 |
| 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 Guy Gaetan in the games.
There are 75 results for Guy in the forum.
Hannes Rada (2006-04-11 21:03:24)
Titles
FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM. That's in my opinion a good compromise. Don't worry about the attacks of the guys in the Correspondence Chess Message Board. Just follow your dreams ....
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 :)
Kuzma Pecotic (2006-06-03 07:28:29)
Incorrect move
This is my game:
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_A__000003"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2006.04.22"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Pecotic,Kuzma"]
[Black "Sobrecases,Guy"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2179"]
[BlackElo "2105"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qc7 9.f4 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qb6 11.Bd3 Qxb2 12.O-O Qd4+ 13.Kh1 Ba6 14.Bxa6 Qxe4 15.Rb1 Qa4 16.Bd3 f5 17.*
For what reason: Incorrect move : 17.exf6
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-20 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.
John Knudsen (2006-07-06 06:41:08)
Leave/Reflection Time
Hi Thibault: I understand this now - thanks. And I like the limitation on accumulated reflection time - this is a great idea. Still, the stated reflection time was given as 30 days +1 per move, and when you are on leave, you are not moving. To award an extra day reflection time on days that you do not more (i.e., vacation) is not logical at all. Your reflection time should remain unchanged from the day that you last moved. Any smart guy that has not used leave, and is running out of time on his games will just take his 30 days leave, and presto - he has 30 days more reflection time. This possibility, by itself, makes the reflection time a joke, in my opinion. John
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-14 05:19:28)
Greetings from GameKnot :)
Hello friends, my name is Thomas, and I am the representative from GameKnot. We look forward to playing a match against you! GameKnot has played two matches vs. other sites in the past, and we have enjoyed the competition very much. It is my sincere hope that we can pull this thing off! As FICGS is a newer site with a smaller community than ours, we hope that you guys can field a team of approximately 12-20 players of ALL ratings ranges. We intend to put up at least 2 players in each of 7 ratings classes (U2400, U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400, and U1200). The rules of the match are currently being negotiated between Thibault and myself, and we would like to commence as soon as possible. I highly encourage the members of FICGS to participate, as these matches are a lot of fun! You guys will get a chance to visit our site, and we yours. Please contact Thibault and sign on! We look forward to seeing you OTB :)
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-16 23:46:58)
Udate from GameKnot:
I just wanted to give you guys a heads up as to the players from my site that are being CONSIDERED for playing in the match. As ratings fluctuate, I have simply rounded and given approximate strength: mateintwo - 2400+ cyrano - 2400+ cairo - 2300+ fmgaigin - 2300+ drdesoto - 2300+ papani - 2300+ harlekin - 2300+ nestorix - 2300+ drunken_rabbit - 2200+ kumpan - 2200+ grandpatzer - 2200+ os5213 - 2200+ carlosmart - 2200+ chrisp - 2100+ nottop - 2100+ gloomy_den - 1900+ thumper - 1700+ gwalchmai - 1600+ tugger - 1600+ yanm - 1500+ mattw - 1500+ patagusto - 1500+ tag1153 - 1400+ cjjpeterson - 1400+ simian9 - 1400+ eqj2 - 1400+ hollcanna - 1300+ dewillget8 - 1200+ mozz - 1200+ These GameKnot players have expressed an interest in playing. More will sign on I'm sure, as I have set Oct 1, 2006 as the sign up deadline. I will put together our team during the first week of October, and will be ready to commence play by the second week of October. During the interim, Thibault and I will finalize the details of the match. I realize that this short list is very master and expert heavy, but have no worries - I will be contacting more of our A, B, C, and D class players and asking them to participate. We look forward to the match:) Thomas
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-18 12:55:35)
My friends at FICGS:
I am a little concerned, yet understanding, of your feelings about the possibility of cheating in our proposed match. Please understand that there are two sides to the suspicion coin. For those of you who are not familiar with the GameKnot website, let me assure you that I will only be putting up players who I am familiar with, and who have proven themselves to play honorably. I am a three year veteran of GameKnot, and play on the site daily. I will be selecting my team from players whom I feel confident will conduct themselves within the rules we agree on. The intent of arranging this match is NOT to simply put up all of our master level players and attempt to whitewash you guys 100-0. The intent is to provide as MANY matches of ALL ratings ranges for a fun, competetive match. If we lose every match we will have no hard feelings towards you. As the game results in our proposed match will have no bearing on ratings changes, we view the match as a simple, friendly exercise. So, having said all of that, we hope that FICGS will offer up as many people as possible, and Thibault and myself will pair them with my guys in such a way that is FAIR and equitable to both sides. Should anyone here at FICGS have any questions, please feel free to post them here or in the GameKnot forum (in the GameKnot Related threads). Thanks:) - Thomas
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-09-30 09:41:27)
Re: Legitimacy
Hey, you don't have the chance of asking a GM a question every day! :)
Nigel, since my limited database and research resources here didn't allow me to know if you played a game against Kramnik, much less if you ever had a nice chat with him, I'd like to know if you did and if you really believe that he'd be the kind of guy that would go out and organize a WC Cicle on his own, like Kasparov did (well, tried)?
