Home
Information
Login
Register
Waiting lists
Membership
Hall of fame
Tournaments
Best game
Wikichess
Rating list
Problems
Forum
Links
Help
About
| Install FICGS apps | |
| play chess online |  |
|
Game result (chess) B. Ozen, 2269 N. Wilson, 2121 1/2-1/2 See game 152323 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Here are 100 results for Daniel Parmet in the games.
Game_134954 Game_134953 Game_134950 Game_134947 Game_134943 Game_134938 Game_131494 Game_131493 Game_131492 Game_131491 Game_131490 Game_131484 Game_129428 Game_129427 Game_129426 Game_129422 Game_128186 Game_128185 Game_128183 Game_128180 Game_128176 Game_128171 Game_127975 Game_127974 Game_127297 Game_127296 Game_127295 Game_127294 Game_127293 Game_127292 Game_127285 Game_127278 Game_126529 Game_126528 Game_126527 Game_126526 Game_115172 Game_115171 Game_115168 Game_115165 Game_115161 Game_115156 Game_114560 Game_114559 Game_98855 Game_98853 Game_98851 Game_98848 Game_98844 Game_98839 Game_98572 Game_98571 Game_98570 Game_98569 Game_98568 Game_98567 Game_69845 Game_69844 Game_69841 Game_69838 Game_69834 Game_69829 Game_69823 Game_69816 Game_64463 Game_64462 Game_64461 Game_64457 Game_64453 Game_64448 Game_64184 Game_64183 Game_64182 Game_64181 Game_64180 Game_64174 Game_63911 Game_63910 Game_63907 Game_63904 Game_63900 Game_63895 Game_63564 Game_63563 Game_63562 Game_63561 Game_63556 Game_63551 Game_62901 Game_62900 Game_62899 Game_62898 Game_62897 Game_62896 Game_62756 Game_62755 Game_62754 Game_62750 Game_62746 Game_62741
There are at least 100 results for Daniel Parmet in the forum.
Daniel Parmet (2022-04-27 02:15:06)
Ukrainian players clocks during war
True but mistakes happen. The true mark of character in a person is how they respond to the mistake.
Daniel Parmet (2022-04-26 23:05:14)
Ukrainian players clocks during war
An excellent and swift reply. Thank you Thibault.
Daniel Parmet (2022-03-01 18:30:21)
Ukrainian players clocks during war
Great decision. Thibault :)
Daniel Parmet (2022-03-01 18:29:43)
Ukrainian players clocks during war
Yes, stop their clocks. ICCF Stopped the clocks until April 29th. It is the right thing to do.
Daniel Parmet (2022-03-01 18:29:14)
FICGS support to Ukraine
Definitely stop the clocks. ICCF Stopped them to April 29th which I think is absolutely the right move.
Daniel Parmet (2021-04-15 22:41:32)
Poker Rating
Half rating games seems like a potential equitable solution where you at least gain 1 rating point / an idea anyways. It's merits TBD.
Daniel Parmet (2021-04-11 21:54:28)
Poker Rating
I agree with Herbert.
Daniel Parmet (2021-03-21 06:43:20)
Berlin Defense
I have 160 games in the Berlin Defense since 2007. My last loss was in 2013. I can tell you that most people avoid the Ruy with me or e4 all together.
Daniel Parmet (2021-01-05 01:01:00)
K+B vs. K
Should be able to call the referee
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-17 03:26:33)
Repeated draw offers
Not sure there is any downside at all to what Garvin is proposing. That said, I don't really find draw offers annoying. I did just win a game where I got a draw every ten moves for all 90 moves of the game before he resigned.
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-13 18:13:22)
What happened to all the players?
Well the thing is that the rule is not specific so we don't know how it will be applied but it is hard to come up with a scenario where it isn't the logical course of action. We have people that play R+3 vs R +3 for years or Opposite color bishop endgames that are obviously draw. This has to stop.
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-12 22:17:24)
What happened to all the players?
Interesting to see someone actually is in opposition to such a rule!
I am completely the opposite. It makes me want to only play on LSS and give up on ICCF. ICCF has such a huge DMD problem now; it is totally out of control.
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-12 18:01:32)
What happened to all the players?
Here I quote LSS rule:
"Dear Chessfriends,
in the past there have been many complaints about games where one player started moving slowly esp in a lost position, partially using the 30-day-per-individual-move rule to its extreme. To my opinion, this is not a good attitude of sportsmanship.
I have therefore developed a measure against this. Depending on the position, the used time of reflection and the ratings of both players, the server can detect such games with a high probability. Actually, the delay of games is already part of the LSS Rules, but was not in effect so far.
Effective 1st October, 2020, such games will now be stopped by the server and the delaying player will be suspended for 3 weeks to start new tournaments. Further penalties might be introduced, if required.
The algorithm will not be revealed to avoid misuse and it might be due to change without notice.
Best wishes
Ortwin Pätzold"
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-04 01:39:36)
What happened to all the players?
Thibault,
You maybe misunderstand me or perhaps I am not being clear by conflating so many issues at once.
1) 1st issue, I did not mention Queens Gambit at all as this show has done very little for chess. The numbers were already skyrocketing on lichess, chess.com and other places due to lockdowns, lack of socialization and spending more times indoors. If anything, it is the SHOW that piggy backed on THIS trend in order to achieve its own popularity (not the other way around).
2) I mean to refer to the fact that many more players used to play here that no longer do which were very strong SIMs and GMs in 09-12 but they're gone now. Why?
3) The growth. Yes, I currently have two otb IMs I am playing against their first games on ICCF and I have already played against 3 GMs whose first games it was on ICCF. Look at the recently started USA/A It has 3 otb GMs that have no corr games. Or how about GM Sam Sevian? https://www.iccf.com/event?id=80817 GM Elshan Moriadiabadi https://www.iccf.com/player?id=517491 And on and on I could go.
4) Separate entirely is how hard it has become to find players of your own level to play, maintain one's rating and the DMD issues which caused LSS to announce their own special DMD rules.
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-03 19:09:01)
What happened to all the players?
What happened to all the players? I see we used to have dozens of GMs and SIMs not to mention just a huge quantity of players here in years past. How do we get them back? It has become so hard to play on ICCF. Online chess is seeing this huge surge and even now more FIDE IMs and GMs seem to be trying correspondence for lack of other places to play. Why hasn't FICGS enjoyed some of this uptick as well as DMD, rating deflation and lack of events hurt ICCF.
Daniel Parmet (2020-10-09 06:02:54)
please join...
Can we delete crap like this?
Daniel Parmet (2020-06-16 20:41:22)
Chess DB
I think the issue is that there isn't a database program available that can handle something so large.
Daniel Parmet (2020-04-28 22:59:06)
The State of correspondence chess
I have played correspondence chess now for 13 years. During that time, I have played 983 correspondence games. These days I mostly play at ICCF and some of these issues may be ICCF specific... but since ICCF has no forum and I want to get a sense of the health of correspondence chess in general... I posit my thoughts here.
First of all, I think the number of correspondence players and the number of correspondence games are decreasing across the board on all correspondence websites due to the things I want to talk about.
Second, I primarily shifted my playing to ICCF years ago for two reasons: 1) The higher level of competition available; 2) The norms available. Although I was concerned with their fees which are usually minor but, in many cases, certain organizers do construct outlandish tournaments that you need to be wary of (looking at you Venezuela).
On the first point, I think ICCF is a little more open to high caliber players competing up until a point (they really try to prevent you from playing a 2450+ player until you are 2450+ yourself). And the rating protections get tougher and tougher the further you go but they make it easy to play 2300 players. While most websites outside of ICCF, usually have one annual Cup / WCH or Thematics, these other websites usually make it impossible to play anyone more than a few hundred points above you no matter your rating outside of these few events.
