 |
| Home |
| Informations |
| Login |
| Register |
| Waiting lists |
| Membership |
| Hall of fame |
| Tournaments |
| Best game |
| Wikichess |
| Rating list |
| Problems |
| Forum |
| Links |
| Help |
| About |
|
Game result (chess) N. Bernal Varela, 2078 S. Marton-Bardocz, 2346 1-0 See game 22851 |
|
Armenia wins gold at 38th Chess Olympiad
Deep Fritz 11 is available (Chessbase.com) Dominguez-Perez wins World Blitz Championship Hikaru Nakamura wins Cap d'Agde tournament Viswanathan Anand is FIDE world champion 2008 Nigel Short wins Commonwealth Championship Rybka wins World Computer Chess Championship 2008 Topalov tops the October 2008 FIDE rating list Pentala Harikrishna wins Spice Cup in Lubbock GM Jan Werle wins EU Individual Championships more chess news... |
|
Oh Chi-Min 7d wins Go-to-Innovation tournament Andy Liu 7d wins Masters Open at NY Go Center Gu Li 9p wins the 10th Chinese Agon Cup Hugh Zhang 6d wins Ing's Cup Youth Go Tournament Zou Jin 6d wins Pandanet Go European Cup more Go news... |
|
In the forum... Money games... Moneybookers, Paypal, credit card and bank transfer are available to play money games... Affiliate links... Win E-Points by linking to us as an affiliate, for each new member referred by your link, 1 E-Point will be added to your account... E-Points prizes... Ficgs now offers free games & tournaments with E-Points prizes... Rybka 3, Fritz 12... Rybka 3, Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13, your predictions on forthcoming chess engines... Translators... Translators are needed for chinese, japanese, indian, romanian, polish home pages... Vacation help... Hello all, I've entered a vacation time in error. Is it possible to cancel the vacation ? |
|
Last referers : WIKIPEDIA VIKINGSKAK LIVE SPAGHETTICHESS N YAHOO CSCL GO4GO |
|
Feel free to link to this page to get referer backlinks to your website ! |
Want your banner here ? |
There are 0 results for Glen in the games.
There are 75 results for Glen in the forum.
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-15 19:01:14)
Extend Timeout
I agree great server. The board definiely would be better with coordinates. Is there a way to extend the timeout time? Or an option to save one's login information so you don't have to input name and password after being tossed? Thanks!
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-16 12:15:33)
A Couple More Suggestions!
Thank you Thibault for your prompt response to my suggestions. Here's another one that you may not be able to do easily. Can you add an option to make the board a little bit larger? And maybe eventually give us chess piece choices or board color choice? My eyesight plays tricks on me as I get older and bt experimenting with the colors, sizes and piece choices it sometimes helps. Just a suggestion! None are big ones. Thanks!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-16 12:21:01)
Håkon & Glen
Håkon, you're right (no need to receive his own moves). It will be changed this hour.
Glen, you can change board color in preferences. At least you have choice : Grey, Red, Blue, Green. About the size & other pieces, not impossible, I'll see that.
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!
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-16 12:37:05)
Thanks Thibault
Thank you Thibault. Please don't rush to make changes. You can only do so much. Just offering suggestions because you genuinely want to listen to the players. We all appreciate that. Thank you :)
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-16 18:57:19)
60/10 Too Slow for Me
I'm in the group that thinks 60/10 is too slow. Like Mr. LaCrosse, I like fewer games at a faster pace. Only way 60/10 might work is to set a REASONABLE limit on days per move. ICCF's 40 days is too long and some TD's are much too lenient about extending it. I hope this doesn't hijack your thread Thibault, but The opposite question I'd like to ask is how many server players find the opening game too fast and like a blur? I make a move and there's a reply waiting 5 minutes later. It won't be long before someone writes a script and connects it to ChessBase to cut the time down to seconds :)
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!?
Dinesh De Silva (2006-04-17 09:47:09)
Quite a good answer
Thibault, that was quite a good answer. We'll have to wait and see if there's any more thoughts on the subject by Glen.
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 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-17 19:29:05)
True !
That's interesting and very true, Glen. I'll think about that ! Chess, more than email-checking, is a hard drug :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-18 13:25:56)
Time limit per move
If a player has 60 days and more on his clock, the deadline for one move is 60 days ! This is a provisional (quite good, I think) solution before question of vacation be answered. Many players can't play every day and correspondence chess games usually last several months, often more than 1 year.
It seems server games go much faster than email games, but rules 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves are the same.
Time limit per move in IECG is 30 days. Here, a 60 days limit (a rating period) don't seem too much to me. Players won't feel oppressed (Glen, turn email notification off :)) and I think they won't use it often.
