Without computer discussions

   		Free Internet Chess Games Server

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



Senseis library

                                          
Forum


Back to forum


Lionel Vidal    (2006-06-01 12:46:14)
Go rules

Hello,

Even if a well chosen komi rules out scoring draws, you still have the problem of infinite repetition.
Traditionally, a game in which a triple ko or other infinitely repeating position arises is annulled, or treated as draw or replayed.
Some rules (New Zealnd, USA, SST) deal with these positions by stating that a player cannot make exactly the same position on the whole board twice. (Note that it is then not always easy without computer assistance to determine the legality of a move).
The chinese rule (at least the 1988 official one) also forbids reappearance of the same board position, but in some situation this is not enough to prevent a draw: in some cases neither player want to start a sequence and keep passing to avoid solving a situation at their disadvantage. (and to forbid passes triggers others worse problems...).

As you see, the situation is quite complex, and while rules of Go seem simple, their precise definition is not easy. In practice, you eventually have to rely on the sportmanship of the players or on a referee decision.

Personally I have played till now only under the japanese rule, and in case of problems (very rare as this rule is quite detailled, but then rather complex in its exceptions handling), a senior player says the truth, and, at least in Japan, this truth is undisputed and becomes the laws :-)... quite simple!

Lionel


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.


Benjamin Aldag    (2007-01-29 11:51:07)
Without computer !

Hi, it would be nice, to have some tournaments, where it is not allowed, to use computer-assistence. And it would be great, to have list of players, which dont use computer-assistence. Since my comeback here, i dont use an engine for my games and i can say, it makes more fun ! ;-) yk


Charlie Neil    (2007-02-02 11:45:33)
Without Computer

Marcus if you can please read the old forum postings, "Why do you play corr-chess." I made a similar comment about computers being used as the main player. Believe me I was wrong! As much as in correspondence chess you can use notes, books and databases for reference. Here at FICGS, (A great site!) players use their computers as a reference. It does not benefit anyone to just relay their computer moves without understanding them. Those players won't prosper nor will develop a passion we chessplayers have for the game. I believe that now to be the case. Personally I don't have a Juinor8, Fritz 10 or Deep Joe 90 or whatever to use as a reference point. I do have a pile of books that serve to confuse me in my games. As I continue to seek understanding in this game. People should use computers as long as the computers don't use them! How boring can it be just to imput moves? The computer isn't compulsory. And I am saving a fortune on stamps playing here! It is fun after all. It is only a game. Even if it is a terrible one.


Marcus Miranda    (2007-02-02 15:37:22)
Without computer

Thanks Charlie for directing me to the old forum, I thought that a computer engine is unbeatable if you give it enough time, and if this was the case there would be no human touch in the moves you play, I guess I am wrong.


Benjamin Aldag    (2007-02-04 22:26:09)
To Marc Lacrosse

Hey guy, come down !

I just say, it makes more fun to play without computer-assistence.

I play here, because i will never reach the level of computerplayers and my opponents are in 99% free of computer-assistence. I dont want to be a slave of my computer and in my opinion is this the right way.

I know 9 people here with an official rating between 1500 and 1600 ELO(DWZ) and here they have a rating between 2200 and 2300. :-D<br
You say, with only computermoves you will never reach the highest level here and i can say - YOU ARE RIGHT !

Players with a FIDE ELO 2200 and higher will have here a rating over 2600 and they will not only play computermoves. But i play chess for two years and have an official FIDE rating of 1822 and believe me, it makes no sense for me to play with computer-assistence.

yk


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-02-14 19:09:12)
To Nicola

But there are already _many_ other web-chess organisations with forbidden computer use:

- our friends at itsyourturn.com
- the letsplaychess server
- http://www.playchess.de/
...

The last one has a very good interface and is also free.
Servers with computer use allowed are at the opposite very few.
So why should Thibault change a feature which is specific here for something which is already available everywhere else ?
Moreover, having played for long at playchess.de where both kinds of play exist (with or without computer help) I can tell you that there was there a surprinsingly large number of players cheating in the non-computer section instead of playing with their computers in the computer-allowed one, and this was at the origin pf permanent discussions and flame wars on their forum.

For what regards myself I do not wish that FICGS would go the same way.

Marc


Benjamin Aldag    (2007-02-15 12:30:33)
YOU FLAME !