On the second point, I think ICCF norms are somewhat of an illusion. They’ve always been hard and much harder to achieve than OTB norms which received a watering down of requirements of decades ago. In fact, ICCF norms are so much harder than FIDE norms that one actually needs to achieve two norms to receive the prerequisite title in ICCF vs the standard three norms required by FIDE. In the US, for example, there are 116 ICCF Titled players in history (13 GMs, 25 SIM, 78 IMs) vs 828 FIDE Titled players in present (101 GMs 166 IM 561 FMs) [https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml]. Now however, there is a proposal, for the ICCF GM Title only, proposed by Dennis Doren, ICCF Rules Commissioner who really does a lot for correspondence chess, and SIM Uwe Staroske, ICCF Qualifications and Ratings Commissioner, to remove the requirement to have to play GMs to get the GM Title [leaving IM and SIM untouched] [https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1280]. This proposal states, “A search of the ICCF data indicates that 21 players obtained at least 2 GM norms across 24 games but failed to get the GM title because of the requirement of "5 GM" opponents. (Only 5 of those players are currently active).” Leaving aside the fact that this proposal violates the very definition of the GM Title, one must beat the club in order to join it, the proposal further outlines the real problems without addressing them, “The GM Title has already become far harder to earn than it used to be, due to the rating suppression caused by the increase in draws.” Wow, let’s unpack that one line because it is a doozy!
Really, this one line, that is easily overlooked, is two huge problems that correspondence is facing: 1) death by one thousand draw paper cuts and 2) rating deflation. I will argue later that there is a third huge problem but let’s start with the ones acknowledged by ICCF itself. Every correspondence player knows the draw rate is going up. As engines and hardware get stronger, players are able to save positions that in the past would have been lost and we are finding ever easier ways to head straight towards 0.00 as Black. I would love to see a detailed analysis that describes how much harder it has become to win as Black against a decent correspondence player (let’s say someone 2300+). In the last five years, I have beaten three 2300+ players as Black without counting mouseslips (one in 2015, one in 2016 and one any day now in 2020) despite playing extremely aggressive openings like the KID (for the record that’s three Black wins out 103 Black draws or 2.91% Win rate). That may be part of the draw problem, but I have witnessed my own draw rate skyrocket 2014: 82.4% 2015: 86.7% 2016: 90.2% 2017: 90.6% 2018: 91% 2019 is still in progress. Often for these norms, you need to score +2, +3, +4 or +5 despite the fact that +1 usually wins the event… and with the draw rate North of 90% in a 12-13 game event that means you are likely to win 1 game on average… but in many events the entire cross table often sees one to three entire wins (look at a recently completed tournament here where I scored my first IM norm that required +0 and I scored +1). My win was one of five wins in the entire tournament 100/105 = 95.2% draw rate! [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=73482]. People love to tell me that’s fine because we are talking about such a weak event as Category 8 [2449 was the rating average]. Fine, I do not accept your argument but let’s look at the World Championship then shall we? Let’s look at the most recently concluded World Championship 30 which finished on 10/2/2019, Category 13 [2562 was the rating average]. This event was won by the new World Champion SIM Kochemasov, Andrey Leonidovich 2540 [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745]. Congrats to the new World Champion on his two wins! The event had 8 decisive games out 136 or a draw rate of 91.2% (not far off my own). But wait did I say SIM? I did. In fact, congratulations to the World Champion on scoring his final GM norm as well! This World Championship saw 5 SIMs compete in a field with 12 GMs. While 3 of the SIMs finished 1st 2nd and 3rd, only our new World Champion scored a GM norm. The problem is with all the draws that norms are not just becoming hard, but maintaining or increasing one’s rating is becoming hard. And one’s rating is how one receives any decent invites to have a chance at a norm in the first place.
The draws are a death by one thousand cuts as I recently played one of the ICCF’s proposal’s outlined “21 players that could have obtained a GM norm.” My rating is 2389 and his rating is 2504 (although SIM, he is recognized by all his peers as a GM caliber player). As Black, I obtained an easy draw without ever being in any trouble at all. The player had a rather angry initial discussion with me post mortem about how he felt it was wrong that a 2504 should have to play a player as weak as 2389 where the draw would kill his rating. He felt that his rating was being destroyed by these draws with weaker players and that ICCF should protect him from us. He felt I have it easier as a lower rated player because I can gain rating from these draws. Let’s look at his argument that one is causing the other and it is only happening to those 2500+. At the time that draw occurred, I gained exactly 1.17915 rating points from it (and he lost the same); however, this was the first draw in over 40 games in which I *gained* rating points (this statement is no longer true as a few higher rated players have since given me draws but at the time of the game’s conclusion this was the case). Yes, that’s right, ICCF already does such a good job of protecting higher rated players that it actively hands out advice to new players to be very particular about what invites and events they play because the draws could kill their initial rating. I too have experienced a net negative loss of rating points from draws and still seen my rating going up only due to the fact that wins are easier and ever so slightly more common to come by at my level. However, it means I am not exempt from the draw problem. It is patently false that this problem is limited to those 2500+ as in my last 43 draws, I lost rating in 42 of them and gained rating from 1 of them. Therefore, it appears draws are causing rating deflation and this is the real problem in both norms and correspondence in general. With the exception of matches, perhaps there is a way to have draws not count against one’s rating since there are so many of them? It kind of blends the Chess rating concept with that of Bridge where one cannot lose rating points once earned. What we can see is that the player’s argument that draws are causing rating deflation is probably true. One problem is at least partly causing the other one.
There is a third more devious problem worse than the two outlined above in my opinion. While rating deflation, draws, less players and norms are real issues… they are dwarfed by the change in behavior caused by these issues. I know it is a bit overdramatic to talk about such issues in a time of COVID, but there has been a great increase in the number of players playing Dead Man Defense (often shortened by correspondence players to DMD+ and DMD=). It is important to note that the death rate in COVID for those in the elderly category is markedly higher and the correspondence community in general is also markedly higher. I have heard estimates of the average age of correspondence player being 70-75 range though I haven’t seen any data. Back to DMD, what is DMD and why is it such awful behavior? The players are hoping you die before you win so they can claim either a win on time or if it goes to adjudication then at least claim a draw. The other hope is that you might mouse slip by being forced to play more moves which while that would never happen over the board does surprisingly account for a large portion of wins in ICCF correspondence high-level play. One of the main problems this issue causes is that if someone takes an early draw against a player who then goes on to die, the entire rest of the field gets a free half point and you are punished for playing your game quicker than your peers. Often, players over the board resign once mate is unstoppable or a simple endgame is reached in which the result is known to players of all levels. In correspondence, often even sooner than these players will resign or offer draws, knowing that perpetual check is unavoidable should we play another 10 moves past the piece sac against a bare king? How about when the engine reads +25 +30 or +40? So, for the most, correspondence players draw or resign much earlier than one might over the board due to engine and tablebase assistance. On that note, depending on the tournament, players can outright claim wins and draws either on the 6-piece tablebase (always allowed) or the sometimes allowed on an event by event basis the 7-piece tablebase. It is considered out right rude to make a player play all the way to the 6-piece tablebase to claim. I recently claimed one win in a six piece tablebase up an entire piece where my jolly opponent wanted to discuss the game in a post mortem (rarely done in correspondence in general anyways). I declined to even respond to him even though I was already having a very lively and fun post mortem with a Venezuelan on our extremely interesting draw. A worse example is the 92 move game I played with opposite colored bishops where I had two extra pawns. I offered a draw as white and the higher rated player to my lower rated opponent who declined it, forcing me to play to a 7-piece tablebase claim to end the game. This kind of behavior used to be quite rare. In the past, I would say it happened in 1 out of every 100 games… these days it seems to happen in every other game (1/2!). I have seven different opponents right now that are DMD+ against me where the engine reads +148 (or in some cases even sees mate! The 2504 player that complained about my rating earlier also complained someone was DMD+ him… I remarked that I have no less than 7 players DMD+ me and if they would resign? My rating would be about 2450 right which sort of eliminates his claim about our “giant” rating difference). The issue is that due to rating deflation these players need to artificially keep their rating high as long as they can because that’s how they will get their next invite. With the new terrible time control that is not yet Official (although there is a proposal to make it Official: https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1282), players only need to make a move once every 50 days to pointlessly extend the game. I have a DMD= draw currently going on 16 months now where the player is just moving Kg1 Kf1 Kg1 every 50 days. This time control exasperates the DMD problem. When I contacted ICCF Officials to point out the severity of this problem, I was told that I should report it to the TD on a case by case basis only if it is DMD+ as they will not look at DMD= at all. However, it is usually the TDs that are the biggest offenders (6 of the 7 players described above were TDs). In fact, it is usually the same general casts of characters which allows for an easy black list to be created that bars these players from play until they can fix their atrocious behavior. This behavior needs to be punished. These players need to be reprimanded. In the end, lack of norms, rating deflation and the draw death will not make me quit correspondence chess. It is DMD+/DMD= that will make me quit. This experience is my personal experience with high level correspondence over thirteen years and I would love to hear from other correspondence players concerning these problems.
