 |
| 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 Van Matan in the games.
There are 459 results for Van in the forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-08 17:51:15)
Drag & drop...
... isn't implemented yet ! The interface to play is a click & click one.
Go to "My messages", choose a game (click Game # or the rook)... the board appears.. click on the piece to move, wait the page loading, click the destination square, then submit.
Feel free to give me your impressions about the interface. Thank you in advance.
Thibault
Hannes Rada (2006-04-09 00:43:50)
Travel destinations
>In this modern world, not even > travelling abroad will stop you from > being able to play: you will > probably find an internet cafe near > Or you may have internet access in > your hotel room, or if you visit > business colleagues, they will > probably give you access to a PC. > Too bad if you're TOO dependent on > Fritz, of course, but.... Normally I spend my holiday far away from the so called civiliations. Destinations like Papua New Guinea, Micronesia or Ethiopia are my favorite places. So there is no chance for communications and also no interest for playing chess. In 2 weeks I am heading to Vanuatu .....
Per Lea (2006-04-09 11:50:32)
Vacations
OK, Hannes, you're right. When you leave "The modern world" my comments no longer apply... And, by the way: I fully support the idea of some sort of "vacation". After all, not everyone is obsessed with chess 24 hours/day. There are other valuable things in life as well! Often, it can be fun just to relax, and forget all about difficult middle-games, irritating colleagues at work and the disappointments of your local football team and just go away - to Vanuatu (wherever that mey be)
Hannes Rada (2006-04-09 23:21:02)
games overview
> and just go away - to Vanuatu >(wherever that mey be) Between the Australian East Coast and the Fiji Islands :-) And I agree with Per's proposal to have only a short line with the most important game data, instead of the whole pgn-data (under my games and under tournaments)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-10 12:53:29)
FICGS and internet
Hello to all & thanks again for support.
I announced FICGS starting into main chess forums (FIDE, TCCMB, Talkchess, France-Echecs...), now working on search engines.
Feel free to talk about it in other forums (in your country or chessclub) and to your chessfriends... Website success is here, and the more players, the more players :)
Thank you in advance. Have good games !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-11 14:44:22)
Not exactly...
... but it's true that there are many things to translate yet. Players already helped me with German, I'll continue to translate as soon as possible. (feel free to send to me German & Spanish translations, French is ok for me)
Thank you in advance.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-11 14:54:36)
FICGS titles
Hello to all.
I would like to have players opinion !
As you may have noticed, I already changed FICGS titles to FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM. (not titles obtained elsewhere) Do you agree with titles appearing this way ?
I thought several other ways : EFM, IFM, SFM, GFM, or only to mention norms obtained ! (not titles) At last, of course, we can suppress definitely titles from FICGS, a bad idea in my opinion. What do you think about that ?
Thank you in advance for your responses.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-23 17:03:16)
Spanish / Deutsch (help...)
Hello to all.
As you can see, the home page is now "translated" (thanks babelfish :)) in 4 languages... It would be helpful if players speaking well spanish and deutsch can tell me about the faults... Please email me : info (at) ficgs.com
Thanks in advance :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-06 11:49:01)
Advanced chess
About correspondence chess : IECG & ICCF (see links page) but probably all others too. GameKnot, Its your turn, Scheming mind, Chessmaniac etc... Real time play : Chessanytime, Chesshere.
Actually probably 98% are computer aided sites, so you can play advanced chess everywhere.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-11 09:34:03)
Wikichess !
Hello to all.
You may have noticed this novelty on FICGS :) .. no need to say more.
Thanks in advance for feedback and suggestions. Please note that transpositions are not supported yet.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-13 20:27:05)
Swiss : 3 rounds ?
Hello Heinz-Georg.
Interesting, but how exactly did it work ? Only 3 rounds, but how many games per round and against who (I didn't know that swiss system allowed to play several games per round...) ? Thanks in advance for enlightening me.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-15 11:05:57)
Blitz cup
Yes, time is the main problem. Correspondence chess don't give a large choice, it's difficult to vary rhythms.
10 days + 1 day per 4 moves (6 extra hours / move) could be more fair and we can avoid playoffs with the sudden death (similar to WCH knockout tournament). I like the idea of a violent, rapid and quite unfair (unrated) tournament. It could be quite popular. An advantage in a knockout (with 2 rounds) is that a few games will have to be played : 7 rounds means at most 14 games... If the number of players doesn't fit, the highest rated players could enter at stage 2. The winner could be qualified for the third stage of the WCH round-robin cycle.
But there are potential problems. I don't find a good & fair algorithm to distribute players in a big knockout (chance is not a good idea, I think), and it could be a big work to organize such a tournament (& start games regularly) with 256 players or more...
Henri Muller (2006-05-23 09:43:09)
Time reflexion !!
Je rejoins en partie la note de Wayne Lowrance. Il y a quelque chose d'incorrect dans le décompte du temps de réflexion. Il suffit de jouer les 10 premiers coups très rapidement, et on dispose ensuite de 60 jours de réflexion !!! Ainsi, un joueur, sur le point d'être maté, peut attendre DEUX mois avant de répondre !? Et certaines parties traînent ainsi lamentablement....par manque de fair-play de l'adversaire. Aberrant ! Pourquoi pas limiter une réponse à 5 ou 7 jours de réflexion MAXIMUM - tout en conservant le décompte habituel. Il FAUT donc répondre endéans les 5 ou 7 jours ( ou perdre la partie ). Cette pratique est courante partout !!
