games. I doubt you will accept, but I will do it. So long my friend, good c hess, good luck with your problems Wayne p.s. do not bother with a follow. I thank you
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 00:22:32)
Rapid chess entry rating
If you're not bright enough to figure out how to look up someone's rating, you better stick to "engine-assisted" chess. I'd probably beat you blindfolded in chess where you have to come up with the moves using your own mind. You're not even intelligent enough to figure out how to spell someone's name, when the spelling of it is right in front of you.
And for someone who doesn't want to engage in insults, you sure are doing a good job of insulting. Nice of you to "claim" I wouldn't accept your "challenge" of playing match games, before you even make the challenge. Obviously it's YOU who's backing down from match games with me, under the pretense of not having any time to play. What sheer nonsense. You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands....enough to blabber away with numerous forum posts where you whine about not being able to make it to 2300.
I'm challenging YOU to some human mind vs human mind chess on the playchess server right now. You can get a free trial account there (if you don't already have an account) in about 2 minutes. For a guy who's incessantly bickering about Rybka hurting your performance, you should love having the opportunity to prove to everyone reading this that you're not the spineless hypocrite coward I'm claiming you are and step up to the plate to play me some fast (so rybka or other engines cannot be consulted) online games.
Nice of you to tell us you have problems, but it was already obvious.
Don Groves (2008-06-09 06:47:09)
Brackets - both Chess and Go
In response to Garvin Gray's first response in this thread: There is a way around the problem of being stuck at a certain rating because you never get to play against higher rated players (which is necessary to move up) -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating. This is done on at least one site already (IECG, if I recall correctly). If the player in question does not improve his/her rating enough to stay at the higher level, he/she drops back into the lower classification. Thibault would have to agree to allow this of course. I think it's a good way to reward the winner of a tournament.
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.
Don Groves (2008-06-09 09:01:24)
Brackets - Chess and Go
Thanks for your reasoned response, Jason. I'll answer your points in order: (1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution. Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group, and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern. (2) The other players in the group will have five other opponents rated within the group's normal limits and thus will have plenty of opportunity for their own advancement by winning a majority of those games. Remember also that Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below. So, losing a game to this one player will not constitute a disaster to anyone's rating. (3) The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament. (4) Your point here is simply not true in general. In my own case, I'm the highest rated player in a current Go tournament. Even if I win every game, my rating will improve at most from 8 kyu to 7 kyu. The next cutoff point is 5 kyu and there's no way I can reach that level without playing against higher rated players.
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.
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 04:52:22)
Senility is a terrible thing
"Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you"
Sorry groves, but I was simply stating facts. It's difficult to find anything to say about you that you won't construe as an "insult". Everything that has spewed out of your keyboard thus far is evidence of your complete lack of reasoning ability, and very modest IQ.
"I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology"
You "think" a lot of nonsense that isn't true, groves. This is nothing new.
"-- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification"
I realize that with your condition you can scarcely recall your own words from moments ago, but it was YOUR idea that the player in question be seeded into the higher rating classification event REGARDLESS of their rating. So now the little light bulb went on in that melon head of yours and you now realize what I was telling you earlier....about there being no guarantee that the tournament winner is rated near the top of his classification? If you're going to change what you proposed earlier, and only allow players who are within 25 elo of the higher classification, what's the point of it? You might as well let him get the remaining 25 elo on his own and enter the higher classification event normally.
I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself.
You're doing an awful lot of apologizing, groves. Your very existence seems to be one big apology. I'm sure quite a few people in your life have to repeat themselves, ad nauseum, for your benefit.
"You can have the last word now"
The last word should have been my previous post. As usual, you've contributed nothing of value here. Just more pathetic whining and blabbering, as per usual.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-06-10 16:44:32)
Rapid chess entry rating
I am pleased that Thiabalt has/is taking steps to put a stop to this bickering and name calling here at the chess site. For my part I would like to apoligize to all for opening this "Rapid chess entry rating" topic in the first place. It is my bad ! And I will not repeat this mistake again. It was never my intension to creat such chaos. I thought it was a harmless topic and was giving an opinion. I feel bad that one individual has such a dislike for me. I have been playing c hess on internet for perhaps 20 years, and in all of that time I have never had anyone dislike me, I confess it does bother me. Wayne
Marc Lacrosse (2008-06-11 23:54:23)
Strange rating ...
Having a look at the rating list I see that Ryszard Kasperek has a 2544 rating and the FICGS FEM title.
I just wonder how he got the FEM title as he did never play a single game on FICGS ?
He has been rated 14 times with the same original 2544 elo without a single game played here
Strange ...
IMHO people who register here with a high foreign rating and do not play a single game in more than one year should be banned.
I cannot even imagine how they could be granted a FICGS title
Marc
Marc Lacrosse (2008-06-12 00:03:48)
Example
GM Suat Atalik never played a single game here and did not connect once since early 2006.
Keeping him in a rating list is not correct
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-12 00:37:27)
Titles
Hi Marc,
The rules specify that a title obtained at IECG give the right to ask for the same title at FICGS (with F letter before, ie. FEM)
Ratings are no more established ones after (if I remember well) 2 years of inactivity. I think that old ratings should remain in a list anyway, that's a part of correspondence chess history :)
The active players list should be considered first, then you won't see these ratings anymore.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-06-20 20:45:46)
Why
Playing on in a completely lost position is to get to the next rating adjustment. Particularly when the loss would take them below a threshold - in this case 2300. Your opponent will probably resign on July 1st. Nice game by the way although I didnt like 6 ..Bxf3 (why give up the bishop?)I think 6..Bh5 then e6-d5 and black is fine. 12 Rc1 was a great move! A few moves later and black is suddenly in big trouble
Henrik Jonsson (2008-07-02 23:13:12)
Openings that leads to open games?
I have a rating of 1800 at ICC. But I don´t know very much opening theory. I like open games. So I would like to learn openings, where a lot of pawns are exchanged, that leads to open games. Any recommendations?
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
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-12 22:45:22)
standard categories
Its a purely cosmetic change but perhaps it would be better to adjust the rating categories to: 2200-2400, 2000-2200 etc because thats what they effectively are. Nobody with a 2400+ rating wil join the current 2200-2600 category - they would join the list for 2400-2800. It seems pointless to have the overlap.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-12 22:52:44)
rating categories
Its a purely cosmetic change but perhaps it would be better to adjust the rating categories to: 2200-2400, 2000-2200 etc because thats what they effectively are. Nobody with a 2400+ rating wil join the current 2200-2600 category - they would join the list for 2400-2800. It seems pointless to have the overlap.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-13 16:42:36)
rating categories
Most probably true, however it helps some tournaments (class E, F, G) to start faster. I might change this later though.
Benjamin Block (2008-07-16 14:32:33)
New idea
i have think about this a long time but now i think it is time to write it down.
What do you think about make you´re own money price tournament. First you choose e-points fee 10 or 100. Then you choose how many games you want. Of course the site need to have limit so nobody take 100 games. And you choose the highest and lowest rating you want here the site need to take a limit. And the last thing you choose the time control. Here it will be fun if we can take more time control example 30/10 days,50/10 days and 60/10 days.
What do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-17 14:14:25)
New idea
BTW it may be possible in the future to choose exactly how many E-Points to play but (thinking like a lawyer, Normajean ;)) french laws are still quite hard and fuzzy. There's a difference between entering a tournament with an entry fee & money prize and betting money on a game.
To choose how many games before to decide the result may be possible but there's some work yet... About the lowest and highest rating, I may add this option in a few weeks. Finally about time control, I may add it but is it a good and necessary thing ? I'm not sure.
Thanks for discussing new ideas anyway :)
Marc Lacrosse (2008-07-28 15:59:14)
I see ...
Hi Thibault
OK I see : you were happy (as I am) with four draws in one single well-prepared line as Black but went on missing the qualification as your four white games were also drawn (and Farit's rating was superior to yours).
Maybe I will suffer the same fate ...
But as i have to win at least one game I feel this is easier to achieve with white ...
As white I am busy varying the positions a little and trying to play more actively ...
We will see...
By the way I think that the rule according which the highest rating is qualified in case of eight draws is really a significant advantage ...
... but i agree that we need a way to adjudicate drawn matches.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-28 18:18:20)
8 games matches
"But as i have to win at least one game I feel this is easier to achieve with white ..."
Theorically (only ?). Anyway I made this choice during my match because I had about 80 running games at that time (quite inhuman :)) so I managed my rating :/
You know that this time control 30 days + 1 day / move is quite different from classical 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves, the pressure in the 8 games may be important, also the psychological factor [playing White feels more (sometimes too much) secure ie(?): Xavier won his 2 games with Black in the first Candidates final] and I'm convinced that every game counts these ways. The tie break rule (highest rating is qualified in case of eight draws) did not apply so often by the way.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-03 18:56:16)
Round Robin qualification
Hi Andrew, that's right : Marc did not play round 1 & 2 in the WCH 02. As far as I can remember, Marc couldn't play round 2 in WCH 1 (he won Group 20) and due to his rating at this time - I don't remember if he entered a waiting list for replacements - I've included him in this tournament. Such a case will probably happen again if necessary.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-14 18:56:37)
:o)
Thank you... Maybe we'll know about poker in a while :) I feel my Go rating is over estimated though, my first Go games here prove that I really started from zero... anyway, always learning, as a webmaster also :)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-18 16:06:16)
translation
I will have a go off the top of my head at giving a sense of the interview in english (I dont know the phrase tonitruand but I am guessing it means dynamic!)?: Hi Xavier and first of all congratulations on your success in the candidates final match against IM (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru] You had to avoid drawing all the games and finally you succeded with the black pieces. How did that happen? Xavier: Hi thank you. Its true that if all the games had been drawn then under the rules Figlio would have won whereas if the match was drawn but with a win and loss I would win. Because of this I had to take risks and attack. It was with Black that I did this because I thought that Gino would play safely to be sure of a draw. - Tell us how you approched the match and how the different phases of the game went x: Its quite simple, I was not the favorite I have 200 ELO less on FICGS and Gino is an IM on ICCF with a 2480 rating. I did not think I could survive 8 games at once - in a single game anything is possible but 8 games .... it was a big challenge for me! In the openings I chose 4 different moves 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3 Gino chose 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nc3 I was surpised by 1 Nc3 because I was expecting dynamic openings and it was then that I decided I must take some risks with black. I kept most of the games balanced with a draw in hand and concentrated on 2 games 1 white and 1 black to get a result. In the end I got 3 wins which seemed an impossibility given the quality of the games Gino had played on this site to reach the final. - you have not lost any games in the championship and you have fantastic statistics 78% against an average elo of about 2200. What is your secret? x: My secret? I havent any secret and if I did I would not say because I would not win anymore! I think I have been a bit lucky because in the the Round Robin final there were 3 of us on the same score and I went through under the rules because of my rating. As for my statistics I was helped by mistakes by opponents who allowed me to win some drawn games. - What do you think of the system for the FICGS championship (round robin and knock out matches)and what changes would you make? x: Very good question. The matches are a bit too fast for me - 1 day per move when there are hours of analysis needed to exploit a complicated position its difficult when you have several games running Particularly if you are working. Perhaps that is why my opponents have made errors or failed to exploit my mistakes. But this time limit has an advantage over ICCF where it is 5 days per move the games here are 5 times quicker! Having 8 game matches is an excellent idea and obliging the favorite to draw all the games and the challenger to get a at least 1 victory is very well thought out. The change that I would suggest is to have 15 days extra starting time that is 45 days at the start instead of 30 and also the possibilty to take holidays for tournaments for example take 7 days for championship games and to be able to play big chess go or another chess tournament during the holiday. To be able to choose the start of a holiday in advance would also be good. - Why do you like cc and how does it compare to blitz and normal chess? x: I prefer cc because of the time factor. Classical chess is often played at the week end at a fixed time and you have to travel to the tournament. The advantage for me at cc is that I can connect at any time to play a move which allows me for example to have meals with the family at the weekend. Late night moves for example are not possible at classical chess. - You limited the number of your games on the site to a reasonable amount throughout the championship. Do you think nonetheless that cc is addictive? Does it affect your daily life? x: Yes! Limiting the number of my games is essential to try to have games of quality not quantity. Having a lot of games going at the same time is something very difficult to handle. It is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio - I looked at his games - he had not less than 80 games going on at ICCF this must have affected the amount of time he could spend analysing his 8 games at FICGS. The effects on daily life are felt by the family because the reality is if I spend more time analysing the games I spend less time with the family. Thats difficult for me. But when the results come I dont regret it! - What do you think of the role of chess engines (Rybka Fritz etc)in cc. What are for you the important skills of a cc player - to supplement the machine? x: Chess engines are used in cc by 95% of players. You have to adapt yourself and know how to use the engines. To play just the best move of Rybka 3 Fritz 12 or Hiracs 12 without thinking leads to a draw if your opponent does the same or to a loss if your opponent is thinking. You have to choose bewteen 4 or 5 moves with a similer evaluation from the engine during a game and sometimes the best move is not among these. - You play Big chess. Interest or curiosity? What do you think of this strange version of chess? X : Curiosity and amusement and I think Rrybka 3 cannot yet play Big Chess! This version is new and I did not know it and the inventor has done a good job! By the way I would like to ask is it possible to castle at Big Chess? [No its not possible] - Finally the question that everyone is asking particularly Francois and Wolfgang who are contesting the 2nd candidates final. Do think you will be able to defend your title next year? :) x: Definitely I will defend the title I would like to know if possible the date and time limits for the match. I wish Francois and Wolfgang a great match! I would also like to express my appreciation for this tournament which has been well organised! - the match should start in the first week in January next year the time limit will be 30 days plus 1 day per move. Thank you for your answers and once again congratulations on a great performance. x: Thank you. Cheers. Best wishes to everyone and good games!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-22 20:18:54)
Round Robin qualification
"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage." Thibault these are the rules upon which I entered the tournament WCC 3. I have spent an enourmous amount of time sweating blood to beat Janos Helmer so that I won my stage 2 group and qualified for the Round Robin Final now this tournament has started you have 1)placed 6 persons in the tournament which breaches the rules 2) You have placed Miranda Marcus in the tournament even though she did not win stage 2 group but tied on 4 out of 6 and had a lower TER. If I had known you were going to arbitrarily change the rules like this I would have agreed a draw with Janos a long time ago and Marc Lacrosse and I could have both gone through. We have 5 winners and I request you to comply with the WCC rules for this tournament and place the 4 stage 2 winners and and 1 stage 1 group M winner in the Round Robin final. I will wait for your decision before continuing. Thanks. I would like to know other players views on this. I have no objection to the rules being amended for future WCC but I want to know what the rules are when I start a tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-23 00:03:38)
Round Robin final WCH 3
Hi Andrew, I understand your point of view, on one hand rules specify : "If necessary, a player could be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player" which does not exactly fit to this case (2 players have been invited). On the other hand, rules give administrators the final decision in all cases - also rules may change whenever necessary - and of course the aim is simply to make it well. As it has been discussed in the past, WCH tournaments with 5 players give tournament entry ratings a too big importance and such a tournament lose some interest, 7 players should be a minimum (I may change the WCH rules this way, to be discussed)
5 players in this tournament won their group, 2 players have been invited and tied for first in their group. This does not mean : "Two players tied for first then have been invited." .. Maybe this was a mistake and we'll discuss it. Once again I understand your point of view, I think it wouldn't be acceptable to change it now but I'll accept all comments on this choice and I'll make the rules more accurate while taking account of this.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-23 11:40:09)
Not wasted time
"what would have happened if the game was a draw who would have been invited??" : that's the real question. I think about it after the result, not before - this is how invitations must be done. A player with a strong established rating who did not play in this cycle may have been invited as well. I understand that is 2 games more, the cycle is hard to play already but definitely 7 players give less chances to chance, so most probably more chances to you according to your result. It is too late to change this (imo) because many games started and I'm still not sure it would be a good choice. "Saying the administrators decision is final is saying you can suddenly change any rule at any time for any reason" -> that's true, and I think this rule is absolutely necessary but I would replace "for any reason" by "if best" which is technically the same... The aim is to do it well only. And of course I'm not error free, that's why I often discuss rules changes in this forum. "(...) the group is complete so no invitations arise and in your reply you agreed", true : my only fault. Obviously I changed my mind and created some confusion, I'm very sorry about that but now I really think that's a better choice.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-23 17:59:14)
still a mystery
I know understand that you had decided (I dont know when??) that you would not allow 5 person round robin finals. So you were going to "invite" two players to make up the numbers in WCC 3 final. Nobody knew this only you. Second you are reserving the right to invite anyone according to make up the numbers according to your own preferences . It may be some all of those who tied for 1st place or you may choose to invite some other highly rated players who did not enter the tournament. Nobody knows! Firstly lets reduce the "invitations" as follows: 1) WCC tournaments will be made of at least 7 players. 2) Any shortfall will be made up of the best losers from the previous stage 3)Best losers will be selected from those who tied for place in a group in the previous stage ranked by tournament entry rating and /or from those who came 2nd ranked by tournament entry rating. Under these rules everone knows where they stand and its transparent fair and consistent with existing rules.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-24 11:52:22)
separate criticism from suggestion
Whatever decisions Thibault made are past and I never doubted his good intentions. However I made a suggestion for the future which is in itelf not a criticism but a response to his invitation to comment on his proposed rule ammendments. I suggested a system for adding to numbers based on the best losers (those tied for 1st place, those placed 2nd etc) and if necessary to rank the best losers by tournament entry rating so if there were 2 slots to be filled and 3 persons who tied for first place in the groups (ie they were 2nd in their group because of lower TER than the winner) the top 2 by TER would qualify. I would also like to suggest an Ajuducations process 1) having indicative finish dates in WCC 2)if the Tournament director feels a game needs to be adjuducated (ie finish date reached)requesting both players to submit their views with analysis 3)having an adjudication commitee who will agree on the result within a set time period. These are just thoughts for possible improvement perhaps they are unnecessary. Anyway they are not intended as criticism scathing or otherwise!
Wayne Lowrance (2008-09-02 00:30:08)
Rating update
When ?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-02 15:09:28)
Rating update
Ciao Wayne !
Ratings and games database have been updated (the rating list will be updated automatically in a few hours)
My best,
Thibault
Denis Ivanchenkov (2008-09-10 17:50:43)
I'm ready as well.
Just looked ratings: Defenders: Michael Aigner, 2561 Rodolfo d'Ettorre, 1900 Denis Ivanchenkov 1741 Refuters: Ilmars Cirulis, 1628 Iouri Basiliev, 2154 Scott Nichols 1980 Looks like team match will be quite interesting
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-12 14:39:49)
Rybka 3.0 about 2300 at FICGS ?
According to Larry Kaufman from Rybka team in the discussion linked above :
"If we assume that both sides have the same opening book, then I think two things are fairly safe to say: 1. A good human chessplayer (or even a bad one with good centaur skills) + same Rybka will win a long match from unassisted Rybka. 2. In any individual game, the chance of a draw is fairly high. (...) I mean more than half the games, but not way more. The actual draw percentage depends very heavily on the opening book used."
I agree with that, so I assume that Rybka 3.0 thinking at least 24 hours per move would have a correspondence chess rating of about 2300 at FICGS.
Any opinion ?
Benjamin Block (2008-09-12 15:55:58)
Godd to know!
Thanks! Ficgs rating is around the same as iccf?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-12 16:12:04)
ICCF ratings
Quite hard to say, the rating calculation is not the same, but many players here who started with a strong established rating came from ICCF...
Wayne Lowrance (2008-09-13 00:47:03)
Rybka 2300 @ FICGS
That is interesting Tribault. Do you mean the program running unassisted, no player help, Rybka choose own book moves ? If that is your basis then I say no Way Rybka on FICGS get this rating. There are very many sharp Centaurs playing here. With excellent tuned books. That is the main thing. CC games are won/lost on opening book. I am of the opinion that centaur + program is too strong for Program itself. Results on ICC have demonstrated that. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-13 13:45:25)
Correction
Hi Wayne, yes I mean Rybka unassisted and playing with the best book possible. But this assumption of rating was based on games played with a ~2450-2500 centaur... But in my opinion, Rybka would not outplay a centaur rated 2200 as well, so her rating may be closer to 2200-2250.
Finally, maybe the most interesting part would be a match between Rybka 3.0 and a correspondence chess player rated 1900 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-18 20:48:47)
Big Chess Championship
Well, I have to find some time to make changes first. Big Chess ratings are probably too confusing :/
William Taylor (2008-09-20 17:55:27)
Too confusing?
Why are Big Chess ratings more confusing than any other kind of rating? ô¿ô
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-22 17:07:19)
Big Chess ratings
They are because "provisional big chess ratings" are correspondence (classical) chess ratings minus 300 points. I estimated this was a good idea because Big Chess was quite different but I'm not sure anymore... What do you think ?
William Taylor (2008-09-22 18:33:42)
Big Chess ratings
Hmm. As you say, the game is quite different from ordinary chess, and as we can't use engines and very little research has been done into Big Chess we might all be 300 points or so weaker at it than at real chess. It might be quite nice to have the ratings over a similar range to ordinary chess ratings, but that doesn't really matter. Presumably once you have determined the provisional ratings you then use the same algorithm as you do for normal chess ratings? It's hard to suggest a format without an estimate of how many people would play, but we don't necessarily have to have an accurate and established Big Chess rating system to hold a championship.
William Taylor (2008-09-22 18:36:07)
An idea
We could perhaps use the 'M' class tournament that has just started to decide the first Big Chess champion. Thereafter a challenger could be decided by a similar high-rated tournament, or else by an open tournament or series of tournaments if it's thought that the rating system isn't reliable enough.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-09-28 16:45:05)
Big Chess Championship
To drive this theme I propose a champions-league-type tournament with a new round every 18 month. At the beginning the groups can be built according to our rating list.
Other ideas?
Best,
Heinz-Georg
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-28 21:51:45)
Big Chess Championship
18 months is so long :/ .. In my opinion, the scheme could be the same than the Go championship :
"FICGS world Go championship is a 2 stages tournament. First stage is a single round-robin tournament, involving the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list. The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. If current world champion defends his title, he will play a 5 games match against his challenger."
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-09-28 22:33:50)
Big Chess Championship
I don't like the idea to exclude players with a minor rating.
And the length / duration of a Big Chess game does not depend on the mode of the tournament.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-03 09:06:04)
Rules
I think you are right Thibault ie amend the rule as you suggest. However maybe change the wording put EXCEPT instead of BUT ("except games where an advantage is obvious")otherwise the english is difficult to understand (but so much better than my french!!)In this case though perhaps Marius is not going to play anymore moves at all in which case it could be classified as silent withdrawal?? At the level he is at it he surely does not need the time to get the positions the fact is that Marius (probably because he has got lot of games/commitments elsewhere) is not playing much at all in FICGS - looks like he will forfeit in the Round Robin final for example.... The existing rules make a distinction between matches and other tournaments. if you follow the other posters then it seems that they are saying that you should not have the rule for silent withdrawals or even losses under 10 moves?? So I vote for the extension proposed by Thibault it seems logical to me for matches - they are not primarily about rating. The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent when they just stopped playing and it has nothing much to do with relative playing strength. On the other hand Thibault it will give you a cool rating!! :) Both view points are valid - its true time is a part of the game - but rules involve compromise and the proposed amendment just extends the principle already there........
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-03 21:37:20)
FIDE rating list oct. 2008
FIDE published the October 2008 rating list, the 5 top ranking players are in a 8 points range only...
I still wonder what would happen in case of a come back by the King (Gary Kasparov) .. Great thing to see a player like Morozevich at the 2nd place.
Rank Name Title Country Rating
1 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2791
2 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2787
3 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2786
4 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2786
5 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2783
6 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2772
7 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2757
8 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2751
9 Leko, Peter g HUN 2747
10 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2737
11 Wang, Yue g CHN 2736
12 Adams, Michael g ENG 2734
13 Movsesian, Sergei g SVK 2732
14 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2731
15 Karjakin, Sergey g UKR 2730
16 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2729
17 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2727
18 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2726
19 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2720
20 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2719
21 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2719
22 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2719
23 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2719
24 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2716
25 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2715
26 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2714
27 Polgar, Judit g HUN 2711
28 Ni, Hua g CHN 2710
29 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2705
30 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2704
31 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2703
32 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2702
33 Cheparinov, Ivan g BUL 2696
34 Wang, Hao g CHN 2696
35 Sasikiran, Krishnan g IND 2694
36 Tiviakov, Sergei g NED 2686
37 Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter g ROU 2684
38 Najer, Evgeniy g RUS 2682
39 Bologan, Viktor g MDA 2682
40 Milov, Vadim g SUI 2681
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-04 15:18:08)
Performance
Hello Lars, Performance (next to Future rating) is calculated according to FICGS rules and based only on your results in the current rating period - ie. from september 1st to november 1st.
Have a good day :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-04 19:35:26)
re : In response to Don
You wouldn't be penalized in that case. All this is about 8 games match, as Andrew said "The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent". The whole problem is just to know where to put the limit.
Well, as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too, but 8 wins this way shouldn't be taken in consideration.
Consequently, I propose a new rule, quite reasonable, that could satisfy everyone (finally even my rating :)), here is :
"11.6 "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases, including losses on time whatever the context in a 2 players tournament, ie. chess championship's 8-games matches, except games where an advantage is obvious, in this case at most 2 of these games will be rated."
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-05 20:04:28)
Slight amendment
Thibault thinking about your point that "as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too" I suggest the follwoing "Rating changes will occur, in 2 player matches, for losses on time (whatever the reason) within the following constraints: the game(s) is at least 10 moves, only 1 time loss game will be rated unless there is a game where the winner is clearly better in which case a maximum of 2 games may be rated" My idea is that if someone forefeits all their games on move 11 in a match there should be 1 game rated (as in a tournament) so there is a price to pay but not too distorting. If in the 8 games say 5 are level and 3 (or 2 or 1) are clearly advantageous then 2 games could be rated. Alternatively just give 1 rated game as a max irrespective of advantage or not (ie just the first loss) provided it at least 10 moves. I am thinking of 2 situations a 6-0 result over 10 moves dead equal positions there should be some rating penalty (like tournaments) On the other hand soemone could let the clock run out in 6 games just before being mated in each game to avoid heavy rating penalty they should take a 2 game hit.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-05 20:22:01)
Re: Slight amendment
I'm not sure to see the point, all games are rated for who forfeits or loses games on time, in 8 games matches just like any rated tournament. So what "price" do you mean ? The rule is about the winner's rating only.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-05 20:30:11)
Go ratings, rule update
In order to limit the inflation of Go ratings, I've updated the rules for ratings superior or equal to 2000. The idea of the original rule was to help players to find their rating range more quickly only.
"Go ratings are first estimated from Go ranks (n kyu give a 2100 - 100 * n rating, n dan give a 2000 + 100 * n rating, n dan pro give a 2630 + 30 * n rating), then adjusted in real time after each result :
Performance = Opponent Current Rating + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.
Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10
Case of a loss : New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.
In case of a loss against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 350."
Christoph Schroeder (2020-02-04 01:13:01)
Go ratings, rule update
What is the initial rating for a Go player in his first tournament?
I noticed that most players start at 100, but my own initial rating was 000.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-05 21:50:02)
Sorry
..I must have misunderstood I thought if games were forfeit on time in matches even after 10 moves they were not rated only rated if the games were better ie the foreited party was clearly worse?? So in the case of a an 8 games match 11 moves completed all lost on time in dead equal positions there would be no rating effect ie no price paid?? In a tournament game they would be these losses would be rated. I thought your proposal was to rate the losses in matches up to a max of 2 games ONLY if it was 10+ moves AND the position was clearly better.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-30 12:12:34)
10 d + 4 h / move
Hi Scott,
A strange format, very stressful and difficult to play.. I think many players would try it but it would cause forfeits (losses on time) and rating problems quite quickly IMO :/ .. 30 days + 1 day per move is very fast already. Then, the "correspondence blitz" format seems a good choice to me.
Don Groves (2008-10-30 20:15:01)
Quicker chess
I would like see some way of making players play more regularly. Some players join a tournament and then play only a very few moves until their clock turns red. Others take sometimes a week or more between moves until the are forced to speed it up or lose on time.
I have a couple of these games going now and it is frustrating to wait so long. If a player does not have the time to make moves regularly, they shouldn't enter so many tournaments at the same time. </rant>
Ben Milton (2008-11-06 16:47:28)
Downloading games
Is there a way to download all the long games (non blitz, bullet, etc) above the rating of 2200? Im sure a very strong opening book can be made from that considering that most of the people use engines here...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-07 10:30:11)
Downloading games
Did you try 'Search games' on the menu ?
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=search_games
Here you can download all games or search by player (and rating) or opening...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-08 23:52:27)
Correction
I wrote previously : "Here you can download all games or search by player (and rating) or opening..." -> I meant : "Here you can download all games or search by player or opening (and rating)..."
Consequently (to Ben) you can download all (minus hashtables) sicilian games played by players rated over 2000 this way.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-11-14 00:58:53)
Future Rating
Hello Thibault, In the short msg's window all I was asking for was what happened to the feature ! I click on my tournaments, click on magnifying glass, then try to click on elo, but no longer does this respond. What am I doing wrong sir. I accepted a draw offer, wondering what impact it will have Thank you. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-14 01:05:06)
Future Rating
Hi Wayne, there was a small change a few weeks ago to make it clearer... Please click the magnifying glass in Preferences, then click History, thus you'll see your future rating.
Normajean Yates (2008-11-18 15:37:20)
rare files and torrent...
Well it is like looking for some particular rare thing in 2nd hand shops / fleamarket.. -- you keep trying every 2-3 months, you get some 'quite' rare files over time if you are lucky...
The frustrating thing is when you find a torrent but it is inactive - no one is seeding --- then you can post requests in newsgroups for someone to seed, and hope for the best..
For example, I have 25% of audio of a Chomsky-Foucault debate [I have the transcript - it is very interesting!] - 12 other people have the same 25% and waiting for someone to seed! [for the last 2 years]
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-20 01:23:06)
Chips
Hi Don, here are the current FICGS rules :
"d. Rules for Poker Holdem (or Poker Texas Hold'em) are official rules. Both players must play until one resign, or game is adjudicated (when one player wins 3 rounds). A poker holdem game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player, played in "no limit" mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips)."
No epoints in these tournaments, we play for the rating only.
Ben Milton (2008-11-22 11:32:04)
.
Good evening, I would like to count myself as an experienced poker player, however that is only true when i play face to face and can read the other players, however playing on the websites such as pokerparty.com or here is quite different. I was wondering if there was a way for me to increase my poker rating thibault? If a world poker champion is 2500 rated and a beginner is 1500 i think id categorize myself as 2000. Regards
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-22 12:56:48)
Poker rating
Hello Ben, I've updated your poker rating.
To answer your question in the chat, it is possible to win epoints by winning some free chess or Go tournaments with epoints prizes... (see Waiting lists details) See also 'My account' page for other ways.
Ben Milton (2008-11-22 18:13:24)
...
Also is there a way for me to increase my chess rating? since i am a centaur player using Rybka 3, fritz, zappa, with strong opening books such as perfect 15 (tuned) and at this rating many of my opponents are not even using engines and it the games are not challenging. Regards
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-22 22:43:23)
Ratings
Chess ratings increase quite quickly here, once you reach 2000-2100, every player most probably use chess engines, but there must be such rules (max. provisional rating) to guarantee the quality of the games at a higher level. It shouldn't take more than 4 or 6 months to reach a 2200 level. Correspondence chess is a game of patience :)
Marc Lacrosse (2008-12-01 08:45:01)
To Andrew
"(...)why Caire plays exactly the same variation of the Marshall in all 4 white games????? - against a higher rated opponent it makes no match sense at all. I suppose your not going to lose games on time playing the same variation:)"
Hi Andrew in my FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000005 playing the exact same variation in my four black games was the key to win the match: all four were drawn whereas I managed to win 3.5/4 in my four white games (with four variations of one of these silly sideline sicilians you seem not to praise too much).
... what is the optimal strategy for these matches remains to be determined. The "all-draws-favors-higher-rating" rule is very interesting. I like it very much.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-02 20:07:17)
Update : challenges & move send
Hello all,
It is now possible to challenge a player for a chess, Go or Poker holdem game ! You can choose the game by clicking the pictures near "Challenge a player" in My games, you can also change the 'challenges' option in Preferences. This is an important improvement as advanced poker & Go games are a faster way to improve ratings ie. in order to qualify for the FICGS poker holdem & Go championships. (advanced chess has its own rating, different from the correpondence chess rating)
Also a new improvement in the 'move send' process, it should be much faster now, please report any bug if you notice one.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-06 15:21:14)
Rybka 4, Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13 & future...
What about a small point on chess engines ?
A few months ago, it was quite predictable to me that Chessbase engines (well, Rybka 3 actually also is a Chessbase engine now) like Fritz, Shredder & Hiarcs were dedicated to catch Rybka in the computer chess rating lists.
The current CEGT 40/20 (AMD 4200+) rating list shows :
Rybka 3 x64 4CPU 3202
Rybka 2.3.2a x64 4CPU 3079
Deep Fritz 11 4CPU 3031
Zappa Mexico II x64 4CPU 3022
Shredder WM Edition Bonn 4CPU 3011
Naum 3.1 x64 4CPU 3011
Hiarcs 12 MP 4CPU 2968
In other words, Rybka 3 always has a quite large advance, but all other ones filled the major part of the gap with Rybka 2.3.2, including free chess engines. What future for chess engines now ? What kind of improvement can we expect from Rybka 4, Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Hiarcs 13 and co. ?
IMO one future version in theory may reach 3600 or more in such rating lists (which probably doesn't mean anything compared to the human rating list) but the interest of programmers may now decrease in this race where efforts/money can be compared to the grandmasters involvement to enter the elo top 100... What do you think ?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-06 21:51:23)
Reaching a peak
My gut feeling is that rating improvements will tail off and we will not see any program crack 3400. I dont know the sales figures but looking for example at New In chess analysis by Carlsen he seems to use only Rybka and perhaps this program is becoming completely dominant among GM's. Perhaps the biggest impact will be hardware improvements allowing faster deeper analysis. This will mean fewer points missed and quicker conclusions as the time needed for the program to dig into the position shortens. You can still see examples of theoretical analysis in recent New in Chess Year books where misjudgements have been made because they needed to keep the program running a bit longer to see the evaluation flip but I think this will decrease ........
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-13 23:42:25)
FICGS poker holdem championship
The waiting list for the 1st FICGS poker holdem championship is open, as all ratings are not established, the rating limit has been changed to 1600.
Only the 9 highest rated players at the beginning of the tournament (february 1, 2009) will play it, consequently the best way to improve your rating before the deadline is probably to play POKER HOLDEM BULLET BRONZE games (you may use the challenge function in My games).
The current rules :
"FICGS world poker holdem championship is a 2 stages tournament. First stage is a single round-robin tournament, involving the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list. The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. If current world champion defends his title, he will play a 5 games match (3 games with White, 2 games with Black) against his challenger.
All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Rules for poker holdem are official rules. You may find more information about the FICGS betting structure in FICGS rules. Both players must play until one resign or game is adjudicated. One game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player played in no limit mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips) of each round."
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-15 14:39:56)
Disagree at a first sight
Hi Don,
I think that's too dangerous for the ratings 'cause many players would like to play this fast correspondence time control until they accumulate too many games (playing such a time control may show an addiction already), finally general forfeit and rest in peace far away :)
It happened already to many players with the rapid rapid time control (10 days + 1 day / move, limit 60 days). Moreover, blitz time controls are not played enough yet and that's a pity IMO, that's now a nice alternative and I'd like to promote it.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-17 14:18:17)
Adjudication
Hi Normajean,
The adjudication in case of a threefold repetition is justified (the game has to be ended).
About your game, it seems to me that such behaviour happens more often when one player asks the other player to resign :) .. Not a big deal, it will not change anything to the ratings right now and actually a few players do not even know how to resign... I've adjudicated it anyway.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-12-22 17:08:59)
Outstanding future rating 2.610 by ...
Michael Aigner!!! And 2 GM-norms!!! Congratulations, Wolfgang
Gultekin Gumusyazici (2008-12-28 17:25:10)
Chess rating system and Suat Atalik
Primitive Chess Game rules still applied through world competitions does not represent capacity and skills of human brain but a useless rating system that only orders whose photographic memory is higher to cheat others detail improvisions. I just want to present a past time memory about this hypo. Suat Atalik Number 1 rated Master Skill here in FICGS was opponent to me at a simulation of 25 person at Middle East university when he gets fame. I have started a very defensive game to make him bored crazy. But those boring behaviours caused him to lose his Queen and game next 3 moves. What is most interesting that, His Photografic memory aworns him after he made his moves and passes 3 more players after me. Then, While i congragulate myself with some fucking hand moves, he stood there where he froze and came back to my desk disobeying order. There he stood against me and made his pose as he just remembered something. While I was pretending My man there is no hope for just fuck off he hehhehehe, He asked Ahh sorry i made some misplacement, let go 3 move back and evaluate this situation again. Man, I am just human I am not machine or Computer Memory. I can not fight against bots. it is insane. So I let him score back knowing I am Winner not loser. Loser he is loser the system he tries to success on. Chess System applied to rate people with such communities only applies a fake counts depends on bots photoprahic memories. And It tries to neglect Humans sensitive intentions on variations. There exist no bot yet to evaluate humans preferences at a game with advanced chess rules. Do not you ask me what is those advanced chess rules. Just Imagine them as not bots can do. And Cheating is applied on determined systems. Cheating belongs to bots and botminds. Sincerely, Best Chess player nEverknown
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-30 20:19:18)
Chess engines & databases
Hello Bradley, it's all in the rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Everything's allowed (but in the NO ENGINES category). Using chess engines is recommended if you want to make deep analysis & reach the highest ratings. The only way to cheat (that is strictly forbidden) is to mirror 2 games, as explained in the rules.
Best wishes for the new year,
Thibault
Don Groves (2009-01-01 05:21:01)
Small problem?
Salut, Thibault!
When I tried to enter the Hold'em World Championship, this was what I was presented with:
"You can't enter this tournament: Your chess rating : 1597, is out of the restrictions."
Should my chess rating matter, and, if it does, could we use my correct rating ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-01 21:52:17)
Rating limit
Salut Don, très bonne année à toi ;)
The POKER HOLDEM rating limit for the championship is 1600 (3 points more:)) because of the rules of the tournament. You shouldn't have many problems to reach it before february 1st (you may play a few rated bullet games also) :)
Don Groves (2009-01-01 22:56:41)
OK
I just entered, thanks. I was only teasing you about the "chess rating" typo in the message ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-03 19:02:44)
A world champion with no privilege ?!
... finally, looks like even the top GM are decided to kill the show in the FIDE WCH cycle :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5129
>> Address by Mr Henrik Carlsen on behalf of GM Magnus Carlsen
"(...) In a future Magnus would like to see a world championship cycle with a minimum of privileges, or no privileges at all.
(...) What about the privileges of the reigning World Champion? This is a difficult question but we see strong arguments for reducing the privileges drastically or even abolishing them outright. In the past, with the right to a re-match, a reigning world champion had about 75% chance of retaining the title against an evenly strong opponent, leaving only 25% chance for all the remaining chess players in the world. It was ridiculous. Even without rematches, the 50% chance of today strongly favours the reigning champion. This may have made sense in the past when there were few serious contenders for the title, but today, with about 30 top players within 100 rating points of the top, this is no longer fair."
There are many good points but I'm not sure the game will win at the end. Any opinion ?!
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
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-06 23:45:25)
Tournament director
Wayne, I do not say that it is impossible to implement, but anyway I don't like to leave the server alone to administrate the tournaments or to calculate the rating list by itself... as a tournament director, I prefer to run some programs by myself, see & check what happens.
Ben Milton (2009-01-08 05:08:32)
.
The reason to my rating is that my opponents were mostly human at this level and could not compare with me a centaur player and therefore i lost interest and let my games be lost with time forfeit. If you are not interested in the conditions i mentioned before, then no one forced you to play me, and there is nothing trollish about my challenge.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-08 12:23:20)
No ratings...
Just an idea, this challenge could be played here in this forum, move after move, with the conditions mentioned above (& Rybka 3 analysis in real time, no need to hide it after all). 2 unrated games, 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves. What do you think ?
Don Groves (2009-01-10 01:02:36)
Time span of ratings
Someone else brought up this subject recently and I feel it deserves discussion:
Suppose one player starts at FICGS at ELO 1200 and gradually improves. Another player starts at 1800 and also gradually improves. Even if they are equally good players, the first player will always be at a ratings disadvantage to the second because the first player's opponents' average ELO will always contain those lower rated games.
Would it make sense to compute ratings based on, for example, only the previous one or two years of play at FICGS, or possibly the previous 100 or 200 games, rather than a player's entire history at FICGS?
I'm wondering if this may yield a truer current rating for everyone.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-10 18:06:40)
Time span of ratings
Actually ratings (correspondence chess ones) are calculated based upon the previous ratings and games played the last 2 months only. In your example it may take 8 or 16 months "only" for the lowest rated to catch the other player in a tournament. Moreover, ratings at FICGS move faster than in other organizations in order to find the good category quickly. So I think that's not a real problem here.
As an example, it took not so long (one year) for Wayne to reach 2113 from 1400 ! That's quite short in correspondence chess.
More details about rating calculation :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
Scott Nichols (2009-01-13 03:58:19)
Different sites:
Dear Tom, There is a site called Playchess.com that only allows engine play in the engine room. All other areas are closly monitored and players who try to use engine assistance are seriously repremanded, (loss of ratings and on up). It is an excellent site. This site allows engine use in correspondence chess. Alot of players love the system. And it seems also, that even when players have basically the same equipment, the better player usually wins anyway. As Thibault so eloquently put it, they look beyond the "horizon" of computers to make their decisions. I play on both sites and follow both sites rules. Playchess=serious chess. FICGS=fun and theoretical chess and more.
Tom Smith (2009-01-14 19:13:17)
Reply again
i also forgot to respond to a couple of points. No I dont consider any engine use cheating, or using opening books etc.I am a average player I think, I dont have a rating or anything and I get whipped by computers, that is why I wondered if it was common practise here to use a computer to play for people as I would just constantly lose in 10 moves if that was the case, this was why I made this thread to see if I can expect to lose every game or whether some people would be like me and just play. In hindsight I couldve made my point a little clearer to have avoided any bad feelings which is why I am now trying to explain more clearly.
Dinesh De Silva (2009-01-17 11:18:33)
GAMES STEALER ON THE LOOSE? LOL!
All my games have vanished! Even the established rating list has disappeared. Who's "THE GREAT ERASER?" lol!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-18 18:20:34)
SSDF rating list
Current SSDF ratings for the best chess engines running on 2GB Q6600 2.4 GHz are :
Deep Rybka 3 x64 - 3226
Deep Fritz 11 - 3086
Zappa Mexico II x64 - 3064
Naum 3.1 x64 - 3046
Deep Shredder 11 - 3043
Deep Hiarcs 12 x64 - 3033
Hiarcs 11.2 MP - 3008
Deep Junior 10.1 - 2981
By the way, how long before a new Deep Junior version...
Wolfgang Utesch (2009-01-22 19:33:40)
Outstanding future rating 2.616 by ...
Eros Riccio!!! Congratulations, Wolfgang
Sebastian Boehme (2009-01-24 00:34:23)
It is not everything like it seems
Eros plays way more games, than he plays on this site... Anyway nice rating that is for sure Congrats il grande Eros Riccio! ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-24 14:51:22)
Chess computers & nodes by seconds
What about a thread on chess dedicated computers... dual-core, quad-core or even 10 years old tired processor ?
It could be interesting to gather some informations here on hardware evolution by comparing the speed of chess engines [nodes by second], specifying the operating system & the program that runs the engines (Arena, Chessbase, Fritz 11 interface & so on...)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-29 12:33:51)
FICGS
Hi Francisco, these important points need to be discussed for sure.
1) As it has been said here on another point, I shouldn't try to protect players from themselves, but I've to protect players from other players (speaking of the quality of the games, general forfeits & so on - or the posts of Garvin & Josef in this thread). You can play poker all over the internet, it's up to you only. I'm not sure I should feel responsible of players addictions, the whole world (commercial issues) is about addictions that exist anyway. In my experience, I was not really addicted to poker as a gambling game, I never played it in casinos but I like competition and that's the way I introduced poker here, quite different from the casino games (by the way a few "pro" poker players here do not even understand it).
2) "Play poker heads-up one to one, is bored, the winner is not always the best", so chess, so Go... of course. I may be wrong on the poker games format (3 winning rounds / 100 chips), we'll see it in a few months as the rating list will evolve.
3) "Poker insults chess", I don't agree with this but I understand & respect this opinion (that could probably be "Poker insults" in some cases). Only 1 player cancelled his membership because of this at the moment. I'm sorry about this, I can't satisfy everyone when making updates but be sure I'm working for FICGS firstly as a chess place and thanks to poker (even with no money), we welcome more players & the prizes (for chess tournaments) will increase a lot in the next months. That's quite good for the site in my opinion. Anyway if I realize I'm wrong, no doubt I'll change it.
Anyway, that's an interesting & important discussion and I'll listen to all your points.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-31 20:20:59)
3/5
2/3, 3/5, 4/7 or 5/9 .. well, the longer the games, the more significant are the games & ratings. Nothing more... So IMO 5/9 is even better :)
Don Groves (2009-02-01 10:44:54)
3/5 or ?
Thibault: Its true that longer games are better for ratings but the question is how much better? If a game lasts 100 hands, there is about a 10% chance that the game was decided by luck rather than skill (one player getting significantly better hole cards than the other). If a game lasts 300 hands, that chance drops to about 3%. If a game lasts 500 hands, it drops to about 1.8% So you can see there is a diminishing return in having long games to make the ratings better. It would take 10,000 hands before the chance of luck winning instead of skill dropped to 1%.
I have some games now that are over 300 hands and nowhere near finished. Also some of my games ended after only 100 or fewer moves so those games could easily have been decided by luck. It just isn't realistic to think that games lasting several hundred moves are the answer to good ratings. You can never account for a run of good luck winning a game in only a few hands.
It would be interesting to know the average length of the games completed so far using best 3/5. It could very well be that best 2/3 would give very reasonable ratings and more games will be played in the same length of time.
Garvin Gray (2009-02-01 14:19:04)
2/3 or 3/5??
2/3 also does allow for playing of more opponents, which will help in sorting out ratings by meeting more opponents quicker.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-01 15:14:58)
The fact is...
... ratings should be in accordance (as much as possible) with ELO rating system : if player A is rated 1800 and player B is rated 2000, player B should win about 3 games out of 4. So the question isn't first to make ratings "accurate" (by the number of games), but to be "significant" .. eg. in a 1 round games system (30 hands max.), all players would be rated from 1600 to 1700, this has absolutely no interest.
Don's statistics are interesting and actually (imo) justify 3/5, it is probably possible to estimate the best average number of hands [btw the no-limit is not the best way, but more fun] but in my experience 2/3 is not enough. The longest game reached 1000 moves already (maybe about 400 hands), some games lasted about 35 moves only (of course the chancy factor is bigger there), it is hard to "calculate" anything one thing is sure, the longer the games, the more significant are ratings... then of course, the more games, the more accurate are ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-02 21:54:00)
Poker championship : New rules, deadline
Finally, a 2 stages single round-robin tournament (no ratings limit, everyone can play) seems a better choice for the poker holdem championship !
The deadline is now february 8, 2009... Join the fun !
Here are the new rules :
"FICGS world poker holdem championship is a 2 stages single round-robin tournament. All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move.
Round-robin tournaments are groups of at least 7 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player.
Rules for poker holdem are official rules. You may find more information about the FICGS betting structure here. Both players must play until one resign or game is adjudicated. One game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player played in no limit mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips) of each round."
Don Groves (2009-02-03 01:20:18)
Top nine only?
Is this really fair for the first Hold'em WCH? There are some players who asked and received a higher rating than the rest of us but who have yet to play a game here. How do those of us who have played Hold'em here know if those few really deserve their higher rating? How do you know?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-04 13:47:29)
Roadrunner vs. Jaguar
I found these informations on Roadrunner but I must admit I'm unable to compare it with a typical 2GHz processor, any idea on this ?
System Name Roadrunner
Site DOE/NNSA/LANL
System Family IBM Cluster
System Model BladeCenter QS22 Cluster
Computer BladeCenter QS22/LS21 Cluster, PowerXCell 8i 3.2 Ghz / Opteron DC 1.8 GHz , Voltaire Infiniband
Installation Year 2008
Operating System Linux Interconnect Infiniband
Processor PowerXCell 8i 3200 MHz (12.8 GFlops)
http://top500.org/
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-28 03:35:14)
Svante Carl wins FICGS Go WCH (again)
Congratulations to Svante Carl von Erichsen who keeps the FICGS Go champion title by beating Ke Lu 5d on an impressive 5-0 score, also reaching a rating of 2653 !
A rematch just started between our two top Go players, as Ke Lu convincingly won the 3rd FICGS Go WCH preliminary tournament by 7/7
You can follow the games here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000003
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match :
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, first of all congratulations for your win in the FICGS correspondence Go championship final. Your opponent was Ke Lu 5 dan, you won 4 games out of 5 already (the last game is not finished yet), how do you explain such a result?
Svante Carl - Hello! Thank you very much! It is certainly astonishing for me that I was able to hold my own in these games. I believe that the main factor that helped me in getting on even terms with such a strong player was that I could spend much more time analyzing each move than in a face-to-face or online direct playing situation.
FICGS - Did you have a particular preparation or plan before to start the games?
Svante Carl - The only things I planned beforehand was to really give my best, and to make the games as distinct as possible.
FICGS - The site will now try to attract more correspondence Go players from Asia (with a few chinese, japanese or korean words on the home page already), what do you think about the games format played at FICGS (30 days + 1 day / move, chinese rules komi 7.5 points) and the championship rules?
Svante Carl - I like the format. I am also interested in the rules of Go as well as the rules that surround Go, like tournament rules and time settings. My current conviction is that the "real, pure" Go rules are area rules with superko, and territory rules should be seen as a shortcut which should give the same result. I have come to think that the "Taiwan rule", i.e. White gets a point of compensation if Black got the last play (before the first pass), is a sensible part of the rules. FICGS has taken a very easy route by declaring the rule set and leaving negotiation of the result to the players. While in the end, it is only important who won, I think that showing a result as e.g. "White+3", "Black+Resign" adds a lot of flavour. As a time system, I think that bonus time (a.k.a. Fischer time), like on FICGS, is a very general and sensible approach to timing a game like Go. I think that many "real-world" tournaments and internet servers will switch to that in the future, for all, blitz, speed, normal, slow, and correspondence games. The championship format is quite nice. I like the title holder/challenger way of tournament series. The only thing I would like to see is some sort of nigiri to determine the colours in the odd game. Attracting players from Asia is really a worthwhile goal. I look forward to playing players from all over the world.
FICGS - Does correspondence Go bring you something more than real time Go? What is more addictive according to you?
Svante Carl - Since I think that analyzing is a forte of mine, I might be a bit stronger at correspondence Go than at "real time" Go. I don't think that one is more addictive than the other.
FICGS - Do you often play real time Go online? What servers do you prefer?
Svante Carl - I usually play on KGS, but not too much, perhaps one or two games per week on average, often in "bursts". KGS is quite nice, but not perfect. Sometimes I play at CyberOro, but there is much less communication; I like to watch pro games there.
FICGS - Do you use softwares that assist you in your games (FICGS rules allow this)? What do you think about computer Go in general nowadays?
Svante Carl - I only use a board or a simple SGF file viewer for analyzing. There are no playing programs that could help me. The programs have advanced quite much recently, but I think that it will still be a long time before they can beat me in an even game. Currently, most tests of these programs are against professional players with high handicaps, and I think that this is a good situation for the bots, since they get exponentially weaker the further the game is from the end -- high handicap practically eliminates the opening, their weakest spot. I would like to see more tests against amateur players at the bots' own level.
FICGS - Do you play other games (board games, video games...), what is your favourite one?
Svante Carl - Go is certainly my absolute favourite. I also know chess, although I am really weak at that. I also like "german board games", there are some really nice pearls there. In video games, well, there are also some pearls, but they get drowned by a mass of ... not so good games..., I don't waste time looking at that scene any more. I also played some online poker, but it wasn't able to keep me interested.
FICGS - Will you defend your title again against Ke Lu who also won the 3rd wch tournament?
Svante Carl - Of course, I am looking forward to that!
FICGS - Could you give us your impressions on the games, how it went from the beginning to the end, do you think that time pressure were a non-negligible factor in the result (the clocks of Ke Lu were quickly near 1 or 2 days left)?
Svante Carl - I was a bit surprised that he let his time drop to such a low level right at the beginning, perhaps he was not familiar yet with the vacancy feature at FICGS. I can't see his reasons for this, or how much time he actually could spend on his games. I was ahead in each game when it timed out, though.
I think that game 2 was quite even from the start. The skirmish in the lower left resulted in me capturing a little group, but he got a nice framework on the lower side. My prospects of reducing this were a bit hampered by the fact that my right side group was not completely settled. I found a way to sacrifice some stones to settle my group while fixing the framework's extent and keeping sente to secure my top side, at which time, the game was still almost even, but I think that I was a few points ahead then. Later, I could seal the top side with some extra points through some rather blunt forcing moves.
In game 3, my opponent made an approach with White 24 that is usually regarded as bad in this situation, because the pincer Black 25 works out very well in conjunction with the stone on the left side. He tried to settle with White 26, but I refused to make things so easy, even though the result from the usual joseki would not have been bad. He resisted Black 27, but I think that White 28 is an overplay. The resulting fight left me with nice profit in that corner and sente, while he made some centre thickness. I then tried to carefully neutralize this thickness, but I may have played some slack moves in the course. Later, I was able to keep a little moyo in the lower right centre, and then I poked into his right-side territory where he had left a serious weakness earlier.
Game 1 started out with an interesting fight in the upper right. After White 42, both the three captured black and the two almost captured white stones retain some serious aji, which I came back to fix on my side a few moves later. When I could set up a splitting attack with Black 77, he was able to connect his two weak groups, but in bad shape. I continued to keep this dragon separated from the top, planning to invade the top side afterwards. However, with White 110, instead of connecting by playing B6, he saved some centre stones, and I proceeded to separate and kill the dragon. He may have overlooked that my upper left side group was still able to live after 110 and 111.