Daniel Parmet (2019-02-23 04:50:29)
Advice for correspondence chess players
I still don't understand next best function.
Daniel Parmet (2017-12-24 18:51:20)
Monte Carlo Analysis
I thought the whole idea of IDEA was a human thought merge of computer analysis through MCA?
I had the thought about using MCA with chess engines as the brain nearly 5 years ago at work. My boss loved the idea and tasked me with it. However, I have no coding skills so my ability was limited to what was available which was extremely limited at the time.
The best way to think of MCA is to accept that we don't know what move is best (hence why Alphazero didn't have or want an opening book or games database). From here now, it's like trying to predict what's best and what will come from flipping a coin 5 million times. You know in a coin scenario that it is 50%. But what about the stock market? A lottery ticket? A game of black jack? Or Chess? Each individual decision could yield 50.1% in favor and by MCA you will find it. It will create a tree that shows a RANGE of your worst possibilities to best on a probalistic manner. The most common use is for wealth management investing.
As for how to change off the Fritz engine, I don't know. I could never figure that out (though I only have the Fritz 13 gui). I guess I was hoping this feature would be improved over time. Perhaps now due to Alphazero, it will be.
Daniel Parmet (2017-11-15 16:49:03)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases
1) is not true. All seven pieces have been solved. Some ICCF tournaments at the start specify whether 7 or 6 is used which generally depends on who is sponsoring and directing the tournament (re point 2).
Daniel Parmet (2017-08-15 19:08:08)
contact other member
If you click my messages on the top left, scroll to the bottom, you will see Last Name, First Name or ID. Then you fill that out to send that person a message.
Daniel Parmet (2017-08-09 21:24:01)
When chess is just beauty
Sorry for your loss.
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-10 00:28:19)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Well, I think there needs to be something less in the sense of rating inflation but perhaps floors added for players with high ratings for ICCF. There is no way you can tell me an IM 2350+ player should be allowed to have a sub 2100 rating here. In general, I am not a fan of the concept of flooring... but in this case there are many such underrated players that bring down the entire rating average here.
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-05 21:00:32)
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-05 21:00:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
It doesn't help that there are so many massively underrated players. I haven't played here in 4 years. My rating here is 2135 while I am 2379 on ICCF.
I will imminently draw an 1852 rated player here which seems like a big upset and my rating will take a big hit. But on ICCF this IM player is 2352. I would lose about 1 rating point. So here I out rate him by 283 points while on ICCF I outrate him by 27 points.
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-05 03:43:11)
Ratings
To start with you have 1852 rated IMs that are 2352 on ICCF. The ratings here often don't make any sense at all. And for me, 2135 drawing such a player is a huge hit to my rating here while on ICCF I may lose a fraction of a rating point for such a draw.
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-01 07:48:12)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I know this thread is old but I feel Garvin made an amazing point that got lost:
"It was to give players who were in the 2100 to 2200 and below more opportunities against players rated 2300 and above, whilst still also giving the top players something to play for ie the tournament win."
I haven't played actively since 2010 for exactly this reason. I did play over 470 games though but found that I was permanently locked into this rating band despite being far beyond the skill level of this rating band solely because I was never allowed to play stronger players. So I moved on to ICCF where I easily was able to compete against 2370+ players all the time.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-15 16:39:29)
Playing activity top 20 players
Well Don the good news for you is that today my last game officially finished and now I have no reason to connect to this site again! Congratulations Don!
The bad news is that even though I am gone this event in no way improves your lack of logic skills. You will have to improve these yourself.
I know quite well Thib does not *need my help.* And I outlined above my thanks for the amazing job he has done with this place. I merely said if he could use my help that it was at his disposal.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-15 04:38:44)
Playing activity top 20 players
Typical trash response there Don.
I have *already* moved on to ICCF because it fit MY NEEDS. Did you even read this thread? This thread was something Garvin started to make players more active. I responded as player who chose to become INACTIVE to explain that decision. If this site does not change one bit, then fine by me... I have already discovered a site that fulfills my needs. On the other hand, if this site wants to IMPROVE - I want Thib to know I will come support him.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-11 06:20:32)
Playing activity top 20 players
Don
-
As stated by both Garvin and I many many times, we are not trying to "file complaints" ... we are trying to make THIS site better.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-10 06:20:38)
Playing activity top 20 players
Well part of the problem is I don't see where it says I have these "tickets" to move up. I knew of the rule but had no awareness if I had ever actually won one to use.
The other part of the problem is the rating bands. By alternating rating bands between time controls, all the people over 2100 want to play 2100-2300 all the people over 2000 want to play 2000-2200 all the people over 2200 want to play only 2200-2400 or norm events. So effectively instead of 200 point bands you've create ONE HUNDRED point bands. The 2100-2300 band see only those rated 2100-2200.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-09 01:53:58)
Playing activity top 20 players
Please Thib, I do not point out these problems to complain or make you feel bad. I just want you to know where you can improve. I also want you to know you've done an amazing job here and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If you need volunteer time/help, I will be one of the first to come forward to aid you. None of these comments are made as an attack on you, I want you to know I appreciate what you have done.
Regarding rapid/classical time controls, I did not care which I played. The fact that I ended up playing more rapid than classical has to do with the fact I always chose the HARDER option available to me in terms of opponent strength. Since you alternate the rating bands via rapid vs classical - that usually meant only one time control was available to me.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-09 00:31:35)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
Ah, I understand now. Because someone doesn't agree with you - you must put obscene words in their mouth to describe their untenable position. Everything you just said is COMPLETE horseshit. The fact that someone has a different point of view from you is what reality is.
I have yet to hear of a single example of vacation abuse and I am now coming to the understanding that there isn't a way to abuse vacation. Thank you for the enlightenment.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-08 23:26:11)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
Unfortunately there isn't a problem with my way of thinking. It is simply whether or not you consider your point of view to be an abuse of vacation and the simple fact is I do not agree with you in the slightest. So what we have here is a difference of opinion. I believe you are creating a problem where there is none.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-08 17:41:10)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
That is if one believes that is an abuse of vacation... I do not. Both players started with the same amount of vacation time and employed it for uses and different times. I think that is the whole idea behind vacation. For some people, vacation is finding a beach to lay on. For others, vacation would be freeing their normal hectic 16 hour that involves 1 hour of corr analysis and turning that day into a 17 hour corr analysis pound house.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-07 01:08:56)
Playing activity top 20 players
sorry should say I have played two SIM events (1 of which I should score +5 or +6...)