RAPID TOURNAMENTS are an alternative solution.
Thibault
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 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-18 23:04:48)
Interesting...
Glen, that's a fine suggestion !
We could probably improve the time rules, indeed.
Maybe a 100 days accumulated time limit would be appreciated ? What do think the players ?
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.
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-20 01:47:29)
Congratulations!
Thibault - I don't know if FICGS is the first server to do so, but it's the first server I play on that has made the intelligent decision to limit accumulated time. Hopefully you will set a trend that other servers will follow :)
60 days max for one move may be too much, but with a 100 day limit, abuse will be minimal.
Good job :)
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-25 16:48:28)
Another Opinion
I have mixed feelings on 'conditional" moves. I agree they save time, but they also can be irritating. Depends how they're sent and who sends them.
We all have those opponents who play whatever Fritz plays. When one gets in a rather simple series of moves, those opponents like to run out a string of 3 or 4 conditionals in a row. Opponents like that are like leeches. You can't get them off your skin without yanking them off and eradicating them :)
Time saving versus irritation. Considering the options, I vote for time saving. The faster I can get rid of Fritz opponents, the happier I am.
Just another opinion :)
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-25 20:39:39)
Hmmm ... yup
Graham - I think you summed it perfectly. I have no objection to conditionals nor do I care how much time folks use. What I find "irritating" (the word used in this thread) are those situations where you move and ten minutes later you're back on the clock again. Overused conditionals contribute to the "irritation," but hardly are the root cause.
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-28 01:35:12)
Congratulations FICGS!
Congratulations FICG! The rating list now has over 200 members. 200 members in about 1 month of operation. Outstanding :) The more players we can attract, the quicker tournaments will fill.
Glen D. Shields (2006-05-06 11:51:16)
Two Others
Two other sites are ICCF (http://www.iccf-webchess.com/) and IECG (http://lss.chess-server.net/). They're similar to FICGS in that both require one to play with their real name. Neither site promotes computer use, yet neither site discourages it. ICCF is a fee-based. IECG is free.
Glen D. Shields (2006-05-06 11:52:49)
FYI ... Thibault
Schemingmind forbids computer use.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-06 11:58:39)
Oops !
Right, Glen...
Glen D. Shields (2006-05-18 00:53:27)
Mate Problem Should be Fixed
Thibault - Since I am never at a loss to voice an opinion , I'll go ahead and voice one here :)
I don't know how much work it is for you to fix the mate problem, but I think it should be fixed. I admit in the 1000+ correspondence games I've played through the years very few games actually get to the checkmate move. When they do, the game should be over. There is no reason one should have to beg his opponent to resign or beg the referee to do something. That doesn't make any sense. Is it a HUGE problem to fix this? I'm perplexed.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-18 03:18:57)
Let's see...
Hello Glen.
This is quite unusual and it may look strange at the first sight, but I still think that this rule is positive and is not a nonsense !
That's true I prefer the server working this way, and it saves time process, but I keep in mind : First, this is friendly... 2nd, if a player want to last a game, he will do it before being checkmated. 3rd, I didn't adjudicate Wayne's game, and his opponent just resigned only 2 days after his move. Let's give a chance to this rule, I'm convinced time will show that it is not a nonsense ;)
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.
Glen D. Shields (2006-05-19 03:43:15)
Oops ... sorry!
Oops .. this belongs in the discussion on "the overall evaluation of this site." My apology. Perhaps Thibault could kindly move the above post to the proper place and delete this apology? I'd be very appreciative. Thanks!
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-06 03:54:49)
Congratulations - 500 members now !
Not sure how many noticed that FICGS reached 500 members this past week. That's a fantastic milestone considering FICGS is only three months old.
Congratulations Thibault and thank you for making this site available for all of us to enjoy!
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.
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 days leave CAN'T play during their vacation and CAN'T take days back (stopping their leave by playing a move) ! Then 2 options, players must wait their vacation end date to play again, or they can play, but provoking the cancellation of their leave (loosing the days leave taken and not used yet).. Maybe it won't be appreciated in some particular cases if players have to modify their plans, but the aim is clearly to reduce the vacation effect on the game... What do you think ?
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-10 15:21:09)
Sounds good ....
Thibault - thanks for the feedback and your openess to make changes in the vacation rules.
It's important to get some of these rules right while the player list is still relatively small and the players are still geting use to playing at FICGS. It will be harder to make rule changes in the future.
The 100 day maximum you set on accumulated time establishes FICGS as the trend setter in how to manage modern correspondence chess games. Excellent decision! Much of the problems people talk about in time control are prevented by the addition of this rule.