Per Lea (2006-05-24 10:14:43)
Elo list no longer searchable by country
The idea to have flags in the rating list looked like a nice feature at first, but the disadvantage is that it is no longer possible to do a quick serach for players from a specific country. For example, it is interesting to find out if there are any new memebers from your own country. So, instead of letting the computer search for "NOR", I now have to manually read through the complete list. A good alternative would be to let the members sort the rating list by country and name (as on Chessfriend.com)
Xavier Pichelin (2006-05-25 21:56:00)
delai de reflexion
J'ai lu quelque commentaire en francais sur les durée des parties. Je trouve que obliger de jouer tous les 6 ou 7 jours est pas judicieux. Car il suffit qu'on parte en déplacement la semaine au niveau professionnel ca m'arrive fréquement donc on arrive au week-end et on doit répondre une vintaine de parties voire plus car on joue aussi a ICCF et autres en un week end sous peine de perdre?? Mois ça m'est arrivé de jouer un coup en 15 jours afin de réguler les autres parties et le temps d'analyser ses parties en cours. Non je trouve que c'est utile de jouer vite les débuts afin d'augmenter considérablement le temps de reflexion afin de ne pas blitzer pour jouer correctement. Aussi il est vrai que certain joueurs non fair-play sur une partie archie perdue vous fait attendre avant d'abandonner ou simplement perdre au temps!. C'est valable aussi dans les autre instances ou certain joue 1 coup tous les 39 jours pour faire durer le plaisir!!! Amicalement Xavier.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-27 23:02:00)
An interesting quote :)
"Go is to Western chess what philosophy is to double entry accounting." from Shibumi, bestseller by Trevanian
Thanks to Vincent from http://www.godiscussions.com
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-31 20:01:30)
Weiqi komi
Hello and welcome Lionel :)
That's a very... good question !
Actually I thought it was the more 'organic' (like this game) way. But it seems to be a large debate, without a clear response.
I suggest all go players to read this article : http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi
Feel free to give me your opinion about that. Thanks in advance.
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 12:46:14)
Go rules
Hello,
Even if a well chosen komi rules out scoring draws, you still have the problem of infinite repetition.
Traditionally, a game in which a triple ko or other infinitely repeating position arises is annulled, or treated as draw or replayed.
Some rules (New Zealnd, USA, SST) deal with these positions by stating that a player cannot make exactly the same position on the whole board twice. (Note that it is then not always easy without computer assistance to determine the legality of a move).
The chinese rule (at least the 1988 official one) also forbids reappearance of the same board position, but in some situation this is not enough to prevent a draw: in some cases neither player want to start a sequence and keep passing to avoid solving a situation at their disadvantage. (and to forbid passes triggers others worse problems...).
As you see, the situation is quite complex, and while rules of Go seem simple, their precise definition is not easy. In practice, you eventually have to rely on the sportmanship of the players or on a referee decision.
Personally I have played till now only under the japanese rule, and in case of problems (very rare as this rule is quite detailled, but then rather complex in its exceptions handling), a senior player says the truth, and, at least in Japan, this truth is undisputed and becomes the laws :-)... quite simple!
Lionel
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-01 15:47:28)
Replacement
I did not forget you, Ryaad. (time sometimes misses, sorry to your opponents..)
Does anyone would accept to replace Ryaad in the first Go tournament that started a few days ago ? Thanks in advance.
Reminder : If players wish to qualify for the FICGS Go championship, they must be among the 11 players who obtained the best results in Go tournaments (see rules).
I think 2 (maybe 3 if the number of players increase quickly) victories in tournaments should assure a place in the WCH tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-02 12:24:54)
Weiqi : FICGS rules
Thanks for your explanations Lionel. (forum bug is fixed)
I've changed the rules. I would like some opinions before I announce it :
First, now you can pass, just entering 'pass'... Special rules in FICGS are : Suicide of more than one stone is authorized, and infinite repetition means a win (full point) for White. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then call referee) or game is adjudicated. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Eyes in seki count as territory.
Thanks in advance !
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-02 18:12:34)
Hash keys and draws
Just to be sure I was clear: the aim of hash keys is just to enforce, I should really say to program, the rule of non repetition of positions; i.e. kos or super kos are irrelevant: if the resulting position occured before, then a move is not legal.
Then I am not sure how a draw could happen: let's say there is a superko running somewhere; either both players eventually pass, letting the situation unsettled, with the unsettled stones declared alive.... or they play the kos and sooner or later (ok, later in case of superko!) the position will repeat, hence a forced pass, or be solved...
Do you have an example of situation that will not eventually lead to a repetition?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-07 00:38:57)
Go / Chess
Hello Tommie.
I chose not to implement a Go rating system for several reasons, first and main is: a quite true correspondence Go rating may be very (!) long to achieve, maybe even impossible. It seems to me that the challenge could be elsewhere ie. tournament results, to qualify for the FICGS championship tournament.
About the rating list, so far all new players appear in a unique rating list, soon there will be an established rating list, a provisional rating list and a new player rating list.
About this rating for Ion (2600), where did you see it exactly ?
