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 : GOOGLE 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 ? Enter your search terms Web FICGS Submit search form

Search There are 0 results for Du in the games. There are 478 results for Du in the forum. Marc Lacrosse    (2006-04-09 09:01:47) delay before moves publishing? Hi Thibault If I do understand all moves of all games are visible as soon as they have been played. Isn't it better to delay public publishing a little bit (by 3 moves or so). Most other servers have such a policy so as to avoid game duplication tricks. congrats for the already very good work ! Marc 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    (2006-04-09 11:12:49) FICGS council / staff Hello to all. As I just said on TCCMB about the server, I clearly don't want to reproduce the Chessfriend waste... For obvious reasons, I won't administer alone the whole server forever. That's why I want to create a council-staff and to turn FICGS at least partly towards a IECG-like structure... Feel free to tell me if you're interested to take part of the adventure ! Best wishes. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-14 17:08:26) Answers... Hello Håkon. Some answers : 1. Maybe try : Preferences -> Notification checkbox 2. Right, other players already asked for this. Now you have 2 months to play a single move, so few chances to be late. The council will discuss about vacation option before to be implemented. 3. Some players asked these informations not to appear in the list to reduce it in size, so you can check this just by clicking on the games. ("when last move was done" : right !) 4. For website design reasons, I can't display many informations on the same page. I don't think flags are essential, but it will probably be implemented anyway ! Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-16 12:33:44) Comparisons Hello Thibault - first thanks for creating this server. I'm happy to see so many members joined up so quickly. I just started on Ortwin's server (IECG) yesterday. Too early to compare, though one initial item I like better on Ortwin's server is that I can easily change board colors and chess pieces there. Would like the board a little larger (or maybe be adjustable) on both sites. Easier for old eyes! Two items I like much better here than at ICCF are the time rules (ICCF's are much too long) and the tournament sign-up procedure. I can not sign up for an ICCF tournament on-line. I have to do so by printing a form and mailing a check to my NF. A old process for a modern method of play! Henri Muller    (2006-04-16 18:11:51) tournament formules personnellement je préfère de loin 10 coups/40 jours. Ne changez rien, c'est parfait....sinon certaines parties (perdues ) "trainent" lamentablement !! Dinesh De Silva    (2006-04-17 08:54:33) About Glen's observations Thibault, I think Glen has a point there. IF any players are using/might use such fraudulent script writing, a system can be found to detect it!? Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-17 09:23:44) Fraudulent ? I'm not sure.. is really an "automatic player" fraudulent ? Many players are centaurs (human + computer). The decision to let an engine play would be a human one after all.. Anyway, a script player doesn't seem so easy to make. (and for what ?) Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-17 19:01:10) Thanks for the Comments Guys Dinesh - since computer use is allowed I have no problem if someone uses a "script" to automate moves. I don't think that would be fradulent. Actually I think it would be clever :) The point I was trying to ask is anyone concerned (besides me) that we created a chess medium (server chess) where it's so easy to make moves that the games move too fast? I dread the start of a new section, particularly large sections with 10+ players. It's impossible to keep one's inbox empty for even a minute. I know I should show more discipline and walk away, but it's almost like an illness "just one more move then I'll stop" and I don't! One practice I've been using lately is to make a move in a notebook and sit on the move for a day or two before sending it. That helps slow things down. I wonder if a delay send option on the server would make any sense? One could make a move and then click a delay send button for 24 or 48 hours. One would be charged time during the delay, but it would automate the slow down and make tournament startups a little less hectic. Maybe I'm the only one who sees this as an issue> If so, then label this just one crazy man's thoughts :) Glen D. Shields    (2006-04-18 21:39:57) A Suggestion Thibault my e-mail notification will be turned off :) I'd encourage you to re-consider your 60 day ruling. I can foresee individuals getting late in a game and accumulating hundreds of reflection days. Not many, but a few players could go 59 days per move 2 or 3 times in a row just to irritate their opponent. Not everyone is a "good sport" unfortunately :( IECG does it right by limiting time to 30 days max per move. You violate the limit