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
Per Lea (2006-04-08 23:15:01)
Elo overlap
I think the overlap is a great idea. The ratings may come from a lot of different sources and are therefore not necessarily compatible. My ICCF rating is 2136 (why I was given 5 extra points on FICGS, I cannot explain...), but my Norwegian OTB rating is 1631 or thereabouts. That number is probably more realistic....
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-09 16:46:25)
Qualifying
I didn't know this system !? Is it really efficient ? How to designate the (4) winners of the round-robin cycle ? Then the semi-final (players bye :/) seems to be a stage more... Means at least 6 months more to end the cycle.
I think the combined round-robin / knockout cycle is fast and fair enough... The 2 first players (designated by the highest ratings in case of equality) of each round-robin tournament will be qualified for the next stage.
The rules for world championship have been updated.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-15 16:36:17)
Criteria
Hello Dorel and Daniel.
As you noticed, rating is quite important in FICGS world championship cycle (particularly established ratings, obtained from IECG / ICCF or after 9 games finished in FICGS) !
I think these rules are really the best choice in order to designate a world champion. It's more logical IMO to favour players who obtained previously the best results in FICGS and recognized organizations, and consequently a high rating. It takes time, of course. Even very strong players starting with a 1700 rating won't achieve a 2300 established rating before months !
Criterias in FICGS wch are (from most important to least) :
1) Winner of the previous cycle (qualify for the final match)
2) The eight best established ratings (play the KO tournament)
3) Points obtained in the wch tournaments
4) The tournament entry rating (TER)
Of course, there are some provisional ratings that will increase a lot, but it is not possible to grant a 2300 rating to any player saying so. It's already a lot of time gained that ratings from FIDE, ICCF, IECG be recognized.
Finally it is the same in IECG / ICCF : it's very hard to achieve a high rating, it's very hard to directly qualify for a 2nd stage too, it takes months, probably years in email chess...
Now, please consider this, if we start 1st wch at stage 1 : It won't change anything for your play, as the 1st stage of the 2nd wch is exactly the same... 2300+ players won't play before months... and if the rule is changed about 2300 mark and everyone playing 1st stage, probably all games for 2300+ players won't be rated with a 100% result... and at last it will be harder for you to qualify for 2nd stage...
It is a hard work to write rules as fair, balanced and interesting as possible. Rules can't satisfy everyone, sorry about that.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-16 11:35:05)
Elo rating calculation
Hello Thibault!
How are provisional ratings are treated?
Two notes to the rules:
1. You write: "Bonus is given by the Percentage (100 * Points / Games) obtained" and "If the percentage is negative, ..." Percentage cannot be negative. I think you mean: If percentage < 50
2. You write "Please note that Bonus is limited to 470 points". Why do you write other values for 96-99 % in the Bonus-Table?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-16 13:46:10)
Right...
Hello Heinz-Georg.
Thanks for help :) Indeed, I've forgotten the parameter for provisional ratings (that evolve quicker than established ratings)... I'll change these points within hours. (right, 95 to 99 values in the bonus table are useless, but it is informative about the formula)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-16 13:55:54)
Statistics, ELO and performances
Hello Thibault!
"About performance, that's not quite true a 2200 player couldn't perform more than 2050 in stage"
Maybe you are right, if most of the players have an established rating. But you can see at the rating list that more than 50 percent of our ratings are provisional - most of them with 1700. The question is how many of these players are good or very good (like Daniel)?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-16 14:13:29)
Statistics, ELO and performances
Time and ratings will answer to that... It takes a few months for ratings to find themselves ! The same in FIDE and wher'ever...
Next rating list will be calculated on july 1st. :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-27 16:58:03)
FICGS world chess championship
A minor update in the rules that fixes many problems for future wch cycles... Nothing has changed in the rules for the 1st cycle that begins in 4 days, changes only concern next cycles, with the extension of the one-time rule mentioned above.
The equation was :
- No confusion with the cycles when entering the waiting list (2300+ players qualified for 2nd stage of the previous cycle is too confusing).
- Avoiding tournaments with too big rating gaps (and encourage high rated players to participate)
- The formula combining knockout tournament, round-robin cycle (so that everyone can play wch, with no more than 5 stages), and the final 2 players matches in the last stages.
- Making it as understable as possible...
It is now mentioned in the rules that 2300+ players will play 1st stage in high rated groups (ratings superior or equal to 2300). Winners of such groups (same criterias) will be qualified for the 3rd stage round-robin tournament, the others will play 2nd stage.
As all games are played with rapid time controls, a new cycle will probably begin every 6 months !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-01 17:44:41)
Format For Championship
Hello John.
After all, if it wasn't unusual, the interest would be lower for sure... :)
So you noticed, the 8 players with the highest established correspondence chess ratings play a pure knockout tournament.
I thought about this format a long time ago (and a long time). Combining a knockout tournament (more "spectacular") and a round-robin cycle (everyone can play, no more than 5 cycles) gather together the advantages of both. It is one of the reasons I made FICGS... I think pure knockout or pure round-robin wch cycle is not efficient enough for chess championships.
The other thing you'll notice in the rules : "The special rule is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."
This rule (in case of equality in the round-robin tournaments, the player with the strongest TER is qualified too) is another way to avoid short draws... It may sound strange at a first sight, but I really think it's fair enough and a good way to find most probably the really strongest players in the last stages. Anyway, it's amazing for sure :)
The FICGS chess wch rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tournament
Peter Konig (2006-07-02 10:50:19)
rules & ratings
Hi, the rules on registration were different, and stating personal rating seemed just to be of informative value, no checking of numbers or anything. Now, it seems that I have a disadvantage by stating that, I feel treated second class (I wholeheartedly ackowledge that there are much stronger players around) and my motivation dropped considerably. it is like in real live. There are people earning more or less money, but they should be equal before the law (rules). That's in the spirit of 1789! Je t'embrasse, Peter Konig
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-02 12:52:15)
rules & ratings
Hello Peter.
Indeed, you were one of the very first registered players. I have fixed the rules since this time, though it seems to me this point was the same already.
Anyway, ratings of course are not only informative (like in life :)), as it allows to play class tournaments. Now, there must be a way to choose a winner in certain cases, even if there's no "perfect" way. But if you win the tournament, there's no discussion. It only lights the battle a little more... When a player register he can ask for a >1700 rating only if he has got an "official" rating already, so the influence of choice is not so important at registration.
Your reference to 1789 is amazing, but actually we ARE equal before the law (rules). Doesn't mean the law is perfectly fair, that's impossible, of course. Like in life... The rules slightly favourize the best players. Je t'embrasse itou :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 01:25:41)
Go rating list
Hello Sebastian.
So it was a GO rating about Ion... (I did not understand that :/)
Still thinking about a Go rating list... If I implement something would it be better to have only informative ratings (from federations) or rating calculated from the games played here (probably not very relevant) ?
Anyway, players who didn't play a single chess game with a rating <1700 (~not from FIDE / IECG / ICCF) won't appear on the chess rating list in a while.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-21 11:24:02)
Mise a jour classement ELO
Bonjour Eric.
Tout est lŕ (11.7) : http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general
"The rating period is 2 months. The first period of a year starts on January 1st. For ratings calculations, the opponents' Tournament Entry Rating (TER), which are valid on the day of the rating run, are used."
La prochaine mise ŕ jour sera donc pour le 1er septembre.
Benjamin Aldag (2006-08-17 19:42:02)
Ratings ???!!!
Hello, i have a question about the Rating-System here. There are many players here, with an offical FIDE or NATIONAL ratingnumber under 1800. Some of these players have here at FICGS a ratingnumber over 2000 !!! Of course, this is correspondence-chess, but it would be a nice ratingfeature, to include the official FIDE/NATIONAL ratingnumber at the FICS-Ratingformula. Benny
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-17 21:57:51)
Ratings FIDE / ICCF
Hello Benjamin.
These players probably have an established correspondence chess rating over 2000 at ICCF or IECG. Players can't be forced to specify their FIDE rating, but they can do it in the 'player informations' text area.
Jaimie Wilson (2006-08-19 17:42:17)
Ratings
I understand that the ratings on here are special ficgs ratings that are brought up to date every two months.
Joachim Nettelbeck (2006-09-03 16:33:42)
First mover loses
I think that besides the entry fees there is areason, why nobody seems to enter these tournaments: First mover loses! When I see someone with, let's say, a rating of 2000 has entered a tournament, and I'm below that, I will never enter it, too. Not if it's about money. So only people with higher ratings will enter, and the first mover is likely to lose his money. Thus nobody enters first. There is a procedure needed which guarantees that the opponents in this kind of tournaments are close to each other in their rating. Or at least the ones who enter will need to be invisible...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-08 18:10:52)
Chess tournament : Zero-sum or not ?
While discussing about Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", and the question "Is the best player always the champion ?" (of course not IMO) , I was argued that any chess tournament "was" (actually could be "reduced to") a zero-sum game :
"In 1944 John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern proved that any zero-sum game involving n players is in fact a generalised form of a zero-sum game for two persons, and that any non-zero-sum game for n players can be reduced to a zero-sum game for n + 1 players; the (n + 1) player representing the global profit or loss. This suggests that the zero-sum game for two players forms the essential core of mathematical game theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum_game
It seems to me that it's out of topic, but I couldn't say exactly why... In my opinion, a tournament is nearer life than game, at least quite far from it. Much more rules, often complex ones, and results that depend on many parameters you couldn't influence...
The word "champion" depends on accurate rules (the best player could finish 2nd, even if he wins all games ie. in an open tournament..), the "best player" depends on general opinion (most commonly through ratings), ie. Topalov vs. Kasparov ...
What do you think ? :-)
Where the discussion started from :
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060907/sirlin_01.shtml
I agree with many points about how to win, but the use of some words seems to be dubious...
I like much this quote :
"I was surprised to see that Capablanca did not initiate any active maneuvers and instead adopted a waiting game. In the end, his opponent made an imprecise move; the Cuban won a second pawn and soon the game. “Why didn’t you try to convert your material advantage straight away?” I ventured to ask the great chess virtuoso. He smiled indulgently. “It was more practical to wait.” "
—Mikhail Botvinnik, 6th World Chess Champion
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-14 05:19:28)
Greetings from GameKnot :)
Hello friends, my name is Thomas, and I am the representative from GameKnot. We look forward to playing a match against you! GameKnot has played two matches vs. other sites in the past, and we have enjoyed the competition very much. It is my sincere hope that we can pull this thing off! As FICGS is a newer site with a smaller community than ours, we hope that you guys can field a team of approximately 12-20 players of ALL ratings ranges. We intend to put up at least 2 players in each of 7 ratings classes (U2400, U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400, and U1200). The rules of the match are currently being negotiated between Thibault and myself, and we would like to commence as soon as possible. I highly encourage the members of FICGS to participate, as these matches are a lot of fun! You guys will get a chance to visit our site, and we yours. Please contact Thibault and sign on! We look forward to seeing you OTB :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-15 03:08:36)
Ratings used
It's logical IMO to consider OTB ratings if we all play in OTB conditions, without computer assistance... FIDE or self-estimated OTB ratings should prevail over CC ratings (ICCF, FICGS or so) for the pairings.
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-16 23:46:58)
Udate from GameKnot:
I just wanted to give you guys a heads up as to the players from my site that are being CONSIDERED for playing in the match. As ratings fluctuate, I have simply rounded and given approximate strength: mateintwo - 2400+ cyrano - 2400+ cairo - 2300+ fmgaigin - 2300+ drdesoto - 2300+ papani - 2300+ harlekin - 2300+ nestorix - 2300+ drunken_rabbit - 2200+ kumpan - 2200+ grandpatzer - 2200+ os5213 - 2200+ carlosmart - 2200+ chrisp - 2100+ nottop - 2100+ gloomy_den - 1900+ thumper - 1700+ gwalchmai - 1600+ tugger - 1600+ yanm - 1500+ mattw - 1500+ patagusto - 1500+ tag1153 - 1400+ cjjpeterson - 1400+ simian9 - 1400+ eqj2 - 1400+ hollcanna - 1300+ dewillget8 - 1200+ mozz - 1200+ These GameKnot players have expressed an interest in playing. More will sign on I'm sure, as I have set Oct 1, 2006 as the sign up deadline. I will put together our team during the first week of October, and will be ready to commence play by the second week of October. During the interim, Thibault and I will finalize the details of the match. I realize that this short list is very master and expert heavy, but have no worries - I will be contacting more of our A, B, C, and D class players and asking them to participate. We look forward to the match:) Thomas
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-18 01:03:29)
Thibault
If possible, could you post the names and ratings of those players from FICGS who are interested in playing against GameKnot? I would like to go ahead and get some idea of the pairing possibilities. Thanks:) Thomas
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-18 12:55:35)
My friends at FICGS:
I am a little concerned, yet understanding, of your feelings about the possibility of cheating in our proposed match. Please understand that there are two sides to the suspicion coin. For those of you who are not familiar with the GameKnot website, let me assure you that I will only be putting up players who I am familiar with, and who have proven themselves to play honorably. I am a three year veteran of GameKnot, and play on the site daily. I will be selecting my team from players whom I feel confident will conduct themselves within the rules we agree on. The intent of arranging this match is NOT to simply put up all of our master level players and attempt to whitewash you guys 100-0. The intent is to provide as MANY matches of ALL ratings ranges for a fun, competetive match. If we lose every match we will have no hard feelings towards you. As the game results in our proposed match will have no bearing on ratings changes, we view the match as a simple, friendly exercise. So, having said all of that, we hope that FICGS will offer up as many people as possible, and Thibault and myself will pair them with my guys in such a way that is FAIR and equitable to both sides. Should anyone here at FICGS have any questions, please feel free to post them here or in the GameKnot forum (in the GameKnot Related threads). Thanks:) - Thomas
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-18 13:52:13)
Dinesh
FYI it was not I who brought up GameKnot players being expelled from our site, but I can comment on it. Players have been expelled from GameKnot for numerous reasons. Some include 1) ratings manipulation, 2) using computers to recommend moves (our webmaster investigates all complaints re: games where, say, a 1300 player defeats a master, etc...), 3) foul language and/or intimidating behavior, and 4) general behavior that is unsportsmanlike. We pride ourselves at GameKnot on playing honorably, and do not tolerate otherwise. :) Thomas
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-12 21:33:52)
Cyrano
Oops, I meant 'cyrano'...
Anyway I'd like to create Glen & Miguel's games first so that it's easier to follow on the tournament page - games ordered by ratings... We're late (sorry to all players), but it's probably better that most games start at the same time !?
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-23 18:00:29)
Rating / 8-game match
Hello Wolfgang. (FICGS, not FICS ;))
In these 1st FICGS WCH quarter finals, there were 2 forfeit cases & 1 match with 6 games out of 8 lost on time. In the first 2 cases, not all games were rated as a win (according to the 8-game match rule), the last case was a bit different but as far as I remember, the winner had a better position (winning or small advantage) in all games... Anyway, ratings wouldn't change significantly if 2 wins were not rated.
The real question is about 8-game matchs & fast time control 30 days + 1 day / move (quite hard). There's no perfect rule & particular cases could happen, but that's really interesting IMO & the number of games with rapid time controls are probably enough to balance ratings in time. We'll see...
Anyway, several players were surprised by the difficulty of this time control, I hope it won't happen again during the next cycle (that should start in january)...
Don Burden (2006-10-26 02:32:25)
Rating / 8-game-match
Seems to me that the large jump in ratings is the result of a problem, where the root problem seems to be that there are just way too many players on here that for whatever reason just drop out and don't want to finish their games. Don't know how you would fix that.
In my WCH Stage 1 section that I just finished, two of the top 3 rated players in my section both gave up and quit. One player without playing a single move. The rules say that in the case of tied scores, only the higher rated player advances. There are two players in my section, myself and another, both finishing with 5.5 points out of 6. I think that's a pretty good score, but apparently it's not good enough because only one advances. If all 7 players had played all games to completion, the chances of having a clear winner, and a final score somewhat lower than 5.5 out of 6 would have been much greater.
Pekka I. Turakainen (2006-10-26 18:04:25)
Reveal your software
Engines against engines....please, at least tell what chess engine you're using, so that your opponent knows which engine defeated his engine....like Shredder 10 vs. Shredder 10 1-0. Better advise: If you want to know which engine is strongest, please don't play here, visit some site that has ratings for chessengines.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-31 09:58:18)
2nd FICGS chess WCH waiting list is open
Hello Wayne.
I can do this tomorrow. If the issue is about rating, please note that ratings taken in account at the start of the tournaments (TER : Tournament Entry Rating) are current ones at this time - november rating if this cycle starts ie. on december 15) - so ratings will be automatically updated in the waiting list...
Kind regards.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-10-31 21:49:40)
2nd FICGS chess WCYH waiting list is ope
Ahhhh, that was the reason. I wanted to enter with my best rating. If I understood you correct, That wont be a problem, given that the waiting lists ratings are updated. I would like to re-submit my name, can you do it, or should I resubmit ? Thank you Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-01 01:20:00)
Re:
Hi Wayne.
Ratings have just been updated. Feel free to re-enter the waiting list :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-11 19:27:15)
Chess tournaments : Performances
Hello to all.
Performances are now displayed for chess tournaments in the tournament crosstable pages.. (click the picture near the tournament name)
It doesn't mean anything for the rating calculation as games taken in account depend on tournament entry ratings (TER). Informative only :)
Marius Zubac (2006-11-19 19:21:59)
A penalty system is needed
Hello Thibault. I think that time has come for you to add new rules to FICGS and a penalty system (using penalty points) to discourage players from retire-comeback behavior. Loosing some games on time unless provoked by some unforeseen event should be also penalized although less severe. Upon reaching a certain number of penalty points the player should be prevented to register for new FICGS tournaments (let's say a half a year) and on resuming the penalized player should be only allowed to play a limited number of games until the lesson is learned. If you would compare FICGS list with the server-based IECG list you should notice that FICGS is less populated in the strong players section (2200+) than IECG and this has an impact on the quality of high-end tournaments, norms and titles and of course ratings. If we want to improve FICGS some action in this regard must be taken. I sympathize with Mr. Oltean and wish he reconsiders his decision. Marius
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-20 00:10:19)
WCH qualifications
Hi Miguel.
I'm afraid not :( ... I understand this is quite disappointing but I'm sure these rules that favorise ratings combined to the WCH rhythm (a new cycle every 6 months) give chances to everyone. The idea is statistical, your rating will increase so you will have more chances during the next cycle, and your opponent has more chances to win 2nd stage.
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-20 21:57:03)
Go handicap and rating
Is handicap Go really nonsensical in rated tournaments?
While it seems so in a world championship, where the aim is to determine the stronger player in an absolute sense, why should it be so in a tournament, where the aim is to determine the best player in a relative sense... hum, not a very clean or clear sentence, but I hope you got the idea :-)
In face to face Go, in most amateur tournaments, it is not a problem, and you can win or loose a tournament, win or loose points, playing with an handicap (some tournaments set a limit lower than 9 in the number of handicap stones). I do not know the formulae used to compute the knew ratings, but in practice it works well. (and the same thing works also in Shogi tournaments)
Before WWII, even pros played with handicap (one or two stones at most, more commonly with a fixed color and no komi) and that *for money*!! Nowadays this is not the case anymore: maybe the increase of pro-tournament prizes change the noble way to be the best of two players fighting *their best* at their *respective* level!
Anyway, I think such an idea may be interresting to motivate players: when weaker, I will fight my best because I have a chance to win, and when stronger, I *have* to fight well :-)
We could think of a rating system where you play your first, say, 20 games without handicap to get a starting rating, and then to receive or give handicaps automatically in tournaments. We could then consider a rating as fixed after a bunch of 20 more games...
Or any other system that will always generate tense and dangerous games! That will be, at least for me, a great motivation to play more :-)
(but then I do not care much for my rating :-))
Don Groves (2006-11-21 00:45:58)
Go: Komi
Hi Thibault, I'm confused as to why elo ratings matter. Go has used komi a long time to compensate for the first move while chess never has. But in chess, you have narrower rating groups, so practically never is an expert matched against a novice. Since in Go we have only three rating groups, these uneven matches happen many times. Until we have enough Go players to have more rating groups, a sliding komi scale would be a way to level the playing field a bit. PS - I'm not interested in traditional Go handicap games -- the empty board is the only true way to begin, IMHO.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-21 11:22:58)
Go handicap and rating
It makes sense. That's an interesting idea.
However I feel it could be quite difficult to balance the handicap with ratings and to keep the results of the games coherent. Finally, it is another rating system. Thinking about that...
Previous thread - http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_1611-Go-Komi.html
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-21 11:32:39)
Go: Komi
Stones handicap or Komi handicap is handicap anyway... I'm not sure it makes sense to change the Komi (Lionel would agree, I think).
As I just said in another thread, if we add a handicap system which gives chances enough to weak players against strong players, I'm afraid results & ratings / ranks don't mean anything anymore then, at least more aleatory. This is another game... (and such 'strange' rules might frighten beginners).
I think it could be ok (as another challenge) in an unrated tournaments category.
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-21 14:00:19)
French Go Federation rating
Here is a link that shows an example of rating that include handicap-go games
http://ffg.jeudego.org/echelle/echelle_algo.php
Just food for thought, but I like this system because of the balance betwenn fairness and challenge involved.
(sorry but these pages are in french only, but maybe we could check the ratings formulae in AGA?)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-02 13:40:46)
Chess engines CC ratings
It is my estimation. 3 out of 4 represents about 200 elo points. I doubt Chessbase will organize a Man(+Machine) vs. Machine correspondence chess match... However there are a few examples : Arno Nickel - Hydra (2,5-0,5), Hydra which beat Adams over the board 5,5-0,5 ... And I suppose Arno Nickel did not have access to the program, but knowing better his opponent I'm sure it's possible to reach such a score against any program.
About your test, it's been discussed here already :) .. In my opinion such a player's rating would travel between 2200 and 2400 (at most) mark !
Waiting for a match against Rykba :)
Wayne Lowrance (2006-12-05 03:26:24)
Chess Engines CC Ratings
Waiting for a match against Rybka ? :) hummmm Wayne
Jason Repa (2006-12-27 20:07:53)
Ratings
When is the next rating update expected to occur? Also, How are the ratings calculated? Are there provisional ratings? If so, how many games must be completed until the rating is regular. Thanks, Jason
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-27 20:51:21)
Ratings
Hello Jason.
Next rating calculation will occur on 2007, january 1st
All informations about rating calculation are here :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating
How many games must be completed until the rating is regular : 9 rated games
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-03 14:25:14)
Elo Question
Hi Miguel.
TER (tournament entry rating) is used for chess, while the current rating is used for Go... Ratings are updated after each game for Go.
Charlie Neil (2007-01-03 23:04:06)
Blitz Chess on Ficgs
Hello Thibault and New Year greetings to you and your team. Blitz on ficgs. I've beeen thinking, would it be possible to have "real time" games? The human element is the difficult one there. As for the tournament set-up, how about a six round swiss system? Speaking as one down in the ratings basement, single pairings with a rapid time limit in the swiss pairing set-up would be fun. Setting games between opponents on a real time basis I imagine will be very difficult so, what about a really rapid time limit tourney 10 days plus a day a move. I'm sure there lots of options available. Well it's just a thought. No one likes drawing in a Swiss tourney, you have to play for the win!
Kieran Child (2007-01-07 12:14:08)
Rating
Would it be possible for the sign-up page to have a feature for entering your rating as a BCF rating rather than FIDE? I'm more used to BCF ratings and had to times it by five and add 80 then subtract 22% of my birthday before entering my rating - 'twould be much easier if the website did it for you.
This is just a suggestion though. I'm aware we're a minority.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-07 21:59:00)
Draw
Hmm... I suppose this draw was just satisfying both players, saving energy and ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-07 22:03:50)
BCF ratings
Hello Kieran.
I have to enquiry about BCF ratings, I must admit I don't know much about it :/
Jaimie Wilson (2007-01-08 18:00:37)
ECF ratings
There seem to be two formulae for converting between ECF (formerly the BCF) and FIDE ratings. The old one which still seems to be in use is ECF x 8 + 600 = FIDE ELO. A Newer formula I have seen is ECF x 5 + 1250 = FIDE ELO. This newer formula rates ECF players higher on the FIDE scale than the old one did. I don't know which is more accurate although I certainly like to believe that the old formula underestimates us a little bit. It's as clear as mud.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-08 18:17:48)
ECF ratings
Thanks for info, Jaimie !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-17 23:59:52)
Chess engines ratings
Some useful links about ratings and statistics for all well known chess engines : Rybka (2.2, 2.1 ..), Deep Fritz 10, Deep Shredder 10, Deep Junior 10, Hiarcs 11, Zap!Chess paderborn, Loop 10.32, Toga II, Fruit 2.2, Glaurung 1.2, Spike 1.2, Smarthink, Naum 2.0, Ktulu 8.0, CM9000, CM10th, Fritz 9, Chess Tiger 15, Chess Tiger 2007, Ruffian 2.1, List 11 and many others...
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_120_ratinglist/ratinglist/rangliste.html
http://web.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/list.htm
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-18 01:22:34)
Chess engines ratings
+1
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-21 14:31:00)
Chess ratings
Hello to all.
I have been submitted this case :
"Rating system: Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200, 10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+ Case 1: Finished games: 01.01-28.02: 9= --> New rating 01.03: 2200 01.03., no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228 Case 2: Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2200 --> New rating 01.03. 2214 In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14. IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you finish in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod. That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings."
This result looks quite normal to me as a player's level may increase as time passes. Rating calculations are done after periods long enough to avoid big differences... I don't know if you're right about IECG rating calculation, FICGS ratings seem to evolve quicker and I think it's best. By the way this system is used by several chess federations.
Best wishes.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-01-21 15:16:26)
Chess ratings
I have formatted my message (and partly corrected) to be able to read the text better.
Rating system:
Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200,
10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+
Case 1: Finished games:
01.01-28.02: 9= New rating 01.03: 2200
01.03. 1+, no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228
Case 2:
Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2214
In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14.
IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you have finished in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like
NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod.
That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings.
Dan Rotaru (2007-01-24 16:42:19)
Suggestion for rating period
I would suggest that the rating period to be monthly instead of every 2 months. I understand the reason for longer periods between calculation being to avoid big differences but 2 months seems a little bit too long for me. I have noticed that some players with high provisional ratings or who started with high provisional ratings still have a much higher rate after they lost all or almost all their games, and players which started with, let’s say, standard 1400 still have lower ratings even they won all the games. And there is no such a difference between the Elo average of the opponents. My point is that a monthly period will increase the dynamic of the ratings and eventually will lead to a much realistic overall ratings and why not to a more challenging environment.. Of course the number of games played will have the biggest impact on re-adjusting the ratings based on results, but a month period will help for example a player to obtain a higher TER sooner and eventually play on a higher ELO bracket tournament. The other reason is that I believe many players will want to see how their rating evolves and a month seems more reasonable. As I said it is just a suggestion, others may not agree with me. Thanks, Dan
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-25 11:54:20)
Rating period
2 months is definitely a good rating period IMO.
The dynamic of the ratings is quite high already, higher than ie. at IECG. "More challenging environment", quite true but it would lead to more lasting games for sure... About your last points, you're right but I'm convinced it would have some bad consequences too.
World championship tournaments also help to find quicker your rating.
Anyway, waiting for other feedback about this point.
Correspondence chess is definitely a game of patience :)
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 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.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-19 18:30:34)
Tournament performance
Perf in crosstable is the tournament performance. It is calculated exactly the same way chess ratings are calculated every 2 months. It uses your TER (tournament entry rating) and TER of your opponents.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-30 17:17:32)
Correspondence Chess time controls
Correspondence Chess means quite long time controls, traditionnally... You must always have time to analyze well your moves. By the way, rated games with too different time controls would lead to quite strange ratings. 30 days + 1 day per move (60 days limit per move) is fast enough IMO.
I understand your feeling about the simulatneous games :) .. But faster time controls (longer than real-time chess, ie. money tournaments time controls) would lead to many forfeits, quite sure about it.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-04-05 16:06:36)
BigChess Championship
Hello to all.
BigChess is a great game. No books, no engines, and no ratings!
A BigChess Championship is an excellent idea. I think that everyone should be able to take part in this tournament. And - if possible - it should start as soon as possible. If we must wait until 7 different players (not seven times Thibault :-) ) have won a tournament, then the Championship probably starts only in 2009.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-06 04:50:07)
Rating calculation (algorithm update)
A small (but necessary) improvement in rating calculation algorithm for chess & Go : "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 350"
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating
In example, if a player rated 2000 loses to a player - most probably a new player helped by a strong engine - rated 1400, the rating considered in calculation will be 1650. It should help to keep ratings more coherent.
All chess results since March 1st will be affected by this change. Next rating calculation will occur on May 1st.
You can see your future chess rating (calculated on the basis of your results since last rating calculation) by clicking on the magnifying glass in "Preferences", then "ELO".
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-07 13:17:00)
demo
Hi Jason, thanks for helping :)
No blitz/lightning games will be rated, ratings wouldn't be coherent if so. These time controls will be used for money games only.
At last there will be only 1 rating, the correspondence chess one.
Another taker for this demo game ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-10 21:24:09)
Rating calculation (algorithm update)
:) ... the same about FICS / FICGS, obviously ;)
It was a minor change that affects a few unlikely results and actually everyone will benefit (if you meet ie. a new player with a low provisional rating) from that change. The aim is to make the ratings most coherent only.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-21 19:46:04)
Rules
Why FIDE didn't use such rules... Interesting question : IMO because OTB (over the board) chess is simply so different ! .. It is quite logical to use SB in open tournaments because it helps the player who is probably best "at this particular moment", meaning the best player of the event. In correspondence chess, it is quite different, I think using SB makes less sense here.
About draws, I think there's a real trap :) .. A player who thinks 'I must draw' will have difficulties against a good CC player IMO. And you probably noticed the players ratings in 7-players groups.. Even if all players fight, in most groups only 2 or 3 players probably really hope to win the tournament, the others have (at least) an opportunity to play stronger players and win some points... And you may be right (Don), 11 players groups may be more interesting. Maybe the next one...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-27 03:09:26)
Elo calculation
Hello Nicola.
Elo calculation must be a clear and fair algorith as much as possible... These rules are statistically quite good IMO (and I suppose not many players will ask for less points ;)) because rating is quite dynamic (if your rating is really too high, you'll most probably quickly lose points until the next update) then most forfeits are done before the 10 first moves. In a way, you deserved these points because you played moves enough in these games, otherwise ie. what would happen if a player forfeits after 40 moves in a drawn or lost position ? .. Is the game unrated, rated as a win, a draw ? .. It would be unrated in some other places, that's not fair IMO. There are more complex cases. One thing most important is to make rating calculation 100% automatic (no human decision is a very asked 'feature'), this way there can't be any complaint about ratings as the future rating option makes it clear.