... at last what happens with the Go applet ? You have to click on 'game description'. If it doesn't work, feel free to tell me what game you try to watch and what happens... Thanks in advance :)
Julien Baudement (2006-06-09 10:03:24)
Nouvelles fonctionnalités
Avant tout, Bravo pour le site sur lequel je prend beaucoup de plaisir. J'aimerais soumettre des modifications à apporter qui pourraient encore améliorer: 1) possibilité de contacter directement le webmestre... 2) possibilité de proposer une partie à un joueur quelconque sans passer par le mode tournoi. En effet, on est tenu de jouer toutes les parties dans ce système, mais peut etre que certains préfèreraient pouvoir n'en jouer qu'une à la fois ! En tout cas, encore bravo pour tout ce travail ! Ikki
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-14 13:15:33)
FICGS 1st chess world championship
Hello Heinz-Georg !
It's only a logical extension to the rule that divide the championship in a round-robin and a knockout (for the 8 best rated players) tournament. Of course, there's no rule that fit to everyone, only choices... I hope to make the most balanced ones for the whole site.
By this rule, high rated players have a stage less to play (that they would probably win) and it limits the rating gaps (otherwise it would be more like a cup). In most wch competitions, winners and high rated players/teams are qualified for an advanced stage in the tournament.. A quite common and logical system, used everywhere from football world cup [winner qualified for quarter final] to Roland-Garros [qualifications stage], FIDE world championship etc... 2300 rule is a statistical choice, used in IECG too with more parameters. (nevertheless at IECG high rated players can choose to play the first stage too, but IMO it's quite complicate)
I hope to make it as simple and attractive as possible, believe me ;) Of course (and it is mentioned in the rules- preliminaries) rules could still evolve if improvements are decided by the [future] council.
The only negative point is, indeed, only 2300+ players can play the 1st wch, that is in a way not a "complete" championship. But compared to all other positive points (first, everyone can play now), and as 2nd wch starts at the same time, I think this choice is best.
What I think to do is to send all tournament tables to players who registered on 2006 june 16. If finally there are players who don't want to play it, they'll just have to tell me within days, responding by email. It should avoid any forfeit.
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-16 13:19:00)
the GM class tournament...
I was interested to see that a tourney dedicated to the GMs of this site was available. So I tried to enrol, but my rating is too low :-) but yet I am a GM :-) I think it would be a great thing if we could enrol in it. Merci d'avance thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-16 19:24:41)
Retard et explications
Bonjour Pablo.
La règle de la qualification au 2ème tour des joueurs 2300+ ne date pas d'hier, et j'avais annoncé une mise à jour des règles. Les discussions n'arrivant souvent également qu'au dernier moment, je dirais seulement : Mieux vaut tard que jamais :)
.. mieux vaut changer des règles non-optimisées avant le début des tournois qu'entre deux cycles... Je le répète, les règles changeront tant qu'elles pourront être améliorées significativement (comme partout ailleurs). Il me faut un peu de temps pour adapter et trouver de nouvelles dénominations pour les tournois (notamment celui qui permettra aux joueurs classés 2300+ de jouer avant l'heure).
Le plus important reste que le championnat attire les joueurs ayant un classement élevé comme moins élevé. Dans les règles originales, de nombreux joueurs n'auraient pas pu jouer tout de suite. Un retard reste un retard, certes... Désolé pour cela, mais je pense que ça en vaut la peine.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-19 16:19:58)
Go is not a drawn game...
Not for tomorrow, hopefully !
But programs are killing chess little by little for sure... Maybe then we'll play Go, which has the advantage not to be a drawn game (we even don't know the result for sure with a 7.5 komi)... or maybe we'll play big chess :)
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-22 15:47:42)
Interesting question for the Gambit's a
Gambits are the schizophrenics of the chess openings. Most players love to play through a finished game that starts as a gambit, but few players dare to play gambits themselves. Gambits lead to attacking games that avoid the calculated buildup preceding a classic attack. Can the gambiteer justify the material disadvantage? Can the opponent overcome the positional disadvantage that comes with grabbing the gambit sacrifice?
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-23 12:25:36)
Blindfolded Chess
THE chess-world (for there is a "world" in chess as in other matters) has lately been startled by a very extraordinary performance at one of the "divans" of the metropolis. A young American has played ten games at once, against an equal number of players, without, on his part, obtaining a single glimpse at any one of the chess-boards. The feat is not new; but never before was it performed so triumphantly as in the present day. The writers who have ferreted out the early history of this beautiful game have found the name of one Tchelebi, who, nearly nine centuries ago, was able to play at chess without seeing the board. Many persons in the East acquired the art of playing by feeling instead of seeing pieces; but that is a very different affair, since in such a case the sense of touch comes in aid of the memory. In 1266, a Saragen, named Buzecca, came to Florence and at the Palazzo del Popolo played three games at once, looking at one board, but not at the other two. He won two of the games, and made a drawn or abandoned game of the other. As all his competitors were skilful players, his achievement caused irrepressible astonishment. At various times, in later centuries, this mode of play was exhibited by different persons--Ruy Lopez, the author of one of the earliest treatises on chess; Mangiolini of Florence, Zerone, Medrano, Leonardo da Cutri, Paolo Boi, Salvio, and others, many of whom were Spaniards. Boi is reputed to have played three games at once without seeing the board. Damiano, an Italian, who wrote a treatise on chess more than three centuries and a half ago, gave what he called the "Rules" for learning to play without seeing the board; but his rules are worth very little, amounting chiefly to a recommendation to cultivate the memory. Keysler, in his Account of Turin (1749), says: "The late Father Sacchieri, Lecturer on Mathematics at Pavia, was a remarkable instance of the strength of the human understanding, particularly that faculty of the