Home
Information
Login
Register
Waiting lists
Membership
Hall of fame
Tournaments
Best game
Wikichess
Rating list
Problems
Forum
Links
Help
About
| Install FICGS apps | |
| play chess online |  |
|
Game result (chess) B. Ozen, 2269 N. Wilson, 2121 1/2-1/2 See game 152323 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Back to forum
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 21:19:14)
statistics
Dear Thibault, I don't have the answer, I suspect there is no solution for this problem. If you apply statistics to extreme situations, there will always be some outliers that will prove your prediction wrong. One good example is ICC(internet chess club) and their self-proclaimed perfect method to detect online cheaters. I can tell you some OTB 2100-2300 players can perform sometimes close to 2600 strength, and sometimes more than 95% of their moves coincide with one of the chess engines...statistically you can call this a cheater, but reality is not respectful of normal distributions
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-22 18:31:31)
What future for correspondence chess ?
You may have noticed this "grave" question on the home page... :)
---------
Are draws and chess engines killing chess game, are the level and play simply standardized by Deep Fritz and Rybka... Is the extraordinary performance by Christophe Léotard at XIX th. ICCF correspondence chess world championship 'chancy', a statistical happening, or is there a place yet for human play in modern correspondence chess ?
"I really believe that Go is destined to take the place of Chess as the leading intellectual game of the Occident, just as it has reigned supreme in the Orient for some four thousand years." (Edward Lasker, international chess master)
"... {it is} something unearthly... if there are sentient beings on other planets, then they play go." (Emanuel Lasker, chess world champion)
It had been said that Chess 960 would replace Chess too. I don't think so...
Any predictions ?
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 :)
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-24 17:04:52)
Thanks Thibault
Thanks Thibault for the response.
I definitely concur that today's correspondence chess is different than 40 years ago. The two biggest things I miss about today's CC are the 1) blunders and 2) open tournaments. I remember the excitement of getting a postcard and rushing to check my opponent's move. Blunders weren't common, but they occured. Now they're non-existant. Blunders made for great lore!
Why no more open tournaments? Took me 40 years to get my rating where it's at. I'm not a top player, but what I've earned, I've earned mostly the "old fashioned" way. I avoid open tournaments to avoid losing to low rated players who just learned the moves, but because they have a a high powered muti-processor running Deep Fritz they can knock me down a hundred points. I miss chatting with beginners, teaching them the ins and outs of CC. Oh well :)
You mentioned the top CC players winning and then not sticking with the game because winning is too hard due to chess engines. Is the drop out rate at the WC level any different than it was in the past? Berliner won and dropped out 40 years ago. Palciauskas won 30 years ago and then he dropped out. Chess engines were not a factor when they won. I don't think top players drop out because of engines, but because it is too hard to keep a competitive edge to play at a top level for any length of time. Good results are a combination of talent, hard work and good fortune. Keeping all three together for any length of time is a HUGE endeavor.
Personally I think a bigger threat to CC burn-out is not chess engines, but chess servers. Servers make CC too easy. Today's CC today is like Bill Murray in "Ground Hog Day." You wake up to an inbox full of chess moves. You work all day/night replying. Then you wake up the following day to moves from the same people and do it all again. There are no week long breaks breaks between games like in the postcard days. Server chess is burning out everyone, not just the top players. The progressive server owners will need to address this issue someday.
Sooooo ... what's the bottomline for me? I liked the old days better, but the old days are gone. Chess engines are here to stay. Progress is part of life. I embrace progress and am determined to enjoy it. I get my thrills by learning about chess engines and their weaknesses. That gives me an edge and keeps the game fresh. But then that's me :)
Charlie Neil (2006-09-05 09:50:08)
why play corr-chess
Marc, excuse me I didn't make the difference between chess engines/databases and someone playing straight moves straight off their own computer. Yes, use books and databases that's what they are there for. But I feel sorry for the individual who relies solely on their computer to play their games for them. It is a bit like taking a fork lift to a weight lifting competition. The use of computers and servers is still relatively new to me. There are sites that ban the use of computers. but who is to know who is using their computer in an illegal way? There can be no profit for them or enjoyment in the game. It is good that FICGS has this forum for free discussion. I enjoyed reading "The future for Corr-chess" thread. There has always been points in time when it has been discussed that chess has "burnt-out" and the game will die off. I don't think that will ever happen in light of the passion for this terrible game expressed in all these forums. So, forgive an ignorant "free-range" "organic" chessfriend for not being clear about the differences about databases and computer-slaves who rely on their machines. The game is the thing. ( and maybe just maybe I wasn't drinking just coffee the time I posted the cheats slur...:-/)
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-09-12 13:19:57)
Math... *sigh*
LOL Thibault, I guess it was.
I'm no mathematician (far from it), but I don't think that this theory will turn out to be true anytime in the near future, even in a "predictable" game like chess. Even chess engines depend on the skill of their programmers to find new ways to make their search algorithms become reliable and faster, and tablebase development is still petabytes away from being complete.
Anyway, I guess the future generations will have to tell us if it worked or not. Only God knows what can get in the way of this "gaming nirvana" as they call, and after I heard that it was proven possible that a computer user can subconciously influenciate the way an idle machine performs, I don't feel like trying to impersonate Baba Vanga on this subject! ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-14 13:33:14)
Chess engines prohibited
Please note :
"The use of databases and chess engines will be prohibited for this challenge." (games unrated)"
Lots of fun ! .. Join us :)
Miguel Pires (2006-09-15 01:05:13)
Chess database
This is the rules of the gk, you can see in this link http://gameknot.com/pg/pol_community.htm What is important is this one: 3. You may not use chess engines, chess programs, chess computers to help you decide your next move. You may not consult with anyone nor ask advice about any games in progress. You may analyze games with chess engines after they are finished. You may consult chess books or game/move databases at any time. Soo i can consult databases. You can fin the tablebases in PGN or other thing, by this rule you can use, any databasese, oppening, games etc. Don't you agree? Regard's Miguel Pires
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-18 14:00:30)
FICGS vs. GameKnot
Thomas :
I agree with you, the match is for fun only, I like the idea whatever the result, even 100-0 :) .. If players use engines, their problem.. we can't avoid the risk totally... I think it's more logical to prohibite databases too or to allow both databases and chess engines, playing "real correspondence chess", and we could have a larger team for sure... Still discussing.
Miguel :
I prefer to avoid to "mail" everyone about the match.. It's clearly announced in the news, so I think most players here are "more CC ones" and don't trust the no use of engines...
James Stripes (2006-09-18 15:56:13)
27 years ago
When I first played correspondence chess, books were encouraged and the few chess engines in existence were garbage. Good quality engines and comprehensive databases have changed the nature of correspondence play. Nearly everyone permits databases (electronic books), although endgame tablebases are less clear. Engines are permitted some places, while banned others. This site is my first foray into CC where engine use is permitted, but I've played at dozens of sites where I can use databases. (I don't believe I've ever reached a position in which tablebases would be useful, except a few elementary positions that any average player could win against Kramnik.) These inter-site matches, it seems to me, nurture connections across the broad community of correspondence players--a rapidly expanding coterie of chess aficionados thanks to the likes of GameKnot and similar sites.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-19 19:13:07)
No cumputer use at all
Thomas & I finally agreed to prohibite chess engines & chess databases for this friendly match ! :-)
Games should be really interesting this way.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-02 18:01:18)
Rybka vs. Chessbase engines
Are there correspondence chess players who use Rybka here ? .. is it a better analysis tool than his well-known rivals (Deep Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs...) ?
A thread about chess engines could be interesting : How to use chess engines in correspondence chess, which ones (when & why), their weaknesses.....
For sure many players don't want to tell their opponents their way of 'think' :) .. but it could be interesting to make this kind of comparison...
Roger Weber (2006-10-03 15:06:37)
50% ?!
Are you serious?
I mean, it is just bad to use chess engines.
1) You don't improve your own skill level
2) If I want to play against a chessengine I can just install one instead of trying to play people over the internet
Roger Weber (2006-10-03 15:11:47)
Go
The one thing that makes humans good at Go is our ability to recognize patterns.
Go is all about seeing patterns and making strategical moves.
Chess engines are so good at Chess because there aren't that many possibilites to be played, so a computer can calculate the best one by looking at databases.