I take this match as a display he is willing to expose himself in order to get things straight once and for all, but going to the business side of the game is for those that really want to risk a lot to get things done.
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.
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-10-05 11:42:35)
Re:
Basically, I'm playing to force myself to learn. In July, when I began my first game in FICGS, I knew nothing and had nobody to teach me. Since the probabilities of me ever having a tutor are dim, I knew I had to learn alone.
FICS won't cut it, because the guys at my level generally memorize a line and go for it until the bitter end. Having no opening knowledge I would generally end up in a bad spot until the midgame, where I can handle myself better. I rarely got past move 15 there.
OTB won't do for me, because I don't even know if there's a chess club in my city. I had a neighbor that used to play with me, but I quickly got past him on knowledge.
Studying database games is just not my style. I can't get drawn into the game if I'm not playing. If I choose the bad move I have to feel threatened by it, it has to have a consequence to me.
Thus, I'm here at FICGS. Before every move I'm able to analyze it and how the line goes forward, to understand why it is a good move. Plus, I'm able to test the moves that come to my head and check them (generally to find out they are outright suicidal).
In the end, I think my opponent wins something back, which is an entertaining and hopefully instructive game.
P.S.: BTW, just so you know, I play clean on FICS and OTB. I think those are, after some time at FICGS, becoming instructive environments on their own right.
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-10-08 02:40:55)
Thibault
12 of my 13 are ready. If my player ritt doesn't register with you within 48 hours, I propose to simply drop him from the match, as I don't have a fair match for Charlie Neil (I do have many higher rated players if he really wants to play). Let me know, and please explain to me the format here on FICGS as you guys only play tournament style - are you going to set up a tourney especially for our match? Get with me tonight or tomorrow, as we hope to start the match Monday:) Thanks - Thomas
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-10-10 01:32:29)
Thibault
I can't seem to find FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_GAMEKNOT_MATCH .....is it up and running yet? I need to research the "how to's" and explain them to my guys. I'll post my guys names on FICGS sometime tonight. - - - Thomas
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-10-12 05:45:51)
Yes I got them...let's begin!
I see we still need 3 GK ids from you guys. The other 9 are ready to begin. I will be messaging GK players with their opponents right away, and instructing them to begin. Let me know when your other 3 guys are ready.......Thomas
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-13 19:33:35)
Re: Game of time ?!?!
Strange... that's the word. But I'm quite sure he's a strange guy too :)
Hannes Rada (2006-10-14 00:03:36)
Tactics ?
Hi Wolfgang, I am playing against this guy in FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000002 But I do not have a problem with this tactic, if it can be called a tactic. Maybe it should be simply called Zeitnot .... Why do you bother about that ? It's wíthin the rules.
John Acre (2006-10-30 22:09:15)
lowball
I absolutely use an engine. The permitted use of engines is the only reason I'm at this site to begin with..... ........... ........... ........... ............. .............. ........... Engine assisted games can be a great study tool, if used correctly. I analyze each position to the best of my ability, record my candidate moves. Select one, record it, and then feed the position into Fritz to see how it evaluates the position......... ........... ............ ............. ........... ............. ............... ............. If my move is in the same ballpark, I make my selected move, I feel fricking great, and I await my opponent's reply. If my move is substantially inferior to Fritz's selection, I try to figure out why, and then I play Fritz's move. This way, not only do I get to understand the positions rising out of my chosen opening in a depth I could otherwise never approach without professional guidance, but each step of the way, I learn to play the next move's position as if the strongest move had been played............. ............ ........... ............. ............ ........... ........... .......... .......... If an opponent blunders in a big way, I mostly let Fritz finish him off, because the game is of no study value to me beyond that point. I don't care what my rating is, except that it be at a number where I can join a variety of rated tournaments (to face a variety of opposition). I don't play at this site to win, or to lose. I play here to get as close as a ~1600 OTB player like me can get to understanding the objective truth of the game............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ............. ............ ........ Sorry if that upsets anybody, but that's the whole reason I'm here. The community isn't big enough to have much independent value as a non-engine-assisted place to play correspondence matches. And why would one bother? There are a million of those places on the web. This place, however, is a one-of-a-kind goldmine. If engine play were to dry up or be outlawed here, what would be the point?....... ........... .......... ........ ........... ......... ........ ........... ............ .......... Anyway, to answer, from my viewpoint, another question asked in this thread, I'm currently self-rated at 1500 for this site. I'm playing in tournaments at about that level, and am admittedly using Fritz 9. My record, out of 20 or so games, looks like it's going to be about 4 wins, 6 losses, and 10 draws......... ............ ........... ............ ............ ............ ........... ............. ...... Only two of those wins are going to be miniatures, and both of those against the same guy. So playing with engine-assisted strength of around 2500 on my slow-ish machine, I'm going to score around 45%, with about 17 out of 18 opponents playing at or above my machine-enhanced strength............... ........... ............. ............ ........ ............ ........... People guessing 50% of users here use engines are lowballing, bigtime. I estimate around 95%. And I have no problem saying that I'm one of them.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-03 20:18:14)
Rating change
Ahhhhhh. I just dont understand this I guess, I am confused, my TER at start of tourny was also 1400. This does not make sense to me. Guess the only way I am gonna find out is for this guy to draw. In that vain I will force a playing draw, if the 50 rule does not do it for me. Thank you Wayne
Julien Baudement (2006-11-06 14:01:46)
End of the game
I lost my game against mozz ! One more point for them !! sorry guys !