In game 4, after White 22, Black's stones on the left side have a strange relation. The three stones in the corner are a bit far from C10, but putting another move here is way too slow. He tried to remedy this situation with the following moves. After Black 27, there are weaknesses left in both sides' shape. When I entered with White 32, I thought that his weakness at F13 would let me settle easily, but he attacked very hard. After White 60, there are some weaknesses in my shape, but he also has a weakish group in the centre. Playing at K10 with White 76 before taking the two stones with H2 felt very important to me. At move 94, I couldn't find a good move to complete my moyo at the top, but I thought that I had found a good point to invade. This was much harder than I thought, since after Black 95, the 3-3 point fails to live. With 96 and 98, I thought that I would get a ko, but he played a line that I had excluded earlier on account of too many cuts in Black's outside shape. However, with Black 107, he made things very difficult for me, since cutting at P16 doesn't work out too well -- my inside group doesn't have enough liberties. I cut at Q14 instead with the hope to at least get some outside forcing opportunities that might have been able to keep me in the game. I think that Black 115 should have been at R12, because after White 116, R12 and N16 have become miai. Black 117 just doesn't work at all. I really got lucky in the end here. These impressions are naturally one-sided, and I would be really interested what stronger players might say about these games.
FICGS - Thank you very much and have good games !
Svante Carl - Thank you!
Arnab Sengupta (2009-03-06 18:00:44)
Walking Tall
Hey guys remember me??? well i was busy lately but am back now....sorry that my rating has gone sooooo down.....which makes me laugh by the way....but i'm back....hope to see some good games..
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-03-10 15:22:31)
Big Chess World Championship
Hello Big Chess fans!
I have finished about 120 Big Chess games. Only 5 last more than a year (all with Thibault :) ).
I propose that the WCH should be a 2 stage round-robin tournament starting once per year. As usual the groups of the first stage should be filled according the Big Chess ratings.
The winner of each group is qualified for the second stage. If more players are needed to build a final group of 7, 9 or 11 players Thibault can invite the best of the second placed of the first stage groups.
If all players of the final group are known the second stage should be started within a month.
I hope this WCH will be a success :)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-03-13 18:10:06)
Categorys
In my opinion unrated tournaments should not be devided into categories according to the ratings of the players. If we have no categories the tournaments are filled much faster.
Scott Nichols (2009-03-18 10:28:13)
Ratings floor.
Hi Thibault. One thing I would like to see implemented is a ratings floor here. By this I mean a player can never drop below one class below his/her ratings peak. e.g., a player with a 1951 rating can never drop below 1600, a 2001 player can never drop below 1800. In the U.S. (and maybe worldwide, not sure) we have this system to keep strong players from sandbagging and artificially let their rating drop so they can play in the lower sections of big money tournaments. On FICGS I don't think that is a big problem. The problem here is that Corr. chess takes long term dedication and some players tend to drop out for whatever reason and resign all their games or just quit and let their time run out. This also drops their ratings artificially low levels. Then, as it seems to always happen, Caissa's power sweeps over them and they get back in. Or, they just bought a new super computer and want to show it off. Anyway, when they do get back in....you have an expert player coming in with a very low rating. This to me is unfair to the other players who try very hard on their ratings. e.g., In the current world Ch. cycle I am playing a very strong player who is over 800 points below my rating. I would appreciate any other opinions on this subject. Thank you.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-18 11:04:06)
Ratings floor
That's a real problem (any other opinions on this ?) In my opinion, a rating floor may lead to more trouble in higher ratings : A player who starts at 2300 and drops to 1700 has more chances to drop all his games again than to play seriously. Anyway, once more there's no perfect solution IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-28 00:25:29)
Email notification
A bug has just been corrected (finally..). Now you should receive an email when every poker game ends with ratings changes.
Garvin Gray (2009-03-31 10:45:47)
200 point rating bands
Apologies for repeating myself but it has been a while for this topic. I argued previously that the rating groups for the tournaments are too wide ie in the standard divisions there is a four hundred point group.
I think this needs to change to a 200 point rating gap in the standard group and have more groups offered.
I know this has been done to a minor extent in the rapid section, so for the standard section, the rating bands would need to be on the opposing one hundred point scale.
The main point I am trying to make is that rarely are the groups comprised of players from all over the 400 points bands, but instead come from players just over the rating limit ie if the lower rating limit is 2000, then most of the players are just over 2000 as they have the most to gain.
So I think there would be more players entering if more groups were offered with 200 point rating bands, instead of the current 400 point rating bands.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-31 19:41:45)
200 point rating bands
I'm not sure, 100 point rating bands are theorically better of course but it will take much more time to fill the waiting lists. The rapid section (with different bands) partly solves the problem in my opinion - particularly for players who may play rapid tournaments also.
Anyway, waiting for more opinions on this.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-31 22:22:54)
Poker ratings
I've just changed the rating rules for Poker. I noticed that poker ratings moved really fast, most probably too fast. Also I think it is better to favour experience to new ratings, at least under a certain rating limit (just like Go rating rules). I'll keep an eye on ratings during a few months. Consequently now the poker rating rules are :
"The poker holdem rating list takes account of rated poker holdem games played at any time control.
If you have no poker rating, you have to play at least one rated poker holdem game to appear in the rating list. Poker holdem ratings are adjusted in real time after each result :
Performance = Opponent Current Rating + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.
Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20
Case of a loss : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.
In case of a loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200."
Don Groves (2009-03-31 22:39:35)
Poker ratings
The last time I checked the poker ratings list, I noticed a large number of players rated at 1800.
I thought the starting rating was 1600 except for players with a lot of previous experience. Have all these new players at 1800 asked for this higher rating?
This practice throws off the ratings for all of us who began at 1600 and have moved up by actually winning games on FICGS.
Don Groves (2009-03-31 22:48:41)
Ratings lists
It would also make the ratings lists more meaningful to only list players who have actually entered tournaments. There are many in the rating lists who have not logged on since their first time here and who may never participate in an FICGS event. Why should they be shown in the ratings lists?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-31 23:52:44)
Rating lists
Hi Don, I agree.. rating lists also show players who entered a provisional rating, actually I didn't think so many players would estimate themselves as advanced players when filling the registration form. Anyway this update should slowly solve the problem, question of weeks/months, 1800 is the same provisional rating as in chess, strong players should be able to reach 2000-2100 in a while.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-01 18:09:47)
FIDE rating list April 2009
The new FIDE rating list is out.
1 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2812
2 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2783
3 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2770
4 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2759
5 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2756
6 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2754
7 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2753
8 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2751
9 Leko, Peter g HUN 2751
10 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2748
Veselin Topalov is ranked number 1 again, over the 2800 mark. Magnus Carlsen is more and more impressive.
You may find a more complete list in Chessbase news :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5323
Nick Burrows (2009-04-01 20:01:57)
ratings
It's good that Anand & Topalov will play a match - they have both been in the top 3 or 4 for many year, and right now are the best 2 players in the world
Surely within 2 years Magnus will be unstopable!?
I very much like the play of Aronian, plays with great creativity...
Scott Nichols (2009-04-05 18:50:07)
Programming
Hi Thibault. Most of us have no clue about what it takes to program. Something we think looks like an easy add-on may be a programming nightmare. It is VERY impressive all of the things you do on this great site. Just one question, is making the chess ratings happen instantly like the poker does one of those programming nightmares?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-05 21:23:03)
Rating calculation : real time or not
Hi Scott, it would be not a nightmare for sure. But the way correspondence chess ratings are calculated is more a question of history IMO, just like FIDE WCH. Many players would probably think this is just a nonsense, while the others may find good reasons for this change. It seems to me that correspondence chess ratings have always been calculated every 2 or 6 months according to the organization. I thought about this question already, there are advantages in both solutions, so I'm not against the idea to open this (big) debate.
Nick Burrows (2009-04-05 21:44:01)
Insta-ratings
What are the advantages of having 2 month installments?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-06 02:31:08)
2 months advantages
Avoiding rating peaks and a clearer history are probably the most important points.
Scott Nichols (2009-04-06 02:40:34)
A couple more thoughts
Maybe the history of updating ratings every 2-6 months was necessary with slow mail by letter or postcard games. I've played in the Golden Knights back in the 80's where games easily take over a year. But now with the instant moves, there might be cause for change. Also, (#1)towards the end of a rating cycle, the games noticably slow down because players do not want to resign and lose their chance to enter a particular tournament. #2. A player may achieve a rating milestone and want to enter a tourn. right away, but can't because his/her rating doesn't change for another few weeks. So he/her may delay resigning lost games and prolong others waiting for the change. If it had changed right away, he/her would enter the tournament and proceed with his/her other games at a normal pace. Just a couple of thought...would love to hear more opinions on this, :)
Don Groves (2009-04-06 06:37:12)
Ratings
Both Go and Poker ratings are changed after each game and doing the same for Chess would make all FICGS games consistent in this regard.
Also, I think Scott has a good point about having to wait to enter a tournament for which one is qualified based on "future rating" but must wait, perhaps weeks, until the next ratings update.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-06 21:31:27)
Rating peaks
Among possible problems : It is likely that players could reach higher artificial ratings (peaks) this way, even if we change the complete system & the way tournaments are built. IMO instant ratings mean that games should start as soon as a player enter a tournament waiting list - gradually, like at IECG server - otherwise it would be even harder to predict your opponents tournament entry rating, by the way there is no more TER taken in account in Go rating calculation, that is an advantage in some ways but one of the main problems also]
As for me, the deep reason why I may prefer the 2 months system is this very special "moment" that FIDE players know when waiting for their next rating. The other system makes everything faster & faster, just like the world wide web but finally maybe the passion flies away faster also. My 2 cents :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-07 13:45:37)
Rating calculation
Thanks for encouragements, Scott :)
The question could be now : Why not to install the same system for Go, but it seems to me that instant ratings are justified in this case by the duration of the games : 1. There's no real difference of level in blitz & correspondence games, so only one rating list is best. 2. Due to the difference of ratings between strong & weak players, new players can find their right place quickly this way.
Now about Poker I'm not sure yet, maybe the 2 months system would be better. To be discussed in a few months.
Don Groves (2009-04-08 00:04:54)
Two month Poker ratings?
I've got several Poker games still going that started over four months ago. To be comparable to Chess, the Poker ratings should be once per year ;-)
Don Groves (2009-04-15 02:01:35)
Time controls
In all FICGS games, I think there should be an intermediate time control to prevent silent withdrawal, or what you call the "dead man defense."
If a player cannot make at least one move per week when not on vacation, the game should end.
If fewer than ten moves have been played, the game would not count in the ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-17 19:28:33)
Poker vs. Chess
I agree with Nick on this. 3 rounds & 100 chips by round is the only way to play "deep poker" IMHO (also to try to have significant ratings). In some cases, such a rule may work also for chess & Go, but it should probably be different as the number of moves is really different in each game, that's a problem. Let's try anyway.
Maybe the increment could not be added if the move has been played in more than a week (7 days), what do you think ? Not too hard and it may incitate to continue to play !?
Scott Nichols (2009-04-21 22:51:04)
4-person teams
It should be 4 players to a team. The under 2200 section the ratings should AVERAGE under 2200, e.g. a 2511, 2278, 1804, 2205=AVG. 2199.50. Same for other sections. Teams should form on their own and enter a waiting list. A league would be the best if we can get that much organized.
Wayne Lowrance (2009-04-22 00:41:19)
FICGS Olympiad
I do not care for the idea of forming teams regardless of rating nationality . We already have this in a sense, It is called "the rating lists". The original proposal was a unique novelty idea, that I liked. I seem to be in minority on 2 person nationalistic teams. So How about a compromise of 4 person nationalistic teams. I Would my self like to play in it representing USA. How many players per teams is part "B" of the idea. Part "A" is making the Olympiad nationalistic. Speaking for my self if we drop this attribute to the idea then I lose interest. My ideas on it Wayne
William Taylor (2009-04-23 00:27:47)
Both interesting
I really don't understand either of the extreme positions on this.
To those who say they are opposed to an olympiad (i.e. national teams) - why is that? Would you refuse to take part in the real chess olympiad if you were asked? Are you against all forms of competition between countries?
To those who say they are not interested in a mixed-team competition of some kind - fair enough, but I think there are plenty of people who are. To Wayne - I fail to see how this idea is comparable to a rating list.
Personally I think both ideas would be fun and interesting, and I would certainly compete in either. Whether there is enough interest to run both at the moment I'm not sure.
Vadim Khachaturov (2009-04-27 22:15:23)
Team tournament.
Thibault, I think You should open a waiting list with a some deadline point. After that time the teams of four can be created according to the average rating. IMO the teams average ratings should be as close as possible to each other.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-28 11:47:57)
K factor & FIDE ratings
FIDE decided to increase the K factor so that ratings change quicker...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5381
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5376 (bottom)
Does anyone have an opinion on these changes ?
Wayne Lowrance (2009-04-28 18:19:44)
K factor
In the long run I think it will average out. Ratings will be very dynamic in short periods. Being a EE engineer I sort of like the smoother curve integrated concept, so I think I would opt for no change. This means I believe that in any cycle period a more accurate rating of the player can be viewed with the curve smoothing integration concept. For example a very common use of this is in the stock market where, daily, weekly changes can be very dynamic. A often used example use of this method is "30 day running moment of integration" to clarify the picture. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-29 11:31:46)
K factor
Thanks for sharing your opinion Wayne, in comparison, the "K factor"-like here at FICGS is really high, I still wonder sometimes if it should be changed or not even if it allow players to find their place in the rating list quite quickly...
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-29 14:17:53)
1st team tournament !
Hello all,
As you may have read in the forum previously, the idea of a team chess tournament came up (originally Olympiad, maybe later).
The 1st FICGS CHESS TEAM TOURNAMENT will start on May 15th, 2009. Each team must be made of 4 players, whatever their ratings.
The tournament will be a single round-robin tournament, games will be unrated (just for fun !), time control : 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves.
You may contact other players through the form in My Messages (bottom) or just make a call here in this thread or in the chat bar to find partners, the definitive teams should be announced with their name in this thread to be in !
We might also vote for the funniest team name after the tournament started, be aware ;)
Have fun :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-30 12:16:34)
Xavier Pichelin wins the 2nd FICGS WCH
First of all, congratulations Xavier !
That's a real performance to beat Wolfgang in a match (whatever the score..).
These games will have to be analyzed, Xavier has good positions but the FICGS withdrawals rule 11.6 may apply in a few games (otherwise basically Xavier's future rating is 2682 !!).
Any opinion on each game is welcome.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-30 12:47:48)
Rated or unrated ?
Should this team tournament be rated or not in your opinion ? At a first sight it seems to me that high-rated players would think about playing twice as they can meet players with low ratings, but according to at least one of them I may be wrong on this...
Hannes Rada (2009-04-30 19:16:18)
Wolfgang's retirement
Wolfgang, I am really shocked about your decision.
However I can understand, that from time to time someone needs a break from the daily chess analysis routine.
Although some of the positions look favourable for Xavier, I think that most of them could be defended.
I thought that according the rules games will not be rated if less then 10 moves are played.
So imho this match should be rated and we should not have any problem with Xavier's 2682 rating.
And we know also now the next WC:
Xavier Pichelin - Edward Kotlyanskiy !
Marc Lacrosse (2009-05-01 00:02:15)
Rating or not
I just happened to be in the same situation in a wch semifinal against Dirk Ghysens : for some personal reason my opponent decided to withdraw.
All games were far beyond the 10th move.
Thibault decided that only two of the eight games should be kept for rating.
I do not understand why his decision seems to be completely different in the present case a few weeks later.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-01 20:57:25)
Applying FICGS rules
I just had a deeper look at the 12 games and I applied FICGS rules only (just like in the match Lacrosse-Ghysens).
According to me, Xavier has an advantage in game 28302, it is not so clear in game 28305 but IMO this game should be rated also. As a result, 4 games will be rated in this match, Xavier's future rating is now 2577.
Ranganathan Raman (2009-05-03 01:14:43)
what happen with my ratings?
before Correspondence chess : 1683
now Correspondence chess : 1396
pls how will ratings now any new factor
1 game won & loss rating?
Ranganathan Raman (2009-05-06 00:03:04)
rating how will cal?
win how many point rating?
loss how many point rating?
i resign how manypoint rating?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-06 12:15:23)
Loss / Resignation
You mean here at FICGS or FIDE ? Here, resignation or loss is the same, all rating rules are here :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Sophie Leclerc (2009-05-07 02:40:52)
team
I can join, I'll mail my friend and if possible, we should add him to our, Yugi_inving, he only a low rating because of me.
Yugi Inving will be a good addition..
Don,t worry, the thibeault team will not win too much game. If only Yugi could work for us and stop working on his engine. (It should be finished.)
And for the name, What about The_phantoms ?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-11 21:12:38)
Poker titles
This is a good idea ! We still need some time to see how ratings evolve but it may be an interesting innovation... To be continued !
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-12 22:34:06)
Team tourney : Players without a team
Players who would like to play in the team tournament but who don't have a team yet may announce themselves in this thread, I'll build the last teams myself if necessary by gathering as much as possible players with the same ratings...
Teams will be announced in this thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=7059
Join the fun :)
Normajean Yates (2009-05-22 01:53:05)
re William Taylor: one of those things..
One of those cases where it is *not* easiest to explain the easiest/most elegant way [unless one is physically present..]
This is IMO also one of the reasons why - given decently competent teachers - online/distance-education is no substitute for attending classes the old-fashioned way... attending a few classes anyway ;)
[Back to concentrating on what I was doing ie listening to old Barbra-Streisand-songs on this machine.. :)]
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-25 22:06:06)
Tables
Hi Sophie, the fact is that I placed the players just as the teams were given in the forum (usually ordered by rating but this was not an obligation).
The games are really interesting anyway :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-29 20:09:04)
EGF rating list
To all european Go players who could be interested, the European Go Federation rating list moved from :
http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/gor.html
... to :
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/EGF_rating_system.php
EGF ratings should be updated more frequently.
Normajean Yates (2009-06-12 21:55:31)
graphics for ratings: where are they???
The international chat mentions graphics for ratings. Where are they? I can''t find them anywhere!
Normajean Yates (2009-06-13 12:40:30)
I can c the grafix 4 feat. member only
Of couse I can see the ratings-grafics for 'featured member' at any given time - is that what was being dicussed in the chats?
[sorry for teenage-texting-type heading: that was to fit in the message ;) ]
Garvin Gray (2009-06-13 13:44:58)
answer
Normajean, Go to:
1) Your preference page
2) Click on the magnifying glass, new window opens
3) Click on Next page: History
4) Page changes to show your rating changes over time, including the new rating graph.
Normajean Yates (2009-06-15 00:47:48)
Wilhelm, there is a rating bar...
There is a rating bar [relative to the last modifier] So I am not allowed to contribute to many lines either! And it makes eminent sense! I *don't* want to be allowed to erase a 2600+'s opinion and substitute mine!
But uncharted territory is always open - just try: you *can* contribute in uncharted territory! That is, you an always create a new wikichess entry. And the *creator* of an entry can always modify it later: creators are exempted from the rating bar.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-22 16:41:00)
Discussion at Rybkachess
That's an interesting discussion... Once more, the confusion reigns between Freestyle chess (commonly played at classical & blitz time controls) and Correspondence Chess, particularly for centaur players who did not experience correspondence chess at a 2500+ level.
IMO (in brief) on several points :
1) All these made-for-engines books have no other interest than to "manipulate" chess engines & other made-for-engines books, actually this has almost nothing to do with correspondence chess (where they are completely useless at a high level, let's say 2300+) or even chess.
2) Many players do not realize the multitude of factors that appear to be more important that the basic strength of centaurs once the correspondence chess 2400 mark is reached and that still increases at 2500 and 2600... The higher the level, the more "opening books" depend on the recent games played by the opponent (and his level), the number of current games played, the score to reach in 8 games matches, the importance of rating, the goal in life, even the month/season for a few players and many other things according to the persons... Actually these "openings books" just live the time to use it one time, so a better term is preparation, actually opening books do not exist anymore in correspondence chess at a very high level, at most it may be useful against weaker players.
3) The previous point is enough to explain the rating changes of most 2400+ players ! In example...
- GM Farit Balabaev is a very experienced player who constantly has(had) more than 100 running correspondence chess games at several places for years, he's also a fast player, it is quite logical to me that he looks for quiet games and fast draws (or lose sometimes to very strong players who want to win more)
- Wolfgang Utesch, FICGS WCH finalist, like many players at one time in their life, decided that other things were more important and that correspondence chess was too time consuming, particularly once the 2500 mark has been reached...
- Eros Riccio obviously decided to win every correspondence chess competition at FICGS while playing a high number of games at several places AFTER having topped the FICGS rating list with the highest rating so far (which he did), so it is natural to look for a few quick draws in matches if 8 draws mean a victory for him (and a few rating points lost, that is quite inhuman anyway :))
- Michael Aigner tops most FICGS rating lists by playing only games at 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control, which is an enormous performance as obviously the longer the time control, the higher the rate of draws. I do not know how many current games he's playing at ICCF or IECG and other organisations but I suspect he plays a quite reasonable number of games.
- Xavier Pichelin may top the FICGS rating list this year as he's an incredibly dangerous player with White and Black and with a reasonable number of running games.
Many strong players also choose to play some tournaments for "fun" or to experiment openings and may lose some points while their real strength is over 2500 or more... so it is quite hard to make the difference between the real strength and correspondence chess ratings. So many parameters... It is likely that we'll see one day a 12 games match between Eros and Xavier (Michael do not play fast correspondence chess time control, yet I hope), we all wonder what rating could achieve Vasik Rajlich (Rybka's creator) and other very strong freestyle players but it is very hard to predict only by knowing their results in freestyle tournaments. Correspondence chess is a mirror of real life.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-23 17:11:00)
waiting lists 2400+
Hello Arno,
5 months for the next class SM tournament is quite long indeed. I may ask to all players in the waiting lists but in my experience I doubt that everyone will agree and it would be not fair that I take such a decision without asking.
Summer is not the most active season for chess but most players register for new tournaments just after the new rating list is published (next week, july 1st) so let's see... moreover the next WCH cycle will not start before november so I hope that a few players will register for this tournament.
To be continued.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-07-01 16:20:17)
FIDE rating list, july 1st 2009
The new FIDE rating list is out, Veselin Topalov (2813) still tops it 25 points ahead of FIDE world champion Viswanathan Anand (2788), in third place Magnus Carlsen (2772)...
All players rated over 2700 :
1 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2813
2 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2788
3 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2772
4 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2768
5 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2760
6 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2759
7 Leko, Peter g HUN 2756
8 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2756
9 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2755
10 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2751
11 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2740
12 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2739
13 Wang, Yue g CHN 2736
14 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2733
15 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2732
16 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2727
17 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2721
18 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2717
19 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2717
20 Karjakin, Sergey g UKR 2717
21 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2716
22 Movsesian, Sergei g SVK 2716
23 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2716
24 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2714
25 Akopian, Vladimir g ARM 2712
26 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2710
27 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2710
28 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2707
29 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2703
30 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2703
31 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2703
32 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2702
33 Ni, Hua g CHN 2701
Michel van der Kemp (2009-07-02 11:56:00)
Chucky
Ivanchuk lost a lot of rating points, but it would have been OK if FIDE had recognised a tournament he won convincingly, in which case he would have had almost 30 points more. Perhaps this is a hidden punishment from FIDE for Ivanchuk's doping incident during the chess olympiad in Germany earlier this year.
Pity how politics can influence our game.
Nick Burrows (2009-07-04 07:55:18)
Minimum rating idea
A common problem encountered in correspondance chess is that of strong players forefitting several games and their rating dropping by hundreds of points
This spoils the tourny for lower rated players who often have a 2200 rated player in their group with a misleading rating of 1600.
It also de-stabilises the ratings across the whole site as many players grades are false.
Lastly, and of least concern because players who made the drop deserve some handicap - the artificially low-graded player has a whole year of uncompetitive matches as he waits to regain points.
In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level.
The equivalent here would be that your rating has a minimum value, equal to the highest rating requirement of a tournament class you have previously won.
This seems to solve the problems experienced by many on this site.
It may be said that the rating drop is a necessary deterrent to prevent players from doing this. My experience is that it occurs from factors out of one's control (illness) and any deterrant is irrelevant - just as a death penalty doesn't stop heroin addicts from stealing!
What d'yall think?
Scott Nichols (2009-07-05 15:49:11)
Good idea!
I brought this up one other time Nick. Thib wanted more discussion on it. Maybe a players rating could be "provisional" until he has played 20 games and then it could become "established" rating. I think a player should never drop more than one class below his/her highest established rating. If the classes are 1600-1799, 1800-1999 etc. Then a player who reached for example 1983 could never drop below 1600. Or, if a player reached 2001, he/she could never drop below 1800.
Nick Burrows (2009-07-05 16:12:04)
rating drop
I suppose that is the best way to do it. Even a drop from 1993 > 1600 seems a little too big to me. I think this one whole class drop should be the absolute maximum drop allowed.
Nick Burrows (2009-07-05 16:16:49)
Recent groups
It actually seems the norm rather than the exception that the lower groups are 'stacked' with at least 1 or 2 ex-2000+ rated players with low ratings
In my first Class C group after my rating drop there were 4 of us battling it out!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-07-05 23:14:20)
Interesting idea
"In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level."
I quite like the idea in this way. Maybe it can be improved even without complicating the rules too much. Anyway if someone wants to make trouble in some tournaments (it did happen), there's no perfect way to prevent him and it is better in class B or A (2000+) than in class 2400+ IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-07-28 19:35:16)
Tournament Entry Rating (TER) history
Hello all,
A new feature, now you can see graphics for your correspondence chess, advanced chess, big chess, Go (weiqi) and Poker Holdem TER history.
To see your TER history, several ways :
1) Direct link with username :
http://www.ficgs.com/players/devassal_thibault/history.html
2) Direct link with member id :
http://www.ficgs.com/display_history.php?member=1
3) Preferences : Click the magnifying glass then click History
Why a TER history ? Because TER are more significant (and less numerous) than every rating changes for most games.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-01 22:28:54)
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave wins Biel 2009
Finally, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave emerged from the 2600 GM field to convincingly win the top tournament of Biel, a category 19 double round robin tournament, ahead of super GMs like Vassily Ivanchuk, Alexander Morozevich or Boris Gelfand. At eighteen and with a FIDE rating of 2703 he may be the next french good surprise in the top class players and bring some fresh blood in such tournaments. Does anyone have an opinion on his style of play or something ? :)
William Taylor (2009-08-10 16:14:14)
Fun
Just a bit of fun really. It will certainly be a good achievement if he manages it, but of course it won't mean he's 'the best' at playing lots of people simultaneously. There are too many factors to try to determine that objectively (number of opponents, rating of opponents, result etc.), and of course the very best chess players spend their time on more serious chess pursuits. :)
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-19 01:53:58)
Idea: Unr, No Comp, Match
I was wondering if it was possible to setup a new competition option for chess.
Just a 2 game unrated match where both players agree no computer. Each person has W&B.
This is more appealing to me than No engine tournament where the ratings/pairings are from people that have played rated corr w/comps. We can agree to play friends in 2 games.
Thoughts?
Michel van der Kemp (2009-08-25 19:47:10)
Mistake in ELO calculation?
I got this email from an advanced match.
Game 27857
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__BULLET_BRONZE__000132"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2009.8.23"]
[Round "1"]
[White "van der Kemp,Michel"]
[Black "Goršek,Gregor"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1966"]
[BlackElo "1623"]
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 O-O 6.O-O c6 7.a4 a5 8.h3 Na6 9.Be3 Nb4 10.Qd2 Qc7 11.Rac1 Rd8 12.Rfe1 d5 13.exd5 Nbxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Bh6 Be6 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.c4 Nb4 18.Bd3 Nxd3 19.Qxd3 Qd6 20.Re3 Rd7 21.Qe2 Re8 22.Rd1 R7d8 23.Re1 Rd7 24.b3 b6 25.Ng5 Bf5 26.g4 1-0
Move sent : 2009.8.23 - 17:54:11
Move replied : 2009.8.23 - 19:10:44
Player resigned.
WhiteELO : 1966 ... 1961
BlackELO : 1623 ... 1627
This email was generated automatically by http://www.ficgs.com/
My rating went down after winning a game :)
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-26 05:51:01)
another rating problem.
I don't think my most recent win is being calculated in my future rating ? It says it only has 2 games for the future rating when it should have 3.
Don Groves (2009-08-26 07:49:38)
another rating problem
Was that third game rated? You seem to have played a lot of unrated games.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-26 16:54:38)
rating calculation
Hi Daniel. All games are not taken in account in the rating calculation, which result are you talking about ?
Garvin Gray (2009-08-26 17:07:38)
do better next time :)
wow, it really is a tough place round here. You even lose points for winning a game.
Michel, I think what Thibault is telling from your rating 'dip' is that the server was not impressed by your win and expects a lot better from you next time lol :P
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-26 19:24:09)
do better next time :)
lol Garvin ! no he was probably right (because of the small advantage given to black), I corrected the advanced chess rating rules already.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-27 01:58:03)
Parmet - Porkolab
The result has been recorded but here is the explanation : "The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player."
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-27 06:50:46)
ah okay
well I wasn't so much talking about gaining rating points as the fact it said it was only taking into consideration 2 rated games when it should have 3.
Garvin Gray (2009-08-29 16:05:33)
Issue for 2150 rated players
I am starting to notice an issue with how the rating bands are set for tournaments, both standard and rapid.
Currently I am rated between 2150 and 2200, depending on the rating period. After having been in this rating band for a couple of rating periods, I am noticing it is very difficult to get rated games against players rated above 2200.
This makes it very difficult to improve my rating, or at least have it proven that my playing standard is not deserved of a higher rating, or a lower rating as the case maybe.
I know it is possible to look at my results from players rated similar to myself and try and work out conclusions from there, but to not have the opportunity to play people rated above myself does not afford me the opportunity to see how I go against them, or to record results against higher rated players that might suggest I am underrated.
I suggested awhile ago that each of the tournament bands need to be 200 points apart, with the standard and rapid tournaments operated on odds and evens 200 point rating bands. I still believe this to be the answer to a lot of the sites ills as I still see many tournaments where players just under the rating cut off not entering when the rating band is 400 points.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-30 01:24:36)
Issue for 2150 rated players
That's why WCH round-robin groups are useful to help players to find more quickly their rating... Unfortunately, it seems we go towards a 8 months cycle instead of 6 months.
So your idea is to make the rapid tournaments like the standard (class) ones with 400 points bands -am I right- ?
I'm not sure it will solve the problem but we may try, why not... Any opinion ?
Garvin Gray (2009-08-30 16:23:48)
200 point bands in both!
nooooo, i am suggesting the complete opposite. That in both standard time control and rapid that the bands be 200 points.
It is only that in the standard time control that the bands be 1700-1899, 1900-2099, 2100-2299, 2300-2499 etc and for rapid it would be 1800-1999, 2000-2199, 2200-2399, 2400-2599.
This would mean for a person with a rating of 1950 would be at the top of the ratings for one of the bands and at the bottom of the bands for the other.
Don Groves (2009-08-31 00:58:08)
My .02 Euros
As I understand it, the current limit for a game to affect ratings is 350 ELO points. If so, then why would any player near the top of a 400 rating band enter a tournament unless at least one other player near his/her rating has already entered? Otherwise, that player stands to gain little or nothing from winning.
It seems logical to me that the rating band be smaller than the rating limit to insure that all the games will be rated.
Michael Sharland (2009-09-01 03:41:29)
I agree with the Garvin's suggestion
If you look at the waiting list for any of the standard tournaments, you will typically see only players rated in the bottom 100 points of the band. This means that certain ranges are missing profitable opportunities to play and move up their ratings.
By narrowing the standard tournament bands and offsetting them with the rapid tournament bands, you will likely see an increase in signups as more players will find tournaments that align with their desire for the ability to make rating progress.
I am also in this 2100-2199 rating range and feel that there is no tournament that I can sign up for that would help my rating improve. So I find myself waiting for a WCH tournament to move me up or down rather than playing a new tournament as I would like to.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-02 02:06:53)
Response
The rationale for the 400 points bands in class tournaments and 200 bands in rapid tournaments is to reduce the number of opportunities to play rapid tournaments (that are much more time consuming and may lead to general forfeits)... I still do not understand why 400 points bands are a problem as most players play the tournaments that may help to increase their rating (as Michael said, by the way the Rapid M seems quite dedicated for 2100-2199 rated players, actually a future improvement may be 100 points bands).
Anyway, I see no strong reason not to try this change... let's do it unless someone sees this strong reason.
Daniel Parmet (2009-09-02 03:36:36)
Can't Join tournament?
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_standard_a
The standard Class has the rating band 2000-2400?! Expert to MASTER when its supposed to be class A? On top of that... several 1900s are in the waitinglist .... yet I as a class A player also in the 1900s can't join this because I don't have an X rating for an A tournament? I'm confused...
Garvin Gray (2009-09-02 07:33:40)
to be clear
Apologies if my post irks anyone, but just to be clear, the standard and rapid rating cutoffs have to at the opposite 100 point bands.
So as I said previously,
It is only that in the standard time control that the bands be 1700-1899, 1900-2099, 2100-2299, 2300-2499 etc and for rapid it would be 1800-1999, 2000-2199, 2200-2399, 2400-2599.
Of course this idea also works if Thibault decides to have the standard tournaments using an even rating cutoff ie 1800-1999, 2000-2199 etc.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-02 16:18:33)
Rating bands change
Ok, I've changed the rating bands for class tournaments as Garvin & Don suggested... Let's try and see.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-02 18:00:40)
FIDE chess rating list, september 2009
As Veselin Topalov (former FIDE world champion) & Viswanathan Anand (current FIDE world champion) did not play any game since the july rating list has been published, they remain number 1 & number 2 in the top rankings, but their followers played quite many games : Levon Aronian is now number 3 with 2773 points while Vladimir Kramnik & Magnus Carlsen are number 4 and 5 with 2772 elo points.
Here are the 2700+ players :
1 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2813
2 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2788
3 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2773
4 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2772
5 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2772
6 Leko, Peter g HUN 2762
7 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2757
8 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2756
9 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2756
10 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2750
11 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2742
12 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2741
13 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2741
14 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2740
15 Wang, Yue g CHN 2736
16 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2735
17 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2733
18 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2730
19 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2725
20 Karjakin, Sergey g UKR 2722
21 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2721
22 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2719
23 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2718
24 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2717
25 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2715
26 Movsesian, Sergei g SVK 2711
27 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2710
28 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2709
29 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2706
30 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2703
31 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2702
32 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2702
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-07 21:51:31)
Carlsen number 1
Now that Carlsen is training with Kasparov, how much time before being ranked number 1 in FIDE ratings according to you ?
Wayne Lowrance (2009-09-07 23:52:52)
A Big Mouth on Rybka Forum
Howdy Thibault & all.
There is a poster on the Rybka forum who has sort of a big mouth. He claims that Rybka IA feature is not best for CC games, claims it is too time consuming and at any rate he blubbers and brags that those who use IA are not able to defeat him. I am using my own language here in a jist of the conversation of his. He further says that he never spends more that a matter of hours cogitating his move using a 3 tear "long game" approach to working his moves. Timers such at 60' 40 moves @ 1st tier etc (don't remember his 2nd tier timer. In any case he claims he can get to depth 40 in mid game situations using a "long game" three tier mode. and finds moves that are superior to IA running a day or more (he doesn't seem to understand that most CC players use IA in a special Centaur way and the Program is a tool. He gives little respect for 2500 CC rated Centaur players using the feature IA. He beats such players all of the time, he say's with his Rybka usage with his very modest hardware against 2500 players using IA. I am skeptical. I asked where he plays CC (out of courosity) and he will not tell where. a Poster in response to his post believe he plays CC where computers are not allowed, I have no idea in this regard. I told him that I play at FICGS where computers are welcome and a 2500 rating on this server is very high. There are many well known players held in high regard playing at FICGS that would "clean his clock" with him playing as he say's he does. So what is my point. I am wondering if I can invite this guy to join FICGS and that his lofty rating can be accepted. I shall invite him to Join our SM #11 tourney. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-08 00:10:04)
A Big Mouth on Rybka Forum
Hi Wayne, does he have any rating (FIDE/IECG/ICCF) ?
I would be curious to see some games by him of course :)
William Taylor (2009-09-08 00:45:12)
Depends
It depends whether you mean a solid, consistent number 1, or just being number 1 on one two-month period's rating list. The latter could happen at any time - he has been number 1 briefly on the live rankings before - though admittedly Topalov has quite a lead at the moment. I think Carlsen is still some way from being a dominant number 1 in the way Kaspy was though - that may not happen at all of course, and if it does I think it will take at least a year but probably rather longer.
Garvin Gray (2009-09-13 17:08:24)
to all players
Thibault,
In regards to the recent changes, I am not sure how many players on here would be aware that the rating cutoffs have changed in the waiting lists.
I think it might be a good idea to send a general message via email to all members informing them of the change, so then they are aware of it.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-14 21:22:36)
Rating cutoffs change
Hi Wayne, no problem :) .. The responses are in this discussion, right ?
Garvin, it seems to me that this is a minor change (only for chess class tournaments) that does not change anything to most players, I did not want to annoy all members with such an email.
Scott Nichols (2009-09-16 08:58:46)
Quick Corr. Chess
With the recent narrowing of the band in standard tournaments, it occurred to me that there is even less opportunity to get games than before. For those of us (and I think it is many) who check the site many times daily waiting for the next move, there just isn't enough games to feed our tremendous appetite for chess. I propose a new catagory, Quick Corr. chess, I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but here it is. It would have it's own Quick chess rating. Bands would be, Over 2000, 1600-2000, and under 1600. Time limit-10 days per game, increment-8 hours. I truly believe there is a market for this here. Advanced chess requires that you actually be at the comp. for a length of time till game is done, so it is not an option for many. But as you can see there has been quite an increase in advanced games being played. So---if you are one of those players like me, that check for moves first thing in the morning and last thing at night, sneak your laptop into the bathroom at work to see if your opponent took the sacrifice you just offered, etc., and time after time are disappointed at not seeing any new moves, please offer your support and suggestions on this. Thank you, signed "Starving for chess". :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-16 13:23:31)
Quick Corr. Chess
Hi Scott :)
Why not playing blitz games between your correspondence moves ?
IMO the problem with that idea is :
1) If the quick corr. chess games share the corr. chess rating list, it may bring trouble in it with many losses on time. Some other servers offer this kind of time control & it is not serious IMHO.
2) If the quick corr. chess games do not share the corr. chess rating list, it will be less interesting for most players and it means another rating list, probably the one too much.
In all cases, it will be more waiting lists to fill. At a 2000+ level, it is never so easy.
Waiting for more opinions...
Daniel Parmet (2009-09-16 23:06:50)
bands
also I do agree the bands are a problem.
I am 1962 and only want to play higher rated players. So I won't play an 1800-2000 which means I have exactly ONE option the 1900-2100 rapid band which is mostly other 1900s anyways. The new bands lowered my opportunities to play and makes both the opportunities available to me lower overall rating averages.
Don Groves (2009-09-17 03:41:11)
rating bands
If you are 1962 and you win a game against an opponent rated 1800, you will still gain rating points. It's entirely possible to reach 2000 by winning enough such games. that was the whole point of narrowing the bands, so that every game will count in the ratings.
Garvin Gray (2009-09-17 04:32:42)
I call it reality :)
and the reality was that only players just above the lowest rating cutoff were entering the tournaments.
In a 400 point rating gap, incredibly rarely did a player from the top end of the range enter one of those tournaments.
Daniel Parmet (2009-09-17 07:38:06)
The real reality
The real reality is there is no reason to play rated chess when i'm facing lower rated opponents. I can enter thematics and unrated events where I can play experts and masters (who cares if its unrated?). I'm not gonna play a rated event where i'm top seed.
So the rating bands have eliminated playing options not created them.
Don Groves (2009-09-17 07:52:52)
Rating bands
What's the difference between 1800-2000 and 1800-2200? No one rated 2000 or above would enter that tournament either. I just don't see how your choices have been reduced.
Besides, if everyone adopted the attitude of only playing higher rated players, there would be no games at all.
Michel van der Kemp (2009-09-19 08:58:08)
ICCF uses no rating bands
Maybe this was the reason ICCF has qualification tournaments to get into higher tiers. You win a tournament and are qualified to play in a higher tier, regardless your rating. Of course that also means new players will always start in the lowest tier and getting to a tier that suits them is a long long road.
I don't know how hard it is to implement this, but it would solve the rating issues.
Don Groves (2009-09-19 10:00:50)
ICCF
I brought this up a couple of years ago but it met some resistance ;-) I still think it's a good idea as it gives more reason to try to win games rather than settle for draws. Obviously, it also rewards those who win a tournament.
The biggest objection earlier was that higher rated players may be forced to play against far lower rated players, but with 200 point rating bands now instead of 400, that objection is greatly lessened.
Thibault, will you reconsider?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-19 22:14:20)
Rating bands
Well, you have to win even more games to enter the upper rating category and I'm not sure it is always a fair system for the winner of a tournament to access it, based on the argument you quoted & also is it fair to play more games to finally win one tournament and lose elo points because of the number of games played at the same time, what happens if 3 or 4 players win a tournament ? (we could use the WCH tournament rules but is it appropriate in this case)
Moreover IMHO, such a rule wouldn't be necessary for ratings below 2200. On the other hand, it may be envisaged to casually offer to the winner of a 2000+ tournament to enter an upper waiting list to complete a waiting list in certain conditions, eg. if his rating is not more than 100 points below the upper rating band (it may be an idea to launch the 11th class SM tournament), what do you think ?
Don Groves (2009-09-21 04:11:45)
rating bands
I agree with that: Under certain conditions, such as being less than 100 ELO points below the next higher rating and winning a lower rated tournament, a player gets a one time opportunity to play in the next higher group. If the player's rating is above the limit after the tournament, he/she remains in the higher class; otherwise they must play again in the lower class.
This would help fill higher rated tournaments faster and also allow players to advance more rapidly if they are good enough. This should apply to all FICGS games, Go and Poker included.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-28 17:31:29)
Final score 9-3
Kasparov beats Karpov 9-3 (as their ratings predicted).
Nice match, with quite few draws compared to their previous World Championship matches :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-07 16:00:18)
Fritz 12 rating at CEGT
I just discovered the first rating for Fritz 12 in the CEGT 40/20 (2GHz) rating list, 2933 so less than 20 points better than Fritz 11, quite a deception. Naum 4 is still not so far from Rybka 3.
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%20Rating%20List/40_40%20SingleVersion/rangliste.html
1 Rybka 3 x64 1CPU 3112 17 17 1142 73.9% 2931 34.1%
2 Rybka 3 w32 1CPU 3053 16 16 1234 68.3% 2919 38.7%
3 Naum 4 w32 1CPU 2988 17 17 831 58.2% 2930 47.9%
4 Naum 4 x64 1CPU 2988 20 20 628 55.6% 2949 48.4%
5 Deep Fritz 11 1CPU 2937 14 14 1248 54.2% 2908 47.5%
6 Fritz 12 2933 19 19 674 48.8% 2941 46.0%
7 Fritz 11 2916 7 7 6292 54.9% 2882 42.3%
8 Shredder WM Edition Bonn 1CPU 2912 13 13 1580 50.7% 2907 41.7%
9 Zappa Mexico II x64 1CPU 2910 15 15 1084 54.7% 2878 45.0%
10 Thinker 5.4Ai x64 1CPU 2902 18 18 762 51.1% 2895 49.5%
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-20 22:14:38)
Shredder 12 vs. Rybka 3
Shredder 12 (the chess engine more than the interface) looks much more promising than Fritz 12, here are the current CEGT rating lists, Naum 4 and Rybka 3 are not so far !
40 / 40 rating list
1 Rybka 3 x64 1CPU 3105 16 16 1293 71.7% 2944 35.0%
2 Rybka 3 w32 1CPU 3053 16 16 1234 68.3% 2919 38.7%
3 Deep Shredder 12 x64 1CPU 3000 27 27 351 55.1% 2964 45.9%
4 Naum 4 w32 1CPU 2988 17 17 831 58.2% 2930 47.9%
5 Naum 4 x64 1CPU 2982 18 18 728 54.2% 2953 48.8%
6 Deep Fritz 11 1CPU 2936 14 14 1298 53.5% 2911 47.3%
7 Fritz 12 2928 18 18 778 47.3% 2947 46.3%
8 Fritz 11 2916 7 7 6292 54.9% 2882 42.3%
9 Zappa Mexico II x64 1CPU 2915 15 15 1134 54.5% 2883 45.1%
10 Shredder WM Edition Bonn 1CPU 2912 13 13 1580 50.7% 2907 41.7%
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%20Rating%20List/40_40%20SingleVersion/rangliste.html
40 / 4 rating list
1 Rybka 3.0 x64 4CPU 3238 11 11 3400 80.4% 2993 27.7%
2 Naum 4.0 x64 4CPU 3126 11 11 2400 64.9% 3020 41.7%
3 Deep Shredder 12 x64 4CPU 3105 15 15 1300 65.8% 2991 35.9%
4 Deep Fritz 11 4CPU 3066 10 10 2500 58.3% 3008 44.5%
5 Stockfish 1.4 JA x64 4CPU 3032 11 11 2400 53.0% 3011 38.8%
6 Zappa Mexico II x64 4CPU 3026 8 8 4050 49.6% 3029 40.1%
7 Thinker 5.4D x64 4CPU Inert 3012 11 11 2200 50.3% 3010 39.5%
8 Hiarcs 12.1 4CPU 2998 11 11 2400 49.7% 3001 39.2%
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_4_Ratinglist/40_4_BestVersion/rangliste.html
Congrats to the author of Shredder !
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-22 20:41:56)
Huayong Yang is the new Go WCH finalist
Congrats to Huayong Yang who made it in the Go WCH 4 preliminary tournament with an outstanding 8/8 !
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WCH_TOURNAMENT__000004
He will play Svante Carl von Erichsen in the next Go WCH final match...
Huayong started with the minimal authorized rank (10 kyu) without an official rating but obviously he's much much stronger ... His current rating is 2334 (3 dan) already, so the question is : do his opponents have an idea on his real strength ? :)
Hannes Rada (2009-10-23 14:50:46)
Top Players
It's quite funny the top players are always whining on the ICCF - forum, that the finals getting weaker and weaker ....And most of them refuse to play one.
However in my opinon Elo - rating means nearly nothing in these days.
Don Groves (2009-10-30 00:55:30)
ELO ratings also?
How about a similar list of overall ELO ratings?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-30 01:54:38)
Moves, ratings...
Thanks Don, I would have made more moves with a better broadband :/ .. If there was a formula taking account of ratings, moves & a lower weight for poker, Josef Riha would probably top the list !
Lazaro Munoz (2009-10-30 19:09:42)
rating bands
That is the way LSS (IECG's server) works. If you come in first place in a section, you get a ticket to higher section. If you win two sections you get two promotion tickets to a higher section, etc. If you have no more tickets you will only be able to enter in current rating group for class tournaments, everyone can join the opens of course.
I guess if you win a section in which you were promoted into, you would get a super-ticket to a two-level up (at least you can dream).
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-03 11:40:33)
FIDE november rating list
Finally, Magnus Carlsen crossed the 2800 mark and reaches the 2nd place on the FIDE november rating list, ahead of world champion Viswanathan Anand. The next months will be interesting, at last :)
FIDE November 1st 2009 – Top 20 Players
Rank Name Title Country Rating Games BirthYear
1 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2810 10 1975
2 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2801 10 1990
3 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2788 0 1969
4 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2786 13 1982
5 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2772 0 1975
6 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2758 11 1986
7 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2758 11 1968
8 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2754 17 1976
9 Leko, Peter g HUN 2752 10 1979
10 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2750 0 1977
11 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2748 10 1987
12 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2739 13 1969
13 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2739 5 1983
14 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2736 13 1983
15 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2736 10 1983
16 Wang, Yue g CHN 2734 27 1987
17 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2729 15 1983
18 Karjakin, Sergey g UKR 2723 12 1990
19 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2719 25 1985
20 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2719 18 1972
More details in the Chessbase news :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5879
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-17 09:05:44)
Bill Gates, chess and Go
Billionaire Bill Gates cites go as one of his personal failures. "When I was young... I wanted to be the world's best chess player and, of course, I didn't succeed. I wanted to be the world's best Go player, too...so I've had plenty of disappointments", Gates said in his 1997 book, Bill Gates Speaks: Insight from the world's greatest entrepreneur (page 227)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qoho6AIXTksC
Just read in the AGA newsletter.
Did he really try ? Any FIDE or AGA rating ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-17 15:27:32)
Naum
All I can say is that the complete Geocities website closed, so it doesn't mean anything for Naum which appeared 2nd behind of Rybka in a recent CEGT rating list.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-17 18:44:19)
Marc Lacrosse vs. Eros Riccio
His match with Eros Riccio is canceled of course. We will remember him here by his fantastic & original games, with an outstanding rating of 2557... He lost only one beautiful game to Marius Zubac at FICGS in 2007 :
http://www.ficgs.com/game_12869.html
More games by Marc :
http://www.chessgames.com/player/marc_lacrosse.html
We'll miss him.
Nick Burrows (2009-11-29 03:19:18)
What would Kasparov's Ficgs rating be?
Just out of curiosity, are there any educated guesses as to what Gary Kasparov's Ficgs rating would be if he played seriously but without any computer analysis?
I noticed GM Nigel Davies played here and his rating was in the 2300's and i suspect without computer assistance, though i'm not at all sure about that.
Kasparov = 2500??
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-29 17:15:18)
Nigel Davies & Garry Kasparov
Hi Nick,
Nigel Davies played with computer assistance but IMO only to verify his moves, he was very creative in some games. As for Garry Kasparov, if I remember well, he said a long time ago that he could become easily the best correspondence chess player (if assisted by computers, I guess). However I'm not sure if his preparations for OTB chess would be useful here, but most probably he could achieve this. Hard to predict what rating he could reach as a centaur, maybe 2650-2700....... Without computer assistance, it would be much harder, maybe 2300-2350 ..
It seems to me that Peter Leko played some games at ICCF, without so much success also, right?
Michel van der Kemp (2009-11-30 12:51:02)
Andersson
Didn't Ulf Andersson become ICCF World Champion? At least I remember a game where he beat then world champion Gert Timmerman (2200-2300 FIDE rating) with black. I know for a fact he was at one point the highest rated player in ICCF.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-30 21:19:51)
Computer assistance
It is clearly impossible to top a correspondence chess rating list without computer assistance... IMHO :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-06 15:50:16)
Multiple nicknames
It is not authorized, particularly to use several accounts at the same time in order to try to cheat (that is detected in most cases)... Anyway the system discouraged the few attempts.
I also know that a few players do not use their real name (eg. that was authorized for the match Igame.ru), generally they do not find motivation enough to stay and reach the top ratings, that seems quite logical and consequences are negligible.
You may send a private message to me if you think that there is cheating in a tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-06 16:45:22)
Idea to avoid DMD at Poker holdem
Maybe an idea to avoid the "Dead Man Defence" at poker... I feel that this is not employed really often actually (at 2000+ ratings at least) as it is not at the player's advantage after a while but it may be an improvement anyway.
The idea is to keep the same time control but to force players to play a certain pending move before to play a new move in his other games again. In example, I have a pending move in poker games 1,2,5,6 : I play my move in games 1 & 2, my opponents play their moves, then I cannot play in games 1 & 2 again (the symbol in My games wouldn't be "!" but "#") before I played the other moves. Atually it wouldn't be so simple as it may be quite uncomfortable at every move, but something like this if I can detect real DMD.
What do you think about it? BTW did you notice that some of your opponents may use DMD while playing other games?
Wayne Lowrance (2009-12-11 21:08:34)
clock implementation
Hello Thibault. In my tournament SM11 my clock increment may not have been added after first 10 moves in all my games. If you have a time stamp would you please examine it. My remaining days left does not suggest that 40 moves have been added at end of the 10 move slot in my games. Knowing my operating habits it sure sound wrong.
Understand this please, unless you can verify with time stamp or whatever I do not want any adjustments. I will play as the remaining time in each game remains. Wayne
William Taylor (2009-12-22 12:16:38)
Go Dark Knights!
Well done to all of us for performing above our rating, and congrats to Josef and particularly Scott for finishing with plus scores. Let's hope The Knights who say 'Ni' don't catch us.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-24 14:28:18)
USCF / FIDE & other ratings
Hi all,
As you know FIDE / ICCF / IECG ratings can be accepted as provisional or established (in the case of ICCF & IECG) ratings at FICGS. I cannot even remember why USCF ratings weren't accepted so far, it should be the case soon. As far as I can remember, the only point is that USCF_rating ~ FIDE_rating + 100 or the other way.
Do you know other official rating lists (that are not included in FIDE & USCF) available on the internet that should be considered ?
Same question for Go, it seems to me that only AGA & EGF ratings are available on the internet. Do you know if chinese, japanese & korean ratings are available as well ?
Pablo Schmid (2009-12-26 22:21:54)
Rating calculation
Hello Thibault, j'aurais préféré parler en français mais puisque je suis sur le forum...
Could you explain how exactly chess rating's calculation works in ficgs?
And I think games with 10 moves or less should be counted, maybe not every games but sometimes 8 or 9 moves can be sufficient to punish someone (nice miniatures or quick mates are possibles) and it enables the loser to resign (or be mated) without losing points. An example of an abusive situation: imagine I play the Traxler and I resign before 10 moves if I see a good choosed line by my opponent which I don't like to play as Black because I know I might suffer or even lose...
J'espère que je t'aurai convaincu et que mon exemple ne donnera pas de mauvaises idées! Sur ce, bonnes fêtes, Pablo
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-27 01:50:07)
Chess rating calculation
Hello Pablo! Bonnes fêtes également :)
All rating rules are explained here (there's a french version), feel free to ask if you have any question.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
About the 10 moves rule, why 10 more than 9 or 8... well there must be a clear rule & easy to remember. I don't think that miniatures are a big problem, there may be an "unfair" situation in some rare cases, but it shouldn't happen at 2100+ elo ratings. The rule may be not perfect but I did not find a better one yet (any idea? :)).
Pablo Schmid (2009-12-27 13:42:31)
Rating calculation
Salut Thibault, bon j'écris en français cette fois, j'ai lu les explications sur les calculs mais ça me semble assez obscur, alors je vais poser des questions proches de ma situation. Imaginons que je commence un tournoi 2000-2200 avec un rating à 2000 pile et que je fais un score de 50% contre des joueurs à 2050 de moyenne, en théorie je devrais gagner quelques points non? Et maintenant mon classement réel a monté depuis le début du tournoi disons à 2120, et du coup le 50% contre cette moyenne à 2050 me ferait perdre des points si on compte mon rating le plus récent. Alors est-ce que c'est mon ELO de départ qui va être pris en compte ou mon ELO actuel? En gros je suis en train de me demander s'il est intéressant de commencer un tournoi avant la nouvelle liste avec un classement supérieur sur cette liste, ou si cela ne change rien voire désavantageux...