once, game is over no questions asked. ICCF does it half right and half wrong. They set the limit at 40 days, but then make the person waiting beg the TD to do something. If the TD refuses to enforce the rule, the violating player can stall as long as he wants :( This is your chance to pick and chose from the best things done in other organizations. Either set a limit on the number of accumulated days so it doesn't go into the hundreds or set a reasonable limit on the number of days per move. Just don't let both become large. Also don't be wishy washy on the limit. Set a limit and enforce it, no questions asked. No hard reasonable limit and too many accumulated days is an infrequent, but irritating problem in the making. There won't be many, but sadly there will be those few "bad losers" who think it's "cute" to string their opponents along. Don't let that happen at FICGS! Just my two cents :) Elmer Valderrama    (2006-04-18 23:15:46) 30 d max I agree with Glen, 'resign' is the hardest word, and some prefer the server (or the time control rules) _gradually_ pronounce it.. 30 days max, with time doubled at move 10th + optional leave of 30 days would be more than reasonable to me. Graham Cridland    (2006-04-21 16:55:55) Waiting lists An option to remove oneself from the waiting list for a tournament might be useful. No immediate need on my part at present, but people's schedules change, etc. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-22 05:39:05) Not sure... Might be useful, right... But what to do if people's schedules change once the games started ? I made this way to reduce forfeits, players shouldn't enter waiting list if they are not sure to play the games until the end... Feel free to tell me what you think about that. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-04-26 19:42:16) Russian, Italian, Chinese, Dutch.... The Babelfish versions of the FICGS home page in other languages are at the bottom of the home page... Quite funny :) If players from these countries have time to help to translate, feel free to send me an email to info (at) ficgs.com ! Thanks. Jose Carrillo    (2006-05-05 18:37:09) Re: 2 players matches Don't we need only 2 players for a two-game match? Why do we need to create a whole tournament? I'm only interested in playing one other player. Are all the games in FICGS tournament based? Are there no individual matches? Sebastien Marez    (2006-05-06 15:47:35) Cup Cher ami, Avez vous prevu un tournoi du style COUPE FICGS? Bien amicalement Sebastien Marez 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) Sebastien Marez    (2006-05-08 20:03:32) FICGS Bonsoir, Il sera difficile d'éviter la fourmule du Championnat du monde car il faut qu'il soit ouvert à tous. C 'est le cas pour tous les autres sports. 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. 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 ?! 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. 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. Trent Parker    (2006-05-19 08:04:48) My Overall evaluation of this new site I really like this site. I like the format of the tournaments, I like the fact that the number of games one can play are not limited. I like the idea of the best game function, however i do not think it is properly utilised (I have aired my ideas on this elsewhere....) I personally think the resign for checkmate rule is ok, although none of my games have gotten that far yet. After all a) this does not limit the amount of games that you can play on this site and b) your opponent will run out of time anyhow. So what is the difference? You are going to get the point anyhow. I have the following criticisms: I am on Dial up. This site is very slow to play on, very time consuming with the amount of games that i am up to. would it be possible to... I dunno... make it like a javascript or something, just to speed it up a bit. Or perhaps even make the submit button further up the page a bit? Often i have gone out of a game thinking that i have made the move when i have forgotten to click the submit button. (By the way this site would be excellent if i had broadband but i don't.) I may have some more comments later on but at the moment i've said enough. Thanks for this site Thibault! Trent Parker 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 Henri Muller    (2006-05-19 11:33:45) délai de reflexion Il me semble qu'il existe un sérieux problème dans le système de décompte des jours de réflexion. Il suffit de jouer qques coups, et on dispose ainsi de plus de 40 jours de rélexion!!! Aberrant. N'y aurait-t-il pas moyen de faire un double décompte, en obligeant le joueur à jouer AU MOINS UN COUP tous les 5 ou 6 jours ? Ainsi, un joueur a répondu aux DEUX premiers coups de la partie, et il dispose de 40 jours de réflexion !!?? Un tournoi, à cette allure, si les deux joueurs s'y mettent, peut durer des ANNEES !!.... ce n'est certainement pas le but du concepteur ! 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... 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 ! Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-25 12:10:06) Messages Hello Phil. There's no chat yet, if you want to send a message to players, you can use this forum... Private messages are authorized during the games. 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. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-26 12:23:16) First go tournament started The first go tournament just started ! If you want to discover this famous game (also called 'Weiqi' in mandarin chinese or 'Baduk' in korean), you may see this article in wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_board_game Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-28 01:06:10) Other quotes by famous chess players "I really believe that Go is destined to take the place of Chess as the leading intellectual game of the Occident, just as it has reigned supreme in the Orient for some four thousand years." - Edward Lasker, Go and Go-Moku, c. 1934 "While the Baroque rules of chess could only have been created by humans, the rules of go are so elegant, organic, and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, they almost certainly play go." - Edward Lasker, international chess master "You don't have to be really good anymore to get good results. What's happening with Chess is that it's gradually losing its place as the par excellence of intellectual activity. Smart people in search of a challenging board game might try a game called Go." - Hans Berliner, The New York Times, Feb 6, 2003 "... {it is} something unearthly ... If there are sentient beings on other planets, then they play Go." - Emanuel Lasker, chess world champion Steven DuCharme    (2006-05-29 22:20:18) Bobby & Boris Casting is underway in Los Angeles for a movie based on the 1972 World Championship. Steven DuCharme    (2006-05-31 23:31:56) Bobby & Boris I found it at www.chessgames.com That's the title as far as I know. Wayne Lowrance    (2006-06-01 07:32:45) other chess websites okey dokey. Thank you. dunno what I did wrong but I check. by the way, it is not my chess site, I only play there for over 10 years.Thanks Wayne Lionel Vidal    (2006-06-01 15:02:56) Infinite repetition Well, it might work, but that seems unfair to black IMO, because it creates discrepancies in the rules depending on you being sente or gote. Admitedly, the komi can be seen as such discrepancy, but all it does is forcing sente to be bit more aggresive, the stategy and tactics, the feeling of the game being globally the same. What you propose would induce a kind of strategic play on the rules... not really Go anymore! I realise I may not be clear: as an extreme example of rules discrepanies, just consider Renju. Here the rules are different for sente and gote and the strategy is indeed really different for both! While this is fine in Renju, because actually it became the heart of the game, I do not think Go needs it. Besides, it would spoil somehow IMO the aesthetic feeling of the game flow. Just my opinions of course :-) 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? :-) 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). Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-09 14:34:14) Email webmaster, 2 players matches Bonjour Julien, merci :) My email is displayed (just replace the symbol by @) on the 'About' page. As I explained in another (old) thread, priorities are to reduce the delay for tournaments to start and to make it as simple as possible. As this server offers all games live, I think it to be 'competition oriented' is the best choice. It would be easy to offer many sorts of tournaments, rated/unrated, different time controls, quad/round-robin/ko etc... but it would loose his interest. Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-13 11:35:10) help (2 players matches) i would like to know if it is possible to challenge an individual for a game. ie. I would like to play vs Nigel Davis but dont know how to challenge him. Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-16 13:28:21) FICGS CHESS CLASS M 000005 well apparently I cannot enter the tournament due to rating retrictions Pablo Schmid    (2006-06-16 18:53:39) ... Tournoi reporté au 1er soit disant pour que tout soit optimisé. Mais pourquoi avoir attendu le dernier moment pour commencer à modifier les règles? Surtout que les modifications ne font pas l'unanimité et qu'en général ça se fait pas de changer les règles en cours de route et cela sans vraiment avoir demandé l'avis des inscrits. 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 Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-20 16:05:08) Sicilian opening & Kasparov I quote from Amir analysis : "But if you want to win, the Sicilian is really the best choice." I fully agree, I'll just add: but Sveshnikov sicilian :) Actually, (not a surprise) you just have to see how Black pieces are conducted by Garry Kasparov in sicilian opening to understand what lines to follow, why it is the best choice... and why he became the best player of all times. He simply always wanted to win, never draw... It is an illustration of a quote in this interesting (but failed) movie by Guy Ritchie, "Revolver" : "To win against a weaker opponent, you have to extend the game field." Finally, it's the exact opposite of what Bobby Fischer said : "I don't believe in psychology, I believe in good moves". That's not enough IMO, chess openings are a psychologic battle that reflect the state of mind and will. It often decides in a way the result of the game, not by moves, but by the intention. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-20 17:17:19) Re: "Revolver" movie...... cinema UFO ! Yes :) ... I saw it in french version... It was really IMO one of the biggest deceptions of the year... probably because I expected a lot, when seeing this fantastic trailer. This film should have been one of the greatest chess (games in general) relative movies. There was all matters, and many interesting philosophical thoughts... maybe not supported enough by the movie. And I suspect director Guy Ritchie of having voluntarily suicided the movie during the shooting... Luc Besson or other reasons... How to explain such fantastic pictures, then such obvious faults all long. The screenplay surely was better than the result. Finally, cinema press judged it as totally pretentious and it was a commercial failure. That's a pity, really. Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-22 15:47:42) Interesting question for the Gambit's a Gambits are the schizophrenics of the chess openings. Most players love to play through a finished game that starts as a gambit, but few players dare to play gambits themselves. Gambits lead to attacking games that avoid the calculated buildup preceding a classic attack. Can the gambiteer justify the material disadvantage? Can the opponent overcome the positional disadvantage that comes with grabbing the gambit sacrifice? Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-23 12:25:36) Blindfolded Chess THE chess-world (for there is a "world" in chess as in other matters) has lately been startled by a very extraordinary performance at one of the "divans" of the metropolis. A young American has played ten games at once, against an equal number of players, without, on his part, obtaining a single glimpse at any one of the chess-boards. The feat is not new; but never before was it performed so triumphantly as in the present day. The writers who have ferreted out the early history of this beautiful game have found the name of one Tchelebi, who, nearly nine centuries ago, was able to play at chess without seeing the board. Many persons in the East acquired the art of playing by feeling instead of seeing pieces; but that is a very different affair, since in such a case the sense of touch comes in aid of the memory. In 1266, a Saragen, named Buzecca, came to Florence and at the Palazzo del Popolo played three games at once, looking at one board, but not at the other two. He won two of the games, and made a drawn or abandoned game of the other. As all his competitors were skilful players, his achievement caused irrepressible astonishment. At various times, in later centuries, this mode of play was exhibited by different persons--Ruy Lopez, the author of one of the earliest treatises on chess; Mangiolini of Florence, Zerone, Medrano, Leonardo da Cutri, Paolo Boi, Salvio, and others, many of whom were Spaniards. Boi is reputed to have played three games at once without seeing the board. Damiano, an Italian, who wrote a treatise on chess more than three centuries and a half ago, gave what he called the "Rules" for learning to play without seeing the board; but his rules are worth very little, amounting chiefly to a recommendation to cultivate the memory. Keysler, in his Account of Turin (1749), says: "The late Father Sacchieri, Lecturer on Mathematics at Pavia, was a remarkable instance of the strength of the human understanding, particularly that faculty of the soul we term memory. He could play at chess with three different persons at the same time, even without seeing any one of the three chess-boards. He required no more than that his substitute should tell him what piece his antagonist had moved, and Sacchieri could direct what step was to be taken on his side, holding, at the same time, conversation with the company present. If any dispute arose about the place where any piece should be, he could tell every move that had been made, not only by himself, but by his antagonist, from the beginning of the game, and in this manner incontestably decided the proper place of the piece. This uncommon dexterity at the game of chess appears to me almost the greatest instance that can be produced of a surprising memory." The most celebrated player of the last century, however, in this peculiar achievement, was the Frenchman Andre Danican, who then, and afterwards, was generally known by the name of Philidor. In 1743, when Philidor was about eighteen years old, M. de Legalle asked him whether he had ever tried to play from memory, without seeing the board. The youth replied, that as had calculated moves, and