And I was just using the WCH as an example of one of the rating barriers, there are plenty of rating barriers here.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-07 01:07:26)
Playing activity top 20 players
Thib, I already went from a 2100 rating to a 2372 rating (and my rating is still CLIMBING FAST) with to SIM norm events on ICCF in a mere 32 games. While I have played over 200 games on FICGS and have yet to have a SINGLE opportunity to play a strong tournament. My strength grows but my rating does not grow because this site has gone out of its way to establish rating barriers. Why should I push myself to unbelievable lengths to try to break this site's barriers when I have another site that will happily let me play players of my own strength or slightly stronger without any such herculean effort?
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-06 14:47:11)
Playing activity top 20 players
I know I don't count as one of these "higher rated players." But I have purposefully curtailed my activity here in favor of ICCF. The reason for my decision is because all the rules here are slanted against preventing a person from playing stronger players. The WCH is a perfect example; 2200's are given a free ride to the next stage while a 2150 has to play stage 1 as top seed where he will lose 35 points while WINNING the stage. So never having the opportunity to improve anymore here has forced me to find places where I can achieve that goal.
Daniel Parmet (2013-05-15 15:09:03)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Eros,
What is the most number of games you played at once? Is there a number of games you feel maximizes your ability (IE does not spread your concentration too thin)?
Daniel Parmet (2013-05-09 03:13:24)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
But you did anyways Thib! Great interview.
Daniel Parmet (2013-04-27 01:54:31)
Thematic tournaments?
We've had just about every single suggestion so far at some point in time (not that a rehash isn't a welcome thing).
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-29 23:58:55)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
It was not you Garvin it was Kieran.
Anyways, I have yet to hear the problem with vacation.
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-26 00:00:47)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
I was just translating Kieran Moore's complaint into the actual problem with vacation. People are complaining that vacation is preventing them for winning on time in a drawn position.
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-23 15:16:30)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
So if I understand correctly the argument against vacation is wanting the flag to fall to win in a position they couldn't otherwise hope to win.
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-20 00:33:56)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
Also, I have to comment on Garvin's idea. I love Garvin. He does wonderful volunteer work. He is a good player. And I've been on a team with him. But that idea is atrocious, why would you eliminate vacation entirely?! I request here and now for my account to be deleted the very second vacation is deleted.
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-20 00:32:02)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
My opponent just went on leave with 11 minutes left on ICCF. I don't see a problem with it. Can someone please explain to me the problem here?
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-17 17:11:41)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
I agree with Rolf.
I think the problem Garvin is you have to first ask if someone seems it as a problem that vacation could be used to stop from flagging. In my mind, that is a resounding no without any sort of question. Why would it be a problem is someone chose to use vacation that way?
I can't think of a single reason.
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-13 13:28:44)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
Not true Garvin. It is the same thing. Work will even allow you take half days off - no questions asked. Maybe we should move to 12 hour increments?
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-11 13:46:38)
What size groups do you prefer?
I don't think the problem here is with group size but rather the silly rating brackets we switched to some time back. It makes it virtually impossible to play strong players.
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-11 13:45:25)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
I think this is a terrible change.
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-16 05:59:50)
FICGS admin scam me
Petrescu it sounds like you have a lack of understanding on what Terms and Conditions (or TOS as they are often called) mean... the ones on FICGS as pretty clear... so how do you manage with more complicated TOS such paypal's ?
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-11 00:31:14)
Chess Server Team Tournament
How sad that they did not bother to tell us there was a hard deadline. Seems quite improper. They send an invite then rescind it!
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 20:51:37)
Chess Server Team Tournament
right now the top 30 responses by ficgs rating average to 1998. 10 of those 30 have ICCF ratings which average to 2166.
I'd like to us have a 2100 FICGS rating average so we can be a competitive team...
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 20:37:23)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Thib... I know its a lot of games but it is also a very long time control! It would be great if you played. We need strong players and its your server we're coming to represent! I will volunteer to take captain duties so you don't have that work load.
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 18:11:49)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I volunteer to be team captain. But we now have 31 players wanting to play. Also I would point out that we will probably get slaughtered on the lower boards as things stand right now. I saw at least one person wanting an ICCF team average of 2300. I would point out that I think a 2000 player here is 2300 over there but as things stand our FICGS rating average is 1964 based on the top 30 players ratings. For the 9 players that do have ICCF ratings our rating average is 2235.
Here is what information I could collect on our team so far:
Name FICGS Rating ICCF ID ICCF Rating TITLE Comment
1 Ostap Hladky 2527 941012 FIM
2 Valery Nemchenko 2521 940836 2465
3 Frits Bleker 2313 220159 2395
4 Garvin Gray 2281 30503 1993
5 Alvin Alcala 2237 896046
6 Wayne Lowrance 2194 FIM
7 Maxim Genchev 2187 940752 2309 Wants ICCF average of 2300
8 Arkadiusz Wosch 2169 89923 2307
9 Neel Basant 2138 280279
10 Daniel Parmet 2098 514938 2300
11 Om Prakash 2091 280243
12 Bogoljub Teverovski 2083 862003
13 Niklas Hallqvist 2082 451419
14 Kieran Moore 2042 260252
15 William Fuller 2033 514688 2350
16 Dmitry Tsimbalenko 1959 142268
17 Sergey Demchenko 1955 142224 2077
18 Nick Burrows 1944 212164
19 Rich Pinkall Pollei 1900 515095
20 Daniel Blike 1874 515250
21 Jose Moreira 1831 Are you the IM Jose Moreira id#399007, Rating 2390?
22 Thomas Hasyn 1808 865001 1922
23 Mathaios Vardoulakis 1800
24 Dinesh Bhandarkar 1707
25 Shih-Chu Liao 1660
26 Josef Zmolil 1632
27 Ray Downs 1536
28 John Worthington 1510 515287
29 Claudio Cabrera 1462
30 Arnab Sengupta 1340 280192
31 Jiri Mach 1010
Neel Basant (2013-01-10 14:40:30)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Confirmed( Interested) Players according to replies.
1.Daniel Parmet
2.Alvin Alcala
3.Bogoljub Teverovski
4.Nick Burrows
5.Wayne Lowrance
6.Neel Basant
7.Ostap Hladky
8.Niklas Hallqvist
9.Arkadiusz Wosch
10.Daniel Blike
11.Josef Zmolil
12.Jiri Mach
13.Jose Moreira
14.Om Prakash
15.John Worthington
16.Garvin Gray
17.Arnab Sengupta
18.Ray Downs
19.Valery Nemchenko
20.Dinesh Bhandarkar
21.Shih-Chu Liao
22.Frits Bleker
23.Thomas Hasyn
24.Sergey Demchenko
25.Maxim Genchev
26.Mathaios Vardoulakis
27.Claudio Cabrera
28.Kieran Moore
29.
30.
Wow..
What a response!!!!!
sure Within 2/3 days will be more than 100 players.
Thib will have a headache while selecting 30 players..
Daniel Parmet (2012-12-30 17:45:46)
Chess Server Team Tournament
While 30 might be a high number... let us count that 9 have already responded t othis thread (and only Thibault has declined to play)... so finding 22 more shouldn't be so hard?
Daniel Parmet (2012-12-21 01:19:29)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I would gladly play for FICGS. Is this ICCF rated? How many boards in the teams?
Daniel Parmet (2012-10-15 05:45:36)
WCH Final match
I don't want to enter the Wch due to rating bias in the groups. So until that is fixed I am only interested in FICGS World Cup.
Daniel Parmet (2012-09-19 13:47:54)
Limit number of poker games
I think the games go far too long. I am done playing poker here because the average poker game is LONGER than the average chess game!