Best, Thibault
Matt Lasley (2007-04-27 15:24:15)
Reward consistency
You could say that the forfeiture points are awarded for consistency. That's a valuable trait. Perhaps such points may not reflect play yet, but the consistency that lead to their award will show up in your game play in the long run. So, the points are deserved either way. And as T said, the algorithm takes care of it anyway. Ratings are a measure of history, not a measure of skill.
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-04-27 21:30:34)
Elo
Yes, I agree whit you Matt when you said "Ratings are a measure of history, not a measure of skill", IMO elo is only a statistic of our results...
Chess skill is more complex and it can't been explained only whit a number...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-03 02:13:44)
Go championship cycle
1st FICGS go WCH will start in a few months, but I'm still not really satisfied with current rules :
"FICGS world Go championship is first a round-robin tournament, involving 11 players including the 6 players who won or lead most Go tournaments started during the previous year and the 5 highest rated players, among players who entered the waiting list. If more than 2 players win (or lead) a tournament with equal score, no win is granted. A win in a "pro" tournament is worth 9 "kyu" wins. A win in a "dan" tournament is worth 3 "kyu" wins. In case of equality, the next places will be taken in account.
The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the winner is the player with the highest tournament entry rating (TER), If this rule can't designate a unique challenger, current ratings will be considered. If current world champion defends his title, they will play a 6 games match. In case of equality (3-3), the winner is the former world champion.
All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Komi is 7.5 points. Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association."
Not clear enough, quite complicate and strange, even if I like the idea of a 2-stages tournament (round-robin tournament then challenger vs. champion match) and to give the opportunity to the best rated Go players to enter it without playing tournaments before... Other questions, double round-robin or not, should it be open to all players.. Feel free to suggest your ideas for a nice Go WCH cycle ! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-05 15:43:46)
Go championship cycle
Finally ratings could be enough to give the best chances to the best players... Consequently the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list would play the round-robin tournament. That's a pity everyone can't play with this formula, but anyway chances to see 'surprises' is much lower in Go than in correspondence chess.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-04 17:03:06)
Wch 3 in rating order
Well, by using the future ratings, I'm not in second place anymore. Anyway the final rating order will be known on July 1st.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-15 14:32:49)
Strelka 1.0
Some interesting readings in Talkchess & Rybka forums about this new engine : Strelka 1.0 x32
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=9297
http://216.25.93.108/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117821
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404/
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%20Rating%20List/40_40%20BestVersion/rangliste.html
Is Strelka only a joke about Rybka (and a clone of an earlier version) or the 'little arrow' (Strelka in russian) that will catch Rybka in future...
I don't know much about this one but its first ratings are "not bad" ! .. Any informations more ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-15 17:12:39)
Online chess today
A few links to discussions at TCCMB (The Correspondence Chess Message Board) on chess servers nowadays, future of ICCF, correspondence chess [once more] and so on...
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=105.0
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.0
In the second discussion I tried to answer on the future of correspondence chess & chess engines :
1) Like the 'tour de France', it is impossible to organize a "bicycle race" at chess without doping today IMO. Also there are so many 'products' : Various books, databases, engines, human help.. so it seems to me that it is a non-sense to try to make it like an OTB tournament. Online chess is "motorcycle races" & freestyle, nothing else.
2) The ratio of wins does not decrease much in computer games & advanced chess (blitz), and correspondence chess games will never be all drawn IMO. We just have to follow the horizon line... Engines still have difficulties when there are 32 pieces on the board... Make the position more and more complex & critical, play Benoni structures, East indians and English openings... There will probably be more and more draws but when looking at CC 2500+ games, the ratio is still quite good. The problem at CC is mainly the style of play with humans 'humanly' trying to remain in known positions where they can win and can't lose.
'The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy', 'Opportunities multiply as they are seized' (Sun Tzu)
A solution is to make rules that motivate players to avoid draws, particularly when playing against a higher rated opponent. (ie. the rule for FICGS 8-games matches)
3) We feel that engines play almost perfect chess because of our poor human's level of play (I should say ratings)... But engines & computers have to improve a lot yet - not obvious they can do it in a more or less near future -, the horizon line is not so far, each version of Rybka wins about 30 elo points... We'll see engines at level 3200, 3300 maybe much more... (4000 ?)
4) If too many players have their CC rating between 2750-2800 in future, we can make new rules : Ratings wouldn't be calculated on the basis of each game, but on the basis of ie. 8-games matches... Then strategy would be more important & we would see rating gaps again between the best players...
Finally if I'm completely wrong, play Big Chess ;D
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-19 18:53:49)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
The tables will be ordered by ratings, we'll show the complete list in a few days.
Don Groves (2007-06-20 09:42:19)
Go rating lists
An active players list for Go would be excellent, Thibault. There are so many inactive players at some ratings that it takes a few "page downs" to get through them all ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-20 15:46:39)
Players for FICGS team (by rating)
Here is the complete list of players who registered for the FICGS vs IGAME.RU match. Unfortunately, a few players couldn't play :( .. I think our team is strong enough, as rating rules are quite hard at FICGS and some ratings are still provisional.
I don't know how players will be distributed on "tables", if it's freestyle I think Wolfgang should play at table 1.
I am also surprised to see players coming from IGAME.RU or russian forums who entered FICGS team !? .. Anyway, I'm sure there are no spies :)
Thibault de Vassal (2512)
Mark Noble (2496)
Wolfgang Utesch (2466)
Albert Popov (2463)
Michael Aigner (2354)
Janos Helmer (2343)
Miguel Pires (2270)
Leszek Tymcio (2270)
Alexander Shalamanov (2252)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2246)
Silviu Nenciulescu (2194)
William Taylor (2182)
Poulerik Jorgensen (2168)
Wayne Lowrance (2124)
Edward Kotlyansky (2114)
Christophe Czekaj (2098)
Konstantin Dudulec (2084)
Polina Romanova (2000)
Dan Rotaru (1937)
Nick Burrows (1884)
Garvin Gray (1863)
Vadim Khachaturov (1803)
Janusz Kepinski (1599)
Alexander Nent (1593)
Graham Cridland (1406)
Edmilson B. Lima (1400)
Sasha Lipsits (1400)
Ilmars Cirulis (1305 ~ >2100)
Than Serd (1300)
Charlie Neil (1212)
Phil Cook (1132)
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-21 08:31:01)
Salut, Thibault!
Je crois que les memebres de notre equippes doit ordonnees par les ratings. De cette facons nous pourrons tenir le principe de bonne guerre. Salutations amicales, Sacha
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-21 15:21:45)
Ratings
Yes, actually I just wanted to order the first players by their future rating. Wolfgang has made a great performance these last 2 months (future rating 2544) :
http://www.ficgs.com/players/utesch_wolfgang/history.html
Salut Sacha-Alexander :) .. C'est agréable de lire du français venu d'aussi loin ! J'avais quelques notions de russe il y a longtemps mais j'ai oublié depuis :/ .. A bientôt !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-22 01:51:23)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls
That's an idea, but I'm making some changes to help to find opponents more easily. I hope it will help...
First, experience shows that rating rules are still too hard IMO : A player winning or drawing against another one rated 350 points more most often means the lower rated player should be rated higher, not the contrary... A few games only are concerned, but with provisional ratings such results are still not fair, and many players rated 2100 to 2300 fear to lose points in the chess WCH, even if they win their groups. This rule should allow strong players not to fear (too much :)) to play against anyone in rated tournaments without rating restrictions, like blitz & lightning ones.
Consequently, the rule "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 350" will be changed to "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 200" in a few hours.
The entry fees & prizes (E-Points) will change also, most important is to attract more players to start more advanced chess games.
Glen D. Shields (2007-06-23 00:14:24)
Chess Engine Strength
Thibault - I've been following the TCCMB discussion. I think it's impossible to answer the question what rating Rybka can achieve under the uncontrolled circumstances we play. If Rybka were playing only against humans, it would achieve a 2600+ rating. Since it plays mostly against itself and other top engines (with little human intervention), the typical results are win a few games, lose a few games and draw a lot.
Since tournaments are mostly set up so that players face opponents with similar ratings, a 2220 rated player using Rybka enters a tournament against other 2200 players. That player wins a few games, loses a few, draws a lot and leaves the tournament at approximately 2200. We conclude from that pattern that Rybka can achieve a 2200 rating.
Conversely, a player (like Uri Blass) who enters tournaments at 2600 and plays other 2600 rated opponents using Rybka wins a few games, loses a few games and draws a lot. He leaves the tournament rated approximately 2600. We conclude for that situation Rybka is rated 2600.
IMHO, it is impossible to answer the Rybka rating question under our typical tournament circumstances.
I think an even better question than worrying about Rybka's strength is "does anyone REALLY enjoy CC anymore?" Today's CC's is a race to buy the fastest hardware and make sure SSDF's top rated programs are installed. I'm playing beginners who can't explain what "en passant" is, but by parroting Rybka they compete in top tournaments and claim to hold titles that once upon a time had to be earned through hard work. After passing through the opening, it doesn't take much effort to figure out what program your opponent is using. At that point one can predict with high probablitlty every move your opponent will make for the rest of the game. Rarely do I see a move that I can can beat. The games are boring and pedictable. Those blunders and surprises that we once wrote funny stories about are long gone. IMO so is the fun.
Sorry to sound so "pessimistic," but until these problems are addressed and the fun is restored I find it just as easy to play against my computer. I can play at my pace, chose the engine I want to play, and unless my computer crashes I no longer have to worry about DMD :-)
Thanks for such a well run place to play chess. You do a great job maintaining it.
My best,
Glen
Ivan Poddubnyi (2007-06-23 00:55:24)
2 Thibault de Vassal:
Unfortunately, IGAME players are not understood here in correct way. Let me clear our position about names.
Of course I respect your idea of creating a friendly atmosphere on your cite by giving real names. If I will decide to stay here, I will play under my real name. But now I am your guest and would like to play under a nick-name. I hope, you can respect our IGAME customs. If you do not like my IGAME nickname Mobutu, let me play as Ivan.
By the way, a lot of information about IGAME players is available on our cite www.igame.ru: games, results, IGAME ratings and so on. Come and see, we do not hide. :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 06:06:29)
Chess Engine Strength
Hello Glen !
I see your point, that's quite true and a consequence is what I called at TCCMB "the extensive nature of elo rating", however rating rules are more dynamic at FICGS.. So, let's say Rybka playing the FICGS championship against players of all kinds of ratings in the round-robin cycle... Anyway 2200 is only my feeling.
I understand your views about "rybka" [correspondence] chess nowadays, even if I don't agree with it completely. I saw some of your CC games played at IECG, and it looks much more like 'good old' chess with some unusual and beautiful tactical openings than typical 'correspondence computer chess' nowadays. I do believe there will be a place in the next CC years for more weird openings like bird, king's gambit, english... Also take a look at Peter Schuster and Wladyslav Krol games here !? .. Nothing boring with them, chess engine or not :)
Also advanced chess games with fast time controls could be quite interesting to watch in future as a way to see granmaster games with chess engines avoiding blunders 'only' (ok a bit more). We don't know exactly the human part in it, but draws won't be the rule for sure.
What is "boring" at correspondence chess (not new) is that achieving a top rating take a long... very long time ! .. But this is a great challenge yet IMO.
At last, thanks for you kind words :)
Best, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 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.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-25 19:14:57)
Startdate
See above ;) .. "The startdate of the match has been decided : 2007 june 27, Wednesday."
Of course, the games will be unrated, this is a friendly match and our opponents ratings are provisional. I'll post the teams and pairings wednesday.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-26 16:06:08)
Ratings
The discussion of ratings is very problematic. Ratings on different sites are depending on different premises. What entry level was accepted? How long did you playing there – how often? How much thinking time did you spent per move? Is the basic rating you earned over years to be caused by old tournaments with postcards (maybe without any help of engines – and your opponents did it the same way)? How much care did you spent ratings (i.e. Norm tournaments?!)? Are you a member of the exclusive cycle of an organisation, getting invitations to closed high-level rating tournaments? Engines (also Rybka) are playing own styles and it depends on whether you can play better or worse against their special styles (knowing their potencies and weaknesses). Old fashioned players (independent from their ratings) will have much more problems to win or to hold draw against engines than players which have positioning themselves at actual situation. In my opinion today Rybka alone with one week thinking time per every move without any other help will reach a rating of about 2.400 at FICGS SM-tournament with an average rating of 2.450. In an ICCF anniversary tournament (average rating of about 2.600) same Rybka under same conditions will reach a rating about 2.550. I for myself wouldn’t play longer correspondence chess, if I would have the feeling that any engine is playing better without my command. How long will it still take? My engine handling is not in this way, that I am waiting for longer times which move is offer by the engine. I have own ideas and I’m trying their possibilities, investigating positions in depth over many moves in all directions. But sometimes engines have the better ideas and I have to accept this!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-26 16:28:41)
Ratings
Fully agreed ! .. By the way, what performance could achieve Rybka (mp) in a CLASS M or CLASS A tournament. Finally, in average about 2200-2300 IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-27 21:18:36)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU, the games
Hello to all.
The friendly match between FICGS & IGAME.RU teams just started :)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_IGAME_RU_MATCH.html
I'd like to thank Sergey Pligin for organizing this match and all players who registered to play. I apologize to the players who couldn't play :/ .. 25 boards was not enough this time. To build FICGS team I selected players with the highest ratings but one cause his rating should be clearly >2000 already. Also IM Mark Noble plays at table 6 because his opponent is another FIDE IM.
I wish good games to everyone, this is a great opportunity for us to meet russian chessfriends.
Amici Sumus !
... quote of the day : "Top boards make the show, last ones win matches." :-)
Here are the complete teams :
FICGS :
1. Thibault de Vassal # 1
2. Michael Aigner # 139
3. Peter Schuster SM # 323
4. Janos Helmer # 47
5. Miguel Pires # 83
6. Mark Noble IM # 1991
7. Leszek Tymcio # 2151
8. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff # 142
9. Silviu Nenciulescu # 1319
10. William Taylor # 1232
11. Poulerik Jorgensen # 940
12. Wayne Lowrance # 135
13. Edward Kotlyansky # 1140
14. Christophe Czekaj # 1193
15. Konstantin Dudulec # 1329
16. Robert Mueller # 1233
17. Josef Riha # 157
18. Dan Rotaru # 1394
19. Garvin Gray # 1363
20. Nick Burrows # 1643
21. Vadim Khachaturov # 1078
22. Daniel Khayman # 1032
23. Gaetano Laghetti # 138
24. Alexander Nent # 1411
25. Ilmars Cirulis # 533
IGAME.RU :
1. Sumets Andrey, Member # 2137, GM
2. Pljusnin Ivan, Member # 2147
3. Pligin Sergey, Member # 2189
4. Doinikov Owl, Member # 2191
5. Romitsin Nikolay Sergeevich, Member # 2159
6. Vovk Andrey, Member # 2144, IM
7. Yunusov Adkham, Member # 2124
8. Pavlikov Andrey Nikolayevich, Member # 2157
9. Leskiv Miroslav, Member # 2133
10. Domanov Dmitry, Member # 2130
11. Kragujevcanin Stole, Member # 2148 12. Silkin Aleksey, Member # 2198
13. Orlov Sergei, Member # 2207
14. Kim Vladimir, Member # 2139
15. Gerasimov Vladimir, Member # 2190
16. Larin Igor, Member # 2193
17. Zarullin Ivan, Member # 2203
18. Filimonov Evgeny, Member # 2176
19. Pezikov Evgeny, Member # 2174
20. Stork Denis, Member # 2180
21. Mancubov Boris, Member # 2156
22. Ilyuschenko Yury, Member # 2168
23. Prokopenko Alex, Member # 2182
24. Basiliev Iouri, Member # 2205
25. Shpakovsky Alexander, Member # 2185
Edit : There was a mistake while building the games, I had to make a replacement at board 23.
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-28 03:30:01)
IGAME team
Apart from Member # can the ratings be revealed for each player: IGAME rating, FIDE / ICCF ratings if available? It would be fair at least to know the strength of our oponents. The rating registered on FICGS for some players is provisional and it doesn't tell anything. IGAME players have free access to this information so it has to be reciprocal.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-28 04:07:04)
IGAME team
I don't think IGAME team has to provide more information... The match started, once more that's internet chess, we have to accept this part of uncertainty. You may search ratings for players mentioned above (using their real name), but anyway IMO at least 1 player (not me :)) in FICGS team does not use his real name too, moreover a few players in our team still have a provisional or under-estimated rating... Any player can start with a 1600 rating here if he does not mention his FIDE rating, so the same for IGAME players. This is part of the challenge, so let's just play :)
William Taylor (2007-07-15 16:47:23)
Go ratings
At the moment only ELO ratings are shown beside players' names when viewing a go tournament. I would prefer dan/kyu rank to be shown than ELO rating (or both). Discuss.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-15 19:33:36)
Go ratings
Hello William.
Yes, quite hard to find a design with enough place to display all informations :)
The main problem is it wouldn't be coherent with other games tournaments.
Jason Repa (2007-07-15 21:18:20)
IQ is intelligence. Skills are Skills
You're resorting to telling blatant lies again eh burrows? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is what you were doing before when you painted yourself into a corner.
I in in way, shape, or form said that "chess ratings prove nothing". You need to re-read my post and stop teling lies. That's very pathetic behavoir.
As I said, it's clear now why you're an under 100 BCF player.
Don Groves (2007-07-20 07:43:36)
Go ratings
Hi WIlliam -- To convert from ELO to dan/kyu simply compare the ELO rating to 2100. ELO 400 corresponds to 17 kyu; ELO 1100 corresponds to 10 kyu; ELO 2100 corresponds to 1 dan; ELO 2400 corresponds to 3 dan; etc.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-30 23:19:04)
Rapid tournaments
:-)
Anyway this time control is quite difficult IMO.
About rating bands, unrated and WCH tournaments are a way for players with different ratings to meet themselves.
Ivan Pljusnin (2007-08-09 01:49:06)
Igame ratings
In order to make this topic more exiting I give the igame ratings of the opponents:
Sex_God: 2463 (+111, =63, -3)
RODINKA (aka ---): 2369 (+69, =29, -3)
Polina is our rating-leader (2536; +173, =1, -1), but most of igame players consider her rating unfair because she have played many games with weak opponents. Some people also say that she is another nickname of Sex_God but I don't believe it.
There was a conflict between Sex_God and RODINKA (aka ---). They have abused each other, and our cap decided to expel Sex_God from the team in spite of his higher rating. Unfortunately, this strong igame chessplayer does not take part in our great match.
Ivan Pljusnin (2007-08-10 16:21:13)
IGAME ratings
Polina is not published in IGAME rating-list because she has finished her last game more than three months ago. Here is her last game:
http://www.igame.ru/chess/gm.htm?gid=350240
Full IGAME rating-list looks as follows:
1. Polina (2536)
2. curator (2513)
3. GipsyFlame (2495, plays as Sergey Pligin)
4. Mobutu (2476, = Pljusnin Ivan)
5. Many (2475)
6. Sex_God (2463)
7. abc0123 (2461)
8. owl (2461, plays as Dojnikov)
9. klio (2457)
10. Vovanchiki (2455, plays as Kim Vladimir)
...
I do not think that IGAME ratings show real chess strength. For example, Polina and Many haven't played any games with serious opponents. curator, abc0123 and some other players have high ratings because they have finished many hundreds games. And some really strong players have comparatively low ratings. For example, our first board in the team, Vladimir_Lenin (=GM Andrey Sumets) has IGAME rating 2403, #35 in the full rating-list.
Vitalii Bocharov (2007-08-10 22:34:42)
+
I have been afflicted, when have seen --- [moderator : name deleted]'s message at a forum: http://igt.forum24.ru in which IM --- [moderator : name deleted] publicly, promised to kill Dmitry. In this case it is necessary to address in court, I the lawyer. Similar cases already were, when a mad star, sentenced to the large penalty and socially useful works - the life of people is more dear than ranks and ratings.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-08-11 23:40:27)
IGame ratings
Just curious but is the player curator listed as no 2 in IGAME ratings (2513) the same player curator on chess-mail.com rated at no 3 (2530)? On chess mail curator plays under an israeli flag.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-02 13:26:25)
Ratings
Christophe, do you use no chess engines here ?
About ratings, probably most 2000+ correspondence chess players use chess engines whereas 1800- don't, so OTB players shouldn't play rated games with centaurs so often. Maybe new players should start with a 1800 rating (like ICCF) instead of 1600 so that most OTB players can't meet centaurs, what do you think ?
"ICC at least claims to have software that detects cheating" : You mean 'obvious' cheating... :)
Jason Repa (2007-09-08 12:26:56)
"No engines" Tournaments
I suspect you'll get a whole new breed of forum posts where accusations will be disguised as compliments such as: "Johnny So and So really played an excellent game! He was accurate like a machine against me", etc.
You'll also hear allot of twisted soapbox rants about how "morally superior" the allegedly non engine consulting players are.
This is what the forums on second rate sits such as RedHotPawn, ChessHere, etc are filled with, in addition to absurd claims of so-called "engine detection technology", which is obviously impossible. On RHP in particular, the site admin are software developers with extremely modest uscf ratings in the C-class range, yet somehow they deem themselves qualified to make such difficult judgment calls, which are at best a probability guess, even for a strong chess player.
I thought it was precisely this kind of nonsense you were trying to avoid when you decided to make it an up front policy of "freestyle" chess at will at FICGS.
Mladen Jankovic (2007-09-10 01:54:09)
Confessions of a Magic 8 Ball ;)
Well, first off I started with the provisional rating of 1200, then I signed up for a bunch of tournaments and started playing 60+ games. Next, add irregular Internet access with no conditions to perform any reasonable analysis of games in progress and the pressing requirement to answer 40 moves in one go, only to go trough the same at the next soonest opportunity.
I "solved" the problem by not playing and forgetting about the server for about a month (needed that). For that reason I lost more than 250 points (254 to be exact).
Needless to say, the recovery of my rating to any decent level is slow, as, in the meantime I have gone trough periods when I played little chess here, or even none, with games in progress.
Your speculated reasons for my supposed intrusion here (it might be argued that your first post here is the real intrusion) are just plain wrong.
I also don't find ELO ratings to be a valid measure of a man. The real reason I "intrude" in the matter is that I like the general atmosphere here. I am also quiet aware that I am probably the lowest rated poster here, but, before few minutes ago, I was not aware of your rating (good job, while we're on the subject) or Garvin's, for that matter.
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 03:14:13)
[moderator : partly deleted]
"I also don't find ELO ratings to be a valid measure of a man."
Of course you don't. (...)
Your "supposed" intrusion? (...) Garvin was way out of line and posted pure harassment that had nothing to do with the thread, or my post. I replied and gave it right back to him. It could have, and should have ended there, as Thibault pointed out. (...)
My post was indeed topical and perfectly legitimate for this thread. It was a valid question to ask what the reason for scanning the server might be.
(...)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-11 22:04:32)
Chess comp ratings
Rybka is most dominant in the single processor versions when it comes to multi processor versions the gap is less and suddenly Zap chess appears. I am not sure why this is. Another point thats interesting is Rybkas endgame evaluations there is some significant difference with Fritz here. It seems a bit overoptimistic but sometimes it seems right. Finally a striking point when using Rybka is how comparatively few positions it is analysing per second compared to Fritz maybe only 10%. This illustrates Thibaults point about Rybka's far greater reliance on chess knowledge.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-11 22:12:31)
Chess comp ratings
"when it comes to multi processor versions the gap is less" .. maybe because the Rybka mp version in CEGT rating list uses 2 CPU while Zap! and other engines use 4 !?
Philip Roe (2007-09-13 00:37:23)
Andrew Stephenson
You post makes a lot of sense, and I can absolutely agree that being a centaur can be fun and educational (Centaurs in Greek mythology, by the way, were a highly respected race, and usually described as happy) However, I am puzzled by something which maybe you or someone else can explain.
You and others assert that playing the engines first choice every time will drop points against an intelligent centaur. Does it not follow that a centaur should have a higher rating than its engine? But in fact the ratings quoted for the top engines are substantially higher than the ratings of anyone on FICGS, which seems a paradox.
Does the explanation lie in unsynchronized rating systems, or am I just missing something? This question has nothing to do with value judgements, merely with satisfying a curiosity.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-13 00:41:26)
Chess engines ratings
"unsynchronized rating systems" : undoubtly :)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-13 06:35:12)
Ratings
Hi Phillip I don't know what "an unsynchronised rating system" is. However at the rate of play 40/20 for example I am not sure I would be able to improve so much on the engines first choices. At the free style tournament stand alones do pretty well. If I needed 45 minutes to find one best move in the Topalov Kramnik line..... So yes a centaur can easily have a higher rating than the engine(s) he is using at cc time rates (on the same hardware). For one thing the centaur can use different engines and for another its a bit like taking a move back all the time and pushing past any horizon limitations plus there is the restrictions of opening books that all engines have. However I am not going to play my own cc games against Fritz 10 (Fritz 9 in my case)by giving it 1 day or even 10 minutes per move because I am not motivated - you need the human element for that. Hope that helps.
Philip Roe (2007-09-14 17:53:56)
Andrew Stephenson
Thanks for your explanations. They were helpful. Let me try to say what I meant by unsynchronised rating systems (maybe I could have found a better word)
The difference between your rating and mine is a measure of how likely you are to beat me, and that relationship between rating difference and percentage score is similar for any system I have come across.
However, the absolute numbers mean little if anything. There was a widespead belief for some time that US players were overrated, even though the system worked fine internally. My understanding is that from time to time organisations check to see if they have drifted too far from FIDE standards.
This sort of calibration works fine for human OTB games, but for anything else it is not easy to see how to "set the zero", and that possible mismatch is what I called "unsynchronised".
I think that standard CC practice is to try to give each player a rating similar to their OTB rating. I do not know how the engine ratings quoted were tied down, and I imagine that centaur ratings are very difficult to calibrate.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-16 18:22:12)
Figlio - Schuster
Untrue, tournament entry ratings (TER) are 2576 (Gino) and 2516 (Peter)... Peter had to avoid draws.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-17 05:35:42)
To tie or not to tie
Hi Gino !
"I'm in advantage from the start given the tournament rules" : Untrue IMO, according to the current situation (not all games are draw), if the match ends at tie, you'll lose it - at least qualification - in all cases ;)
In 8-games matches, like every WC round-robin tournament, fighting for the score and (&&) for ratings looks quite normal, there's no dishonor to tie, winning or losing the right to move to the next round. Definitely rules have something to do with honor, at least with victory. Is there no honor to win a chess game with White pieces and its small advantage ?
What about ICCF WC tournaments and Sonnenborn-Berger ? .. Somewhat more complex, but ratings decide according to the situation also. What about FIDE World Championship ? .. Did Kramnik win his title / tie his match against Leko without honor ? .. FICGS rules are not more unfair than FIDE WCH ones, I'm playing an 8-games match against Farit Balabaev, his strategy is clearly to draw the 8 games and it may work, there's no dishonor in it, only good strategy IMHO.
But, of course, that's more a question of human feeling than mathematics, so only my point of view :)
Gino Figlio (2007-09-18 06:53:43)
Tie breaks
Rodrigo, I agree there must be better ways of doing this.
As far as the current match, the rules cannot be changed and I guess I will not have to withdraw since I will lose with the tie. I can see the challenge for the tournament organizer but we have to also realize that FICGS is relatively new and its ratings do not necessarily reflect player strength.
How can we decide a match based on something less than representative even if we don't have anything better?. I believe for the future ties must be broken playing chess even if it's "blitz" cc.
I also would like to stop making comments on this unfinished match, I don't want to get distracted nor distract Peter from our competition.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-20 20:39:56)
chessfriend
As far as I can remember, this way to break the tie was used in most Chessfriend round-robin money tournaments. I have no doubt that some players would have sacrificed their ratings for more chances to win cash prizes... Highest rated players were attracted anyway because they were invited.
About my match, I was simply glad to get these 4 draws easily with the black pieces, it gave me more time to try to win with White (I was in time trouble at this moment). GM Farit Balabaev is a strong correspondence chess player, even if I lose the match, I have no regret about it. Surely I won't play my FICGS WCH games less seriously than my IECG WCH ones :) .. By the way I still hope to play the first candidates final against Gino or Peter :p
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-21 00:09:15)
Knockout
Surely knockout format (FICGS rules or not) is not perfect, like round-robin. In this case ratings are important and a new cycle starts every 6 months. Let's agree to differ :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-21 19:57:01)
Tie Breaks
A 2 game play off series at a very fast cc time rate ie. 1 day + 1 day / move would delay the next stages by up to 6 months (by stage)... I think that players would prefer to defend their chances - as you understood it - more often, and simply would prefer to play !
In case of equal TER : "If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account."
Finally, draws usually happen more often in matches, that's a fact. The special rule, at least, force one player to avoid it. We'll see if these short draws happen again and what are the consequences. At last, as Wolfgang said, the tie break rule is not "unfair", it is only a rule.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-21 20:34:37)
Tie Breaks
Thansk for the reply Thibault. on the delay front I think it would be less than 6 months maybe 1 or 2 months. First the effect of this delay would impact on only very few top players in completing the final stages. Overall the quantity of chess games and opportunities would be unaffected as new championships start every 6 months so the amount of playing is the same. Second "If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account." Ok this will be rare but you cannot really be saying that a match would be decided perhaps 1 or 2 months after completion when the next rating is done? Third "The special rule, at least, force one player to avoid it." yes but it didn't did it? You took the 4 draws in 15 moves because you had too many games and your opponent was a strong player! My point is not about the unfairness of the rule Thibault its the effect of it - in this case 4 identical 15 move draws is not a good advert for the site, the World Championship FICGS or the players.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-02 03:45:44)
Update : Crosstables and Big Chess
A new update, now tournament crosstables link to games (in a new window), which is a more convenient way to find a particular game in a tournament. Click the magnifying glass next to the tournament's name, then on a symbol (1, 0, =, *) in the crosstable and a new window will appear with the game.
Also a new category in special tournaments : Big Chess masters (2000+), waiting for a complete category for Big Chess. Reminder : Your first Big Chess rating is your current Correspondence Chess rating - 300 (see your ratings in Preferences), so a player CC rated 2300+ without a Big Chess rating can enter the Big Chess masters waiting list.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-02 19:33:41)
CC / OTB ratings
Since strong engines appeared, there's no more a clear relation between OTB and CC ratings IMO. A few months ago, GM Nigel Davies explained that he gave up correspondence chess because it simply asks too much energy and time.
