 |
| Home |
| Informations |
| Login |
| Register |
| Waiting lists |
| Membership |
| Hall of fame |
| Tournaments |
| Best game |
| Wikichess |
| Rating list |
| Problems |
| Forum |
| Links |
| Help |
| About |
|
Game result (chess) N. Bernal Varela, 2078 S. Marton-Bardocz, 2346 1-0 See game 22851 |
|
Armenia wins gold at 38th Chess Olympiad
Deep Fritz 11 is available (Chessbase.com) Dominguez-Perez wins World Blitz Championship Hikaru Nakamura wins Cap d'Agde tournament Viswanathan Anand is FIDE world champion 2008 Nigel Short wins Commonwealth Championship Rybka wins World Computer Chess Championship 2008 Topalov tops the October 2008 FIDE rating list Pentala Harikrishna wins Spice Cup in Lubbock GM Jan Werle wins EU Individual Championships more chess news... |
|
Oh Chi-Min 7d wins Go-to-Innovation tournament Andy Liu 7d wins Masters Open at NY Go Center Gu Li 9p wins the 10th Chinese Agon Cup Hugh Zhang 6d wins Ing's Cup Youth Go Tournament Zou Jin 6d wins Pandanet Go European Cup more Go news... |
|
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 : WIKIPEDIA VIKINGSKAK LIVE SPAGHETTICHESS N YAHOO CSCL GO4GO CHESSPRAGA |
|
Feel free to link to this page to get referer backlinks to your website ! |
Want your banner here ? |
There are 0 results for Cor in the games.
There are 829 results for Cor in the forum.
Hannes Rada (2006-04-08 13:20:52)
Thank you !
Thank you Thibault for this great job of creating a chessfriend clone. Chessfriend had definitely the best and most convenient user-interface for server play. I Hope many chessfriend-players will migrate to this server. Once again thank you for your work and support of the correspondence chess community ! Furthermore -There is an overlap in the class tournaments concerning the minimun elo requirement. Can you clarify this ? - No holiday entitlement is mentioned in the terms and conditions hannes
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-09 10:16:50)
Duplication
Hello Marc ! I thought players (I first) precisely would appreciate something different and this totally "live" concept. I don't think many correspondence chess players will try to cheat this way... Furthermore, I already did implement processes to DETECT 'double' games.. and rules clearly forbid these methods.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-10 12:26:52)
To low rated players...
A second CLASS M tournament (category 4) already started ! I suppose once FICGS will be sumitted correctly to search engines, more low rated players will join us. Be patient :)
Marc Lacrosse (2006-04-11 10:36:45)
Computer accounts ?
Just an idea : as computer use is explicitly allowed on FICGS, it could be nice to offer chess program authors the possibility to have a "semi-official" account for their latest beta babies on FICGS.
Some of them would surely like the idea of having quite a tough test against good correspondence players ...
Hannes Rada (2006-04-11 21:03:24)
Titles
FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM. That's in my opinion a good compromise. Don't worry about the attacks of the guys in the Correspondence Chess Message Board. Just follow your dreams ....
Per Lea (2006-04-15 00:01:42)
Minor notational bug...
In game 8, I had Rooks on f8 and b8. I played 18...Ra8 on the screen, but when I list the game, the move is recorded as Rba8. The "b" is superfluous, the f8 Rook can't move to a8. In game 13, I had Rooks on d6 and d1 and played 18.Rxd8. This came out as R6xd8. The "6" is superfluous. These are not serious errors, but it is a bit irritating....
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-16 18:33:01)
Adjudication
Déjà ? :)
So, about games "obviously lost" (somewhat subjective), the council may decide special rules so that referees can grant games that drag out. What do you think is best ? That's a recurrent problem in correspondence chess, and an original policy could make the rating more accurate, as some players may finish "good games" very faster than others... Quite subjective indeed, and not obvious. Where's the limit ? Maybe correspondence chess players should first accept this idea that their "won" games may finish much later...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-18 13:25:56)
Time limit per move
If a player has 60 days and more on his clock, the deadline for one move is 60 days ! This is a provisional (quite good, I think) solution before question of vacation be answered. Many players can't play every day and correspondence chess games usually last several months, often more than 1 year.
It seems server games go much faster than email games, but rules 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves are the same.
Time limit per move in IECG is 30 days. Here, a 60 days limit (a rating period) don't seem too much to me. Players won't feel oppressed (Glen, turn email notification off :)) and I think they won't use it often.
RAPID TOURNAMENTS are an alternative solution.
Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-20 11:59:21)
Cheating / Forfeiting
Hello to all.
The website detected 2 'probable' cheaters registered (one playing), with a 1400 rating.
Of course, FICGS will face problems encountered by all correspondence chess sites but I think it will be minimal here, as I'm enforcing detection rules so that aliases couldn't register anymore.
Important : Games forfeited without a valid explanation won't be rated, and the account for the player closed. A player who may forfeit should send an email with explanation to : ficgs (at) ficgs.com
Thanks.
Elmer Valderrama (2006-04-22 15:44:16)
bug?
Dear Thibault On-going game 49 has "6.Nb5" although both knights (from c3 and d4) could move to b5 (correct is either 6.Ncb5 or 6.Ndb5)
Anyway, the interface (or the player Ghisi) moved the knight from c3 (more obvious was to move the knight from d4, according to theory at least) and, as a result, the move 7...e5 won a piece..(can't see a post from the concerned players so it could have been played as intended, but the "Nb5" needs correction for sure)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-23 06:01:44)
explanation
Hello Elmer.
It's possible the player entered an ambiguous move in plain text format. The program may have interpreted this move as the first one possible. Anyway he probably did not verify his move before confirmed (inquiring), I can't correct that. I'll fix that as soon as the next update of the site is done. Thank you.