However Go has a much larger board and much more possibilites of moves for a game, making it impossible for a computer to calculate the best move.
Also computers do not have an AI yet to enable them the recognition of patterns, or not to a degree that humans do.
So a Go-engine could theoretically beat you on a 9x9 sized board, but it is very improbable that it will do so on a 19x19 board.
At least for the moment ...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-03 15:19:04)
Humans vs. centaurs
This kind of discussion happened already here :
http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_857-Why-do-you-play-corrchess.html
People obviously play chess here for many different reasons, and there are very different ways to improve... I think that using a chess engine or not is not so important, centaurs will play with centaurs & humans against humans. The fact is chess engines are allowed here, and we can suppose that most players under elo 1700 don't use engines and most players over elo 1700 use engines.
James Stripes (2006-10-03 16:13:13)
curious
I have approximately 64 chess engines, including the beta version of Rybka 1 (the free version). In engine tournaments on my box, it has prevailed against my strongest commercial engines. However, the centaur play that is the norm here presents Rybka with an entirely different sort of playing environment than those in which it has demonstrated its superiority. As I am new to this type of play, I don't yet know how Rybka measures up to the likes of Junior, Shredder, and Hiarcs.
Roger Weber (2006-10-04 13:21:29)
Computers
@Marius
If I may ask the question, why would you even want to play a match with chess engines?
I don't see the point, except if you're a chess engine addict and can't play without.
I am totally against the usage of chess engines on internet servers, as its just not sportsmanlike and a match where both players agree using engines is IMHO not worth playing it.
Roger Weber (2006-10-04 16:53:51)
hmm
Well I guess there's a point in using chess engies, however to a certain degree. If you only play with chess engines and only do the moves that the engine suggests, you shouldn't play chess anymore.
I think I can accept the combination of a sensible player and an engine from an ethical point of view.
Although I still don't like it, but that's just my opinion on it. I did not mean to offend anyone.
Regards,
Roger.
Glen D. Shields (2006-10-05 05:25:52)
Wayne no one ...
Wayne - no one is time trouble because no one is using their time. That's the point! "Correspondence chess" on a server has basically become an OTB match between chess engines. Players in all organizations are complaining about server burnout. Players who swore off postal are re-considering their decision.
What Thibault is trying to find out is how prevalent is the burnout. What I'm proposing any player can do manually, but why should it be done manually when the server can do it for us? Isn't automation the whole purpose of the server?
Help from the server to manage the pace (and one's game load) is a perfectly logical extension of server play. If you want to play fast, play fast. If you want to play slow, slow the pace, use the server to do it for you. Why is that bothersome? No one is suggesting a change from the 40/10 limit. There's no proposal to deviate from the 100 maximum accumulated days (great rule - every server should follow this rule!). What am I missing? I really don't get it :)
Yannick Maret (2006-10-09 09:39:01)
A question about chess engines
At first I was against using engines but the opinions given in another thread made me believe that they might be an useful teaching mean.
So I'm starting to think about using a chess engine here... but just to check if the moves I chose spring any tactical opportunities for my opponent! Following the suggestions of the engine would just remove the fun of the game for me.
Anybody has an idea on how to do that easily, and what engine to use? I would like a method that avoid the temptation of playing moves suggested by the engine!
Thanks in advance,
Yannick
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-09 11:19:53)
UCI / Winboard engine
Hello Yannick.
Maybe you could try a free chess engine like Crafty (quite strong already, also running on Chessbase / Fritz interface), GNUchess, Arasan, Ghost or any engine running on Winboard / Arena free interfaces...
See a list of chess engines here :
http://www.ficgs.com/wiki_en-chess_engines.html
A well-known french speaking website about computer chess :
http://perso.orange.fr/lefouduroi/computerchess.htm
Actually it's probably very hard not to be influenced by chess engines suggestions, but the point is to understand, then find better moves...
All depends on the level you want the engine to play. There are hundred of engines to download...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-10 16:04:54)
Arena chess
I suppose it's possible to evaluate a position without displaying the lines under Arena...
Free program, hundreds of chess engines...
http://www.playwitharena.com
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-26 18:33:58)
Reveal your software
Actually I wouldn't say that any engine vs. engine games are played here.
(or at ICCF, IECG ...)
This kind of statistics may be relevant on Playchess server or FICS [Free Internet Chess Server] at fast time controls where human can't help much, not in correspondence chess. That's obvious anyway that most players above 2000-2200 elo use chess engines, but games are not 100% engines, or any particular engine for sure...
I'm convinced Fritz or Shredder 'alone' wouldn't reach 2200.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-30 18:13:36)
Big chess "birthday" tournament !
FICGS now counts more than 1000 members :)
The display of Big Chess games has just been improved : Last move marked, coordinates, speed, bugs fixed... So it may be funny to see more games !!
A special tournament will start soon, if you want to enter it, just post "I'm in." (or something like that :)) in this thread. The first 7 players will be in.
The tournament will be there :
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__BIG_CHESS__THOUSAND_MEMBERS_EVENT.html
Games unrated, time control is 30 days + 1 day / move... 7 players -> 6 games per player (big challenge).
Reminder : To see what Big Chess is, see the Inaugural match game...
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__BIG_CHESS__INAUGURAL_MATCH.html
100% human chess guaranteed, no chess engines & databases :)
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-05 20:25:29)
Fischer : "Now chess is completely dead"
Why should be a (very, very) good chess player also a wise person? Bobby by himself has showed us that there are no correlation between theese abilities. It must be very frustrating for a grandmaster that very weak players can tell him for many positions (but far from all positions!!!) on an easy way by using chess engines what had been his mistakes in last competition!
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-12 13:42:38)
White to move!
Is there a way to win for White and if it is - which could be the only move to realize this? ChessPosition (see diagram) Black's last move has been 49...Qa7. Has there been any better move for Black? Have attention to the proposals of your chess engines!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-12 15:00:01)
Chess problem
Interesting chess problem...
The first move seems quite easy to find, knowing only one move wins & considering bishop and knight, but proving it is not obvious... maybe I'm wrong (my first idea was h5)... Anyway, chess engines are lost here, it seems Hiarcs is the only one finding h5.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-24 01:16:50)
dreams are not reality...
Elmer, let me dream a few days more, please :)
If the match is not 'arranged', everything can happen. I'm sure Kramnik can win 1 game or 2, and draw the other ones...
Chess engines have nothing more to prove, a win for Kramnik would give new interest for the match Kramnik vs. Fritz 12, a draw would be a non-event and a loss for Kramnik would be interpreted as "Chess is completely dead"... Not so good for Chessbase... Choose.
But finally, if Bobby was right ? :) .. (sure not)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-01 11:19:43)
Deep Fritz, Rybka & future
The Chess Challenge 2006 in Bonn between classical world champion Vladimir Kramnik and chess engine Deep Fritz 10 confirms (who ignored ?) the best chess programs can rivalize with the world champion in a match, but it first shows us these calculating monsters still have weaknesses.
Question is : What are the real improvements in Fritz 10 compared to Fritz 9 (engine speaking only) ?
Here is what I think about chess engines nowadays (Fritz 10, Shredder, 10, Junior 10, Hiarcs 10 and particularly Rybka 2.2) :
The way of think to play correspondence chess is (or should be) mostly human one combined with a chess engine algorithm. We follow the tree of moves like a program with our selective algorithm (much better than chess engines), applying our judgement of the position when necessary only. The point is we evaluate moves and we almost never evaluate a position twice.
Chess engines are very good analysis tools but are surprisingly not designed to be very good chess players. I think a major improvement in chess engines should be recognition of 'sufficient moves' : ie. it is no worth to always find the best move at a particular point of the tree, this reflection time could be used later... It depends on the evaluation of the position, on the clocks... Iterative model is quite basic (in a game at least !).
Another point is recognition of traps. This is the start of psychology in chess engines, and basics of the art of war. It first depends on who your opponent is, and on the clocks too. Finally, at the end of the tree, chess engines evaluate positions, but how many evaluate moves ? .. Speculative moves were a step, but it first shew chess engines were not able yet to see what move is worth to be analysed really deeper, consequently creating a 'human' weakness, particularly against some other chess engines.
