 |
| Home |
| Informations |
| Login |
| Register |
| Waiting lists |
| Membership |
| Hall of fame |
| Tournaments |
| Best game |
| Wikichess |
| Rating list |
| Problems |
| Forum |
| Links |
| Help |
| About |
|
Game result (go) T. von Erichsen, 2100 Y. Nabe, 2345 0-1 See game 21679 |
|
Anand wins the 13th rapid championship in Mainz Evgeny Alekseev wins Biel category 18 tournament Hillarp-Persson won the swedish championship 10/13 Karjakin beats Short 7.5-2.5 in Kiev Life Rapid Peter Leko wins Sparkassen Meeting in Dortmund Michal Krasenkow wins Mumbai Mayor’s Cup Ivanchuk beats Anand in León Rapid final 2,5-1,5 Carlsen beats Leko 5-3 in Miskolc Lenier Dominguez Perez wins Capablanca Memorial Yury Shulman wins 2008 U.S. championship more chess news... |
|
Feng Yun 9p wins 2008 North American Ing Masters Myungwan Kim 8p wins 2008 U.S. open (wei'chi) MoGo beats Myungwan Kim 8p (9 stones handicap) GnuGo wins congress comp. tourney, Many Faces 2nd Hong Sungji 6p wins Korean Price Information Cup more Go news... |
|
In the forum... Money games... Moneybookers, Paypal, credit card and bank transfer are available to play money games... Affiliate links... Win E-Points by linking to us as an affiliate, for each new member referred by your link, 1 E-Point will be added to your account... E-Points prizes... Ficgs now offers free games & tournaments with E-Points prizes... Rybka 3, Fritz 12... Rybka 3, Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13, your predictions on forthcoming chess engines... Translators... Translators are needed for chinese, japanese, indian, romanian, polish home pages... Vacation help... Hello all, I've entered a vacation time in error. Is it possible to cancel the vacation ? |
|
Last referers : WIKIPEDIA XMP SPAGHETTICHESS LIVE ICQ |
|
Feel free to link to this page to get referer backlinks to your website ! |
Want your banner here ? |
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.
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...
Håkon 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, Håkon 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)