Daniel Parmet (2012-08-25 23:43:21)
money prize tournaments
3,1,4,2.
I would definitely pay if it was a strong tournament.
Daniel Parmet (2012-08-06 10:18:06)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!
many thanks Thib.
Daniel Parmet (2012-06-09 05:36:02)
Second match v Rybka Forum
As far as a Rybka Forum match goes, as long as the time control is 30 days + 1 day increment then I would love to play.
As far as LSS match goes, I would only agree to play if it was on FICGS whree Thib would have control rather than the insane man that runs LSS.
Daniel Parmet (2012-05-03 04:38:02)
Slow tournament entries
That doesn't matter... there was an IMMENSE drop in the quality of games from 30+1 day to 30 +1h now imagine the drop from 30+1h to 20+1h. The game quality would probably not even be better than an over the board tournament at that point.
You have two major problems 1) the poor time control driving the quality of games to utter crap and 2) the increment is not even enough to cover your sleep/work zone. So you are actually losing massive amount of time that had nothing to do with your number of games but rather your daily functions of survival.
If you think about 20+1h you are effectively saying the entire game should be played in 23 days per side.
Daniel Parmet (2012-05-03 04:30:30)
Slow tournament entries
That time control is impossible (20 days plus 1hour). 30 days plus one hour was barely playable! Minimum increment needs to be 12 hours to cover for sleep/work times but more like 24 hours. The WBCCC was awful directly because of its bad time control. The only reason I played the WBCCC at all was to play strong players.
Daniel Parmet (2012-05-01 00:50:29)
Slow tournament entries
Scott is correct. I would be most happy to help.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-30 14:20:46)
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov in Chessbase news
I am actually in that photo strangely enough. I was paid to be the Tournament Director for the blitz tournament he played in.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-30 14:20:00)
Slow tournament entries
I think the players complaining about the time they have to wait for a move are really just impatient. The reality is most have picked correspondence chess because they want extra time to think about moves. If you do not want extra time, then go play OTB or ICC. The honest answer is that while a move returned every day is the norm for best players -- is not a requirement!
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-26 01:13:45)
Ficgs World Cup
Great idea Garvin.
As far as activity goes, I think it should be either an established rating with a history of no time forfeits. It definitely should not be calculated based on RATED games. This is silly. I play many unrated games these days because its the only way to play strong players. I don't play rated here anymore because of the rating bands. So your activity requirement would exclude the very type of player you are trying to grab.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-22 19:59:50)
LSS is the worst Corr server
In general, I could make many points to Ortwin's diminutive response. However, his lying aside - he has admitted to his disgusting actions and given specious reasoning for it. At this point, I think its best to let the topic drop. Others know LSS is not a safe place to play now and that was my only point. It is clear there can never be any proper resolution in my case personally.
On to the topic of the 60 day rule which is the real reason for my response. I think many people are forgetting that not everyone is retired with little to do with their time but chess. Many of us work and/or go to school. And when you have a complicated position, it is very very unreasonable to expect a response in 10 days time out of someone that works 80 hour weeks. I recognize that most of my opponents these days respond within 24 hours or less no matter what the move or how complicated the position... but this is because I am playing in general a lower caliber of player that just blindly follows the computer. I have the privilege of knowing GM Tansel Turgut and he tells me he never plays more than 10 games at once and generally doesn't make a move before 25 days of thought. I would others to stop for a moment and consider that not *everyone* is like you. They have other demands on their time and other analysis methods.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-22 19:43:08)
LSS is the worst Corr server
FICGS already has a rule like that in that its every 60 days here which is far more reasonable. And I have used that to great effect to beat a strong player it required 49 days of analyzing some tough lines to win. If at 30 days, I was forced to move, it would have been a draw.
Mr. Ortwin forgets to mention I didn't violate this rule. But then Ortwin has shown himself to be a very unreasonable character.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-22 18:49:49)
Answer from Ortwin
Well, here is the answer from Dr. Ortwin Paetzold (LSS/IECG) that he asked me to post here. I'm glad to do it of course so that we can hear from both sides and make our own opinion with:
>>>>>>>>>>
Daniel Parmet is twisting the reality a bit. I take the right to quote my full answers, however as I do not have the permission to do so, I will not post the notes from Daniel to me, unless he quoted it here himself already.
Fact 1 is that Daniel has not read the rules of LSS or forgot about them. There is a function in LSS which lets the webmaster check this esp. in case of rule questions. Therefore he might not have known about the rule, however, when registering on LSS each player is asked to study the rules and to play according to them. I am sure, the same holds for FICGS and any other server.
Fact 2 is that on 4th April Daniel Parmet has lost a game on time by violating the 30-days-rule. The server automatically stopped the game and awarded the point to the opponent, independent from the position. The server also imposed the two week suspension to start a new tournament. The 30-days-rule was installed at IECG more than 10 years ago and I had included it into LSS right from the beginning. Daniel Parmet asked politely why the admin has cancelled his game (which I had not).
Fact 3 is that in my answer about the query why the game was finished, I have answered with reference to the rules:
Your game was forfeited, because you did not move for 30 days. This is the maximum number of days to be used per individual move, independent of the total amount of time you have left. See the Rules and Usage Section under "Violation of Time Control". This is also the reason of your two-week-suspension.
In his response Daniel Parmet called the LSS a joke of a site.
Fact 4 is that I answered to this insultation:
Well, it is not my fault that you have not read the rules during the past five years you have played here! To be honest, this is impressing!
I do not think this is more rude than insulting me/LSS because one has made a mistake!
Fact 5 is that I did not remove him from the waiting list of the LSS Anniversary 2012 as requested, because I thought that once Daniel thinks reasonably about the case he might want to continue, esp. as he wanted to continue all other games. Furthermore LSS has a feature where each player can remove himself from the waitinglist of this tournament. This all happened on 5th April! I then forgot about the matter.
Fact 6 is that on 19th April the LSS Anniverary groups were created including Daniel Parmet to one of the groups. As he was no longer suspended that time I missed that he still was on the waitinglist. I would otherwise have tried to get a replacement, which I did in other cases . When he claimed not to play in the anniversary on 20th April, I decided to remove him from all tournaments he was playing. As the tournaments were in an early stage (start date 15th Feb, Parmet finished only 3/10 and 1/12 games in them), I believe it makes less impact to withdraw a player then letting him influence the outcome, esp. as e.g. he would not use a potential qualification to the LSS WC Semi-Final or the Consolation Finals. I commented that action with the following message:
I have withdrawn you from this "joke of a site" (your own - wrong - words. It is not my fault that you have not read the rules!)
Thanks for playing here.
The answer was unfriendly so I decided to cancel the membership permanently.
I would like to thank Thibault for the opportunity to express my view. I do not intend to comment anyfurther in this matter, as I think the two different versions are speaking for themselves.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-22 17:08:16)
Slow tournament entries
It is my fault that I don't get to play stronger players? Interesting... logically impossible but I'm curious how you drew such a wrong conclusion.
Of course, whether or not you accept my argument is irrelevant because my argument is why I don't play. It is why others don't play. It is also why many don't sign up. I showed my roommate this site when he wanted to start corr chess and he saw he would be forced to play weak players for years before he'd get ONE decent game. He decided to join chess.com instead.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-22 06:50:06)
LSS is the worst Corr server
I was not discussing with my opponent. I feel like corr issues in general are something the corr community should be aware of so I do not share Garvin or Don's opinion. I obviously can't post this on lss forums as I have been banned there. Clearly, posting on forums of a site that is so wildly out of control is a waste of one's time and breath anyways.
