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
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-14 15:32:51)
Rating formula
Hello Thibault!
Where can I found the exact rating rules of FICGS? I have found only these lines in the Memberships - Terms and Conditions:
"11. 7. Rating rules
The FICGS rating scheme is a numerical scheme, in which percentage results can be exchanged into rating differences, and rating differences into percentage performance probabilities. It is mainly based on the principles of rating calculations of prof. Arpad Elo.
The rating formula : New Elo = ((16 x Elo) + (Games x Perf)) / (16 + Games) ..."
What means "mainly based"?
You write in another topic
"1. The rating system do not take account of wins when the ELO difference is superior to 350 points "
Is this valid only for wins or for all games with a rating difference of more than 350 points?
Thibault de Vassal (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 :)
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 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-20 15:46:39)
Players for FICGS team (by rating)
Here is the complete list of players who registered for the FICGS vs IGAME.RU match. Unfortunately, a few players couldn't play :( .. I think our team is strong enough, as rating rules are quite hard at FICGS and some ratings are still provisional.
I don't know how players will be distributed on "tables", if it's freestyle I think Wolfgang should play at table 1.
I am also surprised to see players coming from IGAME.RU or russian forums who entered FICGS team !? .. Anyway, I'm sure there are no spies :)
Thibault de Vassal (2512)
Mark Noble (2496)
Wolfgang Utesch (2466)
Albert Popov (2463)
Michael Aigner (2354)
Janos Helmer (2343)
Miguel Pires (2270)
Leszek Tymcio (2270)
Alexander Shalamanov (2252)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2246)
Silviu Nenciulescu (2194)
William Taylor (2182)
Poulerik Jorgensen (2168)
Wayne Lowrance (2124)
Edward Kotlyansky (2114)
Christophe Czekaj (2098)
Konstantin Dudulec (2084)
Polina Romanova (2000)
Dan Rotaru (1937)
Nick Burrows (1884)
Garvin Gray (1863)
Vadim Khachaturov (1803)
Janusz Kepinski (1599)
Alexander Nent (1593)
Graham Cridland (1406)
Edmilson B. Lima (1400)
Sasha Lipsits (1400)
Ilmars Cirulis (1305 ~ >2100)
Than Serd (1300)
Charlie Neil (1212)
Phil Cook (1132)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-20 22:54:33)
Internet chess
Well, the discussion with Tryfon Gavriel continues at TCCMB. As I had to explain the way I make FICGS, I copy my responses here :
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.15
Hello again Tryfon !
That's a very interesting discussion...
Actually I have to explain FICGS in its whole to respond :) .. To be continued for sure..
While registering a new member wrote to me a few months ago "Thanks for creating this ultimate chess challenge" or so... That's exactly what I try to do, mostly with the FICGS championship knockout & round-robin rules... Players just want challenge, that's the only assumption I start with, so I try to create interesting challenges. About the intellectual part, you're right but I'm quite sure that top level correspondence chess players still consider their game as an intellectual challenge, much more than a brute force or computer skills one. That's not the case for Advanced chess with fast time controls.
Let's take a look at the bicycle races again... The "Tour de France" is dying IMO.. because everyone understood we "don't know" if the champion is ok.. If doping was allowed (it would be a scandal for health of course), I'm sure the interest would raise again ! I think it is the same for chess & for everything else... The "Tour de France" syndrom happened in Elista with the match Kramnik vs. Topalov... It will have consequences. We need champions and we want true champions, every means are ok for this ! .. So the "engines allowed" rule is the only one possible or reasonable in my opinion.
Of course, chess & correspondence chess are changing, because these "walls" are nearer & nearer... maybe chess will die, maybe not.. The main problem is that in 1997, a super computer became World Champion... this year a "simple" computer Deep Fritz became world champion, soon Rybka on a cellular phone... :) Who is really interested to be a champion in "human category" ? FIDE world chess championship will continue to progressively lose its interest IMO...
Correspondence chess is just starting to grow in popularity and is told to be dying already. Surely correspondence chess will ask more & more time at a high level to win a few points, but it is possible to create more challenge by ie. changing the rating rules (the "design" of Elo rating system will become a problem).. Then, if it is not enough, we'll look for other challenges... It's told for years that Go (Weiqi) will replace chess in western countries... why not Big chess as the "brain only" game if there can't be doping in it.. just trying, as there's no other solution :)
A word about Poker of course, as it's probably the fastest growing game in popularity : IMO this game is at a stade like chess in year 1900, but the same problem will happen, even quicker. At a high level the game will be just more and more boring (if you wish to win real money) or chancy (in a wch tournament), or you'll have to always find weak players (well, not very challenging).
About the simultaneous exhibition against Alekhine or Capablanca, I'm not sure at all they would crush everyone at our chess servers, they are undoubtly more talented than all of us, but I feel it wouldn't be enough in all cases to win against correspondence chess style of play & knowledge accumulated for 50 years... A few players rated OTB 2000-2200 could draw against them IMO...