I'm sure you are aware the IECG has a 30 day maximum per move and the ICCF a 40 day maximum. The IECG limit is firm. You exceed 30 days once you lose. The ICCF's rule is unclear and unevenly managed. You reach 40 days, you need to beg the TD to do something. Sometimes he helps, sometimes he doesn't. Not a good situation.
Whatever limit you set at FICGS, I recommend you keep it firm and automatic like IECG. Personally I prefer 30 days, you prefer 60. IMHO 30 days is plenty of time to make a move is someone is serious about playing. 60 days is too long to wait. My preference is to make the rules enjoyable for those who want to play, not for those who sign up and then get "busy" and rudely make their opponents sit and wait. IMHO you'll attract and keep a better membership base by making the rules player friendly, not player annoying.
Thanks again. My best to you.
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-10 15:24:24)
Sorry...
Sorry this belongs in the reflection time thread :)
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-22 19:50:51)
Interesting Discussion Topic
Thibault - this is a interesting discussion topic. Of course, no one knows the future with certainty, but we can all offer an opinion :)
I'm nearing my 40th year of correspondence play. Sometime later this year I will complete my 1000th tournament game. All my games were played by postcard until the mid 90's. E-mail dominated my CC schedule from about 1998 until 2002. Now I only play server chess. I've played on the FICGS, IECG, GameKnot, ChessFriend, Schemingmind and ICCF servers.
Contrary to many people who've played as long as I have, I do NOT see chess engines as a threat to the game. I think they've changed the game, but not hurt the game. I believe they've increasd CC's popularity and game quality. The same is true for opening and ending databases.
Some of the changes that will occur in CC the next ten years:
- Servers will improve functionality and ease of use.
- Due to engine use we will grow to accept 2200 as an "average" rating rather than "Master."
- Tournaments will be re-structured to include fewer players per section and shorter tournament durations. This particularly applies to ICCF where 15 player sections and slow time rules to simulate postal chess are used.
- New server functionality will be added to allow players the option to SLOW down the game. It's too easy to get caught in a mindless "server flurry."
- New chess software will be developed to analyze games. This analysis tool will give proability estimates on what engine one's opponent is using. That information will allow one to counter and plan against one's opponent.
- There will be more anti-computer books written and theories developed. We will use these techniques to beat our opponent and and improve our chess planning skills.
Bottomline ... I am excited by the new technology. I see continued advances in the way we manage our gameload, the way we send moves, the way we play, plan and analyze our moves. The way we play in the future will be different and will still be fun for those who embrace new technology. My disappointment is I am an old man and unlikely to enjoy all the advantages the future brings. I hope those who follow me enjoy what I will miss :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-24 13:03:25)
Future of correspondence chess......
That's a fine analysis, Glen.
However, it's legitimate to consider that chess at a higher level is becoming much harder so that some of the very best players may stop their career, thinking that it's no worth the energy anymore, for results more influenced by 'chance' in statistics...
How many "super-grandmasters" (2700+) said that each point over this mark represents more and more work ?
It's probably the same (and more) in correspondence chess. I do think that it's still possible to improve a lot ! .. but there's a lack of a higher class of players. That's a pity the very best correspondence chess players (ie. former ICCF world champions : Joop van Oosterom, Gert Jan Timmerman...) retire or at least don't defend their title since they achieved it. Of course it's a lot of time, but result is the top class appear to be bigger and there's no clear champion. That's not good IMO to popularize correspondence chess.
All games need champions. I read recently on a Go forum that the success of Chess nowadays was due to his champions (Go is not popular yet in the west because there's noone to represent it, except a manga [Hikaru No Go]..), Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer... That's true IMO, and that's what particularly misses to correspondence chess. Maybe things won't change in ICCF (maybe I should pretend to the board :)), but anyway that's why I chose the knockout system for the FICGS world chess championship, and the possibility for the winner to play a final against a challenger. We'll see...
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-24 17:04:52)
Thanks Thibault
Thanks Thibault for the response.
I definitely concur that today's correspondence chess is different than 40 years ago. The two biggest things I miss about today's CC are the 1) blunders and 2) open tournaments. I remember the excitement of getting a postcard and rushing to check my opponent's move. Blunders weren't common, but they occured. Now they're non-existant. Blunders made for great lore!
Why no more open tournaments? Took me 40 years to get my rating where it's at. I'm not a top player, but what I've earned, I've earned mostly the "old fashioned" way. I avoid open tournaments to avoid losing to low rated players who just learned the moves, but because they have a a high powered muti-processor running Deep Fritz they can knock me down a hundred points. I miss chatting with beginners, teaching them the ins and outs of CC. Oh well :)
You mentioned the top CC players winning and then not sticking with the game because winning is too hard due to chess engines. Is the drop out rate at the WC level any different than it was in the past? Berliner won and dropped out 40 years ago. Palciauskas won 30 years ago and then he dropped out. Chess engines were not a factor when they won. I don't think top players drop out because of engines, but because it is too hard to keep a competitive edge to play at a top level for any length of time. Good results are a combination of talent, hard work and good fortune. Keeping all three together for any length of time is a HUGE endeavor.