Don Groves (2006-11-13 06:26:54)
Wow...
... and I thought I was an old guy. Salutations and congratulations to Mr. Macarsindale! Oh, and welcome also :-)
Daniel Khayman (2006-11-21 20:38:51)
many thanks
thank you guys, i appreciate your concern; i'll send you an e-mail immediately, Wayne. and thanks to this site too.
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-12-06 23:49:30)
oops.......
sorry guys....make that 8 to 4! GameKnot. My apologies............Thomas
Lennart Oberg (2006-12-16 11:35:56)
Change, please!!!!!
I´m new here, playing my first tour. and 2 guys make a few moves and then let the clocks run. Solution, every move within ( 3, 7, 10 days ) or you forfeit. That´s life in live chess! Regards, Lennart Oberg
Benjamin Aldag (2007-02-04 22:26:09)
To Marc Lacrosse
Hey guy, come down !
I just say, it makes more fun to play without computer-assistence.
I play here, because i will never reach the level of computerplayers and my opponents are in 99% free of computer-assistence. I dont want to be a slave of my computer and in my opinion is this the right way.
I know 9 people here with an official rating between 1500 and 1600 ELO(DWZ) and here they have a rating between 2200 and 2300. :-D<br
You say, with only computermoves you will never reach the highest level here and i can say - YOU ARE RIGHT !
Players with a FIDE ELO 2200 and higher will have here a rating over 2600 and they will not only play computermoves. But i play chess for two years and have an official FIDE rating of 1822 and believe me, it makes no sense for me to play with computer-assistence.
yk
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-26 11:29:35)
How Life imitates Go
..any takers?
From what you guys write it looks more promising than Life imitating Chess.. --for if Chess can be programmed, can Life ever be ? ;-)
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-30 10:59:09)
Part 3 is out ..(yawn)...
Okey, Okey, guys, that's not bad for an introduction of e-mail(?!) CC techniques for beginners..
But to be honest you shouldn't be wasting your time in this series and start doing more useful things like implementing the XfccBasic client protocol for correspondence chess servers. Even the IECG server has not ruled out its adoption later (hope you neither, Thibault ;).
But this must be done tout de suite, and the tooter the sweeter, as said. ;-)
Achim Mueller (2007-04-21 09:59:26)
One additional thought
Take this sample of group 12, where we actually play a tournament with 4 participants. A player with the nominell highest rating can easily play on draw (using todays computer programs) in the one or two important games.
You all probably know how difficult it is to win against such a blocking guy, no matter whether your "realistic" rating would be equal to his or 200 ELO points better.
Ciao
acepoint
Achim Mueller (2007-04-22 23:55:20)
Final statement
Guys, I see that noone has a plausible answer. Doesn't matter. I only made the hopeless attempt to understand the logic of the rules and what is behind it. Don't mind. I'm probably too stupid for it.
See you at iccf or bdf.
Ciao
acepoint
Catalin Ionescu (2007-04-23 16:34:15)
Good Job!
So you are the guy who defeated Anand :) ... I saw only the last 10 moves of your game.
Anyway congratulations for this victory !!!
Marc Lacrosse (2007-04-30 07:44:25)
hmm
... who is that guy ?