J'espère que tu auras compris ma question et merci d'avance pour ta réponse :)
A +
Pablo
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-27 14:08:37)
10 moves rule
IMO this rule is important because :
1) It dissuades cheating by creating several accounts playing together through proxies... This rule makes it really hard to win some points this way, it would be detected even more easily.
2) In many cases, new players (who did not realize that computer assistance was authorized, who do not like the correspondence time controls or who just wanted to try) forfeit their games after 3 or 4 moves rather than let it go. There is no doubt to me that this phenomenon would have much more bad effects on ratings.
3) It is likely that a player who "miniatures" another player is actually much stronger than his opponent, so his rating shouldn't increase so much.
Finally and that's the main point IMO, "unfair" situations are statistically negligible compared to the other possible rules. See the other servers...
So far I'm quite convinced that it is one of the best implemented rules here, and this is exactly the way I optimise the programs: "Statistics give better results than looking for perfection" :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-27 19:13:04)
Rating calculation
Re... nos réponses précédentes se sont croisées, désolé :) Le prochain classement est calculé en tenant compte du classement courant donc cela ne change rien puisque l'on ne peut pas vraiment prévoir quand se termineront les parties... on gagne forcément des points en faisant 50% contre des joueurs qui avaient un TER plus fort que le classement courant, idem dans l'autre sens. En général, la "gestion" des résultats n'influe que très peu sur le classement final.
Hannes Rada (2009-12-28 21:45:47)
Sicilian ?
I see only 1 Sicilian in this match.
And I see many different openings. That's good - That's more entertaining than 8 times Najdorf ....
So no need to advertise for this Sicilian. It will be anyway played to much for my taste :-)
Originally it was very doubtful for me to play 8 times the same opponent. But then I realized that it can be quite interesting. At least when you're rating is better than those of your oppoent .... :-)
Wayne Lowrance (2009-12-29 00:56:03)
Rybka demise
Howdy all. I feel like voicing my opinion of Vas and Rybka. I honestly feel his hold on the chess community has weakened to the point of breaking. He has his problems. His source code apparently has been compromized. This has led him to not releasing a Rybka3+ as promised. The release of Rybka4 is very cloudy. Then there is this cloud Rybka internet rentel thing that is supported by no one it seems, me for sure.
Anyways this is just back drop for recent developments in free software engines that are very strong and are pushing R3 in ratings. I am thinking about the following engines, that I have downloaded and find very interesting AND strong :
Stockfish 1.6
Brite 0.4A
Spark 0.3
I have minimal experience with these engines. I just want all my friend here on FICGS to be aware of them and if interested they can download them and be on equal footing. My wish is for better chess and I have no ambition to have secret progams.
The important thing I feel is that the loss of Rybka engine does not put much of dent in play quality. It was gonna happen sooner or later, and now it seems sooner.
My honest evaluation today is that Rybka3 still provides the best insite to best mid game play.
I want to put in a word for Zappa. I fairly often use Zappa as my CC engine partner because of better end game analysis. Rybka has no peer in mid game analysis. Well I share these thought with you all for what it may be worth. Best 2010 Cheers. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-29 19:50:45)
RobboLito vs. Rybka 3
What are RobboLito, Ippolit and Igorrit ? It looks like these names are invading computer chess forums... As you may have read in the discussion mentioned below, the Rybka 3's source code may have been compromised and these engines "may" be clones of Rybka 3 (everyone does not agree on this). Good or really bad news, anyway this open source chess engine may have many consequences on the computer chess world, and correspondence chess as well...
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8031
From the wikispace mentioned below :
IPPOLIT : Intellectual Persons Promotion Of Leninist International Tradesunions (!??)
Q. What is RobboLito?
A. RobboLito is the version of IPPOLIT that now contains endgame tablebases, the RobboBases.
A few links on RobboLito 0.085f1a, Ippolit & Igorrit (says it all IMO) :
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/RobboLito
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/Igorrit
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/FAQ
see also : ippolit.wikispaces.com/Clone+(Question)
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/News
-> IPPOLIT banned from chessprogramming wiki!
PlayChess banned IPPOLIT from use online also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r_V_QkmHjo
http://www.chesslogik.com/robbolito.htm
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/free-chessengine-robbolito-is-1-at-swisstest-rybka-2?lc=1
http://www.cyclonechess.com/rybka3.htm
"RobboLito is an open-source UCI chess engine by: Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, and Roberto Pescatore."
RobboLito does not yet support: multiPV, own book, egbbs, tablebases, multiple CPUs/cores, chess variants
Estimated rating: ~ 3300 ELO
Available versions:
RobboLito 0.085g3 w32 (optimized windows 32-bit executable and source code)
RobboLito_0.085g3_w32_no_SSE2 (optimized windows 32-bit executable - for older CPUs that don't support Intel SSE2 instruction set)
RobboLito 0.085g3_x64 (fast windows 64-bit PGO executable compiled by peterpan)
RobboLito 0.085g3l_x86 (optimized linux 64-bit executable and source code ported to linux by unisky)
http://www.cyclonechess.com/robbolito.htm
http://www.cyclonechess.com/rybka3.htm
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1261597025/4
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1258991841
http://queenchess.blogspot.com/2009/11/fritz-12-vs-robbolito-e2-latest-version.html
http://lefounumerique.xooit.com/next?t=663 (french)
William Taylor (2010-01-03 11:59:09)
ECF
English Chess Federation grades are available online here:http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/
They are very different to FIDE ratings, but can be converted fairly accurately using the formula: ECF x 8 + 650 = FIDE
As for go, I believe at least the Chinese, probably the Koreans, and possibly the Japanese do publish rating lists online, but it would be difficult for me to find them - your best bet is asking on godiscussions.com.
Dinesh De Silva (2010-02-14 07:06:24)
Accept Draw and resign......
It's an act of confused consciousness, which might be made out of generosity or curiosity, but which ultimately leads to a loss of half a point for oneslf plus a loss of rating points for oneself which through the law of 'a reaction for every action' guarantees the opponent some gains, thereby making the initial decision maker a "bad clicker!".
Daniel Parmet (2010-02-21 23:37:28)
Rating calculation
When you go to calculate a game's rating is it based off the rating of the players when the game started or when it ended since this can be radically different.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-02-22 01:21:35)
Rating calculation
What do you mean exactly a game's rating?
Rating calculation takes account of the Tournament Entry Ratings (TER) for each game and of course the current player's rating when the calculation occurs.
See - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
Daniel Parmet (2010-02-22 01:28:05)
Rating calculation
by a games rating I mean how it effects the two players ratings. So you are saying it uses both the starting and ending rating? This makes no sense! According to the link you gave it sasy TER meaning only starting rating which makes sense.
Hannes Rada (2010-02-22 15:49:25)
Rating calculation
Daniel,
TER (Tournament Entry Rating) is used for elo-calculation.
Philip Roe (2010-02-22 16:39:32)
Rating calculation
The link is not totally clear, but the way I read it, your performance is based on your opponents TERs. This is then used to modify your current rating. Am I right?
Wayne Lowrance (2010-02-22 17:15:31)
Rating calculation
Maybe this will help: a simplification of the involved equation.
New elo= (a) x elo + (TER opponents avg.)/a
So you see a new rating is based on elo and ter. The variables (a) & (b) are simplified to remove non elo numberical values so that the expression is easier to see.
Hope this helps
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-02-22 23:20:19)
Rating calculation
Thanks Hannes, Philip & Wayne... Yes I am not clear enough, I should have used the term "performance", sorry :/
Hannes Rada (2010-02-25 13:50:31)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)
Dear Iouri
This is the so called Dead Man Defense(DMD) ....
There are various reasons to play that defense:
1.) Your opponent does not like you
2.) Your opponent does not find the 'resign checkbox'
3.) Your opponent does not want to risk his rating and therefore delays his loss until the next rating calculation period
4.) In good old correspondenc chess times, a player had to write down the words 'I resign' on a postcard - nowadays modern technolgy helps a lot - the player has only to tick a 'resign checkbox' and click a 'send-button' - but this seems task seems still to hard ....
Ralph Deline (2010-03-12 19:36:04)
Rating calculation
Hi Thibault,
Thanks for your earlier explanation. I wanted to respond sooner but then when I was at the FICGS site, I saw another player, also confused about his chess rating, questioning you about it so I threw in my two cents. In my situation, my opponent was rated about 80 points higher so when I drew, I thought I would actually go up in ratings points instead of down. That is still confusing to me.
Maybe my age is catching up with me, but for fifty years or more, using the formula for establishing ratings in Canada, I was always under the impression that your score and your opponents ratings, with a bit of math thrown in, determined your rating. I know at one time it was possible to win a tournament and lose rating points but I believe that was corrected about a decade or so ago. I wasn't playing for over a decade so I'm not certain on dates.
However, let me acknowledge the fact that I understand what you are saying, play less, win more, and your rating will improve. But I still have a hurdle to overcome. When a lower rated player ties with a highed rated player, regardless of colour, why does he get penalized instead of rewarded for achieving a result that is performing above his present rating? It doesn't seem logical.
You are probably busy and I've taken enough of your time. I don't think I will understand any explanation, you know, can't teach an old dog new tricks, so you don't have to try to explain any further. I just wanted my voice to be heard.
I have had three gross blunders in the last half year so maybe I am playing too many games. I hate to do it, but maybe I will try playing less.
Thanks for listening.
Ralph
Daniel Parmet (2010-03-12 20:58:47)
Rating calculation
A sidenote, but yes you can still win tournaments (otb at least) where you win the tournament but lose rating points. Look at the 2009 US Open where GM Jesse Krai and GM Alex Lenderman both won the event with 7.5/9 and both lost 2 rating points.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-03-13 16:18:17)
English translation
Not to nitpick, but I have seen a lot of references to "inferior" or "superior" when specify ratings or rate of play. In English "inferior" or "superior" are measures of "quality" not "quantity". In English we do not that a rating or rate of play is inferior to another instead we say that it is "less than" or "greater than" depending on whether the first item is larger than second.
If you told a man that his height was "less than" yours he might be slighted but might accept the truth, if it is true; however if you told him that his height was "inferior" to yours, you better get ready to be punched in the face or more likely, if his height really was "less than" yours, be ready to be kicked in the groin area.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-03-13 19:38:12)
Rating calculation
Hello,
Though i agree that my Rating is calculated on the basis of my opponent's TER in the previous tour plus my present rating, i want to bring on record certain facts, just to check if there is some error.
Rating after 1st March update = 2126
Games won after 1st March, in previous tours, where my TER is lower than the opponents :-
1) Rapid B 000132 (Game# 37866)
2) Rapid B 000137 (Game# 39182)
3) Rapid B 000137 (Game# 39186 - less than 10 moves, so no points for me)
4) Rapid B 000140 (Game# 39605)
Games drawn after 1 March, from the previous tour, where my opponent has better TER than me:-
1) Rapid B 000142 (Game# 40050)
Now, the detailed stats:-
First thing happened is, i drew a game from the previous tour on 1st March itself, i.e. Game# 40050 stated above. What i got is, lost my rating by 12 points. That means (2126-12 = 2114)
I gained 9 points from a draw in the Rapid M tour, which means 2114+9 = 2123
Excluding game at S.No.3 above where the moves are less than 10, i won the remaining three and i got 0 points from three wins. My substantial rise in rating afterwards is detrimental to me and my TER in that particular tour is no consideration at all is the moot question, because, at least i felt like i deserve a single point from each win i secured :)
However, if i missed something, i regret sincerely and tender and unconditional apology :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-13 21:43:04)
Rating calculation
You have to make the difference between ratings updated in real time (like advanced chess ratings) & the FICGS correspondence chess rating calculation, the idea of those ratings updated every 2 months is to avoid peaks, consequently when you win, draw or lose three games after the last rating calculation, your future rating does not take account of the first result THEN the second one THEN the third one, it is actually completely recalculated by taking account of all results at the same time, so you DO NOT win or lose points AFTER EACH result, your performance is recalculated according to the formula explained in the rules & that looks like the french FIDE rating calculation. One thing that explains "strange" variations after 2 or 3 results only is that the rating calculation is just more accurate when you have many results & particularly when your score is near 50%.
That should answer to the discussions I had with Kamesh & Ralph, but maybe my explanations are not so clear, sorry about that again.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-16 10:37:01)
Interview with E. Kotlyanskiy
Congrats again to Edward Kotlyanskiy, new FICGS chess champion after beating Xavier Pichelin (2577) in the 12 games final match of the 3rd cycle.
Edward kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match and correspondence chess in general :
_________________________
> Hi Edward, first of all congratulations for winning this 12 games match against the former FICGS chess champion, Xavier Pichelin. You had to score at least one point more than your opponent, what was your strategy when the games started?
Knowing that I had to score at least +1 against Xavier, I had to try to get the games into complex positions where there are many options to play for both sides. At the point when the games started, I was the underdog to Xavier (mainly due to the face that I was rated about 200 points lower). In part, I think that one of the reasons why Xavier allowed the games to reach such complex positions is due to the fact that his rating was undoubtedly higher than mine and therefore he probably assumed that he could “outplay” me. Although this was simultaneously a brave and admirable choice, I think an option that many other players would have pursued would have been to play “drawish” lines with the hope of having all of the games ending in draws. I have great respect for Xavier due to the fact that he didn't choose such a path and allowed us to put on a hard fought show that was worth watching.
> What could you say on the hot moments of the match?
The first game in which I thought I had very good chances to win was game 34739. In this game (particularly on move 18) Xavier played the move Nb8?? Looking back at the move, I realized that the game was lost for him. I assumed that Xavier probably underestimated the threat of f5. There were no good responses and/or countermeasures for the move f5. For example, if 19) gxf5, I have 20) Nxh5 Nc6 21) Rc3! Bxh4 (Qd8 was also possible) 22) Qf4 Be7 23) g4! His king is just clearly caught in the attack! 19) exf5 also fails to 20) e6 f6 (trying to keep the king safe) 21) Bxh5!! gxh5 22) Nc6 Rc3 and therefore it’s easy to see that it is just a matter of time. Xavier did try something better although even that failed due to some nice moves. I believe that 21) g7 came as a surprise to Xavier (or that at least he hadn't seen this move when playing Nb8). After Nxh5 (another neat move), another line that I thought Xavier would enter (which is also losing) is 22) Qxc2 23) Qxc2 Rxc2 24) Nf6+! Bxf6 25) exf6. Clearly my pawns are just too strong! Knowing that I am winning after the mentioned alternatives, the other games (although I won three others) were just necessary to hold without falling for any tactics/tricks.
A second game I want to briefly comment on is game 34729. I played a very nice (although I am not sure if it is winning just yet) move known as 17.a4! It was a very nice way to open the position on both of our kings. In all honesty, the move that I think was winning in this situation 25) Rd3, I did not even consider too highly until the position reached that very move. After a relatively short analysis, I was indeed pleasantly surprised to see that; overall, it was completely winning for me.
> What could you say on the advantages and inconveniences of this 12 games match format played at a quite fast time control?
From the days when I first starting playing correspondence chess, I have always been accustomed to making moves rather quickly. In fact, when I first started playing, in some games I made moves within 10 minutes of looking at the position. Although I take a lot more time to analyze now-a-days, I still consider the speed of my play to be relatively faster compared to most other correspondence players. Playing 12 games simultaneously can have drawbacks as not having enough time to properly analyze; however, I didn't have such a problem. With the exception of a few games that I was playing on IECG at the start of the FICGS Championship, the 12 game series was my main concern.
> Without revealing your secrets, how would you define modern correspondence chess as a centaur (playing with chess engines)?
These days, it is impossible to play correspondence chess on a high level without consulting the engine. It is also unlikely that one can achieve a lot of success just by following the engine blindly (even after a long analysis). Personally, I know that some of my friends believe that in correspondence chess you are just following the engine but I believe that most “high level” correspondence players know that it just doesn't work that way.
In my opinion, one of the most important skills that a correspondence player should have is having some sense of where the engine he is analyzing with is faulty. To give a well known example, many people know that there are certain endgame positions that an engine alone can't be trusted in (a simple case is the wrong color bishop). In essence, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of whatever engine you are analyzing with is critical to playing correspondence chess at a “high level”.
> Why did you choose to play correspondence chess, do you play OTB (over the board) chess as well?
Before starting correspondence chess, I played OTB chess for quite a few years. When my schedule became busy, I realized that I wouldn't have much time to play OTB in clubs. I came across correspondence chess and got hooked on it very quickly. Also, I began to enjoy more of the subtleties of the game; something that is just lacking in OTB blitz games. I imagine that some people prefer to play practical chess (OTB) in which a move order wouldn't make much of a difference; however, I guess I am a perfectionist and believe the game should be played on as high of a level as possible.
> How many correspondence games do you usually play at the same time (on different chess servers or by email)? Would you say that it is an addiction?
Usually, I played about 5 to 10 games on average on all different sites. I did play via email on IECC but wasn't fond of playing by email therefore I went back to server only sites (IECG, FICGS, Schemingmind).
I can definitely say that correspondence chess is an addiction. All too often, I catch myself analyzing games when I really should be doing something much more time sensitive. Well, at least I can say that this addiction paid off in that I am the new FICGS champion!
> Are you interested in other games?
As far as board games go, chess is primarily the only game I play. At times I do play games like monopoly and scrabble with my friends. Another interest that I have is billiards.
> The next challenger for the FICGS chess champion title is SM Eros Riccio (winner of several PlayChess PAL freestyle tournaments). Do you think that you'll play him? What does this perspective inspire in you?
I can't wait to play Eros! I believe that he would be my toughest opponent yet (although I have played GM Leitão, Rafael (fide elo: 2619) and managed to draw). Eros is like an unstoppable juggernaut in corr chess. That said, I look forward to our games and I am certain that they will simultaneously be challenging and entertaining.
> Thanks and best of luck in your future games!
Ralph Deline (2010-03-17 07:27:30)
Rating calculation
Thanks for the helpful comments. I feel much better now that I understand how ratings are derived. I made the assumption that since my rating changed after the conclusion of every game, that the past games had no influence on my future rating, that is, within the two month rating period. It is the same type of rating system I'm accustomed to; results, strength of opponents, a little math thrown in, and presto, a new rating. I can now go on living. Cheers.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-21 22:52:10)
SSDF rating list (march 2010)
The new SSDF rating list reveals at least one thing : Between an old Athlon 1200 and a modern Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, there is at least a 120 point gap. Unfortunately, Ippolit/Ivanhoe/Igorrit/Firebird are still out of the list.
SSDF RATING LIST 2010-03-21 %120316 games played by 311 computers
Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 Deep Rybka 3 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3227 27 -25 1005 83% 2962
2 Naum 4 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3149 25 -23 986 74% 2963
3 Deep Shredder 12 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3124 26 -24 863 70% 2972
4 Deep Fritz 12 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3117 37 -36 373 60% 3043
5 Deep Rybka 3 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 3090 39 -38 332 58% 3033
6 Deep Fritz 11 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3081 22 -21 1142 68% 2946
7 Zappa Mexico II x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3068 27 -26 696 59% 3002
8 Naum 3.1 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3052 30 -29 572 59% 2990
9 Deep Hiarcs 12 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3039 22 -21 1087 61% 2958
10 Deep Shredder 11 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3038 26 -26 726 58% 2981
11 Hiarcs 11.2 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3010 25 -25 761 54% 2984
12 Glaurung 2.2 x64 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3007 22 -22 1001 60% 2933
13 Shredder 12 256MB A1200 MHz 3006 39 -39 320 45% 3040
14 Naum 4 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2998 29 -29 574 50% 2996
15 Deep Junior 10.1 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2975 25 -25 766 48% 2992
16 Rybka 2.3.1 Arena 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2926 22 -22 964 52% 2912
17 Fritz 11 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2915 27 -27 669 47% 2935
18 Deep Fritz 8 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2912 25 -26 753 39% 2991
19 Shredder 8 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2908 28 -29 603 39% 2984
20 Deep Shredder 11 256MB Athlon 1200 2907 30 -30 534 45% 2941
21 Hiarcs 11.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2879 23 -23 941 49% 2882
22 CM King 3.5 x64 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2866 31 -32 530 33% 2990
23 Junior 10.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2864 19 -20 1271 47% 2882
24 Deep Junior 8 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2859 29 -30 589 36% 2961
25 Fritz 10 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2851 34 -33 458 64% 2749
26 Zap!Chess Z. 256MB Athlon 1200 MH 2842 21 -21 1060 50% 2840
27 Fruit 2.2.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2833 19 -19 1385 62% 2750
28 Spike 1.2 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2817 26 -26 714 57% 2766
29 Chess Tiger 2007 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2775 25 -26 748 46% 2805
29 Rybka 1.0 beta 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2775 64 -69 115 38% 2860
31 Zap!Chess 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2737 30 -29 562 53% 2713
32 Gandalf 6.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2735 24 -24 855 56% 2693
33 Pocket Fritz 3 Hiarcs Ipaq 214 624 MHz 2733 64 -58 142 66% 2617
34 Chessmaster 9000 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2720 36 -35 385 56% 2680
35 Pro Deo 1.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2714 24 -23 876 57% 2660
36 Pocket Shredder Ipaq 114 624 MHz 2698 83 -70 100 74% 2520
37 Deep Sjeng 1.5a 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2675 31 -31 493 52% 2663
38 CEBoard Fruit 2.3.1 XScale 400 400 MHz 2647 65 -61 129 62% 2564
39 Revelation Rybka 2.2 XScale 500 MHz 2632 47 -45 240 62% 2549
39 Ruffian 2.0.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2632 49 -49 205 46% 2661
41 Pocket Fritz 3 Glaurung 2.1 Ipaq 614C 2528 69 -74 100 40% 2604
42 Pocket Fritz 2 XScale 400 MHz 2508 48 -46 225 57% 2459
43 Resurrection Rybka 2.2 StrongARM 203 MH 2484 43 -43 260 51% 2477
44 Resurrection Fruit '05 StrongARM 203 MH 2395 67 -63 120 60% 2320
45 Hiarcs 9.5a/9.6 Palm TungstenE OMAP 126 2392 35 -35 400 45% 2426
46 CEBoard Crafty 2004 HP RX4240 400 MHz 2375 52 -54 180 41% 2443
47 R30 v. 2.5 2274 41 -38 343 69% 2136
48 Palm Tiger 2009 Tung C 400 MHz 2229 66 -71 110 38% 2317
49 Chess Genius 1.4 SX1 OMAP 310 120 MHz 2151 50 -48 210 60% 2081
50 Chess Tiger 14.9 Palm m515 16MB 42MHz 2103 69 -74 100 39% 2182
Garvin Gray (2010-04-01 01:20:04)
Difference between class A / rapid A
The main reason is that in one division you are one of the top rated players and in the other you are one of the bottom rated players.
Also, by having the rating bands as they are means it is more likely that different players will meet, which increases interest and also makes the rating system more accurate.
Daniel Parmet (2010-04-03 21:17:31)
Difference between class A / rapid A
of course some people hold completely the opposite opinion and find these rating bands ridiculous.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-04 23:24:51)
Poker Min Bid
Back to this discussion... Still wondering what is best. If the minimal bet is the big blind, it will speed up the games for sure, but as a consequence it may decrease the "depth" of the games, I mean that the chancy factor is directly related to the minimal bet IMO, so ratings may be (even) less accurate. Anyway, I envisage this change, just would like to read some opinions on this.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-05 00:58:06)
Advanced chess ratings calculation
For some reasons that I'll explain below, I updated the advanced chess (bullet, lightning, blitz, freestyle) rating calculation rules to the following :
"Performance = Opponent Current Rating if the game is drawn, + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.
The following bonus / malus applied to White and to Black makes ratings fair, as it is not possible to force a player to take White or Black before a game :
(White) Performance = Performance - 50
(Black) Performance = Performance + 50
If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his :
New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10
Otherwise :
New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is greater than 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.
In case of a draw or loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200. A player who wins a game cannot lose Elo points, a player who loses a game cannot win Elo points."
More details :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess
The rule that just changed is "If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his : New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10".
This rule will probably be updated again in a few months with a rating limit of 2200 instead of 2400, when advanced chess ratings will be more coherent with correspondence chess ratings.
The reasons are :
1) Advanced/freestyle chess is often neglected partly because players will likely lose some rating points (many strong players using Rybka 3-like engines still have a rating of 1800 or 2000, there are several reasons to this), the main point is probably the interface but I'm fixing it (e.g. the new touch-move option - see Preferences).
2) Chess engines are just stronger and stronger while the ratings do not increase with the previous rules, as a consequence players who just tried advanced chess once years ago shouldn't still top the rating list. It is of course a way for players to find their place quicker in the rating list & to incitate players to play more games as well.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-05 16:48:43)
Poker Min Bid
There is also the other side of the story about rating accuracy in this situation where if players are getting bored with how long the games are taking because things just go back and forth, then they are less likely to play.
This leads to more inaccurate ratings. I think it would be easier to get more accurate ratings by there being many games against different opponents, even if each individual game is not perfect because the minimum bid has been increased.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-06 15:41:33)
Ratings calculation
Hi Lazaro, correspondence chess ratings are not calculated in real time, it is calculated every 2 months, see the complete rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
You may see an estimation of your future rating (taking account of the games played after the last rating calculation) at :
http://www.ficgs.com/players/munoz_lazaro/history.html
A 1885 rating should look like more logical to you :)
Lazaro Munoz (2010-04-07 04:46:48)
Ratings calculation
Thanks for explanation. --laz
Lazaro Munoz (2010-04-06 12:40:44)
Ratings calculation
I don't quite understand the way that ratings are calculated (for initial ratings).
I entered my first chess tournament with an initial rating of 1785 (my ICCF rating at the time). I won 5 games and drew 1 and got a rating of 1837.
My fellow tournament entry Chris Brooks entered also for the first tournament with an initial rating of 1800. He won 4 games and lost 2 and got a rating of 1906?! No complains to him, only to the rating system.
Is there some draw penalty built in? We played the same set of players(so the tournament average rating is exactly the same) and played the same number of games (and no more, I checked this has so far been our only tournament for both of us), yet with my extra point and half I wound up with a much lower rating.
What's up with that?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-11 20:59:51)
Match Against Rybka Forum
Oh ok, thanks Robert, I didn't see this discussion at Rybkaforum before...
The idea discussed with "Vytron" is : Half players would play their game here at FICGS, and the other half would play their game at the Rybka forum... Of course there would be a kind of time control there but this would be a friendly match before all!
So please post here if you're interested to play in the FICGS team and specify if you would be ok to play your game at the Rybkaforum.
I'm in, of course (if my new rating allow me to play :)), and I'm ok to play at the Rybkaforum.
William Taylor (2010-04-11 23:43:06)
Match Against Rybka Forum
I'm in if my rating's good enough, and am happy to play at Rybka forum if necessary. If you get too many people volunteering I'm happy not to play.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-12 05:57:57)
Match Against Rybka Forum
I would like to know about how boards are going to be decided? Will it in rating order for both teams.
If so, then I am interested. If teams are able to put their players in any order, then I will pass.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-12 14:46:39)
Rating order + Unrated games
Garvin, a problem is that most Rybkaforum players may not have any rating yet, so it will be probably not significant. By the way, all games will be unrated, of course.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-12 19:28:37)
NEW # 1
And here, NOT #1 :) hehe:
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%20Rating%20List/40_40%20All%20Versions/rangliste.html
Garvin Gray (2010-04-13 17:22:52)
Match Against Rybka Forum
I have a proposal though. We could ask the organisers from the Rybka team if they would be willing to play their team in 'rating order' or whatever they are going to use.
The reason I am against having players play in any order is that it will lead to more mis-matches and does not tell much about the players of either forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-13 20:37:31)
@ Garvin
I'm not sure if the ratings will mean something... e.g. G.Clement at Rybkaforum is rated 2129, but probably uses Rybka. I don't know their other ratings yet so we may have a few provisional 1800 players among our opponents. Ratings ordered or not, all this looks like quite arbitrary.
Just tell me, Garvin... we have a player in replacement if needed.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-04-13 20:40:15)
More ratings questions
This time one big chess. According to rules for big chess (I actually read it first before posting :), it says that the original rating that is used for calculations is the correspondence rating, which should have been 1785, however it appears that 0 was used instead. In the section that I almost finishing I am now 5 out 5 with 1 game left. The ratings of the other players ranged from 1800 down 1200 (roughly) initially. My current provision rating is 1609 and it seems that all my opponents have lost at least 200 ratings points in the process of playing in this tournament.
If rating system had used a real low rating as the initial for myself it would have been unfair to both myself and all of the other players in my section.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-13 22:30:46)
Big chess ratings
Hi Lazaro!
"Big chess ratings are first estimated from current correspondence chess ratings (current rating -300 points, with at least 1400), then adjusted in real time after each result (...)"
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_big_chess
When you entered your first big chess tournament, the TER was not specified but your current correspondence chess rating was used (minus 300) to calculate your first big chess rating with your first result, so a rating of 1609 seems ok taking account of your opponents ratings. The first results may look quite arbitrary but some rules prevent to lose too many points when losing against a strong opponent with a low rating. Anyway there should be more class categories to get more chances to improve ratings (to be continued), we needed more players but maybe we can do it now.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-19 16:41:06)
Advanced chess ratings calculation
As advanced chess (not correspondence chess) ratings move too fast, I just updated the calculation rules :
If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his :
New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20
Otherwise :
New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
Garvin Gray (2010-04-21 19:06:39)
Wider rating range tournaments
That title reads like I am doing some back-tracking (for those keeping track) and in a way I am.
I have previously asked for the rating bands of the standard and rapid waiting lists to be 200 points apart as rarely does someone join from outside those rating ranges.
Since then I have noticed that I am getting 'stuck' having to play the same people (feels that way at least).
We have only a couple of tournaments a year where players from different rating ranges are paired together and even in the World Champ groups, the 2300's or so are protected from the rest of the membership.
I would like to see some RATED tournaments created which allows more play between players of different rating ranges.
I believe this would also help with rating list accuracy as it gives the potential for players to increase their rating if they perform and would also sort out the over-rated players quite quickly.
George Clement (2010-04-21 19:56:33)
Wider rating range tournaments
I would like to see a little wider range or tournament also
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-21 20:40:33)
Wider rating range tournaments
So, maybe we should come back to the 400 points ranges for every category, e.g. 1600-2000, 1800-2200, 2000-2400 and so on... ? Any other opinion?
Garvin Gray (2010-04-21 21:30:59)
Wider rating range tournaments
Returning to the 400 rating range will not help for two reasons.
1) Players have shown with both the 400 and now 200 rating ranges that they will not join a tournament if most of the other players are rated below them, even if e-points are offered for winning the tournament
This will not change by going back to 400 point rating bands.
2) The only time players participate in tournaments where they could lose rating points is in the World Champ tourneys, where the prize (qualifying for next round and six games against strong opponents) is greater than the risk of losing rating points.
Hence why I have at least brought up the idea of another set of tournaments. The idea would be every one enters, players are allocated to groups (each group is as equal as possible), then the winners of each group go through to another round robin final group.
The difference between this and the World Champs is that there is no knockout stages and everyone starts from stage one. This means even the 2400's would have to play in stage one to win the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-21 23:49:04)
FICGS Cup or Open tournament
Here comes back the idea of a FICGS cup or whatever the name... I'm not sure if this is a good idea as WCH tournaments take a lot of time to most of us already, best is to gather most players in the same competition IMO.
Of course I could create a rated category with no rating range at all in Special tournaments, but I'm not sure if there is really an interest in it, any opinion ?
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-04-24 01:17:43)
Wider rating range tournaments
What about paying an entering fee? Example If I want to play in a higher class tournament, for example M class, I pay an amount of whatever e points the tournament director( in our cases Thibault) stablishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 00:04:48)
Wider rating range tournaments
Makes sense... but that will be quite a lot of work :)
Anyway, I'm still not sure if it's best. Other opinions are welcome.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-23 18:33:33)
Wider rating range tournaments
Thibault- This is the system used by IECG but I'm not sure if it is best, and what if several players share first place & so on...
Garvin- If several players share first place then probably it would have to be the same as for the world champs, the person with the highest TER gets the slot, or the person with the highest TER if the winner is already eligible at the end of said tournament.
Does that make sense?
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-04-22 18:55:53)
Wider rating range tournaments
I do not know how made this suggestion before, but what about a special tournament which enables the winner to play in an upper category, for example winner of c group special tournament is allowed to play in a b ranked tournament. Comments about this proposal?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-23 00:26:49)
Wider rating range tournaments
The problem is either it would ask a big update to make it automatic or an action from a tournament director each time... If I make an update, it should probably work for all class tournaments. This is the system used by IECG but I'm not sure if it is best, and what if several players share first place & so on... Ratings move faster than at IECG to avoid that and allow players to reach higher categories in a shorter time. Simple rules are often best IMO.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-23 01:11:29)
Wider rating range tournaments
Garvin, you have a very good point. I have been there and so I know how your feeling. It is very difficult to advance that is for sure.
Garvin It can be overcome, I have! please refer to my rating climb. I started off at rock bottom despite the fact that I had a rating of 2300++ going in here at ficgs. I did know know I could transfer part of my rating (1800 I Think) but I started at the bottom (1500 if memory serves).It has taken me for what seems forever to arrive to where I am now. I have worked very hard to achieve the Title and it's rating. I have a nice comp now, but the first couple of years I grew in stature with a 1.8 ghz single cpu. Have used that cpu most of my stay here.
What is my secret ?. Answer I have non. First is I have a excellent CC book (lousy for blitzing). I feel the real only way to advance here on FICS is outbook and out think your opponent in opening lines (ask Thibault :) So MY thoughts are that it would follow that I am not in favor of your proposal. Having said that, I will support what ever way Thibault goes with your ideas. Good luck my friend, I am behind you, but honestly cannot say I will support any new rating grading. Wayne
Garvin Gray (2010-04-22 17:01:33)
Wider rating range tournaments
An all in rated category would not work.
I understand that the World Champs is meant to be the focal point and the main tournament, I am certainly not trying to take away from that.
Just that I am seeing an issue that has to be bugging people more than just me and trying to find a solution to this.
If you need help with setting up the groups and making pairings, I am willing to help with that to get the idea of the ground.
As for workload for the players, well I guess that is for each player to decide. If they think it is too much, then they will not play and the tournament goes no further than one trial.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 17:02:39)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Tano-Urayoán just posted an interesting idea in the following discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8507
I was totally opposed to this idea at a first sight, but after a while I found some real advantages.
The idea : Any player could pay an entry fee to enter a high class chess tournament (e.g. 20 Euros for class M, 40 for class SM, 60 for class GM), whatever his rating.
Of course what we all see first is : Anyone can pay to make increase his rating faster, that is just unfair!
But let's imagine that a player rated 1800 pays an entry fee of 40 Euros to enter the class SM waiting list.
1) The waiting list will be filled faster!
2) If this player is actually stronger than its rating show, he'll find its place faster (the other players will not lose so many points because their ratings are protected - see rating calculation rules).
3) There could be such an extra rule: Players who are already in the waiting list or who will play the tournament may share 50% of the entry fee in Epoints, which would be a kind of compensation for them.
4) These entry fees will help to have more prizes in free tournaments (another compensation) and bigger prizes in e.g. freestyle cups, although I don't have any idea on how many players would be interested in this, so the site will become more popular and so on...
Anyway, please share your views if you have any idea to improve this one, and your opinion is needed here of course!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 17:04:09)
Wider rating range tournaments
Tano-Urayoán, your idea (with some changes) may be worth to be discussed after all!
Let's discuss it here:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8545
Thanks!
Garvin Gray (2010-04-24 12:03:25)
Wider rating range tournaments
Thumbs down for the paying an entry fee to get into a higher rating.
It just seems to me that it goes against the whole idea of earning your way into a higher rating group by improving your play and rating to justify an opportunity in the higher group.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-24 12:08:38)
Wider rating range tournaments
Thibault,
The idea of qualification for a higher rating group might get people entering more tournaments in their 'correct' rating group.
Also, even if there is just one lower rated player in a higher group (earned by winning), is that really so bad as it at least gets that division playing, rather than sitting around waiting for someone to join.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 14:27:23)
Wider rating range tournaments
:o) .. that's a very good commercial idea, Tano-Urayoán ;) Unfortunately I'm afraid Garvin's right on this point.
You make another good point Garvin IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 14:30:18)
Wider rating range tournaments
I also think about the possibility to imitate the advanced chess (Go as well) rating rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8375
There may be several advantages to this:
1) It would give a better image of the quality of the games compared to the past as engines are stronger and stronger but ratings do not increase in average...
2) It would allow players to access more easily the next category...
3) Old best ratings achieved a few years ago wouldn't be unbreakable anymore...
4) It may motivate retired players to come back to the fight :)
What do you think?
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-24 20:25:52)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I do not like it. What you will see is a higher bracket classification in the waiting list stage will see presumably some qualified players entry, soon to be filled up with a host of players with deep pockets entering, so it ends up being not a higher bracket but a lower class bracket. This just does not seem fair. It means (as you have already pointed out) players with deep pockets can buy there way into rating points. I will not support or tolerate that notion if I can avoid it.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-25 02:00:36)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Thibault, I have been here since the beginning. I have grown with FICGS. I am very proud to be a member of FICGS in good standing.
I see dangers ahead for you and our FICGS.
You need to be very careful my friend about Changing the overall makeup of FICGS. I think overall the "E" point conditions here is ok, as long as it does not infringe outward from where it is now> This latest proposal (buying into a high classification) is very bad and changes the premise of FICGS, which is: If you are good, diligent and work hard you will advance and be rewarded. Tites should not come easy. Same for rating points. For if they do come easy then they have no meaning.
Players who have earned their stripes do merit certain considerations, that is good and proper.
Another potential problem that I see is that FICGS is headed in a direction down yahoo chess lane. We all like these bullet games, they are fun. I am not at all suggesting their elimination. I am just counseling "be careful". Do not let it become the face of FICGS chess. Yahoo chess is a total disaster. I do not want our site to even look in that direction.
I have been monitoring the chatter on bullet chess and it is great, all are enjoying it. That covers the main points of interest for me. I am not against changes. I do not want changes that change the make up of FICGS as we know it now. Its your server, you may do as you wish of course Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 02:52:37)
FICGS
I understand you Wayne, I don't want to make such mistakes and that's why we talk so much about these changes in this forum :)
On entry fees for a higher class tournament, I agree on the main point of course, but some advantages had to be discussed. The success of this site is also money and money prizes in the future IMO so I prefer to discuss such ideas than to do nothing.
That was the first point. Then there are some other points that remain to be discussed IMO : 1) Maybe correspondence chess ratings should increase (in average) as engines become stronger. 2) Titles calculation rules should probably be harder as a consequence, maybe it should have been changed already.
Correspondence/Advanced chess is constantly evolving, our marks move fast, so rules may have to change. I don't think that FICGS can turn into a kind of Yahoo chess (I did not ever play there btw), the most important thing is the atmosphere and I know that if I make a mistake, someone will let me know very quickly as it happened once a few months ago. We all make that success in that way!
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-25 03:14:27)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Thibault, okey dokie, I understand you, for sure, and you are right at reviewing your change options. You should. I am only one voice but I wanted to be heard.
I have said enough on Money entry into a high classification. You know I do not like it.
I agree 100% with your thinking regarding money. You need to profit. So any change that goes there and does not affect membership in a negative way is good for you. If the membership do not like certain changes, and they leave then money for you is affected. So it is a two way street.
Regarding chess rating should overall increase. Ok with me but do not see any advantage, all relative.
Regarding Increasing Title requirements.
That may be valid. Not sure one way or the other. Gotta think on that. But shooting from the hips, sounds ok.
Wayne
Garvin Gray (2010-04-27 12:12:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
As already stated, I am in favour of the winner of the immediate section below being able to earn a spot in the higher division.
I do have a slight change of position. In previous posts I have stated that in the case of a tie for first, it should be the highest TER that goes through.
Now I think about it, it should be the person with the highest rating at the END of the tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-27 23:01:42)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
More interesting (or challenging games at least) games, more chances to increase its rating, I guess.
Hannes Rada (2010-04-27 23:52:33)
interesting games and rating
I think interesting games as well as boring games can be played in every class ...:-)
And rating means nothing nowadays.
1800 Elo player can be as strong or weak as a 2600 Elo rated player.
It's quite interesting: on the ICCF-forum the people are complaining that it is not possible to win a cc-game anymore.
Here people are claiming that it is not possible to increase the rating anymore.
Guys simply play chess, try different openings + ideas and you will have again fun, even if you don't win the game or you don't increase your rating :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-28 08:53:55)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Very true Hannes...
Many players try to reach the highest ratings before to relax and play more for fun & more openings (there is often a period to learn to lose &/or break the ego at correspondence chess, unlike Go)
A way to find more fun may be in faster games, with more madness and wins/losses... I hope that more players will try bullet games here :)
But that's not a reason not to talk about the ratings issue to try to make it more coherent if possible.
On the rate of draws, I'm not sure if it is so high yet, games played at the highest level may have less draws than in the category below as players do everything to avoid drawish lines. It is probably always too high anyway :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-02 16:40:48)
Speeding up Poker games
I'm afraid that a few tournaments would not be enough as a test... 2 time controls would be a good idea but I'm not sure if the rating lists would be filled fast enough so if you think that this new one would not bring real problems, maybe we should change the time control for all poker standard tournaments... then the experience will tell what to do!?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-02 19:20:14)
Speeding up Poker games
True, but after all there is a "bullet" time control for poker as well... and all these games count for the same rating list <-- this argument is actually good for both choices. Anyway we'll have to find a way to shorten these correspondence poker games.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-08 21:08:51)
New proposition
Here's a new idea, based on the fact that I don't think I'll have time (before a while, at least) to implement a script that would allow 1 or 2 tournament's winners to enter a higher class waiting list... many particular cases, not so easy.
The idea :
We could allow one (actually 2 would be still ok IMO) tournament's winner to enter a higher class waiting list for 10 Epoints (not Euros, big difference as most Epoints are won in free tournaments and cannot be cashed out if not played in tournaments with entry fee). I would place the players in the waiting lists by myself but finally it may satisfy everyone -> A player rated 1900 could enter a 2000+ waiting list but could not enter a 2200+ waiting list, the server can offer more Epoints prizes (that just increased for chess tournaments, by the way), and players could find their place more easily in the ratings.
Any opinion?
Garvin Gray (2010-05-09 03:17:39)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Thibault,
I have previously addressed the issue of what happens if players tie for first.
In my opinion, it should be person with highest rating at the end of the tournament that gets the invite to the next division.
I have proposed end of tournament rating for this at it would be a more accurate guide to each players potential.
The entry fee for this qualified player should be the amount they won in their previous division.
I am against four or five players qualifying as it could lead to collusion between players, or at least the appearance of collusion (paranoia).
Also having the possibility of more than one player going through could lead to more draw agreements as players realise they do not have to score 5.5/6 or so to get the spot in the next division.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 12:34:09)
More Big chess categories
Also I've added a few more big chess tournaments categories to help players to find their place faster in the rating list.
It is also possible to play Big Chess bullet bronze games, as a test for now...
Garvin Gray (2010-05-10 14:42:11)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
First of all, can we change the incorrect spelling in the thread title, it is start to shit me lol
Anyways, on to the thread topic.
Ok, now I understand what you are talking about Thib. Different tournament winners decide to exercise their right to enter the next highest division at the same time.
Rule One: Winning a tournament entitles you to enter the next highest division up. This is valid for the next tournament only in the division you have qualified for.
Upper qualification can not be stored for use at any future time.
The qualification only exists in the section you qualified in ie standard or rapid. It can not be transferred to the other section.
Thib, I do not think there will be ever be a situation where 5 players try and exercise their qualification rights into the exact same tournament at the same time.
Also the two rules above should help in reducing the chances of this happening.
In cases where two or more players do attempt to enter the same 'upper' division, the first person to pay their entry fee will get entry.
The idea of first person to pay is the earlier the commitment, the more benefit the 'committer' receives.
I have not yet come up with an idea for those who try to exercise their earnt option and miss out. Should they lose their opportunity, or it retained for the next tournament that they could enter.
Could be quite a long reserve list and also by the beginning of the 2nd tournament, the player may have lost more rating points and it can be shown by their results that they probably should not be going up.
Maybe on the reserves list, it should be listed by TER and the highest TER gets first option when it comes to second tournaments.
Does this make sense?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 15:16:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Well, the discussion continued in another thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8555
Garvin's ideas may work fine, but while some players will like the benefits, some others will be deceived not to be able to take advantage of it (quite a chancy factor)...
Here is my new proposal (based on a few Epoints, not real money) :
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Please correct anything that looks unclear and let's discuss it again :) Thanks for all your help Garvin & all!
I'd like to have Wayne, Michel's & other opinions on the proposed changes, is this at least more acceptable according to you?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 13:34:12)
Georges Stibal dies on May 1st, 2010
As George still has 8 running games, I have to adjudicate it, but according to the FICGS rules, these games will not be taken in account for his last rating...
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.
Benjamin Block (2010-05-11 18:19:01)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Ficgs is still free... I think it can be very good indeed.
1.Some players maybe want training...
2.It will also stop an inflation. Because some new player came here and already have a high rating from example iccf.
And they start playing this site. Maybe they don´t have time for the games and left this site. With just giving a way some points.
Am i right?
Garvin Gray (2010-05-11 18:25:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Michel van der Kemp - I think you need to read, or re-read all of the comments and proposals, discussions again.
The key feature of this is that a person has to win their own rating group tournament in either standard or rapid before being able to enter a higher division.
There is no case where anyone can just buy a spot into a higher division. They have to first earn the privilege. Then in simple terms they would only be using the epoints collected from their win of said division.
I really do hope you have read the previous comments over the few threads that have eventuated on this topic, as they are crucial to understand the concept.
I have spent quite a lot of time typing out proposals and thoughts on this idea, so if you have not read them and instead just come into the forum and protested at the first thing you think it wrong, then I will be rather pissed off at you and anyone else that does it.
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-11 19:25:22)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I am very much in favor of the winner of his/her own class tournament earning as a prize the right to play one up class. This actually brings a relevant prize to the tournaments! Up until I have had no reason to care if I won a tournament or not. Why? What do I get? Pride? Ego? Bragging Rights? Epoints? I get nothing! Now I earn the right to player stronger players! A true prize indeed!
I don't agree if two players tie though that one just mystically be given the prize and the other not. I understand you don't want to dilute the rating pool... but you can force one person to wait til waiting list fills and each person can sit in it one at a time.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 19:37:04)
6 options
So, to be clearer here are the 6 options :
1) Tournaments winners may entry the next category waiting list according to the conditions described a few posts above and for 10 Epoints.
2) Tournaments winners may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Epoints according to his rating (e.g. 10 Epoints for the next category, 30 for 2 categories above, 60 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).
3) Any player may entry the next category's waiting list for 10 Epoints.
4) Any player may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Epoints according to his rating (e.g. 10 Epoints for the next category, 30 for 2 categories above, 60 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).
5) Any player may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Euros [not Epoints] according to his rating (e.g. 10 Euros for the next category, 20 for 2 categories above, 40 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).
6) No change.
Please choose :)
As for me, while choice #2 looks like a non-sense between my first proposal (choice #5) and my last proposal (choice #1), I feel that choices #1 and #4 could be ok, the #4 may help to build bigger prizes while the #1 is the most fair (after choice #6 of course).
How would you rank these choices?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 20:14:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Hi Kamesh, I think we should just follow the conditions that I copy again here (valid for choice #1, a tournament winner may buy a ticket if) :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Let's say the winner of a class B tournament then wins a class A tournament after having bought a ticket, he has good chances to see his rating increased after the next rating calculation and before that his possibility to buy a new ticket (for class M) expires. Maybe the possibility to buy a ticket should be valid 3 months, I'm not sure.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-12 08:51:01)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
To answer one point, as opposed to point one hehe.
While it is true with hard work and good results, it is possible to get into the very high rating groups, the way this site works makes it very difficult indeed.
In fact, it is more likely that a persons rating will stay the same or reduce due to the fact that more players come into the system, take away rating points from those with established ratings and this keeps happening.
With how this site is set up, there are very few opportunities for players in the 2100 rating group to get back those points by playing opponents in the 2200-2300 or more as it stands atm.
So it is highly likely that a player, or players, could be improving their games, but their rating does not improve because they do not have the opportunity to improve their rating because they do not play people rated above them as much as they are playing people rated below them.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-12 16:51:21)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Not exactly a vote Garvin, anyway a few opinions are much better than nothing and still matter to discuss.
My answer to Scott & Tano-Urayoán : I agree that none of these proposals is more fair than the current rules, but here is why at least choice #1 has also many advantages, for FICGS but also for the players : Of course, those who made it the hardest way like Wayne may feel that this is unfair to change the rules, but rules constantly evolve & this would be really a minor change (in the case of choice #1). The point is that while e.g. IECG uses this promotion system, it is unfair the same way that a player from IECG can register at FICGS with his IECG rating that benefited of this rule. From the start FICGS rules were harder than IECG rules when registering, but as ratings move faster here I thought that it would be a compensation, but it is not a reason enough not to improve the rules again if possible.
The reality according to me : choice #1 is less fair than current rules, and choice #4 is even more unfair, but the current rules aren't so fair either. Rules that would be completely fair may exist but would have too many bad consequences for sure, and at least FICGS would not have been a success by using it. Anyway, I will not take any decision today, let's wait for some more arguments, the whole discussion is actually even more interesting than the point that is discussed in. Finally, I'm quite favourable to try (as Garvin suggested) the choice #1 and discuss the consequences after a few months.
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-12 20:25:24)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I think option1 is the best. But I completely agree with Garvin. Why not try it? We tried those silly rating band idea even though we knew it was bad. Why not try this? I think its a good idea. I agree that options 2-5 are silly.
Right now as it stands, you get nothing for winning a tournament, you might not even get many points either. If you are 1990ish and beat 6 1800s. They might have been much stronger than 1800 but the results also came in slowly 1/1 for each rating period... you don't stand to gain very many points maybe not even enough to get you to the next rating band... but you would be guaranteed to play the next rating band for sure because you won the tournament. I think you'll see alot of the invitations into the rating bands helping people out that are only missing it by a few rating points anyways. Besides its a REAL prize for winning the tournament, right now all we give is a pat on the back!
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-13 18:20:15)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Been giving a lot of thought to this post. At first I was opposed to it. I think primarily maybe I was influenced by my thinking " I climbed through the levels", so anyone can if they dedicate the effort as I did.
Now I am swayed to support Garvin Grey posting ideas.
I recognize very well that there are many players qualified to move up but find it frustrating to make headway.
It comes down to this. Chances are if they win a class tournament, they probably deserve to advance an level. If not competitive, they will not stay at that level. So anyhow I am posting as to what I believe the proposal #1 is in fact.
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints. That is a paste of your thread Thibault. If that is what you and Garvin want or close to it then I say why not ! Give it a go. Wayne
Garvin Gray (2010-05-15 11:45:34)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Just thought of another benefit. This idea might also get those who are just under the rating cutoff to start joining tournaments where they think there is nothing to gain except loss of rating points.
So in a 2000-2200 rating division, 2150+ might start entering knowing that they can win that division and get to the next upper division, rather than just having to get there on rating alone.
So this idea could provide a compensatory return for being in a group with 6 other people rated lower.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-17 23:18:18)
Question
Still thinking about the last Garvin's idea... the real question is IMO: can one estimate that it is fair that a player who is 50 elo points below the rating cutoff, let's say a player rated 2150, have the same right than the winner of a previous class A tournament to buy a ticket for the next class M tournament?
There are advantages to this idea of course, a problem is that there will be even less possibilites for tournaments winners to have a ticket... (well, it goes in the other way also)
I like the idea though... My personal answer to this question would be probably: All this is far too complicated to be summarized this way to this question, winning a tournament IS a matter of chance also, winning a game IS a matter of chance (we prefer to call it statistics) also, and this rule, whatever the details, IS unfair anyway. So there is no clear answer IMHO, but if someone has one, please share it now :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-01 22:42:07)
Rybka 4!
Strange... many rybkaforum members will harass Vasik with questions on these performances, most probably :/
Just looking at the new CEGT rating lists, Rybka 4 would be 30 to 80 points stronger than Rybka 3 :
CEGT 40/20
1 Deep Rybka 4 x64 4CPU 3220 39 39 200 74.8% 3031 40.5%
2 Rybka 3 x64 4CPU 3181 10 10 3099 73.9% 3000 35.3%
3 Stockfish 1.7.1 x64 4CPU 3159 11 11 2201 69.1% 3019 40.3%
4 Rybka 3 x64 2CPU 3146 10 10 3481 72.6% 2977 35.7%
5 Naum 4.2 x64 4CPU 3140 15 15 1226 61.5% 3059 44.4%
CEGT 40/4
1 Rybka 4.0 x64 4CPU 3265 24 24 500 70.7% 3112 40.6%
2 Rybka 3.0 Dynamic x64 4CPU 3233 19 19 1200 79.8% 2994 25.9%
3 Rybka 3.0 x64 4CPU 3231 9 9 4300 78.0% 3012 30.2%
4 Rybka 3.0 Human x64 4CPU 3229 21 21 1000 78.8% 3001 26.8%
5 Stockfish 1.7.1 x64 4CPU 3198 13 13 2150 72.2% 3032 33.1%
Lazaro Munoz (2010-06-03 19:23:41)
Number of rated FIDE players
FIDE has always had a bit of an elitist streak with rating, but also most national tournament administrator do not send in tournament reports from local events to them so that is another reason why do not the expected bell curve of ratings.
The traditional method for a lower rated player to get a FIDE rating was to play in major open event such as the World Open and hopefully play against a FIDE rated player. But since these events are broken in under-xxxx (by ratings) sections, most lower rated players never get a chance to play against a rated opponent unless they were brave enough to enter to top open section.
ICCF had a similar elitist attitude but that has changed in recent years; however at in countries that have a established national CC federation, you use to need to be a member of one to play; it use to be you needed to be invited by your national federation, but that part has changed and as long as you a member of national CC organization you can enter any ICCF that you qualify for (based on ratings).
BTW, ICCF has announced a Webserver open tournament that is free to anyone that does not currently have an ICCF rating. If you have one (ICCF rating) you can join via your national fed or at the ICCF site; I found that the ICCF site was more expensive than going through the national federation.
--laz
Wayne Lowrance (2010-06-04 06:58:14)
Rating update
I thought it was the first of this month ?
Benjamin Block (2010-06-04 07:45:52)
Rating update
1 july. Read "My messages"
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-04 13:19:50)
Rating update
Hi Wayne, yes.. every 2 months only!