soul we term memory. He could play at chess with three different persons at the same time, even without seeing any one of the three chess-boards. He required no more than that his substitute should tell him what piece his antagonist had moved, and Sacchieri could direct what step was to be taken on his side, holding, at the same time, conversation with the company present. If any dispute arose about the place where any piece should be, he could tell every move that had been made, not only by himself, but by his antagonist, from the beginning of the game, and in this manner incontestably decided the proper place of the piece. This uncommon dexterity at the game of chess appears to me almost the greatest instance that can be produced of a surprising memory." The most celebrated player of the last century, however, in this peculiar achievement, was the Frenchman Andre Danican, who then, and afterwards, was generally known by the name of Philidor. In 1743, when Philidor was about eighteen years old, M. de Legalle asked him whether he had ever tried to play from memory, without seeing the board. The youth replied, that as had calculated moves, and even whole games, at night in bed, he thought he could do it. He immediately played a game with the Abbe Chenard, which he won without seeing the board. After that, a little practice enabled him to play nearly as well in this as in the ordinary fashion--sometimes two games at once. The French Cyclopedie told of a particular game in which a false move was purposely made by his antagonist; Philidor discovered it after many moves, and replaced the pieces in their proper position. Forty years afterwards, he was residing in England, where he astonished English players by his blindfold achievements at a chess-club in St. James' Street. He played three games at once, with Count Bruhl, Mr. Bowdler, and Mr. Maseres, the first two of whom were reputed the best players at that time in England. Philidor won two of the games, and drew the third, all within two hours. On another occasion, in the same year (1788), he played three games at once, blindfold as before, and giving the odds of pawn and move to one of his antagonists; again did he win two of the games, and draw the third. His demeanor during these labors surprised his visitors as much as his skill, for he kept up a lively conversation during his games. Many eminent chess-players, including M'Donnell, La Bourdonnaye, Staunton, etc., have achieved these blindfold wonders, in greater or less degree, since the days of Philidor. M'Donnell, a famous player about thirty years ago, played his moves even more rapidly without than with the board; he did not object to any amount of conversation in the room during his play, but disliked whispers. La Bourdonnaye could play within a shade of his full strength without seeing the board; he won against good players, on some occasions two at a time; but when trying the threefold labor, his brain nearly gave way, and he wisely abandoned all such modes of playing his favorite game. Mr. Staunton, the leading English player at present (but who has almost ceased to play since he undertook the editing of an edition of Shakespeare), some years ago played many blindfold games with Harrwitz and Kieseritzky, foreign players of note.
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-23 12:26:28)
Blinfolded chess ( part II )
Very recently, however, all the honors of Europe, in this department of indoor games, have been run away with by two young Americans, Morphy and Paulsen. Paul Morphy, a native of New Orleans, seemed to be born with chess in his blood; he played almost from childhood; and at thirteen years of age he proved a formidable antagonist to Herr Lowenthal, a noted Hungarian. In 1857, when just twenty years of age, Morphy encountered Paulsen, a native of Iowa, only a little older than himself, at a chess congress in New Orleans (Editor: It was New York!). All the gray-beards struck their flag to Paulsen, and then he struck to Morphy. Of Morphy's subsequent achievements in regular play, which stamp him as perhaps the first living chess-player (we say this with fear and trembling; however, for the knights of the game are a sensitive race), we will not speak here, for our purpose is only to notice the blindfold performances. At the chess congress above mentioned, he finely played a blindfold game with a leading German player. Early in 1858, he struck the New Orleanists with amazement by playing six games simultaneously, without seeing any other the boards; winning five of them, and exhibiting beautiful play throughout. He then came to Europe, not only to "lick the Britishers," but "all creation;" and it must be admitted that he made great progress towards that achievement. At a meeting of the Chess Association at Birmingham, in August 1858, he played eight games simultaneously, without sight of the boards. His opponents were Lord Lyttelton, and seven other persons, mostly presidents or secretaries of provincial chess clubs. Against such players, and under such tremendous conditions, he won no less than six games out of the eight, drawing a seventh, and losing the eighth. In the following month, he went over and astonished the Parisians in a similar way; he contended blindfold against eight practised players at once, at the Cafe de la Regence, a famous resort of chess-players; and out of these did not lose even one; he was the victor in six, and drew the other two. In the spring of 1859, Morphy contended against eight of the most experienced members of the London Chess Club, including Mr. Mongredien and Mr. Walker, two distinguished players. He won two games, and drew the other six--all the players except himself being wearied out by a very protracted sitting. A few days afterwards, he played with eight members of the St. George's Chess Club, including Lord Cremorne, Lord Arthur Hay, and Captain Kennedy; he won five, and the rest were drawn through want of time to finish them. Nevertheless, inconceivable as these mental labors are, Morphy yields to Paulsen in blindfold play. There are whispers of twelve or fifteen games having been tried simultaneously by the latter; but the number ten has been most certainly reached, under conditions of the utmost publicity. On the 7th of October in the present year, at a Divan in the Strand, ten players accepted Mr. Paulsen's challenge to grapple with them all simultaneously, the boards being placed out of his sight. One of the players was M. Sabouroff, secretary to the Russian Embassy in London; the other nine comprised many names well known among chess-players. Ten chess-boards were placed on ten tables in the room. An arm-chair, turned away towards a window, was mounted on a dais. At two o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Paulsen, a quiet, courteous