Personally I think a bigger threat to CC burn-out is not chess engines, but chess servers. Servers make CC too easy. Today's CC today is like Bill Murray in "Ground Hog Day." You wake up to an inbox full of chess moves. You work all day/night replying. Then you wake up the following day to moves from the same people and do it all again. There are no week long breaks breaks between games like in the postcard days. Server chess is burning out everyone, not just the top players. The progressive server owners will need to address this issue someday.
Sooooo ... what's the bottomline for me? I liked the old days better, but the old days are gone. Chess engines are here to stay. Progress is part of life. I embrace progress and am determined to enjoy it. I get my thrills by learning about chess engines and their weaknesses. That gives me an edge and keeps the game fresh. But then that's me :)
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-24 17:07:52)
Good Luck
Good luck Thibault. You've definitely given John an edge. I suggest you move the Knight in and out a couple more moves and see what he does :)
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-24 17:11:03)
LOL Dinesh
Dinesh - definitely think you're on to something :) If we ever play, you can send still pictures as attachments until the live chatting technology is commonly used to play!
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-24 17:18:17)
LOL Dinesh
Dinesh - definitely think you're on to something :) If we ever play, you can send still pictures as attachments until the live chatting technology is commonly used to play!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-24 17:36:05)
Thanks Glen
Thanks for these sharp remarks and this piece of correspondence chess story. That's very interesting discussing...
I make good notes of what you said about correspondence chess servers !
About what Dinesh said... he just invented Chess Cyber Sex :))))
Dinesh De Silva (2006-07-25 09:26:14)
Re: what Glen D. Shields said.....
Glen, I think correspondence chess keeps on evolving. Seriously speaking it's hard to guess what the next biggest addition to it will be that will be of any benefit to the correspondence chess community.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-07-26 00:32:35)
I'm feeling guilty
I just read The touching story of Glen and frankly I feel guilty. I complained here of basically, having to play a 1400 player. Reason obvious he has a 2800 rated program, but so do I. Glen earned his stature. the old fashon way, brain power, intuition, chess knowledge and a strong memory, putting all these tools to work for many, many years. My CC rating elsewhere is 2200+, sorry to admit my programs got me there. In the fairness vain, I didnt earn such a rating. I sorta like to kid my self that all the players I play use comps too. So I tell my self I earned this rating. I earned it playing on servers against people, just like me doing the same as I, getting help/advise from a program. I do not believe this is right, it is not fair for a player such as Glen. I do not have an answer. I am all in favour of Artificial intelligence and hardware advances applied to chess. I am a EE so it is natural for me to be deeply involved.
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-26 03:52:31)
Thanks Wayne, but ...
Wayne - you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to feel guilty about. You're playing by todays rules. One of life's great pleasures is to embrace change and enjoy the fun and diversity that comes from it :)
I look forward to even more change. I'd love to see new analysis tools, new ways to analyze endings, openings, and counter-attack the engines. So much to be accomplished. So many great things still be developed :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-24 13:31:19)
Premove (conditional moves)
Hi Benjamin.
Conditional moves was one of the first features expected and discussed here... I'm still not sure it is a good idea. Of course it may save time in forced sequences, but there are some controversial issues (see previous discussions with Glen about chess servers) about time and holidays. Anyway, the truth is it's a major change, and I've too many things to do right now :/
Glen D. Shields (2006-10-04 17:41:28)
(repetition)
Glen D. Shields (2006-10-04 17:52:20)
Yes Thibault - Thanks for Asking
Thibault -
I see a need to offer player defined delays. My desire would be that when a move is sent, I have the option to post the move immediately or 1, 2 or 3 days later (using my reflection time during the delay). This option allows players to stagger their games and better manage the pace particularly at the beginning of a tournament.
Servers like FICGS have become the meeting place for postal players, e-mail players, correspondence server players and real time server players. It's a diverse and interesting group. Server chess is nothing like postal chess, but it shouldn't be a substitute for OTB chess either.
Starting a server tournament is like a ping pong match. You send a move and ten minutes later you have a reply. One can't ever keep their inbox empty.
Once the opening is over, the match then moves into "Groundhog Day" mode. You wake up to an inbox full of moves, you work all day on them and then wake up the following day to an inbox of moves from the same players. It's tiring.