even whole games, at night in bed, he thought he could do it. He immediately played a game with the Abbe Chenard, which he won without seeing the board. After that, a little practice enabled him to play nearly as well in this as in the ordinary fashion--sometimes two games at once. The French Cyclopedie told of a particular game in which a false move was purposely made by his antagonist; Philidor discovered it after many moves, and replaced the pieces in their proper position. Forty years afterwards, he was residing in England, where he astonished English players by his blindfold achievements at a chess-club in St. James' Street. He played three games at once, with Count Bruhl, Mr. Bowdler, and Mr. Maseres, the first two of whom were reputed the best players at that time in England. Philidor won two of the games, and drew the third, all within two hours. On another occasion, in the same year (1788), he played three games at once, blindfold as before, and giving the odds of pawn and move to one of his antagonists; again did he win two of the games, and draw the third. His demeanor during these labors surprised his visitors as much as his skill, for he kept up a lively conversation during his games. Many eminent chess-players, including M'Donnell, La Bourdonnaye, Staunton, etc., have achieved these blindfold wonders, in greater or less degree, since the days of Philidor. M'Donnell, a famous player about thirty years ago, played his moves even more rapidly without than with the board; he did not object to any amount of conversation in the room during his play, but disliked whispers. La Bourdonnaye could play within a shade of his full strength without seeing the board; he won against good players, on some occasions two at a time; but when trying the threefold labor, his brain nearly gave way, and he wisely abandoned all such modes of playing his favorite game. Mr. Staunton, the leading English player at present (but who has almost ceased to play since he undertook the editing of an edition of Shakespeare), some years ago played many blindfold games with Harrwitz and Kieseritzky, foreign players of note. 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. Pablo Schmid    (2006-07-03 18:37:00) Problème du temps restant. Bonjour De Vassal, dans ma partie 583 contre Hanly, je peux lire ça: Clock - 35 days 23:12:38 (9 days 20:48:55) S'agit-il d'un bug? Ai-je 35 jours ou 9 jours restants? David Grosdemange    (2006-07-03 19:04:50) affichage dans le menu des parties il faudrai afficher ce vrai temps restant dans le menu "mes parties" à coté des parties , au lieu du temps total ..... ça peut induire fortement en erreur .... j'ai des décalages jusqu'à 15jours entre le temps affiché et le temps réel ...... Henri-Louis Muller    (2006-07-04 09:39:01) temps de reflexion Je suis également d'avis qu'il existe un très sérieux problème concernant le temps de réflexion dans les parties ! Un joueur peut ainsi rester "trainer" avec une partie durant DES MOIS sans jouer, et sans AUCUNE justification ! Il faudrait aussi reglementer la durée PAR coup et non seulement sur la totalité des coups joués. J'ai CINQ parties dans le même cas :perte certaine de l'adversaire, et on attend 50 à 90 jours avant de répondre ou de dépasser le temps !! Evidemment, le fair-play et la sportivité jouent aussi un rôle. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 12:02:45) triche et fair-play Bonjour Henri-Louis. Encore une fois cela fait partie intégrante du jeu par correspondance... Il n'est pas rare que les joueurs "gèrent" leurs défaites et victoires dans le temps pour les faire coincider avec les calculs de classement de leur choix. Le problème est identique à l'ICCF et ailleurs, et il n'y a aucune solution ou règle raisonnable pouvant régler le problème. Lorsqu'on a compris que le jeu par correspondance est une question de plusieurs mois, on finit par comprendre que le problème est somme toute négligeable... De nombreuses parties jouées sur le serveur sont jouées beaucoup plus rapidement qu'à la normale, cela n'empêche qu'il s'agit d'échecs par correspondance, avec la cadence du jeu par correspondance. Diminuer le temps par coup ne changerait absolument pas le problème si tu y réfléchis bien. Quoiqu'il en soit, concernant la partie dont tu avais fait appel, qu'elle se termine maintenant ou fin aout, ça ne change rien, elle sera prise en compte dans le classement de septembre. Pour finir, je rappelle qu'il existe une cadence "rapide" (tournois rapides, championnat), c'est donc le choix de chacun. Patience :) Gino Figlio    (2006-07-04 17:55:59) Symmetrical games Chess is not a draw yet, someone wins in 70% of the cases(40% white, 30% black), the farther you go identical in two games, the more likely the player on move will find the critical position where only one player wins, even if one is weaker than the other. Players of similar strength or chess knowledge will realize this during the game, once the puzzle of a position becomes more clear, after every move. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-04 20:15:35) 8-game matches John... ??? :) Vladimir Kramnik - Peter Leko (match for WCH classical title) Vladimir Kramnik - Deep Fritz... Of course it is desired... Who will remember the names of the players in the last ICCF final tournament ? Even if ICCF doesn't use this format, and (as you say) serious CC players didn't have the opportunity to play such tournament, knockout format is still desired. My first idea was a pure enormous knockout tournament, but it's obviously not possible (too much rounds, a time problem), that's why I thought about this combined system. Now look at the chess world : Many players don't understand why FIDE progressively reduces the number of games and time controls in WCH matches. It is the main reason why FIDE world champion title looses value. Not hard / accurate, not spectacular enough !! .. What many players (me, at least :)) expect is a classical world championship with a big final match. You may have noticed that FICGS champion will have the opportunity to defend his title in a... 24 games match against his challenger... (!!) That's real fight, that's real challenge and that's what I expect to see from a championship, a big opposition between 2 players, and not a round-robin more or less aleatory, with too much names, not understandable for the most. Now, as we said on TCCMB : FICGS is not "official" matter, chess is for fun here, but chess must be a show and I'm convinced it is relevant in correspondence chess too. We'll see that ;) John Knudsen    (2006-07-05 16:45:00) Question About Leave/Reflection Time Hi Thibault: Why would a person on leave accumulate 1 extra day reflection time per day, while on leave? Is this correct? If it is correct, what is the rationale behind such a weird thing, please? It doesn't make any sense, as no moves are played during a leave... John Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-05 19:14:09) Leave/Reflection Time That's right. You take 5 days leave, 5 days are added to your clock... This is quite logical, after the leave period your clock is the same again. The difference with other systems is you can play during your leave. We discussed about it in another thread : http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_144.html Xavier Pichelin    (2006-07-05 20:38:56) Problème du temps restant. Bonjour, Je viens de M'apercevoir qu'un de mes adversaire Mr LAINE Jari a plus de temps de reflexion que ses adversaires en jouant aussi vite ou (lentement)! Ref: WCH stage 1 Groupe 13 Est-ce normal ou il y a t-il un bug? Amicalement Xavier. Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-06 16:16:01) Thanks to all... That's quite a good start indeed... (to be continued) :) I'd like to thank all players who helped to introduce FICGS to their federation, forums, friends... We just welcomed many Turkish players this way, and I hope many other players from continents not very represented yet (asia, arabia..) will join us soon. That's great to see people here from everywhere in the world, even countries I did not ever heard about before :) Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-06 16:35:13) Leave/Reflection Time This is "almost" the same..... But that's right, this is more like a time reservoir than holidays. In both cases, when you take days leave -> you have more time to think if you want to. The difference is when you play during your leave, but it seems to me that consequences are negligible and not a problem. Just different... I wasn't very favourable to this option, but many players ask for. Aren't there a way to take a leave in ICCF ? Pablo Schmid    (2006-07-06 19:32:42) même problème J'ai le même problème contre Muratet (partie 581), je ne l'ai constaté qu'aujourd'hui mais d'après mes calculs, ça fait déjà plusieurs jours qu'il a perdu au temps sans que la partie soit finie. Marc Lacrosse    (2006-07-08 11:08:51) Modifying "rapid" tournament rules ? Hello all, Hello Thibault As I already said in an earlyer thread, one of the reasons why I joined FICGS was the possibility to play fewer games simultaneously at a faster pace than in other corr. chess associations. So I enrolled in a first rapid tournament where I find two things unpleasant for a so-called "rapid" category: 1. some of my opponents (and myself also) accumulated reflection time "reserves" of 40 or even 50 days in some cases, which is not appropriate for a "rapid" tournament IMHO. 2. my last unfinished game is completely won for more than ten moves now (it's K+pawns against K+pawns with an unstoppable passed pawn for me where computers announce forced mate in ... max 40 moves). My 2200+ opponent continues to play at a very slow pace. It's pretty annoying : I bet I could win my game at blitz tempo against Kasparov analysing for three days per move but I suppose I will have to play for weeks until his king is mated! So I propose : 1. To have an absolute limitation of the time reserve a player can accumulate in rapid tournaments (30 ?) 