I don't know how Rybka works, but as far as I read about this one that calculates much less positions (about 10 times) than Fritz, I wouldn't be surprised that Vasik Rajlich had implemented a better approach of human way of think, which is undoubtly the future of chess engines.
A good 'centaur' in ie. Playchess rapid tournaments is first a good choice between Chessbase engines according to the position and clocks. Fritz qualities probably apply best in standard games, where clocks are really designed for him. Among Chessbase engines, Hiarcs is probably the best Blitz player and could be the best correspondence chess player (even if it isn't the best CC tool for humans). Rybka is probably a kind of centaur itself (sorry, herself ;)), knowing when to use (in the tree !) brute force and more selective approachs - not to be compared to Hydra or Deep Blue which, on contrary, use most brute force.
My conclusion is chess engines have much to learn from humans yet, we'll see a Rybka 5 and Fritz 13, with much better results against other chess engines, but their results shouldn't increase a lot against the best humans in future. Finally, it will never be a good correspondence chess player :)
My two cents.
If I find time, I'll continue to implement my own chess engine..... but it's a lot of work :/
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-02 13:40:46)
Chess engines CC ratings
It is my estimation. 3 out of 4 represents about 200 elo points. I doubt Chessbase will organize a Man(+Machine) vs. Machine correspondence chess match... However there are a few examples : Arno Nickel - Hydra (2,5-0,5), Hydra which beat Adams over the board 5,5-0,5 ... And I suppose Arno Nickel did not have access to the program, but knowing better his opponent I'm sure it's possible to reach such a score against any program.
About your test, it's been discussed here already :) .. In my opinion such a player's rating would travel between 2200 and 2400 (at most) mark !
Waiting for a match against Rykba :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-02 15:55:16)
Engines and intuition
About chess engines, that's hard to say. If we call 'intuition' their ability to play speculative moves - calculating less possibilities than usual in complex positions - it's quite easy to change some parameters and say "this engine plays according his evaluation function more than calculation", like us... It's a question of proportion and that's hard to compare with human thinking.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-04 12:52:51)
Intuition
I don't agree with that. If you oppose intuition to calculation / algorithm / reasoning, chess engines do have intuition. Even Fritz has chess knowledge, that looks like ours by the way, and can play at a 1900-2000 level OTB without any calculation (1 move forward) IMO. And the same, some chess engines improve their evaluation of positions by training.
Quite complex question, nearer philosophy than computers :)
Wayne Lowrance (2006-12-05 03:26:24)
Chess Engines CC Ratings
Waiting for a match against Rybka ? :) hummmm Wayne
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-12-13 16:37:20)
Rybka clearly the best ?
There are many investigations of chess engines in web their resultats are showing the same like yours. But the open questions is whether playing against other chess engines is the same like assisting human to analyze a chess position?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-14 00:09:56)
Rybka clearly the best engine vs. engine
I fully agree with both of you... We must be careful, even if all these results are really impressive, most chess engines have been designed to play against humans and to be useful analysis tools. As I said in another thread, there are still many things to improve to make it the best engine vs. engine fighter.
Nowadays, the best chess engines try to 'think' like humans and actually have inherited human weaknesses from them, so IMO a Hydra or Deep Blue would crush ie. Shredder or Junior which try to make it harder for human brain while Fritz is clearly better balanced.
Maybe this new engines generation started with Fruit which plays very solid. So Rybka, which is clearly designed to beat his rivals but I'm not convinced at all it is a better tool to play correspondence chess.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-17 23:59:52)
Chess engines ratings
Some useful links about ratings and statistics for all well known chess engines : Rybka (2.2, 2.1 ..), Deep Fritz 10, Deep Shredder 10, Deep Junior 10, Hiarcs 11, Zap!Chess paderborn, Loop 10.32, Toga II, Fruit 2.2, Glaurung 1.2, Spike 1.2, Smarthink, Naum 2.0, Ktulu 8.0, CM9000, CM10th, Fritz 9, Chess Tiger 15, Chess Tiger 2007, Ruffian 2.1, List 11 and many others...
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_120_ratinglist/ratinglist/rangliste.html
http://web.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/list.htm
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-18 01:19:11)
Chess engines rating
Very nice information. A great big word of caution. We play coorespondence games here. Those engine-engine tournaments do not indicate directly which program is best suited for correspondence deep analysis, I do not have enough experience with the engines except earlier versions of Fritz, shredder, Hiarc, Junior and of course Dr Robert Hyatts Various versions of Crafty and Rybka. Rybka is top rated eng-eng program for fast time controls. But not sure that it is best for deep analysis. My guess is that Latest Fritz is at least as well suited for deep analysis and perhaps better. Then their is Shredder another top eng-eng program that is very very good at deep analysis. From what I read and for what it is worth those are the best engines. But if you want the strongest program for 40/120 time control down to bullet chess,then the clear winner is Rybka by Vas. Hope this is of interest. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-18 01:22:34)
Chess engines ratings
+1
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-18 02:13:03)
Chess engines rating
+1......huh ?
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-18 17:42:27)
Chess engines
Ahhhh, thank you. I was not familiar with that one. Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-19 00:25:10)
Nigel davies
http://www.chesscafe.com/davies/davies.htm This very interesting link provided here on FICS is good reading "chess Cafe" The article by Nigel is very interesting and informing. I find it very interesting that he uses Fritz as his analysis partner here on Fics. Speaks volumes for Fritz I think. I have had Fritzies for long long time starting with Fritz5, and have learned a lot that has helped me with OTB as with Nigel. I would love to find out what Nigel thinks about the latest releases of other chess engines. Sad to hear him say he no longer has time for coorespondence chess. The loss is mine and all of you. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-19 10:25:53)
Correspondence chess
As I wrote to Nigel, correspondence chess teaches 'best' moves, probably not best chess IMO... I'm not sure at all this is the way a GM (should) play.
Definitely it's a very different game and we must keep an over the board vision of the game if we still want to play exciting games and avoid quick dead draw positions. (look at the games of Wladyslav Krol in example :)) .. Chess engines are a very important tool, so think different. A full debate.. to be continued...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-10 03:08:52)
Rybka, Fritz and future...
Computerchess is definitely an exciting challenge... The community is fast-growing, new versions of chess engines appear every day, many dream to be the next Vasik Rajlich and to produce an engine that would beat the well-known Chessbase engines and the famous Rybka.
These days, I had a look at Fruit 2.1, TogaII and Crafty source code that are available to download, and started to implement new search & evaluation functions. It's quite easy to understand why chess programming is so addictive, so much done and so much to do... finally I did not enter this mad race without an ending, probably for the same reasons Anthony Cozzie (the author of Zap! Chess Zanzibar) and many others retired.
However here are my feelings about future of chess engines, and the fight that just started between most probably Chessbase engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior and Hiarcs) and a new era of chess engines that started with Rybka...
First, it's quite obvious to me that Rybka (now Rybka 2.3) is only another one of a long series of chess engines always stronger than each others ! .. I expect the next ones to reach 50, 100 then 200 points more (and maybe more) on the next chess engines elo rating lists, a scale that definitely can't be compared to human elo rating list ! .. Several reasons to this : (1) Chess engines are human killers at standard time controls, but chess engines are far to play perfect chess yet. (2) The way ratings are calculated.
Rybka taught us several things IMO :
- Algorithms and evaluation functions are no more enough. Now chess engines have to play chess, not only search a tree of chess positions... That's probably what Rybka brought to computerchess. Since Fruit 2.1 & Toga II source code is available, and computerchess community is constantly discussing improvements in algorithms, evaluations of positions and new ideas, to implement a chess engine becomes easier so I have no doubt that new very strong chess engines like Rybka will come.
- To become famous, a chess engine must 'also' beat his rivals. I first thought that Rybka was designed to be an engines killer only (at least before to be an analysis tool) with some tricks exploiting most engines weaknesses. No, Rybka is also a great UCI engine, simply stronger and with many options & features. Like Vasik Rajlich, who is engineer and international chess master, you'll have not only to think like an engineer to create such an engine. However I still don't think it is the best analysis tool for correspondence chess, it doesn't play really better chess and in all cases it is not enough. More, Rybka 3, 4, 5 shouldn't influence correspondence chess (maybe even human vs. machine) much... Computerchess influences computerchess first.