Don Burden (2007-11-01 17:04:22)
Tournament categories
I think they might have entered when their ratings were > 2200, but with the latest ratings recalculation today, their ratings dropped below 2200.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-01 21:56:57)
Ratings in waiting lists
Hello Marc,
As Don said, ratings displayed in waiting lists are current ratings, so it happens when players enter a waiting list before their rating decrease.
Anyway, I changed the rating range for CHESS RAPID M category to 2100 to find more players, if this is not ok for you, I can remove you from the list.
Best wishes, Thibault
Marc Lacrosse (2007-11-01 22:56:53)
??
"if this is not ok for you, I can remove you from the list."
I never enrolled for this tournament and I am not on the list ...
I just had a look as I was searching for a possible new tournament with higher ratings ...
Marc
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-14 12:54:32)
new rapid category
Thibault please reconsider your decision and set up a 2000 - 2200 rapid tournament which I think will fill up quickly. there are about 60 active players rated 2000 - 2200 and of these about 5 have more than 10 games going. 2 of these (Jason and Sandor) probably wont enter a 2000-2200 rapid as they are qualified and down for higher level tournaments.If the rapids are for players up to 2200 why have you got higher rated rapid tournaments? Lets get more chess played isnt that what its all about? Incidentally the standard ratings of 2000-2400 and 2200-2600 seems a mistake as no one above 2200 will enter the 2200-2400 tournament. Has anyone else got any views on having a 2000-2200 rapid category?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-12 16:14:36)
5 vs. 7
5 players would be great this way, but it has many other effects including on tournaments results & cheating attempts.. 7 players is best for fair ratings IMO.
Garvin Gray (2007-12-12 16:40:02)
5 over 7 as a trial :)
7 players is best for fair ratings IMO.
I do not disagree one bit. The more games and more players in a touranment, the better rating outcomes and fairer tournament all round.
That being said, I think this does need to be balanced against both how long it takes to get a tournament started (which can be quite a while in some cases) and keeping new players on the site by being able to get them some starting games sooner. This has to also be good for accurate ratings as it increases the pool of potential players.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-13 17:59:07)
Wild cards & cheating
I don't think wild cards are useful (but wch cycle, maybe) cause ratings move quite fast, simple rules is best IMO, also to let the program apply accurate rules without human decision, as far as possible...
About cheating, if a player manage to play from several accounts that the program couldn't detect, the effects are negligible in 7-players tournaments, even more at a high level, so he'll stop quite quickly as it requires even more time.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-29 23:27:34)
Major update : challenges
Hello to all.
Now it is possible to challenge connected players for bullet / lightning / blitz games (advanced chess tournaments - note : please verify time controls, ie. blitz games are played in 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves) with White or Black.
Many improvements to come (when I find some time), to display ratings and so on... All feedback welcome.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-01-07 06:34:46)
First FICGS GM tournament
There will be a forfeit by Viktor Savinov (Rating 2668 !!!) - good for ratings of the other players in this tournament! :)
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
Ivan Pljusnin (2008-01-27 16:43:11)
Team complectation
FICGS team could be much stronger, I think. Some of your players have lost their games by time. Imagine, you replace them with winners of FICGS World Championship and other strong tournaments of FICGS. FICGS result would be much better...
In fact I do not believe neither in official correspondence chess titles nor in ratings. They do not show real strength very often. On IGAME the best part of our team is anonymous players, I think. Their achievements in this match are just fantastic. 9 members of IGAME team who play under imaginary names have now 14.5 of 17! Owl (here he is "Dojnikov") is going to win his last game. Probably he is our best fighter.
P.S. If I was allowed to play as Mobutu, I'd play stronger!:-)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-30 19:20:03)
Provisional rating
Hello Hao Nhien, your provisional rating is now 1800 : Ratings not from FIDE / ICCF / IECG give at most a 1800 provisional rating...
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-02-03 14:00:21)
First FICGS GM tournament
again - There will be a forfeit by Viktor Savinov (Rating 2668 !!!) - good for ratings of the other players in this tournament! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-07 01:41:22)
WCH candidates final tie break rule
Good question... Well, it seems coherent : WCH rules favour ratings, it is very unlikely to happen that the knockout cycle winner's rating is inferior to the round-robin cycle winner's one, anyway the rules clearly favour the highest TER, which is the one of the knockout cycle winner at the beginning of the cycle.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-07 09:33:55)
cycle entry rating??
Thibault now your really confusing me?? I do not think there is any concept of cycle entry rating being followed in your WC system! In the knockout stages players ratings change so there entry rating changes in different stages. eg Wolfgang entered the quarter finals for 000002 with a TER of 2460 he was successful (against you)and played the semi final with improved TER 2523 and for the the knockout TER was the same 2523 with Harry had TER with 2456 for quarters but went to semis with TER 2459 and for knockout final his TER changed again to 2555. Now if CER is operating Thibault, the knockout final match should contain entry ratings at the start of the cycle ...this is extremely important because that would have wolfgang on 2460 and Harry on 2456 which will make a difference as it reverses the TER at present showing in that match leading to opposite results in the event of a tie. The same occurs for the stages and round robin finals - updated ratings are used for tie breaks at each stage. Anyway for the next cycle why do you not just change the candidate tie break rule to make it consistent with all the other tie break rules ie based on TER at the time the stage commences. It does not make any sense to give an advantage to say the no 8 rated player at the start of the cycle who goes into knockout over the no 9 rated player going into the stage and round robin. Both players will benefit from improved TER during the course of the cycle before they meet in the candidates final where there strength at that entry point should be a tie breaking factor and not where there rating was 1 year or more years earlier- the more so as their changed ratings since will/may have been used as tie breakers along the way anyway. Either that or introduce cycle entry ratings concept and keep ratings fixed for the duration of the cycle for tie break purposes for all matches and stages!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-14 13:40:04)
ratings
Hi thibault some time ago I think you suggested that you were going to start people at a higher rating? Maybe 1800? At present you have some players starting at very low ratings who are obviously going to be strong cc players. One outstanding example is Zack Stephen at 1300. He won the PAL/CSS frestyle advanced chess tournament in 2005 and as ZackS has remained at the top getting high places each year Just a thought .....
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-14 15:02:47)
provisional ratings
Hi Andrew, yes new players usually start with a 1800 rating, but if the player specify a rating below (or an official rating). I did not notice Zack's provisional rating, quite strange, but anyway it should increase very fast.
Garvin Gray (2008-02-14 19:02:16)
re-ratings
Hello Thibault, In these cases, cant you re-rate these 'type of players when you receive further information regarding their standard of play?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-15 01:03:12)
ratings
Well, it should be really exceptional, actually I don't understand why so strong players did not ask for this provisional rating change before starting to play (volunteer ? ;)) .. Anyway, as no rated result has been recorded in this case, a standard 1800 provisional rating seems ok.
Johnathon Ballard (2008-02-15 01:22:36)
ratings
It would be nice to have frequent rating updates besides every 2 months, like once a month. In 2 months some players ratings change quite a bit. Like playing an opponent who is rated at 2000 but is actually 2120 when it is updated.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-15 01:43:20)
ratings
Hello Jonathon. This is one major point in correspondence chess, I can't even explain all the reasons why 2 months is probably the best rating change period, but there are many cases that justify it.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-02-15 18:57:08)
ratings
Thibault you say you don't understand why a strong player would not ask for a provisional rating change when coming aboard.... Easy to answer Thibault, most people feel like rules are rules, and won't challenge them. At least that is why I didnt ask for a rating upgrade when I first came aboard. As I said earlier that when I came aboard my rating was 2300+ on another CC site I played on for humpteen years. Anyway I was confident in my CC chess ability and figured it would not take long to get to a decent rating, I wanted to more or less prove my self here. I guess that is basic to what you have answered. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-15 21:31:39)
ratings
Hi Wayne. About provisional ratings, you started with the default rating at that time (1400, max. provisional rating was 1700 though), as every player do in any organization, now why a strong player delete the default rating (1800) when registering ? .. I understand this as "no rating, beginner", this is most probably what happened with Zack's rating.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-02-18 23:00:14)
ratings
Thibault, it is not important anyhow, but I do not know exactly what you mean. In my case I didnt delete 1800 provisional or override anything. I just play chess. Wayne
Vjacheslav Perevozchikov (2008-03-27 11:14:31)
Ratings
I have played more than 40 games. 30 wins & only 1 loss (misclick :)), and don't understand one simple thing: why my rating is so small - 1867 points. I saw other members with much worse performance & much more rating? What's wrong here? Thanx
Garvin Gray (2008-03-27 15:38:36)
??
What were the ratings of your opponents. It is your performance rating that matters, not your win loss record.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-27 23:03:53)
Future rating & statistics
Hello Vjacheslav, everything's ok : Your rating first depends on your opponents ratings, obviously it will increase during next months :
http://www.ficgs.com/display_history.php?member=2290
ELO : 1867
Future rating : 1922
Games calculated : 9
Result : 77 %
Elo opponents : 1809
Performance : 2020
Rating history (from first to last) :
1600 1696 1740 1823 1867
Lincoln Tomlin (2008-04-07 13:07:31)
...
Hi Julien. Each cycle requires that you play at least 9 games otherwise you will have an 'estimated' rating. This could prevent you entering certain tournaments for another couple of months because of games hanging in the air through no fault of your own. Yes, it should be a friendly game and people leaving games hanging is not really solveable. However, games that have checkmate positions when the ratings are calculated every 2 months should automatically be ended, imo.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-04-15 10:33:37)
Rating
The ICCF is the only body sanctioned for correspondence chess by FIDE. All ICCF titles, championships and ratings are recognised by FIDE - this is what Wikipedia says and I believe it is correct.
Garvin Gray (2008-04-15 11:46:49)
otb v iccf ratings
To add a bit more to Andrew's answer.
While ICCF is fide recognised?, it does not mean an online player can turn up to an over the board tournament and use that ICCF rating or ICCF title in an otb tournament.
Only ratings attained over the board can be used for other otb tournaments.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 15:01:06)
A bird in the hand
I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable - they are both off beat openings. On the question of chess knowledge I do not know how much he knows about b4? It can also be a dangerous practical weapon and can pose the black player more problems than f4. It is played by serious professional chess players in tournaments eg GM Christian Bauer (2626) has played it several times successfully this year and quite a few IM's regularly play it with success. Now to comparing rating sizes something I confess to not having done since I was in short trousers. My current rating is 2225 with a future rating of 2247 but with 2 rapid games in the pipe line this should be a future rating of 2300 + shortly lets see. Mr Repas rating is 2281 with a future rating at the moment of 2316. How significant is that? Well I had the opportunity to look at his games to see what his rating is made up of. 10 of his wins have come against the same opponent Sandor Porkolab and in 7 of these Mr Porkolab abandoned the games in level, drawn or in some cases better position for him. Given that in these "wins" he was often rated over 2100 or in one case over 2200 this has boosted Mr Repa's rating significantly. He has not so far had much success in WCC not having got past stage 2. As reference to my loss was made I can say that this was in a variation (the Prins of the sicilian) that I believe is unsound. Actually I overstepped the time limit while on vacation although I think the game could not be saved I learnt my lesson and do not play dodgy openings any more. I have never on the other hand been busted after 17 moves in a main line opening at cc as sadly Mr Repa found himslef against Bucsa Loan (Game 1249),then rated 1700. Then again I have stopped trusting the books and analyse for myself. Still less could I imagine being lost in a cc game after 16 moves in an exchange French (by tranposition) An instructive loss to Torsten Opas ( game 4388)- won with simple developing moves - worth playing over. Incidentally proves what I was saying about the exchange french it can be dangerous - although not of course, at cc. Finally there is Mr Repa's pet Bird shot down by Mr Kotlyansky in the approved way as follows 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 g7 4 Be2 Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d4 c5 7 dxc5 Qc7 and Black was fine winning in 72 moves. Never having lost with f4 did not include this because I suppose it was a bullet bronze game. I am afraid I am naive enough to think that people play chess on the server to win and increase their rating - clearly there are people who play to learn and strengthen their game and for whom results and rating are secondary. No doubt such people would not be interested in anything so vulgar as comparing ratings. Neverthe less its all just opinion and we are all free to express it within the rules of the server. So: f4 is a waste of time at cc little more than an invitation to draw and the From is unsound and almost like resigning.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 23:08:30)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!
"I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable"
You would. But we all know what happened to you when you and I played chess. I beat you in 33 moves. And we can see how not only do you not provide a game that's at least somewhat representative of the critical lines of the opening, but you can't even figure out when the supposed game was played, or whether or not White or Black won, and you only post a tiny fraction of it to boot. So evidently, what YOU think is not exactly to be regarded in high esteem here. Most people wouldn't have required my explanation where I described quite clearly how there have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today. They would already understand on their own, or would at least be intelligent enough to look up the information without having to have their hand held and have it spoon fed to them. But even after all this, you STILL don't understand. And you mention Christian Bauer who only pissed around with 1.b4 when he was playing opponents 400 elo LOWER RATED! One of his fabulous wins this year, that you were alluding to, was against 1861 rated Jacques Decamps, lol. The rest of the time they were 2100-2300. Has he ever played 1.b4 against another GM? (never mind super GM, as 1.f4 has many times been played against)
An opening move like 1.b4 might be fairly compared to something such as 1.g4. You won't see any dedicated chapter in MCO to either of those openings, but they're at least interesting enough to warrant some discussion in the "misc flank openings" chapter. 1.f4 might better be compared to something like Larsen's 1.b3. A sound sideline.
You want to talk about ratings? I've had to build up my rating from starting at the default of 1700, by winning 117 games (one of them against you), because I wasn't aware when I opened the account that the admin would let you start with your established elo. It's not surprising I played Sandor Porkulab a lot of times, as we both were very active playing a lot of games. Unlike you who started with the advantage of an inflated rating, which was somewhat tempered after that beating I gave you last year.
Sometimes in correspondence chess people abandon games and don't log in again. This was the case with Sandor Porkulab, although I had already beaten him a few times in games that were played to completion, and he wasn't better in any of the games that were abandoned. You're lying through your teeth there, or perhaps you're just too incompetent and dishonest to assess the games objectively. Why would Porkulab have 7 games against me where he was "level or better" when I had already beaten the guy every time we played before that? Did you even look at those games? Or is this just your pathetic way of trying to "score points" by using lies and deception? Additionally, the way the elo system works is that even if you do get a few easy points from say a win from an abandoned game that perhaps might have ended in a draw, that gain is quickly diluted and your rating naturalized as you play more games, because you win less points when you win,(or draw a higher rated opponent) and lose more when you lose (or draw a lower rated opponent), than you would have if you didn't receive those points. I've played many games since then and my rating here is probably where it would have been If I had not played Porkulab at all. Or if not already will soon be. So this is a pretty weak argument from you. A better argument is the fact that I CRUSHED you in 33 moves when we played. Porkolab at least gave me a decent fight when I played him. That's more than I can say for you. I felt like all I had to do was outsmart a machine when you and I played. I didn't have to worry about any human judgment from a real chess player getting in the way of my victory!
As for me getting a lost position after 17 moves against someone? For starters, I've played about 190 games here. What have you played.....32? And I think that's a testament to the fact that, unlike you, I'm a REAL chess player, so my goal here isn't to simply try to win the most online CC games to try to give myself some artificial illusion of ability. I don't always play what I consider to be the objectively best moves because I like to experiment and LEARN SOMETHING from the time I spend here. But having said that, I STILL outperform you greatly, and crushed you when we played last year. I'm also higher rated with a higher future rating, even though you had the advantage of started with a boosted initial rating. So much for what you "think" you know about the strongest moves in cc, lol. And your future rating is only 2247, not 2300+. If you want to discuss what might happen after some of your current games are resolved, don't sell me short at 2316, which is already a given. Talk about the 2370+ I expect to have after some of MY current games are resolved. If you want to argue/debate with someone, learn to do it in an intelligent and fair way. So far all you've accomplished is to lose the paltry amount of credibility you once had.
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:46:43)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:57:07)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-05-12 20:02:28)
Rating changes
Hello to all,
I think a player should be removed from the waiting list if his rating is out of the restriction of the tournament.
In my opinion TER means the rating at the start of the tournament not at the entry into the waiting list. If the tournament starts the current rating is used as TER.
For example in FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000015 the games with Jason (!) and Sandor were rated with 2174 and 2147 and not with >= 2200 (their ratings when they entered the waiting list).
No words in the rules about this theme?
Best, Heinz-Georg
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 14:50:21)
ELO ratings
I believe ELO ratings are used for FIDE ratings I did not know you had a FIDE rating. I must say that ELO 2000 is an average to good club player and over 2200 in my experience is a good OTB rating. But looking at some of your OTB games between 1900 - 2000 seems to be the level of chess that I can see. Its ok - but the reality is that players do not improve very much after a certain age ...... Anyway at cc people tend to have it both ways if they win its because they are better players if they lose or draw its not real chess its just computers and it does not mean anything. I am sure we will play again at cc and then you can demonstrate your skill. If I win I will not place a great emphasis on it. It not difficult to draw a cc game if you have the resources to hand.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:25:34)
Elo rating system
I trust I didn't use any "biggie" words you were unable to comprehend Stephenson. Hopefully you now understand your error and realize that the elo system is not only peculiar to FIDE chess ratings, but indeed used by many chess organizations, as well as other games.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 15:47:39)
Mr cfc
Frankly I have alway taken someone saying they have an ELO rating to refer to having a FIDE rating and not a national rating I understand that you need to deduct about 35 points from sub 2200 ratings to get a FIDE equivalent. Well I have never met anyone before who thought that FIDE 2000 was such a high rating I dont mean that in a bad way I am just surprised that you think this is high. As for beating me at chess I thought this was not real chess? Well like I said there is a sense in having it both ways. Look we could easily organise a money match at cc say for Euro 1000 6, 8, 10 games whatever you want, rapid time limit you can have white in every game and I can give you 3 to 1 odds. You win 1 game you get Euro 3000 you fail to win a game I get Euro 1000. All you have to do is win a game you can even lose all the other games. Well like I said it does not prove anything - its a research competition. I dont want to hustle you but you have been making a lot of statements so if you are interested ....... But please dont challenge me to bullet games on playchess......
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 16:00:22)
ELO
Well like I stated elsewhere talking of ELO points I take to refer to FIDE rating not national ratings irrespective of the underlying methodology used to calculate the national rating. I guess we will have to agree to differ on that one. Sorry I cannot respond to the grammer stuff - its against the rules. On the game we played check out the available database games and that may give you an answer. Like I said in another post the line I believe is the refutation is not what you played - I will put up the analysis when I have more time. At the risk of repeating myself I still dont understand why you cannot find a 2001 game or what sort of databases you are looking at but I guess we have reached a dead end there too.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:16:02)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
No, as I just explained to you in the way a small child should be able to understand, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings. Not even exclusive to chess in fact. I realized you weren't overly intelligent when we played chess and I crushed you, but this is ridiculous. This has been explained to you already. Do some research and see for yourself.
I normally don't go after someone for grammar, but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base, I ask myself who's wiping the drool from their chin.
I'm not about to do any serious chess analysis with you. I don't give free chess lessons. Post whatever you like. It won't change the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess. Fair and square.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:36:18)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What a <1500 player like yourself "has always taken" is meaningless. What is objectively true and factual is what counts. As has been explained to you repeatedly, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings, not even to chess in fact. Are you beginning to understand or still confused?
Also, there is no simple (deduct x) formula to get a FIDE equivalent. Sometimes a national rating is worth more than a FIDE rating. There are various factors to consider.
There is no "magic" about a FIDE rating. You just need to play in FIDE rated events. I've beaten many FIDE rated players otb, including FMs. It's really no big deal.
I never said 2000 was some sort of "high rating", so don't start with the lies again Stephenson. But compared to a guy like you who is rated under 1500, I'm like a more evolved being. Is that why you're so frustrated to the point of stalking me as you're doing? Is it a combination of that and the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess? When are you going to get over that? When are you going to stop whining and crying?
Why don't we play fact to face otb chess, if you have lots of Euro to throw around as you're claiming. Fly to Canada and I'll play you a match for 5000 euro. First to win 6 games or something like that. I'd probably have to spot you 5/6 just to make the match somewhat competitive.
I never challenged you to bullet chess, my <1500 rated acquaintance, but that would be the only other way to play human mind vs human mind chess. I'm certainly not about to fly to the third world country you live in, just to beat some "C" class chess player in person.
Let's take a little tally here. I've already beaten you at correspondence chess, and you've made it clear you want no part of playing chess at time controls that doesn't allow you to consult your program, so I've effectively won that as well. What is left? Arm wrestling? I kinda like my chances there too!
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb
"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."
I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.
But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.
"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"
I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.
"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"
I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.
I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.
"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."
I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-05-15 19:45:42)
Rating calculation
Hello all. I have been reading the discussions here and did not intend to add my t hought. But I guess I am anyhow. Chess is about having fun, making new friends, competing with your peers, last but not least improving your skill. I am playing in several M tournaments, a couple have players whose ratings have dropped below 2200. This not a problem for me. I think they should be allowed to play. With respect Wayne
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-15 23:14:37)
Books and databases
This thread is really about how reliance on books and lack of research can get someone into trouble ie a lost position after 13 moves in a main line opening - even with plenty of time and powerful chess engines available. Actually its not even necessary to own an up to date database to avoid this - the resources are freely available to anyone with an internet connection. The point about ELO is dead I think referring to ELO points is associated with FIDE ratings irrespective of the fact that most national rating systems use ELO's methodology. Mr Repa does not agree - thats it. "but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base ..." I don't read anything into the omission of the word "someone" here nor the numerous spelling mistakes that have cropped up. Incidentally the book I referred to with analysis of the dodgy siscilain variation is called Experts V the Sicilian with different chapters by various GM's and IM's including a chapter on the pin variation about which one reviewer says: "we get no less than 12 pages on the “silly” Pin Variation, and in the end Aagaard seems unable to prove a certain advantage!" Whatever the truth about that variation its highly risky and not recommended for cc!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-16 00:15:26)
Openings
Here are the current openings statistics (see /about.html) .. sorry, it is not Chessbase but I'll try to improve it with ie. a formula with ratings to see better what is played most at top level.
Chess openings :
Opening_name #games Line
Scandinavian 310 1.e4 d5
Modern 127 1.e4 g6
Pirc 260 1.e4 d6
Alekhine 208 1.e4 Nf6
French 674 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5
Caro-Kann 487 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5
Grand prix attack 91 1.e4 c5 2.f4
Morra gambit 173 1.e4 c5 2.d4
Alapin 196 1.e4 c5 2.c3
Closed sicilian 228 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3
Sicilian ...d6 1323 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6
Sicilian ...e6 243 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6
Sicilian ...Nc6 759 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6
Petroff 355 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6
Spanish 1038 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5
Italian 354 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
Ponziani 18 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3
Scotch 224 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4
King's gambit 207 1.e4 e5 2.f4
Vienna game 89 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3
Other e4 ... 1524 1.e4 ...
Dutch 181 1.d4 f5
Slav 353 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6
Queen's gambit acc. 181 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4
Queen's gambit dec. 353 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6
Albins counter gambit 18 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5
King's indian 203 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7
Grünfeld 104 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5
Catalan 36 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3
Nimzo-indian 302 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4
Benoni defense 136 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5
Budapest gambit 22 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5
King's knight opening 601 1.d4 Nf6 (... d5) 2.Nf3
Other d4 ... 1442 1.d4 ...
Reti opening 691 1.Nf3
Sleipner 136 1.Nc3
English 858 1.c4
Bird 177 1.f4
King's indian attack 84 1.g3
Orang Utan 143 1.b4
Grob's attack 12 1.g4
French attack 21 1.e3
Mieses opening 10 1.d3
Anderssen 21 1.a3
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-16 14:05:58)
Rated Chess 960
Hello Joaquim, I don't think we would have players enough to create rating categories, so it would be difficult to obtain significant ratings :/
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-19 21:54:37)
Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Junior 12
While Rybka 2.3.2a w32 1CPU/mp still leads CEGT rating lists, Fritz 11 is now only about 50 elo points behind...
CEGT 40/20 (AMD 4200+)
Rybka 2.3.2a w32 1CPU - 2966
Fritz 11 - 2913
Naum 3.1 w32 1CPU - 2890
Deep Shredder 11 w32 1CPU - 2890
Hiarcs 12 SP 1CPU - 2869
Toga II 1.4.2JD 1CPU - 2864
Fruit 2.4 Beta A w32 1CPU - 2864
Zappa Mexico II w32 1CPU - 2844
Any predictions on the future ratings of Rybka 3 & Chessbase engines : Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Junior 12, Hiarcs 13, Zappa or other free engines ?
I can't find a rating for Junior 11 in CEGT rating lists, does anyone know it ?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-24 16:36:19)
Tournament winner in WCH
This is true in WCH round-robin tournaments only !
I explained why I've chosen this rule in previous threads, ie. :
>>
As you noticed, rating is quite important in FICGS world championship cycle (particularly established ratings, obtained from IECG / ICCF or after 9 games finished in FICGS) !
I think these rules are really the best choice in order to designate a world champion. It's more logical IMO to favour players who obtained previously the best results at FICGS and recognized organizations, and consequently a high rating. It takes time, of course. Even very strong players starting with a 1700 rating won't achieve a 2300 established rating before months !
Criterias in FICGS wch are (from most important to least) :
1) Winner of the previous cycle (qualify for the final match)
2) The eight best established ratings (play the KO tournament)
3) Points obtained in the wch tournaments
4) The tournament entry rating (TER)
<<
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-27 17:18:27)
Provisional rating
Not so big IMO. Ratings move fast, it doesn't take a long time to move to a higher category at this level (for a strong player / centaur).
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-27 19:02:42)
Provisional rating
1800 is quite usual as a provisional rating in correspondence chess, some sites prefer to ignore games played by players who don't have an established rating in rating calculation. In my opinion, the effects are quite small here and ratings move faster this way.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-03 18:00:59)
Correspondence Poker
Live time is easier, a problem is that correspondence poker may be very long : ~6 moves by hand by player, let's say from 10 or 20 hands to 100 hands and more in one game, so many moves :/ .. but it may be possible to limit the number of hands and calculate ratings also by taking account of what is left after ie. 100 hands - which is quite few anyway.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 10:02:42)
Poker
Groves, it's pretty sad if you aren't capable of understanding what you did. But in your case I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
And I don't need to meet you in person to know what you're all about. Your words speak volumes. And FYI chess ratings aren't obtained by flipping coins. You're a mere 1600 and change player. It's not the result of "bad luck".
You equate the stating of facts with "insulting". The problem is when I'm dealing with a very modest individual like you, every objective fact I state is interpreted as an insult.
As I said, read a poker book, or get someone to read one to you so that you can learn the basics of the game. Perhaps then you'll understand that there is more to the game than simply managing your money and knowing when to bluff.
Don Groves (2008-06-04 18:58:24)
Poker
Repa, there you go again, bringing my Chess rating into something it has nothing to do with. I haven't played Chess in over two years but you still keep bringing it up. You do that so often it could make others think you define yourself in terms of ratings. Look up "argumentum ad hominem." You're very good at it -- so good you should consider going into politics.
Wayne Lowrance (2008-06-08 06:24:35)
Rapid chess entry rating
Jayson Repa has a point but I think he is missing my point. If Engine help was not allowed, I would agree 100%. But with engine help, in practice mostly Rybka, a 2100 player is grossly under rated, I mean gross. So that is a huge barrier to overcome for a 2200+ rated player. It is not obvious that a 2300 player climbing the ranks against 2400 players has a larger barrier than a 2200 player reaching 2300. \The point I am making is: It matters little the ratings in correspondence chess with very very long time controls. Rybka does not know or care, the lil girl just makes best moves anyhow. The skill comes in when the human selects the best opening and is the most capable of steering his engine consistant with his chess knowledge. Heck Mr Repa I would love to play 2400 players, my chance of loosing is no greater than losing to a 2100 player, both would be using Rybka or engine of their choice. With respect sir Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-12 00:37:27)
Titles
Hi Marc,
The rules specify that a title obtained at IECG give the right to ask for the same title at FICGS (with F letter before, ie. FEM)
Ratings are no more established ones after (if I remember well) 2 years of inactivity. I think that old ratings should remain in a list anyway, that's a part of correspondence chess history :)
The active players list should be considered first, then you won't see these ratings anymore.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-23 00:03:38)
Round Robin final WCH 3
Hi Andrew, I understand your point of view, on one hand rules specify : "If necessary, a player could be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player" which does not exactly fit to this case (2 players have been invited). On the other hand, rules give administrators the final decision in all cases - also rules may change whenever necessary - and of course the aim is simply to make it well. As it has been discussed in the past, WCH tournaments with 5 players give tournament entry ratings a too big importance and such a tournament lose some interest, 7 players should be a minimum (I may change the WCH rules this way, to be discussed)
5 players in this tournament won their group, 2 players have been invited and tied for first in their group. This does not mean : "Two players tied for first then have been invited." .. Maybe this was a mistake and we'll discuss it. Once again I understand your point of view, I think it wouldn't be acceptable to change it now but I'll accept all comments on this choice and I'll make the rules more accurate while taking account of this.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-02 15:09:28)
Rating update
Ciao Wayne !
Ratings and games database have been updated (the rating list will be updated automatically in a few hours)
My best,
Thibault
Denis Ivanchenkov (2008-09-10 17:50:43)
I'm ready as well.
Just looked ratings: Defenders: Michael Aigner, 2561 Rodolfo d'Ettorre, 1900 Denis Ivanchenkov 1741 Refuters: Ilmars Cirulis, 1628 Iouri Basiliev, 2154 Scott Nichols 1980 Looks like team match will be quite interesting
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-12 16:12:04)
ICCF ratings
Quite hard to say, the rating calculation is not the same, but many players here who started with a strong established rating came from ICCF...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-18 20:48:47)
Big Chess Championship
Well, I have to find some time to make changes first. Big Chess ratings are probably too confusing :/
William Taylor (2008-09-20 17:55:27)
Too confusing?
Why are Big Chess ratings more confusing than any other kind of rating? ôżô
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-22 17:07:19)
Big Chess ratings
They are because "provisional big chess ratings" are correspondence (classical) chess ratings minus 300 points. I estimated this was a good idea because Big Chess was quite different but I'm not sure anymore... What do you think ?