Lazaro Munoz (2010-06-04 14:16:08)
Rating update
So get your wins in now and save your resignations until after July 1st ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-14 22:26:02)
10 moves rule for Poker
An interesting case... a Poker holdem game finished after only 6 moves (6 played by each player)! The winner was surprised to see that he didn't win any rating point, indeed there's a rule at FICGS (11.6) that says : "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating)"
Another reason for this rule is that any player who lose to another one in less than 10 moves is most probably overrated so he should lose some points but his opponent may not win points, so I think that this rule may be ok for poker as well (and I'm not sure if playing all-in each time deserves to win some points :)), but I'd prefer to read some other opinions anyway.
What do you think?
Garvin Gray (2010-06-16 10:39:01)
Browser password issue
Hello,
Was wondering if anyone is experiencing this issue.
For the last few days or so, my net browser, be it either firefox or google chrome will not keep my password stored.
This means each time I need to keep having to ask for a new password, which gets very frustrating having to do this with each session login.
Does anyone know why this is occurring? I am using the left login option most of the time.
Garvin Gray (2010-06-17 01:50:54)
10 moves rule for Poker
I also agree with not having the 10 move rule for poker. If players want to just keep going all in and lose in less than 10 moves, they should not be protected from losing rating points.
Having the knowledge that you could lose rating points regardless of the length of the game might deter some players from the all in practice described above.
Or, having the 10 move rule could serve as an encouragement to try going all in all the time as their rating is protected if they lose.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-17 14:00:00)
10 moves rule for Poker
"Or, having the 10 move rule could serve as an encouragement to try going all in all the time as their rating is protected if they lose."
Their rating is NOT protected if they lose before the 10th move. This rule concerns the winner only.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-03 13:03:04)
FIDE ratings july 2010
Once again, Magnus Carlsen makes the news with the 2nd highest rating ever reached (2826)...
Rank Name Title Nation Rating
1 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2826
2 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2803
3 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2800
4 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2790
5 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2783
6 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2761
7 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2760
8 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2755
9 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2749
10 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2748
11 Karjakin, Sergey g RUS 2747
12 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2739
13 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2739
14 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2734
15 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2734
16 Leko, Peter g HUN 2734
17 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2732
18 Navara, David g CZE 2731
19 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2729
20 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2726
21 Wang, Hao g CHN 2724
22 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2723
23 Movsesian, Sergei g SVK 2723
24 Vitiugov, Nikita g RUS 2722
25 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2720
26 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2719
27 Almasi, Zoltan g HUN 2717
28 Wang, Yue g CHN 2716
29 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2716
30 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2715
31 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2713
32 Jobava, Baadur g GEO 2710
33 Tomashevsky, Evgeny g RUS 2708
34 Nepomniachtchi, Ian g RUS 2706
35 Adams, Michael g ENG 2706
36 Onischuk, Alexander g USA 2701
37 Nielsen, Peter Heine g DEN 2700
38 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2699
39 Caruana, Fabiano g ITA 2697
40 Fressinet, Laurent g FRA 2697
41 Vallejo Pons, Francisco g ESP 2697
42 Bologan, Viktor g MDA 2695
43 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2691
44 Akopian, Vladimir g ARM 2691
45 Timofeev, Artyom g RUS 2690
46 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2690
47 Efimenko, Zahar g UKR 2689
48 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2688
49 Miroshnichenko, Evgenij g UKR 2686
50 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2685
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-07 12:07:52)
Class GM 2 : Rating average 2496
It seems to me that the strongest FICGS chess tournament (7 players or more) so far just started, I would like to apologize to my opponents, if I didn't lose so many points, it would have been a category 11 tournament for sure... :/
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000002
Good luck everyone!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-07 13:33:08)
Round-robin stages in the chess WCH
Just a word on stage 1 & stage 2 for the chess WCH round-robin tournaments: I understand the disappointment of players who share 1st place but do not qualify while some others do... Sometimes we need a few more players to build 7 players tournaments, in this case most often players who share 1st place are ordered by place in the tournament, then by current rating. As there are many special & complex cases though, the official rule is "Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player".
I know that the round-robin system may be quite frustrating (that's why I wanted the knockout in parallel that I'm sure now it's more interesting & fair) for the players who share 1st place, particularly in the round-robin final (Alberto Gueci knows that..... he shared many first places before to play the knockout matches), but the round-robin is the only way so that everyone can play and once again the idea is: "if you share first place but you didn't qualify, at least you won rating points for the next cycle". I have no idea of a better system...
Andres E. Leon (2010-08-09 15:15:52)
Future Rating Question
From the last rating actualization, I finished five games. However, my future rating is now computed with only one game. I believed that in the past when I finished a game, my future rating was instantly actualized. How this issue works in FICGS?. Thank you very much, in advance.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-09 19:40:51)
Future Rating Question
In some cases, games are not taken in account in the rating calculation, e.g. if less than 10 moves are played (for the winner only).
Complete rules:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Feel free to ask if you have any doubt...
Scott Nichols (2010-08-09 21:12:59)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Just a note to say how this new rule is affecting at least one player here (me), :) I "earned" entry to a higher class tournament by winning the class just below. I paid my ten E-points and received entry into the next higher class. We have been playing for a while and I am holding my own ok. I have met new players and am overjoyed at the chance to play them. They are all friendly and welcoming. Life couldn't be better, ......but....... Maybe it's just me, but I feel at this point that I never REALLY earned my way into this realm. The old way was to suffer through months and years of climbing the rating ladder a little at a time and then finally reach that next level. Also, just my opinion, is that these days there really isn't a big difference in strengths between 1850 and 2450 given that we all have fast computers running on Rybka mostly. The difference I find is the human side of the ratings. The old days whether Shredder could beat Fritz, or Deep Junior could beat Hiarcs are long gone. So I guess what I'm trying to say without rambling any further, is that as much as I like playing in the higher section, I would prefer to "EARN" it the old way. Just one players opinion, Thank you
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-10 00:01:37)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
It is true that there isn't a big difference in strengths between "many" 2150 and 2450... That's a reason why this rule may be useful IMO, particularly while 2450 ratings are somewhat "protected", it is more an advantage for you than a disadvantage for 2450 players.
Anyway this is still an experiment... So far, only 2 or 3 players used such a ticket.
Don Groves (2010-08-10 10:00:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Scott: In a way you did earn it, you won a next lower rated tournament which "earned" you the right to play one time in a higher rated one. The purpose is to allow players to improve their ratings faster if they are good enough to win some games at the higher rating.
As you say though, and Thibault seems to agree, with fast processors and the best software, there isn't as much difference between players as there used to be.
Andres E. Leon (2010-08-11 00:41:41)
Future Rating Question
I am sorry to bother you, but I do not understand why the system does not take into account three of my last four games, in the moment to calculate my future rating. For example, the last game that I finished in the FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000075 tournament was:
Game 39469
Last move : 1-0 2010 July 3 22:30:1
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000075"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2010.01.20"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Leon,Andres E."]
[Black "Faust,Dieter"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1904"]
[BlackElo "1980"]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 Kf8 8.Bd2 Qa5 9.a4 Nbc6 10.Nf3 c4 11.Be2 b5 12.O-O bxa4 13.Ra2 Ba6 14.Rfa1 Bb5 15.h4 h5 16.Qg5 a6 17.Bc1 Kg8 18.Qd2 Nf5 19.Bf1 Rh6 20.g3 Re8 21.Ba3 Rg6 22.Bh3 Rh6 23.Rb1 Rb8 24.Bxf5 exf5 25.Qe3 Nd8 26.Ne1 Ne6 27.Ng2 Rc8 28.Qf3 g6 29.Nf4 Nxf4 30.Qxf4 Rh7 31.Bd6 Rg7 32.e6 fxe6 33.Qh6 Qd8 34.Be5 Qf8 35.Re1 Rc6 36.R2a1 Kf7 37.Qxg7+ Qxg7 38.Bxg7 Kxg7 39.Kf1 Kf7 40.Ke2 Rb6 41.Rab1 Rc6 42.Kd2 Ke7 43.Kc1 Rc7 44.Kb2 Rc6 45.Ka3 Rc7 46.Re5 Kf6 47.Rbe1 Bd7 48.f3 Rc8 49.Ka2 Rg8 50.Rb1 Bb5 51.R5e1 Rc8 52.Rb4 Rg8 53.Rg1 Rb8 54.Ka3 Rb7 55.Rgb1 Rg7 56.Rg1 Rb7 57.R4b1 Rg7 58.Kb4 Rc7 59.Rh1 Rh7 60.Rh2 Rb7 61.Ka5 Rh7 62.Rg1 Ke7 63.g4 fxg4 64.fxg4 hxg4 65.Rxg4 Rh6 66.Rh1 Kd6 67.Rb1 Rh8 68.Rxg6 Rxh4 69.Rbg1 Rh2 70.R6g2 Rh3 71.Kb4 Rh6 72.Rg8 Rh2 73.R1g2 Rxg2 74.Rxg2 Be8 75.Ka5 Bb5 76.Kb6 Kd7 77.Kc5 Kc7 78.Rg7+ Bd7 79.Rh7 a3 80.Rh1 Be8 81.Ra1 Bb5 82.Rxa3 Kd7 83.Ra5 Ke7 84.Ra1 Kd7 85.Rh1 Kc7 86.Rh7+ Bd7 87.Rg7 a5 88.Rh7 1-0
Besides, I am playing the FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_13__000008 group of the WCH, and I already finished three games.
Game 45063 Leon - Leclerc
Game 45064 Piantadosi - Leon
Game 45065 Leon - Dsouza
In one of them less than 10 moves were played (Game 45063 Leon - Leclerc ). However, in the other two games more than 20 moves were played, but when I finished these two games they were not taken into account in my future rating. Some of these games, particularly the Game 39469, I like very much and I spend a lot of efforts. It is a bitter that it is not used in my rating. I am afraid that the system is not actualizing my future rating, Can you help me to understand what is happening?
Again, I apologise for this inconvenience and I appreciate any help, thank you very much.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-11 11:09:44)
Future Rating Question
No problem, it is always good to check from time to time if everything works fine :)
So, your current rating is now 2031.
1) Game 39469, win against TER 1980, more than 10 moves, the game counts! It is obvious when looking at the Opponents elo average in the Future rating : Games calculated : 1, Result : 100 %, Elo opponents : 1980
2) Game 45063 : less than 10 moves played.
3) Game 45064 : does not count, explained by the rule "The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is greater than 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player." <- see http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
4) Game 45065 : same reason.
Of course you cannot win Elo points by beating opponents who are much weaker (even if you have to play them sometimes, e.g. in WCH tournaments)... That's the core of the Elo system.
Andres E. Leon (2010-08-11 14:35:34)
Future Rating Question
Thank you very much Thibault, now it is clear. My apologies to waste your time with such things. Thank you very much again and I take the opportunity to congratulate for building this place where all chess fans can play, and discuss about engines, data bases, etc..
Jay Melquiades (2010-08-19 19:54:58)
Speeding up Poker games
my chess rating is abysmal :(
played too much poker here :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-30 19:01:07)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
Nothing so far but we have time. Maybe the next rating list will help...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-16 13:01:23)
Chess WCH knockout final #6
Alberto Gueci beats Peter Schuster 7.5-0.5 in their match in FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000006
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000006
As this is a general forfeit at the end, according to the rule 11.6 it seems to me that all games should be rated for the winner except Game 45571 where the advantage is not obvious.
The score looks severe but Peter's play is always interesting & risky (look at game 45574)...
Alberto's future rating is now 2620, congrats you're the man to catch now :)
Scott Nichols (2010-09-16 22:44:58)
Corr. Chess Maxims
We should start a list of Corr. chess maxims (rules of conduct). Some suggestions...#1. There is more honor in resigning than to just quit playing and leave. #2. Generally one offer of a draw is enough for at least 10 moves. #3. The player with the most to lose, e.g. rating points, should be the first to offer a draw.
I'm sure others have suggestions, :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-17 00:29:38)
Svante Carl von Erichsen on Go WCH #4
As you probably read in the news, Svante Carl von Erichsen won the 4th FICGS Go WCH, beating his challenger Huayong Yang 3-2, Svante Carl wins the Go championship for the 4th time in a row!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match & computer Go:
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, congratulations once again for winning this match against a surprising challenger who started here a few months ago with a 10 kyu rank, Huayong Yang, now rated 2438 after scoring 2 points in your 5 games match (which is a great achievement for sure). What did you think about his play & yours in these games?
Svante Carl - I think that he greatly underestimated his rank initially. As far as I know, he had not played for a long time and believed that his ability had therefore deteriorated. I do not think that you can drop more than one or at most two stones, though -- it is like cycling or swimming, you never unlearn it. I had the impression that we were quite evenly matched in summa, but our strengths are in different aspects of the game; I cannot really put my finger on the difference, though.
FICGS - After a previous win, you said that you spend a quite long time to analyze, which probably helps you to reach a higher level than 2 dan (your EGF rating) compared to OTB play... It looks obvious to me that correspondence chess moves generally ask for much more time than Go moves at a high level but I may be wrong, how much time did you spend on your longest analysis during the match? Do you remember for which move?
Svante Carl - I usually spend at least a few minutes on each move, except when the continuation is obvious. I often use more, and if I do not find a satisfactory move then, I will even postpone the move to another day, so that I can sleep over it and let my subconcious work on it.
FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your future opponent before starting your match? Do you think that this is really important in preparation like it can be in Correspondence chess?
Svante Carl - I sometimes glance over the games in the championship qualification tournament, but I do not try to prepare this way. I do not think that such preparation has any value in Go, especially in correspondence Go, since you have time during the game to do deep analysis. I usually try to take each game out of standard fuseki patterns pretty quickly, anyway. Of course, I know that my opponents in these title matches are always very tough and demand my utmost respect.
FICGS - Do you still follow the recent developments in computer Go? What do you think about the latest Go engines? How much time do we have yet before the best Go players are caught by computers according to you?
Svante Carl - I have the impression that the currently most promising technology (Monte Carlo/UCT) has the potential to achieve a rank of about 2 or 3 dan (EGF/KGS). I think that the next fundamentally new idea or breakthrough might add 2 stones, to get to 4 or 5 dan. I do not have any idea where it might go from that, but I think that it gets always harder.
What I would find interesting is having more intermediate board sizes. The best bots are almost on par with the best professionals on 9x9 now. I would propose to try to achieve a similar level on 11x11, then 13x13, then 15x15 etc.. Regarding 9x9, I think that the currently predominant komi of 7.5 points is too big, and that this has a negative impact on the experiments because the bots do not play in a balanced environment. It might be worthwhile to introduce the Taiwan rule (last move compensation) to get more fine-grained scores.
FICGS - What programs did you use this year to analyze? (just trying, of course it may be part of your secrets ;))
Svante Carl - It is not a secret. I just use an editor, usually EidoGo or CGoban3, to visualize the variations I imagine.
FICGS - Finally, what thoughts would you like to share on your 5 games, that could help us not to miss the best times or to help us to understand the most complex moves...
Svante Carl - I cannot give a detailed commentary, but I can try to summarize my impressions.
I think that Game 5 was quite balanced until move 21, but I think that the white invasion was a bit ambitious then. Of course, White did not need to die there, but after moves 32-33 I think that Black had a good result anyway (move 32 should go out faster in my opinion; note how E14 helps Black in enclosing White).
In Game 3, I think things got quite difficult for White in the lower left, but I let him take the initiative by backing off at move 35 (I should have simply closed off F10 then). White gained control of the centre as a result, and in the large endgame, I lost too many points there.
In Game 4, I fell behind in the opening through some slow moves (there was some discussion on the Life-in-19x19 forum about this, see the link in the comments of that game). In the endgame, Black then lost some points in the centre, so that I was a bit ahead when the game timed out.
In Game 1, I made some bad decisions on the left side, and never managed to turn things around. I think I was behind by about 5 points in the end.
In Game 2, I think that Black should not have ignored move 24. After I got quite some territory from my moyo and also reduced his top side, I could play it safe.
I look forward to the games with Olivier Drouot that recently started, but I also hope that Yang Huayong will re-enter the championship cycle.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-18 19:23:42)
Corr. Chess Maxims
I disagree with two of your ideas Scott. The first player to offer a draw should be the higher rated is wrong. And a draw can only be offered every 10 moves. These are clearly wrong ideas.
In fact you may recall from our own game, where you admitted to being wrong on said issue.
In general, I think it should be the person with the reason to play on should be the one to offer a draw. If its clearly so dead equal then either player. Definitely not by rating though.
Scott Nichols (2010-09-19 00:07:15)
Corr. Chess Maxims
It is precisely our game Daniel which brought up the draw offer maxim idea. To offer a draw every move or two is clearly distracting. Plus it also included the other maxim about rating differences. You were Black, about 80 points lower in rating, so I had the most to lose by accepting any draw offer.
Maybe in the endgame when it is a book draw, either player can offer the draw "once". But our game was barely out of the opening. Of course these are just "general rules of conduct" and each game is different. So I stand by my original ideas.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 00:17:31)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Our game was already a draw by my first draw offer on move 19. I offered a second draw on move 26 and the third and final draw which you accepted on move 38. You achieved zilch from an opening which has been known as a draw for 100 years. I could have offered a draw on move 4 and most people would accept it in that position.
Sorry but you have to prove your rating should be higher by playing real openings and outplaying the other person in them. Just stating well my rating is higher therefore you are never allowed to offer draws!!! is the most absurd logic I have ever heard.
Your own words on accepting the third draw offer were "You're right, this is a complete draw. Sorry for dragging it out."
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 00:57:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims
upon looking through my games I found only one instance where I went overboard on draw offers and my opponent asked me to stop at which point I did (it should also be noted I managed to lose the drawn position in the end though I was playing way too many games at once close 150).
Anyways, I know to some Corr ratings are the end all be all of life but to me they are the most meaningless rating I have. Even my blitz ratings are more meaningful. Because, corr is where I test ideas and see if they work or not. I'm never playing seriously and I really don't care about the results hence you see me in way more thematics and unrated events than rated events.
But I will say this, the difference in strength between a 1800 and 2100 is almost zilch. OTB that difference is HUGE. Corr it is meaningless. 80 pts? This difference is less zilch, you might as well be the same rating. So when you talk about "the right" to offer draws based on rating, I have to laugh at you. These are certainly unacceptable "maxims" and if you want maxims to be followed they have to be acceptable otherwise they will simply be ignored.
I played OTB two weekends ago against a player who outrated me by 400 pts. I was crushing him. In his lost position, he offered me 7! Draws. After I beat him, several players came up to me stated I should have called the TD over the repeated draw offers. Being a TD myself, I replied the ambiguity of the situation. It is his RIGHT to offer those draws. I was by no means forced to accept them (and did not). But there is a gray area in the rules that repeated draw offers (in the rule book it says LITERALLY every single move for 10 moves) the td could rule as distraction and issue nothing more than a warning. A second offense also the punishment is only a warning. ONLY on a third offense can the td actually do anything punitive.
So the real answer is, if you don't want a draw. Turn it down. If you don't want to be offered two draws, tell your opponent so. Each person is different and views their scenarios differently. But trying to make up a rule that no one will follow is beyond silly. I will offer a draw to someone whether they are 1000 pts above or below me if I think the position is drawn.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 22:34:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims
The more you talk Scott the less you make sense. You should just stop. Your idea for Corr Maxims is good and your #1 Maxim makes sense. The fact that #2 & #3 don't just means you made a mistake. Everyone makes mistake. But okay on to your rambling points.
What does Obama or IL have to do with anything? I don't even get it.
Hmm bad analogy time, okay yes talking on your cell phone in a theater gets you kicked out. At small establishments even just banned. Certainly not a right nor is it proclaimed as such anywhere. It is not "protected" and is well known to be improper. Unlike offering a draw being 80 pts lower has no negative connotation anywhere. Its not illegal. It is protected by the rules. It is not known to be improper. Incorrect analogy.
Driving slow in the fast lane. Highways actually have minimum speed limits and I have seen people get tickets for going below the minimum. On top of that, most states have laws about he fast lane being for passing purposes so they have rules about "slower" traffic keep right (state dependent). So not only is it again something protected by law, it is improper, it can be illegal (state dependent). So again an incorrect analogy.
As much as you wish to live in this strange world where you have to be a higher rated to offer draws, thats not how the rules of chess work. In fact, I would quit playing chess if things did work that way (because it makes no sense). I know people that have as their personal rule not to accept draws if they are the higher rated (fine, thats silly but your choice) (and it always backfires too since they usually end up losing the trying position so badly trying to win it as the "higher" rated should). But at least in the end the rules are preserved - my right to offer a draw was not revoked. You seem to be missing the point that at move 1, ONE player would always be at a disadvantage under your system of only the higher rated being allowed to offer draws. This is quite silly because as all chess players know - no rating system is perfect. Trying to tell someone that a 1989 is 100% better than a 1988 is impossible yet you willing to deny the 1988 his rights of offering draws when he plays that person 1 pt above him? You might just be better off declaring you don't accept draws (I know players like that too). But then you might see people head towards drawish positions knowing your policy and playing them for 200 moves until you're bored. You starting to see the point yet? Whatever system you concoct, there are tradeoffs. The one you proposes has tradeoffs that make no sense for anyone.
Scott Nichols (2010-09-19 23:26:52)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Of course you don't get it, and by this point I am sure you never will. In the analogies, we all have met "these" type of people. Sometimes they get punished, sometimes not. I think anyone playing in your tournaments could get away with most anything.
AGAIN, in my system as you call it, it is just a GENERAL rule of conduct. Of course players rated 1 point apart do not fall into this category. The main point I make is that most players take their rating seriously. Players work their whole life to achieve a Master or Grandmaster title. They are titles awarded players as a token of respect for their accomplishment from their peers. Maybe we aren't IM's or GM's, but our rating has been EARNED.
So for one player who is a good deal lower rated than the other to offer a draw, especially in the early part of the game, is showing a lack of respect for what that person has accomplished. If fact one draw offer is not bad at all, no matter what, it happens, but to keep at it again and again is bad form.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 23:45:16)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Yep, I'm afraid you're a lost cause. No players cannot get away with whatever they want in tournaments read the rulebook dude. You are rating crazy. Do you not realize that for a person to improve they have to be playing beyond their rating? Ratings represent past performance. You need to judge a position based on its features not the person's playing its rating. Many positions reach draw positions early in the game as ours did when people play unambitiously. But I give up trying to convince you of your illogical ways.
Just know this: it is irrelevant whether you use the right to offer draw but it is important that you have it so your point is mute here as well.
A funny incident also happened a few weeks ago: two players kept offering each other draws every 2 moves, declining their opponent's draw then offering it themselves two moves later. It was funny because it was perpetual check and they both knew it. But everytime they offered a draw, the other one would decide maybe he'll mess up. Turn it down and offer it again about 2-3 moves later. By the end of the game each player had offered the other over 15 draws in the perpetual check scenario but the game managed to end decisively strangely.
And btw, your definition of respect and others will different. I certainly don't respect someone cause they've had more time than me to study and made a 2001 rating. I already explained I have no respect for Corr ratings whatsoever. I have also explained my rating does not represent my strength because I do not take it seriously. Do I respect people that have made a career of this? Of course. But I digress because here opinions will vary wildly and be to each their own. We have left the realm of facts. I just think it amusing to always remember that however good you are, there is always some one better. Or put even better, if you could buy a man for what he is actually worth and sell him for he thinks he's worth there would always be a huge profit. Ie there is always arrogance involved when you include ratings. A fun quote to conclude on: "First-class players lose to second-class players because second-class players sometimes play a first-class game." - Siegbert Tarrasch
Scott Nichols (2010-09-20 00:34:24)
Corr. Chess Maxims
I knew you'd keep it going. You can't tell a bullhead like you or Obama anything. I know the reason you don't care about ratings is the same reason every loser says after he's lost again. "Well, I don't care about that anyway."
You haven't proven anything except that you seem to want to have the last word in any discussion. See you STILL can't seem to grasp the fact that a maxim is NOT a rule. If you can scroll back up to the top you will see that maxim #2. says "Generally one offer of a draw is enough for at least 10 moves" In your first post you already got it wrong by saying, "And a draw can only be offered every 10 moves." So the only thing you've proven is that you can't read and can't understand English. Here is another maxim.."Always check who the TD is before you enter any tournament."
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-20 01:22:07)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Haha you're psycho, you call me the bull head yet you're the one who has managed to make 7! posts without a single point. All insults. Obama this Obama that. What the f does Obama have to do with anything? You brought up and you keep bringing him up for god knows what reason.
Your lack of logic is astounding. You admit 1 rating point is enough that the lower rated should still be allowed to offer a draw but not at 80pts. What about 2 pts can he offer a draw here or is it still illegal? Where do you draw the line? Can't you see how stupid this is? You know ratings are considered on 200 pt bands right and anything within 200pts is always considered comparable skill levels hence why terms such as Class B( 1600 1799) and Class A 1800 (1999) developed in the first place. Guess what, 80 pts is less than 200 so its the same skill band hence why they were in the same tournament in the first place.
I know exactly what a maxim is and what a rule is. I know the damn difference. You seem to not understand that your proposition is not acceptable as either. In no circumstance should rating ever matter when a player is thinking about whether he/she wants to offer a draw. It is irrelevant as I've proved to you time and time again.
I do care about my OTB rating yes because I try my hardest there when I have time. But my corr rating nope. Its meaningless. I've given draws in winning positions many times because I don't care. What you describe is utter insanity (must be your philosophy). You realize whether your 2084 or 2240 or 2300 or 2400 you're just a fish right? Trying to brag like its an accomplishment is a joke beyond all measure. There is ALWAYS someone better. As IM William Hartson aptly put it, "playing chess badly is where the growth is."
And don't worry you don't have to check for my tournaments as TD because I wouldn't permit you in my tournament anyways. I don't want known trouble makers.
oh well: " If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong."
Scott Nichols (2010-09-24 15:51:16)
Best Games
Thib, I've tried to think about this. First, I believe we should have all the votes we need to use. Second, I don't think poker games need to be voted on for best game. If we could get this more popular we could add some interesting ideas.
I would like to see a "Featured Game", both in Go and Chess to come out every 2 months with the rating cycle. This would be the game voted on the most by players. Ideally, it could be annotated by the victor.
The games here are of the highest quality. Even GM's could benefit from some of the novelties that have come up here. It would also give people incentive to be honored with being the feature game.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-27 01:52:53)
whole database transfers made simple
Sorry Wayne, maybe your operating system is slightly different, how do you usually save the content (web page or whatever) pointed by a hyperlink?
As for databases (notepad is not a chess database), there usually is a function to import a PGN file in a chess database.
Well, I do not use the Rybka GUI, so I may be not able to give the best answer :/
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-29 23:39:50)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks
If I understand the tiebreaks correctly the higher rated based on entry rating goes on. If this is tied it goes to their current rating at the time the tie is concluded.
First question, is this correct?
2nd question, why are ratings the tiebreaker?
Final question, why is entry rating first over rating at the time concluded? Is this because someone could drag out a game knowing their rating will become higher in the next period? If that is the reason, it would seem to me you couldn't use current rating even if the entry ratings were tied.
It just seems a tad silly to use rating as a tiebreaker when there might be a 1-20 point difference. If its a large difference it makes some sense but even then little.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-30 13:26:12)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks
1) This is correct. Actually, when it is possible, 2 players per group (the second one is chosen according to his number of points in the tournament and his rating compared to all other players in the same case in the same cycle) may play the next round.
2) The tiebreaker is the TER because it does not change during the tournament, so whatever the difficulty (and the difference between TER) the challenge is known and it gives a chance by influencing the risks to take, just like in the knockout cycle! (it answers the final question as well) When the TER tie, the current rating is the best way to do it IMO, it is rare enough anyway. The WCH rules are based on ratings, thus all rated tournaments "count" in a way for the final result & title.
Garvin Gray (2010-09-30 20:37:21)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
I wish to propose that the stage one groups starting from the next WCH tournament be paired differently.
Currently, from my understanding, all the players who have not qualified for the high rated round robins or elimination matches are paired into separate round robins of about seven players in each group.
Seed number 1 is in group 1 and so forth until all groups have been allocated.
The idea of this being to try and ensure that each of the groups is of equal strength.
Where I think this falls down is the issue of players with provisional ratings ie players with new ratings of 1800, 1500.
I have had the experience of having one or more of these 1800's in my group and after the group is finished, it is clear that the 1800 player has achieved a rating of 2100 plus, meaning that my group had three players with playing ability over 2100, meaning my qual group was unfairly disadvantaged.
How I would like the stage one qualifying to work from now is:
1) All players with recognised ratings are paired as per normal.
2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves.
Then normal qualification rules apply for getting to stage 2.
It is highly unlikely that a low rated player will qualify from the provisional rated groups as someone from each of those groups will be about 2100 or so by the end of the first qualifying stage.
I do ask for this to be endorsed for the next WCH.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-30 21:56:55)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
I agree immensely!
Further i've noticed that the color pairings tends to be very very bad for seed 2 & 3 but great for seed 1 & 4.
As seed 2 I get black against 1&4 as seed 3 I get black against 1 4 but as seed 4 I get white against 1&3. Yet these color disadvantages are not at all included as a tiebreak in any way.
The result is that in the last Wch as seed2 I never got a useful white having two tough blacks with seed #1 & #4 but in the Wch before as seed #4 I have no tough blacks because I had white against seed #1 . I'm not quite sure the solution other than to somehow tie the colors into tiebreak before ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-01 01:42:40)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Hi Daniel, maybe it would be more fair to reverse the colors (seed 1 plays black against seed 2 and so on)... I'm not sure if it is better but we can think about it. The color is not a good tiebreak IMO, does anyone else have an opinion on this?
Hi Garvin : "2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves." , you mean they play together in special groups? We can think about it as well but one goal of the championship was to help those players to find their place quicker in the rating list before the next cycles. I'm not sure if a 2300 player provisionnaly rated 1800 is an advantage for anyone else in the group more than seed 1.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-01 13:30:27)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
GG- "2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves." ,
TB- You mean they play together in special groups?
We can think about it as well but one goal of the championship was to help those players to find their place quicker in the rating list before the next cycles. I'm not sure if a 2300 player provisionnaly rated 1800 is an advantage for anyone else in the group more than seed 1.
GG- It is not an advantage to have an 1800 in your group if they play to a standard of 2100. It is a severe disadvantage.
It means there is one more person in some groups that plays to a rating way above their provisional rating.
I am very concerned that you seem to be putting the needs of increasing those players ratings in the WCH above the integrity of the competition as a whole. It means you are unfairly affecting other players chances of qualifying, just for the sake of allowing new members the chance to gain a few extra rating points.
The new members still have a lot of chances to increase their rating through playing in normal tournaments, which is where the longer term members had to get their ratings from.
I am saying that those with provisional ratings should be seeded into groups by themselves in stage one.
Whoever wins these groups will clearly be about 2100/2200 playing strength and so will not be crushed in stage two anymore than those with long term 2100 ratings.
A secondary option is to seed some of these players using their advanced rating (if they have one), so at least then there does not end up being three or four 2100's trying to qualify from the same group, while having other groups with only one or two 2100's.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-01 17:51:59)
On colour allocation
On colour allocations, there was numerous discussions on this topic during the 1st year of the server. Well, I cannot remember exactly all my arguments, but briefly 1) Double round-robin is too much effort for the players while it does not eliminate totally the chancy factor. 2) On Berger, the whole FICGS WCH idea is to give more importance to the non-WCH tournaments, the very best player must be champion IMO, not only the winner of a few tournaments, that's why ratings are so important in the tie breaks (and that's why my first idea was to give White to the top seed in round robin groups)!
Less games for everyone per cycle + More cycles = More chances to find the real champion (and more fun :)) !
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-02 00:03:55)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
The number of players in each round must be coherent (round 3 : 5 to 9, round 2 : 5 to 9 x 5 to 9, round 1 : 5 to 9 x 5 to 9 x 5 to 9) ... if things are easier for players rated 2000-2300 during the first round, it will be harder for them later (e.g. 1 player qualified in a group of 11 players!).
But it is true by experience that the rating limit for the M group may be below 2300 (by the way it was for the last championship)
I'm against such a rule "All players over 2000 with at least 50 ficgs games played should be seeded into round 2", a bit complicated IMO, and players rated 2250-2400 will have the same kind of complaining then :)
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-02 18:14:34)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
This is what the rules currently say "Players with a rating superior or equal to 2300 will play 1st stage in high rated groups if possible. Winners of these groups will be directly qualified for stage 3, others will play stage 2."
Though by that, it means that all players have to play stage1 regardless?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 13:09:20)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Hi Garvin, to continue on your original point, I don't think that a player provisionally rated 1800 in a WCH group is a real problem: It is not a significant advantage for anyone in the tournament (the chancy factor always exists in 7 players tournaments anyway), there is a rule [for ~2 years now] that prevents high rated players to lose many points in case of a loss or draw against such a 1800 player who is actually worth 2300 or more (there are other occasions to get free points btw e.g. general forfeits), and WCH groups help these players to find their real rating quicker. As I said the number of cycles is the point, giving more chances to everyone.
But it is true that the colors (top seed playing White against seed 2) may be reversed, so far the idea was "the rating does count to give more chances to the best player to become champion" but maybe the advantage is too big. It still needs to be discussed though.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-05 13:36:15)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Thibault,
You have missed my original point. I am saying that having a 1800 player in your group can be a DISADVANTAGE.
In none of my postings on this topic have I mentioned anything about ratings, except to express a lot of concern that you seem more concern about using the WCH tournament to improve ratings than to try and qualify the best player from each group and to have each of the groups of as close to equal standard as possible.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 14:21:22)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
If it is a disadvantage, it should be consequently an advantage for someone else, I meant this way... So your point is that it is a disadvantage "in the tournament", right? I do not agree with this, if the best player was actually this 1800 player, he should be able to play the championship anyway (and you have the advantage of ratings there for tiebreaks)... If players with a provisional rating play together in special wch groups, the winners (probably still under-rated) will play stage 2 and we'll have the same problem then IMO.
Do other players have an opinion or similar arguments on this point?
Garvin Gray (2010-10-05 16:31:02)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Thibault, I am more than happy to let others give their opinions, but I really do not think you understand at all what point I am trying to make.
This is now three times that you have misunderstood what I am trying to say.
Geez I wish we could quote better in these forums. It would make discussing points much easier.
Thib: So your point is that it is a disadvantage "in the tournament", right? I do not agree with this, if the best player was actually this 1800 player, he should be able to play the championship anyway (and you have the advantage of ratings there for tiebreaks)...
GG- I am not arguing at all that the 1800's should not be able to play in the championship. Please stop mis-quoting me. I have also stated this previously. I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.
The disadvantage is with how the groups are paired and I finding it very difficult to not get completely pissed off with having to explain items many times for you to understand what I am trying to say.
You keep failing to respond directly to my points and I keep having to point out how you have mis-quoted my points, which does not help in the debate at all.
The groups are currently paired in the first stage with the highest rated player in Group 1, second highest rated player in Group 2, third highest rated player in Group 3 and so forth for eleven groups (in this example there are eleven groups). Then the 12th highest rated player is placed in Group 11, the thirteen highest rated player in Group 10 and back we go to the 22nd highest rated player in Group 1. The pattern keeps repeating back and forth until all players in stage one have been allocated to a Group.
Now with the 1800's being seeded in these groups with their 1800 rating is that they end up being about the 4th or 5th seed in some groups, but are not allocated to each group.
Now when some of these 1800 players start performing at a rating of 2100, it means in some groups that the top seeds have received three players of similar playing level and some other groups have not. This makes some of the groups disproportionately unfair.
If these 1800 players were somehow seeded accurately according to their playing standard, meaning they entered stage one in their proper seeding position, it would push all the rest of the players down one spot and so the Group allocations would be fairer.
Another option could also be to make it a rule that players must have a proper rating ie not provisional, before being able to play in the championship. I have tried to avoid suggesting this with my proposal to have them play in a group all by themselves.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 17:09:25)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Aaaaaah... makes me mad :/ Okay, one more time:
GG- I am not arguing at all that the 1800's should not be able to play in the championship. Please stop mis-quoting me. I have also stated this previously. I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.
Thib- I just said "if players with a provisional rating play together in special wch groups", that's the way I (mis-)understood you, so I did not say that you argued that they shouldn't play wch... The thing that is not clear to me is "I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.", so does it mean:
1) Provisionnaly rated players should play in special groups
2) There should be the same number of provisionnaly rated players per group
3) Tie break shouldn't be TER for provisionnaly rated players
4) Provis. rated players should earn their WCH entry, eg. # ended games >50
5) Something else
About cases 1), 3) & 4) I answered it in the discussion that I just re-read entirely.
Sorry for mis-understanding you & thanks for your patience... If I still completely miss it, maybe better would be that another player try to explain me what you mean by "they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves".
Philip Roe (2010-10-05 17:20:42)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
I think that the management of the WCH should not be too heavily weighted toward ensuring that "the best player" wins. On behalf of the underdogs, I would like us to have at least a sporting chance. If the cards are too much stacked against us the idea of an "open" tournament is lost, and we won't enter.
I looked at the statistics for cycle 000007. The top seed won outright 7 times, and tied for first on 7 other occasions. The second seed won outright twice, and tied first 7 times. The third seed won 5 times and tied twice. The fourth seed won once and tied twice. Out of all the winners, only the the two fourth seeds who tied had provisional 1800 ratings.
Are these numbers really a cause for concern?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 17:58:43)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Hi Philip, thanks for taking some time to give us these numbers, really appreciated!
Well, I did not hide that I thought about this championship this way, simply because I wanted it also to look like the old classical chess championship. The point that is discussed here is a tiny detail only compared to the whole idea... Of course the 8 players of the knockout cycle have much better chances to reach the final, and the current champion is by far the favourite. Why to play a WCH that would be a boring copy of IECG & ICCF WCH?
I think that everyone has a real chance though, maybe hardly on 1 cycle but by playing 2 or 3! Have a look at Edward Kotlyanskiy's tournaments, he started WCH 3 with a rating of 2132, seed #2 in a RR group... he is champion!
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_10__000003.html
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-05 19:13:39)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks
Well you said was "when it is possible, 2 players per group (the second one is chosen according to his number of points in the tournament and his rating compared to all other players in the same case in the same cycle) may play the next round. "
SO you're saying its possible the tiebreaker may never matter because you might need another player to continue to even your numbers in one of the other stages.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 19:32:33)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks
"the tiebreaker may NEVER matter" is strange or wrong cause it may matter... but more simply a few players may be invited to play stage 2, according to their results & rating. The same occurs in e.g. IECG championship (until the very last tournament if I remember well).
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-06 08:39:16)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins
Hi again Garvin, I must say I didn't even know the Berger pairing tables, very interesting to pair 6,8,10,12... players, but maybe not so interesting for 5,7,9,11... as there is a bye.
Anyway, I may try to code it for these cases!
On the original topic, the discussion should continue on the question: Must we reverse the colors in WCH round-robin groups so that Seed #2 play White against Seed #1, as the tiebreak (TER: Tournament Entry Rating) is an advantage for Seed #1 already.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=9097
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=9093
As I explained in the other discussions (you can find some statistics in the first one), the whole idea of the chess championship is to find the best player, and rating is an important element in the process IMO. By the way I'm not sure if such an update would change the results significally.
Reverse or not reverse the colors in WCH groups, we need your opinion on this point!
Garvin Gray (2010-10-20 08:42:43)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Wow, finally a new post. :)
I am not sure if you have received an advantage by being in a group with other fully rated players.
My premise is that you should have been a group, or groups, with other provisionally rated players, so that those who have worked to get an accurate rating get to try and qualify in roughly even strength groups (in comparison to all the other qualifying groups).
As someone who has shown themselves to be of decent standard, you would have still probably qualified through that group of provisionals and most likely would not be out of your depth in stage 2.
Which again is the whole premise of my position.
Scott Nichols (2010-10-20 20:06:33)
Freestyle Fun
Freestyle tournament is only 11 days away and already it promises to be an exciting event. Hopefully more will join, especially our friend from India, :)
We have an exciting array of players already though...,
Yuriy Perikov-a new player from Russia who has raised his rating almost 100 points in just two games.
David Evans-Last years winner. I am sure he will be looking to repeat. A definite threat.
Uh-Me-I'll be trying, :)
Marcel Jacon-I don't know anything about Marcel, but I'm sure he will be a tough opponent!
Garvin Gray-A longtime player with much experience. He seemed to improve dramatically after his computer went into the "shop" for a week towards the end of our 24 game drawn match. He will have to be watched out for.
Ruben Comes-What can I say? He is a definite favorite in this event. With his powerful openings, middlegame and unerring endings, he will be hard to beat.
Robert Mueller-I don't know Robert, but I hope to one day if I can ever get up to his level. Another strong favorite here. With an 80% win rate against top level competition, how could anybody bet against him!
Jose Moreira-Another strong unknown to me. Very experienced and I am sure a threat.
Thibault de Vassal-Our glorious leader! If his connection can hold out, we all know Thib is as strong as anybody. It would be nice to see him pull this off.
Sebastion Boehme-Don't be fooled by Sebi's relatively low Advanced rating. He is very strong, experienced Freestyle player. Another shaky connection cost him last year. I consider him to be right in with the favorites of this event.
So there it is "so far". Exciting huh?
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-22 20:56:57)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Hi,
Gary- Thanks for your interest, I do remember to some of your replies to the FICGS vs Rybka Forum match. As you are a guy who likes some order in the matches. When I make the the pairings for the tournament I will be taking into account of ratings. And will make them fair. There are a couple of people who may not have official rating on the rybka forum, but I have a good idea of there strength :) One of them is actually playing reben a great game in the B90 a variation.
Daniel Parmet- Thanks for your interest I have you down.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-10-24 22:57:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Jimmy I am following your progress. I continue my interest in the Tournament. We have discussed my thoughts via PM, but to review here are the things of concern to me. First I do not want to overload my chess obligations in Tournaments I am involved with at FICGS now. I have a hunch that a Start date at or shortly after the year will work out provided it is possible to have no more than one (1) game running at a time.
Other features of interest to a lesser degree are management/monitoring of matches to make sure that excessive time outs are infrequent. A player should not be allowed to go on vacation so to speak during a match. In the event of hardware problems a player should have to live with the timer obligations and not making a unfair match delay.
Player ratings could be considered in pairings. Somewhat like board seeds. Top rated sits at board #1 etc.
I think this can be sorted out easily. Your have excellent inputs from others such as Vytron etc regarding timer details. 2 days/move sounds good to me Jimmy.
So continue your good work, I would be proud to participate god willing.
Wayne
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-26 01:10:12)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
oh my apologies I thought it said lower rating not lower score. You'd be surprised some people are in favor of such crazy ideas.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 11:40:25)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The tournament format has been decide. It will be a 2 game a round swiss tournament. Now my working on a pairing system as we spoke. I've been told by garvin gray that he is an official FIDE arbiter who has the latest programs to be used on swiss tournaments. I'll keep that in mind going forward. As everyone here has official rating. It will be my job to work something out with the other players on my forum who don't have ratings. This being a Swiss tournament with having a chance to play with both colors. I should be about to just do subjective pairings and be fine. I have a pretty good idea of were the players stand rating wise. I hope everyone is really for an competitive and enjoyable tournament!
Jimmy
Garvin Gray (2010-10-29 12:50:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
With it being two games and a swiss, the initial ratings do not matter so much.
Players will get sorted pretty quickly. With using total game points as the first pairing criteria, each score group will have less players, meaning that most of the time there will only be two or three players in each score group, rather than 10 or twelve like in an over the board tournament.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 15:37:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Your doing a good job Garvin, everyone thought your idea of ending the game at 6 man tablebase positions was great 100%. And you more or less suggested the 2 game a Round Swiss was taken very well to. Maybe I should let you be my TD lol. I think I can let you do my Pairings to if you want. My only question to you is what rating list would be the best to use? As far as the ratings of the Rybka Forum players I'll have to give you my ideal ratings for them.
Garvin Gray (2010-11-06 06:19:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Jimmy,
Possible slight change to start date proposal.
I would like to see the competition either start on December 1 (one month earlier), or on about January 14.
The reason for this is to try and reduce the impact of Christmas. If the competition starts on January 1, games could time out without people even knowing that they started due to being on holidays.
Perhaps starting earlier might be helpful as it means the competition starts while there is the current momentum for it.
But middle January is also good as it will give a chance for the new ficgs ratings to be used.
I think it would also be prudent about a week before the start of round one to personally contact all the participants and get them to confirm they are playing. Only those that confirm their participation will be paired for round one.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-17 20:45:40)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
... and there wouldn't be any rating range there like in class tourneys. So another question is : must these tournaments be rated or not.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-12-17 21:06:59)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
By the way Thib I've read a few threads here today about prizes and classes for tournaments. And how you would want to win a tournament to move up in a tournament class or that was the debate. With that thinking, I wonder if that is part of the reason. Why my tourney is as popular as it is. It gives some players of lesser rating a chance to play higher rated players. An as you said in your next line. My tournament will technically not be rated. Even tho ratings will be used for pairing purposes. With the system in place. I believe a lot of the lower rated players will get a chance to play players 200 rating points or higher at some point in the tournament. Anyway thanks for the explanation. Getting excited with less than 2 weeks to go before pairing and 3 weeks after that before the tournament is underway. I've had a couple more names to my list and was happy to hear kam was going to play.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-18 15:24:39)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn
Advanced chess "centaur" players should be interested by the following:
A "super" tournament for computers, named TCEC, just started. Premier Division finals started with the participation of the world's top engines.
Tournament format: double round robin
The participants:
1 Houdini 1.5
2 Rybka 4.0
3 Shredder 12.0
4 Stockfish 2.0.1
5 Naum 4.2
6 Ivanhoe B47cB
7 Hiarcs 13.2
8 Critter 0.9
I don't know much on this tournament, actually it may be a CCRL/SSDF system-like but as a tournament (and without rating list?), anyway thus it was able to reach the chess news in Chessdom & Susan Polgar blogspot.
The point is that the supposed "possible" Rybka-clones Ivanhoe & Houdini (both based on Ippolit, just like Firebird) entered the race... and Houdini is leading already, ahead of Rybka.
It is announced that Rybka 4 is playing, does anyone know who's behind this version of Rybka and what is the hardware? Does Vasik Rajlich know about that?
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2011/01/houdini-15-leads-tcec-computer-super.html
http://www.chessdom.com/news-2011/computer-chess-live-2011
http://www.tcec-chess.org/
Don Groves (2011-01-23 07:43:59)
How to play in here..
Welcome Mitha! Go to Waiting Lists and enter a tournament according to your rating.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-09 20:28:47)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Okay, after another long thinking on the different effects of the possible changes, I think that we should try in a first time the following (something between proposals 2 & 4 plus minor improvements):
"All 2150+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) will play M & N class groups at stage 1. The two players with the highest scores (or TER in case of equality) of the M group will qualify for the round-robin final, while the player with the lowest score (or TER in case of equality) will be eliminated, the others will qualify for stage 2. The winner of the N group will qualify for the round-robin final and at most half the players in the group will qualify for stage 2, the others will be eliminated.
Also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000."
Let's see the effects during the next cycle, if things are not ok we'll reconsider the idea to prevent the provisionals to enter the wch waiting list. I don't like complex rules but I like the idea of "progressive" rules. Any argument in another way is always welcome.
Don Groves (2011-01-24 03:42:49)
How to play in here..
You can play in the lowest rating group. For example, Class F in Chess is for players rated below 1200.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-02 19:50:00)
Update for BigChess & Poker rating rules
Hi all, it was a long time there wasn't any update in rating rules.
First of all, as the number of results at Poker Holdem is quite high, I feel that a change should be tried so that ratings move less fast.
Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((38 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 40
Case of a loss : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40
As for Big Chess, the ratings deflate because there isn't the same rule than in Poker or Advanced Chess, this is now fixed :
If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2000, his new rating his :
New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20
Otherwise :
New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
This rule may look strange from a mathematical point of view, but combined to the other rules that provoke deflation, it gives really good results IMHO. Let's see how it works here.
Juri Eintalu (2021-09-04 17:22:19)
ICCF ratings
Hello. I am new here. I see that my ICCF rating has been converted into a FICGS rating. However, I have not found here any information about whether the FICGS rating influences the ICCF or ELO ratings.
Kamesh Nookala (2011-02-05 13:21:55)
Segregation of Games on this Server
Dear all,
In my opinion, it would be really useful to get the games segregated month-wise or two months-wise (as the ratings and database gets updated once in two months). As of today, whenever we try to download games and update the database, we happen to download all the previously downloaded games, as it has a collective bunch, and then delete the already downloaded games by doubles check.
Regards,
Kam
Jai Prakash Singh (2011-02-05 17:23:36)
New site on Chess Thinking Systems
Hi friends,
Now watch Chess Video "How to break 3000 rating in blitz chess" packed with valuable advices by GM Igor free at
http://chessthinkingsystems.blogspot.com/
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2011-02-06 14:06:40)
Update for BigChess & Poker rating rules
Hello Thibault,
the previous poker rating rules I like better - although I currently much benefit from the new ones :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-06 14:30:22)
Update for BigChess & Poker rating rules
Yes, ratings change more slowly, let's give it a try & continue the discussion, we'll make a step back if it doesn't prove to be better.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-17 03:39:08)
request again tour
All thought we would have to test it some and see what people think of it. Couldn't it be use with your advance chess rating? I guess it would be a longer adv game.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-24 18:14:53)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
IMO the "bad" (if bad, actually I prefer random) consequences are not eliminated but only postponed while adding more complex rules. Better (from a ratings & results point of view) would be to block the entry to these players, but but...
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-24 18:49:15)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
If it is a problem with unrated players. Is it possible to have all players have to play at least 1 tournament before they enter Wch, I know that is not a lot of info to go on. But a provisional is a lot better than no rating at all.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-26 22:44:09)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Okay, I'm really thinking about a solution but right now I'm not completely satisfied with this option of having these groups of provisionnaly rated players. I really think that it just moves & postpons the problem while losing some advantages, by the way many established ratings are still underestimated...
I would like to try to explain again my whole point of view on the current wch rules. The way I've been thinking this championship is purely statistical, the idea was to find the best chances to see ALL the best players in the final rounds about each 2 years. It worked quite well so far IMO, actually my main regret is not to be able to extend the knockout tournament of 1 round (we would have 16 players instead of 8), that's why it is not possible anyway to have less than 5 rounds for the whole cycle. Each one is 30 to 40 months long, it could be worse. So the whole cycle's aim is not only to find the best player of the cycle but to give chances enough as quickly as possible to the new underrated players for the next cycles!
On this point, I'm quite glad to see players like Wayne who made it the very hard way, starting from ELO 1400 (!) to reach 2540 in about 3 years only. The WCH cycle helped many other players to find their place quite quickly in the rating list, also over 2400, and I have no doubt that the best players of the round-robin cycle play the round-robin final. Usually none of these new underrated players play the RR final, they have less chances than 2200 ones to play the 2nd round because of the TER rule but they win some elo points during the 1st round. That is fair IMO, some logical improvements now protect the ratings of 2200-2300 players but I agree that it is still hard to cross certain rating ranges because ratings do not inflate the same way than advanced chess, Go or poker ones.
In summary, let's say that it is unfair that 2200 players play 1 or 2 underrated players + one player rated about 2000 who may be worth 2100 or 2200, 2300 & more... He will probably lose some rating points during round 1. However he has more chances to reach round 2 with few chances to win but more chances to get some/many elo points back.
I do not say that there is no "problem" with the current WCH rules set (there will always be border effects, whatever the rules) but my point is that I'm not sure that any change that will have heavy consequences will have good effects enough.
Finally, if the most is favourable to such a change, it looks more logical to me to forbid the provisionnaly rated players to enter the wch waiting list. By the way we will have less forfeits during round 1, so the quality of the results may be improved. What do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-27 01:06:30)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Starting with a non-FIDE/ICCF/IECG rating, one need to have finished 9 games to get an established rating. 2 tournaments should be ok.
Garvin Gray (2011-02-27 02:47:16)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Thib, I have explained my point of view quite a few times and when you reply you keep either accidently mis-interpreting it, or are doing it deliberately.
I suspect there might be a language issue between English as a first language and French as a first language.
My issue is with the first stage groups, to which most of the players are allocated.
In none of my previous posts have I mentioned UNDERRATED players ie those who have established ratings on here, but most likely their true playing standard is higher than their rating.
I will try and explain my position again and I now see I am not alone in having this opinion.
With 15 or so groups in the first stage and having some players provisionally rated at 1800, this means those '1800' are seeded in the different groups at player number 3 or 4.
But a few of the '1800's' turn out to be quite stronger than that rating, meaning the genuine rated 2100's in that group get another person who can play to their level, whereas in another group which did not have an '1800er', the group that did not have the provisional 1800 gets a statistical advantage by having one less stronger player to qualify for round two.
Now to the argument that putting the provisionals in groups by themselves only delays the problem.
If there are only one or two provisional groups, then this means that only one or two provisionals make it through to round two.
While this idea makes those groups of questionable standard, it is extremely likely that whoever comes out of the provi groups is going to be of decent standard.
Garvin Gray (2011-02-27 09:28:07)
Plea for classical rating help
I do not have a solution for what I am about to whinge about, but it is a situation I am getting a little tired of on this site and I see the situation as rather terminal to my participation here.
For the last 12 rating periods, I have had a rating between 2100 and 2200. In the one tournament where I got to play a field with consistent 2200's, I scored 50% or better.
What I am noticing more and more is that for me it is impossible to get opportunities to find out what my true standard is on here.
I am continually having to play people rated around myself or below and these includes those who are provisionally rated 1800 or 2100. When these games are drawn or lost, my rating is dragged down quite a bit.
I do not ever get the opportunity get those points back by playing people above 2200.
It is an issue that I am so sick of and I feel that my progress is being stunted because of it. My rating progress is certainly being stunted.
We do have the higher ticket idea, but that still takes six months to win one and that does NOT help a persons rating all that much.
With the WCH cycle as it is, I also do not have an opportunity to qualify straight through to group 2, like those with higher ratings do.
As I said, this is a bit of a whinge, but I really am sick of this issue and would like some more opportunities to try and find out what I am like against higher rated opponents.
It is part of the reason why I have also asked that the top rateds in the WCH are not segregated from the lower rated as they are atm. I think they should be made to start from stage 1.
Only the defending champion and possibly the defeated previous finalist should receive preferential treatment.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2011-02-27 15:48:42)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
It seems that nobody likes the special groups for players with rating > 2300 in the chess WCH - but those who can play in these groups.
Maybe the provisional rating of a player should be (1800+<rating of the engine he uses>)/2 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-27 21:20:59)
Plea for classical rating help
I don't know if only the defending champion and/or finalist "should" have any treatment after all... That's the whole debate of the FIDE WCH and I wanted to make it quite the opposite way.