young man, with not a trace of "brag" in him, took his seat in this arm-chair. For twelve mortal hours he never rose, never ate, never smoked, and drank nothing but a little lemonade. What were his mental labors during that time, we shall see. His ten antagonists took their seats at the ten tables; and each table speedily became the centre of a group of spectators, whose comments were not always so silent as in fairness they ought to have been. Paulsen could not see any of the chess-boards. Herr Kling, a noted player and teacher of chess, acted as general manager. He called the boards by numbers--No. 1 to No. 10. Paulsen audibly announced his first move for board No. 1; Kling made that move; the antagonist replied to it; Kling audibly announced the reply; Paulsen considered what should be his second move, and when he had audibly announced his decision, Kling made the proper move on the board. Here No. 1 rested for awhile. No. 2 now made his move, leading to the same course of proceeding as before. Then No. 3 in the same way; then No. 4; and so on to No. 10; after which No. 1 began a new cycle, by playing a second move; and thus they proceeded over and over again. Now let us see what all this implies and involves. Chess is not one of the most frolicsome of games; indeed, ladies generally declare it to be very dull, seeing that a chess-player is apt to be "grumpy" if spoken to on other matters while playing. The truth is, there is a demand for much mental work in managing a game well; the combinations and subtleties, the attacks and counter-attacks, are so numerous and varied, as to keep the mind pretty fully occupied. Nevertheless, a fine game between two fine players is mere child's play compared with this wonderful achievement of Paulsen. He was obliged to form ten mental pictures; and every picture changed with every move, like the colored bits in a kaleidoscope. Most persons, even though knowing nothing of the game, are aware that it begins with thirty-two pieces of different colors and forms, and that these move about over a board of sixty-four squares. After every change of position in any one of the pieces, Paulsen must have changed his mental picture of the board, the field of battle, and then made that a fixture until the next move was made. This is hard enough in even one game, against an antagonist who has his eyes to help him in planning attacks and defences; but how hard must it be against ten! It is difficult to conceive what is the condition of the mental machinery under such circumstances; and yet, there he sat, the calmest man in the room. When told of his antagonist's doings, one by one, he looked quietly out of window, and rubbed his chin, as a man often does when thinking, and then announced his move--never mistaking No. 1 for No. 7, No. 9 for No. 3--never failing to recover the proper mental picture, and making the proper change in it; never embarrassed; never making an unlawful move, or likely to lose sight (mental sight) of any unlawful move made by his antagonists. Nor did he obtain the least pause for mental rest. Without one minute's interval, as soon as he had announced a move for one board, he was required to attend to the move of another antagonist at another board. Hour after hour did this continue--all the afternoon, all the evening, midnight, until two in the morning. He made two hundred and seventy moves in the twelve hours, twenty-seven per game average; this gave two minutes and a quarter for the consideration of each move. As all his moves were met by corresponding moves on the part of his antagonists, he was called upon to form five hundred and forty complete mental pictures in twelve consecutive hours, each picture representing the exact mode in which all of the sixty-four squares of a chess-board were occupied. Paulsen won two games, lost three, and drew five.
Roger Weber (2006-06-25 16:19:35)
Gambits
Although I am a quite new and inexperienced, I dare say that Gambits are a way of forcing a player to do mistakes. If the other player doesn't know a certain gambit, he will get beaten fast and hard by making mistakes. Players tend to do less mistakes in common openings like the Ruy Lopez, as they have seen so many variations of it and played it so much. But, when confronted with something new, the human brain can't analyze every possible moves, which leaves an advantage to be exploited by the player that knows the gambit and obviously wants to play it. Just my opinion. Feel free to correct me.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-01 17:44:41)
Format For Championship
Hello John.
After all, if it wasn't unusual, the interest would be lower for sure... :)
So you noticed, the 8 players with the highest established correspondence chess ratings play a pure knockout tournament.
I thought about this format a long time ago (and a long time). Combining a knockout tournament (more "spectacular") and a round-robin cycle (everyone can play, no more than 5 cycles) gather together the advantages of both. It is one of the reasons I made FICGS... I think pure knockout or pure round-robin wch cycle is not efficient enough for chess championships.
The other thing you'll notice in the rules : "The special rule is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."
This rule (in case of equality in the round-robin tournaments, the player with the strongest TER is qualified too) is another way to avoid short draws... It may sound strange at a first sight, but I really think it's fair enough and a good way to find most probably the really strongest players in the last stages. Anyway, it's amazing for sure :)
The FICGS chess wch rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tournament
Peter Konig (2006-07-02 10:50:19)
rules & ratings
Hi, the rules on registration were different, and stating personal rating seemed just to be of informative value, no checking of numbers or anything. Now, it seems that I have a disadvantage by stating that, I feel treated second class (I wholeheartedly ackowledge that there are much stronger players around) and my motivation dropped considerably. it is like in real live. There are people earning more or less money, but they should be equal before the law (rules). That's in the spirit of 1789! Je t'embrasse, Peter Konig
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 01:25:41)
Go rating list
Hello Sebastian.
So it was a GO rating about Ion... (I did not understand that :/)
Still thinking about a Go rating list... If I implement something would it be better to have only informative ratings (from federations) or rating calculated from the games played here (probably not very relevant) ?
Anyway, players who didn't play a single chess game with a rating <1700 (~not from FIDE / IECG / ICCF) won't appear on the chess rating list in a while.