Elmer Valderrama (2006-04-23 11:56:55)
not PGN
Maybe bringing the text-entry move facility closer to the board might be a quick fix (for the player checking the validity of intended move).
Regarding the format of the on-going games, it appears the player's move is copied "as is" directly to the game score (I have just entered "e7-e5", accepted by the interface as "e5", but it was copied as "1...e7-e5" into the PGN score of the on-going game), regards
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-23 13:48:27)
French websites
Quelques liens de sites français tout d'abord :
http://www.france-echecs.com
(le forum français bien connu)
http://echecsmag.over-blog.com
(un nouveau magazine sans lange de bois)
http://www.asso-ecam.com
(les échecs par correspondance sans assistance informatique)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-23 17:17:17)
Famous quotes
Another thing, if you know famous (or unknown) quotes relative to chess, correspondence chess and "go". I have found many ones in english and french, but it's harder in deutsch and spanish.
Or if you know rare & strange quotes, not from famous chess players... maybe from you ?! :)
Thanks again :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-25 23:15:07)
Links (& emails) recognition !
The forum now recognizes links and emails. No tags or whatever, just enter the link & it will appear correctly... (for connected players, not from the home page)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-25 23:47:35)
Waiting lists / Delay
Usually, the delay before a tournament start is at least one week in other big organizations... Be patient, tournaments will start more often as time passes and players join us. (the next month could be "surprising") Anyway this is correspondence chess after all :)
Graham Cridland (2006-05-01 16:32:05)
Hmmm..
All my moves created via the graphical generator have been coming up "incorrect move" today. Had to type them in.
David Angeli (2006-05-01 18:42:19)
Tournament class
Hi thibault About the "tounaments" topic (je sais pas comment on dit rubrique en anglois ! ;o) ) One thing not very clear for a newcomer like me is the difference between the different classes of tournaments : A, M, etc...it is certainly explained somewhere but i'm a bit lazy and it would be easier if it was explained on the same page . Thanks to your site i'm back to correspondence chess :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-03 04:41:09)
Start positions
It seems to me that changing the start position from classical chess is "sufficient"... The purpose was, according to Fischer, to avoid databases and to favour creativity.. The same positions in the whole tournament allows to compare & analyze a bit deeper, maybe understand better the position. The start position will be different for the next tournament (working on). There are "only" 960 positions, there will be repetitions anyway... And what do you think about the Fischer rules ? Seems strange to me. I wonder if everyone knows how to castle in other start positions (king or rooks at different places)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-06 11:49:01)
Advanced chess
About correspondence chess : IECG & ICCF (see links page) but probably all others too. GameKnot, Its your turn, Scheming mind, Chessmaniac etc... Real time play : Chessanytime, Chesshere.
Actually probably 98% are computer aided sites, so you can play advanced chess everywhere.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-06 15:00:48)
Indeed...
Maybe it's no use to display the PGN score in the 'confirm move' window... !?
I'll consider that.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-06 16:58:07)
FICGS cup...
Bonjour Sebastien.
Non, pas encore. D'abord pour ne pas multiplier les tournois, au risque de diviser leur popularité. Le problème reste d'imaginer une formule un peu originale, qui ne ressemble pas trop au championnat du monde (donc peut-être éviter le classique cycle de tournois round-robin). A suivre...
(about a FICGS cup, the problem is to imagine an original scheme, that doesn't look like too much to the FICGS world championship... a classical round-robin cycle is maybe 'not enough' to justify this special event)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-09 15:59:09)
... old bug
Hello Stefano. The 'wrong move' was caused by the update that fixed the ambiguous moves bug... I corrected your move that was 6.Ncb5
Sorry again.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-09 16:08:33)
Cup / Wch
Bonjour Sébastien.
J'avoue que j'ai du mal à trouver de quoi justifier l'existence d'un tournoi "cup" utilisant la même formule ou presque que le championnat du monde, à part diviser l'intérêt et la fréquentation de l'un et de l'autre... Il est bien dommage que le système suisse ne puisse pas s'appliquer aux tournois de jeux par correspondance... Peut-être, pourquoi pas, proposer une coupe (façon championnat) d'échecs 960, ou réservée aux joueurs classés au dessus d'une barre ELO à déterminer...
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-05-14 00:47:20)
Swiss
Hello Thibault these are the "rules" (see at http://www.chessfriend.com/ and then Tournaments-CFC World-Championship-CFC Championship 2003)
Modus: 3 rounds Swiss à 10 games each. ... Every player is allowed to participate in all 3 rounds. Pairings of the 1st round are based on rating. We will build equal groups where possible. In the second round we will do the pairings so that be build at first 3 groups depending on score and rating. Among this three groups we will build new tournaments which should be of about equal rating.. Third round will be paired in the same way with the exception that the first group will be the strongest (score and rating). Normally two players should play during a championship cycle only one game. If it will be necessary in a following round that two players play a second game, this game should be played with revised colours.
I will send you more information.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-05-14 07:43:13)
An alternative to Cup Championship
In my opinion, instead of a Cup Championship, perhaps a Knock Out Rapid Championship maybe more interesting!? This is simply an idea. (Otherwise, FICGS might begin to look too similar to other correspondence chess sites, don't you think?!)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-14 16:07:16)
"Blitz" cup...
Thank you Heinz Georg, for the files you sent to me.
Now I understand better the work and ideas of Reimund Lutzenberger in Chessfriend.com, a great experimentation field for sure...
I first concluded some things not to do in FICGS WCH. In example, a player rated 2500 (even provisional rating from fide) shouldn't have to play in the first stage against a low-rated player in a world championship [but that could be possible in a cup tournament cycle]. So I'll add special rules for high rated players (who are not qualified for the WCH knockout tournament) to begin directly in a 2nd stage tournament...