On the opportunities for 2100-2200 players to cross the 2200 barrier, your last 4 ratings were 2160, 2157, 2160 & 2135. The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150. I'm not trying to sell anything there but it is an option that is dedicated to help in such cases.
On the WCH cycle, maybe another idea would be to "extend" the M Groups idea to the 2200-2300 players. With 2200 to ~2400 players in these groups, there will be more strong players in Stage 2... I'm not sure about the whole consequences but it may be worth a try, what do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-27 21:34:13)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Hi Garvin, sure there might be a language issue... sorry about that :/ I think I only try to interpret what you say in terms of consequences on the whole thing but I may be wrong at some points, be sure I'm not trying to avoid anything deliberately.
The provisional rating already takes account of if the player uses an engine or not (at least I try to make an estimation on what the new member says in the registration form).
As I just said in the other discussion, maybe we could try to extend the M groups to the 2200-2300 players, it may satisfy everyone as it is probably easier to cross the 2000 barrier than the 2200's, what do you think?
Garvin Gray (2011-02-28 02:09:54)
Plea for classical rating help
I do know what my previous rating are. That is my point, my rating is stationary and I believe this is because I am not getting the EVEN opportunity to improve it by playing higher rated players often enough.
If I had many games against 2200+ers and had a poor record, then the conclusion would be very different ie not good enough yet for that rating.
Garvin Gray (2011-02-28 02:16:26)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
If I understand correctly Thib ;)
You are suggesting that the 2100 ers get pushed up into the special WCH groups, rather than having to fight it out with the rest of the rif raf in first stage.
Is that correct?
If so, then while personally that might be helpful for me, I am against it on two reasons:
1) It will only push down the rating issues to 2000ers.
2) I think it would be better to not give the special exemptions to those 2200 and above. I think the special exemptions start at 2200, or is that 2300?
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-28 04:38:07)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Thib I feel for you :) Making a good tournament format is very hard. I know I pulled teeth to try and make my format. I had to do two things for my. 1.Make few games as possible and 2.Make it a reasonable time table for a blitz world championship. I believe Garvin did a great job with this in the parings. Lucky we didn't have a lot of unrated players. So Thib I would like to help, but can I ask a favor to you. Is it possible to get a breakdown of the ratings of the players for the last Wch? I think this would be helpful to maybe coming up with a solution. So maybe like..
What was the number of.
2300's+
2200's
2100's
2000's
1900's
1800's
below 1800's
provisional's
I know this maybe some work, but this breakdown can give us a picture of what you have. Personally speaking I think Garvin's idea is decent. Were you can put the highest advance provisional player in the lower stage round 2 bracket and the same for the lowest provisional player to go to the higher round 2 bracket, by performance of stage 1. I guess when you talk about statistical merits for your Wch tournament. You are trying to get the lowest error rate, but get the best value to it.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 16:05:47)
Plea for classical rating help
My point is that you never entered a class M waiting list while you were able to do it during maybe 6 months... During this time you entered many Rapid M & Class A tournaments (you play many games) so there may be also a rating management question into the problem IMHO. The same way you played 3 rapid silver tournaments, 2 against players with low ratings and 1 against Eros (good opportunity!) that you lost. These times many ~2200 rated players enter this waiting list.
Anyway I'll make other proposals in the other discussion today.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 16:07:33)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I'll answer this in a few hours. A quick suggestion meanwhile, do you think that provisional ratings (most are 1800) should be e.g. rated 2000 if the new members say that they're using an engine? It may help to solve many of these problems.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 21:02:18)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
@Garvin:
I suggest that all 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 OR that all 2100+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2 and still 1 for stage 3. This combined to another new rule that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering would have a provisional rating of 2000 would solve IMO this issue (2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the wch) and would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating). The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule. Actually I think I would be very favourable to one of these changes.
@Jimmy:
Fortunately there are players like Garvin, Scott, Gino & others who really helped to build the FICGS rules :) On the numbers of players by rating range, it is quite different from a cycle to another, sometimes we have 2 M groups, sometimes there is no M group at all so I'm not sure if it would be representative. Still I'm not favourable at all to have groups of provisionally rated players.
Daniel Parmet (2011-02-28 23:25:38)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I agree with Scott on both accounts.
I also think with you Thib re using the 2000 as first rating for new people using engines.
Daniel Parmet (2011-02-28 23:29:13)
Plea for classical rating help
I feel I have the same problem as Garvin. But it does not bother me as much as I consider playing otb the real place for improvement. I just use corr as a chance to test my otb ideas. However, I still try to seek out the strongest players I am allowed to play. The restrictions I have found in most correspondence sites though is that I am not allowed to play the stronger players. The 2150 rule does not help me as I am at a mere 2100.
Daniel Parmet (2011-02-28 23:31:07)
Plea for classical rating help
Actually my rating will probably take a severe plunge on the May 1st list because many of my games against 1900-2000s will be drawn each one will majorly drag my rating down despite the fact this is the predicted outcome as black.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-28 23:37:33)
Plea for classical rating help
I guess that is one reason why you like my tournament. You get a chance to face strong players at every point, almost.
Daniel Parmet (2011-02-28 23:50:22)
Plea for classical rating help
yes this is exactly why I love your tournament ;) losses do not bother me. I learn from them. This has been my philosophy ever since I picked up chess a mere 3 years ago. What bothers me is all the restrictions people put into to place to prevent players from improving. Most do it unintentionally. However, many US organizers do it intentionally. They either cap their event sections strictly for 2200+ or they make insane rating determine entry fees. For a non 2400+ player to enter a GM norm swiss event it can cost $400. Or for an expert to enter a 2200+ section will cost you an extra $50 at the Goichberg style events or an extra $100 for the National Open.
It is this kind lunacy that makes improvement hard. You can have all the time and money in the world and still find through no lack of effort or skill that you are not allowed to improve.
I find most of the otb tournaments I am allowed to play in now... I usually end up being seed 1 or 2. Not exactly encouragement for me to use my whole weekend is it? I would dream to be able to enter a swiss where I am the bottom seed. But for this to happen I have to break the barriers without the extreme advantage of being allowed to play strong players.
FYI, I practice what I speak. The local tournament I am running next in my area will feature 5 masters (1 IM, 2 FM and 2 NM) - and it has a low entry fee. This is the type of event I wish was more common...
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-01 11:04:48)
Plea for classical rating help
Same problem in France as for OTB chess (as far as I remember).
Daniel, I see that you made it the very hard way too (starting from 1300), it took a while to reach 2087 but I have no doubt that you'll reach 2100, then you can enter a Rapid M (by the way a ticket can do it already). There are solutions!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-01 11:17:27)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
The idea of this championship was to have a tournament looking like the old classical FIDE WCH, so it would be a non-sense to me to make such changes (the chess world will always be divided into 2 categories on this point :)), I'm not opposed to create something like a Cup tournament (the Freestyle tournament is one example) but it would be probably too much already for the addicted players that we are, so the WBCCC is a good alternative.
Glad to see that Daniel agrees on the 2000 prov. rating, does anyone have any opinion on the suggestions I made just after "@Garvin:" in my previous post?
Garvin Gray (2011-03-02 14:59:29)
Plea for classical rating help
Thib- The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150.
====================
Apologies for the slow replies. From looking at both threads on these items I wanted to wait to see if there were any trends. Not so far.
On to the comment I have picked out above, I just looked at the SM Rapid group and I notice three players who I think have accepted the 10 euro scheme into a tournament with 2300 players.
When I saw your comment about the ticket system, I was concerned that it could mean that a few 2150 ers enter the tournament and it ruins the experience for all.
This seems to have occurred where the scheme is in place to give the opportunity for a person to play higher rated opponents.
In fact, rechecking the SM rapid, no player is above 2300.
Perhaps the 2150 scheme should be limited to one acceptance per 2300 group. When that tournament fills, another 2150 person can accept.
So as it stands, I will not be joining that tournament as it will acheive nothing more than I am getting now, and I would be paying 10 euro for the privilege of getting nothing more than what I get now.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-02 15:44:26)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Hi Garvin :)
The main point is IMO this suggestion:
"All 2100+, 2150+ or 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) could play the M groups at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2, while the winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.
Combined to another new rule, that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering to get a provisional rating of 2000, it could solve this issue.
Indeed 2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the regular wch groups, while they keep more chances to qualify for round 2, and it would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating).
The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule."
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-03 14:26:01)
Plea for classical rating help
Sorry as well, I missed your last message in this discussion. So...
1) On tickets for class M ("...if your rating is above 2150"), that was my point, nothing prevented you to use this trick when your rating was above 2150.
2) On the next Rapid SM, only 2 players used it, Marius was above 2300 then lost many elo points as he had to forfeit several games, Miroslav also was above 2300 and lost a few points. That's a border case and it may happen. Anyway only 2 players under the rating limit can enter a waiting list.
3) To clarify, there is no 2150 scheme! 2150 is for the case of Class M, for Rapid SM you have to be rated 2250-2299 or to win a Rapid M event to use the ticket system.
4) You are probably right on the Rapid SM case anyway, maybe the ticket system rule should allow players to use a ticket only if there are no more than 2 players (including players not using a ticket) under the rating range.
5) Anyway you couldn't enter the Rapid SM waiting list unless you win a Rapid M tournament. But my point was only that you could have joinded a Class M several times (with most players rated above 2200)...
Garvin Gray (2011-03-05 11:48:40)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I do not think the proposed idea of TDV solves anything at all. Instead all it does is move the issue from the 2100's to the 2000's.
I am not in favour of this idea that a rating is dependant on whether a person declares if they are using a chess engine or not. What happens if they do not declare, then start using one? Are they kicked out of the tournament? How do you prove the issue?
I think that solution creates more issues than it solves.
More and more I am in favour of the idea from a couple of others than players need to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH.
Garvin Gray (2011-03-05 11:51:24)
Plea for classical rating help
Been thinking about this issue a bit more.
I think the only solution is that more tournaments are specially run where players from the different rating bands meet more often.
So there should be a couple of more tournaments where there are no special divisions where the top players are put together against each other, rather than having to fight it out from round one with the rest of the riff raff.
This idea seems great, but the old question comes up, it only works for the intended purpose if players from the top end of the rating list actually participate.
Would they? I am sceptical.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-05 13:43:30)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
There is no similar issue for 2000's IMHO, it is probably easier to cross the 2000-2100 barrier than the 2100-2200 and of course 2200-2300. And once again they would lose much less rating points against these new 2000 provisionally rated players (that's mathematical).
On provisional ratings depending on if players declare if an engine is used, even ICCF (as far as I know) grants a 2000 prov. rating to some players, I was not convinced so far but finally... Of course new players can "lie" or change their mind on using an engine, they'll not be kicked out of any tournament but such a rule is surely better than nothing to get ratings more coherent, btw it is just an improvement of the current rule (new players who have no rating anywhere can choose their first rating between 1200 & 1800, and of course I fix it if e.g. the player declares to play with an engine with a new rating of 1200).
Anyway the idea of players needing to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH is also fine to me. Let's just try to have more opinions on this.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-05 14:03:29)
FICGS chess WCH : choose your rule
Hi all, we need your opinion to choose a new rule for the next FICGS chess WCH, here are the proposals:
1) All 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M groups at stage 1 while only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2. Winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.
2) Same than 1) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000.
3) All 2100+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M groups at stage 1 while only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2. Winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.
4) Same than 3) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000.
5) Players need to have an established rating (9 finished & rated games) before being able to enter the WCH waiting list.
6) Same than 5) but also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000.
As for me, I think that 2) & 4) are ok for all reasons I mentioned before. 5) & 6) are ok as well but it's a pity to reduce the number of players in the wch cycle :/
Garvin Gray (2011-03-05 14:07:55)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Ok for me.
In order, most want to see first:
5
3
1
4
2
Not sure how 6) works? If players have an established rating, how are they new members and need to declare.
Surely the established rating would be used.
Garvin Gray (2011-03-06 08:56:33)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Aren't having players segregated from the rest being elitist. Tano, you have voted for proposals that are surely elitist ie allowing players to avoid the general population and giving them increased chances to qualify.
If you do not believe in elitism then I would have thought you were would be arguing that all players from all ratings should start from round one, including the 2300+ players.
Mariusz Maciej Broniek (2011-03-06 08:56:45)
Strange game
Hi;0)
maybe I am wrong in my opinion, but I think, that playing chess is for fun! I have a 7yo son, and he traing hard to learn playing chess. In lose position he play move by move and what is bad in that situation? It is only a hobby, its only for fun.. Not for rating, not for 1,0,=. All in FICGS used computers to play, he used a young brain and learn lose too. It is very important in my opinion. I have few games in the same sytuation - I am winner - but I have a time and... dont wont to die too ;0)) BECAUSE IT IS ALL ONLY FOR FUN.
Kind regards to you Alexander
Mariusz
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-06 13:45:39)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Elitist may be not the right term here (I don't know what would be better though :))...
Thanks for sharing your views on this, Adri! Yes, 5 & 6 are unrelated, just wanted to see if the 2000 prov. rating was ok for the most.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2011-03-06 15:03:21)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I do not like this special treatment of players from a certain rating (no matter whether 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300) already from the beginning of the WCHs. And I don't like that the TER is decisive in the case of equal points.
I think it's bad luck if in a group are players with a provisional rating or a small rating (and the player starts to use engines now). But in my opinion all members should be allowed to play the WCH without restrictions.
Maybe games should not be rated for a player with an established rating, if the rating of his opponent is provisional only. But that's another theme.
Daniel Parmet (2011-03-07 19:24:44)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
How hard is really for these people to play 9 games? I would amend choice 5 to say no provisional unless they provide another corr website they play on to get a point of parity for their rating (like LSS/ICCF). I mean really the players most likely to timeout are those who have never played a single game of correspondence ever in their life.
I would also point out that if the special rating group is extended to 2100 then I won't be playing. No reason for me to play stage 1 if i'm top seed.
Why did the groups get changed from 8 man groups to 6 man groups?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-07 21:18:26)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
On top seeds again, maybe I agreed too fast... Actually I agree that being the top seed is a good way to lose some elo points (but that's not the real point of playing a championship, the current FICGS champion will agree there ;)), but I think that I would prefer to play regular groups as the top seed with the 2100 limit than as the top seed with the 2300 limit. Less points to lose -particularly if the 2000 prov. rating rule is accepted- & more chances to play the next round!
Wayne Lowrance (2011-03-08 06:19:02)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Howdy all. I have stayed out of this discussion. I am biased for sure. Garvin I can see your side, it is tough. But I believe in the existing format. Maybe a few minor tweaks are ok, we will see I guess. Garvin if your good enough, in time you will climb the ladder. If that is your goal. I have played at ficgs for what seems like forever. I started out at 1400.I came here with a previous 4 year record at another side with a rating of 2300.
I did not think I would ever get past 2200. In fact a member told me face to face via ficgs I would never go higher. I got all the more determined. This does not help you but I just wanted to tell you it can be done.
Maybe it is not fair.
Another personnel observation of apparent unfairness. aboard a ship in the navy first class petty officers get to jump ahead in the chow line. It is not fair, but that is the way it was. Man when I promoted to first class I had no compulsion to jump in ahead of long chow line.
So Thibault I ask for no drastic step to ficgs rating posture.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-10 02:45:04)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I'm not clear enough, as too often :/
Let's say that there are 33 players over 2150 in the waiting list. 8 will play the knockout, 7 (over 2300) will play the M group and 18 will play in two N groups of 9 players. From the M group, 2 will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 will play round 2. From the N groups, 1 from each one will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 from each one will play round 2. So from these 33 players, 12 will play in the round-robin groups stage 2.
Maybe this formulation (that should be included into the wch rules) will be clearer:
"Players with a rating superior or equal to 2300 will play 1st stage in class M groups if possible. From these groups the two players obtaining the best score will qualify for the round-robin final stage 3, the player obtaining the lowest score will be eliminated, the others will play stage 2.
Other players with a rating superior or equal to 2150 will play 1st stage in class N groups if possible. From these groups the winner will qualify for the round-robin final, at most half the players from these groups will qualify for round 2."
Garvin Gray (2011-03-10 02:49:48)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Let's say that there are 33 players over 2150 in the waiting list. 8 will play the knockout, 7 (over 2300) will play the M group and 18 will play in two N groups of 9 players. From the M group, 2 will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 will play round 2. From the N groups, 1 from each one will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 from each one will play round 2. So from these 33 players, 12 will play in the round-robin groups stage 2.
I think this should be slightly changed.
1) The top eight rated players will play the knockout matches.
2) The next seven highest rated will play the M group round robin
3) Players 16 to 33 will play in 2 groups, called group N.
and then so forth.
The reason I offer this as a re-wording/change is that it is a little more flexible and it could be that more than 7 players above 2300 nominate, or that less than 7 players above 2300 nominate.
So in effect it just makes it clear that players will be allocated purely in rating order, rather than specifying a particular rating cut off.
Garvin Gray (2011-03-10 02:51:35)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Daniel- Ah so this change basically means I can't play until I get to 2150. Gotcha.
Garvin- You can still play. You will start exactly as normal in the general round robin groups. It used to be that players rated over 2300 went straight through to groups on their own, now Thib has moved the rating cutoff to 2150.
For those under 2150, it should make it easier to qualify for the next stage.
Garvin Gray (2011-03-10 02:52:59)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Daniel and others- I am just helping Thib out to clarify the changes as I understand them.
My personal position on the rating cutoff is that all the players except the champion and ex-champion should start from stage 1. None of this rating cutoff and special groups stuff.
Daniel Parmet (2011-03-10 02:54:11)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
No, it makes it pointless. You are the top seed. You play underrated players or weak players both of which are a waste of time. You lose massive ratings points and never get a chance to play the stronger players. It is a complete waste of time to enter as the top seed.
Daniel Parmet (2011-03-10 03:15:04)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
btw your assumption that all the 1st seeds get through is wrong. In fact, I didn't get through on my last go around because all the 1800s played drawing lines as white to try to make as sterile a position as possible. This of course forced to play for a win from a drawn position which exactly as you expect - lost. These new proposed changes are in my opinion extremely silly and biased towards people in certain rating brackets. Therefore, I can't participate until I'm on the better half of the bias 2150+
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-10 12:40:21)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Hi Daniel, I don't get your point. Now you're rated 2094 so you would be probably a top seed in the next regular group, playing maybe 2 provisionals (maybe one centaur rated 2000 and one centaur or human rated 1800 or 1700) instead of ~2 centaurs rated 1800 + playing as Black against a player rated 2200. I really think that it is a better "deal" for players rated 2000-2100 also. Yes you may still lose a few points (less than before IMO), but your chances to go to round 2 and play stronger players are much higher... I cannot say more.
@Garvin: your proposal makes sense. By "if possible" I mean that the rule is not strictly 2150 or 2300, I'll just try to make coherent groups (in size & ratings) so it quite looks like your way in practice I think.
William Taylor (2011-03-30 19:04:59)
Active rating lists
Hi Thib,
The 'Active' rating lists currently filter out people who haven't connected to the server for 2 months. I think it would make more sense to filter people who haven't made a move in a game of that type for 2 months, as currently the lists contain people who are not active in that game type at all. For example, the poker list contains lots of people who have never played a game of poker on this site.
Will
Don Groves (2011-03-31 03:30:35)
Active rating lists
I agree with William. In addition, I would like to see players who have never played any game after joining the site removed from all rating lists. Their presence tends to distort the lists.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-31 23:09:07)
Active rating lists
I do not forget you guys, still thinking about this issue... I finish a big work on Wikichess (hashtables and so on) and launch the championships, then I come back to this ;)
Daniel Parmet (2011-04-04 07:33:36)
Conditional moves
if I may play devil's advocate... I believe it is precisely BECAUSE conditional moves are more fair that is why players want them. Now when a person is low on time or trying to extend the game into the next rating period they purposefully wait until the BEST hour in which to make a move to clip the most time off their opponent's clock. If conditional moves were in place, a person could sleep knowing that their forced response is already in the system for their sneaky opponent that just wants to flag them.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-17 13:44:07)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009
This is not the case anymore... even if most players with a rating > 2150 will probably play round 2.
Daniel Parmet (2011-04-17 20:53:43)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009
The fact that all 2150+ were automatically seeded into round2. Making it completely pointless for anyone in the 2000-2149 rating range to play.
Peter Unger (2011-04-19 23:34:25)
You can't enter this tournament
Why? There are players with 2145etc. in the waiting list?
See the following?
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_SM__000008
(type : rated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move)
7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent)
entry fee : 0 , prize : 20 (E-Points)
elo : 2300+
You can't enter this tournament :
Your chess rating : 2166 , is out of the restrictions.
Waiting list :
POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 2152
SVK Gazi, Miroslav 2272
USA Nichols, Scott 2184
DEU Wosch, Arkadiusz 2145
KAZ Alaguzov, Maxat 2415
PRT Pessoa, Francisco 2528
William Taylor (2011-04-20 00:53:23)
You can't enter this tournament
Or they may have had a higher rating when they entered, though Jimmy's suggestion is more likely.
Harshil Meraiya (2011-04-24 10:20:30)
Active rating lists
Actually it's outrageous. I've been playing for 1 yr and haven't lost single game. still my rating is 1767 while persons just joined and playing no game at all have 1800. Such a stupid site. I'm leaving this site. Nothing is more idiotic than this! Such a waste of time!!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-24 12:03:10)
Active rating lists
Hello Harshil.
It is mathematical, actually. Your rating cannot reach 2000 if you play only class D tournaments (players rated 1400-1600), which is your case. By the way you played only 3 chess rated tournaments, that is still quite few...
High correspondence chess ratings take always 1 full year to be reached, every strong player knows that.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-25 08:58:00)
Active rating lists
+1 If you want an OTB rating over 2200. It takes years to do. So it is actually quicker in CC play to be honest.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2011-04-26 03:22:43)
Active rating lists
Hi Harshil, when I joined my ranking was 1400, now it is over 2000. I only played one class d championship. If you try to play chess rapid tournaments or the ficgs world champion with players whose ranking is higher than yours, you may progress faster. About the ranking system used here, it is pretty standard, you will find it in others chess sites or clubs.
Harshil Meraiya (2011-04-26 05:37:31)
Active rating lists
I started chess and my provisional rating was 1400. Now I'm rated 1767 after 1 yr and people joining just now have provisional rating of 1800. After 1 yr I'll be 2200 and people just joining will get provisional rating of 2400. Wow! Somebody is idiot here!!
Harshil Meraiya (2011-04-26 05:42:10)
Active rating lists
And that is not only for chess! Go I had Zero. Now its 322 and provisional rating for people just joining-700! I don't need your stupid mathematical explanations. Just tell me how to delete account. And don't mail me ever!
Don Groves (2011-04-26 05:49:34)
Active rating lists
The same happened in Poker. The first players who joined were given a 1600 rating. Then after a while it became 1800. I agree this is a problem that should be addressed!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-27 12:40:42)
Active rating lists
Obviously such changes are not good, but not doing these changes would be just worse... for Poker this is different, new players can estimate their level, existing players with no rating start at 1600, but it is quite easy to reach 1800.
For chess, maybe it should have been possible to start at 2000 from the start of the site (as it is possible in some cases at other sites), but by experience I thought it was too much, and engines are stronger today. Well, actually better would be to have a test to estimate a provisional rating... Still it wouldn't be perfect and not sure it would be appreciated :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-27 12:43:14)
Active rating lists
@ Harshil : To delete your account, please use the form at the bottom of the page "My account", specifying that you want it to be deleted. It should be done within days.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-28 15:38:53)
Active rating lists
Agreed on that one.
Michael Aigner (2011-04-28 17:24:52)
Active rating lists
I agree to, completely!!
Hermann Hartl (2011-04-28 17:57:46)
Active rating lists
It´s better to play for challange and fun instead of playing for rating points.
Don Groves (2011-04-28 23:41:13)
Active rating lists
Well said, Sebastian!
Don Groves (2011-04-28 23:45:42)
Active rating lists
Thib: I agree it easy to reach 1800 starting from 1600. But that's not the problem. The problem is it's much harder to reach 2000 starting from 1600 and unless one reaches 2000 one cannot play in Class A where most of the best players are.
Paul Valle (2011-05-03 23:40:03)
Starting Rating
First of all: This is a great site, and love the fact that the Thib interacts with users to improve the site. Many decent chess sites out there, but this is rare.
When it comes to starting ratings, I would like to add some ideas for improvement:
The point of ratings is that they should reflect playing strength.
Likewise, the goal with starting ratings is that it should reflect actual playing strength.
Rules for both should be as equal and fair as possible.
Assumption:
I) the composition of «Active Players» and their ratings here on FICGS, are a valuable source in guesstimating a new players rating. Most players here play aided by an engine and the site is free, so players here should reflect what comes in the door.
(BTW My minimum definition of an «Active Player», is someone who has made at least one move in the period leading up to the official rating list.)
II) Lightning rating is a good estimate of Correspondence Rating.
I further believe that any choices or complications made to the FIDE rules of one starting rating fits all, should mostly be done to aid good Advanced Chess Players, and good OTB-players. Such complications might not be fair, but essential for FICGS to be relevant to the elite.
My proposal:
«Newly Regs» have a choice of THREE options upon starting to play correspondence CHESS on FICGS:
A) Start with a set rating. I would suggest this be set at the average or median off all Active players. Or a fixed numerical constant times this average. You could of course set up all kinds of formulas, but the main point in should reflect the current composition of FICGS members and not estimates based on unverifiable data given by the player.
Some players might feel that they are way better than this and might be discouraged to join and fight for a long time to reach the top tournaments they feel they are entitiled to play. The seccond option is created to encourage these players to join, and give them a choice to prove their skill relativly quickly and accurately.
B) Play 10 preliminary lightning games (starting with the same rating as in A), and then using the end lightning rating as the starting rating for normal tournaments. These players will get a much more accurate starting rating, and may be well motivated to put in the effort if they care. (If all the 10 games went close to 60 moves, and both players used all their time, the playing time would be around 16 hours)
Then there are the top international correspondence or Over-The-Board players. Why bother these with 10 lightning games?
C) Titled players can start in Master with a higher fixed rating (same as in option A, but multiplied with a higher constant), but must register by credit card to prove identity.
Possible drawbacks and problems
1) Assumption I and/or II is flawed
2) A poor player might be highly overrated choosing option A)
3) Players can dump lightning rating points to a friend
4) Implementation cost – development
-What ya think folks?
reg, Paul
Thibault de Vassal (2011-05-10 12:09:36)
Big Chess championships 1 & 2
Hello all,
Finally the 2nd Big Chess championship started, with 3 players who should replace forfeiting players within 15 days. You still can enter the waiting list for replacements. Sorry for this month late :/
The final tournament of the 1st championship started as well... There was kind of a dilemma as I'm not comfortable with the idea of inviting myself to complete a tournament, but best was IMO to follow the current rules (tournaments of at least 7 players) so I had to invite 2 players. For the 2nd one, with 4 groups only I'll have to invite 3 players (most probably 2 players with 5 points out of 6 and the highest Big Chess rating when the tournament starts).
Thibault de Vassal (2011-05-10 12:38:23)
Active rating lists
Hi guys, sorry for the delay for this one... :/
@Don : it may take a while, but I don't feel it's so hard for a good poker player... but it's kind of hard to say anyway.
@Paul : thanks for such a post with many ideas & questions! this issue is really complex of course but I made some observations during these years and my conclusions were:
- in average, self-estimated ratings are best. during the first years all players with no FIDE/IECG/ICCF ratings started at 1400 or 1700 and it quite distorted the list as many strong centaurs started from the bottom. your idea makes sense but it looks more "esthetic" for a centaur with no official rating to start with a 1900 or 2000 rating than e.g. 1937 :/
- your idea of 10 lightning games is very interesting! but not many players are involved in these games (I guess because of the time they spend on corr. games) and not many would accept to play unrated or low-rated players. I'll think about that though...
- about option C, there were early general forfeits by players FIDE rated over 2200, that's a pity and it distorted (not so much) a few ratings temporarily [actually it also helps to maintain a small inflation of ratings, which is logical] but in the other hand FIDE/ICCF ratings given as provisional ratings help to build a rating list with ratings that "tell" something... such choices are not obvious, obviously :)
Jai Prakash Singh (2011-05-26 21:28:42)
Winning Blitz chess
Hi friends,
GM Igor Smirnov, present ICC Blitz Rating 3091 (best 3212) with ID Charodej shares his blitz chess secrets in video lesson "How to break 3000 blitz rating" free at
http://chessthinkingsystems.blogspot.com/
Jai Prakash Singh (2011-06-03 05:04:07)
New site on Chess Thinking Systems
Now watch six chess videos "How to Plan and Execute in Chess", "Breaking Stereotypes series 1,2 & 3", "How to prevent Blunders" and "How to break 3000 rating in blitz chess" all by GM Igor Smirnov free at
http://chessthinkingsystems.blogspot.com/
Charlie Neil (2011-07-09 13:28:19)
Active rating lists
I don't understand how Thibault puts all this work in and a vocal few are unhappy. Chess should be fun as well as anything else. Thibault, if any one else complains just give them their money back!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-09 13:44:04)
Active rating lists
Hi Charlie! The unhappy ones are necessary to make things better :)
I'm quite slow the the updates these days, sorry all.
Charlie Neil (2011-07-09 14:06:19)
Active rating lists
That is possibly the wisest reply I ever heard to that problem.
It is up in my list next to "When Knowledge speaks Wisdom listens."
Daniel Parmet (2011-07-09 15:39:26)
Active rating lists
No matter my complaints, I am still *VERY* happy with FICGS and Thib. This site is the best correspondence site I've ever seen.
Don Groves (2011-07-09 15:57:14)
Active rating lists
Agreed 100%. I'm not "unhappy" with FIGCS just because I think a few things could be better. No one is perfect the first time, not even Thibault ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-09 16:34:00)
Active rating lists
Especially Thibault :o)
Wayne Lowrance (2011-07-09 19:43:59)
Active rating lists
MY two cents worth. This site is terrific and Thibaut is very, very active in keeping it rolling.
Wayne
Don Groves (2011-07-10 05:00:20)
Active rating lists
And that's what matters most, that Thib keeps working hard to improve an already terrific site!
Robert Mueller (2011-07-10 07:29:08)
How come ...
... that in the established rating list there are players who have never played a single game here?
E.g. the current #1, Rene-Reiner Starke has not played any games and has no games in progress. He has not even logged on for almost a year.
The same goes for the current #7, Ryszard Kasperek. No games played or in progress and not logged on for almost two years.
Are these players just window-dressing?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-11 23:26:36)
How come ...
Hello Robert,
The established rating list shows not only ratings built at FICGS but also at IECG or FIDE/ICCF (that are quite similar).
I understand your question and that point is similar to another recent discussion, that's why I'll make an update soon to distinguish players who never played any game at FICGS.
Garvin Gray (2011-07-16 18:02:39)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
Thibault- I think I can offer you a solution to this from the fide laws of chess, tournament rules section.
These types of situations are already covered: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=20&view=category
11. Where not all games are played
(c) When a player withdraws or is expelled from a round-robin tournament, the effect shall be as follows:
(d) If a player has completed less than 50% of his games, his score remains in the tournament table (for rating and historical purposes), but the points scored by him or against him are not counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player and his opponents are indicated by (-) in the tournament table and those of his opponents by (+). If neither player is present this will be indicated by two (-).
(e) If a player has completed at least 50% of his games, his score shall remain in the tournament table and shall be counted in the final standings. The unplayed games of the player are shown as indicated as above.
(g) Articles 10(e) and (f) also apply to team events; both unplayed matches and unplayed games must be clearly indicated as such.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-18 13:04:52)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
@Don: The rules try to make tournaments (particularly championships) & ratings coherent as much as possible (to "protect" results & ratings), in other words if a player resigns several games in a tournament without giving a valid explanation, even the games he won or drew in these tournaments may be adjudicated as losses in this aim. The only question is: should it be extended to games (in these tournaments only) finished before the first resignation...
@Garvin (& Gino): Thanks for the information! Would you know what ICCF says about it?
Garvin Gray (2011-10-05 14:56:35)
Chess world championship #10
Hello Thib,
Instead of the site showing the list of names in order of entry, would it be possible to show them in rating order?
Or to provide both lists?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-10-06 23:03:00)
Chess world championship #10
Hi Garvin, I can provide the list ordered by rating, I'll do it from time to time here.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-13 19:52:28)
List ordered by rating
Here is, but as usual the new ratings (january 2012) will be taken in account...
Erwin Thiering 2515
Michael Bergmann 2475
Xavier Pichelin 2454
Thibault de Vassal 2449
Herbert Kruse 2436
Pavel Háse 2332
Ljubomir Tsenkov 2314
Rubén Cómes 2300
Wayne Lowrance 2266
Dariusz Fraczek 2261
Ramil Germanes 2255
Miroslav Gazi 2255
Alexander Blinchevsky 2253
Michael Sharland 2251
Sergey Kokoryukin 2251
Andrey Razumikhin 2250
Valery Nemchenko 2245
Lubos Fric 2241
Kevin D. Plant 2237
Christoph Schroeder 2236
Viktor Shishkin 2234
Slobodan Ilic 2218
Dmitri Mamrukov 2211
Vitaly Rudenko 2203
Alvin Alcala 2203
Carlos Sánchez 2203
Garvin Gray 2200
Scott Nichols 2189
Peter Unger 2181
Martin Zeman 2181
Christian Koch 2167
Stephen Hamby 2163
John Schutte 2136
David Evans 2132
Nelson Bernal Varela 2130
Darren DiAlfonso 2123
Ardiantez Polkwitzauer 2123
Thomas Dineen 2118
Peter W. Anderson 2112
Steve Lim 2110
Yu Ming Hoe 2100
Arkadiusz Wosch 2093
Djordje Kasabasic 2093
Luis Flores 2084
Daniel Parmet 2083
Lalit Kapoor 2080
Erik L. van Dijk 2074
Bernd Wolf 2072
Jose Lopez 2071
Sergey Uzdin 2064
Rodolfo d Ettorre 2064
Janos Helmer 2063
Om Prakash 2053
Mykola Simashkevitch 2043
Alexis Duenas 2037
Ireneusz Kasznia 2036
Mihail Larsky 2028
Joop Simmelink 2026
Pan Hardfeldt 2020
Henri Muller 2000
Jaroslav senior Pech 2000
Jaroslaw Gibas 2000
Bogoljub Teverovski 1997
Willy De Waele 1996
Fernando Vasquez 1992
Jose Moreira 1979
Andrew Endean 1975
Henri-Louis Muller 1972
Jose Maria Velasco 1972
Jordi Domingo 1969
Janeen Walden 1958
Andy Richard 1956
Roberto Migliorini 1949
Erika van Dijk 1943
Daniel Reboredo 1938
Coco Maceda 1938
Michael Rogers 1933
Aleksandr Aksenov 1927
Mariusz Maciej Broniek 1923
Robert Wilhelm 1901
Kieran Moore 1900
John Dyson 1889
Catalin Nita 1888
Daniel Jabot 1878
Johanes Suhardjo 1875
Mikhail Ruzin 1871
Benjamin Block 1863
Ilmar Ambos 1859
Vyacheslav Shchelykalin 1859
Jan Peter Lommler 1844
Stanislas Gounant 1840
Mircea Hrubaru 1838
Sasha Lipsits 1833
Nilson Pereira 1833
Aleksey Payzansky 1804
Jai Prakash Singh 1800
Fredi Brumec 1800
Gleen Duran 1800
Josef Strohmeier 1800
Ryszard Sternik 1776
Stepan Pech 1767
Dieter Faust 1764
Dmitriy Malish 1760
Dimitrios Ropokis 1743
Hasan Kirali 1715
Eddit Moreul 1700
Behzad Shahmiri 1700
Jaimie Wilson 1684
Dinesh Bhandarkar 1682
Philip Roe 1667
Olli Ylönen 1660
Graham Cridland 1655
Juan Alvar 1653
Jeremy Banta 1644
Luís Gonzaga Grego 1643
Pablo Siciliano 1623
Mariusz Jandula 1600
Sergey Biryukov 1598
Alejandro Canovas 1589
Jimmy Huggins 1577
Matthew O Brien 1575
Pablo Ruano 1565
Khaled Toutaoui 1528
Stanimir Denchev 1505
Leo Malagar 1500
Richard Hendricks 1479
Eric Price 1469
Antonio Pereira 1456
Angelo Piantadosi 1420
Simon Huxtable 1388
Peter Krakovsky 1326
Marc-Antoine Leurette 1243
Jorge Orden 1204
Hana Pechova 1204
Jorma Häkkinen 1192
Des Jefferis 1186
Deon Whittaker 1111
Matej Pech 1074
Jiri Mach 1022
Cédric Cavaillé 1003
Jay Melquiades 0909
Jaroslav Pech 0697
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-07 13:40:00)
Who wants a Freestyle GO tournament soon?
Yes. And there is only one rating list for Go freestyle & correspondence Go.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-15 11:50:39)
5 player double round robins
Thanks William, I was not sure how Thib's comment was to be interpreted. Either the way you have, or that players will take longer to sign up to the next round robin because they have more games to play in the current tournament ie DRR 8 games, SRR 7 players 6 games each.
The concept that I had envisaged is that for the higher rated divisions, at least, they would all change over to 5 players. I am not sure if there is a particular issue in the lower rating divisions, but if the same issue exists there, then they could change as well.
I was not considering in my original concept that only one, either standard or rapid, would stay at 7 players and the other as 5 players.
Don Groves (2011-12-16 05:27:33)
Big chess art :)
What is the black defense called -- the Migrating Geese Defense ;-)
Garvin Gray (2011-12-23 17:05:47)
5 player double round robins
To try and accommodate a few concerns of some, I think there are three possible options.
1) Change both standard and rapid divisions to 5DRR.
2) Change just one of standard or rapid to 5PDRR and leave the other as 7SRR.
3) Create an entire new division with 5DRR and leave the current standard and rapid as they are.
I think option 2 would be the most useful in providing information on whether the change is successful.
Option 1 is the most committal, as it is changing everything.
Option 3 is worth consideration, but it could lead to insufficient numbers across all three divisions. It could also 'suffer' and not provide useful feedback if the time control and rating bands chosen are not suitable.
If Option 3 was considered, it would need to be something between standard and rapid, perhaps 14 days initial plus 3 days increment.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-24 17:42:57)
money prize tournaments
Hello Alexis,
Yes, it would be very easy to create such tournaments. We had no players with Epoints enough a few years ago for this. Maybe it is time now.
Who would enter such a waiting list among these possibilities?
1. Rated 7 players single round robin tournament, no rating range, 20 epoints entry fee
2. Unrated 7 players single round robin tournament, no rating range, 20 epoints entry fee
3. Rated 5 players double round robin tournament, no rating range, 30 epoints entry fee
4. Unrated 5 players double round robin tournament, no rating range, 30 epoints entry fee
Both rated & unrated options have inconvenients IMO... Any better idea? The prize would be about 96 to 100% entry fees.
(by the way, this may partly solve the problem of the other discussion about double round robin tournaments)
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...
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.
Scott Nichols (2011-12-28 21:21:04)
5 player double round robins
Another idea which I brought up a while back is to replace the unpopular Rapid_Silver 2-man with a Rapid_Silver tournament. There would be an entry fee, say 10 E-points, with the prize money going to the winner or the top 2. It would be unrated, only need e-points to join. No rating restrictions. Players like me and Ruben and others would jump right in. It would give lower rated a chance to play the top guns. I bet a lot of them would go for it, even if it cost them some money, it could be considered like a "lesson". Plus, I'm sure the top players would go for it also, easy money! You could make it from 5 up to 11 players.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 10:24:38)
5 player double round robins
I would still prefer 5 player drr's, but 4 player drr is acceptable.
All I want is this idea to start, whether it is 5P, 4P or Thib's idea of Maybe we have a beginning of answer in this new discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10165
Do you think that rated or unrated 5 players double round-robin would (partly) solve the problem?
=======================
The only issue I have with this idea is the unrated part. All games need to be rated.
If its not rated, its not real :) and also it unrated games do not solve some of the rating band issues all of us have discussed previously.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-29 14:48:20)
5 player double round robins
I agree on "if it's not rated, it's not real" but the fact is that many players are afraid to lose many points against maybe strong 1800 players... Actually the rules evolved about 2 years ago to avoid this, ratings are quite protected (never enough) in such cases but it looks like it is not well intergrated yet.
On the other hand, if there's an entry fee & prize, it's even more real... If we start with that idea, maybe it can be unrated. I'm still not sure...
Your opinion for a double round robin with entry fee & money prize, should it be unrated or rated?
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 15:59:17)
5 player double round robins
Off topic response- In my opinion if ratings are based on a decent system, then they do not need to be protected.
If someone loses a person 600 points below them and vice versa wins, they deserve the points result that those results indicate.
The issue, and I know you already know my opinion on this, is players who are put on some arbitary rating ie 1800, when their playing standard could be any number at all.
If unknown players had to earn their rating through a provisional rating system, then there would not have to be as many concerns.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 16:11:44)
Different tournament format
Thibault has touched on an issue that I have thought about for a while, so time for a new thread.
Regularly it is discussed about the issues regarding the rating bands, getting to play different players and all sundry similiar issues.
In my opinion I think what this site really needs is more events run under the correspondence style format (not freestyle cup style), where players of significantly different ratings are playing against each other.
Here is what I envisage:
Qualification Stage:
All players of all ratings enter. Groups are divided up similar to Ficgs, except that no players are segregated, so the highest rated player is in Group A, second highest rated player in Group B and so forth.
Even numbers in each group, with a maximum of nine players in a group. There are no substitutes after a group begins.
There are no special groups for the highest rated players or knockout matches. (this is most important to distinguish this event from the WCH)
Final Stage(s):
The winners of each qualification group advance to the final stages, everyone else is eliminated. If there is a tie for first, then all tied players advance. If only one group is required, then this is the final.
If two groups are required, then it would be semi finals and normal round robin pairings would be used and the cycle repeats to get a final group of .... players.
To encourage the highest rated players to enter and to give everyone else a chance to win something substantial, e point entry fee would be 10 epoints.
Don Groves (2012-01-02 00:12:02)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
The rules allow a player who has entered a tournament to play in that tournament even if his/her rating drops below the minimum due to losing one or more games before the tournament begins. I agree that this is a good rule. However, if a player loses many games and drops more than 150 ELO (for example), maybe this rule should no longer apply to that player and he/her would be removed from that waiting list. This might prevent the situation described above.
Garvin Gray (2012-01-02 02:05:43)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
I do not agree at all. I think there needs to be consequences for a person's actions, not just let off with no consequences, perhaps even get an advantage.
If there are mass time-outs, their rating should be returned to where it was (that is their correct playing standard), which means they can not enter the lower waiting list.
The idea that losing on time is part of the game only applies if the game was about 100 moves long and the game was short of time and someone used too much time on one or more moves.
But mass timing out of games is not a general part of the game at all. It is poor form and disrespectful to the site and the other opponents in the tournament and should be punished as such.
If they remain on the same rating, then they should certainly not be allowed to play in the event where they previously entered.
If a player has a legitimate reason for timing out so many games, they can take it up with the site administrator. That option always exists.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-02 14:08:37)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
Statistically playing 1 game in a tournament against an underrated player is not so much while losing 200 or 300 pts means a lot... And once again, quite often underrated players because of a mass forfeit will forfeit again! There are well known examples (very strong players rated 1900-2000) here. IMO it's the only way to prevent mass time outs!
I played at IECG and I was very disappointed to see games with an advantage simply cancelled after 30 moves or so, because of a time loss or just "forfeit". That is a non-sense to me. Rated games have to be rated!
So you suggest to simply punish players by not allowing them to play tournaments anymore (during 1 year or so)!? On the other hand, if players do not lose rating points what to do if a player has recurrent problems and has to resign his games once every year. Then many ratings will be hustled.
At last what will be a legitimate reason? It is so... so complex.
Gino Figlio (2012-01-03 15:37:10)
Houdini and draw rate evolution at ICCF
The influence is obvious, if you look at the draw rate of top OTB events you will find much higher numbers (>70%). The draw rate in top ICCF events is also pretty high.
The draws are not evenly distributed. If you look at the relationship of average rating (rating category) and draw rate in ICCF, they are correlated. I found this after reviewing 160 events in 2007 (I was studying how fast the events were ending and not directly draw rate). I am showing the percentage of draws +/- SD for 160 events that ended in 2007:
Events rated under 2200: 19.1 +/-11.6
Events rated 2200 or above: 33.4 +/- 22
George Clement (2012-01-09 18:46:39)
Ratings UpDates
Why not update the ratings each month?
When you lose a few rating points and drop just below the minumum for the next class a player wouldn't have to wait for 2 months to get back into the class.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-10 11:28:44)
Ratings UpDates
Hello George,
That's a very good question... actually I have no clear answer on this (anyone?), but I did not invent this method used in all major correspondence chess organizations.
All I can say is that I "feel" that the results are quite good with this. The aim is to avoid rating peaks I guess. On the other hand ratings move a little faster (more points, not more often) at FICGS than in other organizations, I hope it balances.
Best is to learn to manage one's rating, sometimes best is to lose as fast as possible, sometimes not. Correspondence chess is matter of patience anyway...
Don Groves (2012-01-10 12:06:49)
Ratings UpDates
I've wondered about that too since ratings for Go and Poker change after every game. Why is Chess different?
George Clement (2012-01-10 17:37:36)
Ratings UpDates
Actually they do change after every game. It's just the "offical" published rating that is changed every 2 months. Check your history under preferences.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-10 23:07:31)
Ratings UpDates
Correspondence chess ratings (that are taken in account when a new tournament starts) do not change after every game, but yes you can see your provisional "future rating" as George says.
It is different for Go to allow strong players to climb faster the enormous ladder (2500 points for Go at most). For Poker the difference is less obvious but the game is less serious than chess and it is quite exciting to see this rating list evolving each day :) At the end I wouldn't change anything now.
Scott Nichols (2012-02-21 18:48:24)
Folding in Poker
Another change I noticed (a big one) since I got out of the scene for a bit, is that the way the poker ratings are calculated. Did you change something Thib? They used to move up and down a lot faster. If you wanted to change the way the ratings were done then the "whole system" should have started from scratch. The old way, whoever happened to be on top or near the top, now has NO worry, they change so little they would have to lose dozens of games to just drop out of the top ten. At one point I was 2258 (highest ever), with this system nobody would have ever caught me. If you didn't change anything, then my apologies. If you did, then I think the whole system needs to be re-started.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-21 19:46:09)
Folding in Poker
I cannot remember any change for the poker rating rules!? See there:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_poker_holdem
When you win or lose a game against a similar rating, you still win or lose about 20 or 30 points so it goes quite quickly... And even faster under 2000.
The fact is that Nelson is really hard to catch :)
Don Groves (2012-02-22 15:06:45)
Folding in Poker
The "whole system" should have changed when a few players were allowed to begin at ELO 1800 while the rest of us began at 1600. That was definitely not a fair situation.
What rating do new players begin at now?
Garvin Gray (2012-02-22 16:38:55)
Folding in Poker
I wonder how different the ratings would be now if they were re-run, considering that players now have established ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-22 18:49:31)
Folding in Poker
New players still start from 1400 to 1800. If ratings would restart right now I'm quite sure that the rating list would be about the same after 2 months or 3... Whatever the rules change (we'll avoid any in the future), players find their place after a few months of play.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2012-02-23 23:44:10)
Rating in Poker
Hello Thibault,
you wrote: "When you win or lose a game against a similar rating, you still win or lose about 20 or 30 points so it goes quite quickly."
This is no longer true. If both players have the same rating (> 1999), the winner wins 9 points. Even if the loser has 300 points more, the winner gets only 16 points.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 00:21:47)
Folding in Poker
Erratum, you all right! The last change for poker rules occured last year (february 2011):
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=9557
I just lost a poker game so 12 points:
WhiteELO : 2039 ... 2051
BlackELO : 2160 ... 2148
So, yes ratings move less fast than in january 2011 but it still moves fast enough IMO. If the most doesn't agree with this we can return to the old rating rule, I'm still not sure what is best.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 01:22:37)
Folding in Poker
Ok :) .. Any other opinion?
I just looked at a few ratings, in example mine went from 2003 to 2166 between february 2011 and february 2012... So it is still possible to climb the scale. But once more I'm not sure what is best, so please give your advice!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 20:36:16)
Folding in Poker
Ok, note: it could have been discussed in the forum when I announced it... Anyway the current rules may be better at the end, ratings are not dedicated to change faster than necessary. It also avoids that anyone can reach the top just by lasting a few games.
Also look at the results of Nelson:
vs. Aleksey Payzansky (2086) : 67% (56 games, 38 wins, 18 losses)
vs. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006) : 90% (52 games, 47 wins, 5 losses)
vs. Jason Repa (2095) : 58% (39 games, 23 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Yulian Kehayov (2022) : 54% (35 games, 19 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Anderson Barradas (2021) : 72% (29 games, 21 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Scott Nichols (2119) : 64% (28 games, 18 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Lubos Fric (1924) : 68% (25 games, 17 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Stephane Legrand (2187) : 54% (22 games, 12 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Rolf Staggat (2116) : 61% (21 games, 13 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Janeen Walden (2000) : 75% (20 games, 15 wins, 5 losses)
IMO he just fully deserves his rating. The reason why noone else can reach it may be just that he's the best player for a while, what do you think?
Scott Nichols (2012-02-24 20:56:24)
Folding in Poker
I don't know what you did or why with the rating formula, and it doesn't matter anymore. I took some time off from poker, but now I resolve to be back on top by the end of the year, :) At least my peak of 2258 has never been approached.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 23:49:28)
Folding in Poker
For those who may join the discussion, the question is: should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2012-02-25 01:28:45)
Rating Rules in Poker
I don't know which rule is better. Maybe the old was more attractive.
Garvin Gray (2012-02-25 13:57:13)
Folding in Poker
Ok, the main question to me is-
Which system is more able to predict the rules of a match before it begins?
If it was the first system, then that should return. If it is the current system, then keep it.
A more responsive system is usually better, but in the case of ficgs, this may not be good for two reasons:
1) While in otb chess/poker, there are very few mass time outs by a player, online this can occur, as is seen 'regularly' on here.
2) In otb chess, players do not have any kind of official rating until they have played a certain number of games.
This then means those early games to not affect all the other players ratings, which is not the case on here.
In terms of predictive accuracy, which is more accurate? That is the only consideration for me.
When I said that the ratings should be re-run, I did not mean we should start the ratings from scratch and begin from day one.
What I was saying is that ALL the previous results should be re-fed back into the system with the new rating formula and the ratings adjusted accordingly.
Then this would give information to compare as it would contain one set of ratings all measured by the same rating formula.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-25 14:23:18)
Folding in Poker
Previous ratings shouldn't be "deleted" IMO. We try some things and we cannot delete everything that happened before each time. Anyway poker ratings will continue to move up & down as chance goes.
I still have no idea of what is more accurate, probably it doesn't mean much for poker... All I have is a feeling and I feel that the current rules may be better at 55/45 than the old ones, so I'll change it if the most want it.
Paul Campanella (2012-02-26 19:44:53)
New Player Ratings
I started at a 1600 rating. Personally, I find it completely UNACCEPTABLE that new players start at 1800 because it is a misrepresentation of their poker skills.
I started playing poker approximately a year ago on this site and I had to work exceptionally hard to make it into the top 20. As a past low ranked 1600 player... it was not easy to advance my elo to 1800+. It took considerable time and dicipline to hone my skills and get to the B-Level Tournaments. Playing those lower ranked players developed my skill because it taught me to expect the unexpected and learn all about odds and player styles.
Allow me to present some examples of players in relation to starting point and current rating:
A) I started out as a 1600 player... there were many people that were low ranked. As of now, the only 2 players that I recall advancing from a low rank to the top 20 are Paul Campanella (#16) and Dmitriy Panov (#17).
B) Slobodan Ilic (#6) and Trond Amile (#11) are both high rated good players but the reality is that it is much easier for people like them who entered in as 1800 elo to advance to the top compared to people who entered in at 1600 elo.
Now it seems that all new players get a "free ride" to the B-Class Tournaments and 200 elo points for doing absolutely nothing!
Starting at 1600 elo and advancing through the ranks is the true definition of skill. In order for players' ratings to accurately represent their skills, EVERYONE should start at 1600 and WORK their way up!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-27 02:22:02)
Folding in Poker
Well, mathematically poker ratings below about 1900 mean something of a different nature (level of course but also the number of games played) than ratings over 1900 because it is much easier to win points below 2000 (see rules) and it was even easier before february 2011, so it would be much easier after the change asked by Scott. A player who starts at 1600 will need to play more games than a player who starts at 1800 to reach 2000, but not necessarily to make more efforts. In addition there are ways to manage ratings to enter certain waiting lists more quickly. Also, considering the slow inflation that exists the contrary of what you say is true in a certain measure as well, new players will have to play more games than you to reach the top, actually the whole thing is really complex.
But... anyway I'll try not to change the rules again/too many times to avoid such (logical) reactions and that's why I take time to think about this one again.
I think that this change would make the poker ratings more attractive but less realistic and accurate so...... any other opinions? :)
Also, new players DO NOT get a free ride to the B class tournaments, many still start with 1600 according to the level they pretend when registering. So the difference is not so much, actually it may help you to climb the scale faster if you can beat a 1800 player easily... Really complex as I said but anyway I think that ratings are more accurate when players can start at different levels, because more players in the different categories mean more games in each one (players will find their rating faster) and because everybody do not lie every time. Everybody will not agree with this but I have a certain experience with the chess ratings now and I'm quite certain that most changes were good ones, so probably for poker.
Jimmy Huggins (2012-02-27 04:20:26)
Folding in Poker
I may get smash for this comment, but I have to say it.
To me this isn't chess were we have engines that help assist us in own games and to be honest there isn't a lot of luck in corr chess. The odds of getting someone to fall in your "trap" is very small. Personally I don't care about the ratings that much. There is a lot more LUCK in this game, and yes there is some skill. But not like chess, point is the best person in poker on this site can lose to a guy who doesn't know what the hell he is doing. This would never happen in chess or go or any other game on this site besides poker. In short I think the ratings are give in take and we shouldn't flip out because of a few changes.
Jimmy Huggins (2012-02-27 04:35:15)
Folding in Poker
The different between rated player 1-30 or so is probably very little friend, is it really worth all this talking for a few rating points? You can be a head for 4 cards and play your best and get rivered and there is almost nothing you can do. In chess mate is mate and its over.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-27 14:29:11)
Folding in Poker
I'm not sure if a freestyle poker tournament would tell us better than ratings who is the best player, but it would be nice to have one soon anyway! I'll try to do this.