William Taylor (2008-09-22 18:33:42)
Big Chess ratings
Hmm. As you say, the game is quite different from ordinary chess, and as we can't use engines and very little research has been done into Big Chess we might all be 300 points or so weaker at it than at real chess. It might be quite nice to have the ratings over a similar range to ordinary chess ratings, but that doesn't really matter. Presumably once you have determined the provisional ratings you then use the same algorithm as you do for normal chess ratings? It's hard to suggest a format without an estimate of how many people would play, but we don't necessarily have to have an accurate and established Big Chess rating system to hold a championship.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-28 21:51:45)
Big Chess Championship
18 months is so long :/ .. In my opinion, the scheme could be the same than the Go championship :
"FICGS world Go championship is a 2 stages tournament. First stage is a single round-robin tournament, involving the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list. The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. If current world champion defends his title, he will play a 5 games match against his challenger."
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-05 20:30:11)
Go ratings, rule update
In order to limit the inflation of Go ratings, I've updated the rules for ratings superior or equal to 2000. The idea of the original rule was to help players to find their rating range more quickly only.
"Go ratings are first estimated from Go ranks (n kyu give a 2100 - 100 * n rating, n dan give a 2000 + 100 * n rating, n dan pro give a 2630 + 30 * n rating), then adjusted in real time after each result :
Performance = Opponent Current Rating + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.
Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10
Case of a loss : New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.
In case of a loss against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 350."
Christoph Schroeder (2020-02-04 01:13:01)
Go ratings, rule update
What is the initial rating for a Go player in his first tournament?
I noticed that most players start at 100, but my own initial rating was 000.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-22 22:43:23)
Ratings
Chess ratings increase quite quickly here, once you reach 2000-2100, every player most probably use chess engines, but there must be such rules (max. provisional rating) to guarantee the quality of the games at a higher level. It shouldn't take more than 4 or 6 months to reach a 2200 level. Correspondence chess is a game of patience :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-02 20:07:17)
Update : challenges & move send
Hello all,
It is now possible to challenge a player for a chess, Go or Poker holdem game ! You can choose the game by clicking the pictures near "Challenge a player" in My games, you can also change the 'challenges' option in Preferences. This is an important improvement as advanced poker & Go games are a faster way to improve ratings ie. in order to qualify for the FICGS poker holdem & Go championships. (advanced chess has its own rating, different from the correpondence chess rating)
Also a new improvement in the 'move send' process, it should be much faster now, please report any bug if you notice one.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-13 23:42:25)
FICGS poker holdem championship
The waiting list for the 1st FICGS poker holdem championship is open, as all ratings are not established, the rating limit has been changed to 1600.
Only the 9 highest rated players at the beginning of the tournament (february 1, 2009) will play it, consequently the best way to improve your rating before the deadline is probably to play POKER HOLDEM BULLET BRONZE games (you may use the challenge function in My games).
The current rules :
"FICGS world poker holdem championship is a 2 stages tournament. First stage is a single round-robin tournament, involving the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list. The winner of this tournament is the challenger for FICGS world champion title. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. If current world champion defends his title, he will play a 5 games match (3 games with White, 2 games with Black) against his challenger.
All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. Rules for poker holdem are official rules. You may find more information about the FICGS betting structure in FICGS rules. Both players must play until one resign or game is adjudicated. One game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player played in no limit mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips) of each round."
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-15 14:39:56)
Disagree at a first sight
Hi Don,
I think that's too dangerous for the ratings 'cause many players would like to play this fast correspondence time control until they accumulate too many games (playing such a time control may show an addiction already), finally general forfeit and rest in peace far away :)
It happened already to many players with the rapid rapid time control (10 days + 1 day / move, limit 60 days). Moreover, blitz time controls are not played enough yet and that's a pity IMO, that's now a nice alternative and I'd like to promote it.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-17 14:18:17)
Adjudication
Hi Normajean,
The adjudication in case of a threefold repetition is justified (the game has to be ended).
About your game, it seems to me that such behaviour happens more often when one player asks the other player to resign :) .. Not a big deal, it will not change anything to the ratings right now and actually a few players do not even know how to resign... I've adjudicated it anyway.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-30 20:19:18)
Chess engines & databases
Hello Bradley, it's all in the rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Everything's allowed (but in the NO ENGINES category). Using chess engines is recommended if you want to make deep analysis & reach the highest ratings. The only way to cheat (that is strictly forbidden) is to mirror 2 games, as explained in the rules.
Best wishes for the new year,
Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-08 12:23:20)
No ratings...
Just an idea, this challenge could be played here in this forum, move after move, with the conditions mentioned above (& Rybka 3 analysis in real time, no need to hide it after all). 2 unrated games, 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves. What do you think ?
Don Groves (2009-01-10 01:02:36)
Time span of ratings
Someone else brought up this subject recently and I feel it deserves discussion:
Suppose one player starts at FICGS at ELO 1200 and gradually improves. Another player starts at 1800 and also gradually improves. Even if they are equally good players, the first player will always be at a ratings disadvantage to the second because the first player's opponents' average ELO will always contain those lower rated games.
Would it make sense to compute ratings based on, for example, only the previous one or two years of play at FICGS, or possibly the previous 100 or 200 games, rather than a player's entire history at FICGS?
I'm wondering if this may yield a truer current rating for everyone.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-10 18:06:40)
Time span of ratings
Actually ratings (correspondence chess ones) are calculated based upon the previous ratings and games played the last 2 months only. In your example it may take 8 or 16 months "only" for the lowest rated to catch the other player in a tournament. Moreover, ratings at FICGS move faster than in other organizations in order to find the good category quickly. So I think that's not a real problem here.
As an example, it took not so long (one year) for Wayne to reach 2113 from 1400 ! That's quite short in correspondence chess.
More details about rating calculation :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
Scott Nichols (2009-01-13 03:58:19)
Different sites:
Dear Tom, There is a site called Playchess.com that only allows engine play in the engine room. All other areas are closly monitored and players who try to use engine assistance are seriously repremanded, (loss of ratings and on up). It is an excellent site. This site allows engine use in correspondence chess. Alot of players love the system. And it seems also, that even when players have basically the same equipment, the better player usually wins anyway. As Thibault so eloquently put it, they look beyond the "horizon" of computers to make their decisions. I play on both sites and follow both sites rules. Playchess=serious chess. FICGS=fun and theoretical chess and more.
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 (2009-01-31 20:20:59)
3/5
2/3, 3/5, 4/7 or 5/9 .. well, the longer the games, the more significant are the games & ratings. Nothing more... So IMO 5/9 is even better :)
Don Groves (2009-02-01 10:44:54)
3/5 or ?
Thibault: Its true that longer games are better for ratings but the question is how much better? If a game lasts 100 hands, there is about a 10% chance that the game was decided by luck rather than skill (one player getting significantly better hole cards than the other). If a game lasts 300 hands, that chance drops to about 3%. If a game lasts 500 hands, it drops to about 1.8% So you can see there is a diminishing return in having long games to make the ratings better. It would take 10,000 hands before the chance of luck winning instead of skill dropped to 1%.
I have some games now that are over 300 hands and nowhere near finished. Also some of my games ended after only 100 or fewer moves so those games could easily have been decided by luck. It just isn't realistic to think that games lasting several hundred moves are the answer to good ratings. You can never account for a run of good luck winning a game in only a few hands.
It would be interesting to know the average length of the games completed so far using best 3/5. It could very well be that best 2/3 would give very reasonable ratings and more games will be played in the same length of time.
Garvin Gray (2009-02-01 14:19:04)
2/3 or 3/5??
2/3 also does allow for playing of more opponents, which will help in sorting out ratings by meeting more opponents quicker.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-01 15:14:58)
The fact is...
... ratings should be in accordance (as much as possible) with ELO rating system : if player A is rated 1800 and player B is rated 2000, player B should win about 3 games out of 4. So the question isn't first to make ratings "accurate" (by the number of games), but to be "significant" .. eg. in a 1 round games system (30 hands max.), all players would be rated from 1600 to 1700, this has absolutely no interest.
Don's statistics are interesting and actually (imo) justify 3/5, it is probably possible to estimate the best average number of hands [btw the no-limit is not the best way, but more fun] but in my experience 2/3 is not enough. The longest game reached 1000 moves already (maybe about 400 hands), some games lasted about 35 moves only (of course the chancy factor is bigger there), it is hard to "calculate" anything one thing is sure, the longer the games, the more significant are ratings... then of course, the more games, the more accurate are ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-02 21:54:00)
Poker championship : New rules, deadline
Finally, a 2 stages single round-robin tournament (no ratings limit, everyone can play) seems a better choice for the poker holdem championship !
The deadline is now february 8, 2009... Join the fun !
Here are the new rules :
"FICGS world poker holdem championship is a 2 stages single round-robin tournament. All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move.
Round-robin tournaments are groups of at least 7 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player.
Rules for poker holdem are official rules. You may find more information about the FICGS betting structure here. Both players must play until one resign or game is adjudicated. One game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player played in no limit mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips) of each round."
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-03-10 15:22:31)
Big Chess World Championship
Hello Big Chess fans!
I have finished about 120 Big Chess games. Only 5 last more than a year (all with Thibault :) ).
I propose that the WCH should be a 2 stage round-robin tournament starting once per year. As usual the groups of the first stage should be filled according the Big Chess ratings.
The winner of each group is qualified for the second stage. If more players are needed to build a final group of 7, 9 or 11 players Thibault can invite the best of the second placed of the first stage groups.
If all players of the final group are known the second stage should be started within a month.
I hope this WCH will be a success :)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-03-13 18:10:06)
Categorys
In my opinion unrated tournaments should not be devided into categories according to the ratings of the players. If we have no categories the tournaments are filled much faster.
Scott Nichols (2009-03-18 10:28:13)
Ratings floor.
Hi Thibault. One thing I would like to see implemented is a ratings floor here. By this I mean a player can never drop below one class below his/her ratings peak. e.g., a player with a 1951 rating can never drop below 1600, a 2001 player can never drop below 1800. In the U.S. (and maybe worldwide, not sure) we have this system to keep strong players from sandbagging and artificially let their rating drop so they can play in the lower sections of big money tournaments. On FICGS I don't think that is a big problem. The problem here is that Corr. chess takes long term dedication and some players tend to drop out for whatever reason and resign all their games or just quit and let their time run out. This also drops their ratings artificially low levels. Then, as it seems to always happen, Caissa's power sweeps over them and they get back in. Or, they just bought a new super computer and want to show it off. Anyway, when they do get back in....you have an expert player coming in with a very low rating. This to me is unfair to the other players who try very hard on their ratings. e.g., In the current world Ch. cycle I am playing a very strong player who is over 800 points below my rating. I would appreciate any other opinions on this subject. Thank you.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-18 11:04:06)
Ratings floor
That's a real problem (any other opinions on this ?) In my opinion, a rating floor may lead to more trouble in higher ratings : A player who starts at 2300 and drops to 1700 has more chances to drop all his games again than to play seriously. Anyway, once more there's no perfect solution IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-28 00:25:29)
Email notification
A bug has just been corrected (finally..). Now you should receive an email when every poker game ends with ratings changes.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-31 22:22:54)
Poker ratings
I've just changed the rating rules for Poker. I noticed that poker ratings moved really fast, most probably too fast. Also I think it is better to favour experience to new ratings, at least under a certain rating limit (just like Go rating rules). I'll keep an eye on ratings during a few months. Consequently now the poker rating rules are :
"The poker holdem rating list takes account of rated poker holdem games played at any time control.
If you have no poker rating, you have to play at least one rated poker holdem game to appear in the rating list. Poker holdem ratings are adjusted in real time after each result :
Performance = Opponent Current Rating + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.
Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20
Case of a loss : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.
In case of a loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200."
Don Groves (2009-03-31 22:39:35)
Poker ratings
The last time I checked the poker ratings list, I noticed a large number of players rated at 1800.
I thought the starting rating was 1600 except for players with a lot of previous experience. Have all these new players at 1800 asked for this higher rating?
This practice throws off the ratings for all of us who began at 1600 and have moved up by actually winning games on FICGS.
Don Groves (2009-03-31 22:48:41)
Ratings lists
It would also make the ratings lists more meaningful to only list players who have actually entered tournaments. There are many in the rating lists who have not logged on since their first time here and who may never participate in an FICGS event. Why should they be shown in the ratings lists?
Nick Burrows (2009-04-01 20:01:57)
ratings
It's good that Anand & Topalov will play a match - they have both been in the top 3 or 4 for many year, and right now are the best 2 players in the world
Surely within 2 years Magnus will be unstopable!?
I very much like the play of Aronian, plays with great creativity...
Scott Nichols (2009-04-05 18:50:07)
Programming
Hi Thibault. Most of us have no clue about what it takes to program. Something we think looks like an easy add-on may be a programming nightmare. It is VERY impressive all of the things you do on this great site. Just one question, is making the chess ratings happen instantly like the poker does one of those programming nightmares?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-05 21:23:03)
Rating calculation : real time or not
Hi Scott, it would be not a nightmare for sure. But the way correspondence chess ratings are calculated is more a question of history IMO, just like FIDE WCH. Many players would probably think this is just a nonsense, while the others may find good reasons for this change. It seems to me that correspondence chess ratings have always been calculated every 2 or 6 months according to the organization. I thought about this question already, there are advantages in both solutions, so I'm not against the idea to open this (big) debate.
Nick Burrows (2009-04-05 21:44:01)
Insta-ratings
What are the advantages of having 2 month installments?
Scott Nichols (2009-04-06 02:40:34)
A couple more thoughts
Maybe the history of updating ratings every 2-6 months was necessary with slow mail by letter or postcard games. I've played in the Golden Knights back in the 80's where games easily take over a year. But now with the instant moves, there might be cause for change. Also, (#1)towards the end of a rating cycle, the games noticably slow down because players do not want to resign and lose their chance to enter a particular tournament. #2. A player may achieve a rating milestone and want to enter a tourn. right away, but can't because his/her rating doesn't change for another few weeks. So he/her may delay resigning lost games and prolong others waiting for the change. If it had changed right away, he/her would enter the tournament and proceed with his/her other games at a normal pace. Just a couple of thought...would love to hear more opinions on this, :)
Don Groves (2009-04-06 06:37:12)
Ratings
Both Go and Poker ratings are changed after each game and doing the same for Chess would make all FICGS games consistent in this regard.
Also, I think Scott has a good point about having to wait to enter a tournament for which one is qualified based on "future rating" but must wait, perhaps weeks, until the next ratings update.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-06 21:31:27)
Rating peaks
Among possible problems : It is likely that players could reach higher artificial ratings (peaks) this way, even if we change the complete system & the way tournaments are built. IMO instant ratings mean that games should start as soon as a player enter a tournament waiting list - gradually, like at IECG server - otherwise it would be even harder to predict your opponents tournament entry rating, by the way there is no more TER taken in account in Go rating calculation, that is an advantage in some ways but one of the main problems also]
As for me, the deep reason why I may prefer the 2 months system is this very special "moment" that FIDE players know when waiting for their next rating. The other system makes everything faster & faster, just like the world wide web but finally maybe the passion flies away faster also. My 2 cents :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-07 13:45:37)
Rating calculation
Thanks for encouragements, Scott :)
The question could be now : Why not to install the same system for Go, but it seems to me that instant ratings are justified in this case by the duration of the games : 1. There's no real difference of level in blitz & correspondence games, so only one rating list is best. 2. Due to the difference of ratings between strong & weak players, new players can find their right place quickly this way.
Now about Poker I'm not sure yet, maybe the 2 months system would be better. To be discussed in a few months.
Don Groves (2009-04-08 00:04:54)
Two month Poker ratings?
I've got several Poker games still going that started over four months ago. To be comparable to Chess, the Poker ratings should be once per year ;-)
Don Groves (2009-04-15 02:01:35)
Time controls
In all FICGS games, I think there should be an intermediate time control to prevent silent withdrawal, or what you call the "dead man defense."
If a player cannot make at least one move per week when not on vacation, the game should end.
If fewer than ten moves have been played, the game would not count in the ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-17 19:28:33)
Poker vs. Chess
I agree with Nick on this. 3 rounds & 100 chips by round is the only way to play "deep poker" IMHO (also to try to have significant ratings). In some cases, such a rule may work also for chess & Go, but it should probably be different as the number of moves is really different in each game, that's a problem. Let's try anyway.
Maybe the increment could not be added if the move has been played in more than a week (7 days), what do you think ? Not too hard and it may incitate to continue to play !?
Scott Nichols (2009-04-21 22:51:04)
4-person teams
It should be 4 players to a team. The under 2200 section the ratings should AVERAGE under 2200, e.g. a 2511, 2278, 1804, 2205=AVG. 2199.50. Same for other sections. Teams should form on their own and enter a waiting list. A league would be the best if we can get that much organized.
Vadim Khachaturov (2009-04-27 22:15:23)
Team tournament.
Thibault, I think You should open a waiting list with a some deadline point. After that time the teams of four can be created according to the average rating. IMO the teams average ratings should be as close as possible to each other.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-28 11:47:57)
K factor & FIDE ratings
FIDE decided to increase the K factor so that ratings change quicker...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5381
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5376 (bottom)
Does anyone have an opinion on these changes ?
Wayne Lowrance (2009-04-28 18:19:44)
K factor
In the long run I think it will average out. Ratings will be very dynamic in short periods. Being a EE engineer I sort of like the smoother curve integrated concept, so I think I would opt for no change. This means I believe that in any cycle period a more accurate rating of the player can be viewed with the curve smoothing integration concept. For example a very common use of this is in the stock market where, daily, weekly changes can be very dynamic. A often used example use of this method is "30 day running moment of integration" to clarify the picture. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-29 14:17:53)
1st team tournament !
Hello all,
As you may have read in the forum previously, the idea of a team chess tournament came up (originally Olympiad, maybe later).
The 1st FICGS CHESS TEAM TOURNAMENT will start on May 15th, 2009. Each team must be made of 4 players, whatever their ratings.
The tournament will be a single round-robin tournament, games will be unrated (just for fun !), time control : 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves.
You may contact other players through the form in My Messages (bottom) or just make a call here in this thread or in the chat bar to find partners, the definitive teams should be announced with their name in this thread to be in !
We might also vote for the funniest team name after the tournament started, be aware ;)
Have fun :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-30 12:47:48)
Rated or unrated ?
Should this team tournament be rated or not in your opinion ? At a first sight it seems to me that high-rated players would think about playing twice as they can meet players with low ratings, but according to at least one of them I may be wrong on this...
Ranganathan Raman (2009-05-03 01:14:43)
what happen with my ratings?
before Correspondence chess : 1683
now Correspondence chess : 1396
pls how will ratings now any new factor
1 game won & loss rating?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-11 21:12:38)
Poker titles
This is a good idea ! We still need some time to see how ratings evolve but it may be an interesting innovation... To be continued !
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-12 22:34:06)
Team tourney : Players without a team
Players who would like to play in the team tournament but who don't have a team yet may announce themselves in this thread, I'll build the last teams myself if necessary by gathering as much as possible players with the same ratings...
Teams will be announced in this thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=7059
Join the fun :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-29 20:09:04)
EGF rating list
To all european Go players who could be interested, the European Go Federation rating list moved from :
http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/gor.html
... to :
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/EGF_rating_system.php
EGF ratings should be updated more frequently.
Normajean Yates (2009-06-12 21:55:31)
graphics for ratings: where are they???
The international chat mentions graphics for ratings. Where are they? I can''t find them anywhere!
Normajean Yates (2009-06-13 12:40:30)
I can c the grafix 4 feat. member only
Of couse I can see the ratings-grafics for 'featured member' at any given time - is that what was being dicussed in the chats?
[sorry for teenage-texting-type heading: that was to fit in the message ;) ]
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.
Nick Burrows (2009-07-04 07:55:18)
Minimum rating idea
A common problem encountered in correspondance chess is that of strong players forefitting several games and their rating dropping by hundreds of points
This spoils the tourny for lower rated players who often have a 2200 rated player in their group with a misleading rating of 1600.
It also de-stabilises the ratings across the whole site as many players grades are false.
Lastly, and of least concern because players who made the drop deserve some handicap - the artificially low-graded player has a whole year of uncompetitive matches as he waits to regain points.
In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level.
The equivalent here would be that your rating has a minimum value, equal to the highest rating requirement of a tournament class you have previously won.
This seems to solve the problems experienced by many on this site.
It may be said that the rating drop is a necessary deterrent to prevent players from doing this. My experience is that it occurs from factors out of one's control (illness) and any deterrant is irrelevant - just as a death penalty doesn't stop heroin addicts from stealing!
What d'yall think?
Nick Burrows (2009-07-05 16:16:49)
Recent groups
It actually seems the norm rather than the exception that the lower groups are 'stacked' with at least 1 or 2 ex-2000+ rated players with low ratings
In my first Class C group after my rating drop there were 4 of us battling it out!
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-19 01:53:58)
Idea: Unr, No Comp, Match
I was wondering if it was possible to setup a new competition option for chess.
Just a 2 game unrated match where both players agree no computer. Each person has W&B.
This is more appealing to me than No engine tournament where the ratings/pairings are from people that have played rated corr w/comps. We can agree to play friends in 2 games.
Thoughts?
Garvin Gray (2009-08-30 16:23:48)
200 point bands in both!
nooooo, i am suggesting the complete opposite. That in both standard time control and rapid that the bands be 200 points.
It is only that in the standard time control that the bands be 1700-1899, 1900-2099, 2100-2299, 2300-2499 etc and for rapid it would be 1800-1999, 2000-2199, 2200-2399, 2400-2599.
This would mean for a person with a rating of 1950 would be at the top of the ratings for one of the bands and at the bottom of the bands for the other.
Don Groves (2009-08-31 00:58:08)
My .02 Euros
As I understand it, the current limit for a game to affect ratings is 350 ELO points. If so, then why would any player near the top of a 400 rating band enter a tournament unless at least one other player near his/her rating has already entered? Otherwise, that player stands to gain little or nothing from winning.
It seems logical to me that the rating band be smaller than the rating limit to insure that all the games will be rated.
Michael Sharland (2009-09-01 03:41:29)
I agree with the Garvin's suggestion
If you look at the waiting list for any of the standard tournaments, you will typically see only players rated in the bottom 100 points of the band. This means that certain ranges are missing profitable opportunities to play and move up their ratings.
By narrowing the standard tournament bands and offsetting them with the rapid tournament bands, you will likely see an increase in signups as more players will find tournaments that align with their desire for the ability to make rating progress.
I am also in this 2100-2199 rating range and feel that there is no tournament that I can sign up for that would help my rating improve. So I find myself waiting for a WCH tournament to move me up or down rather than playing a new tournament as I would like to.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-07 21:51:31)
Carlsen number 1
Now that Carlsen is training with Kasparov, how much time before being ranked number 1 in FIDE ratings according to you ?
Don Groves (2009-09-17 03:41:11)
rating bands
If you are 1962 and you win a game against an opponent rated 1800, you will still gain rating points. It's entirely possible to reach 2000 by winning enough such games. that was the whole point of narrowing the bands, so that every game will count in the ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-19 22:14:20)
Rating bands
Well, you have to win even more games to enter the upper rating category and I'm not sure it is always a fair system for the winner of a tournament to access it, based on the argument you quoted & also is it fair to play more games to finally win one tournament and lose elo points because of the number of games played at the same time, what happens if 3 or 4 players win a tournament ? (we could use the WCH tournament rules but is it appropriate in this case)
Moreover IMHO, such a rule wouldn't be necessary for ratings below 2200. On the other hand, it may be envisaged to casually offer to the winner of a 2000+ tournament to enter an upper waiting list to complete a waiting list in certain conditions, eg. if his rating is not more than 100 points below the upper rating band (it may be an idea to launch the 11th class SM tournament), what do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-28 17:31:29)
Final score 9-3
Kasparov beats Karpov 9-3 (as their ratings predicted).
Nice match, with quite few draws compared to their previous World Championship matches :)
Don Groves (2009-10-30 00:55:30)
ELO ratings also?
How about a similar list of overall ELO ratings?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-30 01:54:38)
Moves, ratings...
Thanks Don, I would have made more moves with a better broadband :/ .. If there was a formula taking account of ratings, moves & a lower weight for poker, Josef Riha would probably top the list !
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-06 15:50:16)
Multiple nicknames
It is not authorized, particularly to use several accounts at the same time in order to try to cheat (that is detected in most cases)... Anyway the system discouraged the few attempts.
I also know that a few players do not use their real name (eg. that was authorized for the match Igame.ru), generally they do not find motivation enough to stay and reach the top ratings, that seems quite logical and consequences are negligible.
You may send a private message to me if you think that there is cheating in a tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-06 16:45:22)
Idea to avoid DMD at Poker holdem
Maybe an idea to avoid the "Dead Man Defence" at poker... I feel that this is not employed really often actually (at 2000+ ratings at least) as it is not at the player's advantage after a while but it may be an improvement anyway.
The idea is to keep the same time control but to force players to play a certain pending move before to play a new move in his other games again. In example, I have a pending move in poker games 1,2,5,6 : I play my move in games 1 & 2, my opponents play their moves, then I cannot play in games 1 & 2 again (the symbol in My games wouldn't be "!" but "#") before I played the other moves. Atually it wouldn't be so simple as it may be quite uncomfortable at every move, but something like this if I can detect real DMD.
What do you think about it? BTW did you notice that some of your opponents may use DMD while playing other games?
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 ?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-27 01:50:07)
Chess rating calculation
Hello Pablo! Bonnes fętes 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 (2009-12-27 14:08:37)
10 moves rule
IMO this rule is important because :
1) It dissuades cheating by creating several accounts playing together through proxies... This rule makes it really hard to win some points this way, it would be detected even more easily.
2) In many cases, new players (who did not realize that computer assistance was authorized, who do not like the correspondence time controls or who just wanted to try) forfeit their games after 3 or 4 moves rather than let it go. There is no doubt to me that this phenomenon would have much more bad effects on ratings.
3) It is likely that a player who "miniatures" another player is actually much stronger than his opponent, so his rating shouldn't increase so much.
Finally and that's the main point IMO, "unfair" situations are statistically negligible compared to the other possible rules. See the other servers...
So far I'm quite convinced that it is one of the best implemented rules here, and this is exactly the way I optimise the programs: "Statistics give better results than looking for perfection" :)
Wayne Lowrance (2009-12-29 00:56:03)
Rybka demise
Howdy all. I feel like voicing my opinion of Vas and Rybka. I honestly feel his hold on the chess community has weakened to the point of breaking. He has his problems. His source code apparently has been compromized. This has led him to not releasing a Rybka3+ as promised. The release of Rybka4 is very cloudy. Then there is this cloud Rybka internet rentel thing that is supported by no one it seems, me for sure.
Anyways this is just back drop for recent developments in free software engines that are very strong and are pushing R3 in ratings. I am thinking about the following engines, that I have downloaded and find very interesting AND strong :
Stockfish 1.6
Brite 0.4A
Spark 0.3
I have minimal experience with these engines. I just want all my friend here on FICGS to be aware of them and if interested they can download them and be on equal footing. My wish is for better chess and I have no ambition to have secret progams.
The important thing I feel is that the loss of Rybka engine does not put much of dent in play quality. It was gonna happen sooner or later, and now it seems sooner.
My honest evaluation today is that Rybka3 still provides the best insite to best mid game play.
I want to put in a word for Zappa. I fairly often use Zappa as my CC engine partner because of better end game analysis. Rybka has no peer in mid game analysis. Well I share these thought with you all for what it may be worth. Best 2010 Cheers. Wayne
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 (2010-02-22 01:21:35)
Rating calculation
What do you mean exactly a game's rating?
Rating calculation takes account of the Tournament Entry Ratings (TER) for each game and of course the current player's rating when the calculation occurs.
See - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
Daniel Parmet (2010-02-22 01:28:05)
Rating calculation
by a games rating I mean how it effects the two players ratings. So you are saying it uses both the starting and ending rating? This makes no sense! According to the link you gave it sasy TER meaning only starting rating which makes sense.
Ralph Deline (2010-03-12 19:36:04)
Rating calculation
Hi Thibault,
Thanks for your earlier explanation. I wanted to respond sooner but then when I was at the FICGS site, I saw another player, also confused about his chess rating, questioning you about it so I threw in my two cents. In my situation, my opponent was rated about 80 points higher so when I drew, I thought I would actually go up in ratings points instead of down. That is still confusing to me.
Maybe my age is catching up with me, but for fifty years or more, using the formula for establishing ratings in Canada, I was always under the impression that your score and your opponents ratings, with a bit of math thrown in, determined your rating. I know at one time it was possible to win a tournament and lose rating points but I believe that was corrected about a decade or so ago. I wasn't playing for over a decade so I'm not certain on dates.
However, let me acknowledge the fact that I understand what you are saying, play less, win more, and your rating will improve. But I still have a hurdle to overcome. When a lower rated player ties with a highed rated player, regardless of colour, why does he get penalized instead of rewarded for achieving a result that is performing above his present rating? It doesn't seem logical.
You are probably busy and I've taken enough of your time. I don't think I will understand any explanation, you know, can't teach an old dog new tricks, so you don't have to try to explain any further. I just wanted my voice to be heard.
I have had three gross blunders in the last half year so maybe I am playing too many games. I hate to do it, but maybe I will try playing less.
Thanks for listening.
Ralph
Lazaro Munoz (2010-03-13 16:18:17)
English translation
Not to nitpick, but I have seen a lot of references to "inferior" or "superior" when specify ratings or rate of play. In English "inferior" or "superior" are measures of "quality" not "quantity". In English we do not that a rating or rate of play is inferior to another instead we say that it is "less than" or "greater than" depending on whether the first item is larger than second.
If you told a man that his height was "less than" yours he might be slighted but might accept the truth, if it is true; however if you told him that his height was "inferior" to yours, you better get ready to be punched in the face or more likely, if his height really was "less than" yours, be ready to be kicked in the groin area.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-13 21:43:04)
Rating calculation
You have to make the difference between ratings updated in real time (like advanced chess ratings) & the FICGS correspondence chess rating calculation, the idea of those ratings updated every 2 months is to avoid peaks, consequently when you win, draw or lose three games after the last rating calculation, your future rating does not take account of the first result THEN the second one THEN the third one, it is actually completely recalculated by taking account of all results at the same time, so you DO NOT win or lose points AFTER EACH result, your performance is recalculated according to the formula explained in the rules & that looks like the french FIDE rating calculation. One thing that explains "strange" variations after 2 or 3 results only is that the rating calculation is just more accurate when you have many results & particularly when your score is near 50%.