I agree with Dinesh, the aim is not to use the same formulas, even good ones. Anyway I think we can find new interesting (better :)) ones. But as the WCH is already a rapid tournament cycle, the CUP could be an unrated "blitz" (30 days per game with no increment, or even 10 days + 1 hour / move) knockout (2 games / match + playoffs) !! Something quite "brutal" and unfair between correspondence chess & classical rythms. What do you think ?
Sebastien Marez (2006-05-14 19:12:09)
Team Championship
Thibault, Je sais, je vais encore lancer un sujet de discorde, Pensez pouvoir réaliser un championnat par equipes? Sebastien Marez
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-15 08:33:32)
Team Championship
In brief : The idea of a team championship is very good, but of course it's too early... Such a championship could be a 2 stages round-robin tournament with teams of 6 or 7 players.
Bonjour Sébastien. Pourquoi discorde ? :) Au contraire...
Pour le moment j'envisageais des matchs par équipe occasionnels (FICGS vs. fédération ou autre serveur de jeu).
Le problème d'un championnat est qu'il soit représentatif, il serait donc souhaitable (dans le cas par pays) de pouvoir monter des équipes complètes (6 ou 7 joueurs) et que les plus forts joueurs trouvent un "intérêt" à défendre leurs couleurs (dépend de la popularité du serveur). L'idée est de toutes manières des plus intéressantes, mais le serveur doit gagner en confiance et en expérience sur la durée, il est encore tôt. Par contre je me demande comment se déroulerait un tel championnat... Un tournoi toutes ronde (round-robin) entre 5 à 9 pays, divisés par groupes, puis une phase finale ?!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-15 11:05:57)
Blitz cup
Yes, time is the main problem. Correspondence chess don't give a large choice, it's difficult to vary rhythms.
10 days + 1 day per 4 moves (6 extra hours / move) could be more fair and we can avoid playoffs with the sudden death (similar to WCH knockout tournament). I like the idea of a violent, rapid and quite unfair (unrated) tournament. It could be quite popular. An advantage in a knockout (with 2 rounds) is that a few games will have to be played : 7 rounds means at most 14 games... If the number of players doesn't fit, the highest rated players could enter at stage 2. The winner could be qualified for the third stage of the WCH round-robin cycle.
But there are potential problems. I don't find a good & fair algorithm to distribute players in a big knockout (chance is not a good idea, I think), and it could be a big work to organize such a tournament (& start games regularly) with 256 players or more...
Dinesh De Silva (2006-05-15 13:53:13)
Blitz Cup
I think you're quite correct, Thibault! It seems conducting such a tourney has some practical problems. Nevertheless, it was good discussing ideas.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-17 20:44:05)
Delay before adjudication request
About the game you request for adjudication, Wayne... I see you played your last move 2 days ago. It's a bit early... Please wait about a ten days before calling referee, even if your opponent takes 5 days for each move... This is correspondence chess... and we have time :) In email games (with the same time) such situations may take much more time... Be patient ! It doesn't prevent you to enter a new tournament, and next rating calculation won't occur before july.
Glen D. Shields (2006-05-18 00:53:27)
Mate Problem Should be Fixed
Thibault - Since I am never at a loss to voice an opinion , I'll go ahead and voice one here :)
I don't know how much work it is for you to fix the mate problem, but I think it should be fixed. I admit in the 1000+ correspondence games I've played through the years very few games actually get to the checkmate move. When they do, the game should be over. There is no reason one should have to beg his opponent to resign or beg the referee to do something. That doesn't make any sense. Is it a HUGE problem to fix this? I'm perplexed.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-05-19 00:50:31)
It is not nonsense
He resigned i believe cause of opinion of those here. It is not nonsence. The fact that this site is correspondence has nothing to do with it. absolutley nothing ! You go to any club tournament and you will not be welcome back with such over the board conduct. It is rude, spitefull and counter productive to good chess and fair play. You will change this rule my friend. There is NO justification for a player to drag out a forced mate loss if he sees it. and believe me in the case of my game 205 you must admit it is obvious. In fact he should have resigned many moves earlier, I would have 4 sure. do not like your weak argument justifying the mate implementation.... Here is to a nice cite for corresponse chess. Respexctfully Wayne
Glen D. Shields (2006-05-19 03:40:33)
I See Two Issues
Perhaps I miss something, but I see two separate issues here. One issue is technical, the other is chess etiquette.
The inability of the server to recognize that a game is over when one player is checkmated is a technical issue that should be fixed (in my opinion). No resignation should be necessary to end the game.
The chess etiquette issue is different. I agree it is rude for a player to drag out an obviously lost game. Despite the bad behavior, I think it is the individual's right to continue to fight to the bitter end. We might not like it, but that's just part of the game. I never played in any correspondence or over-the-board club where a player's decision to resign was determined by his opponent or the referee.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-05-19 08:05:25)
suggestion
I see your points. I play at another corresponce sight, Pacific-mall.com/chess. They have solved the problem there and incidentally it will satisfy those who have mentioned the desirability to chat with your opponent during the game. At pac-mall you can chat about the game or any subject, others can view the game and drop by to say hello, or what ever. Outsiders do not suggest moves but are allowed to talk about a particuliar line after the fact, but in ten years there I have not seen this done only in rare circumstances. In the talk window you can politely tell your oppent "it is mate come up. giving the forced line" or you can just say "Dan the game is lost for you, give your reason. All accept this decorum there. and it is the friendliest cite on the web. The players there range from novices to close to 2300 which I am. By the way, my name there is globalpac, look me up on the ladders (2). Do me a favor and check it out. Tell me what you think. Thank you With respect.... Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-19 11:43:00)
re : Délai de réflexion
Bonjour Henri.