I'd like the option to send a move, forget about it and then chose whether it should be visible to my opponent immediately, 24 hours, 48 hours or 72 hours later. The delay allows me to manage my game load better and gives me some flexibility how fast I want to play.
Server chess has grown rapidly the last five years. Its benefits are fantastic. Curiously, however, this year is the first year since e-mail chess was officially introduced that ICCF is reportedly (unoffical source) seeing an increase in postal chess. One of the biggest reasons talked about for this change is players are worn out from the fast server pace. I can relate to that. I'd hate to give up server chess because it makes so much sense. I know no one twists my arm to move fast, but why not give me server tools to help me manage my game load? I let the server count my time, keep my game score, chase my opponent when he forgets to move and report my results. Why can't it also help me manage my game load and slow down the pace when it needs to be slowed?
You asked ... so here are my two cents :)
Glen D. Shields (2006-10-04 21:33:32)
Let me see if I got this right ...
Guys - let's see if I have this right. If i make a move and wait three days to enter it on the server, you're okay with that? Yet if I make a move on the server and chose the option to have the server send it three days later (using my reflection time), you have a problem with that? I don't get it. Games aren't slowed down. All that's being suggested is that we be given server tools to regulate the game pace to a more comfortable level using the server. We use the server to manage all other aspects of our game, why not this too? I don't understand your objections.
Glen D. Shields (2006-10-05 05:25:52)
Wayne no one ...
Wayne - no one is time trouble because no one is using their time. That's the point! "Correspondence chess" on a server has basically become an OTB match between chess engines. Players in all organizations are complaining about server burnout. Players who swore off postal are re-considering their decision.
What Thibault is trying to find out is how prevalent is the burnout. What I'm proposing any player can do manually, but why should it be done manually when the server can do it for us? Isn't automation the whole purpose of the server?
Help from the server to manage the pace (and one's game load) is a perfectly logical extension of server play. If you want to play fast, play fast. If you want to play slow, slow the pace, use the server to do it for you. Why is that bothersome? No one is suggesting a change from the 40/10 limit. There's no proposal to deviate from the 100 maximum accumulated days (great rule - every server should follow this rule!). What am I missing? I really don't get it :)
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-10-11 07:04:35)
Pairings:
cyrano (still waitimg on name) vs. Glen D.Shields*****cairo (ottesen_soren) vs. Miguel Pires*****ccmcacollister (collister_craig) vs. Benjamin Aldag*****thumper (jacobs_doug) vs. James Stripes*****tugger (edwards_matthew) vs. Trond Michalsen*****yanm (maret_yannick) vs. Peter Willoughby*****taikaviitta (koivuniemi_raimo) vs. Richard Grady*****tag1153 (gilbreath_thomas) vs. Regis Ducreux*****eqj2 (johnson_eddie) vs. Martin Selby*****dewillget8 (bingham_anthony) vs. Ilmars Cirulis*****mozz (price_richard) vs. Julien Baudement*****lofix (mankowski_peter) vs. Phil Cook.***********************************************************That's a 12 vs. 12 match. 24 points possible. First team to 12.5 wins. Are we in agreement? - Thomas
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-12 21:33:52)
Cyrano
Oops, I meant 'cyrano'...
Anyway I'd like to create Glen & Miguel's games first so that it's easier to follow on the tournament page - games ordered by ratings... We're late (sorry to all players), but it's probably better that most games start at the same time !?
Glen D. Shields (2006-10-26 16:21:03)
It's Been Awhile ....
This tournament is the first time in awhile since I played on the Gameknot server. A lot has changed in server chess during my absence, but not at GameKnot. There are two GK annoyances. I point them out NOT to trash GK, it's a well designed chess server, but hope that someone from GK who is following this match can instigate appropriate modifications. I REALLY wish the e-mail notification indicating my opponent has moved would show his move. I have a lot of on-going games and don't have the time to make an extra log-on to GK just to get my opponent's move. Also for those who use Opera, take note GK does not work (at least not for me). The board consistently shows up minus half the pieces. Refreshing the screen helps sometimes, but not always. An extra log-in with my non-favorite browsers is not particularly endearing :)
Glen D. Shields (2006-11-17 06:39:51)
Changing World
It's interesting to read players correspondence chess expectations as technology evolves.
What we see on servers like FICGS is the integration of players with various chess backgrounds and expectations. Players who grew up with the internet, and whose first chess experiences were real time chess servers expect games to move quickly. Players who grew up playing correspondence chess by postcard expect games to move much more slowly.