It's written sometimes that the strongest chess engines could reach a IM, even GM level at correspondence chess. I definitely disagree with that, at least for the moment (it will take a long time yet), but as chess engines results tend to approach correspondence chess ones (means more and more draws), I do think chess engines have much to learn from correspondence chess players way of thinking, meaning : A more psychological approach, bonus for traps detection. Evaluate moves, not only positions. A more complex search, not 'only' iterative (brute force is definitely useless). No more anti-human style, speculative moves (=weakness, ie. Deep Junior) for speculative results against strongest chess engines, draws are prefered. To avoid positions not understood by the engine. Longer games, closed games (if supported)... Opening books should look like correspondence chess GMs ones (of course according to the engine's style of play) and no more been made of FIDE GM games. A better time management... Future of computerGo may teach to computerchess about some evaluations.
A chess engine must play good moves AND try to win (which is not always the same). It seems Fruit & Rybka play solid and are waiting to exploit their opponent's weaknesses thanks to a better "chess" algorithm/knowledge. As far as I have seen, Shredder & Fritz still have the best 'eye', they see far but fuzzy. Quite the same about Fruit & Toga developped by a great engineer, Fabien Letouzey : Less chess knowledge but an improved algorithm. As for Rybka, a great chess knowledge and probably a smarter algorithm (not better, smarter !) were probably enough already. The future best chess engines will be made by good chess players...
An interesting point is it could be not so easy, maybe even nonsense, to create the best analysis tool that would also obtain the best results against other chess engines. My first prediction is Rybka won't be the top rated chess engine ever, hundreds of new ideas will appear in all parts of chess programming, slowly breaking Rybka secrets, then speed will be a factor again. Deep Fritz, Junior, Fruit or Hydra are most probably the core of the next generations of chess engines... but there's a lot of work yet :)
My two cents.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-12 09:47:18)
Rybka 2.3
The new version of the engine seems to be late, and it seems not only authors of chess engines are addicted to computerchess :)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=204#fp
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-17 18:07:31)
Gameknot vs. FICGS, other challenges
It seems GameKnot leads 5-4 in the games played here... Not bad :)
Any news about the games played at GameKnot ?
It could be interesting to discuss about other team challenges... A team tournament, matches against other servers or forums (which ones ?), maybe at different time controls or playing chess variants (chess 960) or other games (could be fun to play chess & Go, poker or anything against the same players).. with or without computer assistance and so on... It should be easier to build teams now thanks to the chat bar.
It seems there was no problem of cheating with chess engines during the match against GameKnot, that's encouraging to organize other ones.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-22 17:34:01)
Zap! Chess Zanzibar
Nice results for Zap!Chess Zanzibar chess engine, that now appears 2nd (Rybka 1st, of course) on all CEGT (Chess Engines Grand Tournament) rating lists.
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn
Definitely, that's a pity Anthony Cozzie can't give more time to computer chess.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-25 13:23:18)
Big Chess
Finally, Big Chess tournaments waiting list is open !
If you like to play without chess engines and against human players only, you may try this really interesting variant of chess. (unrated games)
Have a look at these Big Chess events by clicking 'Tournaments', then 'FICGS__CHESS__SPECIAL_EVENTS' :
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__THOUSAND_MEMBERS_EVENT
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__INAUGURAL_MATCH
Have good big chess games :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-09 16:16:41)
GM vs. chess engines database
Someone mentioned "Marc Lacrosse´s database" in a Rybka forum's thread, I did not find it with Google, but I found this interesting Man vs. Machine database, 2837 GM vs. engine games on ICC so far, on Marc's website : Chessbazaar (link was on this forum :))
http://users.skynet.be/mlcc/chessbazaar/gmvscompsicc2006.html
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-05-02 14:46:08)
Fun and competition
For me is correspondence chess just fun and competition. It is possible, that some of my played games may give others a feeling of art (in this case not in the meaning of artificial :-)), but this is just a result of a random process. A special science of correspondence chess (beside normal chess theory) can I see only in programming chess engines or in finding of Tablebases – both not my skills. I love chess, but I’m too weak playing OTB chess on a high level, possible not by my fundamental understanding of chess positions but by my missing personal power of memory, computing (without computers) and nerves. So correspondence chess is ideal for me, because I can substitute my individual weaknesses by a computer und have no time stress to analyse the positions in all ways – artificial and human – to find out the most efficient chance.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-07 14:32:34)
science,art and bluff
The environment is different but there's a lot of bluff in correspondence chess IMO, even if the number of draws is higher at 2400+ level. It is no more based on obvious mistakes but on apparent "weak" moves that actually can win ie. a long endgame, particularly moves that are completely missed by the best chess engines such as Rybka. This kind of moves happens often yet, fortunately.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-14 18:14:03)
Rybka 2.3.2
Just after President's cup "Ultimate computer challenge" finished, Vasik Rajlich threw a new Rybka 2.3.2 in the chess engines arena... (partly explains the $100,000 challenge to Ilyumzhinov a few weeks ago)
Once more, Rybka 2.3.2 seems stronger than her predecessors with indcredible results (blitz time control) against Hiarcs 11.1, Zap chess Zanzibar, Shredder and so on... Maybe +35 elo points compared to Rybka 2.3.1 !
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=1264#fp
http://www.rybkachess.com
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-15 17:12:39)
Online chess today
A few links to discussions at TCCMB (The Correspondence Chess Message Board) on chess servers nowadays, future of ICCF, correspondence chess [once more] and so on...
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=105.0
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.0
In the second discussion I tried to answer on the future of correspondence chess & chess engines :
1) Like the 'tour de France', it is impossible to organize a "bicycle race" at chess without doping today IMO. Also there are so many 'products' : Various books, databases, engines, human help.. so it seems to me that it is a non-sense to try to make it like an OTB tournament. Online chess is "motorcycle races" & freestyle, nothing else.
2) The ratio of wins does not decrease much in computer games & advanced chess (blitz), and correspondence chess games will never be all drawn IMO. We just have to follow the horizon line... Engines still have difficulties when there are 32 pieces on the board... Make the position more and more complex & critical, play Benoni structures, East indians and English openings... There will probably be more and more draws but when looking at CC 2500+ games, the ratio is still quite good. The problem at CC is mainly the style of play with humans 'humanly' trying to remain in known positions where they can win and can't lose.
'The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy', 'Opportunities multiply as they are seized' (Sun Tzu)
A solution is to make rules that motivate players to avoid draws, particularly when playing against a higher rated opponent. (ie. the rule for FICGS 8-games matches)
3) We feel that engines play almost perfect chess because of our poor human's level of play (I should say ratings)... But engines & computers have to improve a lot yet - not obvious they can do it in a more or less near future -, the horizon line is not so far, each version of Rybka wins about 30 elo points... We'll see engines at level 3200, 3300 maybe much more... (4000 ?)
4) If too many players have their CC rating between 2750-2800 in future, we can make new rules : Ratings wouldn't be calculated on the basis of each game, but on the basis of ie. 8-games matches... Then strategy would be more important & we would see rating gaps again between the best players...
Finally if I'm completely wrong, play Big Chess ;D
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-16 22:00:18)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
Hello to all.
I'm glad to announce a new match between chess servers, that should start in about 10 days to 2 weeks. The previous match was FICGS vs. GAMEKNOT (we lost :))
The opponent is the russian server - http://www.igame.ru , an opportunity to meet new chessfriends from eastern countries :)
Here is the agreement :
1. Teams should consist of 25 players maximum (an exact number should be agreed later);
2. Number of games on each board equals 2 (one for White and one for Black);
3. Time control is 30 days + 3 days/move;
4. Leaves are provided, 30 days/year;
5. The match is played on www.ficgs.com;
6. Start date of the match should be agreed by both sides after squads are completed;
7. ICCF rules of play are applied.
In this match chess engines are allowed, it goes without saying we need a strong correspondence chess team, but anyone who wish to play may email me (or use the 'message to webmaster' form in "My account"), or just respond to this post.
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 05:32:40)
WCCC
Hi Wayne.