Frankly, I am most ashamed of Scott's response above all else. His only problem with 20 games being forfeited is that it wasn't 21 so he could claim an illegitimate win as well - disgusting. Frankly the more I see of the correspondence chess world the more inclined I am to leave it permanently behind.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-22 06:47:38)
Slow tournament entries
yes the draw rate. Realize if I enter a section as you suggest. I played 5 1900s. And I must score 5 to maintain my rating and 5.5 or 6 to gain points. This is difficult to do against anyone... Such rating bands are preposterous and only lead to a constant shedding of points as often 4 is enough to win a tournament.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 17:38:32)
LSS is the worst Corr server
"The only thing I'm sorry about Daniel is that we had a recent draw on there, but if I had waited a little longer, obviously I would have got the full point."
Wow Scott... I am appalled to speechless.... I guess it really is time for me to quit chess.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 16:49:34)
Slow tournament entries
I won't play in the ficgs wch because I am the top seed and this is disgusting to me. Not only does it mean I won't get strong players, it also means I will lose massive ratings points which will in the future ALSO prevent me from playing strong players. Two awful effects!
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 16:48:24)
LSS is the worst Corr server
I previously erroneously had this as a sidebar chat.
I will post the story here.
I had 22 games running on LSS. All of a sudden a game disappeared. I checked and found the administrator had decided to resign for me in a game where I had a cleanly winning position and 43 days on my clock. I contacted the administrator politely to inquire why he had done this. He answered rudely explaining that he did not care about my problem. After his uncalled for rudeness, I explained to him I was no longer interested in playing further games on this "joke of a server" so please remove me from a tournament that was about to start. He responded with pure insults and a memberships suspension but *did not* remove me from that tournament. When the new tournament started, I explained to him again that he was supposed to have removed me. I was only interested in finishing my current games out of respect for my opponents. The administrator then went and forfeited all currently running 19 games and placed a ban on me playing there again until 2013. I told him that was disrespectful not just to me but to my opponents as well. He then deleted my account entirely (which doesn't bother me as I would have asked for this after my 19 games finished). There you have it... Ortwin Paetzold - the bat shit crazy administrator.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 15:47:02)
Slow tournament entries
Yep, that would solve the problem Garvin. That is the problem with the WC cycle event.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 01:48:03)
Slow tournament entries
FICGS strengths:
Free
Well Managed
Friendly
Well Programed
Easy to Navigate
User friendly
Great rules
Great vacation settings
Great Time controls
Great variants / choices
Problems:
Lack of players
Lack of ability to play stronger players.
For all the awesome things here.... the one weakness makes it hard to continue to find people to play.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 01:34:43)
Slow tournament entries
Well my reason for not playing at FICGS (despite the fact it is the best site out there!) has been that I can't play the stronger opponents. The rating restrictions have forced me to ONLY play unrated events here or seek other places to play.
However, other than ICCF which costs money there are no other places to play strong players. I just had the most horrendous chess experience of all time at LSS. So my conclusion is that I have probably reached the end of my correspondence career altogether save the ocassional unrated ficgs game if I notice a strong cue up in one of them. I certainly won't be playing my rating class ever again.
The problem IS NOT the time control. The time control here is lovely. I am curious what Thib's solution might be.
Garvin Gray (2012-01-03 15:12:04)
Different tournament format
I am surprised Daniel Parmet has not replied to this topic considering my proposal should be much more acceptable to him than the current ficgs world championship design/format.
Where are you Daniel?
Daniel Parmet (2011-12-24 19:33:09)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
awesome! Thanks!
Daniel Parmet (2011-12-17 07:37:30)
Holiday
I agree with Lehnhoff. No change to vacation should be done! Bad vacation rules are enough reason to quit playing on corr sites. Ficgs has good vacation rules.
Daniel Parmet (2011-12-17 00:29:00)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
I would love a From with d6 but if f6 bloody well forget it.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-13 19:52:28)
List ordered by rating
Here is, but as usual the new ratings (january 2012) will be taken in account...
Erwin Thiering 2515
Michael Bergmann 2475
Xavier Pichelin 2454
Thibault de Vassal 2449
Herbert Kruse 2436
Pavel Hse 2332
Ljubomir Tsenkov 2314
Rubn Cmes 2300
Wayne Lowrance 2266
Dariusz Fraczek 2261
Ramil Germanes 2255
Miroslav Gazi 2255
Alexander Blinchevsky 2253
Michael Sharland 2251
Sergey Kokoryukin 2251
Andrey Razumikhin 2250
Valery Nemchenko 2245
Lubos Fric 2241
Kevin D. Plant 2237
Christoph Schroeder 2236
Viktor Shishkin 2234
Slobodan Ilic 2218
Dmitri Mamrukov 2211
Vitaly Rudenko 2203
Alvin Alcala 2203
Carlos Snchez 2203
Garvin Gray 2200
Scott Nichols 2189
Peter Unger 2181
Martin Zeman 2181
Christian Koch 2167
Stephen Hamby 2163
John Schutte 2136
David Evans 2132
Nelson Bernal Varela 2130
Darren DiAlfonso 2123
Ardiantez Polkwitzauer 2123
Thomas Dineen 2118
Peter W. Anderson 2112
Steve Lim 2110
Yu Ming Hoe 2100
Arkadiusz Wosch 2093
Djordje Kasabasic 2093
Luis Flores 2084
Daniel Parmet 2083
Lalit Kapoor 2080
Erik L. van Dijk 2074
Bernd Wolf 2072
Jose Lopez 2071
Sergey Uzdin 2064
Rodolfo d Ettorre 2064
Janos Helmer 2063
Om Prakash 2053
Mykola Simashkevitch 2043
Alexis Duenas 2037
Ireneusz Kasznia 2036
Mihail Larsky 2028
Joop Simmelink 2026
Pan Hardfeldt 2020
Henri Muller 2000
Jaroslav senior Pech 2000
Jaroslaw Gibas 2000
Bogoljub Teverovski 1997
Willy De Waele 1996
Fernando Vasquez 1992
Jose Moreira 1979
Andrew Endean 1975
Henri-Louis Muller 1972
Jose Maria Velasco 1972
Jordi Domingo 1969
Janeen Walden 1958
Andy Richard 1956
Roberto Migliorini 1949
Erika van Dijk 1943
Daniel Reboredo 1938
Coco Maceda 1938
Michael Rogers 1933
Aleksandr Aksenov 1927
Mariusz Maciej Broniek 1923
Robert Wilhelm 1901
Kieran Moore 1900
John Dyson 1889
Catalin Nita 1888
Daniel Jabot 1878
Johanes Suhardjo 1875
Mikhail Ruzin 1871
Benjamin Block 1863
Ilmar Ambos 1859
Vyacheslav Shchelykalin 1859
Jan Peter Lommler 1844
Stanislas Gounant 1840
Mircea Hrubaru 1838
Sasha Lipsits 1833
Nilson Pereira 1833
Aleksey Payzansky 1804
Jai Prakash Singh 1800
Fredi Brumec 1800
Gleen Duran 1800
Josef Strohmeier 1800
Ryszard Sternik 1776
Stepan Pech 1767
Dieter Faust 1764
Dmitriy Malish 1760
Dimitrios Ropokis 1743
Hasan Kirali 1715
Eddit Moreul 1700
Behzad Shahmiri 1700
Jaimie Wilson 1684
Dinesh Bhandarkar 1682
Philip Roe 1667
Olli Ylnen 1660
Graham Cridland 1655
Juan Alvar 1653
Jeremy Banta 1644
Lus Gonzaga Grego 1643
Pablo Siciliano 1623
Mariusz Jandula 1600
Sergey Biryukov 1598
Alejandro Canovas 1589
Jimmy Huggins 1577
Matthew O Brien 1575
Pablo Ruano 1565
Khaled Toutaoui 1528
Stanimir Denchev 1505
Leo Malagar 1500
Richard Hendricks 1479
Eric Price 1469
Antonio Pereira 1456
Angelo Piantadosi 1420
Simon Huxtable 1388
Peter Krakovsky 1326
Marc-Antoine Leurette 1243
Jorge Orden 1204
Hana Pechova 1204
Jorma Hkkinen 1192
Des Jefferis 1186
Deon Whittaker 1111
Matej Pech 1074
Jiri Mach 1022
Cdric Cavaill 1003
Jay Melquiades 0909
Jaroslav Pech 0697
Daniel Parmet (2011-07-26 20:06:15)
More statistics for every player
Very neat! Great work.