Personally I'm as equalled annoyed by players who stall (like the one described by Mr. Aabid) as I am by those who think move-a-minute correspondence chess is cute. It's going to take time and creativity by the server owners to balance players needs/interests. My ideal is when both players move at a steady 2-3 days per move pace (with the obvious exception for holidays, work, illness, etc). Those games stay interesting from start to finish and always seem to end with a pleasant thank you and congratulations.
Glen D. Shields (2006-11-22 14:04:56)
Strange Setup
Dear Mr. Bell - being the curious type I followed the link to your site. I don't understand what you're offering and I'm surely not registering to your site until I know. Might I suggest some basic FAQ's accesible prior to registation?
Thank you.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-22 14:13:29)
Strange Setup
I must say I agree with Glen about the setup...
I discovered the site thanks to a referer from Anyone4chess forum (which contains lots of info) - that is not linked from the home page and not known by Google. That's a pity, I also suggest you make something in this way.
Glen D. Shields (2006-11-23 06:38:17)
No Thanks
Why in the world would I want to play on a site that sounds as disorganized as yours? There are tens of places to play like FICGS that are well organized and aren't shrouded in mystery. When you figure out what you want to be, want kind of tournaments you want to offer (turn based doesn't mean anything sorry), and you offer folks the opportunity to evaluate your site without harvesting their personal information, I'll take a look and re-consider.
Good luck.
Glen D. Shields (2006-12-26 12:59:52)
Congrats to cyrano
Score one for GK. I just resigned to cyrano on the GK site. I was given a lesson by am excellent player. Congratulations to cyrano and GK! Hope to hold on to the game here, but things are looking bleaker by the move.
Glen D. Shields (2007-06-23 00:14:24)
Chess Engine Strength
Thibault - I've been following the TCCMB discussion. I think it's impossible to answer the question what rating Rybka can achieve under the uncontrolled circumstances we play. If Rybka were playing only against humans, it would achieve a 2600+ rating. Since it plays mostly against itself and other top engines (with little human intervention), the typical results are win a few games, lose a few games and draw a lot.
Since tournaments are mostly set up so that players face opponents with similar ratings, a 2220 rated player using Rybka enters a tournament against other 2200 players. That player wins a few games, loses a few, draws a lot and leaves the tournament at approximately 2200. We conclude from that pattern that Rybka can achieve a 2200 rating.
Conversely, a player (like Uri Blass) who enters tournaments at 2600 and plays other 2600 rated opponents using Rybka wins a few games, loses a few games and draws a lot. He leaves the tournament rated approximately 2600. We conclude for that situation Rybka is rated 2600.
IMHO, it is impossible to answer the Rybka rating question under our typical tournament circumstances.
I think an even better question than worrying about Rybka's strength is "does anyone REALLY enjoy CC anymore?" Today's CC's is a race to buy the fastest hardware and make sure SSDF's top rated programs are installed. I'm playing beginners who can't explain what "en passant" is, but by parroting Rybka they compete in top tournaments and claim to hold titles that once upon a time had to be earned through hard work. After passing through the opening, it doesn't take much effort to figure out what program your opponent is using. At that point one can predict with high probablitlty every move your opponent will make for the rest of the game. Rarely do I see a move that I can can beat. The games are boring and pedictable. Those blunders and surprises that we once wrote funny stories about are long gone. IMO so is the fun.
Sorry to sound so "pessimistic," but until these problems are addressed and the fun is restored I find it just as easy to play against my computer. I can play at my pace, chose the engine I want to play, and unless my computer crashes I no longer have to worry about DMD :-)
Thanks for such a well run place to play chess. You do a great job maintaining it.
My best,
Glen
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 06:06:29)
Chess Engine Strength
Hello Glen !
I see your point, that's quite true and a consequence is what I called at TCCMB "the extensive nature of elo rating", however rating rules are more dynamic at FICGS.. So, let's say Rybka playing the FICGS championship against players of all kinds of ratings in the round-robin cycle... Anyway 2200 is only my feeling.
I understand your views about "rybka" [correspondence] chess nowadays, even if I don't agree with it completely. I saw some of your CC games played at IECG, and it looks much more like 'good old' chess with some unusual and beautiful tactical openings than typical 'correspondence computer chess' nowadays. I do believe there will be a place in the next CC years for more weird openings like bird, king's gambit, english... Also take a look at Peter Schuster and Wladyslav Krol games here !? .. Nothing boring with them, chess engine or not :)
Also advanced chess games with fast time controls could be quite interesting to watch in future as a way to see granmaster games with chess engines avoiding blunders 'only' (ok a bit more). We don't know exactly the human part in it, but draws won't be the rule for sure.
What is "boring" at correspondence chess (not new) is that achieving a top rating take a long... very long time ! .. But this is a great challenge yet IMO.