@ Marc Lacrosse

The discussion is not about to change something. It is about to build a new feature here. It would be kewl to see a little (c) in the profiles of computerusers.

Please dont flame here about 'what is allowed and whats not allowed' !!!

IT IS ALLOWED TO USE A COMPUTER-ASSISTENCE !!!! AND THIS IS OK FOR ME !!!! AND IT IS ALlOWED TO PLAY WITHOUT COMPUTER-ASSISTENCE !!!! IS THIS LOUD ENOUGH ???

I play here at FICGS and why should i play at playchess.de ??? I want to play CC-Chess HERE ! So please dont tell me, where i can play without computer-assistence. I can play without computer-assistence here TOO !

yk


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) :)


Marc Lacrosse    (2007-02-15 22:55:30)
Why such a shouting ?

@Benjamin Aldag

"The discussion is not about to change something. It is about to build a new feature here"

You are completely illogical.

Evidently you may play without computer as you wish here.

You may also try to find other members who prefer to play this way and register together with them in a tournament.

So what you wish to do is already possible. But what you request is not that.

You request to play here against opponents for whom computer use will be forbidden.

This is simply not the rule here. It's even one of the fundamental originalities of this site.

The rules of the site are that everything is allowed

If you and friends of yours manage to play without computers this is up to you

But asking for special rules supposes that you intend to request that Thibault or someone will check that YOUR rule is enforced.

IMHO this is purely not working. You won't find any organisation that wil be able to ensure that no player cheats regarding this kind of rule.

So let me repeat (and it is MY RIGHT not to agree with your opinions) : if you find opponents with which you have an agreement for playing without comps here this is perfectly fine for everybody and it's up to you to see wether you are happy with the way your partners do or do not respect the agreement.

If you wish to change radically the rules so as to have tournaments where something like a police dept will check that no comp is used than GO AWAY and simply do register in one of the numerous sites where these rules do exist and where almost everybody cheats.

By the way : no need for shouting to tell what you wish.

Shouting will not make your opinions more valuable in any way.

Marc


Pablo Schmid    (2007-02-15 23:32:13)
A solution?

For players like Aldag, it might be possible to host a tournament "without computers", so Thibault would not have to change something in his system, rules or rating..


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-16 00:00:43)
A solution?

Hi Pablo.

The real point is here (quote from Benjamin) : "The discussion is not about to change something. It is about to build a new feature here"

Such a new feature is not only something more, it would completely change the challenge's nature offered here. I don't think it's a good idea. A special tournament would have no sense here IMO. If you want to play without computer assistance and be sure your opponents do the same, the only solution is... play big chess :)


Charlie Neil    (2007-02-17 15:37:26)
Without computer

Without Shouting!


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-02-17 18:07:31)
Gameknot vs. FICGS, other challenges

It seems GameKnot leads 5-4 in the games played here... Not bad :)

Any news about the games played at GameKnot ?

It could be interesting to discuss about other team challenges... A team tournament, matches against other servers or forums (which ones ?), maybe at different time controls or playing chess variants (chess 960) or other games (could be fun to play chess & Go, poker or anything against the same players).. with or without computer assistance and so on... It should be easier to build teams now thanks to the chat bar.

It seems there was no problem of cheating with chess engines during the match against GameKnot, that's encouraging to organize other ones.


Charlie Neil    (2007-02-18 12:09:03)
Gameknot Match

Well I know I won my game at Gameknot. And as for further team matches I'll sign up for standard chess without computer assistance thank you. Will Marc and Beranard be Vice Team Captains?.....8-)


Charlie Neil    (2007-02-19 14:01:54)
Without Computer!

I am just going to say at the start of my games that "I don't use computer assistance". It will be obvious by move 10 usually! But why don't you just state your intention at the start of the match to use books, computers or smoke, (tobacco, of course!)..... %-}


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-05-02 14:46:08)
Fun and competition

For me is correspondence chess just fun and competition. It is possible, that some of my played games may give others a feeling of art (in this case not in the meaning of artificial :-)), but this is just a result of a random process. A special science of correspondence chess (beside normal chess theory) can I see only in programming chess engines or in finding of Tablebases – both not my skills. I love chess, but I’m too weak playing OTB chess on a high level, possible not by my fundamental understanding of chess positions but by my missing personal power of memory, computing (without computers) and nerves. So correspondence chess is ideal for me, because I can substitute my individual weaknesses by a computer und have no time stress to analyse the positions in all ways – artificial and human – to find out the most efficient chance.