Ce sont là ni plus ni moins les règles des échecs par correspondance ! :) Une partie peut en effet durer un an dans certains cas, et c'est souvent le cas dans d'autres organisations. Force est de constater que les parties se déroulent ici beaucoup plus rapidement que dans d'autres organisations, mais il n'y a pas d'autres règles de temps raisonnables (ce n'est pas faute d'y avoir pensé). Tout le monde ne peut pas jouer aussi rapidement, il est quasi impossible de trouver une demi mesure entre les cadences classiques et les cadences par correspondance utilisant un incrément d'un jour par coup minimum...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-19 21:27:30)
Achieved -> Finished
Thank you Wayne :) That's corrected.
Daniel De Noose (2006-05-20 17:55:10)
:-(
I'm not sure in case of equality we have to give the first place to the best rated. Because if a 1800 player and a 2300 player have the same score we can think the 1800 player makes a performance over his rating (good tournament) and the 2300 player a performance under his own rating (bad tournament). I think it's not correct to give the first position to the player making a bad tournament result and not to the player making a good tournament result. ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-20 18:39:06)
Equality rule
Hello Daniel.
If the 2300 player scores 5.5 at this tournament, and the 1800 player scores 5, we can imagine the 2300 player makes a bad performance as well (possibly lower than the 1800 player), so the 1800 player should win ?
There's no perfect system, only conditions, but this rule prevents from 'accidents' and grants the rating that is the best players strength indicator. I think this is a way to ensure that the best players will reach the final stages. Because this is a world championship...
Henri Muller (2006-05-23 09:43:09)
Time reflexion !!
Je rejoins en partie la note de Wayne Lowrance. Il y a quelque chose d'incorrect dans le décompte du temps de réflexion. Il suffit de jouer les 10 premiers coups très rapidement, et on dispose ensuite de 60 jours de réflexion !!! Ainsi, un joueur, sur le point d'être maté, peut attendre DEUX mois avant de répondre !? Et certaines parties traînent ainsi lamentablement....par manque de fair-play de l'adversaire. Aberrant ! Pourquoi pas limiter une réponse à 5 ou 7 jours de réflexion MAXIMUM - tout en conservant le décompte habituel. Il FAUT donc répondre endéans les 5 ou 7 jours ( ou perdre la partie ). Cette pratique est courante partout !!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-23 10:26:09)
Time reflexion
Ce n'est pas aussi simple. Les sites employant des règles de temps aussi dures (10 jours par coup ou moins) s'exposent à d'autres problèmes, et à de nombreuses parties gâchées... Le temps d'attente est inévitable par correspondance. La limitation du cumul du temps limitera les abus, mais les joueurs ont de toutes façons le choix de jouer des tournois rapides uniquement !
Je pense que le site est bien équilibré sur la question du temps désormais. J'ai une certaine expérience du jeu par correspondance et des problèmes posés par les cadences, et je suis convaincu que la formule actuelle conviendra au plus grand nombre. N'oublions pas que nombre de joueurs ne peuvent pas jouer aussi rapidement !
Xavier Pichelin (2006-05-25 21:56:00)
delai de reflexion
J'ai lu quelque commentaire en francais sur les durée des parties. Je trouve que obliger de jouer tous les 6 ou 7 jours est pas judicieux. Car il suffit qu'on parte en déplacement la semaine au niveau professionnel ca m'arrive fréquement donc on arrive au week-end et on doit répondre une vintaine de parties voire plus car on joue aussi a ICCF et autres en un week end sous peine de perdre?? Mois ça m'est arrivé de jouer un coup en 15 jours afin de réguler les autres parties et le temps d'analyser ses parties en cours. Non je trouve que c'est utile de jouer vite les débuts afin d'augmenter considérablement le temps de reflexion afin de ne pas blitzer pour jouer correctement. Aussi il est vrai que certain joueurs non fair-play sur une partie archie perdue vous fait attendre avant d'abandonner ou simplement perdre au temps!. C'est valable aussi dans les autre instances ou certain joue 1 coup tous les 39 jours pour faire durer le plaisir!!! Amicalement Xavier.
David Grosdemange (2006-05-26 19:16:37)
transpositions ...
i think manual modifications aren't really efficient to correct the bug of transpositions .... and for instance , in the transposition f4 e5 e4 to e4 e5 f4 , the move 2)e4 can't be annoted , and will receive the annotation of 2)f4 . and another problem , when i search games on a position , for instance on e4 c5 d4 , i can't find my game who begins with d4 c5 e4 ...
Trent Parker (2006-05-29 03:03:51)
Sorting your own games
Hello Thibault!
I know that you are working hard on this site already. But could i suggest that a sort function be implemented so that a player could sort their games according to how much time they have on the clock?
Most of my games are long standard games, however i am playing in one rapid play game which, when sorted by game number are quite a long way down the page. On days where i dont have much time to make moves i would prefer to make moves on my rapid games rather than my long games. This is where that sort function would become handy
Once again thanking you for this great chess server.
Trent Parker
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-29 13:06:48)
Sorting games
Hello Trent. That's a fine suggestion, thanks.
Actually, there are several ways to sort games usefully, hard to choose. Now the games (in 'My messages') are sorted according to your time of response. Thus the first game appearing is 'most probably' the one you should consider first.
About one of your messages I forgot to respond (sorry), I'll try to offer to play on a javascript/java interface later [help welcome :)] , but I think HTML is quite ok and most compatible. On some computers it consumes less time on dial-up than other servers using Java...