John Knudsen (2006-07-04 05:31:49)
Symmetrical games
This format (8 games against the same player at once) is really strange and not normal at all, IMHO. Don't get me wrong - I am enjoying my games. I would not recommend this format for future versions of the quarter-final. Most strong players that I know would not even consider playing in this kind of format for one minute. Better to have a RR, with X number of players advancing from that. If you wish to make the championship attractive to stronger players, you won't want to repeat this format in the future. John
Henri-Louis Muller (2006-07-04 09:39:01)
temps de reflexion
Je suis également d'avis qu'il existe un très sérieux problème concernant le temps de réflexion dans les parties ! Un joueur peut ainsi rester "trainer" avec une partie durant DES MOIS sans jouer, et sans AUCUNE justification ! Il faudrait aussi reglementer la durée PAR coup et non seulement sur la totalité des coups joués. J'ai CINQ parties dans le même cas :perte certaine de l'adversaire, et on attend 50 à 90 jours avant de répondre ou de dépasser le temps !! Evidemment, le fair-play et la sportivité jouent aussi un rôle.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 12:02:45)
triche et fair-play
Bonjour Henri-Louis.
Encore une fois cela fait partie intégrante du jeu par correspondance... Il n'est pas rare que les joueurs "gèrent" leurs défaites et victoires dans le temps pour les faire coincider avec les calculs de classement de leur choix. Le problème est identique à l'ICCF et ailleurs, et il n'y a aucune solution ou règle raisonnable pouvant régler le problème. Lorsqu'on a compris que le jeu par correspondance est une question de plusieurs mois, on finit par comprendre que le problème est somme toute négligeable...
De nombreuses parties jouées sur le serveur sont jouées beaucoup plus rapidement qu'à la normale, cela n'empêche qu'il s'agit d'échecs par correspondance, avec la cadence du jeu par correspondance. Diminuer le temps par coup ne changerait absolument pas le problème si tu y réfléchis bien. Quoiqu'il en soit, concernant la partie dont tu avais fait appel, qu'elle se termine maintenant ou fin aout, ça ne change rien, elle sera prise en compte dans le classement de septembre.
Pour finir, je rappelle qu'il existe une cadence "rapide" (tournois rapides, championnat), c'est donc le choix de chacun. Patience :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 16:55:10)
Symmetrical games
I don't understand how it could be a problem. If one consider a critical position at the end of the opening (ie. clear advantage for White), who plays White first knows the position is bad for Black... Why would he play the same opening with Black ? It's a wrong question IMO, there are very few cases where there's only a "good" move until the end of the game.
Anyway, this question is even more relevant when playing different tournaments in different organizations (a player may respond moves played by an opponent in a game at IECG in another game at ICCF....) than in two players matches. Nothing can prevent that, but what a shame and where's the satisfaction ? I think it's not a problem there.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 20:15:35)
8-game matches
John... ??? :)
Vladimir Kramnik - Peter Leko (match for WCH classical title)
Vladimir Kramnik - Deep Fritz...
Of course it is desired... Who will remember the names of the players in the last ICCF final tournament ? Even if ICCF doesn't use this format, and (as you say) serious CC players didn't have the opportunity to play such tournament, knockout format is still desired.
My first idea was a pure enormous knockout tournament, but it's obviously not possible (too much rounds, a time problem), that's why I thought about this combined system.
Now look at the chess world : Many players don't understand why FIDE progressively reduces the number of games and time controls in WCH matches. It is the main reason why FIDE world champion title looses value. Not hard / accurate, not spectacular enough !! ..
What many players (me, at least :)) expect is a classical world championship with a big final match. You may have noticed that FICGS champion will have the opportunity to defend his title in a... 24 games match against his challenger... (!!) That's real fight, that's real challenge and that's what I expect to see from a championship, a big opposition between 2 players, and not a round-robin more or less aleatory, with too much names, not understandable for the most.
Now, as we said on TCCMB : FICGS is not "official" matter, chess is for fun here, but chess must be a show and I'm convinced it is relevant in correspondence chess too. We'll see that ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-15 13:21:58)
Time limit per move
The idea is interesting, however it could be difficult to display the remaining days (confusing)...
About the 60 days limit, I think there are clear advantages, and the bad effects are not so important if you consider there's no real way to prevent a player to last a game and the rating period of 2 months. The point that makes it difficult to compare to other organizations is some FICGS rules are harder : All lost games are rated, forfeits or not... I think this rules takes off some pressure. And many players can't assume regular play. Players who think 60 days per move is too long may play only rapid tournaments...
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 :)
Dirk Jan Van Dijl (2006-07-23 15:47:36)
Wikichess : Modifiability
Why are some lines not modifiable? Are they beyond criticism?
Dirk Jan Van Dijl (2006-07-23 20:46:29)
Error?
What is wrong with 4 ... Nf6 after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4? Regards, D.J. van Dijl
Dirk Jan Van Dijl (2006-07-23 20:53:50)
Error 2?
Hello there! After 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bc4 e6 7 0-0 the program allows castling by Black, but the black Bishop is still at f8. All the best! Dick van Dijl
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...
Dirk Jan Van Dijl (2006-07-24 16:53:41)
Copyright issues
Dear Thibault, what about copyright infringements? Are you allowed to copy older books and magazines? Kind regards, Dick van Dijl
Dirk Jan Van Dijl (2006-07-24 18:59:04)
Copyright issues
Indeed, moves are free, but not necessarily the comments, question marks, exclamation marks etc.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-25 01:51:34)
Handicap moves
That's an idea... Actually I don't think many players (benefiting of the handicap moves) with a 200 points lower rating would be interested, cause it's quite "risky" to play with an advantage. If you win, that's just normal, if you loose (even draw): that's a big defeat.