Daniel Parmet (2011-07-09 15:39:26)
Active rating lists
No matter my complaints, I am still *VERY* happy with FICGS and Thib. This site is the best correspondence site I've ever seen.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-05-15 13:08:49)
WBCCC Round 3 links and more
Here are the links for Round 3. Plus I have a quick announcement. I have talked to Garvin and I'm in the running to consider adding a 2nd tournament to the WBCCC. Probably called the WBCCC Inv. -> Invitational. This will be more of the standard style of blitz tournament. Something like 14d+1d per move, I don't want to set exact time control yet, I will probably open this discussion up after WBCCC 1 is over. What details I will give is this. What over the prize is next year will split with the other tournament plus a plaque to the winner. My hope is to have another drawing card for the WBCCC and I know this will probably bring more top players in.
Anyway here are the links for you to follow the games you wish to watch this round.
As always we will start at the top boards and work are way down. This time I will just do both of each board at the same time.
B=Board
B1- CumnorChessClub (Kevin D. Plant) vs Fulcrum2000- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21828
B1- ppipper vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin D. Plant)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21814
B2- Kamesh vs ppipper- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21829
B2- Fulcrum2000 vs Kamesh- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21815
B3- jitan vs Sebastian Boehme- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21830
B3- National12 vs jitan- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21816
B4- Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs WeirwindleX- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21817
B4- David Evans vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21831
B5- Sebastian Boehme vs David Evans- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21818
B5- Weirwindle vs Banned for Life- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21832
B6- ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs National12- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21833
B6- donkasand vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21819
B7- tomski1981 vs donkasand- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21834
B7- parmetd (Daniel Parmet) vs tomski1981- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21820
B8- Banned for Life vs Ruben Comes- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21821
B8- indrajit_sg vs parmetd (Daniel Parmet)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21835
B9- Keoki010 (George Clement) vs Indrajit- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21822
B9- Mark Eldridge vs Balabachi- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21837
B10- Wayne Lowrance vs Stephanie- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21838
B10- Balabachi vs Wayne Lowrance- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21823
B11- StephanieX vs Mark_Eldridge- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21824
B11- Omprakash vs Keoki010 (George Clement)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21839
B12- natmaku vs Scott Nichols- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21825
B12- Ruben Comes vs deka- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21840
B13- deka vs Omprakash- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21826
B13- Scott Nichols vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brien)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21841
B14- Schachmatt (Matt O'Brien) vs TheHug (Jimmy Huggins)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21827
B14- TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs natmaku http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21842
Before I get off, I would like to thank Thib for letting me ask his great players to play in my tournament. Best wishes to all and enjoy this next year!
Jimmy
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-29 18:36:20)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
B1-CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant) vs Moz
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21180
Kevin makes an interesting choice here with 2.a4!? vs the Silicon Defense. Not exactly sure what he wanted out of the opening. I can only guess he wanted to mix it up here. Anyway, black equalizes fairly quickly and is better. But after 18.a5! He finds the best way to equalize and both agree to a draw.
B2-jitan vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21181-
The somewhat unknown Jitan has had a good tournament. And is given his ICCF SM opponent all he can handle. In a game that is still going. Gino is down a pawn, but it appears to be a draw and I would guess the game is about to finish. This was an interesting approach by Gino who gets in b5 and h5 very early in this game. And Jitan plays the most naturally looking sac. 13.Nbxd5! it looked like for a long time Gino was in trouble, but he has found enough resources IMO. A well played game by both players.
B3-Fulcrum2000 vs Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21182
This was a nice French game to watch. The novelty move was ..11.Na5, OTB I would like white in this game and I had a feeling that white possibly could have risked an attack, but this game came down to endgame play and White was able to outplay black in the end.
B4-Kamesh vs Stephanie
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21183-
In my opinion this is the most important game the round and it is reaching its fianlly stages. I believe Stephanie to be one of the top players in this event. She has been doing well, but Kam has played the near perfect opening and got her in trouble. If you remember my previous post you remember I talk about Stephanie was in time trouble. Which has not help the cause. The one move I enjoyed the most so far in this game was 36.Ra5!, this was a nice exchange sac. And its given Kam nice pass pawns on the Queen-side. I would guess this game will be over soon. It has been a nice game to watch.
B5-David Evans vs National12
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21184
A battle of the English Countryman here. :) This was the Open Defense of the Ruy. Form the comments I got, it seems that the opening was played about as perfectly as you can get. David posed some problems to Paul(National12), but it ends in a fairly easy draw. One finally note ..10.d4 IMO is a very difficult move to beat.
B6-ppipper vs jitan
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21168-
This is one of the finally 4 games still playing. What looks like to be a draw here. The white black has been dancing for a few moves now, but blacks back rank is weak. That equals a drawish game. :)
This game started out form B90 and so has a ton of theory.
B7-indrajit_sg vs Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21186
I fairly quiet B90 game. I don't think white got much out of the opening. Well played by Wayne here.
B8-tomski1981 vs Uly
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21187
A battle of good friends here. IMO I thought white played the this Queens pawn opening passively. And so we had an early draw at move 26.
B9-Sebastian Boehme vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21188-
This is one of the 4 last games. And I have to say its been a good game. We had an interesting Sicilian position. I had thought black was in trouble. But after he tripled up on the d-file. Then got massive exchanges. He looks like its headed toward a draw.
B10-Weirwindle vs donkasand
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21189-
This was a nice positional Sicilian game. Although it ends in a draw. Its a must see game! Watching the drawing combo at the end is very beautiful. It starts with ..27.e4! and you can watch it form there.
B11-Ruben Comes vs Balabachi(William Fuller)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21190
Ruben opened up this rep with 3.h3!? and we ended up with a closed type of Sicilian. But his opponent stayed strong. Though out the game. Even if it looked like Ruben had some pressure. In the finally position.
B12-ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs keoki010 (George Clement)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21191-
This game saw the Exchange variation in the Queen's gambit. It has a high rate rate. But to Ramil credit he manage to give George a couple of weak pawns in the endgame, but not enough for any real advantage.
B13-Omparakash vs natmaku
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21193-
I would have hoped for more in this game. As I'm a lover of the 6.Bc4 (Sozin) Sicilian. After 14.e5!? this forces unneeded exchanges. After which, the game looked like a draw. And that is how it ended.
B14-deka vs Scott Nichols
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21194
Usually the Exchange Slav is pretty drawish. And this game was no different. But both players did try to mount some kind of advance. Both had good posts on each others side of the board. But a drawish opening is a drawish opening.
B15-TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs parmentd
(Daniel Parmet)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21195
I tried my luck in an opening that was not something with e4. And it didn't go as well I had hoped, Daniel was able to get a equal position fairly quickly. In my try at making new theory in a very uncommon line vs the King's Indian Defense.
And finally we have this last game.
B16-SpiderG (Peter Marriott) vs Banned for Life
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21196
This would have promised to be a nice Larson Attack game. By alas Peter timed out in this game as well. I would have loved to seen this attacking game with both sides castled on opposite sides.
Well that would do it for my reports for this round. This was a great round, and the next promises to be great as well. I will post info for the next round after the last game is over with.