That should answer to the discussions I had with Kamesh & Ralph, but maybe my explanations are not so clear, sorry about that again.
Ralph Deline (2010-03-17 07:27:30)
Rating calculation
Thanks for the helpful comments. I feel much better now that I understand how ratings are derived. I made the assumption that since my rating changed after the conclusion of every game, that the past games had no influence on my future rating, that is, within the two month rating period. It is the same type of rating system I'm accustomed to; results, strength of opponents, a little math thrown in, and presto, a new rating. I can now go on living. Cheers.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-04 23:24:51)
Poker Min Bid
Back to this discussion... Still wondering what is best. If the minimal bet is the big blind, it will speed up the games for sure, but as a consequence it may decrease the "depth" of the games, I mean that the chancy factor is directly related to the minimal bet IMO, so ratings may be (even) less accurate. Anyway, I envisage this change, just would like to read some opinions on this.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-05 00:58:06)
Advanced chess ratings calculation
For some reasons that I'll explain below, I updated the advanced chess (bullet, lightning, blitz, freestyle) rating calculation rules to the following :
"Performance = Opponent Current Rating if the game is drawn, + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.
The following bonus / malus applied to White and to Black makes ratings fair, as it is not possible to force a player to take White or Black before a game :
(White) Performance = Performance - 50
(Black) Performance = Performance + 50
If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his :
New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10
Otherwise :
New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is greater than 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.
In case of a draw or loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200. A player who wins a game cannot lose Elo points, a player who loses a game cannot win Elo points."
More details :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess
The rule that just changed is "If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his : New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10".
This rule will probably be updated again in a few months with a rating limit of 2200 instead of 2400, when advanced chess ratings will be more coherent with correspondence chess ratings.
The reasons are :
1) Advanced/freestyle chess is often neglected partly because players will likely lose some rating points (many strong players using Rybka 3-like engines still have a rating of 1800 or 2000, there are several reasons to this), the main point is probably the interface but I'm fixing it (e.g. the new touch-move option - see Preferences).
2) Chess engines are just stronger and stronger while the ratings do not increase with the previous rules, as a consequence players who just tried advanced chess once years ago shouldn't still top the rating list. It is of course a way for players to find their place quicker in the rating list & to incitate players to play more games as well.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-05 16:48:43)
Poker Min Bid
There is also the other side of the story about rating accuracy in this situation where if players are getting bored with how long the games are taking because things just go back and forth, then they are less likely to play.
This leads to more inaccurate ratings. I think it would be easier to get more accurate ratings by there being many games against different opponents, even if each individual game is not perfect because the minimum bid has been increased.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-06 15:41:33)
Ratings calculation
Hi Lazaro, correspondence chess ratings are not calculated in real time, it is calculated every 2 months, see the complete rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess
You may see an estimation of your future rating (taking account of the games played after the last rating calculation) at :
http://www.ficgs.com/players/munoz_lazaro/history.html
A 1885 rating should look like more logical to you :)
Lazaro Munoz (2010-04-07 04:46:48)
Ratings calculation
Thanks for explanation. --laz
Lazaro Munoz (2010-04-06 12:40:44)
Ratings calculation
I don't quite understand the way that ratings are calculated (for initial ratings).
I entered my first chess tournament with an initial rating of 1785 (my ICCF rating at the time). I won 5 games and drew 1 and got a rating of 1837.
My fellow tournament entry Chris Brooks entered also for the first tournament with an initial rating of 1800. He won 4 games and lost 2 and got a rating of 1906?! No complains to him, only to the rating system.
Is there some draw penalty built in? We played the same set of players(so the tournament average rating is exactly the same) and played the same number of games (and no more, I checked this has so far been our only tournament for both of us), yet with my extra point and half I wound up with a much lower rating.
What's up with that?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-13 20:37:31)
@ Garvin
I'm not sure if the ratings will mean something... e.g. G.Clement at Rybkaforum is rated 2129, but probably uses Rybka. I don't know their other ratings yet so we may have a few provisional 1800 players among our opponents. Ratings ordered or not, all this looks like quite arbitrary.
Just tell me, Garvin... we have a player in replacement if needed.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-04-13 20:40:15)
More ratings questions
This time one big chess. According to rules for big chess (I actually read it first before posting :), it says that the original rating that is used for calculations is the correspondence rating, which should have been 1785, however it appears that 0 was used instead. In the section that I almost finishing I am now 5 out 5 with 1 game left. The ratings of the other players ranged from 1800 down 1200 (roughly) initially. My current provision rating is 1609 and it seems that all my opponents have lost at least 200 ratings points in the process of playing in this tournament.
If rating system had used a real low rating as the initial for myself it would have been unfair to both myself and all of the other players in my section.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-13 22:30:46)
Big chess ratings
Hi Lazaro!
"Big chess ratings are first estimated from current correspondence chess ratings (current rating -300 points, with at least 1400), then adjusted in real time after each result (...)"
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_big_chess
When you entered your first big chess tournament, the TER was not specified but your current correspondence chess rating was used (minus 300) to calculate your first big chess rating with your first result, so a rating of 1609 seems ok taking account of your opponents ratings. The first results may look quite arbitrary but some rules prevent to lose too many points when losing against a strong opponent with a low rating. Anyway there should be more class categories to get more chances to improve ratings (to be continued), we needed more players but maybe we can do it now.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-19 16:41:06)
Advanced chess ratings calculation
As advanced chess (not correspondence chess) ratings move too fast, I just updated the calculation rules :
If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his :
New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20
Otherwise :
New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-23 00:26:49)
Wider rating range tournaments
The problem is either it would ask a big update to make it automatic or an action from a tournament director each time... If I make an update, it should probably work for all class tournaments. This is the system used by IECG but I'm not sure if it is best, and what if several players share first place & so on... Ratings move faster than at IECG to avoid that and allow players to reach higher categories in a shorter time. Simple rules are often best IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 17:02:39)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Tano-Urayoán just posted an interesting idea in the following discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8507
I was totally opposed to this idea at a first sight, but after a while I found some real advantages.
The idea : Any player could pay an entry fee to enter a high class chess tournament (e.g. 20 Euros for class M, 40 for class SM, 60 for class GM), whatever his rating.
Of course what we all see first is : Anyone can pay to make increase his rating faster, that is just unfair!
But let's imagine that a player rated 1800 pays an entry fee of 40 Euros to enter the class SM waiting list.
1) The waiting list will be filled faster!
2) If this player is actually stronger than its rating show, he'll find its place faster (the other players will not lose so many points because their ratings are protected - see rating calculation rules).
3) There could be such an extra rule: Players who are already in the waiting list or who will play the tournament may share 50% of the entry fee in Epoints, which would be a kind of compensation for them.
4) These entry fees will help to have more prizes in free tournaments (another compensation) and bigger prizes in e.g. freestyle cups, although I don't have any idea on how many players would be interested in this, so the site will become more popular and so on...
Anyway, please share your views if you have any idea to improve this one, and your opinion is needed here of course!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 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 (2010-04-25 02:52:37)
FICGS
I understand you Wayne, I don't want to make such mistakes and that's why we talk so much about these changes in this forum :)
On entry fees for a higher class tournament, I agree on the main point of course, but some advantages had to be discussed. The success of this site is also money and money prizes in the future IMO so I prefer to discuss such ideas than to do nothing.
That was the first point. Then there are some other points that remain to be discussed IMO : 1) Maybe correspondence chess ratings should increase (in average) as engines become stronger. 2) Titles calculation rules should probably be harder as a consequence, maybe it should have been changed already.
Correspondence/Advanced chess is constantly evolving, our marks move fast, so rules may have to change. I don't think that FICGS can turn into a kind of Yahoo chess (I did not ever play there btw), the most important thing is the atmosphere and I know that if I make a mistake, someone will let me know very quickly as it happened once a few months ago. We all make that success in that way!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-28 08:53:55)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Very true Hannes...
Many players try to reach the highest ratings before to relax and play more for fun & more openings (there is often a period to learn to lose &/or break the ego at correspondence chess, unlike Go)
A way to find more fun may be in faster games, with more madness and wins/losses... I hope that more players will try bullet games here :)
But that's not a reason not to talk about the ratings issue to try to make it more coherent if possible.
On the rate of draws, I'm not sure if it is so high yet, games played at the highest level may have less draws than in the category below as players do everything to avoid drawish lines. It is probably always too high anyway :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-08 21:08:51)
New proposition
Here's a new idea, based on the fact that I don't think I'll have time (before a while, at least) to implement a script that would allow 1 or 2 tournament's winners to enter a higher class waiting list... many particular cases, not so easy.
The idea :
We could allow one (actually 2 would be still ok IMO) tournament's winner to enter a higher class waiting list for 10 Epoints (not Euros, big difference as most Epoints are won in free tournaments and cannot be cashed out if not played in tournaments with entry fee). I would place the players in the waiting lists by myself but finally it may satisfy everyone -> A player rated 1900 could enter a 2000+ waiting list but could not enter a 2200+ waiting list, the server can offer more Epoints prizes (that just increased for chess tournaments, by the way), and players could find their place more easily in the ratings.
Any opinion?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 18:01:16)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Hi Michel! Thanks again for discussing it.
> What's next? Next FIDE world championship challenger is going to be the one that brings the largest bag of money to the table?
I don't know if this was designed to be humor (I guess, but maybe you meant FICGS instead of FIDE?) but in the context of current FIDE rules I find it very funny :) .. by the way if the same rules were applied at FICGS, anyone could challenge the champion for the title for $500,000 or something like this. Of course that would be great for FICGS and the current champion may appreciate such a prize as well, but that's not the point here.
However yes this FIDE rule may be compared to my suggestion, at a very different level though (the basic idea is the same: to build prizes for more interesting [free?] competitions), in my opinion an entry fee of 10 Epoints is quite different from what I suggested before already. Note that even if FICGS was not free, it would not justify such special entry fee more (not saying it cannot be justified!), after all there's an entry fee in the vast majority of OTB tournaments, if you don't pay it (but GM/IM that are generally invited to play for free - and most often take the prize), you cannot improve your rating, the problem is that the entry fee depends on the tournament, and the entry fee for closed tournaments (the main/only way to get norms) is often much higer.
I agree that things are somewhat different here as the main idea of FICGS is to be completely free. So the real question is : "Is FICGS still 'free' if a tournament's winner can choose to pay an entry fee in a virtual money (by the way it is quite easy to get Epoints without having to pay anything) to enter the next tournaments category".
- If despite of all the answer is "no", then FICGS is NOT free right now anyway as any player can play a rated 2 games match RAPID SILVER with an entry fee against a higher rated player to have more chances to win elo points. This way even IECG was not free (chessfriend), and even if something is really 100% free, it still doesn't mean fair, which is the main point here. Even if a tournament's winner could enter the next tournament's category for free, such a rule would NEVER be completely fair, as I described the particular cases.
Quite complex :)
Finally I'm not saying you're wrong in any way. Free or not free is a really complex question IMO, in my point of view, FICGS will remain free as noone needs to pay to become champion or to achieve the highest ratings (unlike FIDE). But if it is 99% free only while offering money prizes, I'd choose it anyway for sure.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-12 08:51:01)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
To answer one point, as opposed to point one hehe.
While it is true with hard work and good results, it is possible to get into the very high rating groups, the way this site works makes it very difficult indeed.
In fact, it is more likely that a persons rating will stay the same or reduce due to the fact that more players come into the system, take away rating points from those with established ratings and this keeps happening.
With how this site is set up, there are very few opportunities for players in the 2100 rating group to get back those points by playing opponents in the 2200-2300 or more as it stands atm.
So it is highly likely that a player, or players, could be improving their games, but their rating does not improve because they do not have the opportunity to improve their rating because they do not play people rated above them as much as they are playing people rated below them.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-12 16:51:21)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Not exactly a vote Garvin, anyway a few opinions are much better than nothing and still matter to discuss.
My answer to Scott & Tano-Urayoán : I agree that none of these proposals is more fair than the current rules, but here is why at least choice #1 has also many advantages, for FICGS but also for the players : Of course, those who made it the hardest way like Wayne may feel that this is unfair to change the rules, but rules constantly evolve & this would be really a minor change (in the case of choice #1). The point is that while e.g. IECG uses this promotion system, it is unfair the same way that a player from IECG can register at FICGS with his IECG rating that benefited of this rule. From the start FICGS rules were harder than IECG rules when registering, but as ratings move faster here I thought that it would be a compensation, but it is not a reason enough not to improve the rules again if possible.
The reality according to me : choice #1 is less fair than current rules, and choice #4 is even more unfair, but the current rules aren't so fair either. Rules that would be completely fair may exist but would have too many bad consequences for sure, and at least FICGS would not have been a success by using it. Anyway, I will not take any decision today, let's wait for some more arguments, the whole discussion is actually even more interesting than the point that is discussed in. Finally, I'm quite favourable to try (as Garvin suggested) the choice #1 and discuss the consequences after a few months.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-06-03 19:23:41)
Number of rated FIDE players
FIDE has always had a bit of an elitist streak with rating, but also most national tournament administrator do not send in tournament reports from local events to them so that is another reason why do not the expected bell curve of ratings.
The traditional method for a lower rated player to get a FIDE rating was to play in major open event such as the World Open and hopefully play against a FIDE rated player. But since these events are broken in under-xxxx (by ratings) sections, most lower rated players never get a chance to play against a rated opponent unless they were brave enough to enter to top open section.
ICCF had a similar elitist attitude but that has changed in recent years; however at in countries that have a established national CC federation, you use to need to be a member of one to play; it use to be you needed to be invited by your national federation, but that part has changed and as long as you a member of national CC organization you can enter any ICCF that you qualify for (based on ratings).
BTW, ICCF has announced a Webserver open tournament that is free to anyone that does not currently have an ICCF rating. If you have one (ICCF rating) you can join via your national fed or at the ICCF site; I found that the ICCF site was more expensive than going through the national federation.
--laz
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-03 13:03:04)
FIDE ratings july 2010
Once again, Magnus Carlsen makes the news with the 2nd highest rating ever reached (2826)...
Rank Name Title Nation Rating
1 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2826
2 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2803
3 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2800
4 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2790
5 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2783
6 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2761
7 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2760
8 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2755
9 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2749
10 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2748
11 Karjakin, Sergey g RUS 2747
12 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2739
13 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2739
14 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2734
15 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2734
16 Leko, Peter g HUN 2734
17 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2732
18 Navara, David g CZE 2731
19 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2729
20 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2726
21 Wang, Hao g CHN 2724
22 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2723
23 Movsesian, Sergei g SVK 2723
24 Vitiugov, Nikita g RUS 2722
25 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2720
26 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2719
27 Almasi, Zoltan g HUN 2717
28 Wang, Yue g CHN 2716
29 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2716
30 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2715
31 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2713
32 Jobava, Baadur g GEO 2710
33 Tomashevsky, Evgeny g RUS 2708
34 Nepomniachtchi, Ian g RUS 2706
35 Adams, Michael g ENG 2706
36 Onischuk, Alexander g USA 2701
37 Nielsen, Peter Heine g DEN 2700
38 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2699
39 Caruana, Fabiano g ITA 2697
40 Fressinet, Laurent g FRA 2697
41 Vallejo Pons, Francisco g ESP 2697
42 Bologan, Viktor g MDA 2695
43 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2691
44 Akopian, Vladimir g ARM 2691
45 Timofeev, Artyom g RUS 2690
46 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2690
47 Efimenko, Zahar g UKR 2689
48 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2688
49 Miroshnichenko, Evgenij g UKR 2686
50 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2685
Scott Nichols (2010-08-09 21:12:59)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Just a note to say how this new rule is affecting at least one player here (me), :) I "earned" entry to a higher class tournament by winning the class just below. I paid my ten E-points and received entry into the next higher class. We have been playing for a while and I am holding my own ok. I have met new players and am overjoyed at the chance to play them. They are all friendly and welcoming. Life couldn't be better, ......but....... Maybe it's just me, but I feel at this point that I never REALLY earned my way into this realm. The old way was to suffer through months and years of climbing the rating ladder a little at a time and then finally reach that next level. Also, just my opinion, is that these days there really isn't a big difference in strengths between 1850 and 2450 given that we all have fast computers running on Rybka mostly. The difference I find is the human side of the ratings. The old days whether Shredder could beat Fritz, or Deep Junior could beat Hiarcs are long gone. So I guess what I'm trying to say without rambling any further, is that as much as I like playing in the higher section, I would prefer to "EARN" it the old way. Just one players opinion, Thank you
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-10 00:01:37)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
It is true that there isn't a big difference in strengths between "many" 2150 and 2450... That's a reason why this rule may be useful IMO, particularly while 2450 ratings are somewhat "protected", it is more an advantage for you than a disadvantage for 2450 players.
Anyway this is still an experiment... So far, only 2 or 3 players used such a ticket.
Don Groves (2010-08-10 10:00:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Scott: In a way you did earn it, you won a next lower rated tournament which "earned" you the right to play one time in a higher rated one. The purpose is to allow players to improve their ratings faster if they are good enough to win some games at the higher rating.
As you say though, and Thibault seems to agree, with fast processors and the best software, there isn't as much difference between players as there used to be.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 00:57:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims
upon looking through my games I found only one instance where I went overboard on draw offers and my opponent asked me to stop at which point I did (it should also be noted I managed to lose the drawn position in the end though I was playing way too many games at once close 150).
Anyways, I know to some Corr ratings are the end all be all of life but to me they are the most meaningless rating I have. Even my blitz ratings are more meaningful. Because, corr is where I test ideas and see if they work or not. I'm never playing seriously and I really don't care about the results hence you see me in way more thematics and unrated events than rated events.
But I will say this, the difference in strength between a 1800 and 2100 is almost zilch. OTB that difference is HUGE. Corr it is meaningless. 80 pts? This difference is less zilch, you might as well be the same rating. So when you talk about "the right" to offer draws based on rating, I have to laugh at you. These are certainly unacceptable "maxims" and if you want maxims to be followed they have to be acceptable otherwise they will simply be ignored.
I played OTB two weekends ago against a player who outrated me by 400 pts. I was crushing him. In his lost position, he offered me 7! Draws. After I beat him, several players came up to me stated I should have called the TD over the repeated draw offers. Being a TD myself, I replied the ambiguity of the situation. It is his RIGHT to offer those draws. I was by no means forced to accept them (and did not). But there is a gray area in the rules that repeated draw offers (in the rule book it says LITERALLY every single move for 10 moves) the td could rule as distraction and issue nothing more than a warning. A second offense also the punishment is only a warning. ONLY on a third offense can the td actually do anything punitive.
So the real answer is, if you don't want a draw. Turn it down. If you don't want to be offered two draws, tell your opponent so. Each person is different and views their scenarios differently. But trying to make up a rule that no one will follow is beyond silly. I will offer a draw to someone whether they are 1000 pts above or below me if I think the position is drawn.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 23:45:16)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Yep, I'm afraid you're a lost cause. No players cannot get away with whatever they want in tournaments read the rulebook dude. You are rating crazy. Do you not realize that for a person to improve they have to be playing beyond their rating? Ratings represent past performance. You need to judge a position based on its features not the person's playing its rating. Many positions reach draw positions early in the game as ours did when people play unambitiously. But I give up trying to convince you of your illogical ways.
Just know this: it is irrelevant whether you use the right to offer draw but it is important that you have it so your point is mute here as well.
A funny incident also happened a few weeks ago: two players kept offering each other draws every 2 moves, declining their opponent's draw then offering it themselves two moves later. It was funny because it was perpetual check and they both knew it. But everytime they offered a draw, the other one would decide maybe he'll mess up. Turn it down and offer it again about 2-3 moves later. By the end of the game each player had offered the other over 15 draws in the perpetual check scenario but the game managed to end decisively strangely.
And btw, your definition of respect and others will different. I certainly don't respect someone cause they've had more time than me to study and made a 2001 rating. I already explained I have no respect for Corr ratings whatsoever. I have also explained my rating does not represent my strength because I do not take it seriously. Do I respect people that have made a career of this? Of course. But I digress because here opinions will vary wildly and be to each their own. We have left the realm of facts. I just think it amusing to always remember that however good you are, there is always some one better. Or put even better, if you could buy a man for what he is actually worth and sell him for he thinks he's worth there would always be a huge profit. Ie there is always arrogance involved when you include ratings. A fun quote to conclude on: "First-class players lose to second-class players because second-class players sometimes play a first-class game." - Siegbert Tarrasch
Scott Nichols (2010-09-20 00:34:24)
Corr. Chess Maxims
I knew you'd keep it going. You can't tell a bullhead like you or Obama anything. I know the reason you don't care about ratings is the same reason every loser says after he's lost again. "Well, I don't care about that anyway."
You haven't proven anything except that you seem to want to have the last word in any discussion. See you STILL can't seem to grasp the fact that a maxim is NOT a rule. If you can scroll back up to the top you will see that maxim #2. says "Generally one offer of a draw is enough for at least 10 moves" In your first post you already got it wrong by saying, "And a draw can only be offered every 10 moves." So the only thing you've proven is that you can't read and can't understand English. Here is another maxim.."Always check who the TD is before you enter any tournament."
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-20 01:22:07)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Haha you're psycho, you call me the bull head yet you're the one who has managed to make 7! posts without a single point. All insults. Obama this Obama that. What the f does Obama have to do with anything? You brought up and you keep bringing him up for god knows what reason.
Your lack of logic is astounding. You admit 1 rating point is enough that the lower rated should still be allowed to offer a draw but not at 80pts. What about 2 pts can he offer a draw here or is it still illegal? Where do you draw the line? Can't you see how stupid this is? You know ratings are considered on 200 pt bands right and anything within 200pts is always considered comparable skill levels hence why terms such as Class B( 1600 1799) and Class A 1800 (1999) developed in the first place. Guess what, 80 pts is less than 200 so its the same skill band hence why they were in the same tournament in the first place.
I know exactly what a maxim is and what a rule is. I know the damn difference. You seem to not understand that your proposition is not acceptable as either. In no circumstance should rating ever matter when a player is thinking about whether he/she wants to offer a draw. It is irrelevant as I've proved to you time and time again.
I do care about my OTB rating yes because I try my hardest there when I have time. But my corr rating nope. Its meaningless. I've given draws in winning positions many times because I don't care. What you describe is utter insanity (must be your philosophy). You realize whether your 2084 or 2240 or 2300 or 2400 you're just a fish right? Trying to brag like its an accomplishment is a joke beyond all measure. There is ALWAYS someone better. As IM William Hartson aptly put it, "playing chess badly is where the growth is."
And don't worry you don't have to check for my tournaments as TD because I wouldn't permit you in my tournament anyways. I don't want known trouble makers.
oh well: " If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong."
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-29 23:39:50)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks
If I understand the tiebreaks correctly the higher rated based on entry rating goes on. If this is tied it goes to their current rating at the time the tie is concluded.
First question, is this correct?
2nd question, why are ratings the tiebreaker?
Final question, why is entry rating first over rating at the time concluded? Is this because someone could drag out a game knowing their rating will become higher in the next period? If that is the reason, it would seem to me you couldn't use current rating even if the entry ratings were tied.
It just seems a tad silly to use rating as a tiebreaker when there might be a 1-20 point difference. If its a large difference it makes some sense but even then little.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-30 13:26:12)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks
1) This is correct. Actually, when it is possible, 2 players per group (the second one is chosen according to his number of points in the tournament and his rating compared to all other players in the same case in the same cycle) may play the next round.
2) The tiebreaker is the TER because it does not change during the tournament, so whatever the difficulty (and the difference between TER) the challenge is known and it gives a chance by influencing the risks to take, just like in the knockout cycle! (it answers the final question as well) When the TER tie, the current rating is the best way to do it IMO, it is rare enough anyway. The WCH rules are based on ratings, thus all rated tournaments "count" in a way for the final result & title.
Garvin Gray (2010-09-30 20:37:21)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
I wish to propose that the stage one groups starting from the next WCH tournament be paired differently.
Currently, from my understanding, all the players who have not qualified for the high rated round robins or elimination matches are paired into separate round robins of about seven players in each group.
Seed number 1 is in group 1 and so forth until all groups have been allocated.
The idea of this being to try and ensure that each of the groups is of equal strength.
Where I think this falls down is the issue of players with provisional ratings ie players with new ratings of 1800, 1500.
I have had the experience of having one or more of these 1800's in my group and after the group is finished, it is clear that the 1800 player has achieved a rating of 2100 plus, meaning that my group had three players with playing ability over 2100, meaning my qual group was unfairly disadvantaged.
How I would like the stage one qualifying to work from now is:
1) All players with recognised ratings are paired as per normal.
2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves.
Then normal qualification rules apply for getting to stage 2.
It is highly unlikely that a low rated player will qualify from the provisional rated groups as someone from each of those groups will be about 2100 or so by the end of the first qualifying stage.
I do ask for this to be endorsed for the next WCH.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-30 21:56:55)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
I agree immensely!
Further i've noticed that the color pairings tends to be very very bad for seed 2 & 3 but great for seed 1 & 4.
As seed 2 I get black against 1&4 as seed 3 I get black against 1 4 but as seed 4 I get white against 1&3. Yet these color disadvantages are not at all included as a tiebreak in any way.
The result is that in the last Wch as seed2 I never got a useful white having two tough blacks with seed #1 & #4 but in the Wch before as seed #4 I have no tough blacks because I had white against seed #1 . I'm not quite sure the solution other than to somehow tie the colors into tiebreak before ratings.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-01 13:30:27)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
GG- "2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves." ,
TB- You mean they play together in special groups?
We can think about it as well but one goal of the championship was to help those players to find their place quicker in the rating list before the next cycles. I'm not sure if a 2300 player provisionnaly rated 1800 is an advantage for anyone else in the group more than seed 1.
GG- It is not an advantage to have an 1800 in your group if they play to a standard of 2100. It is a severe disadvantage.
It means there is one more person in some groups that plays to a rating way above their provisional rating.
I am very concerned that you seem to be putting the needs of increasing those players ratings in the WCH above the integrity of the competition as a whole. It means you are unfairly affecting other players chances of qualifying, just for the sake of allowing new members the chance to gain a few extra rating points.
The new members still have a lot of chances to increase their rating through playing in normal tournaments, which is where the longer term members had to get their ratings from.
I am saying that those with provisional ratings should be seeded into groups by themselves in stage one.
Whoever wins these groups will clearly be about 2100/2200 playing strength and so will not be crushed in stage two anymore than those with long term 2100 ratings.
A secondary option is to seed some of these players using their advanced rating (if they have one), so at least then there does not end up being three or four 2100's trying to qualify from the same group, while having other groups with only one or two 2100's.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-01 17:51:59)
On colour allocation
On colour allocations, there was numerous discussions on this topic during the 1st year of the server. Well, I cannot remember exactly all my arguments, but briefly 1) Double round-robin is too much effort for the players while it does not eliminate totally the chancy factor. 2) On Berger, the whole FICGS WCH idea is to give more importance to the non-WCH tournaments, the very best player must be champion IMO, not only the winner of a few tournaments, that's why ratings are so important in the tie breaks (and that's why my first idea was to give White to the top seed in round robin groups)!
Less games for everyone per cycle + More cycles = More chances to find the real champion (and more fun :)) !
Garvin Gray (2010-10-05 13:36:15)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Thibault,
You have missed my original point. I am saying that having a 1800 player in your group can be a DISADVANTAGE.
In none of my postings on this topic have I mentioned anything about ratings, except to express a lot of concern that you seem more concern about using the WCH tournament to improve ratings than to try and qualify the best player from each group and to have each of the groups of as close to equal standard as possible.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 14:21:22)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
If it is a disadvantage, it should be consequently an advantage for someone else, I meant this way... So your point is that it is a disadvantage "in the tournament", right? I do not agree with this, if the best player was actually this 1800 player, he should be able to play the championship anyway (and you have the advantage of ratings there for tiebreaks)... If players with a provisional rating play together in special wch groups, the winners (probably still under-rated) will play stage 2 and we'll have the same problem then IMO.
Do other players have an opinion or similar arguments on this point?
Garvin Gray (2010-10-05 16:31:02)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Thibault, I am more than happy to let others give their opinions, but I really do not think you understand at all what point I am trying to make.
This is now three times that you have misunderstood what I am trying to say.
Geez I wish we could quote better in these forums. It would make discussing points much easier.
Thib: So your point is that it is a disadvantage "in the tournament", right? I do not agree with this, if the best player was actually this 1800 player, he should be able to play the championship anyway (and you have the advantage of ratings there for tiebreaks)...
GG- I am not arguing at all that the 1800's should not be able to play in the championship. Please stop mis-quoting me. I have also stated this previously. I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.
The disadvantage is with how the groups are paired and I finding it very difficult to not get completely pissed off with having to explain items many times for you to understand what I am trying to say.
You keep failing to respond directly to my points and I keep having to point out how you have mis-quoted my points, which does not help in the debate at all.
The groups are currently paired in the first stage with the highest rated player in Group 1, second highest rated player in Group 2, third highest rated player in Group 3 and so forth for eleven groups (in this example there are eleven groups). Then the 12th highest rated player is placed in Group 11, the thirteen highest rated player in Group 10 and back we go to the 22nd highest rated player in Group 1. The pattern keeps repeating back and forth until all players in stage one have been allocated to a Group.
Now with the 1800's being seeded in these groups with their 1800 rating is that they end up being about the 4th or 5th seed in some groups, but are not allocated to each group.
Now when some of these 1800 players start performing at a rating of 2100, it means in some groups that the top seeds have received three players of similar playing level and some other groups have not. This makes some of the groups disproportionately unfair.
If these 1800 players were somehow seeded accurately according to their playing standard, meaning they entered stage one in their proper seeding position, it would push all the rest of the players down one spot and so the Group allocations would be fairer.
Another option could also be to make it a rule that players must have a proper rating ie not provisional, before being able to play in the championship. I have tried to avoid suggesting this with my proposal to have them play in a group all by themselves.
Philip Roe (2010-10-05 17:20:42)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
I think that the management of the WCH should not be too heavily weighted toward ensuring that "the best player" wins. On behalf of the underdogs, I would like us to have at least a sporting chance. If the cards are too much stacked against us the idea of an "open" tournament is lost, and we won't enter.
I looked at the statistics for cycle 000007. The top seed won outright 7 times, and tied for first on 7 other occasions. The second seed won outright twice, and tied first 7 times. The third seed won 5 times and tied twice. The fourth seed won once and tied twice. Out of all the winners, only the the two fourth seeds who tied had provisional 1800 ratings.
Are these numbers really a cause for concern?