Such matches may be interesting for both masters (2400+) and amateurs (1600-), maybe even in a simultaneous context, so that draws could satisfy everyone.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-27 03:33:26)
parties non classées
Bonjour Pablo !
Les parties gagnées avant le 10ème coup (abandons / forfaits) ne sont pas comptabilisées pour plus d'équité, un autre moyen également d'éviter une triche évidente (voir règles). Je suppose qu'il doit s'agir de ce cas !?
Pablo Schmid (2006-07-27 03:51:12)
En partie
Il est vrai que sur les 6 parties, il y en a une ou mon adversaire perd au temps avant les 10 premiers coups. 4 parties ont été comptabilisées, la partie gagnée au temps en moins de 10 coups ne copmte pas, d'accord mais il reste toujours une partie qui n'a pas compté, et j'ai vérifié, pas d'abandon en dessous de 10 coups. Je suppose qu'il y a une autre explication, mais laquelle?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-30 21:48:31)
edit article
!!! that's very relevant :)
It will be changed in one hour. Thanks !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-03 20:30:44)
Update of the 11.5 rule
A small update of the 11.5 rule, that should clarify some ambiguous cases (referee calls are stored) :
"In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious. If a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee."
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-04 12:02:56)
tricks
Hi Gino.
You may be right... However many cases (ie. clear material advantages, draws in closed positions) couldn't be considered. I think we can try this rule as is, if it's not sufficient I'll add some criterias or abuse cases.
Note : This rule also works for Go game (and all games on FICGS)!
I think that's an interesting rule, as the "human decision" (I agree with you it must be avoided as much as possible) finally is provoked by the player who obviously lasts the game.
Marc Lacrosse (2006-08-04 17:05:33)
WCH tournaments
In the 7-players qualification tournaments for the Wch there are usually two 2100+ players together with five players with a much lower rating.
As there is only one player qualified for the next step, isn't there an enormous advantage for the one of the two better rated players who happens to be white in the game with the other higher rated player (assuming that both can hope for very good results against lower-rated players)?
This is probably unavoidable ...
Marc
PS what does happen if two players finish 1st ex aequo with a draw in their mutual encounter and similar results against all others?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-04 17:47:56)
WCH tournaments
Hello Marc.
The new group you're playing in (probably the last built before august 15) has a bigger gap ("écart-type") than others.. It was not possible to build it in another way.
The advantage is given by the rating to the 'best' player in all stages (knockout or round-robin), but that's the challenge, and the way of these WCH rules.. (see previous threads about WCH)
However, it's not obvious that top players win all other games... A single draw should decide.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-10 11:56:01)
Vacances
Bonjour Samy.
Je confirme que le temps des parties ne s'écoule pas (un simple refresh le démontre)... Et je vois qu'il y a "zeitnot" en effet dans certaines parties. La partie perdue au temps l'a été visiblement juste avant que ces vacances soient prises (et sera adjugée automatiquement)... Désolé, la cadence rapide n'est pas si facile à tenir, je le constate moi même.
Samy Ould Ahmed (2006-08-10 12:54:08)
Je suis sur...
Qu'il y a eu un bug concernant mes parties, je me connecte plus de 3 fois par jours et juste avant de me mettre en vacances j'avait encore 6 jours dans ma partie perdue au temps et 11 jours dans celle ou il me reste maintenant 1 journée, je me suis mis en vacances differée d'une journée le 6/08. Je joue sur IECG des cadences bien plus serrées (10+1) sans jamais perdre au temps...mais bon ce n'est pas grave.
Mladen Jankovic (2006-08-12 20:11:51)
Advanced Chess
Computers have their advantage in the field of tactics, while humans have their advantage as strategists. A combination should be better than either on their own. A player capable of combining the advantages of both well should be the best.
Don Burden (2006-08-26 18:51:54)
Opening Idea
I'd say it is a fairly big advantage to black. He's a solid pawn up and threatens to win another. Found two games in my database with higher rated players:
[Event "ICCF MN/12 corr"]
[Site "ICCF corr"]
[Date "1995.06.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Majewski, Jan"]
[Black "Chorvat, Marian"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C54"]
[WhiteElo "2335"]
[BlackElo "2305"]
[PlyCount "122"]
[EventDate "1995.??.??"]
[Source "www.chesslib.no"]
[SourceDate "2006.04.01"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8. O-O O-O 9. d5 Bxc3 10. bxc3 Ne7 11. Re1 Nf6 12. d6 Nf5 13. Ba3 Nxd6 14. Bxd6 cxd6 15. Qxd6 Ne8 16. Qd5 Nf6 17. Qd6 Ne8 18. Qd2 d6 19. Ng5 Nf6 20. Rad1 d5 21. Bb3 h6 22. Ne4 Bg4 23. Nxf6+ Qxf6 24. f3 Qb6+ 25. Qd4 Be6 26. Bxd5 Bxd5 27. Qxb6 axb6 28. Rxd5 Rxa2 29. f4 Rc8 30. Rd3 Rc2 31. Ree3 Ra8 32. h4 Raa2 33. Rg3 Rd2 34. Rde3 Kf8 35. Re4 b5 36. Re5 Rab2 37. Rc5 b4 38. Rc8+ Ke7 39. cxb4 Rxb4 40. Rxg7 Rxf4 41. Rh7 Rf6 42. Kh2 Ke6 43. h5 Rd5 44. g4 Rd4 45. Kg3 Rd3+ 46. Kg2 Rd6 47. Re8+ Kd7 48. Rf8 Ke7 49. Rhh8 Ke6 50. Re8+ Kd5 51. Re7 b6 52. Rf8 Rf4 53. Kg3 Rdf6 54. Rc8 Rf3+ 55. Kg2 Rf2+ 56. Kg1 R2f4 57. Rg8 b5 58. Re3 b4 59. Kg2 Kd4 60. Rb3 Rb6 61. Kg3 Rf1 0-1
[Event "ICCF MN/12 corr"]
[Site "ICCF corr"]
[Date "1995.06.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Mathias, Manfred"]
[Black "Chorvat, Marian"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C54"]
[WhiteElo "2370"]
[BlackElo "2305"]
[PlyCount "110"]
[EventDate "1995.??.??"]