At last, yes I'm a fan of Sun Tzu's "The art of war" :) .. I strongly believe that correspondence chess will not die in the next few years because players will follow its principles more and more, as the only way to win ! .. Big chess follows the same principles... and Go is the most challenging game because of it too !
Tryfon, I'm not sure that we're opposite in our vision of chess ! .. Our servers have obviousy different goals, nothing more.. I do enjoy playing mad blitz games without chess engines... I just believe that the future of internet chess is "serious (engines allowed, rated) correspondence chess" on one hand and "human chess for fun (no engines, unrated)" on the other hand... The other ways look like nonsense to me.
I hope it responds.
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-22 01:51:23)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls
That's an idea, but I'm making some changes to help to find opponents more easily. I hope it will help...
First, experience shows that rating rules are still too hard IMO : A player winning or drawing against another one rated 350 points more most often means the lower rated player should be rated higher, not the contrary... A few games only are concerned, but with provisional ratings such results are still not fair, and many players rated 2100 to 2300 fear to lose points in the chess WCH, even if they win their groups. This rule should allow strong players not to fear (too much :)) to play against anyone in rated tournaments without rating restrictions, like blitz & lightning ones.
Consequently, the rule "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 350" will be changed to "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 200" in a few hours.
The entry fees & prizes (E-Points) will change also, most important is to attract more players to start more advanced chess games.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 06:06:29)
Chess Engine Strength
Hello Glen !
I see your point, that's quite true and a consequence is what I called at TCCMB "the extensive nature of elo rating", however rating rules are more dynamic at FICGS.. So, let's say Rybka playing the FICGS championship against players of all kinds of ratings in the round-robin cycle... Anyway 2200 is only my feeling.
I understand your views about "rybka" [correspondence] chess nowadays, even if I don't agree with it completely. I saw some of your CC games played at IECG, and it looks much more like 'good old' chess with some unusual and beautiful tactical openings than typical 'correspondence computer chess' nowadays. I do believe there will be a place in the next CC years for more weird openings like bird, king's gambit, english... Also take a look at Peter Schuster and Wladyslav Krol games here !? .. Nothing boring with them, chess engine or not :)
Also advanced chess games with fast time controls could be quite interesting to watch in future as a way to see granmaster games with chess engines avoiding blunders 'only' (ok a bit more). We don't know exactly the human part in it, but draws won't be the rule for sure.
What is "boring" at correspondence chess (not new) is that achieving a top rating take a long... very long time ! .. But this is a great challenge yet IMO.
At last, thanks for you kind words :)
Best, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 18:35:15)
Rating rules update
Hello to all.
As I said in another thread, experience shows that rating rules were still too hard IMO : A player winning or drawing against another one rated 350 points more most often means the lower rated player should be rated higher, not the contrary... A few games only are concerned, but with provisional ratings such results are still not fair, and many players rated 2100 to 2300 fear to lose points in the chess WCH, even if they win their groups. The new rule should allow strong players not to fear (too much :)) to play against anyone in rated tournaments without rating restrictions, like wch, blitz & lightning ones.
Consequently, the rule "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 350" has been changed to "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 200"
All correspondence chess results of these last 2 months & in the future will be affected, as well as future advanced chess & big chess results.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-01-25 11:59:22)
Rating rules
Hi Thibault, will games rated also if one player withdraws without any move (or only a few moves < 10)? I can understand that the withdrawing player should be penalized by negative rating, but not if the "winner" will get positive rating! Otherwise the FIGCS ratings will be a farce or better a gamble! i.e. Ingersol - Popov 8:0 without any move by Popov (TER 2463) in WC quarter final 4-000003
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-03 22:27:43)
Rules change
:) ..
Actually provisional rating rules & registration page (default value) have changed between the time Wayne registered and Hao registered...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-15 12:43:07)
Unfought draws & rating calculation
An interesting article at Chessbase.com on unfought draws (mathematical, logical and practical considerations), also called "grandmaster draw" in the article, and ways to avoid it, by mathematician and logician Kung-Ming Tiong, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4513
I notice that the main solution proposed just looks like FICGS rules for advanced chess (Performance +/- delta according to the color) :-D .. Anyway I still have to take some time to make this part of the server more attractive.
This thread may be a good place to ask for a feedback about FICGS current rating rules (for both chess & Go), what do you think ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (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."