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-22 20:56:57)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Hi,
Gary- Thanks for your interest, I do remember to some of your replies to the FICGS vs Rybka Forum match. As you are a guy who likes some order in the matches. When I make the the pairings for the tournament I will be taking into account of ratings. And will make them fair. There are a couple of people who may not have official rating on the rybka forum, but I have a good idea of there strength :) One of them is actually playing reben a great game in the B90 a variation.
Daniel Parmet- Thanks for your interest I have you down.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-10-24 22:57:48)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Jimmy I am following your progress. I continue my interest in the Tournament. We have discussed my thoughts via PM, but to review here are the things of concern to me. First I do not want to overload my chess obligations in Tournaments I am involved with at FICGS now. I have a hunch that a Start date at or shortly after the year will work out provided it is possible to have no more than one (1) game running at a time.
Other features of interest to a lesser degree are management/monitoring of matches to make sure that excessive time outs are infrequent. A player should not be allowed to go on vacation so to speak during a match. In the event of hardware problems a player should have to live with the timer obligations and not making a unfair match delay.
Player ratings could be considered in pairings. Somewhat like board seeds. Top rated sits at board #1 etc.
I think this can be sorted out easily. Your have excellent inputs from others such as Vytron etc regarding timer details. 2 days/move sounds good to me Jimmy.
So continue your good work, I would be proud to participate god willing.
Wayne
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-29 11:40:25)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
The tournament format has been decide. It will be a 2 game a round swiss tournament. Now my working on a pairing system as we spoke. I've been told by garvin gray that he is an official FIDE arbiter who has the latest programs to be used on swiss tournaments. I'll keep that in mind going forward. As everyone here has official rating. It will be my job to work something out with the other players on my forum who don't have ratings. This being a Swiss tournament with having a chance to play with both colors. I should be about to just do subjective pairings and be fine. I have a pretty good idea of were the players stand rating wise. I hope everyone is really for an competitive and enjoyable tournament!
Jimmy
Garvin Gray (2010-10-29 12:50:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
With it being two games and a swiss, the initial ratings do not matter so much.
Players will get sorted pretty quickly. With using total game points as the first pairing criteria, each score group will have less players, meaning that most of the time there will only be two or three players in each score group, rather than 10 or twelve like in an over the board tournament.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-02 15:37:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Your doing a good job Garvin, everyone thought your idea of ending the game at 6 man tablebase positions was great 100%. And you more or less suggested the 2 game a Round Swiss was taken very well to. Maybe I should let you be my TD lol. I think I can let you do my Pairings to if you want. My only question to you is what rating list would be the best to use? As far as the ratings of the Rybka Forum players I'll have to give you my ideal ratings for them.
Garvin Gray (2010-11-06 06:19:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Jimmy,
Possible slight change to start date proposal.
I would like to see the competition either start on December 1 (one month earlier), or on about January 14.
The reason for this is to try and reduce the impact of Christmas. If the competition starts on January 1, games could time out without people even knowing that they started due to being on holidays.
Perhaps starting earlier might be helpful as it means the competition starts while there is the current momentum for it.
But middle January is also good as it will give a chance for the new ficgs ratings to be used.
I think it would also be prudent about a week before the start of round one to personally contact all the participants and get them to confirm they are playing. Only those that confirm their participation will be paired for round one.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-12-17 21:06:59)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
By the way Thib I've read a few threads here today about prizes and classes for tournaments. And how you would want to win a tournament to move up in a tournament class or that was the debate. With that thinking, I wonder if that is part of the reason. Why my tourney is as popular as it is. It gives some players of lesser rating a chance to play higher rated players. An as you said in your next line. My tournament will technically not be rated. Even tho ratings will be used for pairing purposes. With the system in place. I believe a lot of the lower rated players will get a chance to play players 200 rating points or higher at some point in the tournament. Anyway thanks for the explanation. Getting excited with less than 2 weeks to go before pairing and 3 weeks after that before the tournament is underway. I've had a couple more names to my list and was happy to hear kam was going to play.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-02 19:50:00)
Update for BigChess & Poker rating rules
Hi all, it was a long time there wasn't any update in rating rules.
First of all, as the number of results at Poker Holdem is quite high, I feel that a change should be tried so that ratings move less fast.
Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((38 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 40
Case of a loss : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40
As for Big Chess, the ratings deflate because there isn't the same rule than in Poker or Advanced Chess, this is now fixed :
If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2000, his new rating his :
New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20
Otherwise :
New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
This rule may look strange from a mathematical point of view, but combined to the other rules that provoke deflation, it gives really good results IMHO. Let's see how it works here.
Juri Eintalu (2021-09-04 17:22:19)
ICCF ratings
Hello. I am new here. I see that my ICCF rating has been converted into a FICGS rating. However, I have not found here any information about whether the FICGS rating influences the ICCF or ELO ratings.
Kamesh Nookala (2011-02-05 13:21:55)
Segregation of Games on this Server
Dear all,
In my opinion, it would be really useful to get the games segregated month-wise or two months-wise (as the ratings and database gets updated once in two months). As of today, whenever we try to download games and update the database, we happen to download all the previously downloaded games, as it has a collective bunch, and then delete the already downloaded games by doubles check.
Regards,
Kam
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 (2011-02-24 18:14:53)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
IMO the "bad" (if bad, actually I prefer random) consequences are not eliminated but only postponed while adding more complex rules. Better (from a ratings & results point of view) would be to block the entry to these players, but but...
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 (2011-02-27 02:47:16)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Thib, I have explained my point of view quite a few times and when you reply you keep either accidently mis-interpreting it, or are doing it deliberately.
I suspect there might be a language issue between English as a first language and French as a first language.
My issue is with the first stage groups, to which most of the players are allocated.
In none of my previous posts have I mentioned UNDERRATED players ie those who have established ratings on here, but most likely their true playing standard is higher than their rating.
I will try and explain my position again and I now see I am not alone in having this opinion.
With 15 or so groups in the first stage and having some players provisionally rated at 1800, this means those '1800' are seeded in the different groups at player number 3 or 4.
But a few of the '1800's' turn out to be quite stronger than that rating, meaning the genuine rated 2100's in that group get another person who can play to their level, whereas in another group which did not have an '1800er', the group that did not have the provisional 1800 gets a statistical advantage by having one less stronger player to qualify for round two.
Now to the argument that putting the provisionals in groups by themselves only delays the problem.
If there are only one or two provisional groups, then this means that only one or two provisionals make it through to round two.
While this idea makes those groups of questionable standard, it is extremely likely that whoever comes out of the provi groups is going to be of decent standard.
Garvin Gray (2011-02-27 09:28:07)
Plea for classical rating help
I do not have a solution for what I am about to whinge about, but it is a situation I am getting a little tired of on this site and I see the situation as rather terminal to my participation here.
For the last 12 rating periods, I have had a rating between 2100 and 2200. In the one tournament where I got to play a field with consistent 2200's, I scored 50% or better.
What I am noticing more and more is that for me it is impossible to get opportunities to find out what my true standard is on here.
I am continually having to play people rated around myself or below and these includes those who are provisionally rated 1800 or 2100. When these games are drawn or lost, my rating is dragged down quite a bit.
I do not ever get the opportunity get those points back by playing people above 2200.
It is an issue that I am so sick of and I feel that my progress is being stunted because of it. My rating progress is certainly being stunted.
We do have the higher ticket idea, but that still takes six months to win one and that does NOT help a persons rating all that much.
With the WCH cycle as it is, I also do not have an opportunity to qualify straight through to group 2, like those with higher ratings do.
As I said, this is a bit of a whinge, but I really am sick of this issue and would like some more opportunities to try and find out what I am like against higher rated opponents.
It is part of the reason why I have also asked that the top rateds in the WCH are not segregated from the lower rated as they are atm. I think they should be made to start from stage 1.
Only the defending champion and possibly the defeated previous finalist should receive preferential treatment.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-27 21:20:59)
Plea for classical rating help
I don't know if only the defending champion and/or finalist "should" have any treatment after all... That's the whole debate of the FIDE WCH and I wanted to make it quite the opposite way.
On the opportunities for 2100-2200 players to cross the 2200 barrier, your last 4 ratings were 2160, 2157, 2160 & 2135. The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150. I'm not trying to sell anything there but it is an option that is dedicated to help in such cases.
On the WCH cycle, maybe another idea would be to "extend" the M Groups idea to the 2200-2300 players. With 2200 to ~2400 players in these groups, there will be more strong players in Stage 2... I'm not sure about the whole consequences but it may be worth a try, what do you think?
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-28 04:38:07)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Thib I feel for you :) Making a good tournament format is very hard. I know I pulled teeth to try and make my format. I had to do two things for my. 1.Make few games as possible and 2.Make it a reasonable time table for a blitz world championship. I believe Garvin did a great job with this in the parings. Lucky we didn't have a lot of unrated players. So Thib I would like to help, but can I ask a favor to you. Is it possible to get a breakdown of the ratings of the players for the last Wch? I think this would be helpful to maybe coming up with a solution. So maybe like..
What was the number of.
2300's+
2200's
2100's
2000's
1900's
1800's
below 1800's
provisional's
I know this maybe some work, but this breakdown can give us a picture of what you have. Personally speaking I think Garvin's idea is decent. Were you can put the highest advance provisional player in the lower stage round 2 bracket and the same for the lowest provisional player to go to the higher round 2 bracket, by performance of stage 1. I guess when you talk about statistical merits for your Wch tournament. You are trying to get the lowest error rate, but get the best value to it.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 16:05:47)
Plea for classical rating help
My point is that you never entered a class M waiting list while you were able to do it during maybe 6 months... During this time you entered many Rapid M & Class A tournaments (you play many games) so there may be also a rating management question into the problem IMHO. The same way you played 3 rapid silver tournaments, 2 against players with low ratings and 1 against Eros (good opportunity!) that you lost. These times many ~2200 rated players enter this waiting list.
Anyway I'll make other proposals in the other discussion today.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 16:07:33)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I'll answer this in a few hours. A quick suggestion meanwhile, do you think that provisional ratings (most are 1800) should be e.g. rated 2000 if the new members say that they're using an engine? It may help to solve many of these problems.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 21:02:18)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
@Garvin:
I suggest that all 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 OR that all 2100+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2 and still 1 for stage 3. This combined to another new rule that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering would have a provisional rating of 2000 would solve IMO this issue (2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the wch) and would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating). The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule. Actually I think I would be very favourable to one of these changes.
@Jimmy:
Fortunately there are players like Garvin, Scott, Gino & others who really helped to build the FICGS rules :) On the numbers of players by rating range, it is quite different from a cycle to another, sometimes we have 2 M groups, sometimes there is no M group at all so I'm not sure if it would be representative. Still I'm not favourable at all to have groups of provisionally rated players.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-02 15:44:26)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Hi Garvin :)
The main point is IMO this suggestion:
"All 2100+, 2150+ or 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) could play the M groups at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2, while the winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.
Combined to another new rule, that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering to get a provisional rating of 2000, it could solve this issue.
Indeed 2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the regular wch groups, while they keep more chances to qualify for round 2, and it would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating).
The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule."
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-05 13:43:30)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
There is no similar issue for 2000's IMHO, it is probably easier to cross the 2000-2100 barrier than the 2100-2200 and of course 2200-2300. And once again they would lose much less rating points against these new 2000 provisionally rated players (that's mathematical).
On provisional ratings depending on if players declare if an engine is used, even ICCF (as far as I know) grants a 2000 prov. rating to some players, I was not convinced so far but finally... Of course new players can "lie" or change their mind on using an engine, they'll not be kicked out of any tournament but such a rule is surely better than nothing to get ratings more coherent, btw it is just an improvement of the current rule (new players who have no rating anywhere can choose their first rating between 1200 & 1800, and of course I fix it if e.g. the player declares to play with an engine with a new rating of 1200).
Anyway the idea of players needing to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH is also fine to me. Let's just try to have more opinions on this.
Garvin Gray (2011-03-06 08:56:33)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Aren't having players segregated from the rest being elitist. Tano, you have voted for proposals that are surely elitist ie allowing players to avoid the general population and giving them increased chances to qualify.
If you do not believe in elitism then I would have thought you were would be arguing that all players from all ratings should start from round one, including the 2300+ players.
Daniel Parmet (2011-03-10 02:54:11)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
No, it makes it pointless. You are the top seed. You play underrated players or weak players both of which are a waste of time. You lose massive ratings points and never get a chance to play the stronger players. It is a complete waste of time to enter as the top seed.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-10 12:40:21)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Hi Daniel, I don't get your point. Now you're rated 2094 so you would be probably a top seed in the next regular group, playing maybe 2 provisionals (maybe one centaur rated 2000 and one centaur or human rated 1800 or 1700) instead of ~2 centaurs rated 1800 + playing as Black against a player rated 2200. I really think that it is a better "deal" for players rated 2000-2100 also. Yes you may still lose a few points (less than before IMO), but your chances to go to round 2 and play stronger players are much higher... I cannot say more.
@Garvin: your proposal makes sense. By "if possible" I mean that the rule is not strictly 2150 or 2300, I'll just try to make coherent groups (in size & ratings) so it quite looks like your way in practice I think.
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.
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 :)
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 (2011-07-18 13:04:52)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
@Don: The rules try to make tournaments (particularly championships) & ratings coherent as much as possible (to "protect" results & ratings), in other words if a player resigns several games in a tournament without giving a valid explanation, even the games he won or drew in these tournaments may be adjudicated as losses in this aim. The only question is: should it be extended to games (in these tournaments only) finished before the first resignation...
@Garvin (& Gino): Thanks for the information! Would you know what ICCF says about it?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-13 19:52:28)
List ordered by rating
Here is, but as usual the new ratings (january 2012) will be taken in account...
Erwin Thiering 2515
Michael Bergmann 2475
Xavier Pichelin 2454
Thibault de Vassal 2449
Herbert Kruse 2436
Pavel Háse 2332
Ljubomir Tsenkov 2314
Rubén Cómes 2300
Wayne Lowrance 2266
Dariusz Fraczek 2261
Ramil Germanes 2255
Miroslav Gazi 2255
Alexander Blinchevsky 2253
Michael Sharland 2251
Sergey Kokoryukin 2251
Andrey Razumikhin 2250
Valery Nemchenko 2245
Lubos Fric 2241
Kevin D. Plant 2237
Christoph Schroeder 2236
Viktor Shishkin 2234
Slobodan Ilic 2218
Dmitri Mamrukov 2211
Vitaly Rudenko 2203
Alvin Alcala 2203
Carlos Sánchez 2203
Garvin Gray 2200
Scott Nichols 2189
Peter Unger 2181
Martin Zeman 2181
Christian Koch 2167
Stephen Hamby 2163
John Schutte 2136
David Evans 2132
Nelson Bernal Varela 2130
Darren DiAlfonso 2123
Ardiantez Polkwitzauer 2123
Thomas Dineen 2118
Peter W. Anderson 2112
Steve Lim 2110
Yu Ming Hoe 2100
Arkadiusz Wosch 2093
Djordje Kasabasic 2093
Luis Flores 2084
Daniel Parmet 2083
Lalit Kapoor 2080
Erik L. van Dijk 2074
Bernd Wolf 2072
Jose Lopez 2071
Sergey Uzdin 2064
Rodolfo d Ettorre 2064
Janos Helmer 2063
Om Prakash 2053
Mykola Simashkevitch 2043
Alexis Duenas 2037
Ireneusz Kasznia 2036
Mihail Larsky 2028
Joop Simmelink 2026
Pan Hardfeldt 2020
Henri Muller 2000
Jaroslav senior Pech 2000
Jaroslaw Gibas 2000
Bogoljub Teverovski 1997
Willy De Waele 1996
Fernando Vasquez 1992
Jose Moreira 1979
Andrew Endean 1975
Henri-Louis Muller 1972
Jose Maria Velasco 1972
Jordi Domingo 1969
Janeen Walden 1958
Andy Richard 1956
Roberto Migliorini 1949
Erika van Dijk 1943
Daniel Reboredo 1938
Coco Maceda 1938
Michael Rogers 1933
Aleksandr Aksenov 1927
Mariusz Maciej Broniek 1923
Robert Wilhelm 1901
Kieran Moore 1900
John Dyson 1889
Catalin Nita 1888
Daniel Jabot 1878
Johanes Suhardjo 1875
Mikhail Ruzin 1871
Benjamin Block 1863
Ilmar Ambos 1859
Vyacheslav Shchelykalin 1859
Jan Peter Lommler 1844
Stanislas Gounant 1840
Mircea Hrubaru 1838
Sasha Lipsits 1833
Nilson Pereira 1833
Aleksey Payzansky 1804
Jai Prakash Singh 1800
Fredi Brumec 1800
Gleen Duran 1800
Josef Strohmeier 1800
Ryszard Sternik 1776
Stepan Pech 1767
Dieter Faust 1764
Dmitriy Malish 1760
Dimitrios Ropokis 1743
Hasan Kirali 1715
Eddit Moreul 1700
Behzad Shahmiri 1700
Jaimie Wilson 1684
Dinesh Bhandarkar 1682
Philip Roe 1667
Olli Ylönen 1660
Graham Cridland 1655
Juan Alvar 1653
Jeremy Banta 1644
Luís Gonzaga Grego 1643
Pablo Siciliano 1623
Mariusz Jandula 1600
Sergey Biryukov 1598
Alejandro Canovas 1589
Jimmy Huggins 1577
Matthew O Brien 1575
Pablo Ruano 1565
Khaled Toutaoui 1528
Stanimir Denchev 1505
Leo Malagar 1500
Richard Hendricks 1479
Eric Price 1469
Antonio Pereira 1456
Angelo Piantadosi 1420
Simon Huxtable 1388
Peter Krakovsky 1326
Marc-Antoine Leurette 1243
Jorge Orden 1204
Hana Pechova 1204
Jorma Häkkinen 1192
Des Jefferis 1186
Deon Whittaker 1111
Matej Pech 1074
Jiri Mach 1022
Cédric Cavaillé 1003
Jay Melquiades 0909
Jaroslav Pech 0697
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-29 14:48:20)
5 player double round robins
I agree on "if it's not rated, it's not real" but the fact is that many players are afraid to lose many points against maybe strong 1800 players... Actually the rules evolved about 2 years ago to avoid this, ratings are quite protected (never enough) in such cases but it looks like it is not well intergrated yet.
On the other hand, if there's an entry fee & prize, it's even more real... If we start with that idea, maybe it can be unrated. I'm still not sure...
Your opinion for a double round robin with entry fee & money prize, should it be unrated or rated?
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 15:59:17)
5 player double round robins
Off topic response- In my opinion if ratings are based on a decent system, then they do not need to be protected.
If someone loses a person 600 points below them and vice versa wins, they deserve the points result that those results indicate.
The issue, and I know you already know my opinion on this, is players who are put on some arbitary rating ie 1800, when their playing standard could be any number at all.
If unknown players had to earn their rating through a provisional rating system, then there would not have to be as many concerns.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 16:11:44)
Different tournament format
Thibault has touched on an issue that I have thought about for a while, so time for a new thread.
Regularly it is discussed about the issues regarding the rating bands, getting to play different players and all sundry similiar issues.
In my opinion I think what this site really needs is more events run under the correspondence style format (not freestyle cup style), where players of significantly different ratings are playing against each other.
Here is what I envisage:
Qualification Stage:
All players of all ratings enter. Groups are divided up similar to Ficgs, except that no players are segregated, so the highest rated player is in Group A, second highest rated player in Group B and so forth.
Even numbers in each group, with a maximum of nine players in a group. There are no substitutes after a group begins.
There are no special groups for the highest rated players or knockout matches. (this is most important to distinguish this event from the WCH)
Final Stage(s):
The winners of each qualification group advance to the final stages, everyone else is eliminated. If there is a tie for first, then all tied players advance. If only one group is required, then this is the final.
If two groups are required, then it would be semi finals and normal round robin pairings would be used and the cycle repeats to get a final group of .... players.
To encourage the highest rated players to enter and to give everyone else a chance to win something substantial, e point entry fee would be 10 epoints.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-02 14:08:37)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
Statistically playing 1 game in a tournament against an underrated player is not so much while losing 200 or 300 pts means a lot... And once again, quite often underrated players because of a mass forfeit will forfeit again! There are well known examples (very strong players rated 1900-2000) here. IMO it's the only way to prevent mass time outs!
I played at IECG and I was very disappointed to see games with an advantage simply cancelled after 30 moves or so, because of a time loss or just "forfeit". That is a non-sense to me. Rated games have to be rated!
So you suggest to simply punish players by not allowing them to play tournaments anymore (during 1 year or so)!? On the other hand, if players do not lose rating points what to do if a player has recurrent problems and has to resign his games once every year. Then many ratings will be hustled.
At last what will be a legitimate reason? It is so... so complex.
George Clement (2012-01-09 18:46:39)
Ratings UpDates
Why not update the ratings each month?
When you lose a few rating points and drop just below the minumum for the next class a player wouldn't have to wait for 2 months to get back into the class.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-10 11:28:44)
Ratings UpDates
Hello George,
That's a very good question... actually I have no clear answer on this (anyone?), but I did not invent this method used in all major correspondence chess organizations.
All I can say is that I "feel" that the results are quite good with this. The aim is to avoid rating peaks I guess. On the other hand ratings move a little faster (more points, not more often) at FICGS than in other organizations, I hope it balances.
Best is to learn to manage one's rating, sometimes best is to lose as fast as possible, sometimes not. Correspondence chess is matter of patience anyway...
Don Groves (2012-01-10 12:06:49)
Ratings UpDates
I've wondered about that too since ratings for Go and Poker change after every game. Why is Chess different?
George Clement (2012-01-10 17:37:36)
Ratings UpDates
Actually they do change after every game. It's just the "offical" published rating that is changed every 2 months. Check your history under preferences.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-10 23:07:31)
Ratings UpDates
Correspondence chess ratings (that are taken in account when a new tournament starts) do not change after every game, but yes you can see your provisional "future rating" as George says.
It is different for Go to allow strong players to climb faster the enormous ladder (2500 points for Go at most). For Poker the difference is less obvious but the game is less serious than chess and it is quite exciting to see this rating list evolving each day :) At the end I wouldn't change anything now.
Scott Nichols (2012-02-21 18:48:24)
Folding in Poker
Another change I noticed (a big one) since I got out of the scene for a bit, is that the way the poker ratings are calculated. Did you change something Thib? They used to move up and down a lot faster. If you wanted to change the way the ratings were done then the "whole system" should have started from scratch. The old way, whoever happened to be on top or near the top, now has NO worry, they change so little they would have to lose dozens of games to just drop out of the top ten. At one point I was 2258 (highest ever), with this system nobody would have ever caught me. If you didn't change anything, then my apologies. If you did, then I think the whole system needs to be re-started.
Garvin Gray (2012-02-22 16:38:55)
Folding in Poker
I wonder how different the ratings would be now if they were re-run, considering that players now have established ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-22 18:49:31)
Folding in Poker
New players still start from 1400 to 1800. If ratings would restart right now I'm quite sure that the rating list would be about the same after 2 months or 3... Whatever the rules change (we'll avoid any in the future), players find their place after a few months of play.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 00:21:47)
Folding in Poker
Erratum, you all right! The last change for poker rules occured last year (february 2011):
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=9557
I just lost a poker game so 12 points:
WhiteELO : 2039 ... 2051
BlackELO : 2160 ... 2148
So, yes ratings move less fast than in january 2011 but it still moves fast enough IMO. If the most doesn't agree with this we can return to the old rating rule, I'm still not sure what is best.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 01:22:37)
Folding in Poker
Ok :) .. Any other opinion?
I just looked at a few ratings, in example mine went from 2003 to 2166 between february 2011 and february 2012... So it is still possible to climb the scale. But once more I'm not sure what is best, so please give your advice!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 20:36:16)
Folding in Poker
Ok, note: it could have been discussed in the forum when I announced it... Anyway the current rules may be better at the end, ratings are not dedicated to change faster than necessary. It also avoids that anyone can reach the top just by lasting a few games.
Also look at the results of Nelson:
vs. Aleksey Payzansky (2086) : 67% (56 games, 38 wins, 18 losses)
vs. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006) : 90% (52 games, 47 wins, 5 losses)
vs. Jason Repa (2095) : 58% (39 games, 23 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Yulian Kehayov (2022) : 54% (35 games, 19 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Anderson Barradas (2021) : 72% (29 games, 21 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Scott Nichols (2119) : 64% (28 games, 18 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Lubos Fric (1924) : 68% (25 games, 17 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Stephane Legrand (2187) : 54% (22 games, 12 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Rolf Staggat (2116) : 61% (21 games, 13 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Janeen Walden (2000) : 75% (20 games, 15 wins, 5 losses)
IMO he just fully deserves his rating. The reason why noone else can reach it may be just that he's the best player for a while, what do you think?
Garvin Gray (2012-02-25 13:57:13)
Folding in Poker
Ok, the main question to me is-
Which system is more able to predict the rules of a match before it begins?
If it was the first system, then that should return. If it is the current system, then keep it.
A more responsive system is usually better, but in the case of ficgs, this may not be good for two reasons:
1) While in otb chess/poker, there are very few mass time outs by a player, online this can occur, as is seen 'regularly' on here.
2) In otb chess, players do not have any kind of official rating until they have played a certain number of games.
This then means those early games to not affect all the other players ratings, which is not the case on here.
In terms of predictive accuracy, which is more accurate? That is the only consideration for me.
When I said that the ratings should be re-run, I did not mean we should start the ratings from scratch and begin from day one.
What I was saying is that ALL the previous results should be re-fed back into the system with the new rating formula and the ratings adjusted accordingly.
Then this would give information to compare as it would contain one set of ratings all measured by the same rating formula.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-25 14:23:18)
Folding in Poker
Previous ratings shouldn't be "deleted" IMO. We try some things and we cannot delete everything that happened before each time. Anyway poker ratings will continue to move up & down as chance goes.
I still have no idea of what is more accurate, probably it doesn't mean much for poker... All I have is a feeling and I feel that the current rules may be better at 55/45 than the old ones, so I'll change it if the most want it.
Paul Campanella (2012-02-26 19:44:53)
New Player Ratings
I started at a 1600 rating. Personally, I find it completely UNACCEPTABLE that new players start at 1800 because it is a misrepresentation of their poker skills.
I started playing poker approximately a year ago on this site and I had to work exceptionally hard to make it into the top 20. As a past low ranked 1600 player... it was not easy to advance my elo to 1800+. It took considerable time and dicipline to hone my skills and get to the B-Level Tournaments. Playing those lower ranked players developed my skill because it taught me to expect the unexpected and learn all about odds and player styles.
Allow me to present some examples of players in relation to starting point and current rating:
A) I started out as a 1600 player... there were many people that were low ranked. As of now, the only 2 players that I recall advancing from a low rank to the top 20 are Paul Campanella (#16) and Dmitriy Panov (#17).
B) Slobodan Ilic (#6) and Trond Amile (#11) are both high rated good players but the reality is that it is much easier for people like them who entered in as 1800 elo to advance to the top compared to people who entered in at 1600 elo.
Now it seems that all new players get a "free ride" to the B-Class Tournaments and 200 elo points for doing absolutely nothing!
Starting at 1600 elo and advancing through the ranks is the true definition of skill. In order for players' ratings to accurately represent their skills, EVERYONE should start at 1600 and WORK their way up!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-27 02:22:02)
Folding in Poker
Well, mathematically poker ratings below about 1900 mean something of a different nature (level of course but also the number of games played) than ratings over 1900 because it is much easier to win points below 2000 (see rules) and it was even easier before february 2011, so it would be much easier after the change asked by Scott. A player who starts at 1600 will need to play more games than a player who starts at 1800 to reach 2000, but not necessarily to make more efforts. In addition there are ways to manage ratings to enter certain waiting lists more quickly. Also, considering the slow inflation that exists the contrary of what you say is true in a certain measure as well, new players will have to play more games than you to reach the top, actually the whole thing is really complex.
But... anyway I'll try not to change the rules again/too many times to avoid such (logical) reactions and that's why I take time to think about this one again.
I think that this change would make the poker ratings more attractive but less realistic and accurate so...... any other opinions? :)
Also, new players DO NOT get a free ride to the B class tournaments, many still start with 1600 according to the level they pretend when registering. So the difference is not so much, actually it may help you to climb the scale faster if you can beat a 1800 player easily... Really complex as I said but anyway I think that ratings are more accurate when players can start at different levels, because more players in the different categories mean more games in each one (players will find their rating faster) and because everybody do not lie every time. Everybody will not agree with this but I have a certain experience with the chess ratings now and I'm quite certain that most changes were good ones, so probably for poker.
Jimmy Huggins (2012-02-27 04:20:26)
Folding in Poker
I may get smash for this comment, but I have to say it.
To me this isn't chess were we have engines that help assist us in own games and to be honest there isn't a lot of luck in corr chess. The odds of getting someone to fall in your "trap" is very small. Personally I don't care about the ratings that much. There is a lot more LUCK in this game, and yes there is some skill. But not like chess, point is the best person in poker on this site can lose to a guy who doesn't know what the hell he is doing. This would never happen in chess or go or any other game on this site besides poker. In short I think the ratings are give in take and we shouldn't flip out because of a few changes.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-27 14:29:11)
Folding in Poker
I'm not sure if a freestyle poker tournament would tell us better than ratings who is the best player, but it would be nice to have one soon anyway! I'll try to do this.
On the money/free poker issue, that's a very complex debate, in my opinion starting to play money poker is just like starting to play another game... But professional players play money poker just like we play free poker, the value of money evolves when playing.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-04 22:08:50)
FICGS poker ratings
Let's continue the debate that started in this discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10306
I'm still not sure of what is best but our top ranked poker player for a while (Nelson Bernal Varela) obviously participated to the discussion his way by resigning all his poker games to show us how much time it will take to regain his points.
His rating was about 2200, now 1924 and the date is march 4th, 2012.
As we're playing single round-robin tournaments only, the rating list was not so distorted but this is not at the advantage of class B players. Of course I do not encourage this behaviour in any way!
However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.
This would actually justify - in my point of view (maybe Nelson's one too but I'm still not sure of what he's thinking about that) - the current poker rating system, so let's wait 1 month or 2 before to decide to make this change or not.
As a reminder, the initial proposal was: "should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now ?"
Scott Nichols (2012-03-04 22:48:24)
FICGS poker ratings
An interesting challenge. I held the #1 spot for a long time and in truth lost interest and let myself slip down, playing rarely and then stopping for over a year I'm pretty sure. So just recently I announced my intentions to reclaim the #1 spot and hold it before this year is over.