[Source "www.chesslib.no"]
[SourceDate "2006.04.01"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8. O-O O-O 9. d5 Bxc3 10. bxc3 Ne7 11. Re1 Nf6 12. d6 Nf5 13. dxc7 Qxc7 14. Qb3 d5 15. Bd3 Be6 16. Rb1 b6 17. Qc2 g6 18. Bb2 Ne8 19. Re2 Neg7 20. Rbe1 Rfe8 21. Qd2 Nd6 22. c4 dxc4 23. Qc3 f6 24. Bxg6 hxg6 25. Qxf6 Qf7 26. Rxe6 Qxf6 27. Rxf6 Rxe1+ 28. Nxe1 Re8 29. Nf3 Re2 30. Be5 Nf7 31. Bd4 Re6 32. Kf1 Rxf6 33. Bxf6 b5 34. Bc3 Ne6 35. h4 Nf4 36. a3 Nd5 37. Bb4 a6 38. g3 Kg7 39. Ke2 Kf6 40. Ba5 Nd6 41. g4 Nb7 42. Bd2 a5 43. Bg5+ Kg7 44. Ne5 c3 45. Kd3 b4 46. Kc4 Nb6+ 47. Kd4 Nc5 48. axb4 axb4 49. f3 Nd5 50. Nc4 Ne6+ 51. Kd3 Nxg5 52. hxg5 b3 53. Na3 Kf7 54. f4 c2 55. Nxc2 Nxf4+ 0-1
Elmer Valderrama (2006-08-27 11:17:48)
opening idea
..aparently everyone was/is impressed by the game Spielmann-Cohn, Carslbad 1907... --> White get such a big advantage in development that it's hard to think Black will get away with anything best than a draw here..
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-29 13:41:42)
Go (re -> Julien)
Salut Julien !
Je n'en doute pas... Et surement avant quelques années... Tetsuya pourrait sans doute nous en apprendre un long morceau à tous les deux sur le jeu de Go :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-05 12:58:56)
Major update : your feelings ?
Hello to all.
There has been several changes these last days to optimize the access to the database... as it grows quicky :)
A major update just occured to speed up the display of all games. (Google and other search engines may slow down the whole server sometimes) The effects should appear gradually.
Feel free to post here if you observe any problem or change, or on the speed of the server in general (please specify the speed of your computer & internet connection)
Thanks in advance ! :)
Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-05 19:27:54)
Time to display all informations
Of course not. I have other computers... But slow connections have advantages : Finally I just can't loose too much time on the internet this way, watching 'youtube' videos or hunting divx & mp3 on edonkey, bit torrent...
So, convinced ? .. do we exchange ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-08 18:10:52)
Chess tournament : Zero-sum or not ?
While discussing about Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", and the question "Is the best player always the champion ?" (of course not IMO) , I was argued that any chess tournament "was" (actually could be "reduced to") a zero-sum game :
"In 1944 John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern proved that any zero-sum game involving n players is in fact a generalised form of a zero-sum game for two persons, and that any non-zero-sum game for n players can be reduced to a zero-sum game for n + 1 players; the (n + 1) player representing the global profit or loss. This suggests that the zero-sum game for two players forms the essential core of mathematical game theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum_game
It seems to me that it's out of topic, but I couldn't say exactly why... In my opinion, a tournament is nearer life than game, at least quite far from it. Much more rules, often complex ones, and results that depend on many parameters you couldn't influence...
The word "champion" depends on accurate rules (the best player could finish 2nd, even if he wins all games ie. in an open tournament..), the "best player" depends on general opinion (most commonly through ratings), ie. Topalov vs. Kasparov ...
What do you think ? :-)
Where the discussion started from :
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060907/sirlin_01.shtml
I agree with many points about how to win, but the use of some words seems to be dubious...
I like much this quote :
"I was surprised to see that Capablanca did not initiate any active maneuvers and instead adopted a waiting game. In the end, his opponent made an imprecise move; the Cuban won a second pawn and soon the game. “Why didn’t you try to convert your material advantage straight away?” I ventured to ask the great chess virtuoso. He smiled indulgently. “It was more practical to wait.” "
—Mikhail Botvinnik, 6th World Chess Champion
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-12 12:55:06)
Scoring function for Go
Hello to all.
I'll add in a few days a scoring function for Go games. Players could retire dead groups, then the program just covers the board (line after line & column after column to compare) and adds empty spaces points to the stones that surround it. The aim is to give an evaluation of the position only, not to decide the result automatically.
Just tell me if you have an idea about a better algorithm, as I realize the difficulty of programming Go.
Thanks in advance ! ;)
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-09-12 13:19:57)