I mean, WCCC is a tournament like any other (no federations or whatever...), it is a big event and program authors come to play, that's great. But the format with so few interesting games can't provide accurate results :/
I agree that Deep Fritz & Junior are not the strongest chess engines today, but they are a good test for other ones and a way to improve the results of a tournament. IMO a World Computer Chess Champion should be ie. the SSDF 1st ranked program, which is continuous tournament with many games played, or maybe the games played at SSDF should be organized like a continuous swiss tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 20:50:23)
Big chess theory : "Queens opening"
The first rated Big Chess tournament started a few days ago... I like this game more and more, no theory, no databases, no chess engines, many strategies & many queens captured already ;)
Every opening seems ok, we still don't know if taking pawns with the queen during the first moves is worth something or not, the value of the pieces is quite unpredictable... Many players now play 1.Nh4 to threaten 2.Qo7 then 3.Qc7 if needed, winning a pawn. What is the best response if you want to keep the same material ? .. Anyway that's very interesting to see a side with 1 or 2 pawns more, giving some rooks activity to the opponent.. Still looks like a draw theorically.
My main line is : 1.Nh4 Nh13 2.Qo7 No14 3.Qc7 Ql13
Any other suggestion ?
See Big Chess waiting list in Chess Special Tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 22:40:11)
Big chess software
Well, FICGS :)
I hope there will never be such a software, even if I would be curious to see big chess engines playing !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-20 22:54:33)
Internet chess
Well, the discussion with Tryfon Gavriel continues at TCCMB. As I had to explain the way I make FICGS, I copy my responses here :
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.15
Hello again Tryfon !
That's a very interesting discussion...
Actually I have to explain FICGS in its whole to respond :) .. To be continued for sure..
While registering a new member wrote to me a few months ago "Thanks for creating this ultimate chess challenge" or so... That's exactly what I try to do, mostly with the FICGS championship knockout & round-robin rules... Players just want challenge, that's the only assumption I start with, so I try to create interesting challenges. About the intellectual part, you're right but I'm quite sure that top level correspondence chess players still consider their game as an intellectual challenge, much more than a brute force or computer skills one. That's not the case for Advanced chess with fast time controls.
Let's take a look at the bicycle races again... The "Tour de France" is dying IMO.. because everyone understood we "don't know" if the champion is ok.. If doping was allowed (it would be a scandal for health of course), I'm sure the interest would raise again ! I think it is the same for chess & for everything else... The "Tour de France" syndrom happened in Elista with the match Kramnik vs. Topalov... It will have consequences. We need champions and we want true champions, every means are ok for this ! .. So the "engines allowed" rule is the only one possible or reasonable in my opinion.
Of course, chess & correspondence chess are changing, because these "walls" are nearer & nearer... maybe chess will die, maybe not.. The main problem is that in 1997, a super computer became World Champion... this year a "simple" computer Deep Fritz became world champion, soon Rybka on a cellular phone... :) Who is really interested to be a champion in "human category" ? FIDE world chess championship will continue to progressively lose its interest IMO...
Correspondence chess is just starting to grow in popularity and is told to be dying already. Surely correspondence chess will ask more & more time at a high level to win a few points, but it is possible to create more challenge by ie. changing the rating rules (the "design" of Elo rating system will become a problem).. Then, if it is not enough, we'll look for other challenges... It's told for years that Go (Weiqi) will replace chess in western countries... why not Big chess as the "brain only" game if there can't be doping in it.. just trying, as there's no other solution :)
A word about Poker of course, as it's probably the fastest growing game in popularity : IMO this game is at a stade like chess in year 1900, but the same problem will happen, even quicker. At a high level the game will be just more and more boring (if you wish to win real money) or chancy (in a wch tournament), or you'll have to always find weak players (well, not very challenging).
About the simultaneous exhibition against Alekhine or Capablanca, I'm not sure at all they would crush everyone at our chess servers, they are undoubtly more talented than all of us, but I feel it wouldn't be enough in all cases to win against correspondence chess style of play & knowledge accumulated for 50 years... A few players rated OTB 2000-2200 could draw against them IMO...
At last, yes I'm a fan of Sun Tzu's "The art of war" :) .. I strongly believe that correspondence chess will not die in the next few years because players will follow its principles more and more, as the only way to win ! .. Big chess follows the same principles... and Go is the most challenging game because of it too !
Tryfon, I'm not sure that we're opposite in our vision of chess ! .. Our servers have obviousy different goals, nothing more.. I do enjoy playing mad blitz games without chess engines... I just believe that the future of internet chess is "serious (engines allowed, rated) correspondence chess" on one hand and "human chess for fun (no engines, unrated)" on the other hand... The other ways look like nonsense to me.
I hope it responds.
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 06:06:29)
Chess Engine Strength
Hello Glen !
I see your point, that's quite true and a consequence is what I called at TCCMB "the extensive nature of elo rating", however rating rules are more dynamic at FICGS.. So, let's say Rybka playing the FICGS championship against players of all kinds of ratings in the round-robin cycle... Anyway 2200 is only my feeling.
I understand your views about "rybka" [correspondence] chess nowadays, even if I don't agree with it completely. I saw some of your CC games played at IECG, and it looks much more like 'good old' chess with some unusual and beautiful tactical openings than typical 'correspondence computer chess' nowadays. I do believe there will be a place in the next CC years for more weird openings like bird, king's gambit, english... Also take a look at Peter Schuster and Wladyslav Krol games here !? .. Nothing boring with them, chess engine or not :)
Also advanced chess games with fast time controls could be quite interesting to watch in future as a way to see granmaster games with chess engines avoiding blunders 'only' (ok a bit more). We don't know exactly the human part in it, but draws won't be the rule for sure.
What is "boring" at correspondence chess (not new) is that achieving a top rating take a long... very long time ! .. But this is a great challenge yet IMO.
At last, thanks for you kind words :)
Best, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-14 14:31:34)
Strelka : Rybka clone ?
It seems the issue on whether Strelka is a clone of Rybka 1.0 or not has not ended... An interesting thread about it in Rybka forum, comparing code of both chess engines :
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=1655
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-30 16:05:11)
Without chess engines
It has been discussed here in the past, including this thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=2094
Letsplaychess.com, Itsyourturn.com, Gameknot.com and other chess servers & organizations offer correspondence chess games without chess engines, simply by 'forbidding' it...
We'll see, I will create a new unrated category (probably next week).
Best wishes, Thibault
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-01 12:43:09)
Free of chess engine
Thanks Thibault for reconducing me to this past forum. Very interesting. The part about "real" elo and correspondance elo is edifying. I know correspondence players could have a huge better elo than their real life one (if they have any) : more time to think, no stress, no pressure (or less) but I believe players who play without engines have a coorespondence rating approximately equal to their over the board one. Personnaly, I play coorespondence chess to try new opening, to train generally since I cannot play over the board so often since 2 years. I often play from the office, wtih sometimes a couple of minutes on a move, or sometimes I go home with the moves to think about my response in over the board conditions (30 minutes maximum on one move). My correspondence elo is around 2000 (with a good start with a peak to 2098, but declining since ;-D) and my over the board rating is now 1990 (with a peak to 2040 last year, and a rapid elo around 2100). So I sometimes feel a bit fed up with playing against chess engines, notably, but perhaps I'm wrong I have remarked that since I got an advantage, often opponents defend very very well, like computers in fact. Ok it's part of the game, and I know t could be a good training, fight hard to win a game, display a good technique, etc. but it could be disappointing to have the impression of play with a human opponent and have to finish with an another, i.e. the computer. Perhaps could we compare over the board elo, with correspondence elo to know if there is computer help or not ? Anyway, a special category of tournament will be great, and I'm eager to play with other ficgs "OTB-correspondence" players.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-02 13:26:25)
Ratings
Christophe, do you use no chess engines here ?
About ratings, probably most 2000+ correspondence chess players use chess engines whereas 1800- don't, so OTB players shouldn't play rated games with centaurs so often. Maybe new players should start with a 1800 rating (like ICCF) instead of 1600 so that most OTB players can't meet centaurs, what do you think ?