Any feedback is welcome!
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-29 14:45:26)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
The last round was very exciting! And this round has had some great games as well. To speak of there is just 4 games left. Here is the report of the most important games this round.
Starting at the top boards. We have have...
B1-Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21163-
This game followed a Catalan. Gino makes ambitious choice to go with 5.Nbd2! I gave this move a ! Not because of its theoretical standing. But because it will lead to a position were white will give up a whole pawn for rapid development. Never the less, black is equal to the task and managers to hold on to the pawn for most of the game and keep the game balanced. With my human eyes, I thought for sure white had an advantage! After move 20.Be4, It looks like white has 2 racking bishops. While black has one black locked in! But in depth analysis shows, that black can hold on. And shows great defensive technique. Down the stretch. Well played by Gino and Kevin. On of my favorite games to follow.
B3-Mark Eldridge vs David Evans
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21165-
David has gotten tested in both his black games in this tournament. And this game was no different. We had another B90 line in this game. And ...8.h5 was used. This is becoming a common line in this tournament. Mark's treatment on the white side was great! I think his future opponents will think twice before trying this line again. At move 22, the game reaches the sharpest point. After move 22.fxe5! I thought that Mark had a chance vs David. But David founds some good moves to exchanges pieces and hold for a draw. The best of which was the combo of ...33.Rf3 and ...36.Rxg3! This was a nice find by him. Great job to David and Mark! I look forward to seeing both these players again.
B4-Stephanie vs Fulcrum2000
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21166-
I would normally just post FICGS member games here. But this maybe one of the top 2 or 3 most important games of this round. In what turns out to be the most exciting game of the round IMO. White has shown that they are quite good in the opening phase. At move 18 they choose 18.b3 which was suggested as being the novelty move. White gets a very strong game and after a king tour to capture the pawn. It looked like a win for sure!, but it seems a mistake was made at move 38. Instead of 38.Qc1!? the move 38.Qe8! seems to be a near winner. I thoughts on why this move was missed is because, White was in time trouble in both games. I have to believe this was a favor. As we speak Stephanie is close to defeat in the other game that I will talk about shortly. I would watch her for the reminded of the tournament. I think they will learn form this experience and be even stronger going future. Well done by both players.
B5-NATIONAL12 vs Kamesh
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21167
Two of my good friends battling here. This was a B90 battle. The novelty move was the straight forward looking 27.h4, but after some exchanges. White has to settled for equality. A good match to follow, the one other note made was this was a line pioneered by Eros Riccio.
B7-Wayne Lowrance vs tomski1981
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21169-
Wayne plays a good line vs the french vs tomski. In fact by the database expert, it was in a 100% win line!! But after the queens come off the board. It burns out to a quiet draw. Wayne has had good opening results, but has yet to get in the winners column. I have faith that Wayne will win a game very soon. Good game to both in this one.
B8-Uly vs indrajit_sg
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21170-
This was a nice game to follow. A french defense was chosen. The point in which it gets interest is the choice to play 19.bxc3!? Which leads to 21.Nh6+!? I loves this sires of moves! 27.Rh3! was also a good move here. But its seems black has just enough resources to hold the balance. ..54.Bxg6! was a good finally touch. Well played by both players.
B9-Balabachi(William Fuller) vs Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21171
What was talked about as a drawish Ruy position. I found to be quite a game with all the early fireworks. I also liked the material imbalance in this game. Sebi has a rep of being very difficult to beat with the black pieces. This helps when you have the Ruy and the Posion pawn line of the Sicilian. As two of your best weapons. ;)
B10-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Weirwindle
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21172-
This was an interesting Richter-Rauzer game. 15.Qf4 was the novelty move, Form there it got crazy. 21.Nb3 seems to invite a pawn race. Which in the end white loses. This was a tough game for white. I think he should have been able to hold it. But it was still a good game to follow.
B11-donkasand vs Ruben Comes
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21173
This was a nice positional game by Mike (Donkasand), This was a 6.h3 Sicilian. And we get the usually good defense here. ..7.h5 White gets great positional pressure for the whole game and even gets a pawn, but Ruben wholes for a draw.
B12-natmaku vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21174
This game was a Petroff with 5.Nc3. This kind of move gives white rapid development. Its seems black equalize pretty quickly. And on move 21 a draw was agreed on.
B13-Scott Nichols vs Omprakash
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21175
This was an interesting King's Gambit game. I think Scott didn't study his opponents rep. :) The King's Gambit is Om's specialty. So this was an easy draw for black.
B14-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs deka
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21176-
In this game black returns to his pet line of the Sicilian with 2.a6(Which he played in the last round) I believe this is called the O'Kelly variation. This time around he goes for ..7.Qb6 which looks a little better than ..7.Bb5!? A draw probably should have been possible, but George was able to grid out a win. Well played by both players.
B15-parmetd (Daniel Parmet)vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21177
This was a King Indian by black. And white does a good job of out playing his opponent in this game. Unfortunately it seems Peter has gotten busy in his life. This game was decide by time.
B16-Banned for Life vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21178
I face off against Alan who has the white pieces. And is consider to be one of the best players when playing 1.b3. It was a difficult game for me as I decide before hand to play a dangerous line. Needless to say I lose this game after a few small mistakes on my part. I am founding that all the players in the WBCCC are good, I maybe better off being a commentator lol, but no one would have that.
This was the first set of games.
Here is the 2nd game of the 2nd round in the next post.
Daniel Parmet (2011-04-17 20:53:43)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009
The fact that all 2150+ were automatically seeded into round2. Making it completely pointless for anyone in the 2000-2149 rating range to play.
Daniel Parmet (2011-04-17 19:58:52)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009
oh the rules were changed back?! In that case i'll play! :)
Daniel Parmet (2011-04-17 10:27:09)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009
I thought all strong players had free entry to the next round anyways? I thought that was the conclusion of the silly rule changes. This is why I chose to sit out.
Daniel Parmet (2011-04-08 08:03:30)
Recent problems at FICGS (DNS, emails)
No worries! Keep up the good work :) We shall just label this all as a birthday spanking.
Daniel Parmet (2011-04-04 07:33:36)
Conditional moves
if I may play devil's advocate... I believe it is precisely BECAUSE conditional moves are more fair that is why players want them. Now when a person is low on time or trying to extend the game into the next rating period they purposefully wait until the BEST hour in which to make a move to clip the most time off their opponent's clock. If conditional moves were in place, a person could sleep knowing that their forced response is already in the system for their sneaky opponent that just wants to flag them.
Daniel Parmet (2011-04-02 22:46:52)
Conditional moves
I have a game going right now in which I really wish I had conditional moves.
Daniel Parmet (2011-03-28 03:52:44)
FICGS Quote file
not so similar.
Daniel Parmet (2011-03-27 09:22:53)
FICGS Quote file
Tell me this whopper isn't worthy!
"If you are not prepared to be wrong then you will never come up with anything original" - Sir Ken Robinson
!!
There are 100 results for Daniel Parmet in wikichess.
Daniel Parmet (2230)
d4 d5 c4 Nf6 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nb6 Nc3 g6
Transpose to wikichess #66328#
============
Contributors : Daniel Parmet
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
Social network : create your photo albums, discuss with your friends...
Hot news & buzz : discover the latest news and buzz on the internet...
Discussions : questions and answers, forums on almost everything...
Seo forums : search engines optimisation forums, web directory...
Play the strongest international correspondence chess players !
|
Ygouf, Laurent (FRA) [member # 14712] Correspondence chess : 2424 SM Ranked # 71 in the rating list. This member has no profile in the social network. |
 | Correspondence chess World championship Play chess games Go (weiqi, baduk) Advanced chess Play big chess Chess trainer apk Rated tournaments Poker texas hold'em Fischer random chess |  |