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) S. Ligon, 2321 M. LaDuke, 2326 1/2-1/2 See game 152178 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Back to forum
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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 :)
Dorel Oltean (2006-06-15 13:14:09)
Criteria
In round-robin qualifing criteria is first number of points and then rating? In round-robin tournaments one can choose other criteria, after points, like Soneborn, number of wins, .., related to the performance one made. In rating list there are a lot of "provisional" ratings , which will become much too important.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-16 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. :-)
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.
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 (2006-08-22 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.
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.
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 :)
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
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
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 13:59:06)
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 (2007-02-10 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) :)
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 ?
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 (2007-04-01 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 (2007-04-11 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.
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...
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 (2007-06-01 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 :)
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.
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 :)
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?
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.
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 :)
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 (2007-06-22 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.
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.
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 !
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 (2007-06-27 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 (2007-07-14 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
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.
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.
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 !?
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 (2007-10-31 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 ?
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 (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.
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...
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.
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 ?
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
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 (2008-09-02 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
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 (2008-10-03 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 (2008-12-06 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 ?
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.
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...
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 (2009-03-31 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 22:48:41)
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
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.
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.
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 (2009-05-29 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.
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
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
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.
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...
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 (2009-11-03 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 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 (2009-11-30 21:19:51)
Computer assistance
It is clearly impossible to top a correspondence chess rating list without computer assistance... IMHO :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-24 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 ?
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.
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
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 (2010-04-21 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.
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 (2010-05-10 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...
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%
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 (2010-10-01 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.
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.
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/
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?
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.
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 ;)
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 12:38:23)
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (2012-03-05 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.
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.
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.
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).
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 (2015-05-11 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.
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 :)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2016-05-26 16:49:15)
Bugs after the server crash
... and in the rating lists:
Caire, Fran�ois
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.
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.
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 (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 (2020-03-02 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 :)
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.
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.
[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 !
|
Gueci, Alberto (ITA) [member # 185] Correspondence chess : 2580 FEM Ranked # 6 in the rating list. Rating history : No change this year. Go : 1496 Advanced chess : 2153 I'm 59 years old and i live in Palermo (Sicily). I'm quite weak on the board so I'm engines dependent ;-) 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 |  |