"ICC at least claims to have software that detects cheating" : You mean 'obvious' cheating... :)
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-03 12:53:52)
no chess engines
Hello Thibault, I play here without chess engine. Anyway, recently I tried to play "hippopotamus defence", (with no good result yet, I have to admit) so a computer is no use, it doesn't understand anything, but perhaps it's hippopotamus which is wrong, not the computer ;-D. Anyway a difficult defence in correspondence play). I began on this site with 2000, and so my elo was too high to play against human only ? I don't see how it's possible a sofware detect computer use ? Ok we see strange, computer-like moves sometimes, but... Perhaps two players, at the beginning of the game can agree to not use computer. Again about chess engine, I use a computer to record the moves (chessbase),to gain time, and replay fast the moves to get to the actual position, but my chess engines (an old fritz (5) and chess tiger (14) all that on a old PC) would certainly suffer a lot use against more recent chess engines ;-D Like Philip, I like to play on ficgs and it would be nice to plmay against more human opponent. I play one tournament on itsyourturn since last year, and I saw a lot more human mistakes than on ficgs. So, how explain it, I sometimes feel more comfortable on itsyourturn, but still I do like the spirit of ficgs, match against RU, the tournaments, forum, nice people to meet on the board, and so on
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-06 12:29:10)
Glen D. Shields
Hello Glen !
We had this discussion before, indeed chess engines killed imagination and a part of the fun. The game has changed a lot, more since Rybka appeared. Correspondence chess is now how to beat Rybka, that's a fact... and a new challenge.
Did you try another game, like Big Chess or Go (I really enjoy playing these games), where engines are completely useless and now both rated at FICGS ? My two cents ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-08 12:56:34)
No engines tournaments
Jason, of course you may be right ! .. We'll see, but I think the experience may be interesting anyway. As Philip said, FICGS main tournaments are designed for centaurs, and basically these "no engines" unrated tournaments are really just for fun... Unlike some of the other sites you mentioned, where to be ranked 1st may incite to use chess engines, I feel that these tournaments (with no rating ranges) will not attract many centaurs, simply because there's no interest at all for them...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-09 16:17:20)
Waiting list is open
The rules are : "FICGS chess no engines tournaments are unrated single round-robin tournaments, involving 7 players. The special rule for these tournaments is that chess engines, databases and opening books are strictly forbidden. All games are played in 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves. Norms are not possible."
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 21:05:48)
chess engines
Following Thibault's comments about Rybka having changed correpondence chess I purchased the rybka engine. It is a very good program but I dont see how it has affected cc anymore than Fritz. I have used Fritz 8 and 9 extensively for analysis and have until now no experience of other engines. Although I have just downloaded Toga II which is an excellent engine (and free!!) if anyone wants a free engine this is a top program that downloads in seconds and is up there with the commercial programs. I noticed Rybka seems more conservative evaluating positions than Fritz. However it has blind spots. For an example taken from the current chess cafe "Yasser Annotates" (Ivanchuk Seirawan 1990)after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe 4 Nxe Bc5 5 Ng3 Bg6 6 h5 h6 7 Nf3 Nd7 8 h5 Bh7 9 Bd3 Bxd 10 Qxd Ngf6 11 Bf4 e6 12 0-0-0 Be7 13 c4 b5 Black offers a pawn my reaction is not to take - otb I would never take. Why open the c file for black and grabbing the pawn by Qxb5 looks risky with only 2 pawns to cover the king and open b and c files. Fritz prefers 14 c5 with 14 cxd followed by 15 Kb1 as 2nd choice after 3 minutes ply 15 depth Rybka r chooses 14 cxb cxb then 15 Qxb5?! even after 1 hour at ply 19! In cc I would look at 14cxb and 15 Qxb5 to see if I could survive and win with the extra pawn but working with Fritz it takes but a few minutes to see black has compensation after 15 Qxb5 Nd5. When 16 Be5 gives an inferior endgame for white and 16 Bd2 Rb8 gives an attack for black. The top professionals work with a range of programs Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Hiracs and Rybka to generate ideas. Does anyone have any views on these other program's characteristics?
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 22:20:52)
chess engines
Couldn't you have waited until our game is over before buying Rybka? lol! Fruit 2.3 is the strongest free UCI engine that I know of.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 22:42:32)
chess engines
First of all, every chess engines is a choice, ie. about selectivity, and has consequences & weaknesses in particular positions. Fruit/Toga algorithm is really good but it has probably still much less chess knowledge than Rybka. I think Rybka's algorithm is really better also, Vasik Rajlich added some "human features" while other programs still think about chess like mathematics.
Rybka changed correspondence chess because Fritz or Junior (very strong chess machines) added to a good chess player makes a good centaur while Rybka is "almost" a centaur itself... Consequently a weak chess player can reach quite easily a 2100/2200 rating. That's the main reason...
Of course Rybka will always make some bad moves, but it/she builds an advantage move after move against other engines in most cases in 'calm' positions. HIARCS, that was told during a long time to think most like a human, was not a strong 'chess machine'. I don't know much about Hiarcs 11/12, but Rybka is a major improvement in this way IMO.
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 22:48:06)
chess engines
I don't think it's a coincidence that the strongest commercial program was designed by a strong IM chess player.
It's always amazed me that the majority of chess engine programmers know very little about the game of chess itself, such as Stefan Meyer-Kahlen's Shredder. I think there comes a point in the decision making process where your human chess knowledge because an important factor.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 23:31:53)
chess engines
Hi Jason As Thibault post indicates Toga is a fruit flavour ie fruit variant. Check CEGT rating list for single version engines (http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating.htm) Toga II is at no3 and Fruit 2.3 is at no 5 position. As for our game no engine is ever going to save me! Maybe 28 ..Rc8 would have held but earlier on 14 exd6 Bf6 15 Bxf8 Kxf6 16 Qf3 looks really disgusting for black. I am not going to blame the opening but Fritz and I are back to the Najdorf! Apparently Aagard had a book out on offbeat sicilianl ines in which he could find no way for white to gain an advantage in this Prins line hmm Im sceptical. Thibault - thanks for expanding on your comments. I note your point about calm positions. The game I cited is the sort of wild position where Rybka is not so good later in the game it is convinced that 19 ..Nxf2 is good for black a move which loses and which fritz rejects fairly quickly.
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 23:50:45)
chess engines
What about shredder 10 as far as wild positions go?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-12 07:36:30)
chess engines endgame play
Right Thibault! I am becoming more impressed with Rybka's endgame knowledge. It seems to have the extra pawn on just one side situations well understood. Is there any engine that is recognised as being the strongest at endgames? This is certainly an area where cc has helped me enormously as it has forced me to get some endgame books (and actually study them!)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-12 07:36:52)
chess engines endgame play
" It seems to have the extra pawn on just one side situations well understood." .. It is undoubtly one of the keys of its success.
As far as I know, Shredder has always been said to be the strongest engine in the endgames.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-13 00:41:26)
Chess engines ratings
"unsynchronized rating systems" : undoubtly :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-28 03:43:36)
Zappa wins the match
Finally Zappa beats Rybka 5,5-4,5, which is quite an enormous surprise !
Many interesting discussions followed in forums about chess engines programming, Zappa & Rybka strengths and weaknesses, how search & evaluation functions influence each other... and luck :
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=147594&t=16732
http://www.hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=254&start=105
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-03 05:26:32)
Free engines to download
I see that Fruit 2.3.x and Toga II 1.3.x series (and of course Rybka 1.0) are still the best free chess engines to download, quite near Chessbase engines strength.
Shredder 11 seems to be sold with Fritz 10 interface and old 2007 chess games database, a good reason to buy forthcoming Fritz 11 ;) .. I assume that Chessbase will focus on the interface and Chessbase 11 (or.. 10, 12 ?! hard to follow)
Which is the current best free engine to help in correspondence chess games in your opinion ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-07 15:21:35)
Wayne...
We need more Big Chess players, no chess engines there :)
Garvin Gray (2008-03-17 11:35:42)
freestyle and seedings
While I am just another user of this forum, I can answer both of these questions as they come up regularly.
Hailes- My understanding is once you sign onto a waiting list, you cant leave it.
The reason being is players could enter, then see another player enter, then leave the tournament and rejoin in another slot to get a better colour, as your entry position determines your seeding in the round robin draw.
Also regarding chess engines etc, as long as you play as an individual, anything goes. Most of the players on here are using engines and it is fully endorsed.
Basically this is a freestyle chess site.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-05-02 01:31:20)
Test matches ....
Hi, I use ARENA, a free user interface compatible with most chess engines. With it is possible to organize matches and tournaments between engines.
Jason Repa (2008-05-04 07:45:33)
From??
I agree with most of what you said, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to conclude that all variations of the From's Gambit are busted. We might end up finding out that some variations of it are fine for Black.
