Chess online, correspondence chess server, Go tournaments (weiqi, baduk)

In the forum...

Money games...

Moneybookers, Paypal, credit card and bank transfer are available to play money games...

Affiliate links...

Win E-Points by linking to us as an affiliate, for each new member referred by your link, 1 E-Point will be added to your account...

E-Points prizes...

Ficgs now offers free games & tournaments with E-Points prizes...

Rybka 3, Fritz 12...

Rybka 3, Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13, your predictions on forthcoming chess engines...

Translators...

Translators are needed for chinese, japanese, indian, romanian, polish home pages...

Vacation help...

Hello all, I've entered a vacation time in error. Is it possible to cancel the vacation ?

Last referers :

LIVE
GOOGLE
IMESH
PROMCNAB
XMP
WIKIPEDIA

Feel free to link to this page to get referer backlinks to your website !

Want your banner here ?

Forum

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 là (11.7) : http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general

"The rating period is 2 months. The first period of a year starts on January 1st. For ratings calculations, the opponents' Tournament Entry Rating (TER), which are valid on the day of the rating run, are used."

La prochaine mise à jour sera donc pour le 1er septembre.

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)