Henri-Louis Muller (2006-05-29 14:49:35)
delai de reflexion
Merçi pour les commentaires et la réponse. Il y a à boire et à manger dans tout cela. Mais je me rallie à vos opinions à tous. Il est vrai que le jeu par correspondance est aussi - parfois - un jeu de patience !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-30 00:53:26)
Big chess, theory
Hmm... Interesting ! What about 4 bishops (same color) ? ^^
I think it's really quantum... The relative values may change incredibly according to the position (especially exchanges) and game progress...
Lionel Vidal (2006-05-31 21:15:10)
Weiqi komi
Hello,
Thanks for that link: it is indeed a good reading. I would suggest also to read the chapter on the rules of Go in 'The go player's almanac' (Bozulich 2001), that gives much more details.
By reading these, you can see that half a point komi is indeed quite uncommon :-)
But an important point is that it should probably depend on the chosen rule, or more precisely on the counting mode, area or territory.
BTW, what is the counting rules here in FICGS ?
Note that this rule question may be quite critical on some life-and-death situation and may change the result of a game! And some of the simplest cases (like bent four in the corner) can arise not too uncommonly.
Lionel
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-01 03:06:05)
Website url
Hello Wayne.
No problem, but take care with your website url while posting, you just sent a wrong link to both forums here & on http://www.talkchess.com ;)
I corrected the Url in your post.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-01 04:10:56)
Komi, pass, area scoring, ko, seki....
Ok... I'll bring answers and modifications to the rules for all points that remain blurred, today and tomorrow !
The counting method will be Area Scoring (chinese scoring) : When alternate play has ended, each player's score is the number of his stones on the board plus the number of empty intersections surrounded only by his stones.
Now I have a question from a beginner (me) : Is it possible, even with a non entire number komi (ie. 0.5 or 5.5), to have a draw situation ? In other words, what happens if a game can't finish because in example ko rule can't apply ?!
Thanks a lot for your help.
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
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 22:17:30)
Go rules
I don't quite understand what kind of problems with draws remains with FICGS (sic!) rules: as passing is not allowed, if you add the non repetition of the same whole board position and a non integer komi, I do not see how a draw is still possible.
BUT... this solution does actually not solve anything as I don't think you can forbid passing (as a matter of fact, I checked the official japanese, chinese, new-zealand, AGA (USA) and SST rules: pass is allowed and needed)
The main reason is, IMO, that you need a legal way to end the game (double pass). And yes there are situations where the best move for BOTH players is NOT to move at all in the area: the simplest case I can think of is thousand-year kos, which in the case of japanese rule usually end in seki.
Note that a single pass (that is the game goes on after it) can change the difference in scores in area mode: the AGA rule introduces the concept of pass stone to compensate and insists on white making the last move (if necessary with an additional pass and pass stone) to ensure that the total number of stones played by the two players are equal!
(BTW this is one of the reasons, admitedly far behind familiarity, why I prefer the japanese rule in face to face go)
To sum things up (!!), while I agree that FICGS could develop its own set of rules, I feel that the subject is too complex and error-prone, and has been long, and still is, disputed by highly competent authorities : why not use the result of their work?
I would add that the point of all this is rather moot if you consider that situation like triple ko and alii are indeed rather rare: why not stricly stick to, say, the official chinese rule, and replay the game by referee decision in the rare cases where neither playing side will yield?
oh, but I could also check what they do in the kiseido server ?!?
oh, and do take what I say with great caution: I don't feel and I am certainly not competent enough on the subject! Any other advice over there? :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-02 12:24:54)
Weiqi : FICGS rules
Thanks for your explanations Lionel. (forum bug is fixed)
I've changed the rules. I would like some opinions before I announce it :
First, now you can pass, just entering 'pass'... Special rules in FICGS are : Suicide of more than one stone is authorized, and infinite repetition means a win (full point) for White. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then call referee) or game is adjudicated. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Eyes in seki count as territory.
Thanks in advance !
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-02 16:28:11)
Go rules
It's me again :-)
What is the point of the special cases you chose? Why not simply follow the chinese rule? I reread it yesterday and compared to what you say:
- reappearance of the same board position is forbidden (note that should be easy to check by computer with hash keys associated to positions)
- Seki is not really a special case in chinese rule (it is only in territory scoring): you count stones and enclosed vacant points; others vacant points are share equally.
- Winner is determined by comparing one's score to 180 1/2 (half number of points of the board). - Komi: 2 3/4 points are deducted from black's score and added to white's. - After both sides have agreed to end the game (that is after a double pass), if any unsettled positions remain on the board, both sides' stones are treated as alive (that is neat and solve most drawing problems) - Basically a player that makes an illegal move loses his turn (i.e. in effect passes): that includes repeating the same position (why should white win in such a case?).
That sounds much cleaner IMO.
The only possible draw may be some very complex round robin kos, where the position keeps changing, but I guess we can forget it (and it should eventually been resoved by double pass anyway, even if one side is unhappy: see the preceding neat point).
BTW you can probably find the full text on the Web (I have only a paper version from the 1988 official rules of Chinese Weiqi Association).
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-02 17:58:20)
Go rules
That is ok for me: you rule :-)
And anyway, the domain of application of these special rules is indeed quite narrow!
Just a question to better understand your choices: what is the point of seki special scoring rule?
Kuzma Pecotic (2006-06-03 07:28:29)
Incorrect move
This is my game:
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_A__000003"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2006.04.22"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Pecotic,Kuzma"]
[Black "Sobrecases,Guy"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2179"]
[BlackElo "2105"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qc7 9.f4 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qb6 11.Bd3 Qxb2 12.O-O Qd4+ 13.Kh1 Ba6 14.Bxa6 Qxe4 15.Rb1 Qa4 16.Bd3 f5 17.*
For what reason: Incorrect move : 17.exf6
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-03 14:05:02)
Repetition of position
Repetition of position doesn't lead to a loss, as it's now impossible to make a move that provokes such a situation. (message would be 'Incorrect move'). So the pure Chinese rules apply.