:-)
Sandor Marton-Bardocz (2007-04-30 11:54:47)
WCH Stage 1 rules
Hi everyone! Let me introduce my self :-) I'm the highest rated player in the Wch stage 1 group 12 "the blocking guy" how Achim described me...whatever that means.. 1. there is no dead draw in my opinion likewise there is no absolute winning lines, openings in a chess game...And this is most true in our "centaur, human-engine tandem" era where lines are very "unstable" to say the least..so I don't believe that one can play for a absolute draw without any risk..avoiding complicated variations...the variations complexity is very relativ...line can be "cristal clear" for one and most complicated for other..In my opinion high rates of draws among world class cc player isn't because they all play for draws ...It's a tendency..like it was in otb chess among super gm-s...not long ago...until the "no draw alowed" rules were aplied...i don't want to speculate why this happens.. 2. If someone really want to win...then should play for a win ...no matter what regulations are applied for that particular tournament 3. I think that if someone might want to take a look to the game that I played against mister Deeb in the same tournament ...starting from the move 17 of mine...hardly can to argue that I wanted to play for draws just to achieve equal points to advance. I think that none of the engines can even "smell" the outcome of the game in that position after 17..d5!?...so...saying that nowdays it's easier to achieve draws because of engines....it's a little bit exaggerated The plan started with the move 17 ...d5!? that I have played it was an absolute rejection of a drawish (by repetation) position...and it was played just because i wanted to ...play.. not to advance in a higher stage of the tournament or something...even though the final outcome ( just in my opinion! and this isn't an absolute true by far) is probably ...still a draw. 4. The regulations regarding the advance in the higher stages of the tournament..now this are definitly arguable!there are pro's and con's...and always be. We don't have plausible answers for this kind of issues...because it's is a subjectiv matter. I'm not convinced too that "higher rated player advance"is the right regulation..few examples...just look for example ...Kramnik - Leko WCH . a. ..challenger and his fans can say.."hey he didn't beat him...why should remain WChampion?! He didn't proved that he is better!" b. ..Wchampion and his fans can say.."hey u want my crown?! than beat me, and take it! draw isn't enough!" The line of examples doesn't stops here ..i don't want to prolong this subject...No rule can satisfy both sides...polemics, flame are always present :-) 5. None can predict what will be the process in a group...If 2-3 or even 4 players changes they mind and doesn't really play..that's it, and none can't do a thing about that ...maybe some sanctions later...i don't believe it will do any good anyway... 6. In the game betwen me and Achim...I don't think that I choosed a draw line...I think that I had the initiative but probably it wasn't enough for a win, Achim overforced it ....which isn't a bad thing but probably not with the plan he had preferred. good day for everyone!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-01 00:57:44)
Achim's answer
Achim Mueller asked to close his account, but he wanted to respond to Wolfgang & Sandor, here's his answer :
"A last clarification:
@Wolfgang Utesch: I wasn't aware of the "ELO-prefering" rule and I still don't find it here on the webpage. I opened a thread here in this forum and besides "then win all your games" or "in this case we ensure that the better player will qualify" there were no substantial arguments for this pretty unused and unknown rule (not that I agree with these two "arguments"!). Nonetheless I accepted the rule for this tournament.
My decision to give up and leave this server is based on an easy calculation how many games I have to play here to get a - what I call - competitive rating that somehow equals the advantage, players with a nominal rating of 2200 - 2500 will have in every tournament where this rule exists. Because my time is limited my decision was to leave the server, that's all. I don't complain, I don't take anything as an excuse. It's simple as it is: I gave it a try here, became aware of the rule and decided this is the wrong place for me, ok?
@Sandor Marton-Bardocz : I didn't say with any word that you are a blocking guy. This was a _general_ thesis how the player with the best rating can take an overwhelming advantage at this ruling. All good players (ask anyone in the region of 2400up at remoteschach, dbf, iecg or iccf) will confirm that it is most difficult to get 3.5 point out of 4 if at least 2 players know how to use computers and choose certain openings.
Finally ... ficgs is a nice place to play, the interface is good and I assume Thibault put a lot of work into it. So, enjoy your games here, but also accept that from time to time there might be players that will leave because of certain issues.
Ciao
Achim"
Rules (and chess WCH rules) - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Thanks Achim. Best wishes & have good games :)
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-18 17:02:08)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
Hello Thibauld, You can surely count on me, in case you might need a guy rated -2300 in your team. Anyways, good luck to you in the upcoming match. I know a lot of the igame team players; it's true that they are pretty strong, but they are as much arrogant and highbrow about their chess skills. It might stand them in bad stead in the long run. Lol!
Dmitry Mendeleev (2007-06-19 12:00:37)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
Hi, guys! Nice to meet you here. Hope to play some exciting games
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-22 14:49:55)
Ukrainian
As to the Ukranian version, I can be of no help here. :) Sure, Andrew Sumets is the right guy to do that, should he feels that way. You can ask him for contribution. As to the rest of the missing versions, I've no idea who can take trouble to do them. :) Cheers, Alex
Mircea Hrubaru (2007-06-26 22:40:08)
that is disgusting
Hi Thibault and all others! Given the current circumstances and bad words, I am glad I was not selected to play vs guys at iGame.ru. I will continue playing here, but with a bitter feeling... Best wishes, Mircea
Hannes Rada (2007-07-14 17:17:17)
Austrians :-)
Yes and there are 2 Austrian guys in the semifinals :-) Furthermore I know all players, have played against them, except my fellow countryman W. Riemer, who I am afraid did not realize that he is qualified for the semifinal ... :-)
Christophe Czekaj (2007-08-29 18:23:05)
So what ?