Christophe Czekaj    (2007-08-29 13:42:09)
Correspondence Chess without computers ?

Is there anyone interested about this topic ? Could we imagine a tournament in wich players agree to play without search engines ? For example, with a sort of gentlemen agreement to not use computer's help ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-08-29 14:15:49)
Correspondence Chess without computers ?

Hi Christophe !

I still don't believe anymore in this human-only correspondence chess, maybe that's why we play Big Chess ;)

But we could create a new unrated category in Chess Special Tournaments : FICGS__CHESS__NO_ENGINES_TOURNAMENT__000001

I'm not sure... Anyone interested ?


Christophe Czekaj    (2007-09-07 12:44:20)
To Jason

Hello Jason ! It’s just a question to have the possibility to play correspondence chess (for fun, not neccesarily studying or analysis, just the pleasure of finding moves, ideas (you know, what Bronstein called imagination) not rating, not to be classified as expert, or I don’t know what…) with people without computer. If they lie and use computer ; OK, we can’t be sure, but I’m certain you could accept that some players can trust other players when they say they don’t use computers. For example, I trust Philip when he said this, it’s just a question of being a gentleman. If there are cheaters ok, so what… Rybka will win And I don’t undestand your topic about class of players : I hope I‘ve the right of posting some commentaries on this forum, despite the fact being largely behind you in term of rating… I think we can still play chess without computer, and with rating or not, it’s the same game for me. Philip and I just think it could be kind to play with other players with a kind of gentleman’s agreement. Sorry if it bother you


Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-09-14 17:12:51)
Best joke for me is reading

the (moderated) thread "Correspondence chess without computers"! :)


Don Burden    (2008-03-19 19:59:11)
Quote festival, part 4

Playing chess on FICGS without computer help is like being a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest!


Normajean Yates    (2008-12-17 18:05:42)
anyway, about the 16-queens mate-in-4:

Svante Carl von Erichsen showed it was possible to solve without computer help:

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=problem_read&id=311

As for proof game, The foll is from my rec.games.chess.analysis post [it *was* .analysis I think - feeling too tired to search usenet]

" This one is mine:

1. 4k3/qqqqqqqq/8/8/8/8/QQQQQQQQ/4K3 w - - 0 109: [pos. 1]

White to play and mate in 4.

There are no duals - only one moves mates in 4. [there is no mate in 3 or less.]

Move given at end of post, with sample continuation.

These two were posed by me and solved by likesforests [see fics (www.freechess.org) or chess.com] in 20 minutes total!

2. Give a proof game for pos. 1, ie Show that the position in prob. 1 is legally reachable by giving a game that leads to the position.

3. Okay, so you can reach a position where you have 16 queens on board. Can you construct a game which reaches a position with 18 queens? If so, do so! [the last part carries 99% of the credit - it is to pre-empt the answers "yes" and "no".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(note: these can be more conveniently viewed at chess.com in the thread "advantage of moving first - mate in 4 in symmetrical position" in the forum-category "more puzzles")

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solution to 2: by likesforests