At last, thanks for you kind words :)
Best, Thibault
Glen D. Shields (2007-06-27 12:52:12)
Keep it at 30 Days
I've been in the situation many times of too many games and too little time to keep up. Admittedly very stressful, but I have no one to blame for getting into that situation but myself.
My preference is to keep vacation at 30 days per year. Today's fast pace requires players to be diligent about managing their game load. Giving players more vacation time adds to the time it takes to finish tournaments and makes it even harder for players to manage game loads.
My personal belief is that when I sign up for a tournamnet I'm making a commitment to play my games at a regular and reasonable pace. If I am regularly finding myself with too many games and often wishing for more vacation time, then I think it is my responsibility to plan better and make better personal choices rather than inconvenince everyone else.
Just my opinion :-)
Miguel Pires (2007-06-27 13:24:11)
Glen D. Shields
"rather than inconvenince everyone else"? Is it for me? If is, i'm going to try to explain to you whay i ask to dicusse the vacation time. Is not because i've to many games (if i've 2 or 3 i syaed the same thing) is because i fell that 30 days is short. In Gameknot i've 120 days, in ICCF i've 30 days per tournament, soo if i enter in a new tournament and i need to postpone i can chose what tournament to postpone. In my opinion is a short time but if the comunity don't whant to change, men ask don't cost anithing, correct? If this is "inconvenince" for you men sorry but for me is not. Regard's Miguel Pires
Glen D. Shields (2007-06-27 14:38:26)
Miguel Pires
Miguel - my comments were meant for everyone not just you.
I happen to think long vacations are another way for players to shy away from the committment they made to play. When my opponent takes a vacation and I am ready to play, then the honest fact is he is inconveniencing me while he is away. I accept that inconvenience as part of the game. I would not be happy having opponents have more than 30 days so they can inconvenience me even more. The time rules are slow enough to allow anyone who has other commitments to take time off and still keep their games going. If outside committments are just too great, than IMHO a player should not sign up to play until they have more time to committ to their games.
These comments, like my other ones, are made for everyone not just you.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-27 14:50:19)
+1
I must say that Glen's argument is very pertinent. The more vacation, the more games, the more difficulties... Quite logical, and I don't say that for you Miguel as it's probably a mechanical effect. Anyway I agree with you that a few more days would give a welcome breath, but as Wolfgang said, time is a part of the game, that's life. Sorry if you felt a bit of irony or cynicism in our posts, I suppose it was difficult to avoid it to justify our opinion...
Best, Thibault
Miguel Pires (2007-06-27 21:41:02)
Glen D. Shields
Thank's for the clarification. Best Regard's Miguel Pires
Glen D. Shields (2007-09-06 04:20:15)
Engine Use - My Take
The switch from postcard to server chess has been a wonderfully positive experience.
The transition from human chess to silicon chess on the otherhand has left me bored and wondering if there's still a purpose to the game.
Every tournament is the same. The tournament starts with 6 to 10 players. The moves transition out of the opening at lightning speed, then "Fritz and Rybka time" begins. Turn on your favorite engine and there's a >95% probablitity that your opponents' moves mimic the top engines. There are no surprises, nothing interesting, just boring repetition.
Only a few percent of the chess world can outplay the top engines on fast hardware. Human intervention is like adding a drop of water to a bucket of water and thinking you've made a difference. Most matches are one computer versus another computer and the results are predictable: 1-2 wins, 1-2 losses, most of the games drawn.
I don't oppose engine use. There's no way to enforce it, so there's hardly a reason to forbid it. I do question, however, its purpose. It's just as easy and entertaining for me to play against my computer as it is to play your computer ... and I can do it on my timeline not yours.
I played a friendly young man earlier this year in the ICCF. He was vocal and proud of his high rating and good reults. He'd been playing for less than a year. He eventually admitted through our friendly chat that he hardly knew the moves and rules. He had no idea what "en passant" was or the basic theory of the openings. It took everything I had to save my position and earn a draw from him. That game was "my epithany." I made up my mind to take a break and reconsider what CC is all about. Engine use has been a great technical accomplishment, but has it made CC more enjoyable? Not for me. I hope most of you feel differently.
Good luck and good chess to all :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-06 12:29:10)
Glen D. Shields
Hello Glen !
We had this discussion before, indeed chess engines killed imagination and a part of the fun. The game has changed a lot, more since Rybka appeared. Correspondence chess is now how to beat Rybka, that's a fact... and a new challenge.