2. To have a procedure allowing to call for external adjudication when a player refuses to resign a forcefully lost game. Your opinion ? Marc Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-08 12:33:21) Fischer clock - Limitation Hello Marc. About the adjudication, that's a problem without a real solution IMO. I think human interventions must be reduced as much as possible (null is clearly best), many players agree with that. I just written you were right and agreed with your first proposal about the accumulation time rule for rapid games. Now I think it just can't solve the problem and wouldn't be efficient enough... In the few cases (ie. yours) a player may last a game, for any reason (maybe manage his rating), changing the time accumulation limitation wouldn't prevent him to last it almost the same, by spacing out his moves... No solution yet, but we can discuss it, maybe we can improve this point. Glen D. Shields    (2006-07-08 21:05:41) Thibault You Have a Golden Opportunity Thibault - one of the reasons that FICGS has grown so quickly is that you've welcomed input and implented the things the players have asked for. John is right on this issue. I urge you to listen to him. Take this opportunity and make FICGS the chess server that leads the way in establishing logical time rules. Here are some suggestions for regular tournaments. You and others can build on these: - 30 days start +2 days added per move - 100 days maximum accumulated time - 30 days maximum limit for one move - 4 weeks (28 days) annual leave - no time lost or added during leaves - no moves made during leaves - all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes My recommendation for rapid tournaments are: - 14 days start +1 day added per move - 30 days maximum accumulated time - 10 days maximum limit for one move - 2 weeks (14 days) annual leave - no time added or lost during leaves - no moves made during leaves - all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes I recommend you let the server automatically handle time limit oversteps and make no exceptions. The only exception I would offer is if someone is ill or injured and needs to take an extended medical leave (these things happen). Let there be an option for that player to file an approved leave with you. Thibault love your server and the hard work you put into it. You and others feel free to critique my suggestions. I strongly urge you to use this opportunity to lead the world in logical time rules. You don't have federations or tempermental world champions to appease. You are the boss. Do it RIGHT. Good luck. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-07-09 00:46:13) Leave/Reflection Time Dear chessfriends! In my dreams a perfect server has the following time rules. Normal tournaments: - 30 days with an increment of 30 days/ 10 moves - 100 days maximum accumulated time - 30 days maximum limit for one move - 4 weeks leave per tournament (!) for every year since the start of the tournament - no time lost or added during leaves - a move in a tournament during a leave stops the leave in all games of this tournament - all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes Rapid tournaments - 30 days start +1 day added per move - 45 days maximum accumulated time - 30 days maximum limit for one move - no leave - all time calculated by a running clock in hours and minutes By the way, the world championship should not be a rapid tournament. But how I said these are my dreams ... Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-10 02:04:36) Vacation and reflection time Hi John, Glen & Heinz-Georg. Thanks for all suggestions... ;) Some responses, particularly about vacation (towards a compromise ?) : * 30 days + 2 days/move : Not "beautiful" (not a joke, it is design matter) * 30 days max for one move : Not convinced it can really bring something... if a player want to last a CC game, I think no reasonable rule (without human factor) can prevent him to do so. * 14 days + 1 day/move (rapid) : As players don't know exactly when tournaments will start, I think 30 days at start (ie. compared : email tournaments often start before the real date) is a good choice to avoid accidental forfeits during holidays ! * 2 weeks annual leave : Even for different time controls, I'm not favourable to make too many different rules.. 30 days (for all games per year) is a balanced choice IMO. * Vacation : Ok, I make note of this. I was not favourable to any leave system, cause it's obviously a way to have days more in time trouble, even if time is frozen ! .. That's why I made it "hard" to use.. If players can stop their leave when they want, just by playing a move, it becomes easier to manage time trouble situations. The 60 days rule for 1 move was a solution avoiding vacation IMO but we discussed it already... Now I'm to decide to change the vacation rule, as John (& you) urged me. I thought it was a good thing not to prevent players to make moves during the leave... Maybe most think different, ok... However I have a problem yet with vacation as it's really a way to get more reflection time... Here is what I suggest, simply a harder rule : Players who take da