[Event ]
[Site ]
[Date ..]
[White likesforests]
[Black likesforests]
[Result 1-0]
1. a4 b5 2. a5 b4 3. a6 Bb7 4. axb7 Nc6 5. Na3 bxa3 6. b8=Q a2 7. Rb1 a1=Q 8. Qb3 Qa6 9. Qa2 Qb7 10. b4 a5 11. b5 a4 12. b6 Qa6 13. b7 a3 14. Qb3 a2 15. b8=Q a1=Q 16. Qh3 Q1a5 17. Qbb3 Ne5 18. Qbg3 c5 19. Rb3 c4 20. c3 cxb3 21. c4 b2 22. c5 b1=Q 23. c6 Qba2 24. c7 Qb8 25. Bb2 f6 26. Bc3 Kf7 27. c8=Q d5 28. Qc4 Nc6 29. Qch4 d4 30. d3 dxc3 31. d4 c2+ 32. Qd2 Ra7 33. f3 Q5a4 34. Kf2 c1=Q 35. d5 Qca3 36. d6 e5 37. e4 Nge7 38. d7 Kg8 39. d8=Q Qa8 40. Qb6 Nb4 41. Qbe3 Nbd5 42. exd5 e4 43. Ne2 f5 44. Qeh6 f4 45. Kg1 e3 46. Nd4 e2 47. d6 e1=Q 48. d7 Qea1 49. d8=Q Nd5 50. Nc2 Nc3 51. Ne3 fxe3 52. Qdg5 e2 53. Qdf4 e1=Q 54. Qfg4 Qeb1 55. f4 g6 56. Qc5 g5 57. f5 Bg7 58. Qgc4+ Rf7 59. f6 Bf8 60. Q5b4 g4 61. Qe5 g3 62. Qe1 Ne4 63. Qcb3 Nd2 64. Qhc4 Nf3+ 65. gxf3 g2 66. Be2 Bg7 67. Kf2 Bf8 68. Ke3 g1=Q+ 69. Kf4 Qgb6 70. Qcc3 Be7 71. Kg4 Qe6+ 72. Kg3 Rf8 73. fxe7 Rf7 74. e8=Q+ Rf8 75. Qeb5 Qf7 76. f4 Re8 77. f5 Re6 78. fxe6 Qff8 79. e7+ Qf7 80. Rf1 Qaf8 81. e8=Q Qa8 82. Qbb2 Q4a7 83. Qed2 Q3a6 84. Rf3 Q8b7 85. Qcc2 Qac4 86. Q4b3 Qad6+ 87. Kg2 Qdc7 88. Q3a2 Qce6 89. Qhe3 Qed7 90. Q8e4 Q8e7 91. Qb2b3 Qag7+ 92. Qg3 Qbb2 93. Bc4 Qbf6 94. Kf1 h5 95. Rf5 Qfxf5+ 96. Ke1 Rh6 97. Qxh6 Qfh7 98. Qhxh5 Qfxc4 99. Qee2 Qcf7 100. Qbb2 Kf8 101. Qgf2 Ke8 102. h4 Kf8 103. Qhg4 Qhxh4 104. Qgg2 Qhh7 105. Qbh5 Ke8 106. Qhh2 Qfe6 107. Qff3 Q6f6 108. Qff2 Qff7 1-0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

solution to 3: by likesforests

Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[White "likesforests"]
[Black "likesforests"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. a4 b5 2. a5 b4 3. a6 Bb7 4. axb7 Nc6 5. Na3 bxa3 6. b8=Q a2 7. Rb1 a1=Q 8. Qb3 Qa6 9. Qa2 Qb7 10. b4 a5 11. b5 a4 12. b6 Qa6 13. b7 a3 14. Qb3 a2 15. b8=Q a1=Q 16. Qh3 Q1a5 17. Qbb3 Ne5 18. Qbg3 c5 19. Rb3 c4 20. c3 cxb3 21. c4 b2 22. c5 b1=Q 23. c6 Qba2 24. c7 Qb8 25. Bb2 f6 26. Bc3 Kf7 27. c8=Q d5 28. Qc4 Nc6 29. Qch4 d4 30. d3 dxc3 31. d4 c2+ 32. Qd2 Ra7 33. f3 Q5a4 34. Kf2 c1=Q 35. d5 Qca3 36. d6 e5 37. e4 Nge7 38. d7 Kg8 39. d8=Q Qa8 40. Qb6 Nb4 41. Qbe3 Nbd5 42. exd5 e4 43. Ne2 f5 44. Qeh6 f4 45. Kg1 e3 46. Nd4 e2 47. d6 e1=Q 48. d7 Qea1 49. d8=Q Nd5 50. Nc2 Nc3 51. Ne3 fxe3 52. Qdg5 e2 53. Qdf4 e1=Q 54. Qfg4 Qeb1 55. f4 g6 56. Qc5 g5 57. f5 Bg7 58. Qgc4+ Rf7 59. f6 Bf8 60. Q5b4 g4 61. Qe5 g3 62. Qe1 Ne4 63. Qcb3 Nd2 64. Qhc4 Nf3+ 65. gxf3 g2 66. Be2 Bg7 67. Kf2 Bf8 68. Ke3 g1=Q+ 69. Kf4 Qgb6 70. Qcc3 Be7 71. Kg4 Qe6+ 72. Kg3 Rf8 73. fxe7 Rf7 74. e8=Q+ Rf8 75. Qeb5 Qf7 76. f4 Re8 77. f5 Re6 78. fxe6 Qff8 79. e7+ Qf7 80. Rf1 Qaf8 81. e8=Q Qa8 82. Qhc1 ( 82. Qbb2 Q4a7 83. Qed2 Q3a6 84. Rf3 Q8b7 85. Qcc2 Qac4 86. Q4b3 Qad6+ 87. Kg2 Qdc7 88. Q3a2 Qce6 89. Qhe3 Qed7 90. Q8e4 Q8e7 91. Qb2b3 Qag7+ 92. Qg3 Qbb2 93. Bc4 Qbf6 94. Kf1 h5 95. Rf5 Qfxf5+ 96. Ke1 Rh6 97. Qxh6 Qfh7 98. Qhxh5 Qfxc4 99. Qee2 Qcf7 100. Qbb2 Kf8 101. Qgf2 Ke8 102. h4 Kf8 103. Qhg4 Qhxh4 104. Qgg2 Qhh7 105. Qbh5 Ke8 106. Qhh2 Qfe6 107. Qff3 Q6f6 108. Qff2 Qff7 ) h5 83. Qhc8 h4+ 84. Kg4 h3 85. Bf3 Rh5 86. Bg2 hxg2 87. h3 Rh4+ 88. Kxh4 g1=Q 89. Rf6 Qga7 90. Qec6 Q8b8 91. Q8a6 Q8e7 92. Kg4 Kf8 93. h4 Qbe8 94. Rd6 Qg8+ 95. Kf3 Qbg6 96. h5 Q6g7 97. h6 Qad7 98. h7 Qa5 99. h8=Q Qdxd6 1-0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