Did you try another game, like Big Chess or Go (I really enjoy playing these games), where engines are completely useless and now both rated at FICGS ? My two cents ;)
Glen D. Shields (2007-09-16 18:43:13)
Explains Much
Dear Thibault -
Your "confession" explains a great deal. Twice you mentioned in posts your awareness of my IECG games. Since I am no chess celebrity, that left me quietly puzzled both times. Now I know why! You and I played twice. You won both games. Both encounters reamin as a couple of my favorites. Your 90 move victory required outstanding end-game play and you played it perfectly! Well done my man :-)
Now to my confession. I am actually Brad Pitt, no, not the real Brad Pitt, but a close good looking second. I have beautiful women walk up to me all the time asking for an autograph. Amazing that I was able to find time for chess all these years ;-)
My best,
Glen (aka "Brad")
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-16 19:05:35)
:o)
Hi Glen, my new 'old' friend :) .. Yes, our games were very interesting, particularly since you played a funny & tactical but quite unknown Sveshnikov's variation, that is theorically a draw anyway, but great to play over the board :)
So you're Brad Pitt's double ? .. You can see Leonardo Di Caprio's double in PSI trailer (true ! quite funny), maybe we'll work together ;)
Best, Thibault
Glen D. Shields (2007-09-16 19:24:34)
Good Luck in the IECG WC
Thibault -
GOOD LUCK in the IECG WC.
My best, Glen
I'll have my agent send my resume to David Gordh ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-16 20:48:11)
IECG WC 2006 final
Thanks Glen, it will be a hard tournament.
See you on the Goban soon ? :)
Glen D. Shields (2007-11-23 00:57:19)
I Can't Login Either
Dinesh - it's about 7 PM Eastern US time Nov 22nd and I'm not able to log in to the IECG server either. I'm sure that's frustrating if you want to get some moves entered. Good luck.
Glen D. Shields (2007-12-17 14:51:16)
Conditional Moves ICCF Server
Conditional moves are technically possible on the ICCF server. The tournament organizer has the option to turn the conditional move feature on or off.
ICCF decided to turn it off for all ICCF tournaments. I don't recall the exact reason for doing this, but it has something to do with concerns about time abuse. One can peruse the ICCF Congress minutes to find why this was so decided.
Gino Figlio (2007-12-17 19:53:21)
MPT
Hi Glen,
There is one type of ICCF tournament where conditionals are officially allowed, the money prize tournaments (MPT). Their time control is 10/30 and it was found reasonable to activate conditionals in order to allow players save some time.
Best regards,
Gino
Glen D. Shields (2007-12-18 06:24:08)
Thanks Gino
Thanks Gino for the clarification. The ICCF prize tournaments are a new offering and I've not updated myself on the tournament details. I need to do that!
May you and yours have a wonderful holiday season :-)
Glen D. Shields (2007-12-19 00:07:29)
Send a Note to ICCF
Hannes - if you want a complete answer to ICCF's rationale, or to argue about ICCF's bureaucratic practices, I suggest you post on the ICCF forum or write one of the ICCF officials. I posted only what I recall. I don't represent ICCF, nor am I here to defend ICCF's decisions.
I agree that CFC's secret conditional moves worked well. Whether conditional moves add value is not an unanimous opinion. Some like it for convenience. Others hate it and believe it adds to an already too fast game. Personally I could care less either way.
Glen D. Shields (2008-01-08 03:36:15)
What are the Costs I Wonder?
This lists income ... I am equally curious what it might cost to play full time. Unless a player has a sponsor surely there travel expenses and tournament fees to cover. Then, of course, there's all the behind the scene preparation to become the best.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-08 03:49:08)
Cost of passion
Hi Glen !
What are the costs to play full time, what's the cost of time, good question. One parameter is passion for sure, so the price may be not so high during the first years, but it is possible that the cost increases quickly as soon as a player reaches the top !? :)
Glen D. Shields (2008-01-08 04:10:25)
Other Expenses
Happy New Year Thibault!
Besides time, fees, travel there is also taxes and depending on where the player lives there may also be a need to pay towards retirement pensions, healthcare, etc.
My point ... $600,000 sounds like a lot, but when one factors in the whole enchillada, it's really not much money at all to be the very best in the world at your profession!
Glen D. Shields (2008-03-16 10:51:41)
ICCF
Andrew is correct. Computer use is not forbidden by ICCF nor IECG. Neither organization mentions computer use in its rules. The assumption is if it is not forbidden, it is allowed.
There are 0 results for Glen in wikichess.
... or search for Glen in FICGS via Google
[Chess rating list]
[Go ranking list]
[Chess & Go links]
[Chess forum]
[Players blog]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Encyclopedia] [Seo forums] [Discussions] [Buzz] [Meet people] [Directory] [Contact] [Legal informations]
[Encyclopedia] [Seo forums] [Discussions] [Buzz] [Meet people] [Directory] [Contact] [Legal informations]