Then soon "after" I said this, Nelson resigned his games to start this "experiment". IMO this is how, in addition to playing good poker, he achieved being able to stay #1 for long periods of time. First, you have to play as many games as possible, over a hundred or more. This will allow you to implement the second phase. That is you get to pick and choose which games to play out immediately an which to stop playing to continue at a more opportune time. e.g. Only finish the "winning" games to get to the top. Then when you have a sufficient lead to where a loss or two won't hurt your position, THEN play out the losing ones.
Thib quote from above " In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess. " Well for him to do this, he will have to get by me, and others, this time. So consider the Gauntlet thrown down! Scott
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-04 23:01:30)
FICGS poker ratings
A problem is that it is impossible to enter new waiting lists when having more than 50 poker games running.
On the other point your strategy may work but at the end you'll probably lose many points... I prefer to lose the almost lost games before to win the almost won ones to have a stable high rating. Anyway it would take much time to sort, I prefer to play all games the same way.
That will be an instructive challenge for sure.
Paul Campanella (2012-03-05 00:11:09)
FICGS poker ratings
Correction, Scott... you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch because the number one spot will actually be mine one day! :)
I entered my first poker tournament on February 14th, 2011. In barely over one year, I have managed to raise my poker elo from 1600 to 2071 ... an increase of 471 points in, what I consider to be, record-breaking time!
Here is my proof...
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__TOURNAMENT_D__000036.html
Considering the current situation, I am curious to know if there is anyone else that has managed to increase and maintain their rating by 471 points in such a short amount of time?
Not only do I have a winning record against you of 60%-40%, I also have a 50%-50% record against Nelson, which is better than almost everyone else on FICGS.
Regarding the experiment, Nelson will have to get by me as well. Since I am one of the only people on this site that does not have a losing record against him... it's not going be an easy quest. :)
Scott Nichols (2012-03-05 00:16:41)
FICGS poker ratings
:) Good one Paul. There are about 6-10 players here that have a real chance to be #1 by end of this year. I consider you one of them.
Garvin Gray (2012-03-04 23:47:06)
FICGS poker ratings
I am more alarmed than anything that a person's selfish actions, regardless of who they are, are not only tolerated, but are encouraged by statements like this:
However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.
His actions now affect many players, which includes denying a place to someone in a tournament that he otherwise should not be allowed to enter ie class B tournaments where by all reports he is too good for.
How about we all do this to see how the rating system goes? I find his actions appalling and he deserves to be banned.
If this was done in chess, would the response be the same? If so and someone did it and the same response was given, I would be looking for another site to play at.
I believe people who act like this deserve to have their rating re-set and then spend quite a lot of time on the sidelines. They should forfeit all their games, but not lose any rating points.
What does this site stand for, I think that is one of the main questions? I play poker on here for something to do in the middle of my chess games, even though I am not particularly interested.
My playing of poker will stop if it is treated with such contempt.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-05 00:22:47)
FICGS poker ratings
I knew that you would answer this way... And you are right on several points.
I read the rules before to write this, we could envisage to change the rules on the general forfeits issue but it wouldn't probably be so easy to "fix" it. Maybe another discussion is needed.
About chess, this has been done the same way several times for different reasons, see Wolfgang Utesch, Wayne Lowrance... The only difference is that Nelson gave a bad reason (with the excuse that he may have done this to help to find the best rating rules, which was not necessary). But he could have said something else. What would be the perfect rule? The current rule was probably discussed in the forum previously. Nothing better was found, that's all.
Anyway, this site stands for applying rules... and IMO I have the choice between doing nothing in this special case and preventing Nelson to enter a waiting list during 2 months. Nelson was totally wrong to do this... (also because of Paul's previous message that proves that it is possible to climb the scale quite quickly, which IMO goes in the way of not changing the rating rules) but now that it's done, I think that the best thing for the site is to let him continue, at least we'll learn something from this and it will improve the rating rules.
Paul Campanella (2012-03-05 03:29:32)
FICGS poker ratings
Thank you for the compliment, Scott!
I consider you to be one of the top players and have great respect for you: as both top poker and as a person. You're also a very worthy adversary and our matches are almost always 3-2 (on either side)! :)
Thank you, Thibault, for recognizing my point that it is possible to climb the ladder quite quickly using the current rating system.
I would like to note that it is also possible to climb the ladder without using any strategy. Throughout all of my poker matches on FICGS, I always finished my games (both the winning games and the losing games). I could have easily waited a long time (like some players obviously do on this site) to finish my losing games, but I refuse to do that out of respect for my opponents.
Although poker is a game that requires a combination of luck and skill, I believe that respect belongs here as well. Out of my overall record of 202 completed games, I have won 120 and lost 80. During each game, I was always honorable. For instance, if it is my turn and I know that I am 4 chips away from losing a match 3-0, I will refuse to delay the game and deny my opponent his victory for the next two months even though I have 60 days left on the clock.
Besides, it is my philosophy that the best thing to do when opponent outplays me is to accept the loss, learn from it, and then try to win in a rematch! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-05 13:36:51)
FICGS poker ratings
Paul, then do you agree that the current poker rating rules are fine? Because of your rating history and because it avoids the possibility to have significant rating peaks by delaying to lose games that are almost lost? (seems logical to me)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-05 16:51:57)
FICGS poker ratings
Ah, another argument for the current rating rules: unlike advanced chess, bullet poker games count for the same rating list, so it is quite easy and fast to win points this way.
Paul Campanella (2012-03-05 16:55:11)
FICGS poker ratings
Yes, I say keep it the way it is!
Don Groves (2012-03-06 04:03:50)
FICGS poker ratings
It will take Nelson longer to reach his goal if the rules are left as they are now. My answer is to keep them.
Michael Rogers (2012-03-21 21:57:53)
Slow tournament entries
A player's games on ICCF and SchemingMind can be accessed directly from the Chessbase interface. Has FICGS considered installing this feature? Also, would an "Open" tournament, allowing all ratings, help?
Garvin Gray (2012-04-21 09:27:58)
Slow tournament entries
I have proposed previously that a new tournament should be created for all players, similar to the current ficgs world champs, except that ALL players need to start from round one. No knockout series, or separate m groups.
All players of all ratings start from round one.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 16:49:34)
Slow tournament entries
I won't play in the ficgs wch because I am the top seed and this is disgusting to me. Not only does it mean I won't get strong players, it also means I will lose massive ratings points which will in the future ALSO prevent me from playing strong players. Two awful effects!
Garvin Gray (2012-04-24 15:01:32)
Ficgs World Cup
Following discussions about slow tournament entries, bracket and band rating issues and many other topics, a common item that came out of those discussions is that trying a modified version of the ficgs world championship is worth a trial.
So Ficgs World Cup sounds like a good name.
Format:
In the Ficgs world championship, there are many different qualifying stages, depending on your finishing position from the last cycle, your rating at the time of entry and the strength and total number of the other entrants.
While this format is very good for the concept envisaged when it was created, I think a ficgs world cup, with a format that will be explained below is required to cover a few gaps that are in the ficgs world championship.
The ficgs world cup will work as follows.
1) Everyone enters before a certain date, say June 1st 2012.
2) As soon as entries close, that is it. Entries are not taken after this date and there are NO replacements. The groups are meant to be of equal strength. Adding a new player can distort this.
3) Entrants are then divided into groups of roughly equal strength. Highest rated person is seed 1 in Group A, 2nd highest rated person is seed 1 in Group B. Serpentine pairings are used to allocate all players to each group.
4) How many players and how many groups is determined after the entries have closed. I would think that there will be probably 11 groups of 11 players (121 entries in total). It might be likely that we have to have three stages, depending on total number of entries.
5) 1 person from each group qualifies for the final stage. This is determined by total score, total wins and then TER. This does differ from the tie break formula of the FicgsWCH.
Pros:
1) Everyone gets a game against players of different ratings, no segregated groups or players
2) Everyone starts from stage one
3) The format is clear to understand
Cons:
1) May not be as tempting to the highest rated players (fear of loss of rating points)
2) Might take longer to finish
In my opinion, this is a format that deserves a couple of trial events to see if it is successful
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-25 00:26:09)
Ficgs World Cup
Who thinks that a limited number of places (81 = 9x9 or 121 = 11x11 or 169 = 13x13 according to how the waiting list fills) would be a good idea?
And what about a rating band to avoid forfeits by casual players? Maybe ratings above 2000... In some ways it could be a real alternative to the WCH for all players rated from 2000 to 2200, and there would be less games to play at the same time (less frightening to entry)... just a thought.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-25 18:04:47)
Ficgs World Cup
To simplify the activity requirement, it can be that all players must have an established rating. No provisionals and no estimated ratings.
An issue regarding number of groups is, what if we 50 or so entries. 11 groups of 5 seems rather silly, so I think it would have to be 5 groups of 11, with 2 players qualifying for the final stage.
While having 2 players qualify is not ideal, it is better than having 11 groups of 5 players, which defeats one of the purposes of giving more games across different rating groups.
George Clement (2012-04-25 18:41:11)
Ficgs World Cup
To simplify the activity requirement, it can be that all players must have an established rating. No provisionals and no estimated ratings.
That would be really good! As far as the groups I think it would really depend on the number of entries. It will be tough to predict ahead of time.
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).
Garvin Gray (2012-04-27 04:16:52)
Ficgs World Cup
Please, no replacements. If people can not organise themselves to add themselves to the entry list before the close of entries, they do not deserve to enter.
I think it is fairer to have one or two players not participate in a group than it is to add players after the event has started.
Please do not use replacements. This concept is meant to be the opposite in almost every way to WCH, and the main idea is to keep it as simple as possible.
Having replacements add a complication that is not required. It will also distort the balance on ratings of each group where forfeited players occur.
How do you ensure that each group where a forfeited player occurs and get a replacement? Otherwise you have filled some groups and not others.
See the hornets nest that is created by using replacements. Please do not use replacements, just let the normal standard tournament factors decide the final placings and people in the final stage.
Garvin Gray (2012-05-19 15:24:06)
Second match v Rybka Forum
Hello all,
I have been thinking about this for a while, but I was wondering how many ficgs players would be interested in participating in a match vs Rybka Forum.
We tried this concept once before with limited success from an organisational point of view. From a playing pov, ficgs had little success :o
I am thinking something like this for a format:
1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) We possibly could use xfcc play, which would allow conditionals to be used, but might mean all the games are played and shown at RF. - Might be possible to have them shown here somehow 'live'.
So, time to get some interest. Who would be willing to participate?
I am going to post this over at RF as well.
Garvin Gray (2012-05-27 08:36:57)
Second match v Rybka Forum
It has been confirmed that we can use xfccplay for all the games, if we wish.
Xfccplay is a playing client where players can make their moves and they are transmitted live to the Rybka Forum sub forum where these games will be shown live. Hopefully it will be possible to also show them here live.
To pursue using xfccplay further, I need to know if anyone who is considering playing would be not willing to play if the whole match is held using xfccplay, rather than making moves on here.
I certainly do want the second match to be very different to the first. To start with, that no games end with time outs.
Likely format:
Time control: 30 days initial plus 1 day increment.
Format: Each player plays two games against a single opponent
Number of players for each team: As many players as we can get for both teams
Board Order: By rating for those who have ratings on the site they are playing for. Others can be placed at captain’s discretion.
Garvin Gray (2012-06-08 11:07:00)
Second match v Rybka Forum
Following on from my post above, we will now be going with the format originally posted, which is:
1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) Xfccplay will be used for the games played at RF
5) Conditional move system will be used for the games played at RF. Games played here will be using the standard interface.
Both sides are going to have to make compromises. Ficgs players who are not already familiar with xfccplay are going to need to learn how to use it and will also need to join RF.
RF players, who are not members of here already, will need to sign up to here and learn how to use this interface.
I can not give a definite sign up by this date yet as some of the nuts and bolts are still being worked out.
Can everyone start saying if they are going to play? I hope this will be more than just the players who already play in WBCCC as I do hope it is the best players from both sites participating as well.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-07-28 00:10:50)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!
First of all, I've added 15 days to all players in running games because of the delay and the fact that many of us may have no access to internet during the summer vacation (this time is added to the 46 days, 13 hours and 20 minutes since the crash for players expected to play), this issue was discussed at Rybkaforum, of course it may be unfair to few players in certain games where their opponent had few time but I did not find a better balanced solution, sorry about that :(
Among other consequences, the current championships cycle will last 10 months instead of 8, and july correspondence chess ratings will be updated very soon.
Well, how to start... fortunately such an event is rare but possible, and following the Murphy's law, it happened (first time for me), the server's hard disk crashed and the least I can say is I've not been lucky, even if I obviously did some things wrong.
Of course I had enough data at home to rebuild all games until a few hours before the crash but I thought it was worth it to pause the server during a few days/weeks to recover more moves, and if possible ALL moves. I really hoped that it would work and at the end it did, but not completely... for unknown reasons. I had also other data to recover from the server, including some FICGS data that were not backuped correctly (my bad), because I did not think far enough 6 years ago when I coded the first FICGS scripts... That will be fixed very soon.
So, because the DDrescue process did not work -unlucky- just after the crash, my server provider (OVH in France) had to send me the hard drive and it took sooooo much time already :/
Then I tried to recover some files and the databases by myself and I learnt much on how to save a hard drive but each process was really long, it took several days again...
Finally none process completely succeeded, few sectors of the hard drive remained unreadable and unfortunately the FICGS database is divided into very numerous parts written everywhere on the disk.
At the end, I brought the disk to the very best professionals able to save it... the process was quite long again and it did not completely worked as well, for an unknown reason the current database was still not readable but they did much better than me at the end.
Finally the whole process was worth it, but I did not expect it could take so much time.... 46 days, 13 hours, 20 minutes. And that's a shame :(
Of course, I could have used a RAID 10 server, I was not favourable to this choice because it is not 100% safe as well, I don't know it enough and it's much more expensive. I'll reconsider it though.
But the other things I did wrong are clear anyway, I lacked of experience in such a situation and most important, I'll do now better backups also on another server every hour. Next time (if any), we'll lose at most 1 hour of moves but the server will be able to restart within 1 day.
One thing is sure, internet was really empty for me without FICGS during this long month and a half and I missed our tournaments too much so that happen again! Have no doubt, FICGS would not have stopped in all cases but once again I'm really sorry about that and all consequences... I can only hope that you'll enjoy your games as before.
Thanks for your understanding.
Best regards,
Thibault
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2012-09-19 17:29:38)
Limit number of poker games
Hello Thibault!
Please change the number of possible poker games to 100 (or make it unrestricted).
IMO it makes no difference if a player forfeits 50 or 100 games, even not for the ratings.
If you see a way to reduce the time control, then do it, but I think there is no way ...
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-19 22:50:35)
Limit number of poker games
The scheme of the games cannot be changed, this is the only way to have coherent ratings... The games duration is the price to pay to have ratings that mean something.
Don Groves (2012-09-20 03:19:26)
Limit number of poker games
When two poker opponents are in far apart time zones, one move a day is about the maximum they can play. I vote for the blinds to increases after 25 moves.
The ratings in one or two games are not going to reflect skill anyway. Playing more games (shorter games) would do as good or better job of rating players.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-20 12:07:21)
Limit number of poker games
Don, I'm afraid that's mathematically wrong... compare 5 single games and a 5 games match (that counts for 1 game), a score of 4-1 does not have the same impact on ratings than a score of 1-0, the chancy factor is not the same. The aim of the whole thing was to have ratings not too close from each other, in other words significant (and I think they are).
Don Groves (2012-09-20 13:06:22)
Limit number of poker games
But if games were shorter, then far more than 5 single games could be played in the same time as a 5-game match is now. So you might be comparing 15 single games against one match. I feel this would be just as good for the ratings and a lot more fun for the players.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-20 17:20:31)
Limit number of poker games
The shorter the games are, the more important the chancy factor is, so ratings do not mean anything anymore...
But it would be more fun for certain players, I agree with this. FICGS is dedicated to be a place for ratings, it wouldn't be so coherent. As for me I see no fun at all in a pure chancy game, it's just like playing roulette forever.
Scott Nichols (2012-09-20 18:01:26)
Limit number of poker games
Maybe you could offer "Bullet Poker" events with bullet ratings.
Don Groves (2012-09-21 05:06:44)
A radical idea?
Since not all Chess players seem to agree on the best set of "advanced" games, why not allow the players in a game to decide on their own game parameters? If Scott and Alvin want to play a 15 minute game with 5 seconds added per move, let them do that.
Only the ratings of the two players involved are affected, so it seems this idea would not interfere with ratings and could be popular.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-21 12:10:16)
Limit number of poker games
The problem is how the chancy factor interfers on ratings. 10 games of 100 deals will provoke ratings much closer than 2 games of 500 deals or 1 game of 1000 deals, obviously. But it would be more fun, I agree (again).
Don Groves (2012-09-21 13:40:32)
Limit number of poker games
How would it "provoke ratings much closer?" What do you think would be the specific effect on ratings?
Don Groves (2012-09-23 05:49:25)
Limit number of poker games
The difference is not so great that I wouldn't enjoy shorter games more. 170 ELO points is still very significant given how slowly poker ratings change.
Garvin Gray (2012-09-23 08:11:54)
Limit number of poker games
I have tried reading this thread a few times, but seem to be missing a point or three, maybe even four.
1) Thib- Can you explain this a bit more in simpler fashion :)- It is possible to calculate it but in brief, for 1 game of 1000 dealts, the perf will be opp.rating +350 or opp.rating -350 .. for 10 games of 100 deals with a score of 7/3 (which is quite unbalanced already for so few hands), the perf will be about opp.rating +170 or opp.rating -170
2) When posters are referring to faster games, are they talking about reducing the time control, or having the blinds increase at a faster rate?
3) I would prefer best of 3, rather than best of 5. I am not sure if best of 5 on here really does produce more accurate ratings as I find it quite common that players will go all in early, or take risks early on, knowing even if they lose set 1, they are only behind 1-0 and there is a long way to go. Best of 3 would force players to play 'real poker' from earlier on.
This would produce more meaningful results.
The number of hands I play which involve just 1 and 2 chips pisses me off no end and deters me from playing more often.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-25 23:27:53)
Limit number of poker games
@Garvin:
1) It would be quite long to explain the full calculation for different examples, maybe best is to have a deep look at rating rules then come back to the discussion, sorry if it is not clear enough after that but trust me, it would change everything on ratings.
2) Both, I guess... the problem is that blinds shouldn't change and there isn't time controls that solve the problem.
3) Those who will go all in early will probably not reach the top of the rating list... That's the point :)
Hands that involve just 1 and 2 chips are real poker! The technical one, not the chancy one.
Don Groves (2012-10-15 11:40:54)
WCH Final match
Ratings bias? The total ELO in each group is probably as close to the same as possible. Naturally groups are seeded. Is this what you mean by bias?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-02 00:50:54)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Hello all,
As I mentioned in the chat bar, there is a problem to build new groups as I usually do a few weeks after the start of the chess championship...
Players who entered the waiting list for replacements are:
AUT Rada, Hannes 2465
ISR Blinchevsky, Alexander 2206
ITA Bonoldi, Fabio 2049
DEU Wolf, Bernd 2113
ARG Reboredo, Daniel 1941
ITA Fabris, Alberto 1995
ITA Piantadosi, Angelo 1319
UKR Simashkevitch, Mykola 1987
DEU Lommler, Jan Peter 1860
BEL Pepermans, Toon 2000
USA Batal, Jean 1960
GBR Hancock, Sarah 1614
USA Johnson, Bobby 2412
GBR Burrows, Nick 1935
UKR Malish, Dmitriy 1146
COL Rey, Eduardo 1800
FRA Satonnet, Patrick 1351
GBR Soszynski, Marek 2143
POL Nig, Piotr 2028
USA Davis, Mark 1192
FRA Estieu, Frederick 1383
USA Lovelace, Randy 1504
CAN Deline, Ralph 2179
UKR Bromo, Alexis 1129
BIH Dautovic, Dzenan 1653
USA Knighton, Robert 1950
4 players rated 1500-1800 already replaced those who were to lose their games on time... As a result, we have many players rated 1900-2100 and too few with low ratings. Of course players rated 2400+ will not like to play in regular groups.
Right now I could create only one group with a similar rating average, nothing more but I would have to choose a few players only, which is not a great solution. I tried several combinations, M groups and so on.
I know that a few players would prefer not to see these new groups created and right now I see no solution good enough to create it.
If I cannot find any idea, I think there won't be new groups this time.
Any suggestion?
Wayne Lowrance (2012-12-02 04:54:10)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Robert, I do not think it is fair to insert Alexander with those too strong players. It is a problem. I can understands Thibault's problem now. Well what ever he decides is oki with me. but I would really oppose suggest divergent ratings in a group. In fact Rada has a problem he is by too high for even being that 3 group. I just do not know enough about these things to contribute.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-05 19:02:36)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Hi Wayne,
Of course this is a very coherent opinion... but there are reasons why I created these new groups since the very first championship:
There may be several players who cannot be included into tournaments when I create them (because of the number of players per tournament). To exclude nobody, I had to wait for a few players to enter it... but of course there was always too few or too many of them, with too high or too low ratings. So I decided that the prioriy was to start as many tournaments as possible to make it as competitive as possible.
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 18:11:49)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I volunteer to be team captain. But we now have 31 players wanting to play. Also I would point out that we will probably get slaughtered on the lower boards as things stand right now. I saw at least one person wanting an ICCF team average of 2300. I would point out that I think a 2000 player here is 2300 over there but as things stand our FICGS rating average is 1964 based on the top 30 players ratings. For the 9 players that do have ICCF ratings our rating average is 2235.
Here is what information I could collect on our team so far:
Name FICGS Rating ICCF ID ICCF Rating TITLE Comment
1 Ostap Hladky 2527 941012 FIM
2 Valery Nemchenko 2521 940836 2465
3 Frits Bleker 2313 220159 2395
4 Garvin Gray 2281 30503 1993
5 Alvin Alcala 2237 896046
6 Wayne Lowrance 2194 FIM
7 Maxim Genchev 2187 940752 2309 Wants ICCF average of 2300
8 Arkadiusz Wosch 2169 89923 2307
9 Neel Basant 2138 280279
10 Daniel Parmet 2098 514938 2300
11 Om Prakash 2091 280243
12 Bogoljub Teverovski 2083 862003
13 Niklas Hallqvist 2082 451419
14 Kieran Moore 2042 260252
15 William Fuller 2033 514688 2350
16 Dmitry Tsimbalenko 1959 142268
17 Sergey Demchenko 1955 142224 2077
18 Nick Burrows 1944 212164
19 Rich Pinkall Pollei 1900 515095
20 Daniel Blike 1874 515250
21 Jose Moreira 1831 Are you the IM Jose Moreira id#399007, Rating 2390?
22 Thomas Hasyn 1808 865001 1922
23 Mathaios Vardoulakis 1800
24 Dinesh Bhandarkar 1707
25 Shih-Chu Liao 1660
26 Josef Zmolil 1632
27 Ray Downs 1536
28 John Worthington 1510 515287
29 Claudio Cabrera 1462
30 Arnab Sengupta 1340 280192
31 Jiri Mach 1010
Nick Burrows (2013-01-10 18:30:03)
Chess Server Team Tournament
yes I think some of our ratings are way under the actual level. My rating is 1934, but would be more accurate at 2300.
We should simply take our 30 highest rated players at the deadline for registaration in order to do Ficgs justice.
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 20:51:37)
Chess Server Team Tournament
right now the top 30 responses by ficgs rating average to 1998. 10 of those 30 have ICCF ratings which average to 2166.
I'd like to us have a 2100 FICGS rating average so we can be a competitive team...
Garvin Gray (2013-07-01 13:35:39)
Wch cycles possible changes?
I guess no one else wants any changes.
Oh well I am proposing a small change in regards to the TER rule.
As it stands=
The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage.
In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account.
I would like to see these reversed, so it is the rating at the end of the event that decides who goes through. The logic of this is based on the theory being used. The theory is that the reason for highest rating moves forward is that it helps to ensure that the next group is as strong as possible. Well surely then that the most current information is the best guide to strength of play, so in my opinion the TER criteria should change to reflect this.
So the new rule would read:
The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In the case of equality, the player with the highest rating when the next stage begins will be qualify. Should their ratings be equal, then the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage.
Scott Nichols (2013-09-20 21:21:42)
Active players list
I see there is not a separate list for active players in advanced chess. If you are an advanced player it makes it hard to shoot for the top if the ratings are all jumbled together.
Paul Campanella (2013-10-01 00:14:47)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
It's really not fair because the previous people worked their way through the ranks in order to get their ratings instead of just entering into a tournament the easier way.
Garvin Gray (2013-10-20 12:50:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Was attempting to find the thread on allowing players to enter the next section up by winning the lower section.
Time for a review of this practice I think now that it has been going for a year or so.
I think it has had some benefits, I certainly have benefited from it ie have helped moved me up the rating list faster than otherwise would have occurred, I have noticed a couple of large issues.
In some groups, the waiting lists are taking much longer to form when two players from a lower rating group have entered early.
For instance a 2300+ group can be showing players with ratings of 2150 or so. This is possible when two players buy their ticket after winning a lower division and then their rating drops. This situation has occurred.
From then on for that group to form, it requires another 5 2300 players to join the group. That is a long and tedious process.
I think the rules on the upgrade ticket process need to be re-written to as follows:
A player, who has won the lower division, can only use the higher division ticket, once five or more places have been filled in that group.
The purpose of this rule change should hopefully show to keep 'strong' players that if they get in quick they can get a group going full of players of the ratings they want.
The market can then choose by entering quickly and watching the rating lists.
With the current situation of difficulty getting divisions started due to the number of wch groups started at the same time, some changes are required.
I think this rule is one area that needs to be reviewed urgently.
Stephane Legrand (2013-10-27 10:55:40)
FICGS poker ratings
I experiment what Scott says at 2012-03-04 22:48:24 many times... see for instance game 72996 ...
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2013-12-24 14:12:26)
FICGS poker ratings
I also have this problem with exactly one player. And I have now decided to act in the same manner against this player. If it looks as if I lose then I'm going to reply when my time is almost over.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-24 14:36:50)
FICGS poker ratings
Heinz-Georg, have you replied in the correct thread? This one is about poker and ratings.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2013-12-24 15:07:01)
FICGS poker ratings
This is the right thread, Garvin. I have the same problem as Stephane in his poker game 72996. And I tried to describe my way to handle this situaton.
Mladen Jankovic (2014-02-14 22:18:12)
Also, other problems
At least the link is back on wikipedia corresponcence chess article, for starters, it may have been impacted by a study on external links deletion.
Another problem is that ratings appear to be negative sum, and will tend to go down accross the site. For example, I recently beat an opponent that has a rating higher than mine by almost 200, and he resigned on the tenth move, and I get *no* rating change, while he takes a loss in rating.
Garvin Gray (2014-04-29 09:35:01)
Reduction in max days available? (move)
Thib, each sport, should review its rules and conducts every once in a while to see if it is operating to best of its ability for the maximum enjoyment of the membership.
When looking through the rules and thinking about some of the issues here, I noticed that we do have the 60 day maximum play rule, which seems extra-ordinarily long.
That type of time (2 months) is a throwback to the days of email or even postal play, and in my opinion, is way to long for acceptable server play.
I still believe 30 days is the right time frame, but others have proposed 40 and so I am happy to abide by the majority if it gets the time shortened.
What I am concerned about and possibly trying to achieve a little bit, is that it is not acceptable for players to allow their games just to remain in limbo for an unlimited amount of time.
If a person can not make one move in each of their games on this site in 40 days, then perhaps they should be reviewing their participation. It is not fair on their opponents who have to wait around for them and it is not good for the site as a whole which needs games finishing for accurate and reliable ratings.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:53:40)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
From what I have read here from your response Thibault- I see no grounds AT ALL to not pay the prize.
The rating rule is there for the best interest of the site, because ratings are meant to be the way we all judge what standard of play we are and what divisions we can enter.
So comparing a rating argument with this argument is drawing a rather long bow indeed.
Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?
Already answered about ratings. About winning games without fighting (or playing), Nick entered under the conditions believing the match would take place.
If he entered the match believing it to not take place and David did play, then Nick has taken a risk that has backfired.
The point is that it is not Nick's fault the match did not take place. From my reading of the rules, there is nothing clear that says you can not pay out the prize.
Remember, you are making an absolute ruling here that applies FOREVER. This means that in effect you have taken 100 epoints at least out of Nick's account, his original stake, for just entering a match.
I would ask as site admin. Why would ANY player on this site want to support paid matches after this event and circumstances?
When the site admin can in effect, I was not happy with your match conditions that it was played under, I don't really have anything to point towards, but I did keep your cash anyways.
I for one will not be supporting any matches or tournaments from now on whilst this practice remains in place. I do not want to enter a match, have it not take place and then the site admin say, tough luck, not your fault the match did not take place, but I am keeping your cash.
The more I look at this and type, I am finding it hard to not say that Nick Burrows has been robbed of his cash. These events are real.
Garvin Gray (2015-01-10 17:24:43)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules
Currently I believe there are two players who have been allowed to enter two divisions who under the current rules are actually ineligible and their entries should be withdrawn.
The current rules state:
Tickets for a higher class tournament : However, when you win a rated tournament (only after that you receive an email specifying it or when the tournaments list shows your name as winner or co-winner of the tournament) or if your rating is at most 50 points below the low rating limit of the next class tournament's waiting list, it is now possible to buy a ticket for the next class tournament's waiting list (for example if you win a chess class A tournament, you may ask for a ticket for the next class M tournament) for 10 Epoints if the following conditions are filled : 1) No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise. 2) The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the tournament's waiting list. 3) At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list. 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament. 5) The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 1 year after the end of the won tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament]. 6) As the price for any ticket is 10 Epoints, the player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
The key regulation- and I recall this because I had it included for a specific reason- is: 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament.
The reason for this regulation is that the division is meant for the players of those ratings and it is clear that having to players with ratings significantly lower than the minimum rating will reduce the chances of them entering.
So those using tickets are entered last, in positions 6 and 7, only after it becomes clear that the division can not be filled without them.
So under the published regulations, both players should be removed and put in their correct divisions.
Peter W. Anderson (2015-06-14 17:52:04)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I recently played in an Infinity Chess freestyle event and was impressed by one of their tiebreak rules. If scores were tied a player got a bonus if he had stalemated an opponent.
I would like to suggest this is adopted in the matches (not tournaments) in the FICGS world championship and that is it the first tiebreak rule applied, i.e before ratings and whether wins or only draws have been played. I would also suggest it is adopted for the title matches too. Perhaps it could be introduced from the 15th cycle onwards or even in existing cycles (11 to 14) where a match has not begun.