The change of rules have been announced in the news (page 'My messages'). Everyone is supposed to read it, as it's the first page appearing when you log in.
Cheers.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-06 17:39:44)
7.5 komi + Superko
Hello to all.
In accordance with Chinese rules, the last update of the FICGS rules of Go states a 7.5 komi (3.75 by chinese counting)
http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#threeKK
The last ambiguity may concern the superko rule, as now FICGS graphical interface forbids any board repetition (not only previous move). See this page on BRITGO site, at the very bottom : Positional superko (PSK) means a play may not recreate a previous board position from the game, referring to the position just after the play and consequent removals.
However, forbidding any board repetition is the only way to prevent draw games.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-07 00:38:57)
Go / Chess
Hello Tommie.
I chose not to implement a Go rating system for several reasons, first and main is: a quite true correspondence Go rating may be very (!) long to achieve, maybe even impossible. It seems to me that the challenge could be elsewhere ie. tournament results, to qualify for the FICGS championship tournament.
About the rating list, so far all new players appear in a unique rating list, soon there will be an established rating list, a provisional rating list and a new player rating list.
About this rating for Ion (2600), where did you see it exactly ?
... at last what happens with the Go applet ? You have to click on 'game description'. If it doesn't work, feel free to tell me what game you try to watch and what happens... Thanks in advance :)
Dinesh De Silva (2006-06-07 06:59:09)
Interesting Debate!
Hi, everyone It's quite an interesting debate......regarding whether to name teams after countries or not. Marc, for players like you and I, perhaps we could find some sorta compromise if the team rules allow it. As Thibault says, the problem is that even though our (small)countries hardly have any players interested in correspondence chess to form national teams, playing under another national/country banner is kinda a unique situation (IF allowed). It all depends on whether future FICGS team championship rules might allow it or not. Any creative ideas/suggestions left to make?!
Marc Lacrosse (2006-06-09 09:21:54)
I cannot understand ...
To Trent Parker :
you say :
"I think the teams should be geographical at least"
This is really something that I cannot even understand.
In which way is my way of playing correspondence chess related to the place where I live or where I am born???
Is my kind of play "belgian" ?
Or is it "brown-haired", or "butter-cooked", or ...
Why shouldn't I be allowed to find a few friends from all over the world that play the same kind of unusual openings than myself to build a team ?
IMHO this kind of team could well have a better signification than a one made of chess players of the same country or of the same geographical region.
Anyway the idea itself of "correspondence chess teams" is completely strange for me. Does it mean that collaboration between members for the choice of the moves is allowed ?
This is at the exact opposite of what I feel to be the minimum requirement for a meaningful correspondence chess competition to survive : anything allowed (books, computers, databases) except human advice, and at least one single human name alone identified as the single "author" of the moves ...
So, why teams at all...
Marc
Julien Baudement (2006-06-09 10:03:24)
Nouvelles fonctionnalités
Avant tout, Bravo pour le site sur lequel je prend beaucoup de plaisir. J'aimerais soumettre des modifications à apporter qui pourraient encore améliorer: 1) possibilité de contacter directement le webmestre... 2) possibilité de proposer une partie à un joueur quelconque sans passer par le mode tournoi. En effet, on est tenu de jouer toutes les parties dans ce système, mais peut etre que certains préfèreraient pouvoir n'en jouer qu'une à la fois ! En tout cas, encore bravo pour tout ce travail ! Ikki
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-09 14:50:52)
Olympiad...
Hi Trent and Marc.
I must say what Marc says makes sense for me. Actually, if olympiad is a way to know the countries 'chess level', I don't think it would be significant enough in correspondence chess, first because of computers. And regions (asia, oceania, europe...) wouldn't be significative enough.
Anyway, this question is to be solved by players, as there are too few captains to build teams so far. I'll wait a few days more, then I'll withdraw the tournament if no more requests.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-10 10:52:11)
Team championship
Très exactement 3... (en me comptant :)) C'était prématuré de toutes manières, et il faudrait que je réfléchisse à une autre approche. Cela dit, je ne suis effectivement pas certain de la nécessité d'une telle compétition, les échecs par correspondance s'y prêtant sans doute moins. A suivre...
Sebastien Marez (2006-06-10 11:53:40)
Team Championship
Je pense que le jeu par correspondance peut admettre un championnat par équipe, mais pas un championnat avec des équipes par pays, mais des equipes composées par les joueurs eux meme.
Daniel De Noose (2006-06-15 15:17:03)
Not very satisfy too...
Like Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff, when I registered the tournament it was announced as 1st championship and open to everyone. I don't like when rules change after the registration. Secundo, if you only reserve this 1st tournament to players with rating over 2300, you can change my rating : on the "correspondence" chess site chess-mail I'm over 2370. But as I said to you when I began here I want to improve my real rating beginning like an unrated. But if now the rating is so important to play the 1st championship, I prefer to be correctly rated. Hoping you'll change all this and play really the 1st championship with everybody.
My actual rating in "correspondence chess" :
- chess-mail : kasapov (2370)
- echecsemail : danideno (2280)
- echecsnet : danideno (2271; but it is the highest rating of this site)
Daniel
Daniel De Noose (2006-06-15 17:23:38)
It is not the same !
Playing 1st or 2nd Championship is not the same because if you play only the second you can't be the first FICGS champion ! ;-) Secundo, as you explained it at the start of the site, everybody can use databases, computers, ... In that case a 1600 can beat a 2300 if he enters correctly parameters in his chess engine. Because the tournament is not again started you can correct this. After the beginning it will be harder. And what's my rating now ? ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-16 13:21:09)
:-)
Ce (léger ?!) retard en vaut vraiment la peine, je pense. Mieux vaut un système optimisé dès le départ que de le changer au fur et à mesure.