Good idea ! Come on FICG'S guys ! Let's do it.
Jason Repa (2007-09-06 22:30:19)
Canada
We can't leave Canada out of this thread. After all, we're home to the guy (the late Abe Yanofsky) who was Canadian champion many times, and who gave Fischer the longest game of his career. Fischer had the black end of a Najdorf and finally ground poor Abe down to get the full point in the 112 move marathon. It was RNPP vs RBP way back at move 55
Yanofsky was able to hold Fischer to a draw with the black end of a Caro Kann in their next (and final) encounter six years later. Even getting so much as a draw against the great RJF, especially with the black pieces, is quite the accomplishment. Just ask GM Bisguier, who lost 13 straight games to him.
Getting back to the present, the current Canadian champion is the young Nikolay Noritsyn.
Ulrich Imbeck (2007-09-08 02:23:05)
chessage.com,schachtrainer.de
The guy from chessage.com (schachtrainer.de) scripted also his site himself.
Hannes Rada (2007-09-09 23:00:48)
unfair ?
Why should conditionals be unfair ? I've no idea why the ICCF guys disabled it. But I know that ICCF is a very bureaucratic organisation and even the smallest change on their server takes a very long time and will be discussed to death ....
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 22:39:03)
Chat Rules
Calling someone a hypocrite, who is indeed a hypocrite, as evidenced by their behavior, is neither provocative, nor is it an insult, any more than calling someone who steals for a living a thief.
The best way to prevent chat abuse is to punish the party who STARTS it. Obviously a coward will use various devices in order to try to get away with it, such as trying to pass off the insult as a joke, etc. Thibault, despite English not being your primary language, you're clearly an intelligent enough guy to figure out when someone is trying to start an argument by being offensive. My belief is that this is the party at fault, not the person who is defending themself. But if your policy is to limit access to the first person who starts the ad-hominem or disparaging remarks, then there would not be a need for responding. But I'm not sure why you seem to be placing the focus on the the responder to an offensive post, and not the real culprit who starts the flaming in the first place. Nothing happens until someone starts something.
Obviously butting into a conversation that has nothing to do with them and ordering someone to "cool down" is clearly both provocative and offensive. (...) [moderator : partly deleted]
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2007-09-18 06:20:30)
Hmm...
Wouldn't it be better to ask Peter what he thinks about this? I know some people that would actually be offended if the opponent withdrew, even if they took the upper hand because of that. This is an issue that should be discussed between Peter and Gino only, IMHO.
And for the next championship (and I'm just one guy rambling here, with hardly any chance of getting there), perhaps it could be arranged that the opponents just played 8-game matches until one of them is won. It'll take more time, but it it seems the only way it won't look fishy for one side or the other. (And sorry if fishy is a strong word.)
Garvin Gray (2007-09-23 11:04:14)
lotto
Would you guys also want my lotto number predictions :o
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-25 10:28:20)
Match
I have to say guys having worked quite a bit now with Rybka (single procesor version) it has some flaws defending against attacking positions - sometimes underestimating the attackers chances and not just in irrational or very complex positions. So whatever the role of opening books (obviously big) I am not surprised at the result so far. Thats to take nothing away from Rybka - great program.
Dinesh De Silva (2007-10-22 09:27:29)
Re:
Haha!!! You might be correct after all. Lets keep a look out for a humorous guy who likes to dabble in a lot of political talk & who has immense playing skill.
Xuan Feng (2007-11-19 01:36:27)
how to start a go game?
hi guys, can someone show me how to start a game. is this server a real time go server?
Xuan Feng (2007-11-19 02:00:07)
so
you guys play games by email ?
Yugi Inving (2007-12-20 04:56:16)
Traxler
I take both colour on this oppening, just can i understand why you guys do Fxf2. now i know that this bishop is poisoned ( i am tired of losing agaisn't rybka for this reason.) and does letting my enemy do their 0-0 or 0-0-0 is bad
Hao Nhien Nguyen (2008-01-30 10:02:33)
Rating from the other site.
I've got a rating of 1834 in chesshere.com. Can I get this rating here?
Hao Nhien Nguyen (2008-01-30 10:04:16)
Under-10-move checkmate
What about under-10-move checkmate? Will the winner get the point?
Hao Nhien Nguyen (2008-02-02 03:35:39)
Chinese chess
Chinese chess is the most loved chess game in my country, Vietnam and in many other Asian countries. So, if Chinese chess is available, this site is better.