On the money/free poker issue, that's a very complex debate, in my opinion starting to play money poker is just like starting to play another game... But professional players play money poker just like we play free poker, the value of money evolves when playing.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-04 22:08:50)
FICGS poker ratings
Let's continue the debate that started in this discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10306
I'm still not sure of what is best but our top ranked poker player for a while (Nelson Bernal Varela) obviously participated to the discussion his way by resigning all his poker games to show us how much time it will take to regain his points.
His rating was about 2200, now 1924 and the date is march 4th, 2012.
As we're playing single round-robin tournaments only, the rating list was not so distorted but this is not at the advantage of class B players. Of course I do not encourage this behaviour in any way!
However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.
This would actually justify - in my point of view (maybe Nelson's one too but I'm still not sure of what he's thinking about that) - the current poker rating system, so let's wait 1 month or 2 before to decide to make this change or not.
As a reminder, the initial proposal was: "should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now ?"
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-04 22:15:16)
Folding in Poker
@Scott : By the way Nelson's rating peak is at least 2293 (august 23, 2010)
This occured before the rating rules change.
Scott Nichols (2012-03-04 22:48:24)
FICGS poker ratings
An interesting challenge. I held the #1 spot for a long time and in truth lost interest and let myself slip down, playing rarely and then stopping for over a year I'm pretty sure. So just recently I announced my intentions to reclaim the #1 spot and hold it before this year is over.
Then soon "after" I said this, Nelson resigned his games to start this "experiment". IMO this is how, in addition to playing good poker, he achieved being able to stay #1 for long periods of time. First, you have to play as many games as possible, over a hundred or more. This will allow you to implement the second phase. That is you get to pick and choose which games to play out immediately an which to stop playing to continue at a more opportune time. e.g. Only finish the "winning" games to get to the top. Then when you have a sufficient lead to where a loss or two won't hurt your position, THEN play out the losing ones.
Thib quote from above " In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess. " Well for him to do this, he will have to get by me, and others, this time. So consider the Gauntlet thrown down! Scott
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-04 23:01:30)
FICGS poker ratings
A problem is that it is impossible to enter new waiting lists when having more than 50 poker games running.
On the other point your strategy may work but at the end you'll probably lose many points... I prefer to lose the almost lost games before to win the almost won ones to have a stable high rating. Anyway it would take much time to sort, I prefer to play all games the same way.
That will be an instructive challenge for sure.
Paul Campanella (2012-03-05 00:11:09)
FICGS poker ratings
Correction, Scott... you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch because the number one spot will actually be mine one day! :)
I entered my first poker tournament on February 14th, 2011. In barely over one year, I have managed to raise my poker elo from 1600 to 2071 ... an increase of 471 points in, what I consider to be, record-breaking time!
Here is my proof...
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__TOURNAMENT_D__000036.html
Considering the current situation, I am curious to know if there is anyone else that has managed to increase and maintain their rating by 471 points in such a short amount of time?
Not only do I have a winning record against you of 60%-40%, I also have a 50%-50% record against Nelson, which is better than almost everyone else on FICGS.
Regarding the experiment, Nelson will have to get by me as well. Since I am one of the only people on this site that does not have a losing record against him... it's not going be an easy quest. :)
Scott Nichols (2012-03-05 00:16:41)
FICGS poker ratings
:) Good one Paul. There are about 6-10 players here that have a real chance to be #1 by end of this year. I consider you one of them.
Garvin Gray (2012-03-04 23:47:06)
FICGS poker ratings
I am more alarmed than anything that a person's selfish actions, regardless of who they are, are not only tolerated, but are encouraged by statements like this:
However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.
His actions now affect many players, which includes denying a place to someone in a tournament that he otherwise should not be allowed to enter ie class B tournaments where by all reports he is too good for.
How about we all do this to see how the rating system goes? I find his actions appalling and he deserves to be banned.
If this was done in chess, would the response be the same? If so and someone did it and the same response was given, I would be looking for another site to play at.
I believe people who act like this deserve to have their rating re-set and then spend quite a lot of time on the sidelines. They should forfeit all their games, but not lose any rating points.
What does this site stand for, I think that is one of the main questions? I play poker on here for something to do in the middle of my chess games, even though I am not particularly interested.
My playing of poker will stop if it is treated with such contempt.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-05 00:22:47)
FICGS poker ratings
I knew that you would answer this way... And you are right on several points.
I read the rules before to write this, we could envisage to change the rules on the general forfeits issue but it wouldn't probably be so easy to "fix" it. Maybe another discussion is needed.
About chess, this has been done the same way several times for different reasons, see Wolfgang Utesch, Wayne Lowrance... The only difference is that Nelson gave a bad reason (with the excuse that he may have done this to help to find the best rating rules, which was not necessary). But he could have said something else. What would be the perfect rule? The current rule was probably discussed in the forum previously. Nothing better was found, that's all.
Anyway, this site stands for applying rules... and IMO I have the choice between doing nothing in this special case and preventing Nelson to enter a waiting list during 2 months. Nelson was totally wrong to do this... (also because of Paul's previous message that proves that it is possible to climb the scale quite quickly, which IMO goes in the way of not changing the rating rules) but now that it's done, I think that the best thing for the site is to let him continue, at least we'll learn something from this and it will improve the rating rules.
Paul Campanella (2012-03-05 03:29:32)
FICGS poker ratings
Thank you for the compliment, Scott!
I consider you to be one of the top players and have great respect for you: as both top poker and as a person. You're also a very worthy adversary and our matches are almost always 3-2 (on either side)! :)
Thank you, Thibault, for recognizing my point that it is possible to climb the ladder quite quickly using the current rating system.
I would like to note that it is also possible to climb the ladder without using any strategy. Throughout all of my poker matches on FICGS, I always finished my games (both the winning games and the losing games). I could have easily waited a long time (like some players obviously do on this site) to finish my losing games, but I refuse to do that out of respect for my opponents.
Although poker is a game that requires a combination of luck and skill, I believe that respect belongs here as well. Out of my overall record of 202 completed games, I have won 120 and lost 80. During each game, I was always honorable. For instance, if it is my turn and I know that I am 4 chips away from losing a match 3-0, I will refuse to delay the game and deny my opponent his victory for the next two months even though I have 60 days left on the clock.
Besides, it is my philosophy that the best thing to do when opponent outplays me is to accept the loss, learn from it, and then try to win in a rematch! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-05 13:36:51)
FICGS poker ratings
Paul, then do you agree that the current poker rating rules are fine? Because of your rating history and because it avoids the possibility to have significant rating peaks by delaying to lose games that are almost lost? (seems logical to me)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-05 16:51:57)
FICGS poker ratings
Ah, another argument for the current rating rules: unlike advanced chess, bullet poker games count for the same rating list, so it is quite easy and fast to win points this way.
Paul Campanella (2012-03-05 16:55:11)
FICGS poker ratings
Yes, I say keep it the way it is!
Don Groves (2012-03-06 04:03:50)
FICGS poker ratings
It will take Nelson longer to reach his goal if the rules are left as they are now. My answer is to keep them.
Paul Campanella (2012-03-06 17:13:22)
50+ Poker Games
Keeping games running so long is a detrement to everyone!
For example, it is unfair to be denied admission to a new poker tournament just because a player has over 50 games running, when some of those games started over a year ago and people take forever to make moves or purposely delay moving in certain games due to the fear of losing rating points.
I have a fair proposal that I would like to make...
"If the poker game(s) started over one calendar year ago, then it should not count toward the 50 game limit".
Does anyone agree or disagree? Or perhaps someone has a better suggestion about the time frame? I am curious to know what people think about this.
Michael Rogers (2012-03-21 21:57:53)
Slow tournament entries
A player's games on ICCF and SchemingMind can be accessed directly from the Chessbase interface. Has FICGS considered installing this feature? Also, would an "Open" tournament, allowing all ratings, help?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-18 18:08:24)
Slow tournament entries
That's right. It is a fact that the current rules allow (in extreme cases) that all players in a waiting list be below the low rating range.
To partly avoid that, the tickets may be used to finish to fill a waiting list only (e.g. when 4 players at least entered it already)... It's just a trick of course.
But it would be unfair IMHO to retire players who lost elo points from waiting lists, so it does not completely solve the problem.
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-20 05:19:16)
Slow tournament entries
In my almost two years of playing here in FICGS, I have observed one major factor why tournament entries are going down.
For me, it's because of the large difference of the rating brackets in a certain tournament class.
For example, in a standard class M tourney (2200-2400), if I have a rating of 2300-2399, I will not play because possibly almost all of my opponents there will be around 2200+ and the thing is it's very hard to win against these players now and I may lose rating points even if I draw with them.
But by decreasing the difference in the rating brackets, let's say 2300-2400 or even 2300-2350 for example of a certain tournament class, will encourage me to play in these tournaments because the possibility of losing rating points by drawing is minimal.
With these new bracketing, it will also give us an easier way to climb the rating ladder thus encouraging us to play more games!
Garvin Gray (2012-04-20 15:24:51)
Slow tournament entries
Thib: I do apologise in advance if this reply is regarded as too strong, it is not meant to offend, but could be taken by yourself or someone else as too strong.
In my opinion, creating ANOTHER division is possibly the worst decision that could be made. Leaving the time control as is would be a better decision.
We have three divisions classical rating sections, plus an advanced rating list and multiple thematic, unrated, epoint and other options.
I think adding another division would just spread things out wayyy too far.
It is not like we have an over abundance of players and need to offer more options to satisfy a wide market.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-20 15:28:37)
Slow tournament entries
Ramil:
When I first came across this site, the rating bands used to be 400 points, and then after a lot of negotiation, debates and cross topics, it was changed to 200, with the even numbers (2400, 2200, 2000) in the standard category, and (2300, 2100, 19000 in the rapid category.
While I understand your point that perhaps these should be changed to 100 point bands as this is what I think the market is trying to say, I think it is an issue of total number of players.
If we had many more players, then each category would fill quicker. Your point is certainly worth discussing and I would not be upset to see it work in practice, but we have had quite a few changes, and another change might just be a bit much for Thibault to consider at this stage.
I could be wrong though ;)
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-21 00:49:35)
Slow tournament entries
Garvin and Thib:
The way I see it, the problem is not how many registered players here in ficgs but how many wants to play.
Look at the case of the ficgs world championship. why there so many wanted to play? the waiting list fills up quickly. because they know that there is more to gain than to lose in the championship.
Not like in a tournament that higher rated players tend to refrain in joining due to possible loss of rating points with very little to gain.
Also even if more players registered here, but if they waited very long for others to fill the waiting list then they might lose interest and might not play or even come back again. (This is also what I felt before when I first join here.) And we also see many players in the rating list without games played and not connected here for a long time. Maybe this is the reason why.
Anyway these are just my observations and not pushing Thib to change the way I see it.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 01:34:43)
Slow tournament entries
Well my reason for not playing at FICGS (despite the fact it is the best site out there!) has been that I can't play the stronger opponents. The rating restrictions have forced me to ONLY play unrated events here or seek other places to play.
However, other than ICCF which costs money there are no other places to play strong players. I just had the most horrendous chess experience of all time at LSS. So my conclusion is that I have probably reached the end of my correspondence career altogether save the ocassional unrated ficgs game if I notice a strong cue up in one of them. I certainly won't be playing my rating class ever again.
The problem IS NOT the time control. The time control here is lovely. I am curious what Thib's solution might be.
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-21 01:42:02)
Slow tournament entries
Another thing:
Why only tournaments?
Why no option for only one or two games where you can challenge a player of your choice directly in a longer time control? (what we have now is we have no control of who our opponent is, as long as the fee is met anyone can challenge anyone, but that is not attractive to higher rated players. see it's mostly about rating points!)
Often newly registered players don't easily see how to play correspondence chess here (many asks in the chat bar how to play) because they are expecting they can play a game instantly but here you have to wait for the waiting list to be filled for the tourney to start and that may take weeks or even months. And that's kind of turn-off to them even for me before.
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-21 01:44:52)
Slow tournament entries
In this way you can play a game to the players at your rating level and that's more exciting!
Garvin Gray (2012-04-21 09:27:58)
Slow tournament entries
I have proposed previously that a new tournament should be created for all players, similar to the current ficgs world champs, except that ALL players need to start from round one. No knockout series, or separate m groups.
All players of all ratings start from round one.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 16:49:34)
Slow tournament entries
I won't play in the ficgs wch because I am the top seed and this is disgusting to me. Not only does it mean I won't get strong players, it also means I will lose massive ratings points which will in the future ALSO prevent me from playing strong players. Two awful effects!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-21 18:05:09)
Slow tournament entries
The FICGS WCH is held every 8 months, so about twice a year. I'm still not opposed at all to organize a "CUP" event but it would take many rounds as well and I'm afraid it kills regular tournaments, so we probably need more players for this.
@Daniel: your current rating is 2080, I cannot believe that it is not possible for you to win points in CLASS A... If you win one (or reach 2150) you could enter a CLASS M with 10 Epoints, seems far from impossible.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-22 06:47:38)
Slow tournament entries
yes the draw rate. Realize if I enter a section as you suggest. I played 5 1900s. And I must score 5 to maintain my rating and 5.5 or 6 to gain points. This is difficult to do against anyone... Such rating bands are preposterous and only lead to a constant shedding of points as often 4 is enough to win a tournament.
Scott Nichols (2012-04-22 19:37:17)
LSS Move Rule
P.S. Game #57387 of mine is a great example of a frustrating game. It is a dead drawn position, but it could be played out for a long time. He can conceivably keep this going for another year getting 40 days for every 10 moves. It has been "40 DAYS" since his last move.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-22 19:41:26)
LSS move rule
I agree that such a rule would speed up many games, but it would be quite hard for many players & we may lose a a few ones, by accident or not... IMO rapid time control is fast enough (our 60 days rule does not really apply there) while standard time control suits for the others, the only problem is to have players enough to change the rating bands.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-22 20:42:15)
LSS move rule
@ Scott : Definitely I don't agree with you on this point :) Finishing such a game that lasts near the end has no consequence or so few on the whole thing (including your rating that is calculated every 60 days), and theorically having a 60 days, 30 days or even 10 days move rule does not change anything to the fact that a player who wants to last a correspondence chess game can do it the same way, for the same duration... The main reason to the 60 days rule is that we are humans, with humans problems and that shouldn't (or as few as possible) interfer with our games.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-04-22 21:27:28)
Slow tournament entries
That wasn't really my point, but as you rasie it, it is a combination of two factors that prevent you from playing stronger players outside of the WCH - the banding rules and your perfornmance. That is just fact.
My point was that it is possible to get good rating results against weaker players and it is practically possible to move up a category in months not years. Equally you should not fear playing in the WCH on the same basis. Win your group and then you will get plenty of strong opposition.
I accept that if someone is finding it hard to break through the top of one category then they will not get practice against much stronger players outside of the WCH. That is a disadvantage of the current banding rules, and might prove frustrating to some people.
However, the alternative has disadvantages. If you remove the banding you will end up playing not only stronger players but much weaker ones too.
Perhaps the best answer is to offer a mixture of both types of tournaments.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-24 15:01:32)
Ficgs World Cup
Following discussions about slow tournament entries, bracket and band rating issues and many other topics, a common item that came out of those discussions is that trying a modified version of the ficgs world championship is worth a trial.
So Ficgs World Cup sounds like a good name.
Format:
In the Ficgs world championship, there are many different qualifying stages, depending on your finishing position from the last cycle, your rating at the time of entry and the strength and total number of the other entrants.
While this format is very good for the concept envisaged when it was created, I think a ficgs world cup, with a format that will be explained below is required to cover a few gaps that are in the ficgs world championship.
The ficgs world cup will work as follows.
1) Everyone enters before a certain date, say June 1st 2012.
2) As soon as entries close, that is it. Entries are not taken after this date and there are NO replacements. The groups are meant to be of equal strength. Adding a new player can distort this.
3) Entrants are then divided into groups of roughly equal strength. Highest rated person is seed 1 in Group A, 2nd highest rated person is seed 1 in Group B. Serpentine pairings are used to allocate all players to each group.
4) How many players and how many groups is determined after the entries have closed. I would think that there will be probably 11 groups of 11 players (121 entries in total). It might be likely that we have to have three stages, depending on total number of entries.
5) 1 person from each group qualifies for the final stage. This is determined by total score, total wins and then TER. This does differ from the tie break formula of the FicgsWCH.
Pros:
1) Everyone gets a game against players of different ratings, no segregated groups or players
2) Everyone starts from stage one
3) The format is clear to understand
Cons:
1) May not be as tempting to the highest rated players (fear of loss of rating points)
2) Might take longer to finish
In my opinion, this is a format that deserves a couple of trial events to see if it is successful
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-25 00:26:09)
Ficgs World Cup
Who thinks that a limited number of places (81 = 9x9 or 121 = 11x11 or 169 = 13x13 according to how the waiting list fills) would be a good idea?
And what about a rating band to avoid forfeits by casual players? Maybe ratings above 2000... In some ways it could be a real alternative to the WCH for all players rated from 2000 to 2200, and there would be less games to play at the same time (less frightening to entry)... just a thought.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-25 01:52:44)
Ficgs World Cup
Seen a few ideas, some that I thought would not be popular are been suggested as to give it a go. Good:)
There is a simple solution to keeping it to 2 stages. Just announce there will be 11 groups and leave the number of players in each group till when you know the final numbers.
So 220 players would be 11 groups of 20 players. That might be too much for some people, but you get the general idea.
Perhaps with 20 player groups (hypothetical of course), a slightly longer time control would be a good idea, perhaps 30 days initial plus 3 day increment ;)
Thib: I was thinking about the issue of the number of groups and I think it has to be eleven groups in the first stage. Then each of the 1st place group winners go through to final stage.
I am against any concept of rating bands, or even the mention of the concept. That is totally against the principle, design and point of this format.
Steve Lim (2012-04-25 03:55:03)
Ficgs World Cup
Hmmm.. food for thought.. to summarize.
2 Stages of 20 games
or..
3 Stages of 11-13 games
Pros/Cons?
I too am against the concept of rating bands however we need a way to deal with casual players and dropouts. Especially if there is a no replacement policy..
Garvin Gray (2012-04-25 04:43:19)
Ficgs World Cup
I think everyone needs to be completely clear when they mention the term rating bands:
In the context used on ficgs, it means a minimum and maximum rating that players can play in. For example in the rapid waiting lists, there is a rating band of 1900-2100. Meaning only players between 1900 and 2100 can play in that group.
If you are talking about players being suspended, then please specify that and be clear that you are talking about suspensions.
I apologise if this reads as a cranky reply, but this whole concept is being devised to not have any kind of rating bands, or special exemptions for any player.
So I bristle quickly and strongly as the suggestion of rating bands or special exemptions, to the point that I will abandon this concept if rating bands or exemptions are going to be implemented.
George Clement (2012-04-25 17:28:04)
Ficgs World Cup
I also agree with Garvin and Thib. 11 groups, rapid time control, and no rating bands. However I think we need an activity requirement, nine or 10 rated games wouldn't be too bad of one!
Garvin Gray (2012-04-25 18:04:47)
Ficgs World Cup
To simplify the activity requirement, it can be that all players must have an established rating. No provisionals and no estimated ratings.
An issue regarding number of groups is, what if we 50 or so entries. 11 groups of 5 seems rather silly, so I think it would have to be 5 groups of 11, with 2 players qualifying for the final stage.
While having 2 players qualify is not ideal, it is better than having 11 groups of 5 players, which defeats one of the purposes of giving more games across different rating groups.
George Clement (2012-04-25 18:41:11)
Ficgs World Cup
To simplify the activity requirement, it can be that all players must have an established rating. No provisionals and no estimated ratings.
That would be really good! As far as the groups I think it would really depend on the number of entries. It will be tough to predict ahead of time.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-26 01:13:45)
Ficgs World Cup
Great idea Garvin.
As far as activity goes, I think it should be either an established rating with a history of no time forfeits. It definitely should not be calculated based on RATED games. This is silly. I play many unrated games these days because its the only way to play strong players. I don't play rated here anymore because of the rating bands. So your activity requirement would exclude the very type of player you are trying to grab.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-25 09:16:51)
Ficgs World Cup
Ahh now I think I understand some of the previous comments.
What you guys are talking about is a rating floor, not a rating band. With a rating floor of say 1999. So all players must be rated above 1999 to participate.
Not a big fan of a rating floor for this as it goes against the original objective, which is to provide more opportunities for players of different ratings to compete against each other. This does not only apply to 2000's v 2200's, but also applies further down the rating list as well.
The effect is not as pronounced, but still applies for the original objective.
I am in favour of an activity requirement. The standard in otb chess is that a player must have played nine rated games to get a rating, so the minimum activity could be ten completed games.
I am not as strong on the idea of an activity requirement as I am on no rating bands (which is very different to rating floor).
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-25 10:58:56)
Ficgs World Cup
Okay, so far I agree with Garvin on all main points I think.
- No rating floor (or rating band, of course)
- 11 groups whatever the number of players
- I think that the rapid time control is still ok as many games should be finished quite fast
Garvin Gray (2012-04-27 04:16:52)
Ficgs World Cup
Please, no replacements. If people can not organise themselves to add themselves to the entry list before the close of entries, they do not deserve to enter.
I think it is fairer to have one or two players not participate in a group than it is to add players after the event has started.
Please do not use replacements. This concept is meant to be the opposite in almost every way to WCH, and the main idea is to keep it as simple as possible.
Having replacements add a complication that is not required. It will also distort the balance on ratings of each group where forfeited players occur.
How do you ensure that each group where a forfeited player occurs and get a replacement? Otherwise you have filled some groups and not others.
See the hornets nest that is created by using replacements. Please do not use replacements, just let the normal standard tournament factors decide the final placings and people in the final stage.
Goran Guichsen (2012-04-29 11:08:29)
Slow tournament entries
Wouldn't it speed up entries if you could start playing as soon as there are two entries in a group? Then you know that you could start play almost at once. Now it could take quite some time before you may start playing because you have to wait until the group is complete.
It could also support speeding up finishing the group unless the slowest player is the last to enter (in case it will be the same as now).
Does it have to be exactly the same rules for low resp high rated players? Guess that lower rated players are not so concerned about the rating (as higher rated players are) but to play. To prohibit to have too many games going could also stimulate to end lost/draw games quicker.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-30 16:32:04)
Slow tournament entries
I think most players do not mind if others are taking their time, it is the unnecessary time wastage that can be an issue.
Maybe Thib can answer this- What is the average number of games that players have going at one time across the different rating ranges?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-30 20:32:31)
Slow tournament entries
I really have no idea if something can be improved there. One thing is sure, the average time for a game is not the same according to the rating... I guess that it would be not reasonable to set a rule for each category so...
About the standard time control, if a player has 74 days on his clock and is to add 40 more days, he'll never have more than 100 days anyway.
Maybe this limit can be changed but once more players are free to choose the rapid time control and as for me I really appreciate not to feel too much time pressure in my games and I know that many share this view. Let's not forget that the FICGS Chess WCH is (as far as I remember) much faster than e.g. IECG or ICCF Championships...
Garvin Gray (2012-05-19 15:24:06)
Second match v Rybka Forum
Hello all,
I have been thinking about this for a while, but I was wondering how many ficgs players would be interested in participating in a match vs Rybka Forum.
We tried this concept once before with limited success from an organisational point of view. From a playing pov, ficgs had little success :o
I am thinking something like this for a format:
1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) We possibly could use xfcc play, which would allow conditionals to be used, but might mean all the games are played and shown at RF. - Might be possible to have them shown here somehow 'live'.
So, time to get some interest. Who would be willing to participate?
I am going to post this over at RF as well.
Don Groves (2012-05-23 07:08:22)
Members who never played
The rating lists are full of people who joined FICGS, then left after not playing even one game. What purpose does it serve to have these people in the rating lists? The lists would be more informative if these names were dropped.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-25 01:39:55)
Members who never played
A long time issue... The active players rating list partially fixed it but it needs some improvement for sure. I should be able to do this in the next few days... finally!
Garvin Gray (2012-05-27 08:36:57)
Second match v Rybka Forum
It has been confirmed that we can use xfccplay for all the games, if we wish.
Xfccplay is a playing client where players can make their moves and they are transmitted live to the Rybka Forum sub forum where these games will be shown live. Hopefully it will be possible to also show them here live.
To pursue using xfccplay further, I need to know if anyone who is considering playing would be not willing to play if the whole match is held using xfccplay, rather than making moves on here.
I certainly do want the second match to be very different to the first. To start with, that no games end with time outs.
Likely format:
Time control: 30 days initial plus 1 day increment.
Format: Each player plays two games against a single opponent
Number of players for each team: As many players as we can get for both teams
Board Order: By rating for those who have ratings on the site they are playing for. Others can be placed at captain’s discretion.
Garvin Gray (2012-06-08 11:07:00)
Second match v Rybka Forum
Following on from my post above, we will now be going with the format originally posted, which is:
1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) Xfccplay will be used for the games played at RF
5) Conditional move system will be used for the games played at RF. Games played here will be using the standard interface.
Both sides are going to have to make compromises. Ficgs players who are not already familiar with xfccplay are going to need to learn how to use it and will also need to join RF.
RF players, who are not members of here already, will need to sign up to here and learn how to use this interface.
I can not give a definite sign up by this date yet as some of the nuts and bolts are still being worked out.
Can everyone start saying if they are going to play? I hope this will be more than just the players who already play in WBCCC as I do hope it is the best players from both sites participating as well.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-07-28 00:10:50)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!
First of all, I've added 15 days to all players in running games because of the delay and the fact that many of us may have no access to internet during the summer vacation (this time is added to the 46 days, 13 hours and 20 minutes since the crash for players expected to play), this issue was discussed at Rybkaforum, of course it may be unfair to few players in certain games where their opponent had few time but I did not find a better balanced solution, sorry about that :(
Among other consequences, the current championships cycle will last 10 months instead of 8, and july correspondence chess ratings will be updated very soon.
Well, how to start... fortunately such an event is rare but possible, and following the Murphy's law, it happened (first time for me), the server's hard disk crashed and the least I can say is I've not been lucky, even if I obviously did some things wrong.
Of course I had enough data at home to rebuild all games until a few hours before the crash but I thought it was worth it to pause the server during a few days/weeks to recover more moves, and if possible ALL moves. I really hoped that it would work and at the end it did, but not completely... for unknown reasons. I had also other data to recover from the server, including some FICGS data that were not backuped correctly (my bad), because I did not think far enough 6 years ago when I coded the first FICGS scripts... That will be fixed very soon.
So, because the DDrescue process did not work -unlucky- just after the crash, my server provider (OVH in France) had to send me the hard drive and it took sooooo much time already :/
Then I tried to recover some files and the databases by myself and I learnt much on how to save a hard drive but each process was really long, it took several days again...
Finally none process completely succeeded, few sectors of the hard drive remained unreadable and unfortunately the FICGS database is divided into very numerous parts written everywhere on the disk.
At the end, I brought the disk to the very best professionals able to save it... the process was quite long again and it did not completely worked as well, for an unknown reason the current database was still not readable but they did much better than me at the end.
Finally the whole process was worth it, but I did not expect it could take so much time.... 46 days, 13 hours, 20 minutes. And that's a shame :(
Of course, I could have used a RAID 10 server, I was not favourable to this choice because it is not 100% safe as well, I don't know it enough and it's much more expensive. I'll reconsider it though.
But the other things I did wrong are clear anyway, I lacked of experience in such a situation and most important, I'll do now better backups also on another server every hour. Next time (if any), we'll lose at most 1 hour of moves but the server will be able to restart within 1 day.
One thing is sure, internet was really empty for me without FICGS during this long month and a half and I missed our tournaments too much so that happen again! Have no doubt, FICGS would not have stopped in all cases but once again I'm really sorry about that and all consequences... I can only hope that you'll enjoy your games as before.
Thanks for your understanding.
Best regards,
Thibault
Robert Mueller (2012-07-28 11:18:35)
Rating List
Number 1 in the established rating list (Rene-Reiner Starke) has (a) never played a single game on FICGS, (b) is not currently playing any games at FICGS and (c) has not even logged on since 2010. Why is he the number 1?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-07-28 11:34:00)
Rating List
Hello Robert, yes this has always worked like this (also to attract new players), that's why there's also an active players list.
Anyway there were other discussions on this issue and solutions envisaged, I'll come back to it soon...
Peter W. Anderson (2012-07-30 09:42:51)
Reset tournament waiting lists
I would prefer them not to be reset. As the rating list has been updated since entering, I could no longer rejoin the the same waiting list, and nobody seems to play in the alternative.
Don Groves (2012-08-02 06:11:16)
Rating List
My feeling is that a player should not be in any FICGS rating list until they have completed at least one game at FICGS.
Scott Nichols (2012-08-02 17:25:14)
Rating List
I agree with Don 100%
Thibault de Vassal (2012-08-03 16:26:08)
Rating List
Well, a bit further a player should not start with a 2400 rating, wherever he's coming from. I think it is interesting for many to know who registered at FICGS. The "complete" correspondence chess rating list is the only one where one can see all registered players, most inactive players just disappear of the active players list after a few weeks, is it a real problem!?
Anyway I understand the point but I fear I cannot do anything before a while, whatever the final decision :/
Scott Nichols (2012-08-03 18:47:53)
Rating List
Not a problem, just check the active list, easy...
Don Groves (2012-08-04 04:58:39)
Rating List
As Robert pointed out, the Established rating list is meaningless as it now stands.
Only the Active lists are accurate. This seems to be a strange situation. But, yes, not an immediate problem.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2012-09-19 17:29:38)
Limit number of poker games
Hello Thibault!
Please change the number of possible poker games to 100 (or make it unrestricted).
IMO it makes no difference if a player forfeits 50 or 100 games, even not for the ratings.
If you see a way to reduce the time control, then do it, but I think there is no way ...
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-19 22:50:35)
Limit number of poker games
The scheme of the games cannot be changed, this is the only way to have coherent ratings... The games duration is the price to pay to have ratings that mean something.
Don Groves (2012-09-20 03:19:26)
Limit number of poker games
When two poker opponents are in far apart time zones, one move a day is about the maximum they can play. I vote for the blinds to increases after 25 moves.
The ratings in one or two games are not going to reflect skill anyway. Playing more games (shorter games) would do as good or better job of rating players.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-20 12:07:21)
Limit number of poker games
Don, I'm afraid that's mathematically wrong... compare 5 single games and a 5 games match (that counts for 1 game), a score of 4-1 does not have the same impact on ratings than a score of 1-0, the chancy factor is not the same. The aim of the whole thing was to have ratings not too close from each other, in other words significant (and I think they are).
Don Groves (2012-09-20 13:06:22)
Limit number of poker games
But if games were shorter, then far more than 5 single games could be played in the same time as a 5-game match is now. So you might be comparing 15 single games against one match. I feel this would be just as good for the ratings and a lot more fun for the players.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-20 17:20:31)
Limit number of poker games
The shorter the games are, the more important the chancy factor is, so ratings do not mean anything anymore...
But it would be more fun for certain players, I agree with this. FICGS is dedicated to be a place for ratings, it wouldn't be so coherent. As for me I see no fun at all in a pure chancy game, it's just like playing roulette forever.
Scott Nichols (2012-09-20 18:01:26)
Limit number of poker games
Maybe you could offer "Bullet Poker" events with bullet ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-20 18:13:35)
Limit number of poker games
Nope, as for Go (and not as for chess) we all play bullet or correspondence poker about the same way, so one rating for all time controls.
Don Groves (2012-09-21 05:06:44)
A radical idea?
Since not all Chess players seem to agree on the best set of "advanced" games, why not allow the players in a game to decide on their own game parameters? If Scott and Alvin want to play a 15 minute game with 5 seconds added per move, let them do that.
Only the ratings of the two players involved are affected, so it seems this idea would not interfere with ratings and could be popular.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-21 12:10:16)
Limit number of poker games
The problem is how the chancy factor interfers on ratings. 10 games of 100 deals will provoke ratings much closer than 2 games of 500 deals or 1 game of 1000 deals, obviously. But it would be more fun, I agree (again).
Don Groves (2012-09-21 13:40:32)
Limit number of poker games
How would it "provoke ratings much closer?" What do you think would be the specific effect on ratings?
Garvin Gray (2012-09-22 08:40:14)
A radical idea?
How this could be done is as follows:
Player A (person sending challenge)specifies what time control they want.
This would do away with the concept of bullet, lightning and blitz as player can choose whatever time control they want.
The three terms are not required as there is no weighting for rating purposes in advanced chess based on the the time control.
Then the challenged player can accept the challenge, or propose a new time control or parameter.
The clocks would only start after the challenge has been offered and agreed to.
This would eliminate time forfeits.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-22 12:39:41)
Limit number of poker games
It is possible to calculate it but in brief, for 1 game of 1000 dealts, the perf will be opp.rating +350 or opp.rating -350 .. for 10 games of 100 deals with a score of 7/3 (which is quite unbalanced already for so few hands), the perf will be about opp.rating +170 or opp.rating -170
Don Groves (2012-09-23 05:49:25)
Limit number of poker games
The difference is not so great that I wouldn't enjoy shorter games more. 170 ELO points is still very significant given how slowly poker ratings change.
Garvin Gray (2012-09-23 08:11:54)
Limit number of poker games
I have tried reading this thread a few times, but seem to be missing a point or three, maybe even four.
1) Thib- Can you explain this a bit more in simpler fashion :)- It is possible to calculate it but in brief, for 1 game of 1000 dealts, the perf will be opp.rating +350 or opp.rating -350 .. for 10 games of 100 deals with a score of 7/3 (which is quite unbalanced already for so few hands), the perf will be about opp.rating +170 or opp.rating -170
2) When posters are referring to faster games, are they talking about reducing the time control, or having the blinds increase at a faster rate?
3) I would prefer best of 3, rather than best of 5. I am not sure if best of 5 on here really does produce more accurate ratings as I find it quite common that players will go all in early, or take risks early on, knowing even if they lose set 1, they are only behind 1-0 and there is a long way to go. Best of 3 would force players to play 'real poker' from earlier on.
This would produce more meaningful results.
The number of hands I play which involve just 1 and 2 chips pisses me off no end and deters me from playing more often.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-25 23:27:53)
Limit number of poker games
@Garvin:
1) It would be quite long to explain the full calculation for different examples, maybe best is to have a deep look at rating rules then come back to the discussion, sorry if it is not clear enough after that but trust me, it would change everything on ratings.
2) Both, I guess... the problem is that blinds shouldn't change and there isn't time controls that solve the problem.
3) Those who will go all in early will probably not reach the top of the rating list... That's the point :)
Hands that involve just 1 and 2 chips are real poker! The technical one, not the chancy one.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-27 23:39:12)
Eros Riccio wins 6th and 7th chess WCH
By beating Alberto Gueci in the final match of the 6th chess championship & Ostap Hladky in the candidates final of the 7th chess championship, Eros Riccio will remain FICGS chess champion for at least 16 months! After this huge performance, Eros accepted to answer a few questions:
----------------------------------
- Hello Eros and congratulations again for winning your 3rd and 4th (respectively 6th and 7th cycles) FICGS chess championships in a row, beating Alerto Gueci in the 12 games match of the final match and Ostap Hladky in the 8 games match of the candidates final so that you meet yourself in the last round that thus will not happen for the 3rd time of the championship (first time was during the first cycle because there was no champion yet). All games of the two matches were drawn, but it does not say much on the intensity of the match as we all know your strategy since your win in your first final match vs. Edward Kotlyanskiy when you explained that your preferred a draw that guarantees the victory than a possible win where a mouse slip is still possible. Obviously your strategy works very well but one can add that you had an impressive number of running games at the rapid time control, so very much pressure... How did you live these last months of correspondence chess and these two matches?
Hi Thib! And thanks once again for the congratulations. These 28 games (let's not forget also the 8 games match against Gino Figlio) probably started in the worst moment for me, just a few months after the very important European Team Championship on ICCF had started. When I told my captain that I was starting another 28 games... he was very disappointed and worried, as he had repeated a lot of times to every player of our team not to start new tournaments and to focus only on this tournament. Also for this reason I had decided not to join the new Italian Championship and other tournaments and to withdraw from the Champions League, but unfortunately I had no control on when to start my FICGS games. So... my priority was for my ICCF games, and fortunately for me all I needed to do in my FICGS Matches to win was to make draws, and that's what I tried to do in most of my games as fast as possible, and to my surprise my opponents accepted to draw many games quite quickly, not trying to fight each game "to death" like I would have done if I would have been them. This of course only created quick boring games, but I didn't see the point in putting energy in trying to win games myself.... I think my opponents should have done that!
- We all know that you and Alberto are good friends from long time, did it influence your match in the 6th WCH in any way according to you?
Well, it's a good think knowing your opponent's habits... you can send your moves as soon as you know he goes to bed :-)
- Ostap Hladky is undoubtly one of the strongest players at FICGS, was this match (7th WCH candidates final) very different from the other one?
Hladky was the strongest player I had ever played on FICGS, he is very unpredictable, he simply plays unexpected moves that engines don't suggest, but if you show them those moves, they slowly realize those are very good moves. I risked to lose more than one game vs him, even as White. Luckily I still managed to draw, and in my opinion he also accepted some draws too quickly.
- With the last evolutions of chess engines, playing better & better chess, would you say that you now spend less time on each game or not at all?
I don't spend less time on my games, I still try to use (almost) all the time on my "clock". Trying to analyze as many variations as possible with the time you are given has little to do with engines improvement, who still are far from being able to always suggesting the best move by simply letting them run for hours on a static position. You need to analyze going "forward" in the position in order to be able to find the best moves.
- By the way, it is said sometimes (again) that correspondence chess will not survive the decade, what do you think? Do you envisage to change for Go or poker like many players? :)
Wins and Losses still happen even at the highest levels at the present time. I think that many years still have to pass before having all draws in high level tournaments. When that happens... and it will probably happen sooner or later as chess in my opinion is a draw with perfect play... then probably new rules will be introduced, maybe the board will be enlarged and even new pieces with new movements might be invented.
- You now are ICCF GM with an impressive 2624 rating, how are going your other correspondence chess competitions? Do you have any goal to reach yet?
All my ICCF tournaments are going good, and very soon I will be Italian Champion once again (just waiting my last opponent to resign a lost position). I still haven't reached the first place in the italian elo rating list though. That would be a goal I would surely have pleasure in reaching, and of course I would like to win the ICCF's World Championship at least once. After that I can retire :-)
- Thank you Eros, also for this great correspondence chess lesson.
Welcome Thib! A pleasure for me.
Daniel Parmet (2012-10-15 05:45:36)
WCH Final match
I don't want to enter the Wch due to rating bias in the groups. So until that is fixed I am only interested in FICGS World Cup.
Don Groves (2012-10-15 11:40:54)
WCH Final match
Ratings bias? The total ELO in each group is probably as close to the same as possible. Naturally groups are seeded. Is this what you mean by bias?
Roy Shapland (2012-10-24 14:00:23)
How to amend rating?
Signed up in last 24 hours. Just noticed now that I'm 56 fide points higher then I remembered. The rating is used in tournament pairing so feel that making it correct is helpful to all. How do I get this fixed?
Roy Shapland (2012-10-27 00:58:36)
How to amend rating?
Can I email, or pm you somehow?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-10-27 01:07:25)
How to amend rating?
Of course yes, sorry I forgot to mention it. Just send an email to : info (arobase) ficgs.com
Thibault de Vassal (2012-10-26 23:49:22)
How to amend rating?
Hello Roy,
I can do that, but I cannot find this rating in the FIDE database, do you have any direct link to your FIDE card or something?
Michael Aigner (2012-11-06 15:34:52)
The very unofficial World Championship
Hello everybody,
the computer chess enthusiast of the CSS forum are trying to organise a match "Houdini 3 versus Rybka Cluster".
The initiative came from the maintainer of the renowned IPON rating list. His estimation for two long games is 864 ducats. There more the better. I didn't observe how much was donated already, but quite a lot, and there is big enthusiasm about it. It seems that very good hardware for the Houdini side, and a way to collect the ducats at Playchess, have already been organized.
For details, see http://forum.computerschach.de/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?tid=5093
(I guess Google translation can help if required, with the usual quirks.)
If somebody likes the idea it would be easy to participate there too.
All the best, Michael
Roy Shapland (2012-11-22 10:33:02)
How to amend rating?
email sent but nothing has yet changed.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-11-23 18:01:51)
How to amend rating?
Strange, I did not receive it... maybe retry or try to use the form at the bottom of page "My messages", just enter my name and resend the message.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-01 23:09:11)
Houdini 3.0
It seems that Houdini 3.0 is available as a commercial program for a few weeks at Cruxis website.
The 64-bit 4CPU would have reached a 3334 elo rating on the CCRL 40/4 list. This is about 90 points more than the free version Houdini 1.5a which seems to be a great improvement!
I just read on Wikipedia that Houdini was used by Viswanathan Anand [FIDE world champion]... It seems that it beats Rybka 4 in every match. In brief, Houdini is by far the best chess engine nowadays...
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-02 00:50:54)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Hello all,
As I mentioned in the chat bar, there is a problem to build new groups as I usually do a few weeks after the start of the chess championship...
Players who entered the waiting list for replacements are:
AUT Rada, Hannes 2465
ISR Blinchevsky, Alexander 2206
ITA Bonoldi, Fabio 2049
DEU Wolf, Bernd 2113
ARG Reboredo, Daniel 1941
ITA Fabris, Alberto 1995
ITA Piantadosi, Angelo 1319
UKR Simashkevitch, Mykola 1987
DEU Lommler, Jan Peter 1860
BEL Pepermans, Toon 2000
USA Batal, Jean 1960
GBR Hancock, Sarah 1614
USA Johnson, Bobby 2412
GBR Burrows, Nick 1935
UKR Malish, Dmitriy 1146
COL Rey, Eduardo 1800
FRA Satonnet, Patrick 1351
GBR Soszynski, Marek 2143
POL Nig, Piotr 2028
USA Davis, Mark 1192
FRA Estieu, Frederick 1383
USA Lovelace, Randy 1504
CAN Deline, Ralph 2179
UKR Bromo, Alexis 1129
BIH Dautovic, Dzenan 1653
USA Knighton, Robert 1950
4 players rated 1500-1800 already replaced those who were to lose their games on time... As a result, we have many players rated 1900-2100 and too few with low ratings. Of course players rated 2400+ will not like to play in regular groups.
Right now I could create only one group with a similar rating average, nothing more but I would have to choose a few players only, which is not a great solution. I tried several combinations, M groups and so on.
I know that a few players would prefer not to see these new groups created and right now I see no solution good enough to create it.
If I cannot find any idea, I think there won't be new groups this time.
Any suggestion?
Wayne Lowrance (2012-12-02 04:54:10)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Robert, I do not think it is fair to insert Alexander with those too strong players. It is a problem. I can understands Thibault's problem now. Well what ever he decides is oki with me. but I would really oppose suggest divergent ratings in a group. In fact Rada has a problem he is by too high for even being that 3 group. I just do not know enough about these things to contribute.
Robert Knighton (2012-12-02 05:03:13)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
You could do this but.. I don't know how good it would be. I would be willing to play outside my rating if that would help. I'm still new to FICGS so my rating isn't a very good comparison with other players here yet.
2 Man Double Round Robin
AUT Rada, Hannes 2465
USA Johnson, Bobby 2412
4 Man Double Round Robin
ISR Blinchevsky, Alexander 2206
CAN Deline, Ralph 2179
GBR Soszynski, Marek 2143
DEU Wolf, Bernd 2113
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-02 12:45:42)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Robert/Stephane, it is also mentioned in the WCH rules: "Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages."
By the way all similar groups must have the same number of players, otherwise it would be impossible to be fair when building the next round tournaments.
@Don: Yes, the deadline does not change but there are a few lines in "My messages" that explain that it is still possible to enter the waiting list (without guarantee to be included in a tournament).
Garvin Gray (2012-12-02 12:48:21)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
I agree with Don. Whilst not liking it, I understand for norm purposes and 'fairer' qualification chances between different groups, replacements are required.
I really do hope that the replacements are of similar rating to the player who forfeited their games.
But I certainly do not agree with adding new groups or players. All these players have entered the waiting list because they entered after the deadline.
If they get a run, they have been fortunate. To those who miss out, the message should be enter on time next time to guarantee your spot.
So Thibault, I think you are complicating matters way too much. Make the replacements to counteract the forfeits and that is it.
Robert Knighton (2012-12-02 14:45:47)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
My computer broke down on me about 2 1/2 months ago. I have been without a computer until a couple weeks ago.
I could not have signed up on time :/
And I'd be willing to bet most late signups were for lack of knowledge of the tournaments available, how they work, or that they exist at all. This site is not exactly new user friendly. Getting games is confusing until you understand the unique system being used here. Same goes for finding and entering tournaments.
If I cant get in then so be it; no hard feelings, but if I can get the chance to play, that would be wonderful. What I really want is the chance to play stronger opponents. I'm still stuck in the sub 2k rating bands until more of my games finish.
Robert Knighton (2012-12-03 17:57:26)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
any decision on this yet?
imo Do the best you can. Get as many people in as possible. include as many as you can and the ones you cant include just have to wait for the next opportunity.
I certainly don't want to hold anyone else back just because it might not be "fair" for them to get in but not me.
"Right now I could create only one group with a similar rating average, nothing more but I would have to choose a few players only, which is not a great solution"
not great but still better than nothing at all.
I would like to hear what your thoughts are on this after hearing everyone's opinions.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-05 14:20:36)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Well, at the end I think that best is to do the same than in the previous editions. If I can build only one group then be it.
A few players will be picked up randomly to have a similar rating average. At least, as Garvin says, there will be a consequence for all players who entered the waiting list after the deadline, which seems fair.
The new group(s) will be created tomorrow.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-05 19:02:36)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Hi Wayne,
Of course this is a very coherent opinion... but there are reasons why I created these new groups since the very first championship:
There may be several players who cannot be included into tournaments when I create them (because of the number of players per tournament). To exclude nobody, I had to wait for a few players to enter it... but of course there was always too few or too many of them, with too high or too low ratings. So I decided that the prioriy was to start as many tournaments as possible to make it as competitive as possible.
Wayne Lowrance (2012-12-05 20:07:58)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Okey Dokey. You have examined the topic carefully and have experienced the task of grouping players. I have not. But looking out of the jail cell of my thoughts I do not agree. It just seems like it s/b possible to just have a cut off date and no exceptions.
I guess your problem is in your opinion too large a grouping or too small a grouping, keeping rating gradient to less that 100 . I would rather play in a group even if only 2 or 3 players qualified in my rating group. Thinking hard as I generate this response I begin to appreciate more of your problem. Hey what the heck do I know anyhow. ::) Wayne
Robert Knighton (2012-12-05 21:34:02)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Wayne Lowrance said: "Robert Knighton. You dont understand me. I was saying it is unfair for the two strong player having to compete against a much weaker player. It would have cost him point 4 sure. "
Yeah I see what you mean there. Even if I could compete at that level then those players at a higher rating would suffer for it.
Also, no offense taken. We can peacefully agree to disagree on issues and perhaps we can settle it with a game one day :)
Seems like there should be a provisional tournament that new players coming to FICGS enter into automatically to determine rating, but that is a discussion for another place.
Wayne Lowrance (2012-12-05 22:36:06)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
yes, I am sort of a wildcat person, so I would not expect all to agree with me and all have my respect.
I do understand problems to new comers Entering into a new rating system. Advancing is difficult. Here at this site all are playing Centaur chess. Which means in the end you have to beat the program input to the Centaur. I wish I knew of a way to help you. because of illness I resigned all my current games causing a loss of rating from 2500 to 2280 Wayne
Garvin Gray (2012-12-21 09:51:28)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Having read the regulations :) I think there could be a few improvements.
1) The time control is wayyy too long and unnecessary. Our time control of 30 days plus 1 day increment is suitable
2) Only able to contact the tournament director through your team captain contravenes the laws of chess and also is ridiculous.
If a player has an issue with their game, they should be able to contact the td themselves. It is their game afterall.
3) Will the teams play in rating order?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-29 22:46:10)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Well, actually many answers are in the tournament regulations...
If I understand well, each player should play from 8 games (!) to 16 games according to the number of servers participating (from 4 to 8), which is a lot...
- Is this ICCF rated? It seems that it is.
- How many boards in the teams? I read 30, which is a lot! Maybe too much.
- Will the teams play in rating order? I have no idea.
If we have players enough to enter this tournament then we can vote for a captain if several players want to be. As for me, I won't be able to play it.
The real question is who will be able to play 8 to 16 games on the ICCF server... As far as I can remember, we never found 30 players for a team event so far, without counting the forfeits.
So far, it seems that 2 servers accepted to participate while Chess.com declined the invitation.
Regulations:
http://www.mocorrchess.narod.ru/wccstc/en/regen.html
5.1. No less than 4 and no more than 8 teams to play the event. The teams represent chess servers. No one server is allowed to enter the event with no more than 1 team. Teams play each other in an each-to-each round-robin tournament.
5.2. Each team plays each team in a team match on 30 boards. Each player of a team plays 2 games (one with White pieces, one with Black pieces) with one player of the other team. Reserve players are prohibited to begin the games.
5.3. The team consists of 30 players. No more than 5 reserve players may be added in a team squad.
5.4. The games are rated for ICCF rating.
5.5. Time control is 30 days for 10 moves (with duplication after 20 days is used for a single move).
5.6. 30 days of leave per year are available for each player.
5.7. The team mates and captain can see the games live. Live transmission for public is delayed by 5 moves.
5.8. ICCF Playing rules are applied for the event. The playing rules may be seen at special page
Mark Josse (2013-01-03 21:05:10)
winning on time
Hi All
I have won some games on time but they dont seem to show up in my future rating performance. Do you get rating points for time wins or do they become unrated games ?
Please Advise
Thanks
Mark
Roy Shapland (2013-01-07 13:08:35)
How to amend rating?
Thibault,
Your not listed in the 'Connected players' on the 'My messages' page. I can't find you in the name search on the 'My messages' page and I don't know you 'id' or how I would find that.
Perhaps you could send me a message that I could reply to?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-08 01:05:51)
How to amend rating?
Sorry, I should have mentioned the other way: just go to the page "My account", then use the form at the bottom of the page.
Anyway, I just sent a message to you.
Roy Shapland (2013-01-08 02:47:14)
How to amend rating?
Done. I haven't finished any rated games yet.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-09 00:01:09)
How to amend rating?
I've updated your rating (56 points more only), but it will make about no difference after a few games. Also it does not change your TER for the WCH tournament.
Valery Nemchenko (2013-01-10 05:22:51)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Dear Thibault!
I am willing to participate in the team event of FICGS e server. My rating ICCF-2465. Please let me know who else from our server will be played on a board which I claim? Best regards, Valery
Frits Bleker (2013-01-10 08:56:11)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Nice initiative that is worth to go ahead. I'm in without conditions!(ICCF rating 2395)
Maxim Genchev (2013-01-10 11:47:06)
Chess Server Team Tournament
My rating ICCF-2309.
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 18:11:49)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I volunteer to be team captain. But we now have 31 players wanting to play. Also I would point out that we will probably get slaughtered on the lower boards as things stand right now. I saw at least one person wanting an ICCF team average of 2300. I would point out that I think a 2000 player here is 2300 over there but as things stand our FICGS rating average is 1964 based on the top 30 players ratings. For the 9 players that do have ICCF ratings our rating average is 2235.
Here is what information I could collect on our team so far:
Name FICGS Rating ICCF ID ICCF Rating TITLE Comment
1 Ostap Hladky 2527 941012 FIM
2 Valery Nemchenko 2521 940836 2465
3 Frits Bleker 2313 220159 2395
4 Garvin Gray 2281 30503 1993
5 Alvin Alcala 2237 896046
6 Wayne Lowrance 2194 FIM
7 Maxim Genchev 2187 940752 2309 Wants ICCF average of 2300
8 Arkadiusz Wosch 2169 89923 2307
9 Neel Basant 2138 280279
10 Daniel Parmet 2098 514938 2300
11 Om Prakash 2091 280243
12 Bogoljub Teverovski 2083 862003
13 Niklas Hallqvist 2082 451419
14 Kieran Moore 2042 260252
15 William Fuller 2033 514688 2350
16 Dmitry Tsimbalenko 1959 142268
17 Sergey Demchenko 1955 142224 2077
18 Nick Burrows 1944 212164
19 Rich Pinkall Pollei 1900 515095
20 Daniel Blike 1874 515250
21 Jose Moreira 1831 Are you the IM Jose Moreira id#399007, Rating 2390?
22 Thomas Hasyn 1808 865001 1922
23 Mathaios Vardoulakis 1800
24 Dinesh Bhandarkar 1707
25 Shih-Chu Liao 1660
26 Josef Zmolil 1632
27 Ray Downs 1536
28 John Worthington 1510 515287
29 Claudio Cabrera 1462
30 Arnab Sengupta 1340 280192
31 Jiri Mach 1010
Nick Burrows (2013-01-10 18:30:03)
Chess Server Team Tournament
yes I think some of our ratings are way under the actual level. My rating is 1934, but would be more accurate at 2300.
We should simply take our 30 highest rated players at the deadline for registaration in order to do Ficgs justice.
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 20:51:37)
Chess Server Team Tournament
right now the top 30 responses by ficgs rating average to 1998. 10 of those 30 have ICCF ratings which average to 2166.
I'd like to us have a 2100 FICGS rating average so we can be a competitive team...
Frank Goodram (2013-01-12 11:07:05)
How to amend rating?
If the opponent does not move for time and loses, to me anyway increases elo?
Garvin Gray (2013-01-12 12:07:48)
How to amend rating?
Radimiro, If the game is longer than 10 moves, then yes you win on time and gain elo points. If the game is less than 10 moves, no points gained.
Horatiu Adrian Petrescu (2013-01-16 14:30:15)
FICGS admin scam me
Your last email is with that message about registrating ,where is the specification about the rule we talking about ?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-02-23 22:35:01)
Houdini 3.0
The last rating difference I saw between Houdini 3 and Houdini 1.5 is about 60 elo points.
Any news in the computer chess world?
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-11 13:46:38)
What size groups do you prefer?
I don't think the problem here is with group size but rather the silly rating brackets we switched to some time back. It makes it virtually impossible to play strong players.
Attila Ba (2013-04-20 17:40:43)
Poker rating anomaly
I have won a tournament game in poker against a player cca. a hundred points higher rated than me. His rating has dropped a few points but my rating remained unchanged. How is this possible?
Attila Ba (2013-04-20 17:53:41)
Poker rating anomaly
Here is the game:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=72777
Thibault de Vassal (2013-04-21 00:44:14)
Poker rating anomaly
Hello Attila,
This is not an anomaly... this is the 10 moves rule! At least 10 moves must have been played by both players so that the winner's rating increases. This rule prevents several things, e.g. effects of early forfeits, unnatural wins and obvious cheating. This is classified as an unnatural win. Sorry about that, but this rule is necessary.