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-06 12:15:23)
Loss / Resignation
You mean here at FICGS or FIDE ? Here, resignation or loss is the same, all rating rules are here :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-26 19:24:09)
do better next time :)
lol Garvin ! no he was probably right (because of the small advantage given to black), I corrected the advanced chess rating rules already.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-27 01:50:07)
Chess rating calculation
Hello Pablo! Bonnes fêtes également :)
All rating rules are explained here (there's a french version), feel free to ask if you have any question.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
About the 10 moves rule, why 10 more than 9 or 8... well there must be a clear rule & easy to remember. I don't think that miniatures are a big problem, there may be an "unfair" situation in some rare cases, but it shouldn't happen at 2100+ elo ratings. The rule may be not perfect but I did not find a better one yet (any idea? :)).
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 14:30:18)
Wider rating range tournaments
I also think about the possibility to imitate the advanced chess (Go as well) rating rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8375
There may be several advantages to this:
1) It would give a better image of the quality of the games compared to the past as engines are stronger and stronger but ratings do not increase in average...
2) It would allow players to access more easily the next category...
3) Old best ratings achieved a few years ago wouldn't be unbreakable anymore...
4) It may motivate retired players to come back to the fight :)
What do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-02 19:50:00)
Update for BigChess & Poker rating rules
Hi all, it was a long time there wasn't any update in rating rules.
First of all, as the number of results at Poker Holdem is quite high, I feel that a change should be tried so that ratings move less fast.
Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((38 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 40
Case of a loss : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40
As for Big Chess, the ratings deflate because there isn't the same rule than in Poker or Advanced Chess, this is now fixed :
If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2000, his new rating his :
New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20
Otherwise :
New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
This rule may look strange from a mathematical point of view, but combined to the other rules that provoke deflation, it gives really good results IMHO. Let's see how it works here.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2011-02-06 14:06:40)
Update for BigChess & Poker rating rules
Hello Thibault,
the previous poker rating rules I like better - although I currently much benefit from the new ones :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-06 14:30:22)
Update for BigChess & Poker rating rules
Yes, ratings change more slowly, let's give it a try & continue the discussion, we'll make a step back if it doesn't prove to be better.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-21 19:46:09)
Folding in Poker
I cannot remember any change for the poker rating rules!? See there:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_poker_holdem
When you win or lose a game against a similar rating, you still win or lose about 20 or 30 points so it goes quite quickly... And even faster under 2000.
The fact is that Nelson is really hard to catch :)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 23:49:28)
Folding in Poker
For those who may join the discussion, the question is: should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2012-02-25 01:28:45)
Rating Rules in Poker
I don't know which rule is better. Maybe the old was more attractive.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-04 22:08:50)
FICGS poker ratings
Let's continue the debate that started in this discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10306
I'm still not sure of what is best but our top ranked poker player for a while (Nelson Bernal Varela) obviously participated to the discussion his way by resigning all his poker games to show us how much time it will take to regain his points.
His rating was about 2200, now 1924 and the date is march 4th, 2012.
As we're playing single round-robin tournaments only, the rating list was not so distorted but this is not at the advantage of class B players. Of course I do not encourage this behaviour in any way!
However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.
This would actually justify - in my point of view (maybe Nelson's one too but I'm still not sure of what he's thinking about that) - the current poker rating system, so let's wait 1 month or 2 before to decide to make this change or not.
As a reminder, the initial proposal was: "should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now ?"
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-04 22:15:16)
Folding in Poker
@Scott : By the way Nelson's rating peak is at least 2293 (august 23, 2010)
This occured before the rating rules change.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-05 00:22:47)
FICGS poker ratings
I knew that you would answer this way... And you are right on several points.
I read the rules before to write this, we could envisage to change the rules on the general forfeits issue but it wouldn't probably be so easy to "fix" it. Maybe another discussion is needed.
About chess, this has been done the same way several times for different reasons, see Wolfgang Utesch, Wayne Lowrance... The only difference is that Nelson gave a bad reason (with the excuse that he may have done this to help to find the best rating rules, which was not necessary). But he could have said something else. What would be the perfect rule? The current rule was probably discussed in the forum previously. Nothing better was found, that's all.
Anyway, this site stands for applying rules... and IMO I have the choice between doing nothing in this special case and preventing Nelson to enter a waiting list during 2 months. Nelson was totally wrong to do this... (also because of Paul's previous message that proves that it is possible to climb the scale quite quickly, which IMO goes in the way of not changing the rating rules) but now that it's done, I think that the best thing for the site is to let him continue, at least we'll learn something from this and it will improve the rating rules.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-05 13:36:51)
FICGS poker ratings
Paul, then do you agree that the current poker rating rules are fine? Because of your rating history and because it avoids the possibility to have significant rating peaks by delaying to lose games that are almost lost? (seems logical to me)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-05 16:51:57)
FICGS poker ratings
Ah, another argument for the current rating rules: unlike advanced chess, bullet poker games count for the same rating list, so it is quite easy and fast to win points this way.
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.
[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 !
|
Caire, Francois (CAN) [member # 180] Correspondence chess : 2457 FEM Ranked # 49 in the rating list. Rating history : No change this year. 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 |  |