Arnab Sengupta (2008-04-15 18:07:00)
RATING
Thanks guys..... well it would be nice if FIDE itself starts a correspondence game system....
Arnab Sengupta (2008-04-16 18:58:26)
FIDE
guys, wont it would be great if FIDE starts a correspondence game system or server play, which it will recognize....well someone should raise this issue to FIDE
Thibault de Vassal (2008-04-19 14:05:51)
Playchess freestyle
Congrats guys & good luck ! :)
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 21:54:09)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!
"Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response!"
That's not obvious at all. What's obvious is that I beat you quite easily when you and I played cc so you're far from being any kind of authority whatsoever!
"1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily"
I just finished trying to explain to you, in the way a young child should be able to understand, that there is more to think about in chess than trying to play what current theory considers to be the best try for an opening advantage. Yet here you are rambling on about the same nonsense you were in your previous posts. Was Fischer's 2.d3 against the French the objectively strongest move? Even against (and perhaps especially against) computers, it can sometimes be better to play sidelines or moves which may serve to confuse an opponent. Is the King's Indian Attack the best try for an opening advantage for White? Probably not. But it was used by Kasparov to defeat Deep Blue. If you still can't understand the concept I've been trying to teach you, after several posts, I don't know what more I can do for you. Just keep mindlessly playing what established theory tells you are the strongest lines,(without having even the incipience of an understanding as to why) and keep mindlessly trusting the evaluations your program gives you, and you'll keep getting CRUSHED by guys like me.
"1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side."
After this statement, if I didn't know better, I would have thought you were someone who just learned how to set up the pieces. It might be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. Does 1.e4 develop a piece? How about 1.d4? I suppose those moves are "a waste in cc" as well. We should all be playing 1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3 according to you, lol.
1.f4 grabs space. It stakes out influence both in the center and on the kingside. It effectively prevents 1...e5 (lest White goes into a dubious gambit system) as an alternative to other moves which achieve this. There are also other intangibles that are part of the picture, such as the psychological effect the move may have, the lack of preparation an opponent may have against it, etc. If you ever began to understand chess at a level beyond just plugging moves into a program, you might start to appreciate that allowing concessions (such as the slight weakening of the White kingside resulting from 1.f4) is all part of the game. Fischer's famous quote: "you gotta give squares to get squares" is a famous example. If allowing static liabilities were something to be avoided at all cost, you'd never see a Sicilian Scheveningen. It allows all sorts of weaknesses.
As for your so called "analysis". It's a complete joke! For starters, you're "analyzing" a game resulting from the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening. I line I've never played in my life, let alone here on FICGS. Is this how you try to win an argument/debate? By misrepresenting the facts? An intelligent person who genuinely felt that their argument had a leg to stand on, would simply take one of the 4 games I provided to you and do some analysis from there. Showing where Black could have improved. Then finally, after trying to "score points" with examples of the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening, which I have never played, you post a game where White played poorly and lost to a lower rated player. As if that's never happened before in chess, lol. You don't even know enough to post the date of the game. I couldn't find this game on any of my databases(totally over 4,000,000 games), so if you didn't just make it up out of thin air, perhaps you got more wrong, such as the actual moves that were played, in addition to incorrectly stating: <BR><BR>"Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." <BR><BR> Is it Black that lost here or White?
I took a brief look at the game, and it's hardly representative of proper play by White. 7.h3 was dubious at best. I prefer 7.Ne5. White then misses another opportunity to play the knight to e5 after 7...c5. Then 9.g4? is a gross thematic mistake. The only thing this game proves is that you're completely incapable of discussing chess in an intelligent way. Real chess players look for games that illustrate the critical lines for both sides, and try to arrive at some actual insights.
There is a reason I crushed you when we played cc last year.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 23:08:30)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!
"I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable"
You would. But we all know what happened to you when you and I played chess. I beat you in 33 moves. And we can see how not only do you not provide a game that's at least somewhat representative of the critical lines of the opening, but you can't even figure out when the supposed game was played, or whether or not White or Black won, and you only post a tiny fraction of it to boot. So evidently, what YOU think is not exactly to be regarded in high esteem here. Most people wouldn't have required my explanation where I described quite clearly how there have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today. They would already understand on their own, or would at least be intelligent enough to look up the information without having to have their hand held and have it spoon fed to them. But even after all this, you STILL don't understand. And you mention Christian Bauer who only pissed around with 1.b4 when he was playing opponents 400 elo LOWER RATED! One of his fabulous wins this year, that you were alluding to, was against 1861 rated Jacques Decamps, lol. The rest of the time they were 2100-2300. Has he ever played 1.b4 against another GM? (never mind super GM, as 1.f4 has many times been played against)
An opening move like 1.b4 might be fairly compared to something such as 1.g4. You won't see any dedicated chapter in MCO to either of those openings, but they're at least interesting enough to warrant some discussion in the "misc flank openings" chapter. 1.f4 might better be compared to something like Larsen's 1.b3. A sound sideline.