This seems a very fair tiebreak rule to me, which would normally reflect who overall played better (came closer to winning) in a drawn match, especially where all games are drawn.
The only disadvantage I can see to this rule is that it would prolong games as some that would currently be agreed drawn would in future be played through to stalemate.
On the other hand it would get us thinking hard about which drawn endgames lead to stalemate and which don't and that in itself is quite interesting.
Garvin Gray (2015-12-14 10:41:45)
TER rating calculation
Herbert, remember, rating is also only calculated at the end of two months based on all the games you have finished in that two month period and is a performance rating of those games.
In fact, from looking at the example given from just this one game, if it was based on just this one game only and using only the ratings at the time of the game, then you would have a rating of 2420 and your opponent would have a rating of 2400, then your rating difference would be larger than the TER of 2400, so in fact by drawing the game, you would lose more than 1 point.
So the TER calculation has helped you, rather than hindered you, in THIS CASE.
Garvin Gray (2015-12-16 11:39:44)
TER rating calculation
You have now changed the conversation.
Originally it was about ratings and how rating changes are made and why TER and current ratings are used, and I answered part of that conversation, which was not fully explored.
Now you have changed the topic to talking about matches and TER's. That is a different conversation altogether. And then you are debating the format of the ficgs world championship knockout system, which has been debated so often on here.
It is contained in about every tenth thread.
Please choose a topic to discuss. Which is it?
Thibault de Vassal (2016-05-26 02:19:21)
FICGS restarts (2016 May 25)
Ratings / norms / tournaments results have not been updated yet, I have to examine codes further before the calculations, sorry for the delay.
George Jempty (2016-05-26 07:44:30)
FICGS restarts (2016 May 25)
Regarding ratings, if you get to them around June 1 give or take, maybe you should then update them every two months, but on the even numbered months instead of odd as in the past. Just a thought
Scott Nichols (2016-11-07 21:57:16)
Poker Poll
My idea was just a heads up match between 2 players who both feel they are the best:) No ratings, no money, everything just stays the same. The reason I offer this is because I'm 99% mathematically sure with this rating system, reaching 2400 would be next to impossible with everyone so much lower rated.
On the other hand, all I have to do is win a dozen or so games quickly and there it is. I feel it is an unfair advantage to me.
Garvin Gray (2017-01-26 02:30:15)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Before I first proposed abolishing the first place tie break rules, I went through a lot of the stage 1 WCH groups and checked how many ties there had been for first, and especially looked for multiple ties.
There were very few indeed.
The odds of three or four players finishing on the same score, when the group size is likely to be 9 or 11 players and the ratings of the players will be from 2300 to 1200 is extremely low.
Hence why I proposed the removal of the rule in the first place.
The rules are accurate now.
As to when to open the waiting list- I have also commented in this thread that having the waiting list open for too long will increase the number of forfeits when play begins.
Garvin Gray (2017-01-26 11:37:58)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
1) Being a new event, an email should be sent to all members explaining this event and that it is a main championship event. And that entries will open Wednesday 8th February.
2) Entries open Wednesday 8th February and close Wednesday 1st March. That gives everyone three weeks to enter.
3) Entries close Wednesday 1st March. The event needs to start straight after this date.
I am aware that you need to update ratings, work out the groups, load everything into the server to get the event started, so there is a lag time after March 1st.
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-05 03:43:11)
Ratings
To start with you have 1852 rated IMs that are 2352 on ICCF. The ratings here often don't make any sense at all. And for me, 2135 drawing such a player is a huge hit to my rating here while on ICCF I may lose a fraction of a rating point for such a draw.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-07-08 19:26:50)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Rules asked by players do not converge all the time, that's the least to say. Many prefer that games lost on time be punished by massive losses of elo points to prevent games lost on time, while many prefer that ratings stay coherent, whatever the losses (mainly on time)... And of course, games played at FICGS are not as important as games played at ICCF for most strong players. Conclusion is easy. But maybe there should be a change in the rating calculation to create some inflation... This could be worth a discussion.
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-10 00:28:19)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Well, I think there needs to be something less in the sense of rating inflation but perhaps floors added for players with high ratings for ICCF. There is no way you can tell me an IM 2350+ player should be allowed to have a sub 2100 rating here. In general, I am not a fan of the concept of flooring... but in this case there are many such underrated players that bring down the entire rating average here.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-10-01 13:40:40)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Herbert: Yes it was, now it should be less the case (about ratings). Let's see in a few months.
Garvin: About CUP final, yes looks like reasonable to play the opening as fast as possible (just like in WCH)... 16 games is really tough to manage in the middle game, that's why I was more favourable to a longer time control for this cycle, but obviously many players are faster than me :)
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.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-05-01 22:25:17)
Ratings inflation period
May 2018 ratings : the first effects are quite visible. A few players, who finished many games, actually more games than I expected, made a very good operation (not a problem as points always spread with time). I updated the formula to make it more coherent next time : 10 points per game, now power 0.8, will be added to the bonus.
Herbert Kruse (2018-05-01 23:26:03)
Ratings inflation period
"power 0.8" means what?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-05-01 23:43:20)
Ratings inflation period
Examples :
(1 game) 10 power 0.8 = 10^0.8 =~ 6.3 added to bonus
(10 games) 100 power 0.8 = 100^0.8 =~ 39.8 added to bonus
(30 games) 300 power 0.8 = 300^0.8 =~ 95.8 added to bonus
To see what "bonus" is, please read:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating
Thibault de Vassal (2018-08-21 22:22:42)
poker reflection time
Unfortunately, the choice of "best of three" would have consequences on ratings (less accurate, more variable), as you can guess.
The 1 day / hand option could be confusing and may be dangerous at it would bring strange effects as one could lose a game on time when having 2 or 3 days on clock because of a few moves played at night. This would not affect fast players, but many players are quite slow for various reasons.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-24 00:15:43)
Some questions to H. Kruse, WCH finalist
After that the last FICGS chess WCH final match finished, the choice was made again to ask a few questions to Eros Riccio's challenger: Herbert Kruse, for the 2nd time. He kindly accepted to answer it so let's learn a bit more on our top-ranked correspondence chess player.
______________________________
Hello Herbert, you're not really a player to introduce as you're very active here and at several chess websites for years, with outstanding ratings in each one (as far as I know), you're the 1st FICGS CUP winner & several times FICGS WCH challenger, each time facing "the wall" Eros Riccio, what could you tell us about yourself particularly as a chess & correspondence chess player?
- i began late with 16 to play my first tournament game, but with 18 i already was kicked out of a night club in company with tony miles ;) (dresscode) had vlastimil hort as trainer for a short time and played in teams with gutman, michalchisin, klovans, gipslis and some other GMs. corr chess i began, because i love to find the truth and because of freestyle, where i began to build very strong computers
What kind of computers do you build? Is it all dedicated to chess?
- i have several dual xeon e5 computers with 64gb ddr3 and 16 to 20 real cores and they all play chess ;)
Once again, GM Eros Riccio managed to draw the 12 games of the match. What are your feelings on these games? How did you estimate your chances to destabilize your opponent in the openings and to create complications enough with White (or Black)?
- this time my feelings were neutral. 1% chances to win, but i hoped he would lose his concentration if i began more games with him (we played 6 other games at the same time)
Doesn't "1% chances to win (the match)" mean about 0.17% to win only one game with White, even when losing one with Black? Isn't it a bit pessimistic after all, or is it the new so called Riccio-effect? :)
- if the strongest players face each other there is no win possible, except some has a mouse slep or forgot something during human interfacing
When did you start playing correspondence chess and what changed since that time? What attracted you most in the game?
- 2004 and evaluation of the position is the key point of improvement since then. attractive was to be better than actual world class players :)
Could you tell us anything on the way you work chess and play your correspondence games? Any tip or secret? (nothing to lose to ask :))
- with black i play for fastest way to 0.00 and with white i try every promising way to make a game for a longer time complicated
Do you use several ones at the same time when analyzing a game? (still grabbing some tips)
- i only use the newest stockfish versions of brainfish and corchess because the other engines are not so good. because i have many games i decide which one gets the most cores and time and let them run in infinity mode until i am happy that can be after 1 week or more sometimes.
You're not far to rank 2nd as a poker player at FICGS, you obviously started to take on Big Chess as well. What other games do you play? Did you consider to play Go already?
- i played go against the german champion and lost so i quit :)) played backgammon money game and internet (in fibs with kit woolsey i played over 100 matches) in bridge i was best bidder in germany 1994 to 1995, but dont play much nowadays
Do you have specific goals to achieve as a player?
- 2 goals, since a long time: be ficgs world champion and win one german bridge championship
How do you imagine correspondence chess evolution within a decade? What kind of engines/computers do you expect to use and what will look like centaur chess according to you? (in other words, what part will remain to the human player in the decision?)
- i think the engines today are already unbeatable, so in 20 years the would still not lose and chess is dead since about 4 years
What did you think about Google Deepmind's Alpha Zero performance vs. Stockfish?
- it was a joke because they let a bad version of stockfish play. i would not have lost one game against az0 and maybe won 2 til 5 out of 100
Conditions of this AlphaZero vs. Stockfish match were very specific (opening books, unbalanced hardware...) What weaknesses did you detect in AlphaZero play?
- it was the lack of precision, what would let it lose against stockfish in its tuned newest version but i look from a view of a player who is used to play with deep 60 :)
It seems that computers did not completely take on Bridge yet, what do you expect within a decade?
- i have not seen bridge programms, but the game is so easy that it must be already mastered by computers
Thibault de Vassal (2018-11-01 02:24:14)
Ratings inflation period
Dear chessfriends, the inflation period continues for correspondence chess ratings, now with slower effects:
The rating calculation differs as explained in the rules: "During an inflation period, any negative bonus is divided by 2. [Edited]"
Garvin Gray (2018-11-18 03:12:48)
World Championship Groups
I see in the chat box there is a comment about adding players for a new group in the WCH.
This should not be allowed and is a bad idea. The original groups were worked out based on ratings available at the close of entry.
And also now this new group will be a rating scattered group, rather than being similar to the others.
Players have protested before about adding players and new groups well after the entry deadline has passed. I have frankly had a gutful of having to protest about it.
It is one of main things that is turning me off this site. Having to keep protesting against items on this site when others have said similar viewpoints to mine, but the site owner keeps trying to sneak in his ideas via the backdoor.
Garvin Gray (2018-11-19 02:36:26)
World Championship Groups
Ok, please clarify- your comment in the chat box is: A few more players for an additional chess WCH group?
The key word to me is 'additional' chess Wch group.
In your latest reply, you say accepting a few later runners to add as replacements into existing groups to substitute for those who have not started their games or forfeited out.
I have no real objection to the later, but I have a strong objection to creating a completely new group from those who did not enter on time and that new group could potentially not be as strong and evenly distributed for ratings from the original WCH groups.
Garvin Gray (2019-01-24 08:15:24)
WCh groups...
The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage.
In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage.
If tournament entry ratings (TER) are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account.
Steven DuCharme (2019-05-23 01:40:02)
New rating system
Start at 10K. Draws don't affect ratings. Ratings adjust via formula 250 - number of loser's moves. Combined adjustment is neitral. No floor or ceiling. ur welcome
Thibault de Vassal (2019-11-28 12:08:42)
Lee Sedol quits Go because of A.I.
Finally, is it time for Go players to play "advanced Go"? Would it make sense like it used to be at chess?
Meanwhile, Go champion Lee Sedol resigns (it seems for several reasons actually, now ranked #54 at GoRatings.org - by the way the full rating list is worth to watch until rank 800)
So, we human will not probably beat what will replace AlphaZero in the future, but as in chess we could learn a lot from it, if not build great centaur teams.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50573071
Thibault de Vassal (2020-02-07 19:06:41)
Go ratings, rule update
Players can auto-estimate their rating from 0 to 1100 (10 kyu). By default it is 0 (if not specified) or 100 (20 kyu).
Daniel Parmet (2020-04-28 22:59:06)
The State of correspondence chess
I have played correspondence chess now for 13 years. During that time, I have played 983 correspondence games. These days I mostly play at ICCF and some of these issues may be ICCF specific... but since ICCF has no forum and I want to get a sense of the health of correspondence chess in general... I posit my thoughts here.
First of all, I think the number of correspondence players and the number of correspondence games are decreasing across the board on all correspondence websites due to the things I want to talk about.
Second, I primarily shifted my playing to ICCF years ago for two reasons: 1) The higher level of competition available; 2) The norms available. Although I was concerned with their fees which are usually minor but, in many cases, certain organizers do construct outlandish tournaments that you need to be wary of (looking at you Venezuela).
On the first point, I think ICCF is a little more open to high caliber players competing up until a point (they really try to prevent you from playing a 2450+ player until you are 2450+ yourself). And the rating protections get tougher and tougher the further you go but they make it easy to play 2300 players. While most websites outside of ICCF, usually have one annual Cup / WCH or Thematics, these other websites usually make it impossible to play anyone more than a few hundred points above you no matter your rating outside of these few events.
On the second point, I think ICCF norms are somewhat of an illusion. They’ve always been hard and much harder to achieve than OTB norms which received a watering down of requirements of decades ago. In fact, ICCF norms are so much harder than FIDE norms that one actually needs to achieve two norms to receive the prerequisite title in ICCF vs the standard three norms required by FIDE. In the US, for example, there are 116 ICCF Titled players in history (13 GMs, 25 SIM, 78 IMs) vs 828 FIDE Titled players in present (101 GMs 166 IM 561 FMs) [https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml]. Now however, there is a proposal, for the ICCF GM Title only, proposed by Dennis Doren, ICCF Rules Commissioner who really does a lot for correspondence chess, and SIM Uwe Staroske, ICCF Qualifications and Ratings Commissioner, to remove the requirement to have to play GMs to get the GM Title [leaving IM and SIM untouched] [https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1280]. This proposal states, “A search of the ICCF data indicates that 21 players obtained at least 2 GM norms across 24 games but failed to get the GM title because of the requirement of "5 GM" opponents. (Only 5 of those players are currently active).” Leaving aside the fact that this proposal violates the very definition of the GM Title, one must beat the club in order to join it, the proposal further outlines the real problems without addressing them, “The GM Title has already become far harder to earn than it used to be, due to the rating suppression caused by the increase in draws.” Wow, let’s unpack that one line because it is a doozy!
Really, this one line, that is easily overlooked, is two huge problems that correspondence is facing: 1) death by one thousand draw paper cuts and 2) rating deflation. I will argue later that there is a third huge problem but let’s start with the ones acknowledged by ICCF itself. Every correspondence player knows the draw rate is going up. As engines and hardware get stronger, players are able to save positions that in the past would have been lost and we are finding ever easier ways to head straight towards 0.00 as Black. I would love to see a detailed analysis that describes how much harder it has become to win as Black against a decent correspondence player (let’s say someone 2300+). In the last five years, I have beaten three 2300+ players as Black without counting mouseslips (one in 2015, one in 2016 and one any day now in 2020) despite playing extremely aggressive openings like the KID (for the record that’s three Black wins out 103 Black draws or 2.91% Win rate). That may be part of the draw problem, but I have witnessed my own draw rate skyrocket 2014: 82.4% 2015: 86.7% 2016: 90.2% 2017: 90.6% 2018: 91% 2019 is still in progress. Often for these norms, you need to score +2, +3, +4 or +5 despite the fact that +1 usually wins the event… and with the draw rate North of 90% in a 12-13 game event that means you are likely to win 1 game on average… but in many events the entire cross table often sees one to three entire wins (look at a recently completed tournament here where I scored my first IM norm that required +0 and I scored +1). My win was one of five wins in the entire tournament 100/105 = 95.2% draw rate! [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=73482]. People love to tell me that’s fine because we are talking about such a weak event as Category 8 [2449 was the rating average]. Fine, I do not accept your argument but let’s look at the World Championship then shall we? Let’s look at the most recently concluded World Championship 30 which finished on 10/2/2019, Category 13 [2562 was the rating average]. This event was won by the new World Champion SIM Kochemasov, Andrey Leonidovich 2540 [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745]. Congrats to the new World Champion on his two wins! The event had 8 decisive games out 136 or a draw rate of 91.2% (not far off my own). But wait did I say SIM? I did. In fact, congratulations to the World Champion on scoring his final GM norm as well! This World Championship saw 5 SIMs compete in a field with 12 GMs. While 3 of the SIMs finished 1st 2nd and 3rd, only our new World Champion scored a GM norm. The problem is with all the draws that norms are not just becoming hard, but maintaining or increasing one’s rating is becoming hard. And one’s rating is how one receives any decent invites to have a chance at a norm in the first place.
The draws are a death by one thousand cuts as I recently played one of the ICCF’s proposal’s outlined “21 players that could have obtained a GM norm.” My rating is 2389 and his rating is 2504 (although SIM, he is recognized by all his peers as a GM caliber player). As Black, I obtained an easy draw without ever being in any trouble at all. The player had a rather angry initial discussion with me post mortem about how he felt it was wrong that a 2504 should have to play a player as weak as 2389 where the draw would kill his rating. He felt that his rating was being destroyed by these draws with weaker players and that ICCF should protect him from us. He felt I have it easier as a lower rated player because I can gain rating from these draws. Let’s look at his argument that one is causing the other and it is only happening to those 2500+. At the time that draw occurred, I gained exactly 1.17915 rating points from it (and he lost the same); however, this was the first draw in over 40 games in which I *gained* rating points (this statement is no longer true as a few higher rated players have since given me draws but at the time of the game’s conclusion this was the case). Yes, that’s right, ICCF already does such a good job of protecting higher rated players that it actively hands out advice to new players to be very particular about what invites and events they play because the draws could kill their initial rating. I too have experienced a net negative loss of rating points from draws and still seen my rating going up only due to the fact that wins are easier and ever so slightly more common to come by at my level. However, it means I am not exempt from the draw problem. It is patently false that this problem is limited to those 2500+ as in my last 43 draws, I lost rating in 42 of them and gained rating from 1 of them. Therefore, it appears draws are causing rating deflation and this is the real problem in both norms and correspondence in general. With the exception of matches, perhaps there is a way to have draws not count against one’s rating since there are so many of them? It kind of blends the Chess rating concept with that of Bridge where one cannot lose rating points once earned. What we can see is that the player’s argument that draws are causing rating deflation is probably true. One problem is at least partly causing the other one.
There is a third more devious problem worse than the two outlined above in my opinion. While rating deflation, draws, less players and norms are real issues… they are dwarfed by the change in behavior caused by these issues. I know it is a bit overdramatic to talk about such issues in a time of COVID, but there has been a great increase in the number of players playing Dead Man Defense (often shortened by correspondence players to DMD+ and DMD=). It is important to note that the death rate in COVID for those in the elderly category is markedly higher and the correspondence community in general is also markedly higher. I have heard estimates of the average age of correspondence player being 70-75 range though I haven’t seen any data. Back to DMD, what is DMD and why is it such awful behavior? The players are hoping you die before you win so they can claim either a win on time or if it goes to adjudication then at least claim a draw. The other hope is that you might mouse slip by being forced to play more moves which while that would never happen over the board does surprisingly account for a large portion of wins in ICCF correspondence high-level play. One of the main problems this issue causes is that if someone takes an early draw against a player who then goes on to die, the entire rest of the field gets a free half point and you are punished for playing your game quicker than your peers. Often, players over the board resign once mate is unstoppable or a simple endgame is reached in which the result is known to players of all levels. In correspondence, often even sooner than these players will resign or offer draws, knowing that perpetual check is unavoidable should we play another 10 moves past the piece sac against a bare king? How about when the engine reads +25 +30 or +40? So, for the most, correspondence players draw or resign much earlier than one might over the board due to engine and tablebase assistance. On that note, depending on the tournament, players can outright claim wins and draws either on the 6-piece tablebase (always allowed) or the sometimes allowed on an event by event basis the 7-piece tablebase. It is considered out right rude to make a player play all the way to the 6-piece tablebase to claim. I recently claimed one win in a six piece tablebase up an entire piece where my jolly opponent wanted to discuss the game in a post mortem (rarely done in correspondence in general anyways). I declined to even respond to him even though I was already having a very lively and fun post mortem with a Venezuelan on our extremely interesting draw. A worse example is the 92 move game I played with opposite colored bishops where I had two extra pawns. I offered a draw as white and the higher rated player to my lower rated opponent who declined it, forcing me to play to a 7-piece tablebase claim to end the game. This kind of behavior used to be quite rare. In the past, I would say it happened in 1 out of every 100 games… these days it seems to happen in every other game (1/2!). I have seven different opponents right now that are DMD+ against me where the engine reads +148 (or in some cases even sees mate! The 2504 player that complained about my rating earlier also complained someone was DMD+ him… I remarked that I have no less than 7 players DMD+ me and if they would resign? My rating would be about 2450 right which sort of eliminates his claim about our “giant” rating difference). The issue is that due to rating deflation these players need to artificially keep their rating high as long as they can because that’s how they will get their next invite. With the new terrible time control that is not yet Official (although there is a proposal to make it Official: https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1282), players only need to make a move once every 50 days to pointlessly extend the game. I have a DMD= draw currently going on 16 months now where the player is just moving Kg1 Kf1 Kg1 every 50 days. This time control exasperates the DMD problem. When I contacted ICCF Officials to point out the severity of this problem, I was told that I should report it to the TD on a case by case basis only if it is DMD+ as they will not look at DMD= at all. However, it is usually the TDs that are the biggest offenders (6 of the 7 players described above were TDs). In fact, it is usually the same general casts of characters which allows for an easy black list to be created that bars these players from play until they can fix their atrocious behavior. This behavior needs to be punished. These players need to be reprimanded. In the end, lack of norms, rating deflation and the draw death will not make me quit correspondence chess. It is DMD+/DMD= that will make me quit. This experience is my personal experience with high level correspondence over thirteen years and I would love to hear from other correspondence players concerning these problems.
Steven DuCharme (2020-11-29 00:55:28)
On Another Site...
on another other site ratings will be reset to 1500 at year end
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-12 18:01:32)
What happened to all the players?
Here I quote LSS rule:
"Dear Chessfriends,
in the past there have been many complaints about games where one player started moving slowly esp in a lost position, partially using the 30-day-per-individual-move rule to its extreme. To my opinion, this is not a good attitude of sportsmanship.
I have therefore developed a measure against this. Depending on the position, the used time of reflection and the ratings of both players, the server can detect such games with a high probability. Actually, the delay of games is already part of the LSS Rules, but was not in effect so far.
Effective 1st October, 2020, such games will now be stopped by the server and the delaying player will be suspended for 3 weeks to start new tournaments. Further penalties might be introduced, if required.
The algorithm will not be revealed to avoid misuse and it might be due to change without notice.
Best wishes
Ortwin Pätzold"
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-07 01:18:50)
Poker Rating
No, it wasn't non-sportsmanlike for sure, good example... but should this game really be rated? (rated for the winner I mean, you lost some points in this case)
The other problem is that players trying to manipulate ratings could do the same and reality is that they do not (or very rarely) when there are 10 moves at least to play, so this rule is efficient to prevent this. And as we all know, no rule is perfect for everyone.
You are right, lasting a won game to move 10 would be strange but it is a choice and a price to pay... the main thing is that it should be rare.
Don Groves (2021-04-14 05:38:21)
Poker Rating
I recently had a Go tournament in which all six of my opponents failed to make even one move. Shouldn't this affect their ratings?
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-15 14:39:10)
Poker Rating
Any player who forfeits without a good reason should lose some points IMO (maybe more or maybe less than a regular lost game, but here it is equal at the moment)... but should a player who wins such a game be rewarded when he played 0, 1 or 5 moves? I don't think so. If it was the case, it would be much easier to manipulate ratings.
Misha Allport (2021-04-27 20:18:08)
Players ratings
When are players' ratings adjusted? After each game? After each tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-28 00:56:13)
Players ratings
Hello Misha,
"My messages" page specifies : Dear chessfriends, the correspondence chess ratings and FICGS chess database have been updated on March 02, 2021 (next update around May 01, 2021).
Advanced chess ratings, big chess ratings, Go ratings & poker ratings are updated after each game.
Garvin Gray (2021-07-05 08:37:02)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
I added the possibility only of double round robin in Wch because I was not sure it was necessary in every stages (obviously it finds more sense in a round robin final than in stage 1), but anyway I could make it more accurate."
So, in all ways, it sounds like I didn't specify that all 5 players groups in WCH should be double round robin.
Garvin - Are you now specifying that ALL 5 player groups will now be double round robins?
As for the first part, I think actually a DRR (double round robin) in stage 1 is just as important, if not more so.
Here is why.
Players are seeded from 1 to the last player across the groups, going back and forth across the groups to seed the second seeds, third seeds and so forth.
This then can produce large differences in ratings between the players in some groups, and in others, very small differences between the top two seeds.
And it is for this fact, and then that players 3, 4 and 5 are then going to be very far rated below seeds 1 and 2, that a double round robin is necessary.
Otherwise, the number 1 seed gains a rather large advantage by being white against the number two seed.
A double round robin in all groups that are 5 player avoids all these issues. It is only 8 games total.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-11 01:21:11)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Sorry for the delay, I had to update a tie rule in the chess WCH (if tournament entry ratings are equal) to avoid to make the universe collapse ^^ More seriously, a special case occured and it was not ok with the former rule. The WCH will start on July 11th.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-11 12:58:27)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
Sure, result decides first, but when it cannot, then ratings have a role to play, finally there must be a clear algorithm to decide in all cases.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-09-07 23:01:01)
ICCF ratings
Hello Juri,
No, FICGS ratings have no incidence on ICCF or FIDE ELO ratings.
Juri Eintalu (2021-09-08 01:00:41)
ICCF ratings
Thank you.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-08-15 02:37:37)
poker reflection time
Among those who will have 5 days left regularly, some will lose games on time, that will bring some trouble in ratings (some will consider this is a problem, others not), but yes, that's a possibility, it may shorten tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-07-27 19:06:48)
FIDE rating change proposal
Maybe you heard about this strange proposal made by a mathematician to make FIDE ratings (<2000) more coherent against some deflation...
http://en.chessbase.com/post/fide-seeks-proposals-rating-changes
http://www.chess.com/news/view/fide-mathematician-proposes-changes-to-improve-rating-accuracy
I'm somewhat doubtful about this idea to change some data rather than the algorithm, what do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2024-07-14 03:15:45)
poker reflection time
We must consider all points here: If games are shorter, ratings will be less accurate. I understand the point, but there is no easy solution.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2024-09-10 14:05:28)
Group winners first stage of Ficgs WCH
For group 1 t/m 5 it is already clear as crystal who's going to win and for the last groups as well, but those are shared group wins. Sadly many players prolong their game. And for group 6 and 7 I can understand, since the rules are such that in case of a tie the group win goes to the highest TER and after that to the highest rating holder.
But wouldn't it be best to just start a second round ASAP with two groups of five players? Or will it really come down to TER's and most recent ratings?
I included an oversight of the group winners:
Group 1
Kireev, Sergey
Group 2
Hallqvist, Niklas
Group 3
Knittel, Martin
Group 4
Swiatek, Janusz
Group 5
LaDuke, Matt
Group 6
Gounant, Stanislas
Pech, Stepan
Group 7
DeBonis, Patrick
Broekhuizen, A. T. S.
Ward, David
Garvin Gray (2024-09-19 18:46:08)
Rating System.....
Correspondence chess ratings next update on November 1st, 2024. FICGS chess database has been updated on September 16, 2024.
Garvin Gray (2024-12-07 04:02:25)
New Tie Break System
Currently Ficgs uses TER as its first tie break if two or more players are tied for first in a round robin group.
I have thought for a long time this is rather unfair and gives way too much advantage to the player with the highest rating in the group.
The practical effect of this rule can be thus:
7 players in a group:
The difference in ratings between the players can be less than 100 points and seeds 1 and 2 can be as little as 2 or 2 rating points.
But with using TER as the first tie break, the top seed only needs to have score the same as everyone else to advance, which with engines nowadays, can quite often mean that all games in a group are drawn.
What I propose is to change the tie break system to the following:
1) Number of wins
2) Sonneborn–Berger
3) Direct Encounter
4) TER
A second option is to stop using such small groups where possible. This would then at least increase the likelihood of a positive result in the groups as more games are played.
George Jempty (2025-11-17 23:47:07)
Clarification of Rating Groups
There is no favoritism in my case, the rule ALSO states if your rating is within 50 points of the higher group, that waiting list has at least 5 entries already, and you pay 10 epoints, you can enter. Perhaps those last qualifications have been amended since last time knew of the rule? I've just brought up my ratings to defend against that I'm making a mockery of this rule. So no favoritism, no mockery, and I'm done with this discussion altogether,
Garvin Gray (2025-12-09 18:40:17)
Too many groups for tourneys
The issue is not so much with rating bands, it is difference in ratings of the groups.
400 points in the groups is ridiculous. A 2500 player is not going to be the first to join a group when they know that a 2150 can also join that same group.
But once again, just like a lot of issues on this site, I have brought these issues to Thibault attention, some changes have been made, but the main issue of what you see now still remains.
Just like the rest of the issues that have been discussed, if Thibault does not agree, discussing the issue is a waste of your time.
Garvin Gray (2026-02-22 07:45:14)
Is rating just a number on this site?
There are two types of tickets.
The first kind is when you win a lower class/rapid event and that qualifies you to enter the next higher rated event, but you have to wait until five players above the rating cut off have already entered.
This system was introduced to get tournaments started as each tournament would sit for months waiting for seven players who had ratings above the rating cut off to enter.
And then Thibault has extended the system to pay to enter, where you need to be 50 points lower than the rating cut off.
As has been said previously, one of the biggest issues is not either of these concepts, it is the difference in the rating bands for entering a tournament.
When a tournament is 2200 to 2600, no one who is rated 2500 is going to enter that event when 4 players who are rated between 2200 and 2300 have already entered.
I have already proposed a solution to this, but once again Thibault will not embrace change and we are stuck with what we have.
And I am going to say this directly. Those who are playing on here are growing increasing frustrated and how it is being run.
From TER, to rating bands, to tickets and many other issues, nothing changes.
And I think quite a few of us are reaching the point of walking away. I certainly am.
There is no point continuing on when the site owner will not change anything anymore. The only option left is to leave.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-04-16 03:05:15)
Too many groups for tourneys
Done... Let's try new ranges, somewhat more coherent with current ratings.
[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 !
|
Ygouf, Laurent (FRA) [member # 14712] Correspondence chess : 2424 SM Ranked # 71 in the rating list. 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 |  |