Eros Riccio (2013-05-15 15:29:16)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Hi Daniel,
in the past I have been playing something like 100 games at the same time. That was my maximum, and I really felt some pressure with that quantity of games, and I also felt that my overall play was reduced quite a lot. Anyway that happened when I still had a low ICCF rating, so playing many games back then was a good idea in order to raise my elo quickly. Playing so many games now that I am over 2600 wouldn't be such a good idea anymore, as with almost every draw I would lose points (not to count the losses!) because I would likely have a higher rating than most of my opponents.
Everyone has his own limit of games, but a thing seems logical for everyone: the more you play the more your quality of play is reduced. I think I can handle up to 50 games at the same time without a big loss of quality of play, and without feeling much pressure. Above that number, things would become difficult for me. Anyway it's very possible that, as at the moment I am only playing 16 games, (all for iccf) even playing (only) 30 games would give me some pressure. I am getting old :-)
Garvin Gray (2013-05-25 18:44:45)
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.
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.
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..."
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.
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).
Scott Nichols (2013-06-18 20:44:03)
Playing activity top 20 players
I have a couple of thoughts. First is ICCF is not better for me than anywhere. The games just take too long. More to Daniels taste for sure. To help this site out, I will say it again, there needs to be at least one fast playing category. Like 10 days, with 1 day increment. This time control is very popular at other sites. Blitz CC is the wave of the future, even in OTB they don't play that slow chess anymore. Another idea is large cash prizes, :), to draw in the big guns. People are willing to pay more to get more. A couple of small things you could do Thib is offer a 2 e-point prize for most active player in a rating cycle and one for the player who improved the most in that same cycle for all 3 categories, chess, go and poker. Just some ideas...
Garvin Gray (2013-07-01 13:35:39)
Wch cycles possible changes?
I guess no one else wants any changes.
Oh well I am proposing a small change in regards to the TER rule.
As it stands=
The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage.
In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account.
I would like to see these reversed, so it is the rating at the end of the event that decides who goes through. The logic of this is based on the theory being used. The theory is that the reason for highest rating moves forward is that it helps to ensure that the next group is as strong as possible. Well surely then that the most current information is the best guide to strength of play, so in my opinion the TER criteria should change to reflect this.
So the new rule would read:
The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In the case of equality, the player with the highest rating when the next stage begins will be qualify. Should their ratings be equal, then the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-07-02 19:29:35)
Wch cycles possible changes?
I chose the TER so that every player know what result to achieve in a tournament... with the current rating, the result of a match or tournament may change if a player uses the dead man defence. It would be quite terrible IMO :/
Robert Knighton (2013-07-03 19:02:38)
Wch cycles possible changes?
TER is the only fair way to decide other than tie breaker matches (time consuming) or pushing forward to the next round every player with the same score.
I can see where TER could be frustrating though.
If PlayerA TER 2049 and PlayerB TER 2050 both score 5.5/6 in round 1 then this does seem fairly unjust for player A because playerB only had to fight for a draw to win the round where PlayerA must get a win.
this gives PlayerB a strong advantage over a measly 1 elo.
1 elo also says nothing meaningful about which of the two players has a better chance in the tournament.
Factors such as number of games played or percentage of loss on time would be far better indicators than a single ELO point.
Joerg Moormann (2013-09-02 13:30:18)
Withdraw from a waiting list?
Hi,
is it possible to withdraw from a waiting list? I couldnt find a button for that.
I registered for FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_E__000167 (ELO 1200-1400), some weeks ago, but meanwhile my rating is 1505.
Scott Nichols (2013-09-20 21:21:42)
Active players list
I see there is not a separate list for active players in advanced chess. If you are an advanced player it makes it hard to shoot for the top if the ratings are all jumbled together.
Paul Campanella (2013-10-01 00:14:47)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
It's really not fair because the previous people worked their way through the ranks in order to get their ratings instead of just entering into a tournament the easier way.
Garvin Gray (2013-10-20 12:50:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Was attempting to find the thread on allowing players to enter the next section up by winning the lower section.
Time for a review of this practice I think now that it has been going for a year or so.
I think it has had some benefits, I certainly have benefited from it ie have helped moved me up the rating list faster than otherwise would have occurred, I have noticed a couple of large issues.
In some groups, the waiting lists are taking much longer to form when two players from a lower rating group have entered early.
For instance a 2300+ group can be showing players with ratings of 2150 or so. This is possible when two players buy their ticket after winning a lower division and then their rating drops. This situation has occurred.
From then on for that group to form, it requires another 5 2300 players to join the group. That is a long and tedious process.
I think the rules on the upgrade ticket process need to be re-written to as follows:
A player, who has won the lower division, can only use the higher division ticket, once five or more places have been filled in that group.
The purpose of this rule change should hopefully show to keep 'strong' players that if they get in quick they can get a group going full of players of the ratings they want.
The market can then choose by entering quickly and watching the rating lists.
With the current situation of difficulty getting divisions started due to the number of wch groups started at the same time, some changes are required.
I think this rule is one area that needs to be reviewed urgently.
Stephane Legrand (2013-10-27 10:55:40)
FICGS poker ratings
I experiment what Scott says at 2012-03-04 22:48:24 many times... see for instance game 72996 ...
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2013-12-24 14:12:26)
FICGS poker ratings
I also have this problem with exactly one player. And I have now decided to act in the same manner against this player. If it looks as if I lose then I'm going to reply when my time is almost over.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-24 14:36:50)
FICGS poker ratings
Heinz-Georg, have you replied in the correct thread? This one is about poker and ratings.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2013-12-24 15:07:01)
FICGS poker ratings
This is the right thread, Garvin. I have the same problem as Stephane in his poker game 72996. And I tried to describe my way to handle this situaton.
Mladen Jankovic (2014-02-14 22:18:12)
Also, other problems
At least the link is back on wikipedia corresponcence chess article, for starters, it may have been impacted by a study on external links deletion.
Another problem is that ratings appear to be negative sum, and will tend to go down accross the site. For example, I recently beat an opponent that has a rating higher than mine by almost 200, and he resigned on the tenth move, and I get *no* rating change, while he takes a loss in rating.
Peter W. Anderson (2014-04-10 11:14:59)
Alvin Alcala in Freestyle Battle 2014
Yes, excellent performance by Alvin.
Anson Williams is interesting. I can't find him on any correspondence sites. I believe he is English but I cannot find any record of an English Chess Federation or FIDE rating for him. The only type of chess he seems to play is freestyle and he seems to do very well at it. He must have a lot of natural talent because there are some strong OTB and correspondence players in that tournament.
Good luck Alvin for the last round :)
Garvin Gray (2014-04-29 09:35:01)
Reduction in max days available? (move)
Thib, each sport, should review its rules and conducts every once in a while to see if it is operating to best of its ability for the maximum enjoyment of the membership.
When looking through the rules and thinking about some of the issues here, I noticed that we do have the 60 day maximum play rule, which seems extra-ordinarily long.
That type of time (2 months) is a throwback to the days of email or even postal play, and in my opinion, is way to long for acceptable server play.
I still believe 30 days is the right time frame, but others have proposed 40 and so I am happy to abide by the majority if it gets the time shortened.
What I am concerned about and possibly trying to achieve a little bit, is that it is not acceptable for players to allow their games just to remain in limbo for an unlimited amount of time.
If a person can not make one move in each of their games on this site in 40 days, then perhaps they should be reviewing their participation. It is not fair on their opponents who have to wait around for them and it is not good for the site as a whole which needs games finishing for accurate and reliable ratings.
Garvin Gray (2014-06-03 03:02:20)
100 point rating bands
I have been wondering for a long time if 100 point rating divisions would make a difference to get divisions starting faster.
I do believe that most of the divisions really do only comprise players within a 100 point rating band. It is rare to see players spread evenly between say 2199 and 2001. If a group of 2050 to 2005's join, three 2170's are not going to join.
So perhaps the number of divisions need to be increased with rating divisions of 100 be created?
Garvin Gray (2014-06-10 15:35:46)
100 point rating bands
Just to nicely illustrate my point, rapid m is forming with everyone between 2100 and 2200, even though the group is 2100 to 2299.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-06-11 01:57:46)
100 point rating bands
To be honest, I have no idea or almost... As far as I can remember, ICCF does not have such limits, IECG always used the 200 points rating division. We could also wonder what about a 50 points rating division.
But for a coherence purpose (and not by lazyness), I wouldn't favor such a BIG change :)
Garvin Gray (2014-08-30 07:46:33)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Had some more time to think about this. Read the rules, read them again. Especially about where if a person asks for a financial payout from e points to Euro (and then converted to their currency.
They receive 75% of the stated e point amount.
So by my calculations-
David Evans paid 100 euro to enter the waiting list.
Nick Burrows paid 100 euro to enter the waiting list.
The advertised prize for winning the match is 196 e points.
So lets say that this match was played on merit and Nick won 2-0. He would receive 196 e points in his account. That is already 4 e points that FICGS is keeping for itself.
Then if Nick decided to 'cash out' those 196 e points, he would receive 75% of that- so 147 EURO.
This means that FICGS has received 200 EURO originally from these two entries, and paid out 147 EURO to Nick for his win.
Now, in the circumstance that has occurred here, the rule mentioned is more designed for multiple player tournaments to stop rating manipulation (sandbagging and the like), not for this circumstance.
Also, this rule states- For example if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games only to allow his opponent to get the money prize (and particularly if it happens several times). This would then be saying that David Evans deliberately lost both games on purpose to attempt to give Nick the prize (even though David paid the money out of his own pocket). Why wouldn't David just give the money straight to Nick?
If FICGS really does believe that part rule I have quoted has been violated and that David has engaged in game fixing, will FICGS be taking strong against David Evans, including suspensions or banning him from this site. It would be the logical conclusion for game fixing. Since this is the rule being quote to deny a payout.
Now the only other circumstance that I can think of why FICGS has attempted to deny a payout if that FICGS believes that Nick only entered the GOLD match, believing that David would not play the two games. That is a risky strategy for Nick to take, considering David is an active player, especially for 100 euro and 2 games.
Considering that even if FICGS pays out the money on this two game match, the site still makes 53 euro from a 2 game match, and I do not see a rule that justifies not paying it out, this money should be paid out.
A further question now is- Are these fees fair? A 53 euro profit from a 2 game match?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-30 22:44:50)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
I have to specify here that the rule mentioned is absolutely not about rating manipulation (by the way, there is already another rule for this), it is about money prize in 2 players matches only, maybe with 3+ players in unlikely cases! It was added when a player got a money prize after getting a few free Epoints and without playing any move... Of course, that was not acceptable (the prize was paid though, following the rules) as games recorded -especially silver/gold tournaments- should be worth to watch. So these are the reasons for this rule: To avoid empty games, to punish the player who didn't play (by taking Epoints, which is a obviously strong act in this particular case) and to redistribute Epoints to players who deserve it. Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?
I don't think that suspension or banning is necessary here (it would be really hard according to me, anyone can have good reasons for a long absence, but I'll consider this option if many players complains on this point).
To answer the last point, I don't and I cannot know if Nick entered this match believing that David would not play and I don't think that should be the point. As always, we need undisputable rules, as fair as possible, and I do think this one is a good one.
One important thing: The site does not make 53 Euro from this match, at most the site makes Epoints (on the other hand, most are offered by the site, by far). That makes a big difference!
Finally, if I understand Nick's point well, the way to understand "if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games only to allow his opponent to get the money prize" may be ambiguous so it could be not possible to make the decision (who can know if David really wanted to play these games, wanted that Nick or anyone else get the prize?). So I probably should make it more clear to avoid such situation - even if I doubt that players realize about this rule before entering a silver tournament.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:37:06)
Standard time control abusers
As for the idea of the rapid time control- I love the rapid time control, it is just that for my rating, and those around my rating range, very few tournaments start at all.
So to get our fix, we have to look to the standard time control events, and then we run into these issues.
I maintain that you stopped the trail of closing the standard time control divisions wayyyy too early.
Nothing at the top is really starting at this point in time, even though players on this site are active, or trying to be.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:53:40)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
From what I have read here from your response Thibault- I see no grounds AT ALL to not pay the prize.
The rating rule is there for the best interest of the site, because ratings are meant to be the way we all judge what standard of play we are and what divisions we can enter.
So comparing a rating argument with this argument is drawing a rather long bow indeed.
Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?
Already answered about ratings. About winning games without fighting (or playing), Nick entered under the conditions believing the match would take place.
If he entered the match believing it to not take place and David did play, then Nick has taken a risk that has backfired.
The point is that it is not Nick's fault the match did not take place. From my reading of the rules, there is nothing clear that says you can not pay out the prize.
Remember, you are making an absolute ruling here that applies FOREVER. This means that in effect you have taken 100 epoints at least out of Nick's account, his original stake, for just entering a match.
I would ask as site admin. Why would ANY player on this site want to support paid matches after this event and circumstances?
When the site admin can in effect, I was not happy with your match conditions that it was played under, I don't really have anything to point towards, but I did keep your cash anyways.
I for one will not be supporting any matches or tournaments from now on whilst this practice remains in place. I do not want to enter a match, have it not take place and then the site admin say, tough luck, not your fault the match did not take place, but I am keeping your cash.
The more I look at this and type, I am finding it hard to not say that Nick Burrows has been robbed of his cash. These events are real.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-31 13:13:23)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Garvin, If I follow your thinking, there is no reason why Nick shouldn't get the rating points as well, for the exact same reasons.
Please note that I did not take Nick's original stake from his account, he keeps all his Epoints involved in the match, just like if the match did not happen. Maybe there was confusion there. Only David's Epoints are in question (as specified in the rule). I hope this answers the 2nd question and rest of the message.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-10-02 23:01:55)
Eros Riccio makes a record at ICCF
GM Eros Riccio has now played 408 rated games at ICCF, since 2001. This is the highest number for the top 25 (at least) and this is a huge performance due to his rating and numerous games at other servers (including 212 games at FICGS). Just amazing!
https://www.iccf.com/RatingList.aspx
Thibault de Vassal (2014-10-27 20:44:31)
Tournaments rating ranges
Hello all,
As you may know, certain top tournaments are really too long to start... After a long wait, I finally decided to test this new rule:
12. Tournament rules
(...) Please note that the referee may change the rating ranges if a tournament takes too much time to start (such cases are quite rare).
As an example, for the tournament chess class SM, I just changed the low rating limit to 2300 only to find the 7th player. The rating limit will return to 2400 after that. This is not a good thing according to me but it may be the "less worst"... To be continued.
Feel free to tell what you think about this.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-12-13 21:37:03)
TER rating calculation
Hello Herbert.
TER is taken in account, so your performance will be 2400. Obviously, your rating may decrease by 1 point or so...
Garvin Gray (2014-10-28 23:52:30)
Tournaments rating ranges
The top class sm rating division should be abandoned. There are not enough players to fill it. It only started due to two ticketed players and dropping the rating limit.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-10-31 15:40:17)
Tournaments rating ranges
Maybe a new low rating limit for class SM should be 2350... Any opinion?
Garvin Gray (2014-11-01 22:53:27)
Tournaments rating ranges
And to carry on from the other thread to make my point, even here, you just can not bring yourself to say, ok Garvin, I agree with you. The division can not get begin, so lets get rid of it, but because I have suggested cancelling it, you decide to take a less drastic action.
Even though ALL THE EVIDENCE says that the event can not start.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-11-02 14:40:08)
Tournaments rating ranges
Well, usually I always ask for opinions (even if I don't get so many)... but it does not mean I can't agree with you... seriously :) .. I can make drastic actions (some tournaments have disappeared or appeared), it all depends on the context and experience. So, to be continued.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-11-08 21:07:10)
How is the WCH challenger decided?
In this (rare) case, the "TER" (tournament entry rating) decides... Mikhail was the highest ranked player. It's all explained in the tournament rules - see waiting list page.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-11-09 18:17:28)
Registered for Go WCH 12 but excluded
Regular tournaments are in a way part of the championship, increasing rating allows players to qualify for this tournament. The other reason is that 8 games is not too heavy, and generally the 9th player has a much lower rating. If there were only 3 or 4 ranks between top seed and last seed, then the process would need to be reworked, I guess.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-01-09 20:46:20)
Eros Riccio on his win in 9th chess WCH
Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions after his win in the 9th FICGS correspondence chess championship. Once again, his answers are worth to read... including probably a few surprises and valuable informations for most of us!
_____________________________
- Hello again Eros. Congratulations for this new win! So you played Jeroen for the second time in a row, this time in the 12 games format. There were 12 draws but it does not mean a lot. How did things go?
--> Hi Thibault! Nice to answer your questions again :-) I managed to resist again Van Assche's assaults, this time he was well-determined to win, as he made me really suffer in a couple of games. The first game was a semislav, me as Black. He played a rare variation (starting with 14.Be2 followed by 15.Qd3) that was new to me. At first the engines were giving 0.00 evaluations, but after the move 22.Qg3 they started to realize that Black's position was difficult, and they kept increasing their evaluation in White's favor move after move. That was quite a scary thing to see, and I really thought that I could have lost the game. I had to use all the thinking time (leave included) to be able to resist. This new variation impressed me so much that I decided to use it as White myself as a surprise weapon, and in fact it allowed my engine on autoplay on my old I7 980x to win a lot of games as White and a 500 dollars prize getting first place in a strong tournament on Infinity Chess. The second game was a Spanish, me as White. After his 7...0-0 I decided to avoid the Marshall (that would have probably happened if I had played 8.c3) trying the AntiMarshall variation 8.d4. I am now convinced that this variation gives nothing good to White, but I didn't know that yet when I played it! Already after the rare strong move 11...c5! things were starting to get difficult for me. He simply continued with c4 and d5, getting space advantage with his Pawns on the Queenside, while I could find no attack at all on the Kingside. Again I had to be very careful to escape with a draw.
- What can you tell about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you're now ranked #9 with an outstanding rating of 2639 ?
--> My ICCF elo in the past few years has raised. Slowly, but it has raised. I had no defeats and a couple of wins in the Olympiads and European team tournaments started in 2012. I am satisfied of that, as winning nowadays in top correspondence tournaments is very difficult. Important is to remain undefeated.
- Last year, you said that you felt like your play was getting weaker each day because your machine was getting older, did you finally upgrade it? But maybe this is a secret...
--> No. As I wrote earlier, I haven't updated my machine. Fortunately cpu's general speed has kept increasing not as quickly as in the past, so my I7 980x can still compete.
- Did your vision of computer chess evolve after these last 18 months? What do you expect for the next years? Do you plan to become a chess cyborg? ^^
--> Fortunately for our hobby, computer chess isn't rushing towards the "all draws" situation that I talked about a couple of years ago. That's because, fortunately, increasing cpu's power and engine's strenght is getting more and more difficult. Yes, some main lines already lead to all draws often, but chess gives so many openings options that to avoid that, you can simply play subvariations. When played a lot, also subvariations will become main variations. Then again, when the draws rate gets too high, you just pick another less played opening. It will take many years to cover every opening to a high draws rate.
- Your next challenger is Peter W. Anderson, who made a convincingly path through the round-robin cycle before to defeat SM Igor Dolgov 5-3 in the 10th candidates final (by the way he's also playing the 11th candidates final). It seems that you never played him before. How do you feel this match? Do you have any words for your opponent before that the games start?
--> I am happy to play a new player! We have just started our match, again, all my first moves as White were 1.e4. What to say... it's up to him to avoid main lines as Black (he already did it answering with 1...g6 in three games) if he wants to try to win with the black pieces. But the real challenge for him of course will be to try to win with the White pieces. It will be interesting to see if he can find holes in my Black repertoire like Van Assche was able to do. Let's wait and see!
Garvin Gray (2015-01-10 17:24:43)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules
Currently I believe there are two players who have been allowed to enter two divisions who under the current rules are actually ineligible and their entries should be withdrawn.
The current rules state:
Tickets for a higher class tournament : However, when you win a rated tournament (only after that you receive an email specifying it or when the tournaments list shows your name as winner or co-winner of the tournament) or if your rating is at most 50 points below the low rating limit of the next class tournament's waiting list, it is now possible to buy a ticket for the next class tournament's waiting list (for example if you win a chess class A tournament, you may ask for a ticket for the next class M tournament) for 10 Epoints if the following conditions are filled : 1) No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise. 2) The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the tournament's waiting list. 3) At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list. 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament. 5) The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 1 year after the end of the won tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament]. 6) As the price for any ticket is 10 Epoints, the player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
The key regulation- and I recall this because I had it included for a specific reason- is: 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament.
The reason for this regulation is that the division is meant for the players of those ratings and it is clear that having to players with ratings significantly lower than the minimum rating will reduce the chances of them entering.
So those using tickets are entered last, in positions 6 and 7, only after it becomes clear that the division can not be filled without them.
So under the published regulations, both players should be removed and put in their correct divisions.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-01-11 20:49:12)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules
I can do this, but should I move anyone from any rating list to another for any reason? I never did until now (as far as I remember), so I prefer not to. Herbert can enter any other rating list if he wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-05-03 01:25:37)
Chess tournaments rating ranges
Hello all,
As you probably noticed, we slowly have more and more difficulties to fill some tournaments waiting lists (mainly chess SM ones).
No change seem to solve this, actually all major chess websites seem to have less and less activity. Anyway I made a minor change (step backward) with the chess waiting lists rating ranges: brackets are now 400 points again. Looks more logical to me according to circumstances and players behaviour.
Let's wait and see. To be continued.
Herbert Kruse (2015-05-06 03:39:15)
rating update May 1st? when?
today is May 6th
Thibault de Vassal (2015-05-11 12:37:25)
rating update May 1st? when?
Ah, I didn't see your post before... Yes, the rating list was updated on May 6th. I simply was distracted by the emails issue that occured around may 1st and took me a few days.
Peter W. Anderson (2015-06-14 17:52:04)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I recently played in an Infinity Chess freestyle event and was impressed by one of their tiebreak rules. If scores were tied a player got a bonus if he had stalemated an opponent.
I would like to suggest this is adopted in the matches (not tournaments) in the FICGS world championship and that is it the first tiebreak rule applied, i.e before ratings and whether wins or only draws have been played. I would also suggest it is adopted for the title matches too. Perhaps it could be introduced from the 15th cycle onwards or even in existing cycles (11 to 14) where a match has not begun.
This seems a very fair tiebreak rule to me, which would normally reflect who overall played better (came closer to winning) in a drawn match, especially where all games are drawn.
The only disadvantage I can see to this rule is that it would prolong games as some that would currently be agreed drawn would in future be played through to stalemate.
On the other hand it would get us thinking hard about which drawn endgames lead to stalemate and which don't and that in itself is quite interesting.
Scott Nichols (2015-08-24 00:07:26)
Number of tournament won
We need more stats! :) Like all the stats you have, plus, the same stats but just for the last two months. This will tell us what has been going on LATELY, not since the beginning of time, :) Biggest rating gains, etc. Love stats!
Scott Nichols (2015-12-08 01:22:21)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
The 32 players were fine. Time controls (a little long for my taste, but...) are even OK. I had 2 big beefs with the wch. 1. playing a 1400 that just bought a new comp that NOW plays 2000+. If I beat him--0 rating points, draw--I lose many points, etc. 2. The "seeding" of players is not fair IMO, everybody should start at the start line. then the winner can feel much more proud to repeat as champion. I actually may win an ICCF semi-final (#45349), one more game needs to finish. I was seeded 10th of 11 players when it started. I mention this because in far too many of the Wch games were drawn much too early IMO. In ICCF, at least my tour's, the games were fought much longer, down to less than 10 pieces quite often. I looked at this last one and they are calling it a draw in the middlegame. I ask WHY? Just because it's 0.00 for a while, so what? It's the WORLD CH.! How many chances will a player get the opportunity? Each game should be fought to the death. Eros is very busy and has to be getting on in years, make him WORK for it! Sorry to ramble, just a few thoughts...
Herbert Kruse (2015-12-10 16:31:04)
TER rating calculation
if my opp and i start a tournament with 2400 TER and 2350 TER, but i manage to reach 2420 (from 2350) and he stays at 2400, how will the rating calculated if its a draw?
will i win or lose rating?
Herbert Kruse (2015-12-14 10:10:03)
TER rating calculation
ok, thats seems not the right thing, but i can postpone the draw, until my rating is lower then
Garvin Gray (2015-12-14 10:41:45)
TER rating calculation
Herbert, remember, rating is also only calculated at the end of two months based on all the games you have finished in that two month period and is a performance rating of those games.
In fact, from looking at the example given from just this one game, if it was based on just this one game only and using only the ratings at the time of the game, then you would have a rating of 2420 and your opponent would have a rating of 2400, then your rating difference would be larger than the TER of 2400, so in fact by drawing the game, you would lose more than 1 point.
So the TER calculation has helped you, rather than hindered you, in THIS CASE.
Herbert Kruse (2015-12-14 10:48:02)
TER rating calculation
ok, i formula is not really good, but i can deal with it.
the reason for all of this is, that in a match someone has the advantage of winning with 8 draws, if his TER is higher
Garvin Gray (2015-12-16 11:39:44)
TER rating calculation
You have now changed the conversation.
Originally it was about ratings and how rating changes are made and why TER and current ratings are used, and I answered part of that conversation, which was not fully explored.
Now you have changed the topic to talking about matches and TER's. That is a different conversation altogether. And then you are debating the format of the ficgs world championship knockout system, which has been debated so often on here.
It is contained in about every tenth thread.
Please choose a topic to discuss. Which is it?
Scott Nichols (2015-12-16 20:45:46)
TER rating calculation
I saw Wosch won the 12th Wch Canditates final with a 4-4 score. His TER and finished rating was around 200 points below his opp. Why was he declared winner?
Thibault de Vassal (2015-12-16 21:09:20)
TER rating calculation
Not all games were drawn in this match (yes, it happens :)), so rules apply this way:
"Knockout tournament winner will play round-robin cycle winner in a 8 games candidates final match (stage 4). In case of equality (4-4), the knockout tournament winner is qualified for stage 5 if all games are draw, the round-robin cycle winner if not all games are draw." Arkadiusz is the round-robin cycle winner.
Scott Nichols (2015-12-16 21:47:21)
TER rating calculation
Thx Thib, makes sense now.
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 (2016-02-11 21:28:37)
Stockfish 7, Komodo 9.2 or 9.3
Chess engines keep going, what do you think about the most recent ones? Do you prefer Stockfish 7, Komodo 9.3 and why?
Both engines reach about 3340 on the CEGT rating list, this definitely looks like stratosferic levels compared to the old Fritz, Rybka, Junior & so on :)
Herbert Kruse (2016-03-01 13:41:48)
rating update May 1st? when?
ok, will it be today too or later
Thibault de Vassal (2016-03-03 23:19:46)
rating update May 1st? when?
It occured on March 1st this time :)
Garvin Gray (2016-03-10 00:56:17)
Chess960
And that they are not divided by rating, standard and rapid time controls etc is also an issue.
With chess960, all the top chess engines can be used.
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.
George Jempty (2016-05-26 07:44:30)
FICGS restarts (2016 May 25)
Regarding ratings, if you get to them around June 1 give or take, maybe you should then update them every two months, but on the even numbered months instead of odd as in the past. Just a thought
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2016-05-26 16:49:15)
Bugs after the server crash
... and in the rating lists:
Caire, Fran�ois
Aniruddha Duttagupta (2016-07-01 20:48:35)
Rating calculation gain/loss
I'm playing in FICGS Server since last 18 months, but still unsure about the process of rating calculation after finish of a game.My query is that after a game finishes,while calculation of gain/loss of rating of the players which rating figure of the players are taken into account? Their rating figure as at the start of the game or present rating at the time of finish of the game? Can anyone kindly enlighten me?
Thibault de Vassal (2016-07-03 00:12:14)
Rating calculation gain/loss
Hello Aniruddha,
Your current rating and your opponent's TER (Tournament Entry Rating) are taken in account. It's all explained here:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating
George Jempty (2016-09-02 10:21:48)
Player of the Year
I've been thinking it would be interesting to have nominations for a "Player of the Year" that FICGS members could then vote on. Qualifications could be listed in a manner similar to the following:
1) 15 wins, 13 draws and 0 losses since Oct 2015
2) Rating increase of nearly 250 points (1904-2152) during same time period
3) As 1904 player finished tied for second with score of 4/6 in tournament where average rating was 2041
4) Won a standard B tournament with score of 5.5/6 and a performance rating of 2332
5) Guaranteed tie for first place in a standard A tournament (currently tied for first and is playing in the one remaining game in the tourney against someone one point behind)
6) Currently leading stage 1 group of 2016 World Championship with score of 5/5
7) Finished tied for first in Rapid M tournament for which it was necessary to buy a ticket because TER of 2077 being below normal minimum of 2100
Yes I'm bragging on myself more than a little bit, but still I think that the listed qualifications are pretty objective
Herbert Kruse (2016-09-12 00:07:19)
Rating calculation gain/loss
what is the bonus if % is 93.5 or 93.75 or 93.25
is there a formula or just the table?
Thibault de Vassal (2016-09-12 17:31:02)
Rating calculation gain/loss
There's just the table.
Herbert Kruse (2016-09-14 00:46:26)
Rating calculation gain/loss
so what is 93.5 the? like 93 or 94?
Thibault de Vassal (2016-09-17 01:01:09)
Rating calculation gain/loss
93.5 is rounded to 93.
Herbert Kruse (2016-09-17 18:25:35)
Rating calculation gain/loss
then i guess 93.9 to 93 too?
Thibault de Vassal (2016-09-18 00:58:56)
Rating calculation gain/loss
Absolutely yes.
Scott Nichols (2016-11-07 18:36:23)
Poker Poll
The problem with this system is that if someone KNOWS when they call a bet, they will win that game. Some players then BANK that game for later when they need some quick rating points. The same goes for a loss, WAIT till you can easily afford to lose a few points without to much damage. THEN call, :/
Scott Nichols (2016-11-07 21:57:16)
Poker Poll
My idea was just a heads up match between 2 players who both feel they are the best:) No ratings, no money, everything just stays the same. The reason I offer this is because I'm 99% mathematically sure with this rating system, reaching 2400 would be next to impossible with everyone so much lower rated.
On the other hand, all I have to do is win a dozen or so games quickly and there it is. I feel it is an unfair advantage to me.
David Fierry Fraillon (2016-12-04 07:24:53)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Ok it can be very long then ...
I am not happy with banishment solution ... i guess the idea is to have a lot of players ... and more.
IF you look at some rating evolution you will see that some player just stop corresponding chess and are back few months later and sometimes more ...
I will do it myself as soon as i will finish my games because i have to prepare myself to normal chess ...
So i think it is normal for many reason to leave corresponding chess for a few months and be back ... i think also that it is normal to resign if you can ... but as Thibault wrote you can find many reason to not be able to do it .... By the way : Thibault, can you solve the trick of creating a new account when a player is banished ? I have only two solution in mind : reducing the maximal time allowed to one move to 30 (i do not like it because i use it sometimes when i am on the X9th move ... :-) ) and reducing time for adjudication ...
Thibault de Vassal (2016-12-04 19:32:26)
Future penalties for games lost on time
I think I solved it as much as possible :) Anyway, as far as I know, players who registered again under a fake name generally stopped to play even faster (due to a lower rating and lack of motivation, I guess) There's a kind of natural selection due to the fact that we play with our real name.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-18 03:32:56)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Finally, here is a new interview with FICGS correspondence chess champion GM Eros Riccio, who gives us his (surprising?) impressions on his latest win in the championship, his current match and correspondence chess nowadays... A good matter to think about!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000012
____________
- Hi again Eros... Once more, congratulations for winning this final match in the 12th FICGS correspondence chess championship. This time, it seems that things went quite differently than in your previous matches (you scored 9 out of 12, which is a huge performance at this level), could you tell us what happened in these games?
--> Hi, yes, finally we have seen some wins after a very long series of draws. I was surprised too, I didn't risk to lose any game and I could even win one as Black... What to say, my opponent was simply not as challenging as the previous ones.
- It's a long time since you won the previous match, would you like to tell us about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you now rank #9 with an outstanding 2643 rating?
--> My latest final on FICGS were my only games of 2016. On ICCF I have taken some rest, the too high draw rate didn't incentive me to start new tournaments, also because drawing all games with a high rating means losing points.
- In the next final match (13th cycle), you play Peter W. Anderson for the 3rd time... so you probably know each other's opening book quite well. What do you expect for in this match?
--> Anderson is a very tough opponent, it's not a coincidence that he reached the final for the third time. I tried to win at least one game as White, but he's incredibly hard to beat. I experimented with almost anything possible against his modern defence, but I could never find a single weakness in his repertoire. I will see what to invent this time against his terrific 1...g6.
- As you probably know, another Go champion (Lee Sedol) lost a 5-games match to AlphaGo this year, while chess engines (now Stockfish 8, Houdini 5 Komodo 10...) slowly but surely continue to improve... Still waiting for the quantum computers. How do you feel things should go in the next years? Did your way of playing advanced chess or correspondence chess change these last years?
--> I have said a lot already about the very high draw rate of the recent years... I am surprised that some changes haven't been done already, like switching to chess 960, even modifying some chess rules, or at least giving 1,5 points for one win. Otherwise a lot of players will lose interest in seeing a series of all draws in the tournaments they play. I am one of those players who lost interest in correspondence chess, and even in blitz chess, engine vs engine, as we can see the extremely high draw rate situation there too.
- Finally, what can we wish for you for the next year? :)
--> Wish me to lose the match with Anderson :-) even I got bored of seeing myself there over and over in the final! That will bring some new air and that way I can take some total rest in corr. chess.
- Many thanks for your time, have a great match!
--> Welcome, and thanks.
Pablo Schmid (2017-01-19 23:45:28)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Why unrated? The rating would add a real motivation, if you see, there is probably rarely any good game on thematic tournament in this tournament because either a too high level difference or maybe because the unrated game don't gives enough motivations ("no problem if I lose or if I lose interest, it doesn't count")...
Jan Ohlin (2017-01-20 09:55:19)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Obviously, every game need to be rated. It must also be possible to keep a high rating even if you play matches against the World Champ Mr. Stockfish disguised with a lowrated aliases. Playing many games should be rewarded, not punished.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-20 17:17:28)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Well, I always thought that rating should be coherent, should mean something and not something else... But maybe I have to re-think about that as well. Soooo difficult!
Garvin Gray (2017-01-26 02:30:15)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Before I first proposed abolishing the first place tie break rules, I went through a lot of the stage 1 WCH groups and checked how many ties there had been for first, and especially looked for multiple ties.
There were very few indeed.
The odds of three or four players finishing on the same score, when the group size is likely to be 9 or 11 players and the ratings of the players will be from 2300 to 1200 is extremely low.
Hence why I proposed the removal of the rule in the first place.
The rules are accurate now.
As to when to open the waiting list- I have also commented in this thread that having the waiting list open for too long will increase the number of forfeits when play begins.
Garvin Gray (2017-01-26 11:37:58)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
1) Being a new event, an email should be sent to all members explaining this event and that it is a main championship event. And that entries will open Wednesday 8th February.
2) Entries open Wednesday 8th February and close Wednesday 1st March. That gives everyone three weeks to enter.
3) Entries close Wednesday 1st March. The event needs to start straight after this date.
I am aware that you need to update ratings, work out the groups, load everything into the server to get the event started, so there is a lag time after March 1st.
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-01 07:48:12)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I know this thread is old but I feel Garvin made an amazing point that got lost:
"It was to give players who were in the 2100 to 2200 and below more opportunities against players rated 2300 and above, whilst still also giving the top players something to play for ie the tournament win."
I haven't played actively since 2010 for exactly this reason. I did play over 470 games though but found that I was permanently locked into this rating band despite being far beyond the skill level of this rating band solely because I was never allowed to play stronger players. So I moved on to ICCF where I easily was able to compete against 2370+ players all the time.
Garvin Gray (2017-07-02 04:33:16)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I have wondered for a long while whether:
1) The 2300 rated players or higher who started on this site, were not really 2300 in comparison to quite a few 2200 or so players
2) That deflation in the rating system at the top end has occurred in the system over time
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-05 03:43:11)
Ratings
To start with you have 1852 rated IMs that are 2352 on ICCF. The ratings here often don't make any sense at all. And for me, 2135 drawing such a player is a huge hit to my rating here while on ICCF I may lose a fraction of a rating point for such a draw.
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-05 21:00:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
It doesn't help that there are so many massively underrated players. I haven't played here in 4 years. My rating here is 2135 while I am 2379 on ICCF.
I will imminently draw an 1852 rated player here which seems like a big upset and my rating will take a big hit. But on ICCF this IM player is 2352. I would lose about 1 rating point. So here I out rate him by 283 points while on ICCF I outrate him by 27 points.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-07-08 19:26:50)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Rules asked by players do not converge all the time, that's the least to say. Many prefer that games lost on time be punished by massive losses of elo points to prevent games lost on time, while many prefer that ratings stay coherent, whatever the losses (mainly on time)... And of course, games played at FICGS are not as important as games played at ICCF for most strong players. Conclusion is easy. But maybe there should be a change in the rating calculation to create some inflation... This could be worth a discussion.
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-10 00:28:19)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Well, I think there needs to be something less in the sense of rating inflation but perhaps floors added for players with high ratings for ICCF. There is no way you can tell me an IM 2350+ player should be allowed to have a sub 2100 rating here. In general, I am not a fan of the concept of flooring... but in this case there are many such underrated players that bring down the entire rating average here.
Garvin Gray (2017-07-13 17:09:00)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
A better question to ask is: How did that player get that rating so low?
Thibault de Vassal (2017-07-20 16:31:47)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Ok, I finally slightly changed the rating calculation in this way... let's see how the whole thing will evolve (it will take time anyway).
Herbert Kruse (2017-09-07 11:47:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
the problem is, that computer helps any player and so its slowly doing down
so in consequence not playing holds your rating high
but there should be a strong motivation for playing
Herbert Kruse (2017-09-07 11:49:18)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
rating slowly going down i meant
Thibault de Vassal (2017-10-01 13:40:40)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Herbert: Yes it was, now it should be less the case (about ratings). Let's see in a few months.
Garvin: About CUP final, yes looks like reasonable to play the opening as fast as possible (just like in WCH)... 16 games is really tough to manage in the middle game, that's why I was more favourable to a longer time control for this cycle, but obviously many players are faster than me :)
Sergey Zemlyanov (2017-10-09 22:16:24)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Dear Thib,
Thank you very much!
I donated e-points to the site. Also, I will focus on my games on ICCF. I do not have only 5 points of the rating to get into the tournament with a grandmaster's norm. I need to put pressure on it!)
Thibault de Vassal (2017-10-19 20:14:23)
AlphaGo Zero
Must read... AlphaGo would have been able to re-learn from scratch & reach the level of the AlphaGo (2015) that beat Lee Sedol in... 3 days... only 3 days!
http://deepmind.com/blog/alphago-zero-learning-scratch/
Not so surprisingly, it took 21 days to reach the level of the version that beat Ke Jie this year. Now he would have reached a stellar rating (that does not mean much to us poor humans) of about 5000 (!) and he's able to win 100 games out of 100 to the AlphaGo "Lee".
Really stunning.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-11-25 21:05:20)
The older rating lists
At last, all correspondence chess rating lists (from the server start, march 2006) are available by clicking "Rating lists" and following "The older rating lists"... 1 year of ratings by page.
As it was asked by a few players for a long time, only players who were REALLY active (who finished at least one game at most 1 year before or 1 year after the period) are listed in.
Many informations and good memories :) The worst part is that I can see clearly the reality: About 50% players left in about 4 or 5 years. The peak was about 900 players, there are now only 261 active correspondence chess players. Time to find new ideas, definitely.
Herbert Kruse (2017-11-25 21:43:23)
The older rating lists
make shorter time per move, maybe 12 hours
Thibault de Vassal (2017-11-25 22:05:11)
The older rating lists
It may have disastrous consequences on the number of games lost on time (and its own consequences), unfortunately :/ But if others ask for it also, I could envisage it for some tourneys.
Garvin Gray (2017-12-23 00:53:39)
Monte Carlo Analysis
In the Fritz 16 gui, you choose Monte Carlo Analysis from the header options, just like you would if you were choosing infinite analysis or deep position analysis and the many other types of game styles.
Your main engine must be Fritz 16, which seems to be a pain. This is one of my questions about this analysis style. Will explain more below.
Then after choosing Monte Carlo Analysis, Fritz gui will change over to MCA and a new screen will appear with options:
Search depth: default is 5. The first is the search depth, with a default of "5". This controls how far ahead (in half-moves, or "plies") the engine will look before making a move. For example, if you leave this at "5", the engine will look 2.5 moves ahead before making a move. Remember, the engine is going to be playing a lot of games against itself and storing the moves in the form of a tree, so the search depth is important. You must realize, however, that there's something of a tradeoff here; the higher you set the search depth, the more time the engine will need to make each move -- so you're trading time for depth. On the other hand, setting a lower search depth means that many more games will be played in a given amount of time, but that the moves themselves are likely to be more superficial.
Keep in mind, too, that you should use only odd numbers for the search depth, because chess engines tend to develop a tactical "blind spot" when made to analyze at even ply depths. Rule of thumb: odd numbers good, even numbers bad.
The second setting is the "width" of the tree. This is similar in some ways to the "Branching factor" in Deep Position Analysis and is another "space for time" tradeoff. If you create a "Narrow" tree, you won't see many alternative moves displayed in your game tree but the overall process of playing games and generating the tree will be faster. "Broad" trees show more alternatives but take longer to generate (it requires more processor time and thus slows down the chess engine).
-------------------------------------
So in all from my reading- what I can seem to deduce is- MCA plays many games against itself starting from the set position. The longer you leave the analysis, the more 'reliable' the results.
The question, or issue I am having at the moment for testing is, in the Fritz gui, I am having to use Fritz 16 as the main engine but am not seeing the analysis change to any other engines, so am wondering how long before it does, or will it only analysis the position in Fritz 16?
Considering at the start when you were loading your setting, you were given the option of four engines, this seems confusing to me.
So I thought I would ask if someone else had more experience with MCA and how it works?
Also, what about Deep position analysis? We could start a thread about that one too.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-10-12 02:57:51)
Rating System.....
FICGS has its own rating system, it looks like ELO but it slightly differs to take account of what might provoke a global deflation due to rules about forfeits & the constantly increasing level.
All calculation details are in terms & conditions :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-17 04:41:22)
Conditional chess moves (again)
Yes, of course, way to go... I only mean: to keep coherence may be not easy and it adds some work at the end.
By messages I mean that it can be frustrating to play several moves without seeing any reply.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-22 00:51:19)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
New topic to discuss what should be done when chess engines are probably or obviously used in no engines tournaments. Not so easy to judge, and it would be easy to make it quite invisible IMHO.
- Elo rating points loss?
- Loss of all games in the tournament?
- Nothing (comments will be enough)
Any other idea or preference?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-02-15 23:48:00)
Stockfish 9 released
It seems that Stockfish 9 is now available... Did anyone test it already?
http://stockfishchess.org/download/
Any improvement "noticed"? (seems hard to notice anything anymore :))
We'll see what rating it reaches on CEGT lists...
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 (2018-03-14 23:12:38)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela
Nelson Bernal Varela is an early FICGS correspondence chess player, now rated 2277 but also rated 2359 at ICCF (Correspondence Chess Master - CCM).
Last but not least, and as all poker holdem players here probably noticed, he is also our ranked #1 for years, who just reached an outstanding poker rating of 2382, while number two is now rated "only" 2212. A good occasion to ask him a few questions, that he kindly accepted to answer.
-----------------------
- Hello Nelson! You are the 2nd most active player at FICGS for years now. Everyone here probably noticed your incredible results in poker tournaments. "Correspondence poker holdem" was probably a strange idea as it is very unusual and very different from "Internet poker". What's your opinion on this and on the presence of a card game (played without money) at FICGS?
NBV: There are more important things than money and one of those is HONOR; It is honorable to be a chess master, international master, grandmaster, world chess champion at ICCF and at FICGS and to be number one in the ranking. It is honorable to be a FICGS world champion at Go and to be first in the ranking, it is honorable to be poker world champion at FICGS poker and in my case, it is an honor to be number one at poker here at FICGS during the last years, understanding that our general level of play has improved remarkably. None of these activities produces money, but to achieve any of the mentioned titles, it is necessary to have extraordinary abilities.
When I was about 18 years old, I had the opportunity to meet a person with immense material wealth, we spent whole evenings playing chess and then I told him my perceptions about each movement of the game. He thanked me for my chess explanations and paid me with good money. That wealthy man in his turn told me about life and recommended that I should always be proud of the gifts I had, since he knew, with all the money he had and being able to hire the best grandmasters in the world, that it could hardly come at the level of chess master. That person told me that the intellect can be turned into money whenever you want.
Now, by playing poker without money at FICGS, I understood that it was my extraordinary and wonderful opportunity to study-learn-perfect and test my poker theories without costing me a single dollar. In FICGS there is no money, but thanks to the knowledge I gained playing poker in FICGS, today I can go after the money in online poker rooms and probably in OTB poker tournaments. I am studying the possibility of becoming a professional poker player.
- The understanding of your opponent's behaviour is usually quite important at Poker. Do you manage to establish some profiles while playing so many simultaneous hands & games? Did you build any method?
NBV: Today I am sure that the most important thing to raise, and keep raising my level in poker, has been to build a psychological profile of mine, to get to know Nelson Bernal Varela in depth and above all to understand me, accept me, love me and be work every day eliminating my technical errors, strategic, psychological that make me play badly. I am aware that in poker I can play perfectly and still lose, what I can not forgive me is playing badly, which is why I work hard correcting my wrong decisions.
Of course, there is a space in my brain where I have built a psychological profile of each contender, that profile I have been able to elaborate with all the information that is provided to me in each hand we play. The way each of us plays, gives reliable information about our personality.
About my method I can write the following: A few years ago, I created a table in excel, where I had all the games with each contender, I identified them with the FICGS numeration and each movement in each hand (preflop, flop, turn, river ) it I was writing and studying; I started to add technical-psychological variables that seemed important to me, resulting in 20 variables that I had to qualify in each movement. With the passage of time and my effort, I no longer needed the excel table and I did not use it again (it was exhausting and time consuming) because I was assimilating things faster and with greater depth. Today I can say that I evaluate these 20 variables in a natural way, as if I was breathing and that when I am at a poker table, online or real, after a few minutes I get the psychological profile of the table and each of my opponents. In the pocket of my shirt I keep a small paper with the list of variables, periodically reread it and I wonder if I should modify, remove or add something.
- You won 1007 poker games, and lost only 380, with a ratio usually going from 57% to 80% according to your best opponents. Undoubtly you know the mathematics hidden behind poker but that may not explain everything. How did you learn to play?
NBV: Mathematics is an ingredient in poker, in the same way that my psychological aspects and of my opponents (I recommend reading-studying about four times the book “The Poker mindset†of Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger), it is vital to understand the Law of Large Numbers. Next I make a list of topics that I consider important to raise the level of poker; compete with EV+ cards, you have to know the small ball theory of Negreanu (but not apply it, hahaha) you have to always look at the texture of the board, you have to evaluate your reality and your future, also that of your opponents (act and power), the position to talk is important, the stack, the personality of the table, know who has the panic button on. All these and other variables must be evaluated in the few seconds they have to make a move and the only important thing is to make the right decision according to the circumstances. There is a good list of poker books to read... it is mandatory to have read about 15 poker books.
- As for me, I may be wrong but I can't imagine that you reached such a rating without special techniques & maybe by optimizing it in some ways... Of course, "rating management" is not a problem, and it is only one thing with a limited impact, but maybe you have some other secrets? What about this "+1" technique that I noticed in many of our games, if this is not a secret? :)
NBV: In these years I have used different techniques that I had to read, study, learn, repeat, modify, invent and sometimes eliminate. Poker is a sport that seems easy, with time one manages to understand that it has an amazing complexity, today I consider poker to be as complex as chess and I study them in a "similar" way. As an example, I have tried to create "openings in poker"; based only on probabilities I invented something that I called mirror theory and another "opening" that I called opposite outs. I am fascinated by mathematics and from the mathematical perspective they are perfect "theories-openings", but I have lost tournaments and a lot of money for applying such theories in mistaken emotional moments. In poker it is important to never lose sight of the Law of Large Numbers and be aware that this LAW likes to make fun of each one of us... I am working on giving an emotional nuance to my theories "mirror" and "opposite outs". There are moments when perfect mathematics becomes an unforgivable psychological error...
For the last few months I have modified my way of playing and my results have improved; Today it must be much more difficult to win a game me, thanks to small and imperceptible adjustments that of course only I know, because I have followed my mistakes-successes-evolution in the game over several years.
- Isn't it too frustrating for you to play heads up only (here at least) ? Of course it is a way to improve this important technical case but we know that many complexities come with 3 to 8 players on the table, which is the most common case in professional poker tournaments.
NBV: Currently I spend little time every day playing heads-up in FICGS, thanks to the fact that I have the profile of each contender. The 4-5 hours that I study poker daily, include practice in micro limits in cash tables of 6 players and tournaments in tables of 8-9 players. I think I'm covering the whole range of possibilities, experiencing game situations between 1 and 8 contenders.
- What do you think about computer analysis in poker? Do you think it could make a difference here just like the way we play advanced chess?
NBV: I think the algorithms are ready to be written in machine language and the question is where are those algorithms? Well, in the brains of the best players in the world and in their games compiled in huge databases. But programming language can be accelerated with artificial intelligence brains, making A.I. studying databases of the best professionals, playing with itself millions of games and building an invincible TACTIC-STRATEGIC SYSTEM, similar to chess software and GO... I think preflop and flop play would be very similar between humans and artificial intelligence, but on the turn and on the river artificial intelligence would take considerable advantage, but in the short time the level of human poker would rise because artificial intelligence would teach us to play poker, this event that would diminish the profits of the professionals. It will always be said in favor of poker that because it is an incomplete game of information, to make computer algorithms are quite complicated, but despite that, I am sure that artificial intelligence will far surpass the best human poker player. It is possible that an artificial intelligence that plays a perfect poker already exists, but unlike GO and chess, poker does produce a lot of money. Due to the money factor, in today's world, it is very difficult that there is a Prometheus willing to steal fire from the gods and give it to mankind...
- How would you describe your relation to games in general?
NBV: I can summarize it in one of the first chess books I had the fortune to read, by the great Danish master Bent Larsen, "I play to win"
- When did you start to play chess & poker? Do you play other games?
NBV: My first contact with chess was at the age of nine, it was love at first sight and until death separates us; I must confess that for some years we have been separated, due to my stupidity and my erroneous decisions. I have always been self-taught in any subject, my method is to buy about 10 to 15 books of the subject that interests me and I read them thoroughly, sometimes 3 or 4 times; already with that information in my head and thanks to the constant practice, I build MY SYSTEM (Nimzowitch) according to my personality, my dreams, my desires, my anguish, my fears... I was youth champion of Bogotá, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.
I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.
I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.
- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?
NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).
I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.
In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.
In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...
- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?
NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha
- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)
I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...
- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)
NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha
- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-27 02:19:00)
Ratings inflation period
Dear chessfriends, in order to make FICGS correspondence chess ratings somewhat more coherent with other ones & with the real chess level (which is quite important in many points of view), we start an "inflation period".
During this time (that will last several months or maybe a few years according to the effects), the rating calculation will differ as explained in the rules: "During an inflation period, 10 points per game are added to the bonus, then any negative bonus is divided by 2. [Edited]"
As a side-effect, fortunately this may encourage even more games and more wins :)
Let's just wait and see the evolution in the next rating lists, then there may be adjustments.
Ilmars Cirulis (2018-04-07 20:29:08)
unable to play my move!
Maybe refunding rating points?
Like "you lost to software bug, so there's your compensation".
Aniruddha Duttagupta (2018-04-07 20:53:38)
unable to play my move!
Dear Mr Thibault,
First time this thing happened to me.I will be careful but kindly see non occurance of this type of software bug further.I lost some rating points unnecesarily in a game which was equal.Definitely it hurts!
John Hadden (2018-04-16 08:22:51)
Design
I would say if you make it easier to arrange Games then they would be more likely to happen. "I'd you book the bands they will come" bill and Ted ii
Eg. Right now I am unable to play any go games because I don't have the right rating. There is only one tournament open but because there are few players I won't ever play. If instead you make it easier for non tournament games then more players would be available for the tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-04-18 02:01:58)
Design
I understand but it all depends on the number of players connected and ready to play at a given time. Right now, it is not possible to make bullet games popular, we would need probably 10 times more players.
Anyway this Go category just re-opened (it was the Kyu category a few week ago) so this is not really the 14th Go tournament for this rating range. So it shouldn't take too long (a few days though) to start.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-05-01 22:25:17)
Ratings inflation period
May 2018 ratings : the first effects are quite visible. A few players, who finished many games, actually more games than I expected, made a very good operation (not a problem as points always spread with time). I updated the formula to make it more coherent next time : 10 points per game, now power 0.8, will be added to the bonus.
Herbert Kruse (2018-05-01 23:26:03)
Ratings inflation period
"power 0.8" means what?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-05-01 23:43:20)
Ratings inflation period
Examples :
(1 game) 10 power 0.8 = 10^0.8 =~ 6.3 added to bonus
(10 games) 100 power 0.8 = 100^0.8 =~ 39.8 added to bonus
(30 games) 300 power 0.8 = 300^0.8 =~ 95.8 added to bonus
To see what "bonus" is, please read:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating
Peter W. Anderson (2018-06-01 18:36:45)
Komodo 12 with AlphaZero techniques
Well I am a bit sceptical Thib.
Yes it is using Monte Carlo, but it is not using a neural network which is what made AlphaZero interesting (and hopefully will eventually make Leela really special).
The Monte Carlo version of Komodo is a lot weaker than Komodo 11 at the moment and time will tell if the Monte Carlo version will ever be as strong as alpha-beta searching, but my guess is that for normal engines it will not be as strong.
As an aside, the claim of a 30 Elo improvement from version 11 to 12 of normal Komodeo may be a bit extravagent judging by the ccrl rating lists.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-06-01 23:04:32)
Komodo 12 with AlphaZero techniques
To say it all, I am a bit skeptical too and I agree with your opinion on Monte Carlo vs. Alpha-Beta in chess (but in certain positions types, maybe). CEGT rating lists seem to confirm that 30 elo points may be too optimistic as well.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-08-21 22:22:42)
poker reflection time
Unfortunately, the choice of "best of three" would have consequences on ratings (less accurate, more variable), as you can guess.
