 |
| Home |
| Informations |
| Login |
| Register |
| Waiting lists |
| Membership |
| Hall of fame |
| Tournaments |
| Best game |
| Wikichess |
| Rating list |
| Problems |
| Forum |
| Links |
| Help |
| About |
|
Game result (chess) J. Riha, 1953 F. Vasquez, 2073 1/2-1/2 See game 24763 |
|
André Diamant wins Brazilian Chess Championship W. Utesch wins the 2nd FICGS candidates final Veselin Topalov wins Pearl Spring in Nanjing Miroshnichenko wins Ukrainian Championship 2008 Vassily Ivanchuk wins Benidorm tournament 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 more chess news... |
|
Chi-Min Oh 7d wins London open Lee Sedol 9p beats Kang Dongyun in Korean Myeongin Kong Jie & Lee Sedol will play Samsung Cup final Crazy Stone wins Computer Go UEC Cup in Tokyo Fan Hui 2p wins Paris Meijin title 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 ? |
|
Feel free to link to this page to get referer backlinks to your website ! |
Want your banner here ? |
There are 0 results for Sandor in the games.
There are 12 results for Sandor in the forum.
Sandor Marton-Bardocz (2007-01-16 18:29:21)
Conditional Move
Hi there! I noticed that there was a topic regarding conditional moves but it is closed. I think that conditional moves, aren't a bad thing after all..it should be implemented..Just think about the first moves of a game....for now, even the weakest players play theory ( fritz database or something)and this implies that the first moves will be played rather fast...Then why spend time clicking around to get to the games on a starting tournament over&over again, just to play the well known moves? U can overcome the "irritation" issue by limitating the use of conditional moves. Let's say every player has the right to use for example ...10 conditional moves in the begining of the game (in the first 15 moves for example). After that in 10 to 10 moves have let's say 2 possibilities to use conditional moves...This way it's erradicated the annoyance of countless use of premoves. Btw. I think that the example of those players who might use Fritz or whatever chessprogram to play, and then premove the lines indicated by the engine isn't really good..Only if the opponnent against whom they use it ...playes using the same lines indicated by ....an engine :-) Otherwise I can't realise how on earth the replied moves can be the same and matching with....or those lines are really forced..and if that is the case then the use of premoves is normal. Thank You.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-17 11:24:53)
Conditional Move
Hello Sandor.
Still I have no time enough to implement this major change :/ .. This question, premove / conditional moves, will be debated again & again anyway.
My best. Thibault
Sandor Marton-Bardocz (2007-03-19 15:43:51)
Leader update inacurracy
In the FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_M__000005 tournament..
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-19 16:59:14)
Leader update inacurracy
Hello Sandor.
This list is updated about every 15 days, not in real time... It just has been updated ;)
Sandor Marton-Bardocz (2007-03-19 18:23:29)
Perf
What is perf in cross table, and how is it calculated?
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 (2007-04-30 22:34:37)
WCH rules
Thanks Sandor & Wolfgang for sharing your views.
As you said, there's no perfect rule for everyone, particularly in a correspondence chess championship, where time is a predominant factor. As for me, I like much FICGS rules so far because of these major points :
1) The best players have the best chances.
2) A new cycle can start every 6 months.
3) There's no external influence in a knockout tournament.
I think the lowest rated player has to prove he's stronger than the highest rated player or champion, so it's coherent in round-robin and knockout tournaments. I particularly like the special rule in the knockout tournament (stage 1, 2 & 3). I'm now playing an exciting quarter final against Wolfgang, that I'm to lose because of this rule - the winner is the player with the strongest TER is all games are draw, the player with the lowest TER if not all games are draw - even if it finishes with a 4-4 score. Simply because I'll lose most probably at least one game. I think it's fair ! .. I knew the rule (of course, I made it :)), I knew I had to draw all games or to win by one point at least. Rules are the game ! .. It's not more unfair than to draw a game with one or two pawns more ;)
However I agree that WCH round-robin tournaments should be 9, 11 or 13 players groups to give more place to chess. I'll take care of this in the next cycle.