I also disagree with your statement that "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". Assuming I'm willing to hypothetically go along with the argument that there's supposedly something "wrong" with 1.f4, even though it's at worst a Dutch Defense a move up......you're not taking into consideration the fact that some people actually do more than "play" correspondence chess and want to practice lines they play in live tournaments. 1.f4 has been played by many of the world's greatest players, and in serious competitive tournaments. Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker, and many others have played 1.f4 occasionally, and there are many current IM's and even a GM (Henrik Danielsen) who have played it quite frequently.
Perhaps your idea of "playing chess" is to simply plug a position into various chess engines and mindlessly relay the moves your program suggests, but as for myself, I use the data I acquire from my cc games to prepare for my real chess (chess between human mind vs human mind). Anything other than that is just analysis or group study at best.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 11:30:35)
French traps
The French defence is one of the best replies to 1 e4 - accidents however are always possible as the following correspondence game shows with black playing into a lost position after just 13 moves: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6 9.Qd2 Qxb2 10.Rb1 Qa3 11.Bb5 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bb4 13.O-O O-O ?? (black had to play 13 ..a6 although he will still be under pressure) 14 Rb3 Qa5 15.Qe3 Nb6 16.Qg3 Nc4 17 f5! and the correspondence game finished Rd8 18.Rf4 Bf8 19.Rg4 Kh8 20.f6 g6 21.Rh4 h6 22.Kh1 Kg8 23.Qh3 Kh7 24.Bc5 Rd6 25.g4 Qd8 26.g5 h5 27.Rxh5+ These things happen OTB but French defence players have known of this since Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 which went 19 f6 g6 20 Rh4 a6 21 Qh3 h5 22 Rxh5!! gxh5 23 Qxh5 axb5 24 Kf2 and white won. since then 13 0-0 has been avoided. Of course at cc a player has time to research the databases and access to powerful chess engines at no cost.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 13:57:40)
Databases and books
Well I dont think a book should ever be trusted for cc no matter who has written it. It should always be critically examined - playing 18 moves from the book without switching on the engine seems very risky. I think the position is lost after 13..0-0 14 Rb3 Qa5 15 Qd3 and I see no defence here. The only Dreev game I have in this line continued .. Nb6 16 Qg3 Nc4 and a draw was agreed.(Ivanchuk-Dreev 1993) Chess engines were not as good then and 17 f5 wins as was later discovered. Where are these GM games from 2003?? Its strange that your database does not have Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 In fact an earlier game Ernst - Grigutavicus (1999)had seen white crash through with 15 Qf2 Nb8 16 f5 - although Nb8 does not look a very good move. Whats the date of this Psakhis book? I hope its not after 2001!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-15 23:14:37)
Books and databases
This thread is really about how reliance on books and lack of research can get someone into trouble ie a lost position after 13 moves in a main line opening - even with plenty of time and powerful chess engines available. Actually its not even necessary to own an up to date database to avoid this - the resources are freely available to anyone with an internet connection. The point about ELO is dead I think referring to ELO points is associated with FIDE ratings irrespective of the fact that most national rating systems use ELO's methodology. Mr Repa does not agree - thats it. "but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base ..." I don't read anything into the omission of the word "someone" here nor the numerous spelling mistakes that have cropped up. Incidentally the book I referred to with analysis of the dodgy siscilain variation is called Experts V the Sicilian with different chapters by various GM's and IM's including a chapter on the pin variation about which one reviewer says: "we get no less than 12 pages on the “silly” Pin Variation, and in the end Aagaard seems unable to prove a certain advantage!" Whatever the truth about that variation its highly risky and not recommended for cc!
Jason Repa (2008-06-08 11:09:30)
Nickel vs Hydra
I believe that Nickel used various chess engines to assist him with error-checking and analysis, similar to what any good corr. player does.
I especially liked the game where Nickel beat Hydra with the Black side of a French Tarrasch
Jason Repa (2008-06-08 20:37:40)
Rapid chess entry rating
No, Lowrance, you're the one missing the point here. And you're using engine assistance as much as anyone here, so don't pretend like you're somehow at a disadvantage. I've played you, and you're 100% program. Perhaps that's the problem.
Thibault mentioned once that a weak player running Rybka can get to around 2100 or so. To get beyond that requires some chess knowledge. While he may not be precisely accurate about the number....perhaps it's 2200 instead......nonetheless, the point is accurate. Everyone who's above 2000 on this site is consulting chess engines, but in corr. chess simply running a program alone is not the strongest way to play. You make it sound as though Rybka plays the perfect chess game. If that were the case everyone on this site would be rated about the same. It should be quite obvious to you that to go from 2300 to 2400 is much more difficult than going from 2200-2300. As a higher rated player, you get less points for winning or drawing, and lose more when you lose. As for your chances against 2400 players being the same as against 2100 players, that's pure nonsense. You'd be lucky to get the occasional draw against a 2400 player, (one who's really earned their rating and not just started with an artificially high rating as is the case with more than a few on this site) whilst you will lost most of those games. A higher rated player is higher rated for a reason. They win more games.
The correct spelling of my name should also be obvious to you, as it's on the same page that you're entering text into.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-18 14:24:09)
Chessbase Deep Rybka 3
Chessbase, who distributes the best chess engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Zappa...) now also distributes the little fish : Rybka 3 and Deep Rybka 3 are available.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4772
Rybka 3 (by Vasik Rajlich) is the reigning computer world champion and should be at least 80 points stronger than the previous version Rybka 2.3.2
Did anyone test it already ? What about the improvements (particularly Monte Carlo Analysis in endgames) ?
Rybka 3 book with 3,387,966 positions (260 MB) is also available.
Mladen Jankovic (2008-08-04 12:45:58)
Strategy stealing
Actually, that comes from the strategy stealing argument in the game theory.
Shannon was the first to formaly study theory of chess engines. See:
http://www.pi.infn.it/%7Ecarosi/chess/shannon.txt
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-16 12:29:32)
Questions to Xavier Pichelin
Xavier Pichelin is 1st FICGS chess champion after beating IM Gino Figlio in the first candidates final, he accepted to talk about his match, the tournament, his views around correspondence chess, chess engines and so on... The most important part may be he'll defend his title against the winner of the 2nd candidates final :)
Unfortunately, the complete interview is in french only as he doesn't speak english, but if someone finds a good translator (if possible better than Babelfish), he may post it in this thread. Thanks !
- Bonjour Xavier et tout d'abord félicitations pour ta victoire dans le match qui t'opposait au MI (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Pérou] dans la finale des candidats. Tu devais éviter à tout prix la nulle dans toutes les parties, finalement les noirs t'ont porté chance, comment expliques-tu ce résultat ?
Xavier : Bonjour, merci pour les félicitations. C'est vrai qu'en cas de nulles pour toutes les parties, le règlement indique Figlio Vainqueur en cas d'égalité avec victoire(s) et défaite(s) je remporte le match. Donc il fallait que je prenne des risques en attaquant et c'est avec les noirs que je l'ai fait car je pensais que Gino, dans ces parties, attendrait sans prendre de risques pour assurer les nulles.
- Peux-tu nous décrire la manière dont tu as abordé ce match contre Gino et son déroulement au fur et à mesure des différentes phases du jeu ?
X : C'est assez simple, dans ce match je n'étais pas du tout favori car avec plus de 200 points ELO FICGS en ma défaveur, et Gino titré Maître International avec plus de 2480 point ELO ICCF, je pensais que je n'allais pas résister sur 8 parties simultanées car sur une partie tout est possible mais sur 8 parties... c'était pour moi un grand défi ! Pour le déroulement du jeu j'ai joué la diversité sur mes débuts avec les blancs 4 parties 4 coups différents : 1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 1.Cf3. Gino a fait de même : 1.e4 1.d4 1.Cf3 1.Cc3. Ce qui m'a fait douter aussi car 1.Cc3 m'a surpris, je pensais qu'il avait prévu un début tonitruand et c'est là que je me suis dit qu'il fallait que je prenne des risques avec les noirs. Au fur et à mesure des différentes phases du jeu j'ai assuré les nulles des positions équilibrées pour me concacrer a deux parties avantageuses dont une avec les blancs et une avec les noirs pour au moins faire la différence dans une partie pour assurer la victoire. Et en fin de compte c'est 3 victoires qui me reviennent, ce qui me paraissait impossible étant donnée la qualité du jeu de Gino joué sur ce site pour arriver à la finale des candidats du championnat.