The 1 day / hand option could be confusing and may be dangerous at it would bring strange effects as one could lose a game on time when having 2 or 3 days on clock because of a few moves played at night. This would not affect fast players, but many players are quite slow for various reasons.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-24 00:15:43)
Some questions to H. Kruse, WCH finalist
After that the last FICGS chess WCH final match finished, the choice was made again to ask a few questions to Eros Riccio's challenger: Herbert Kruse, for the 2nd time. He kindly accepted to answer it so let's learn a bit more on our top-ranked correspondence chess player.
______________________________
Hello Herbert, you're not really a player to introduce as you're very active here and at several chess websites for years, with outstanding ratings in each one (as far as I know), you're the 1st FICGS CUP winner & several times FICGS WCH challenger, each time facing "the wall" Eros Riccio, what could you tell us about yourself particularly as a chess & correspondence chess player?
- i began late with 16 to play my first tournament game, but with 18 i already was kicked out of a night club in company with tony miles ;) (dresscode) had vlastimil hort as trainer for a short time and played in teams with gutman, michalchisin, klovans, gipslis and some other GMs. corr chess i began, because i love to find the truth and because of freestyle, where i began to build very strong computers
What kind of computers do you build? Is it all dedicated to chess?
- i have several dual xeon e5 computers with 64gb ddr3 and 16 to 20 real cores and they all play chess ;)
Once again, GM Eros Riccio managed to draw the 12 games of the match. What are your feelings on these games? How did you estimate your chances to destabilize your opponent in the openings and to create complications enough with White (or Black)?
- this time my feelings were neutral. 1% chances to win, but i hoped he would lose his concentration if i began more games with him (we played 6 other games at the same time)
Doesn't "1% chances to win (the match)" mean about 0.17% to win only one game with White, even when losing one with Black? Isn't it a bit pessimistic after all, or is it the new so called Riccio-effect? :)
- if the strongest players face each other there is no win possible, except some has a mouse slep or forgot something during human interfacing
When did you start playing correspondence chess and what changed since that time? What attracted you most in the game?
- 2004 and evaluation of the position is the key point of improvement since then. attractive was to be better than actual world class players :)
Could you tell us anything on the way you work chess and play your correspondence games? Any tip or secret? (nothing to lose to ask :))
- with black i play for fastest way to 0.00 and with white i try every promising way to make a game for a longer time complicated
Do you use several ones at the same time when analyzing a game? (still grabbing some tips)
- i only use the newest stockfish versions of brainfish and corchess because the other engines are not so good. because i have many games i decide which one gets the most cores and time and let them run in infinity mode until i am happy that can be after 1 week or more sometimes.
You're not far to rank 2nd as a poker player at FICGS, you obviously started to take on Big Chess as well. What other games do you play? Did you consider to play Go already?
- i played go against the german champion and lost so i quit :)) played backgammon money game and internet (in fibs with kit woolsey i played over 100 matches) in bridge i was best bidder in germany 1994 to 1995, but dont play much nowadays
Do you have specific goals to achieve as a player?
- 2 goals, since a long time: be ficgs world champion and win one german bridge championship
How do you imagine correspondence chess evolution within a decade? What kind of engines/computers do you expect to use and what will look like centaur chess according to you? (in other words, what part will remain to the human player in the decision?)
- i think the engines today are already unbeatable, so in 20 years the would still not lose and chess is dead since about 4 years
What did you think about Google Deepmind's Alpha Zero performance vs. Stockfish?
- it was a joke because they let a bad version of stockfish play. i would not have lost one game against az0 and maybe won 2 til 5 out of 100
Conditions of this AlphaZero vs. Stockfish match were very specific (opening books, unbalanced hardware...) What weaknesses did you detect in AlphaZero play?
- it was the lack of precision, what would let it lose against stockfish in its tuned newest version but i look from a view of a player who is used to play with deep 60 :)
It seems that computers did not completely take on Bridge yet, what do you expect within a decade?
- i have not seen bridge programms, but the game is so easy that it must be already mastered by computers
Thibault de Vassal (2018-10-20 03:06:28)
No engine tournaments, no, no
I understand but in my opinion we have to accept this... This kind of tournament is a question of fun (to make mistakes as well) and honor (not to win but to play it by the rules!), no need to shame anyone publicly or to bring a climate of suspicion as everyone can make an opinion by watching/analyzing the games. But yes, it is possible/probable that a few players use engines even there... why, this is quite a mystery but it is always possible to cheat in this kind of tournaments.
As there's no prize or rating points to win, best is to ignore it IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-11-01 02:24:14)
Ratings inflation period
Dear chessfriends, the inflation period continues for correspondence chess ratings, now with slower effects:
The rating calculation differs as explained in the rules: "During an inflation period, any negative bonus is divided by 2. [Edited]"
Garvin Gray (2018-11-18 03:12:48)
World Championship Groups
I see in the chat box there is a comment about adding players for a new group in the WCH.
This should not be allowed and is a bad idea. The original groups were worked out based on ratings available at the close of entry.
And also now this new group will be a rating scattered group, rather than being similar to the others.
Players have protested before about adding players and new groups well after the entry deadline has passed. I have frankly had a gutful of having to protest about it.
It is one of main things that is turning me off this site. Having to keep protesting against items on this site when others have said similar viewpoints to mine, but the site owner keeps trying to sneak in his ideas via the backdoor.
Garvin Gray (2018-11-19 02:36:26)
World Championship Groups
Ok, please clarify- your comment in the chat box is: A few more players for an additional chess WCH group?
The key word to me is 'additional' chess Wch group.
In your latest reply, you say accepting a few later runners to add as replacements into existing groups to substitute for those who have not started their games or forfeited out.
I have no real objection to the later, but I have a strong objection to creating a completely new group from those who did not enter on time and that new group could potentially not be as strong and evenly distributed for ratings from the original WCH groups.
Herbert Kruse (2018-11-25 19:57:12)
cannot enter this tournament
i shall have too many running games (69/50)
but the intention of this rule was to avoid forfaist, what i never did
so my hard work to get rating over 2000 at big chess was for nothing?
Garvin Gray (2019-01-24 08:15:24)
WCh groups...
The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage.
In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage.
If tournament entry ratings (TER) are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account.
Thibault de Vassal (2019-03-16 21:22:26)
World Championship Groups
@ Marcio : In a quarter final, the player with the highest Tournament Entry Rating is qualified for next stage.
@ Graham : My apologies, I didn't see your post before. It depends on the group... In most cases, the player with the highest Tournament Entry Rating is qualified for next stage.
Steven DuCharme (2019-05-23 01:40:02)
New rating system
Start at 10K. Draws don't affect ratings. Ratings adjust via formula 250 - number of loser's moves. Combined adjustment is neitral. No floor or ceiling. ur welcome
Thibault de Vassal (2019-05-23 22:33:34)
NEW RATING SYSTEM
Reinventing a rating system is always audacious :) So draws wouldn't be considered at all? It seems to me that would become a complete new game (but why not... if we call it "brutal chess", maybe :))
Thibault de Vassal (2019-09-24 21:33:24)
World Championship Groups
This is specified in the WCH rules (2nd paragraph):
"The knockout tournament is played into 8 games matches. The special rule (avoiding short draws) is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."
I hope it is clear enough, maybe I should rewrite it.
Thibault de Vassal (2019-11-11 20:29:20)
Komodo 13
I guess that it is very hard to answer as many of us have very subjective preferences (like the old times with the quatuor Shredder, Hiarcs, Fritz & Junior, at least before Rybka took it all)... As for me, I can't even answer for now but I always used to consider CEGT rating lists to bias my opinion ^^
Thibault de Vassal (2019-11-28 12:08:42)
Lee Sedol quits Go because of A.I.
Finally, is it time for Go players to play "advanced Go"? Would it make sense like it used to be at chess?
Meanwhile, Go champion Lee Sedol resigns (it seems for several reasons actually, now ranked #54 at GoRatings.org - by the way the full rating list is worth to watch until rank 800)
So, we human will not probably beat what will replace AlphaZero in the future, but as in chess we could learn a lot from it, if not build great centaur teams.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50573071
Thibault de Vassal (2020-02-07 19:06:41)
Go ratings, rule update
Players can auto-estimate their rating from 0 to 1100 (10 kyu). By default it is 0 (if not specified) or 100 (20 kyu).
Thibault de Vassal (2020-03-02 20:44:28)
Chess WCH #22 (march 1st, 2020)
Dear chessfriends,
This time, the correspondence chess rating list was updated just after that the new correspondence chess WCH cycle started, this is not really usual (and the answer is yes, I forgot to update it) but it can happen and it happened before... Just to remind that there is no particular rule about this, so one can't expect a 100% deterministic situation when a championship starts.
Best of luck everyone :)
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 (2020-06-04 13:04:11)
chess archives in pgn
Hello Roberto,
Thanks for detailing your question here.
Yes, the "Go" function below the menu is very general and does not help much for what you would like to do.
The "Search games" option in the menu (below "Waiting lists" and "Tournaments") brings more specific ways:
Years ago, I considered that the complete PGN database was enough to build easily specific databases (player or any criteria, combinations of it, etc.) by using a database software.
Then I added a few search options, per player & per game (chess or Go), per opening, per rating (black or white) and per material for endgames... Of course, this will not replace a serious database like Chessbase.
I hope I was clear too... Does this help?
Graham Kerr (2020-08-02 00:34:05)
Chess engines levels from 1985 to 2020
would have been a whole lot better if it used a
rating based on performance rather than just someone's estimate...
Thibault de Vassal (2020-09-03 22:20:33)
Stockfish 12, neural network
Now it tops CEGT rating lists, 40/40 and 40/4
http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20List/40_40%20All%20Versions/rangliste.html
http://www.cegt.net/40_4_Ratinglist/40_4_single/rangliste.html
Garvin Gray (2020-09-18 07:05:09)
Stockfish 12, neural network
I do not put much faith in CEGT rating lists. What those rating lists measure is engine play v engine play.
Whilst that can be interesting to see if any 'newcomers' or updates are worthy of consideration, for our purposes of correspondence chess analysis, engine v engine play has some major limitations.
Steven DuCharme (2020-11-29 00:55:28)
On Another Site...
on another other site ratings will be reset to 1500 at year end
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-03 19:09:01)
What happened to all the players?
What happened to all the players? I see we used to have dozens of GMs and SIMs not to mention just a huge quantity of players here in years past. How do we get them back? It has become so hard to play on ICCF. Online chess is seeing this huge surge and even now more FIDE IMs and GMs seem to be trying correspondence for lack of other places to play. Why hasn't FICGS enjoyed some of this uptick as well as DMD, rating deflation and lack of events hurt ICCF.
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-04 01:39:36)
What happened to all the players?
Thibault,
You maybe misunderstand me or perhaps I am not being clear by conflating so many issues at once.
1) 1st issue, I did not mention Queens Gambit at all as this show has done very little for chess. The numbers were already skyrocketing on lichess, chess.com and other places due to lockdowns, lack of socialization and spending more times indoors. If anything, it is the SHOW that piggy backed on THIS trend in order to achieve its own popularity (not the other way around).
2) I mean to refer to the fact that many more players used to play here that no longer do which were very strong SIMs and GMs in 09-12 but they're gone now. Why?
3) The growth. Yes, I currently have two otb IMs I am playing against their first games on ICCF and I have already played against 3 GMs whose first games it was on ICCF. Look at the recently started USA/A It has 3 otb GMs that have no corr games. Or how about GM Sam Sevian? https://www.iccf.com/event?id=80817 GM Elshan Moriadiabadi https://www.iccf.com/player?id=517491 And on and on I could go.
4) Separate entirely is how hard it has become to find players of your own level to play, maintain one's rating and the DMD issues which caused LSS to announce their own special DMD rules.
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-12 18:01:32)
What happened to all the players?
Here I quote LSS rule:
"Dear Chessfriends,
in the past there have been many complaints about games where one player started moving slowly esp in a lost position, partially using the 30-day-per-individual-move rule to its extreme. To my opinion, this is not a good attitude of sportsmanship.
I have therefore developed a measure against this. Depending on the position, the used time of reflection and the ratings of both players, the server can detect such games with a high probability. Actually, the delay of games is already part of the LSS Rules, but was not in effect so far.
Effective 1st October, 2020, such games will now be stopped by the server and the delaying player will be suspended for 3 weeks to start new tournaments. Further penalties might be introduced, if required.
The algorithm will not be revealed to avoid misuse and it might be due to change without notice.
Best wishes
Ortwin Pätzold"
Herbert Kruse (2021-03-27 13:12:46)
Poker Rating
if someone goes all in all games and loses, why i dont get a rating?
do i have to fold??
Herbert Kruse (2021-03-28 15:10:13)
Poker Rating
This rule has good reasons to be maintained, whatever the game played : at least 10 moves must have been played so that it be rated...
Best regards,
Thibault
and i:
so if my opp goes all in and i have 2 aces i have to fold to get a rating win?
how can this be my fault?
Herbert Kruse (2021-03-28 15:11:55)
Poker Rating
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=129651
Herbert Kruse (2021-03-28 15:13:21)
Poker Rating
firtst i had 2 aces, 2nd 2 6ces and last K9
Herbert Kruse (2021-03-28 15:14:55)
Poker Rating
and i only called, he went all in - thats so unfair
Herbert Kruse (2021-03-28 15:42:14)
Poker Rating
i looked into the rules and didnt found any part, where at least 10 moves had to be played
and this rule would only make sence for chess and not poker
Thibault de Vassal (2021-03-29 01:20:13)
Poker Rating
It is not a question of "fault". It is a rule, nothing more. And yes, it does make sense in poker as well, exactly the same way (and it is possible to checkmate in less than 10 moves).
Christoph Schroeder (2021-04-03 12:51:26)
Poker Rating
I really don't get the point of disallowing the rating of short games. It is like saying: "If a football team scores a goal within the first 5 minutes, the game result is cancelled (how dare they score so quickly?)."
In chess: What is the justification for handling a blundering of a piece at move nine (game not rated) differently from blundering a piece at move 11 (game rated)?
In poker, Herberts example shows the whole absurdity of the rule. If you are playing a maniac, such games can happen. What is the reason for not rating these games?
Don Groves (2021-04-03 19:38:10)
Poker Rating
I agree with Christoph!
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-06 01:15:09)
Poker Rating
In my opinion it would be more like saying: "If a football team shows probable non-sportsmanship by playing without any effort...", in many competitions the result is impacted by such behaviour, in some cases the game is adjudicated.
Why move 10 ? Only because we need a clear rule. It is a choice and just like most rules, once we know it, we have to accept it to continue the game (and casually adapt our way to play). Anyway this rule was very efficient as for rapid forfeits, it is really useful.
Christoph Schroeder (2021-04-06 08:53:31)
Poker Rating
In OTB chess I once lost a tournament game in 10 moves, blundering a winning combination by my opponent. Was my resignation at move 10 non-sportsmanlike?
The reason for losing quickly is most probably a lack of skill or an oversight by one player. Both things happen every day and are part of the game. No reason not to rate the game.
The consequence of this rule is outright ridiculous: a player who has the chance to mate his opponent before move 10, would have to refrain from mating and intentially play weaker moves, hoping that his opponent will resign only after move 10. I think noone really wants to see games like that.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-07 01:18:50)
Poker Rating
No, it wasn't non-sportsmanlike for sure, good example... but should this game really be rated? (rated for the winner I mean, you lost some points in this case)
The other problem is that players trying to manipulate ratings could do the same and reality is that they do not (or very rarely) when there are 10 moves at least to play, so this rule is efficient to prevent this. And as we all know, no rule is perfect for everyone.
You are right, lasting a won game to move 10 would be strange but it is a choice and a price to pay... the main thing is that it should be rare.
Don Groves (2021-04-07 01:53:29)
Poker Rating
Sorry, Thib, but I think this is bad rule. We enter games in good faith that they will be rated, not doing so violates that good faith.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-08 00:27:08)
Poker Rating
Well, let's try to gather more opinions here... if players want such a change, it is possible.
Ilmars Cirulis (2021-04-11 13:54:18)
Poker Rating
Imo, the 10 move rule doesn't make sense for poker. It should be turned off (for poker only).
Don Groves (2021-04-11 16:57:33)
Poker Rating
Why does it make sense for chess?
Ilmars Cirulis (2021-04-11 17:55:56)
Poker Rating
Dunno, but it makes a bit more sense for chess (not sure if enough, and mostly I don't care as all my games are more than 10 moves anyway).
Poker has this option to go all-in which is legit move and sometimes can cause legit games that are less than 10 moves short. (If a player is crazy enough.)
Daniel Parmet (2021-04-11 21:54:28)
Poker Rating
I agree with Herbert.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-12 12:16:37)
Poker Rating
Thank you Daniel. Any others?
Yeturu Aahlad (2021-04-12 19:10:42)
Poker Rating
At big chess, it is fairly common for one side - typically Black - to be down a pawn early in the game. I have had at least one opponent immediately resign. At Go, a player may blunder in a corner and immediately resign.
On the other hand, I have won many games on time and in many of those cases, the opponent didn't make any moves at all.
Perhaps a subjective challenge deserves a subjective response - I am seeing sound arguments on both sides. Suggestion - if a game concludes under 10 moves, and the winner thinks she has a genuine grievance, she can appeal for the ELO grant and a referee will adjudicate. Herbert's case is very strong. If the losing side didn't make any moves, adjudication need not be allowed, or may be automatically denied. Too many frivolous appeals from a player can lead to disciplinary action including a loss of this privilege. (I don't expect that to happen in this community)
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-13 01:04:44)
Poker Rating
This rule was added when, more than 10 years ago, players asked for a non-subjective system, as automatic as possible (more algorithm, less human referees)... it looks like the debate is still open :)
Don Groves (2021-04-14 05:38:21)
Poker Rating
I recently had a Go tournament in which all six of my opponents failed to make even one move. Shouldn't this affect their ratings?
Yeturu Aahlad (2021-04-14 13:15:33)
Poker Rating
Yes, their rating is affected.
Don Groves (2021-04-14 19:46:39)
Poker Rating
Yet fewer than ten moves were made.
Yeturu Aahlad (2021-04-14 20:18:27)
Poker Rating
Yes - the current controversy is not about whether the loser should be punished. It is about whether the winner should be rewarded.
Don Groves (2021-04-15 05:01:39)
Poker Rating
If loser is punished, how can the winner not be rewarded? The game is either rated or it is not.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-15 14:39:10)
Poker Rating
Any player who forfeits without a good reason should lose some points IMO (maybe more or maybe less than a regular lost game, but here it is equal at the moment)... but should a player who wins such a game be rewarded when he played 0, 1 or 5 moves? I don't think so. If it was the case, it would be much easier to manipulate ratings.
Don Groves (2021-04-15 22:35:10)
Poker Rating
In other words, such games are half-rated.
Daniel Parmet (2021-04-15 22:41:32)
Poker Rating
Half rating games seems like a potential equitable solution where you at least gain 1 rating point / an idea anyways. It's merits TBD.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-16 14:35:19)
Poker Rating
To graduate a %-rated according to the number of moves played would not be a bad idea... why not.
Don Groves (2021-04-16 22:49:33)
Poker Rating
Do other chess sites have rules similar to those here?
Herbert Kruse (2021-04-25 17:00:30)
Poker Rating
2 more senseless rules:
u can fold after a check
and u can resign a pokergame
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-26 23:50:30)
Poker Rating
Don, I can't say...
Herbert, yes I always do something different ^^ you may be right but at least one player asked for that fold-after-check option in this forum (AFAIR) and well, why not.
Misha Allport (2021-04-27 20:18:08)
Players ratings
When are players' ratings adjusted? After each game? After each tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-28 00:56:13)
Players ratings
Hello Misha,
"My messages" page specifies : Dear chessfriends, the correspondence chess ratings and FICGS chess database have been updated on March 02, 2021 (next update around May 01, 2021).
Advanced chess ratings, big chess ratings, Go ratings & poker ratings are updated after each game.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-05-07 01:34:51)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
I understand your frustration Garvin, thanks for explaining your views once again and I'll try to answer each point (even if you do not answer anymore):
a) You were right on the Cup format Garvin, obviously. Probably on (many) other ideas... I just can't say.
b) I always thought & said that stable rules were important in many ways (that I explained), which is frustrating, I understand that.
c) As far as I remember, I added the possibility of double round-robin for 5-players groups after that discussion but indeed it was (probably) never used. Maybe the rule should be changed to "always double-robin for 5-players groups", that would be easy to do. A fact is that it is difficult to gather more than 3 or 4 opinions in this forum these times :/ By the way, if anyone can find this discussion where I agreeded something else than a possibility, then (my bad) I'll change it immediately.
d) I do think that a multi-stages tournament should have a pre-determined number of stages... (players should know what kind of engagement it represents) Maybe I just missed that point and a rule specifying that stage 1 groups will be built so that x to y players (no less, no more) will play round 2 could be added. Why not.
Herbert Kruse (2021-05-08 17:51:32)
Poker Rating
because these are real cheating, the other one (all in) is just playing high risc
Garvin Gray (2021-05-10 11:44:13)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
Groups with less than 7 players: https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=13002
FICGS__CHESS__CUP_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004
FICGS chess cup championship is a 2 stages round-robin tournament.
My wording: The two stage tournament is the basic design of the event and is hard wired into the event. The whole event was designed to be a two stage event, with large groups in the first stage, to ensure that the first round groups are competitive and also that no players received byes through to a second round based on rating.
I had to plead for years for this format and garner support from other players before you would agree to even run it as a trial in it's first year. And then in its first year, it received over 100 entries, a lot of top players entered and was a complete success.
So, I believe I have every right to be pissed off at you directly that it really does seem like you are attempting to unwind the format of this event.
The format is clearly described in the published rules, so for the site owner to so flagrantly ignore them can only be described as one of two actions:
1) Negligent
2) Deliberant
Thibault de Vassal (2021-05-27 00:02:46)
Waiting List Expiration.
Hello Misha.
No there aren't, but sometimes I may delete & close a waiting list (or change rating range) if there's no hope to fill it.
Garvin Gray (2021-07-05 08:37:02)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
I added the possibility only of double round robin in Wch because I was not sure it was necessary in every stages (obviously it finds more sense in a round robin final than in stage 1), but anyway I could make it more accurate."
So, in all ways, it sounds like I didn't specify that all 5 players groups in WCH should be double round robin.
Garvin - Are you now specifying that ALL 5 player groups will now be double round robins?
As for the first part, I think actually a DRR (double round robin) in stage 1 is just as important, if not more so.
Here is why.
Players are seeded from 1 to the last player across the groups, going back and forth across the groups to seed the second seeds, third seeds and so forth.
This then can produce large differences in ratings between the players in some groups, and in others, very small differences between the top two seeds.
And it is for this fact, and then that players 3, 4 and 5 are then going to be very far rated below seeds 1 and 2, that a double round robin is necessary.
Otherwise, the number 1 seed gains a rather large advantage by being white against the number two seed.
A double round robin in all groups that are 5 player avoids all these issues. It is only 8 games total.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-09 01:59:50)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Of course you make a point there, but it also questions 7 players groups (after all, rating difference between seed 1 & seed 2 is not much lower in average, and 12 games is still feasible in regular groups).
When groups should be double RR or not? Well, I agree that simple RR is not the most fair way, but as I explained about a decade ago, the idea of this championship was not to be the most fair, it was to multiply occurences without loading a too large number of games (and keeping rules as simple as possible, which was not a great success there by the way ^^).
Anyway, I won't say you're wrong, I think it was just a choice like another one.
But we can give it a try (maybe it will be a way to get some impressions & comments), so we'll have 5 players double RR tomorrow if it has to happen.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-11 01:21:11)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Sorry for the delay, I had to update a tie rule in the chess WCH (if tournament entry ratings are equal) to avoid to make the universe collapse ^^ More seriously, a special case occured and it was not ok with the former rule. The WCH will start on July 11th.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-11 12:58:27)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Sure, result decides first, but when it cannot, then ratings have a role to play, finally there must be a clear algorithm to decide in all cases.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-09-07 23:01:01)
ICCF ratings
Hello Juri,
No, FICGS ratings have no incidence on ICCF or FIDE ELO ratings.
Juri Eintalu (2021-09-08 01:00:41)
ICCF ratings
Thank you.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-04-27 02:35:00)
Ukrainian players clocks during war
Thank you... and thanks Herbert for having pointed it out (I could have missed it after all).
It's all fixed now (including my poker rating & Alexey's one due to that loss that shouldn't have happened), and I'll have the right tools to do it again around June 10. I'm afraid that will be necessary.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-08-15 02:37:37)
poker reflection time
Among those who will have 5 days left regularly, some will lose games on time, that will bring some trouble in ratings (some will consider this is a problem, others not), but yes, that's a possibility, it may shorten tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-08-19 02:51:26)
respectful legacy
Hello Yeturu,
Indeed, Aleksey is the last ukrainian player I didn't succeed to get news from yet (or who did not continue his games since the war started), after several attempts :/ I hope he's ok... The only Aleksey Payzansky on Facebook seems to be ok as of may, 2022 (no update since that time). As rules already specify, if I learn (soon or late) that he died during his games, his rating will be retroactively restored. But games have to end at one time, I guess.
About games where there is a clear lead, I don't think it can be a sufficient reason for adjudications, at least in poker games.
Misha Allport (2022-10-03 16:58:26)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?
If I am playing a stronger player(+600 points).do the number of moves I make in a loss affect my new rating?(i.e. do I lose fewer points being defeated in 60 moves as opposed to being beaten in 10 moves)?
Misha Allport (2022-10-11 01:48:33)
Rating System.....
.....which rating system(i.e Elo, Glicko, URS etc. etc.) is used by FICGS?
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2022-11-25 16:48:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years
In case of the openings I mentioned earlier, I think there is a possibility for white to hold on to an advantage. The problem is that with the superhuman playing strength of engines nowadays, one will have to study harder than before to keep up with the engine. But now, after I studied these variations in detail, it has become clear. In practice one nowadays will have to have the right approach before the game to the played opening, otherwise I think it is not doable anymore to find the way to any white advantage during the game. This can be frustrating, but also in OTB chess more and more engine designed defences are played, so it is prudent to study these "unbeatable" defences.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-07-27 19:06:48)
FIDE rating change proposal
Maybe you heard about this strange proposal made by a mathematician to make FIDE ratings (<2000) more coherent against some deflation...
http://en.chessbase.com/post/fide-seeks-proposals-rating-changes
http://www.chess.com/news/view/fide-mathematician-proposes-changes-to-improve-rating-accuracy
I'm somewhat doubtful about this idea to change some data rather than the algorithm, what do you think?
Herbert Kruse (2024-07-05 21:00:18)
Poker Rating
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=145577
so now its the other case but u lost
Herbert Kruse (2024-07-05 21:01:04)
Poker Rating
its unfair
Thibault de Vassal (2024-07-06 15:53:42)
Poker Rating
You were unlucky in this one, but you played better. Just a statistical happening.
Herbert Kruse (2024-07-06 17:05:34)
Poker Rating
but my opp won rating points, which i didnt some years ago, thats the problem
Thibault de Vassal (2024-07-14 03:15:45)
poker reflection time
We must consider all points here: If games are shorter, ratings will be less accurate. I understand the point, but there is no easy solution.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2024-09-10 14:05:28)
Group winners first stage of Ficgs WCH
For group 1 t/m 5 it is already clear as crystal who's going to win and for the last groups as well, but those are shared group wins. Sadly many players prolong their game. And for group 6 and 7 I can understand, since the rules are such that in case of a tie the group win goes to the highest TER and after that to the highest rating holder.
But wouldn't it be best to just start a second round ASAP with two groups of five players? Or will it really come down to TER's and most recent ratings?
I included an oversight of the group winners:
Group 1
Kireev, Sergey
Group 2
Hallqvist, Niklas
Group 3
Knittel, Martin
Group 4
Swiatek, Janusz
Group 5
LaDuke, Matt
Group 6
Gounant, Stanislas
Pech, Stepan
Group 7
DeBonis, Patrick
Broekhuizen, A. T. S.
Ward, David
Herbert Kruse (2024-09-15 08:45:44)
Rating System.....
When ist the next Rating Update?
Garvin Gray (2024-09-19 18:46:08)
Rating System.....
Correspondence chess ratings next update on November 1st, 2024. FICGS chess database has been updated on September 16, 2024.
Herbert Kruse (2024-12-01 11:12:22)
Poker Rating
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=146754
no rating again, i had Diamond ace king, should i have folded?????
Herbert Kruse (2024-12-01 11:15:38)
Poker Rating
rules have to make sense, else they are just stupid
Garvin Gray (2024-12-07 04:02:25)
New Tie Break System
Currently Ficgs uses TER as its first tie break if two or more players are tied for first in a round robin group.
I have thought for a long time this is rather unfair and gives way too much advantage to the player with the highest rating in the group.
The practical effect of this rule can be thus:
7 players in a group:
The difference in ratings between the players can be less than 100 points and seeds 1 and 2 can be as little as 2 or 2 rating points.
But with using TER as the first tie break, the top seed only needs to have score the same as everyone else to advance, which with engines nowadays, can quite often mean that all games in a group are drawn.
What I propose is to change the tie break system to the following:
1) Number of wins
2) Sonneborn–Berger
3) Direct Encounter
4) TER
A second option is to stop using such small groups where possible. This would then at least increase the likelihood of a positive result in the groups as more games are played.
Scott Ligon (2025-04-23 15:21:53)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
My goal is to find the minimal setting where Stockfish can't be beaten, or close to the minimal setting anyway. The title of the thread shows my point of view on this issue. I think currently available versions of Stockfish with relatively modest computing power are already good enough to be unbeatable, regardless of how much money an opponent is being offered or how many supercomputers and grandmasters they have at their disposal when devising a strategy. From the starting position of a game of chess, it simply isn't that hard for modern engines to hold the draw with black. The draw rate on this very site is evidence.
I could make the task easier by generating a small opening book to keep Stockfish out of trouble in the opening, so in the case of Stockfish 17 @ 15 million nodes it might be good enough to simply dictate that it play e5 in response to e4 (I don't know if that specific example is true but it might be - I never found any trouble spots for that strategy with black outside of the Sicilian). But I want to do this with no opening book and also no access to endgame tablebases, just the engine's recommendation using a set number of nodes for the search. The settings I've tried so far fell short, but I think they weren't far off, so I'm taking only small steps forward. Stockfish 17.1 @ 10 million nodes seems like a good next step to me. If somebody finds a winning line against it, then I'll take the next step, either increasing the node count or if enough time has passed I'll move on to the next version of Stockfish.
Stanislas Gounant (2025-05-17 22:45:27)
Changing in Poker game.
I play a poker Game and now when I watch the game, I only see the countdown of the clock I can't the the name of the player and is rating. Is it a good update or a bug
George Jempty (2025-06-26 23:39:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Yeah the only reason I'm winning in one of my games right now is because of poor play by my opponent. But 12 years ago or so I had an unbeaten streak for 2 years or so, with plenty of wins along the way (even one with Black with the Siesta variation against the Ruy) from an initial rating of 1900 or so, up to 2200+. The only reason I'm playing again now is too get some fodder for a chess opening book (about a different variation for Black against the Ruy) I've begun to write.
Herbert Kruse (2025-07-16 10:10:30)
Rating System.....
When ist the next Rating Update?
George Jempty (2025-10-07 17:20:01)
Cheating / Forfeiting
You know what angers me about these players, is that I entered a tournament when one of them was around 2150 and me around 2000, and I stood to GAIN rating points by drawing. Well they've forfeited a bunch of games and there rating is down to close to 2000, whereas my latest rating was 2125, and my future rating is over 2150 at the moment. So now if I only draw against them I stand to LOSE rating points, unless they forfeit against me, which may or may not happen,
George Jempty (2025-10-07 17:28:05)
Banning players who forfeit too much
Can't we do something about this problem? I now stand to lose rating points by drawing against a serial forfeiter who now continues to play against me after their rating went down over 125 points, and mine has gone up as much. I entered the tournament figuring however that I would gain rating points, except my rating in the meantime has gone up around 125 points. THIS IS UNFAIR. I propose that anybody that forfeits more than one game in a month, that they get banned.
George Jempty (2025-11-04 14:06:45)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
Yes, Dutch is OK, but 2.Nh3!? is a challenge, and I've won at least one game on this server with that. But the Benoni and Budapest are significantly worse IMO. Like I say a 2300-player tried the Budapest against me and I have something like a +2.5 advantage (according to SF17) at move 23. Yes, he was not at all careful and definitely made a couple of very bad decisions. Interestingly, I see the average ELO he face is 1900, so I think his rating is really inflated and he doesn't do so well against stronger players, whereas I'm currently at 2175, and the average ELO I face is 2100. I try to "play up" for the strongest competition, rather than "play down" to pump up my rating.
Garvin Gray (2025-11-04 16:15:02)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I have just seen the chat bar exchange where George Jempty has said:
You can play up if you are within 50 points, and now I am in and my account has been debited e points.
Where has this rule come from?
On countless occasions I have enquired about being able to enter a higher division than my rating when I have just been under the rating cutoff, and been told no.
The policy as I have known it has been that a player must win a lower division, and then can only enter the higher division when the field has gotten to the last two entries.
Has this policy changed?
If it has, then it would have helped to have it publicised, but also I would spoken against the changed as it makes a mockery of any rating divisions.
If this is the case, might as well call 2200 - 2600, 2150 - 2600
George Jempty (2025-11-08 12:11:03)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Hello Garvin Gray, there is a similar rule if you are within 50 points of the floor of the next higher group, and "the field has gotten to the last two entries", and you pay 10 e-points.
I think this policy helps fill up hard to fill groups, like standard-M. Nobody has joined the new/empty rating list for that group in the meantime.
On a personal note, my future rating just since the last update earlier this week, has even gone up over 20 points and now stands at 2199, AND I have a clearly winning position (+3.0 per SF 17) against a 2300.
IMO I am clearly worthy of standard-M, and am not making a mockery of anything.
Garvin Gray (2025-11-10 05:48:20)
Clarification of Rating Groups
George:
As I stated in my original post:
The policy as I have known it has been that a player must win a lower division, and then can only enter the higher division when the field has gotten to the last two entries.
Has this policy changed?
Your reply would fit if the player had won the lower division and was then trying to enter the higher division.
This is the rule I was quoting.
Your justifications about where your rating sits, or where your rating maybe in the future does not matter. Many players can show this pattern.
I certain have and have been stuck just below a rating cut off and when I have attempted to enter a higher division when there are two spots left open, I have been told no as I not won a lower division.
Therefore, this is why I am seeking a clarification from Thibault.
And it is only Thibault that I want a public answer from.
Either the rule has changed and it should be told to everyone, or an exception has been made for you, which is then clearly wrong as that is favouritism.
I have been told no in the past.
So, which is it Thibault?
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-10 17:23:03)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Yeah, I'd just want the same chances since I'm at 2274 and would like to join tournaments a tier up, but I don't see any "pay 10 E-points to join". I could claim that I've drawn +2300 players many times and "worthy of" being with the higher ups, or whatever it takes, but the purpose would be defeated if I get to face the same people I'm facing now because the +2300 tournaments would be full of 2250+ rated players.
Thibault de Vassal (2025-11-12 15:16:04)
Increasing the Number of Games in Progre
Hello Bahadir and Ulises,
That's an old debate... unfortunately I had to add this rule to protect other players from these too numerous unfinished games. Penalizing was not really useful as most of forfeiting players do not come back again. It works fine since that time, even if it can be a bit frustrating. In my opinion this is a good & efficient rule.
George Jempty (2025-11-17 23:47:07)
Clarification of Rating Groups
There is no favoritism in my case, the rule ALSO states if your rating is within 50 points of the higher group, that waiting list has at least 5 entries already, and you pay 10 epoints, you can enter. Perhaps those last qualifications have been amended since last time knew of the rule? I've just brought up my ratings to defend against that I'm making a mockery of this rule. So no favoritism, no mockery, and I'm done with this discussion altogether,
Garvin Gray (2025-11-18 02:55:42)
Clarification of Rating Groups
It is really annoying when the site owner does not bother to clarify this issue and instead leaves it to the players to have to dig through the rules themselves to sort out this issue.
Tickets for a higher class tournament :
However, when you win a rated tournament (only after that you receive an email specifying it or when the tournaments list shows your name as winner or co-winner of the tournament) or if your rating is at most 50 points below the low rating limit of the next class tournament's waiting list, it is now possible to buy a ticket for the next class tournament's waiting list (for example if you win a chess class A tournament, you may ask for a ticket for the next class M tournament) for 10 Epoints if the following conditions are filled : 1) No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise. 2) The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the tournament's waiting list. 3) At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list. 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament. 5) The possibility to buy a ticket is valid after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament]. 6) As the price for any ticket is 10 Epoints, the player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Garvin Gray (2025-11-18 02:57:20)
Clarification of Rating Groups
So, based on this, each time I have tried to enter a higher rated tournament and received a message saying, you are outside the rating range, this has been false.
The rules of this site have actually allowed me a method of getting in, but that automated message has not been updated.
That is extremely poor and has now left a very sour taste in my mouth.
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-18 10:33:59)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I demand a button that buys a ticket automatically when a player is elegible for playing a higher rated tournament and the Epoints to pay it are available, because right now, I have no idea how to do such a feat, in that case, Jempty outsmarted us all, unironically.
Not that my demands have any weight, I think people's lives have gotten better since they ignored me, and perhaps it'd be better for everyone if these rules remained hidden and nobody ever used them again (except Jempty would continue to play a tier up when able), but it's worth a try.
I don't have a bad taste but this has caused me physical pain in the lower back part of my head, is it stressful?
It's nothing personal against George, it's just that climbing the rating ladder is one of the most difficult tasks one can do in life, so when one sees a 2400 player, one respects them, because of all the time and effort they had to put to get there, which, for all players below that tier is immeasurable, if we could measure it we could have that rating too.
But someone getting there by buying tickets that allowed them to face higher rated opposition and take shortcuts to avoid dealing with lower rated players does cheapen the meaning of the number.
I guess it's all about the money, pay to win iff someone buys the Epoints for this reason, and holds a higher rating to skip a tier (note I said iff, not if, not accusing anybody of doing that.)
It's like buying a car instead of running the marathon, and the rating doesn't actually reflect chess skill anymore.
Bahadir Ozen (2025-11-18 13:32:10)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Mr. Ulises Pineda,
I read what you wrote. I understand and agree with you. However, you're missing a crucial point.
The FICGS website doesn't charge any fees for entering tournaments like the ICCF or other sites. And we know that the world is currently dominated by a capitalist system. Mr. Thibault's efforts shouldn't be discounted here. As correspondence chess players, our numbers are small, anyway.
There's a lot of effort involved, and you can contribute through e-points or donations.
At the end of the day, think about it this way: FICGS offers a free marathon service, and we're debating whether it should be 20 or 40 km...
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-19 06:45:16)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I'm contributing with my moves and participation in the platform, I also don't ask for money to the site owner to see my moves or to start new games, because it goes both ways, without players like me participating, the site would die, if someone gets a very sour taste in their mouth that they stop participating, it's the beginning of the end.
The players are needed, is the site needed? We're already playing a game in another place, Ozen, I see you making conditional moves over there that you can't send here, so what's the advantage of playing over here instead of playing over there?
At the end of the day, I come here because of the players I can face here, that only play at FICGS, so it's the only way. If they happen to leave because of some circumstances, then the site becomes pointless.
FICGS is its players.
FICGS needs the players more than the players need FICGS.
Gratitude goes both ways, I don't feel appreciated because the site's owner hasn't even replied here, because I'm just another useless player and if I left someone else would come to replace me, perhaps someone that buys tickets.
If I'm not valuable, if my games and move contributions are meaningless perhaps I should stop creating new games around here, there's other places that are completely free, have more features, and don't let players pay to get in higher rated tiers.
Bahadir Ozen (2025-11-19 08:46:16)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Mr. Ulises Pineda,
Of course, you're valuable. The time you spend, your actions, and your interaction enrich both me, the players, and the site. Thank you for your efforts.
It's clear that each site has its own infrastructure and process. Yes, we play on a different site, and there can be conditional moves there. But FICGS's games also go to the Corr Database, and they're respected. We can say it's a proven platform.
You're right about the ticket issue being annoying. In that case, the paying player has a slightly greater advantage.
I agree with you in the long run, but the person who keeps the site "usable" also puts in the effort. Perhaps a different update on this rule will be forthcoming.
Thibault de Vassal (2025-11-19 16:17:50)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Hi all,
Garvin & Ulises points are very good actually... I never thought about a button or something to remind that rule in the waiting lists.
I'll do it right now...
George Jempty (2025-11-20 22:23:26)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I guess I "opened a can of worms" by exercising the rule regarding the ability to enter a higher rated group. But in my case specifically, my future rating is now over 2200, so I personally believe there has been NO HARM DONE. But I intend to continue to use this rule, for instance to enter >=2300 tourneys, if/when I get to 2250, there are already five entrants, and I pay the requisite e-points. I didn't outsmart anybody, I just found the necessary rule at https://ficgs.com/membership.html#tickets. A button or some other mechanism however would be a great idea
Garvin Gray (2025-11-23 16:26:06)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Sent email to Thibault a few days ago to try and get into a group via the ticket system. No reply to email
Yeturu Aahlad (2025-11-25 23:27:25)
Poker ELO
Proposal: re-examine Poker ELO
Why? ELO is a heuristic designed for full information games involving no element of chance. In that space, it has stood the test of time. For games incorporating an element of chance, such as Poker, it is not ideal. As a data point, my evidence from FICGS is that a Poker player who goes all-in on every hand converges to an ELO of slightly over 2000. My last observation is from a long time ago, and one of these players (the much better one) has abandoned this strategy since then. There are many earnest players who deserve to out-rank such a simplistic strategy but don't.
Action: This subject has been studied, and the emerging recommendation is a simple change to the heuristic for games which incorporate elements of chance.
Research: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZXdehn029SaV6a5mxsn7WAMsxYNZPGHzZHKiBbeaxrw/edit?usp=sharing
George Jempty (2025-11-26 13:19:19)
New Tie Break System
I still like my idea of using it based on performance rating FIRST, I don't see how it gives the lowest entrant an advantage if the tournament ends in a tie between all players.
But lets say two players tie, and one of them has a higher performance rating because they beat a stronger player than the other, that ALSO does not give an advantage to the lower rated player that I can see. Rather, that player must have beaten a higher rated player than the other in order to have a higher performance rating. So if the higher rated player beat a higher rated player rated player than the lower rated player did, the higher rated player would advance.
Perhaps Garvin can weigh in a little more specifically about how being lower rated gives an advantage. But, under his idea, my proposed order would be, 1) Number of wins, 2) performance rating, 3) Sonnen-berger, etc.
Scott Ligon (2025-12-04 18:31:57)
Too many groups for tourneys
I agree, though I may be biased. My rating has never been high enough to get into the 2400+ tourneys, and currently isn't high enough for 2350+, unless maybe I could get a ticket once it fills up most of the way, or however that works. Seems like there just aren't enough active players at those rating levels. Interestingly, I noticed that two of the four players currently signed up for the 2400+ Rapid have never played a game on this site.
I wonder if there were more players a long time ago when the current tournament structures were set up, so those tourneys were getting filled regularly. But over the past few years the fields have thinned.
Garvin Gray (2025-12-09 18:40:17)
Too many groups for tourneys
The issue is not so much with rating bands, it is difference in ratings of the groups.
400 points in the groups is ridiculous. A 2500 player is not going to be the first to join a group when they know that a 2150 can also join that same group.
But once again, just like a lot of issues on this site, I have brought these issues to Thibault attention, some changes have been made, but the main issue of what you see now still remains.
Just like the rest of the issues that have been discussed, if Thibault does not agree, discussing the issue is a waste of your time.
George Jempty (2025-12-09 18:49:13)
Too many groups for tourneys
a) I agree about the rating bands and b) I wouldn't be so harsh about Thib, he maintains this site by himself
Garvin Gray (2026-01-28 17:36:07)
Too many groups for tourneys
Time to wind the clock back quite a few years. What I suggested as a solution to this issue was that the rating bands for the class tourneys and the rapid tourneys should have rating bands of 200 point differences, but they be at a different cut off.
What this meant in practice is.
Class tournaments
2600 +
2599 - 2400
2399 - 2200
2199 - 2000
1999 - 1800
and so forth
And then the rapids would be
2500 +
2499 - 2300
2299 - 2100
2099 - 1900
1899 - 1700
and so forth I think after quite a bit of discussion, Thibault decided that this idea was either too much effort, or that the rating bands I was proposing was too restrictive. I think the evidence over the years has proven my conclusions more correct. Players do not enter the rating band tournaments when there is a 400 point difference. These events only get filled by players who have a ticket from a lower tourney win, or they buy their way in by being less than 50 points in. But, to beat the drum again. If Thibault is not on board, it does not happen. And at this point in time, I am more concerned with fixing the 5 player round robin WCH group issue.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-29 02:00:04)
Too many groups for tourneys
Changing rating bands is not a big effort (at all), but it would ruin coherence of each category... and we should change it again if the number of players evolve again. That's quite like suddenly playing best of 2 and only 1 serve at Roland Garros. Why tennis does not evolve (while it is seriously concurrenced by Padel) more? Quite the same reasons IMHO.
Well, FICGS is not Roland Garros... of course, but I already made too many mistakes that ruined coherence there and there, with not so good consequences.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-31 22:56:08)
Poker ELO
Hello Yeturu & very sorry, for some reason I completely overlooked that post.
Of course I agree that ELO is not ideal for poker, I quickly changed some parameters to make it a bit more stable.
There are many many ways to do it different & probably better, particularly when not only H2H is played, but the idea was to do it looking like chess, so this is just a choice among many others.
Reaching elo 2000 with constant all-in does not shock me much as players under this rating probably do not play as many as hands (it takes time & many games to gain points)...
Garvin Gray (2026-02-13 02:36:18)
Is rating just a number on this site?
I am taking this comment from the chat to this forum for further discussion.
In my opinion, this statement is false. On this site, your rating is not just a number. Your rating dictates which tournaments you can enter and most importantly, when you enter a class/rapid group tournament, or a wch tournament, your rating dictates your chances of success.
Example: If you have made it through to the round robin final and you are the seventh seed, this means generally there is about 50 rating points between the top seed and the bottom seed.
But with TER being used as the first tie break, if you are the bottom seed, you have to win the group outright. Any ties and you are done. And so forth if you are the sixth player by rating for anyone higher.
The top seed in that group, who could only be the top seed by 1 or 2 points, in effect gets draw odds against the field. That is such an enormous advantage that it can not be understated how much of an advantage it is.
I think it is now so clear that your rating on this site is not just a number. It dictates everything about your playing experience. From which tournaments you can enter, to how you progress in the wch cycle and if you can get tickets to higher level tournaments.
Garvin Gray (2026-02-19 04:56:14)
Is rating just a number on this site?
So much discussion in the chat bar, but as soon as I take it to the forum, all I get is crickets.
Ulises Pineda (2026-02-21 04:35:44)
Is rating just a number on this site?
It became just a number after tickets were introduced.
I could easily have been 2400 if tickets were promoted from the beginning and I bought them whenever it was possible, even though I would have been playing at the same level.
For rating to matter you can't just let players play in the next tier, there's the strong 2400 players that got there beating others on their tiers or lower, but now there'll be 2400 players that bought tickets and drew their games of that tier, making it be just a number.
Garvin Gray (2026-02-22 07:45:14)
Is rating just a number on this site?
There are two types of tickets.
The first kind is when you win a lower class/rapid event and that qualifies you to enter the next higher rated event, but you have to wait until five players above the rating cut off have already entered.
This system was introduced to get tournaments started as each tournament would sit for months waiting for seven players who had ratings above the rating cut off to enter.
And then Thibault has extended the system to pay to enter, where you need to be 50 points lower than the rating cut off.
As has been said previously, one of the biggest issues is not either of these concepts, it is the difference in the rating bands for entering a tournament.
When a tournament is 2200 to 2600, no one who is rated 2500 is going to enter that event when 4 players who are rated between 2200 and 2300 have already entered.
I have already proposed a solution to this, but once again Thibault will not embrace change and we are stuck with what we have.
And I am going to say this directly. Those who are playing on here are growing increasing frustrated and how it is being run.
From TER, to rating bands, to tickets and many other issues, nothing changes.
And I think quite a few of us are reaching the point of walking away. I certainly am.
There is no point continuing on when the site owner will not change anything anymore. The only option left is to leave.
Stanislas Gounant (2026-02-27 22:12:08)
Next thematic tournament
I amused myself by looking at the most frequently played lines at the top level, stopping at the first six moves. Then I used Stockfish to evaluate the resulting positions. I was surprised to find that Stockfish rated a Benoni line +0.91 at 40 half-moves deep. I suppose there must be a lot of theory surrounding this line, but with a rating of +0.91, there's certainly enough to work with. Here's the line in question (sorry for the Google translation):
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6
Thibault de Vassal (2026-03-13 23:17:02)
Post-tickets FICGS
The long answer:
FICGS story is a quite simple & classic one, the reasons why it's declining are quite obvious, and unfortunately the solutions aren't. A bit of story:
1. Luckily, FICGS.com was created when there were a demand, just after IECG stopped... It grew very quickly, and I was in a rush to code it (FICGS was the very first dynamic website I ran from A to Z), there were ideas from everywhere. FICGS.com was the shortest domain name available, but not a so good one. Quite hard to remember, hard to tell, not clear for search engines (unlike chess.com which is a perfect one). Maybe it was a mistake to choose it, I can't tell. Either it meant "Free Internet Chess Games Server" or "Free Internet Correspondence Games Server", so I added another game, Go (Weiqi), to FICGS, which is a quite heavy decision: After that, FICGS is not only a chess server anymore.
2. A few years after, there are several thousands players (a few hundreds active). The number of new players slowly decreases month after month but a few sponsors come. Obviously, the way I coded FICGS made it more and more difficult to fully update from a PHP version to another one, or to change it in deep. Even now, I'm not sure to regret it though cause I couldn't have done it differently, so it is what it is. At this time, chess.com was less interesting than FICGS (my taste), but success is already here thanks to a perfect marketing formula: best domain name & pay for options. On the contrary, I chose to keep FICGS completely free.
3. Chess engines explode, correspondence chess continues its evolution (human's thinking decreases in moves decision), finally I add another game that is in a hype: poker texas holdem. New sponsors come, I still play correspondence chess myself but now I play another game even more: Google. FICGS also extends this way and it works in some ways. At its peak, FICGS is about the 32,000th most visited website worldwide. But the number of players continues to decrease, Android & phones started to change the landscape already. Chess.com released its app and added probably its best feature: a quick Stockfish analysis with evaluation & explanation for each move (which is excellent for blitz games but quite a non-sense for a correspondence chess website).
4. The number of players suddenly declines very quickly, I react by creating FICGS apps for Android, a dozen apps... On some apps, you can play against the machine, virtual opponents, chess 960, blindfold & so on. But the way to maintain it is not easy at all for many reasons, but the main one is that Google (Playstore) constantly change technical things & rules. After a few years, I even have to completely remake it, losing what was acquired. And some apps still fail to re-appear at Playstore, that's why I just made the APK files available to direct download. But these applications confirm something clear: blitz is more fun and attracts much more players. Changing rating ranges for correspondence chess tournaments or championships formats won't be a solution for this.
5. FICGS is now 20 years old! Internet completely changed over the years but it survived longer than Messenger, Skype & many other great services. If you look at many websites, new versions of their modern interfaces are often worst (bugs or options) than previous ones. FICGS was never perfect, maybe even clear, but at least it remained coherent. Now Google (just like all major services) is mainly governed by AI, sponsors left - that does not change anything, FICGS will continue to run. I created other websites, but none so far successfully helped in a way or another to solve the problem we encounter here: how to increase the number of correspondence chess, Go or poker players again? If FICGS becomes a pure correspondence chess site again with a brand new interface, I'm quite sure that wouldn't change anything or almost. I might be wrong of course, but according to me, this is a deep problem, connected to society evolutions, computers, phones, our attention, time, even health & so on... In my personal case, I wish to play correspondence chess again, but still cannot find the time to do it. Finally I have no idea what internet will look like within 5 years, but FICGS will be there. Maybe an AI will find a solution soon ^^ Meanwhile, I received many ideas to improve FICGS and I have to thank you very much for this. Few ideas were released for reasons I explained here (but new ones are always wecome), I hope you'll better understand it by reading this.
Have good games & take care!
Alan Ludgate (2026-04-01 05:26:40)
Post-tickets FICGS
Thanks for this post. Here are my ideas.
The problem for the 2400+ rated players is:-
most have left or stopped playing (not sure why) - so those who want to play have to reduce their activity or (probably) lose rating points. This is leading to a downward spiral.
To get more games played, how about:-
1. Award rating points as prizes.
And/or 2. Allow players to buy rating points, say 30 per year, provided they play at least say 10 games that year.
And/or 3. Players who play no games in a year to lose say 30 rating points. Players who play say 10 or more games in a year to get 30 rating points reward.
Adjust the numbers after a trial period.
Paul Guralivu (2026-04-03 08:40:09)
Is rating just a number on this site?
In terms of Tournament Rating range:
what can be done... like in IECG/LSS create 2 tiers of tournaments...
the current one where we have 2200-2600
and create another system: 2200 - 2400
2500-2600
(same for all the other categories)
Best regards,
Paul G.
George Jempty (2026-04-15 13:53:53)
Is rating just a number on this site?
Hello, I'd not responded earlier because I'd taken 45 days leave to begin the year, largely because of frustration around these very sorts of things. Even the 2300+ players do not enter 2200+ tournaments. It's not even because I want to keep drawing 2300+ players to inch my rating up, it's because I want the competition, to enrich my opening repertoire. Enriching my repertoire is the only reason I'm around here anymore, but not for long, not now that I've settled on 1.d4 and 2.g3
George Jempty (2026-04-15 14:15:22)
Too many groups for tourneys
PLEASE. CHANGE. THE. RATING. BANDS.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-04-16 03:05:15)
Too many groups for tourneys
Done... Let's try new ranges, somewhat more coherent with current ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-04-16 13:24:19)
Cheating / Forfeiting
Indeed. I observe it for years, but obviously rating is not the motivation so...
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
Social network : create your photo albums, discuss with your friends...
Hot news & buzz : discover the latest news and buzz on the internet...
Discussions : questions and answers, forums on almost everything...
Seo forums : search engines optimisation forums, web directory...
Play the strongest international correspondence chess players !
|
Marciz, Alexander (RUS) [member # 11810] Correspondence chess : 2501 FIM Ranked # 25 in the rating list. Rating history : No change this year. Advanced chess : 2332 Bestlogik - 2360. LSS - 2445.chess-land.com/ -1805.  This member has no profile in the social network. |
 | Correspondence chess World championship Play chess games Go (weiqi, baduk) Advanced chess Play big chess Chess trainer apk Rated tournaments Poker texas hold'em Fischer random chess |  |