Finally, not only rules are to be taken in consideration... To attract players, there must be a real challenge ! .. To take the title to the champion will be really hard for sure :)
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 :)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-14 12:54:32)
new rapid category
Thibault please reconsider your decision and set up a 2000 - 2200 rapid tournament which I think will fill up quickly. there are about 60 active players rated 2000 - 2200 and of these about 5 have more than 10 games going. 2 of these (Jason and Sandor) probably wont enter a 2000-2200 rapid as they are qualified and down for higher level tournaments.If the rapids are for players up to 2200 why have you got higher rated rapid tournaments? Lets get more chess played isnt that what its all about? Incidentally the standard ratings of 2000-2400 and 2200-2600 seems a mistake as no one above 2200 will enter the 2200-2400 tournament. Has anyone else got any views on having a 2000-2200 rapid category?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 15:01:06)
A bird in the hand
I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable - they are both off beat openings. On the question of chess knowledge I do not know how much he knows about b4? It can also be a dangerous practical weapon and can pose the black player more problems than f4. It is played by serious professional chess players in tournaments eg GM Christian Bauer (2626) has played it several times successfully this year and quite a few IM's regularly play it with success. Now to comparing rating sizes something I confess to not having done since I was in short trousers. My current rating is 2225 with a future rating of 2247 but with 2 rapid games in the pipe line this should be a future rating of 2300 + shortly lets see. Mr Repas rating is 2281 with a future rating at the moment of 2316. How significant is that? Well I had the opportunity to look at his games to see what his rating is made up of. 10 of his wins have come against the same opponent Sandor Porkolab and in 7 of these Mr Porkolab abandoned the games in level, drawn or in some cases better position for him. Given that in these "wins" he was often rated over 2100 or in one case over 2200 this has boosted Mr Repa's rating significantly. He has not so far had much success in WCC not having got past stage 2. As reference to my loss was made I can say that this was in a variation (the Prins of the sicilian) that I believe is unsound. Actually I overstepped the time limit while on vacation although I think the game could not be saved I learnt my lesson and do not play dodgy openings any more. I have never on the other hand been busted after 17 moves in a main line opening at cc as sadly Mr Repa found himslef against Bucsa Loan (Game 1249),then rated 1700. Then again I have stopped trusting the books and analyse for myself. Still less could I imagine being lost in a cc game after 16 moves in an exchange French (by tranposition) An instructive loss to Torsten Opas ( game 4388)- won with simple developing moves - worth playing over. Incidentally proves what I was saying about the exchange french it can be dangerous - although not of course, at cc. Finally there is Mr Repa's pet Bird shot down by Mr Kotlyansky in the approved way as follows 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 g7 4 Be2 Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d4 c5 7 dxc5 Qc7 and Black was fine winning in 72 moves. Never having lost with f4 did not include this because I suppose it was a bullet bronze game. I am afraid I am naive enough to think that people play chess on the server to win and increase their rating - clearly there are people who play to learn and strengthen their game and for whom results and rating are secondary. No doubt such people would not be interested in anything so vulgar as comparing ratings. Neverthe less its all just opinion and we are all free to express it within the rules of the server. So: f4 is a waste of time at cc little more than an invitation to draw and the From is unsound and almost like resigning.
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.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-05-12 20:02:28)
Rating changes
Hello to all,
I think a player should be removed from the waiting list if his rating is out of the restriction of the tournament.
In my opinion TER means the rating at the start of the tournament not at the entry into the waiting list. If the tournament starts the current rating is used as TER.
For example in FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000015 the games with Jason (!) and Sandor were rated with 2174 and 2147 and not with >= 2200 (their ratings when they entered the waiting list).
No words in the rules about this theme?
Best, Heinz-Georg
There are 15 results for Sandor in wikichess.
Sandor Porkolab (2269)
e4 d5
One of the oldest recorded openings, first recorded as being played between Francesco di Castellvi and Narciso Vinyoles in Valencia in 1475, and being mentioned by Lucena in 1497. It and the French Defense are the oldest asymmetric defenses to 1.e4.
It is a playable, underrated defence that can lead to equality for black. White almost always takes the pawn. Other alternatives are 2. Nc3!?, leading to the Dunst opening, 2. d4!?, leading to the Blackmar-Deimer gambit, and 2. e5?!, leading to unique positions where black can easily equalise. After 2. exd5, there are two very different ways of playing the defence, 2...Nf6 and 2...Qxd5.
1.e4 d5 2.e5!? is also an option - going to French/CaroCann Lines - preventing the skandinawian...
============
Contributors : Adam Domurad, Sandor Porkolab
Sandor Porkolab (2269)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5
The Queen feel good here - after white move d4 - pinning the Knight on c3.
============
Nf3 is also an option
Contributors : David Grosdemange, Sandor Porkolab
Sandor Porkolab (2115)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 Nf6 Nf3
Bg4!
============
Contributors : Ron Keyston, Sandor Porkolab
Sandor Porkolab (2269)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 Nf6 Nf3 Bg4
pinning Nf3
============
Contributors : Sandor Porkolab
Sandor Porkolab (2269)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 Nf6 Nf3 Bg4 h3
6.h3 !
============
Contributors : Sandor Porkolab
Sandor Porkolab (2269)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 Nf6 Nf3 Bg4 h3 Bh5
6...Bh5 - retreating with the Bishop, keeping the pin on Nf3
============
Contributors : Sandor Porkolab
Sandor Porkolab (2269)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 Nf6 Nf3 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4
Chase away the Bishop from the pinning position.
============
Contributors : Sandor Porkolab
Sandor Porkolab (2269)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 Nf6 Nf3 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4 Bg6
Only move
============
Contributors : Sandor Porkolab
Sandor Porkolab (2269)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 Nf6 Nf3 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4 Bg6 Ne5
What else?
8.b4!?
============
Contributors : Sandor Porkolab
Sandor Porkolab (2269)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 Nf6 Nf3 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4 Bg6 Ne5 e6 Nxg6
Nxg6 ?!
============
Contributors : Sandor Porkolab
... or search for Sandor 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]