You want to talk about ratings? I've had to build up my rating from starting at the default of 1700, by winning 117 games (one of them against you), because I wasn't aware when I opened the account that the admin would let you start with your established elo. It's not surprising I played Sandor Porkulab a lot of times, as we both were very active playing a lot of games. Unlike you who started with the advantage of an inflated rating, which was somewhat tempered after that beating I gave you last year.
Sometimes in correspondence chess people abandon games and don't log in again. This was the case with Sandor Porkulab, although I had already beaten him a few times in games that were played to completion, and he wasn't better in any of the games that were abandoned. You're lying through your teeth there, or perhaps you're just too incompetent and dishonest to assess the games objectively. Why would Porkulab have 7 games against me where he was "level or better" when I had already beaten the guy every time we played before that? Did you even look at those games? Or is this just your pathetic way of trying to "score points" by using lies and deception? Additionally, the way the elo system works is that even if you do get a few easy points from say a win from an abandoned game that perhaps might have ended in a draw, that gain is quickly diluted and your rating naturalized as you play more games, because you win less points when you win,(or draw a higher rated opponent) and lose more when you lose (or draw a lower rated opponent), than you would have if you didn't receive those points. I've played many games since then and my rating here is probably where it would have been If I had not played Porkulab at all. Or if not already will soon be. So this is a pretty weak argument from you. A better argument is the fact that I CRUSHED you in 33 moves when we played. Porkolab at least gave me a decent fight when I played him. That's more than I can say for you. I felt like all I had to do was outsmart a machine when you and I played. I didn't have to worry about any human judgment from a real chess player getting in the way of my victory!
As for me getting a lost position after 17 moves against someone? For starters, I've played about 190 games here. What have you played.....32? And I think that's a testament to the fact that, unlike you, I'm a REAL chess player, so my goal here isn't to simply try to win the most online CC games to try to give myself some artificial illusion of ability. I don't always play what I consider to be the objectively best moves because I like to experiment and LEARN SOMETHING from the time I spend here. But having said that, I STILL outperform you greatly, and crushed you when we played last year. I'm also higher rated with a higher future rating, even though you had the advantage of started with a boosted initial rating. So much for what you "think" you know about the strongest moves in cc, lol. And your future rating is only 2247, not 2300+. If you want to discuss what might happen after some of your current games are resolved, don't sell me short at 2316, which is already a given. Talk about the 2370+ I expect to have after some of MY current games are resolved. If you want to argue/debate with someone, learn to do it in an intelligent and fair way. So far all you've accomplished is to lose the paltry amount of credibility you once had.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 08:25:55)
When will this troll stop?
This is hilarious! You've got a guy (and I use the term loosely) who goes WAY out of his way to insult, harass, and annoy, now trying to pass himself off as holier-than-thou. He's even following me around from thread to thread with the sole purpose of abuse and provocation. If I say the sky is blue, he'll say green. If I say 2+2=4, he'll say there is no proof of that. This character will not stop trying to provoke, as this thread proves.
I start an innocent thread describing an interesting game I played with someone. He immediately starts criticizing my choice of chess openings, made all the more laughable because I CRUSHED the guy in chess, and am significantly higher rated than he is. Perhaps this is what is fueling his little tirade. He then proceeds to post links to off-topic discussions that occurred 4-5 years ago as further harassment. And this is the same individual who is whining about, of all things, Netiquette? Irony to the EXTREME!
His latest tactic is to incessantly suck up to the site admin by making repeated hybrid posts which are intended to harass me while worshiping the admin. We'll see his signature phrase "I agree with Thibault" over and over again ad-nausiam. As if this somehow buys him respite for the provocative and abusive comments he CONTINUES to make towards me.
Although you're probably used to being in that position, please get off your knees and stop brown nosing Stephenson. It's pathetic. And before you start talking about Netiquette, please learn what the term means yourself. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you did.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:08:20)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a <1500 otb player, such as yourself Mr. Stephenson, wouldn't be able to figure out something that any normal 6 year old child would have no difficulty with. But then again, during our chess game in which I crushed you, I had the feeling I wasn't dealing with a mental heavyweight, to put it mildly. I'll hold your hand and explain it to you since there is probably no 6 year old child where you live to help you:
The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess, GO, backgammon, etc."Elo" is often written in capital letters (ELO), but it is not an acronym. It is the family name of the system's creator, Arpad Elo (1903–1992, born as Élő Árpád), a Hungarian-born American physics professor. The Elo rating system has been adopted by many different organizations, including the USCF, CFC, FIDE, and others, as well as various online gaming servers.