... il y avait de toutes façons de multiples bonnes raisons pour attendre encore un peu, l'essentiel est d'avoir pu en discuter (tout le monde n'ayant pas forcément fait attention aux changements successifs et nécessaires qui ont eu lieu dans les règles ce mois ci).
Wayne Lowrance (2006-06-17 07:36:58)
rating calc
Welp, I am another innocent victim of starting off at 1400. When I signed on I wanted to start at the beginning, much like daniel. what I really did not pay attention to is the difficulty in climbing the ladder. My chess rating on other sites including CC cite is well over 2200. I started there at the bottom and figured I would do the same here. Not so fast. I have won one tourney here weith 6/6 score tourney allready and am have a perfect scored in a second one with 3 games to go. and yet my expected rating is listed at 1805, cleary I am not a 1800 player. It is not my fault that I was forced to play in a tourney dominated by 1400 players. What you think. Not trying to cause trouble, just venting I guess. and the cite is nice, will continue playing, my best toya Wayne p.s. do you think my playing in a 1400 tourney is fair to those players, hummm?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-17 12:39:45)
Correspondence chess
Hello Wayne.
Correspondence chess is definitely a game of patience...
Note : When you register, you can enter your rating ! The rules state a rating not from FIDE / IECG / ICCF gives at most a 1700 rating... So you could have started with a 1700 rating ! Anyway in july (after the next rating calculation) you can play stronger tournaments... and so on..
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-19 15:10:14)
thibault
je viens de recevoir un email de Nigel consentant a un match. je lui ai offert un match comportant 3 parties. je pense qu il sera d accord avec ce format. peux tu arranger ca? j'ai aussi repondu a ton email
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-19 15:45:34)
FICGS 1st wch
Hello Thibault!
It seems that I haven't really understood what will happen on July 1st. You write "Thus 1st wch is a complete cycle". Does this mean, that the knock-out tournaments of the 8 players with the highest established rating also will start (stage 1)? If not it is not a complete cycle according to FICGS (your) rules - in my opinion.
What happens if a player has a rating > 2300 at the beginning of stage 1 and a rating < 2300 at the beginning of stage 2? May he play stage 2?
What happens if a player has a rating < 2300 at the beginning of stage 1 and a rating > 2300 at the beginning of stage 2? May he play stage 2 even if he hasn't won his round robin group? The rating at which time is essential?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-19 18:42:16)
FICGS 1st world championship
Hello Heinz-Georg.
While watching the wch waiting list, I realized that there could be an improvement more about this "extra-group". So here is the 1st wch scheme (and next ones, without the special group in the first stage), according to the rules.
Stage 1 :
-- Knockout tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_2__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_4__000001
with John Anderson, Petr Makovsky, Daniel Cinca and 5 other players...
-- Round-robin tournaments --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_2__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_3__000001
(...)
And at last, a special and one-time group :
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M__000001
This will be a high rated group, with GM Nigel Davies, GM Amir Bagheri and the ~10 players 2300+ who won't play the knockout tournament according to the rules. The winner of this group will directly qualify for stage 3 round-robin final tournament (a one-time rule). The others can play stage 2 as specified in the rules.
Thus, only the 1st wch will start on july 1st. I think it's fair enough and finally everyone can play...
Stage 2 :
-- Knockout tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_SEMI_FINAL_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_SEMI_FINAL_2__000001
-- Round-robin tournaments --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_2__000001
(...)
Stage 3 :
-- Knockout tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000001
-- Round-robin tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_ROUND_ROBIN_FINAL__000001
Stage 4 :
-- Candidates match --
FICGS__CHESS__CANDIDATES_FINAL__000001
Stage 5 :
-- Title match --
FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000001
... if there's a world champion and if he defends his title. Consequently we won't have a stage 5 this time, but as it could happen again in the future...
That's all folks !
Dinesh De Silva (2006-06-20 16:48:35)
Re: "Revolver" movie......
Thibault, I saw the movie "Revolver' too. It was very interesting...... a kind of psychological thriller. If I remember correctly, the last few memorable words of the movie were: "To Pull Off The Greatest Con Of All"......where the casino empire boss is conned/fooled into shooting himself!