solution to 1: 1. Qaxf7+!

Sample continuations:
1... Kd8 2. Qexe7+ Kc8 3. Qdxd7+ Kb8 4. Qdd8#
1... Qxf7 2. Qh8+ Qxh8 3. Qxh8+ Qf8 4. Qfxf8#

"


Nick Burrows    (2009-11-29 03:19:18)
What would Kasparov's Ficgs rating be?

Just out of curiosity, are there any educated guesses as to what Gary Kasparov's Ficgs rating would be if he played seriously but without any computer analysis?

I noticed GM Nigel Davies played here and his rating was in the 2300's and i suspect without computer assistance, though i'm not at all sure about that.

Kasparov = 2500??


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-29 17:15:18)
Nigel Davies & Garry Kasparov

Hi Nick,

Nigel Davies played with computer assistance but IMO only to verify his moves, he was very creative in some games. As for Garry Kasparov, if I remember well, he said a long time ago that he could become easily the best correspondence chess player (if assisted by computers, I guess). However I'm not sure if his preparations for OTB chess would be useful here, but most probably he could achieve this. Hard to predict what rating he could reach as a centaur, maybe 2650-2700....... Without computer assistance, it would be much harder, maybe 2300-2350 ..

It seems to me that Peter Leko played some games at ICCF, without so much success also, right?


Thibault de Vassal    (2009-11-30 21:19:51)
Computer assistance

It is clearly impossible to top a correspondence chess rating list without computer assistance... IMHO :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2015-08-05 14:49:46)
Improving netiquette rules

But how do you know if this player has no good reasons for not playing in this particular case? Obviously, there may be something like 20% chance, maybe more, anyway there is a chance... or (at a much lower level / without computer assistance) he may even not know that he's definitely losing... I saw such cases happening and I'm 99% sure that actually there were good reasons in half of these cases at least.

And after how many days one could say there is a netiquette abuse? This is a really tough path IMO.

Scott, what do you think about this public remark? Is this also a netiquette abuse according to you?








 		 
 
Support to all people under attack    




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 !


Simal Moreira, Leonardo     (BRA)        [member # 10062]

Correspondence chess : 2374      

Ranked  #  107   in the rating list.

Rating history :   2326 2361 2358 2360 2374 2374 2374




Graph





This member has no profile in the social network.




FICGS Go server, weiqi baduk banner facebook      
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

       FICGS correspondence chess banner facebook