My national elo rating is indeed over 2000, Stephenson. And yours is under 1500, as you've already confirmed.
I already beat you very easily in chess Stephenson. You're the little guy with something to prove here, not me.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:36:18)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What a <1500 player like yourself "has always taken" is meaningless. What is objectively true and factual is what counts. As has been explained to you repeatedly, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings, not even to chess in fact. Are you beginning to understand or still confused?
Also, there is no simple (deduct x) formula to get a FIDE equivalent. Sometimes a national rating is worth more than a FIDE rating. There are various factors to consider.
There is no "magic" about a FIDE rating. You just need to play in FIDE rated events. I've beaten many FIDE rated players otb, including FMs. It's really no big deal.
I never said 2000 was some sort of "high rating", so don't start with the lies again Stephenson. But compared to a guy like you who is rated under 1500, I'm like a more evolved being. Is that why you're so frustrated to the point of stalking me as you're doing? Is it a combination of that and the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess? When are you going to get over that? When are you going to stop whining and crying?
Why don't we play fact to face otb chess, if you have lots of Euro to throw around as you're claiming. Fly to Canada and I'll play you a match for 5000 euro. First to win 6 games or something like that. I'd probably have to spot you 5/6 just to make the match somewhat competitive.
I never challenged you to bullet chess, my <1500 rated acquaintance, but that would be the only other way to play human mind vs human mind chess. I'm certainly not about to fly to the third world country you live in, just to beat some "C" class chess player in person.
Let's take a little tally here. I've already beaten you at correspondence chess, and you've made it clear you want no part of playing chess at time controls that doesn't allow you to consult your program, so I've effectively won that as well. What is left? Arm wrestling? I kinda like my chances there too!
Hannes Rada (2008-05-13 22:16:55)
Boring
Why don't you guys not use the private message feature .... instead of spamming this thread ? Is anybody else interested in this trash ?
Hannes Rada (2008-05-14 20:10:41)
Jason's query
Jason, I gave up OTB chess some 20 years ago. So I have no OTB rating (anymore) Playing in my chessclub was not and ist not compatible with my working hours. CC is perfect for me. Analyzing and making move later in the evening when I am returning from work, or whenever I can find time. It's wise to play the strongest possible opponents. But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength. Too many variables may influence the players chess abilities. (Too many games at the same time, lack of motivation, ....) On the other side an ambitious 1800 Elo newcomer can sometimes more dangerous than an "old" CC-GM. FICGS is quite a nice community. Here you have the chance to raise your rating and play against the higher rated players pretty soon compared with ICCF. But your "strong opponent experience" will end here around 2500 - 2550. Raising your rating in ICCF takes much more time (because tournaments are slower) but when you've established yourselve at a certain level than you have the chance to play the > 2700 guys like van Osteroom & Co :-) But at this level correspondence chess is no fun anymore. I've talked to GM Peter Hertel from Germany several years ago and he told me that he had to analyze and work on his cc - chess positions around 10 hours per day to compete at this level .... if you are retired or jobless and a billionaire (van Osteroom) than you have the best chances of winning an ICCF championship final .... :-) Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities ? I've talked to several players regarding this issue and I received different answers. From: Yes I benefit from my cc-opening experience To: No, these are absolutely different stories. OTB requires the abilites to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours. All things which are absolutely not necessary for cc. My experience for the short time frame when I played both otb + cc is that for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc.
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb
"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."
I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.
But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.
"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"
I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.
"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"
I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.
I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.
"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."
I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.
Hannes Rada (2008-05-15 23:06:25)
Openings
Hi Andrew, " It certainly seems a lot easier to get a draw against e4 at cc." I've the same feeling. But the top player vanOsteroom prefers definitely 1.e4 ! Does anybody know if 1.e4 or 1.d4 is played more often here at FICGS ? "He played it 3 times including the critical line 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 etc and got 3 draws against opposition of 2150, 2300 and 2400." Can this be considered as a success ? 50 % against lower rated opponents ? Normally Benoni is played when you want or have to win with black ... However Hector Walsh seems to have some fighting spirit. Andrew do you know the IECG server ? From time to time I get invitations from the IECG guys for their tournamengs, but never played there.
Jason Repa (2008-05-16 00:23:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
Geez Stephenson, I thought you were done stalking and harassing me and had found something else to amuse your little mind with. Something shiny and metallic perhaps? But here you are continuing your trollish ways.
Actually, what this thread is REALLY about, is a pathetic little character who doesn't handle losing at chess very well. As was stated before, it's pretty sad that you don't have any chess games of your own worthy of publication or discussion, so you post one of mine and continue to rant, and rant, and rant about nonsense. I already BEAT YOU in chess. Quite easily, in fact. Could there be anything mo