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-23 12:26:28)
Blinfolded chess ( part II )
Very recently, however, all the honors of Europe, in this department of indoor games, have been run away with by two young Americans, Morphy and Paulsen. Paul Morphy, a native of New Orleans, seemed to be born with chess in his blood; he played almost from childhood; and at thirteen years of age he proved a formidable antagonist to Herr Lowenthal, a noted Hungarian. In 1857, when just twenty years of age, Morphy encountered Paulsen, a native of Iowa, only a little older than himself, at a chess congress in New Orleans (Editor: It was New York!). All the gray-beards struck their flag to Paulsen, and then he struck to Morphy. Of Morphy's subsequent achievements in regular play, which stamp him as perhaps the first living chess-player (we say this with fear and trembling; however, for the knights of the game are a sensitive race), we will not speak here, for our purpose is only to notice the blindfold performances. At the chess congress above mentioned, he finely played a blindfold game with a leading German player. Early in 1858, he struck the New Orleanists with amazement by playing six games simultaneously, without seeing any other the boards; winning five of them, and exhibiting beautiful play throughout. He then came to Europe, not only to "lick the Britishers," but "all creation;" and it must be admitted that he made great progress towards that achievement. At a meeting of the Chess Association at Birmingham, in August 1858, he played eight games simultaneously, without sight of the boards. His opponents were Lord Lyttelton, and seven other persons, mostly presidents or secretaries of provincial chess clubs. Against such players, and under such tremendous conditions, he won no less than six games out of the eight, drawing a seventh, and losing the eighth. In the following month, he went over and astonished the Parisians in a similar way; he contended blindfold against eight practised players at once, at the Cafe de la Regence, a famous resort of chess-players; and out of these did not lose even one; he was the victor in six, and drew the other two. In the spring of 1859, Morphy contended against eight of the most experienced members of the London Chess Club, including Mr. Mongredien and Mr. Walker, two distinguished players. He won two games, and drew the other six--all the players except himself being wearied out by a very protracted sitting. A few days afterwards, he played with eight members of the St. George's Chess Club, including Lord Cremorne, Lord Arthur Hay, and Captain Kennedy; he won five, and the rest were drawn through want of time to finish them. Nevertheless, inconceivable as these mental labors are, Morphy yields to Paulsen in blindfold play. There are whispers of twelve or fifteen games having been tried simultaneously by the latter; but the number ten has been most certainly reached, under conditions of the utmost publicity. On the 7th of October in the present year, at a Divan in the Strand, ten players accepted Mr. Paulsen's challenge to grapple with them all simultaneously, the boards being placed out of his sight. One of the players was M. Sabouroff, secretary to the Russian Embassy in London; the other nine comprised many names well known among chess-players. Ten chess-boards were placed on ten tables in the room. An arm-chair, turned away towards a window, was mounted on a dais. At two o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Paulsen, a quiet, courteous young man, with not a trace of "brag" in him, took his seat in this arm-chair. For twelve mortal hours he never rose, never ate, never smoked, and drank nothing but a little lemonade. What were his mental labors during that time, we shall see. His ten antagonists took their seats at the ten tables; and each table speedily became the centre of a group of spectators, whose comments were not always so silent as in fairness they ought to have been. Paulsen could not see any of the chess-boards. Herr Kling, a noted player and teacher of chess, acted as general manager. He called the boards by numbers--No. 1 to No. 10. Paulsen audibly announced his first move for board No. 1; Kling made that move; the antagonist replied to it; Kling audibly announced the reply; Paulsen considered what should be his second move, and when he had audibly announced his decision, Kling made the proper move on the board. Here No. 1 rested for awhile. No. 2 now made his move, leading to the same course of proceeding as before. Then No. 3 in the same way; then No. 4; and so on to No. 10; after which No. 1 began a new cycle, by playing a second move; and thus they proceeded over and over again. Now let us see what all this implies and involves. Chess is not one of the most frolicsome of games; indeed, ladies generally declare it to be very dull, seeing that a chess-player is apt to be "grumpy" if spoken to on other matters while playing. The truth is, there is a demand for much mental work in managing a game well; the combinations and subtleties, the attacks and counter-attacks, are so numerous and varied, as to keep the mind pretty fully occupied. Nevertheless, a fine game between two fine players is mere child's play compared with this wonderful achievement of Paulsen. He was obliged to form ten mental pictures; and every picture changed with every move, like the colored bits in a kaleidoscope. Most persons, even though knowing nothing of the game, are aware that it begins with thirty-two pieces of different colors and forms, and that these move about over a board of sixty-four squares. After every change of position in any one of the pieces, Paulsen must have changed his mental picture of the board, the field of battle, and then made that a fixture until the next move was made. This is hard enough in even one game, against an antagonist who has his eyes to help him in planning attacks and defences; but how hard must it be against ten! It is difficult to conceive what is the condition of the mental machinery under such circumstances; and yet, there he sat, the calmest man in the room. When told of his antagonist's doings, one by one, he looked quietly out of window, and rubbed his chin, as a man often does when thinking, and then announced his move--never mistaking No. 1 for No. 7, No. 9 for No. 3--never failing to recover the proper mental picture, and making the proper change in it; never embarrassed; never making an unlawful move, or likely to lose sight (mental sight) of any unlawful move made by his antagonists. Nor did he obtain the least pause for mental rest. Without one minute's interval, as soon as he had announced a move for one board, he was required to attend to the move of another antagonist at another board. Hour after hour did this continue--all the afternoon, all the evening, midnight, until two in the morning. He made two hundred and seventy moves in the twelve hours, twenty-seven per game average; this gave two minutes and a quarter for the consideration of each move. As all his moves were met by corresponding moves on the part of his antagonists, he was called upon to form five hundred and forty complete mental pictures in twelve consecutive hours, each picture representing the exact mode in which all of the sixty-four squares of a chess-board were occupied. Paulsen won two games, lost three, and drew five.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-23 13:16:42)
Source
A very interesting article.
BLINDFOLD CHESS. (PART I)
by Anonymous
From Chambers' Journal
This article is from the journal LITTELL'S LIVING AGE (Third Series, Volume XVI, January, February, March, 1862), which is in the public domain.
Content by Chess Samizdat
http://www.correspondencechess.com/syndication/articles/0050.htm
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-24 14:31:15)
Chess Samizdat
I just read many Chess Samizdat articles (some from chess players around here)... Really funny and interesting. I particularly liked this quote from CJS Purdy : "The only valid excuse for withdrawal from a chess tournament is death, and then only with a death certificate" :)
From the new chess dictionary by John C. Knudsen.
http://www.correspondencechess.com/syndication/articles/0003.htm
Roger Weber (2006-06-25 16:19:35)
Gambits
Although I am a quite new and inexperienced, I dare say that Gambits are a way of forcing a player to do mistakes. If the other player doesn't know a certain gambit, he will get beaten fast and hard by making mistakes. Players tend to do less mistakes in common openings like the Ruy Lopez, as they have seen so many variations of it and played it so much. But, when confronted with something new, the human brain can't analyze every possible moves, which leaves an advantage to be exploited by the player that knows the gambit and obviously wants to play it. Just my opinion. Feel free to correct me.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-06-28 19:31:18)
Ficgs chess world champ