- Tu as réalisé pendant le championnat un parcours sans faute, aucune défaite à signaler, tu affiches également des statistiques stratosphériques à 78% contre une moyenne elo à près de 2200, quel est ton secret ?
X : Mon secret? Je n'ai pas de secret. Si j'avais un secret je ne le dévoilerais pas sinon je ne gagnerais plus ! Je pense que j'ai eu un petit peu de chance car il s'en est fallu de peu que je ne sois pas qualifié au stage 3 (robin-round final) car il y avait 3 joueurs à égalité et j'ai eu l'avantage du classement du départ de ce tournoi comme l'indique le règlement. Quant à mes statistiques, c'est aussi grâce aux erreurs de mes adversaires qui m'ont permis de gagner des parties équilibrées.
- Que penses-tu du système mi-ko, mi-toutes-rondes du championnat FICGS et de ses départages inédits lors des matchs en 8 parties ? Quelles modifications y apporterais-tu ?
X : Très bonne question ! Le système mi-ko pour moi est un peu trop rapide car un coup par jour c'est des heures d'analyses pour exploiter une position compliquée, ce qui est difficile quand on à plusieurs parties en cours. Surtout quand on travaille. C'est peut-être aussi grâce à cette cadence que mes adversaires, faute de temps, ont fait des imprécisions sur certaines postions ou exploité mes erreurs. Mais cette cadence a un avantage par rapport aux cadences ICCF qui est de 5 jours par coup, c'est que les parties durent 5 fois moins longtemps ! Le départage inédit des matchs en 8 parties est excellent, obliger le favori à assurer tous les matchs nulles pour gagner ce duel et sinon d'obtenir une victoire supplémentaire contre le challenger est un mode très bien pensé. La modification que je pourrais y apporter est peut-être la gestion du temps qui est rapide pour un système de jeu par serveur. Peut-être augmenter l'horloge de départ de 15 jours, soit de commencer avec 45 jours contre 30 en ce moment. Et aussi la possibilité des prendre des vacances uniquement sur le tournoi en cours afin de gérer les autres parties du site. Par exemple prendre 7 jours de vacances sur un tournoi d'échecs du championnat et pouvoir jouer un tournoi de Big Chess, de Go ou un autre tournoi d'échecs pendant ces vacances. Pouvoir choisir une date de début de vacances à l'avance serait également appréciable.
- Pourquoi t'être investi dans les échecs par correspondance ? T'apportent-ils d'autres satisfactions par rapport aux échecs classiques et au blitz ?
X : Je préfère les échecs par correspondance par rapport au temps. Car les échecs classiques se jouent souvent le week-end, à une heure précise et souvent en déplacement pour effectuer un tournoi. L'avantage, pour moi, des échecs par correspondance est que je puisse me connecter à n'importe quelle heure pour jouer mes coups, ce qui me permet, par exemple, de faire des repas de famille le week-end et le soir tard de jouer un coup, ce qui n'est pas possible aux échecs classiques.
- Tu as su ne pas céder à la tentation et te limiter à jouer un nombre très raisonnable de parties sur le site tout le long du championnat, penses-tu néanmoins que les échecs par correspondance soient addictifs et à quel point ? Ont-ils des répercussions sur ta vie de tous les jours ?
X : Oui ! Limiter mon nombre de parties en cours est pour moi essentiel pour essayer d'avoir des parties de qualité plutôt que de quantité. Avoir beaucoup de parties en simultanée est quand même une chose très difficile à gérer ! C'est peut-être la clé de ma victoire contre Figlio, j'ai regardé ses parties en cours, il en avait pas loin de 90 sur le site de l'ICCF, cela a pu se ressentir sur son temps d'analyse consacré à nos 8 parties sur FICGS. Sur la vie de tous les jours les répercussions sont familiales car il est vrai que je passe plus de temps à analyser les parties et moins temps avec ma famille, ce qui est assez difficile pour moi. Mais quand les résultats sont là je ne regrette pas !
- Que penses-tu de la place actuelle des moteurs d'analyse (Rybka, Shredder, Fritz et autres) dans les échecs par correspondance ? Quelles sont pour toi les qualités complémentaires essentielles du joueur par correspondance, devenu centaure avec la machine pour jambes ?
X : Les moteurs d'analyses dans les échecs par correspondances sont utilisés par 95% des joueurs... Maintenant il faut s'adapter et savoir utiliser ces machines à calculer. Car jouer simplement le meilleur coup de Rybka 3, de Fritz 12 ou Hiarcs 12 sans réfléchir mentalement mène à la nulle si l'adversaire fait de même ou possiblement à perdre si l'adversaire se donne la peine de réfléchir en les utilisant également. En sachant que lorsqu'on est dans le milieu de partie ces logiciels vous donnent souvent 4 à 5 coups evalués de manière semblable, et c'est là qu'il faut choisir le bon coup alors que celui-ci n'est même pas forcément cité par le moteur d'analyse...
- Tu joues désormais au Big Chess sur le site, curiosité ou intérêt ? Que penses-tu de cette version étrange des échecs ?
X : Par curiosité et par amusement et je pense que Rybka 3 ne joue pas encore au Big Chess ! Cette version est quasiment inédite je ne connaissais pas cette forme de jeu d'échecs auparavant donc celui qui a inventé ce jeu a très bien fait ! A propos c'est moi qui vous pose une question sur le Big chess... Y a t-il possiblité de roquer avec ce jeu si oui comment? (NDLR : Non, il est impossible de roquer au Big Chess)
- Et enfin la question que tout le monde se pose, particulièrement François et Wolfgang qui disputent la deuxième finale des candidats, penses-tu pouvoir défendre ton titre l'an prochain ? :)
X : Bien sûr ! Je défendrai le titre ! J'aimerais si possible savoir la date et la cadence du match. Et je souhaite à François et Wolfgang une belle finale ! Je dois faire honneur à cette compétition qui est bien organisée !
- Le match devrait pouvoir débuter durant la première semaine de janvier 2009, la cadence sera à nouveau de 30 jours et 1 jour supplémentaire par coup. Merci pour tes réponses, et encore bravo pour cette belle performance !
X : Merci ! Et à bientôt ! Bonne continuation à tous et bonnes parties !
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-18 16:06:16)
translation
I will have a go off the top of my head at giving a sense of the interview in english (I dont know the phrase tonitruand but I am guessing it means dynamic!)?: Hi Xavier and first of all congratulations on your success in the candidates final match against IM (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru] You had to avoid drawing all the games and finally you succeded with the black pieces. How did that happen? Xavier: Hi thank you. Its true that if all the games had been drawn then under the rules Figlio would have won whereas if the match was drawn but with a win and loss I would win. Because of this I had to take risks and attack. It was with Black that I did this because I thought that Gino would play safely to be sure of a draw. - Tell us how you approched the match and how the different phases of the game went x: Its quite simple, I was not the favorite I have 200 ELO less on FICGS and Gino is an IM on ICCF with a 2480 rating. I did not think I could survive 8 games at once - in a single game anything is possible but 8 games .... it was a big challenge for me! In the openings I chose 4 different moves 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3 Gino chose 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nc3 I was surpised by 1 Nc3 because I was expecting dynamic openings and it was then that I decided I must take some risks with black. I kept most of the games balanced with a draw in hand and concentrated on 2 games 1 white and 1 black to get a result. In the end I got 3 wins which seemed an impossibility given the quality of the games Gino had played on this site to reach the final. - you have not lost any games in the championship and you have fantastic statistics 78% against an average elo of about 2200. What is your secret? x: My secret? I havent any secret and if I did I would not say because I would not win anymore! I think I have been a bit lucky because in the the Round Robin final there were 3 of us on the same score and I went through under the rules because of my rating. As for my statistics I was helped by mistakes by opponents who allowed me to win some drawn games. - What do you think of the system for the FICGS championship (round robin and knock out matches)and what changes would you make? x: Very good question. The matches are a bit too fast for me - 1 day per move when there are hours of analysis needed to exploit a complicated position its difficult when you have several games running Particularly if you are working. Perhaps that is why my opponents have made errors or failed to exploit my mistakes. But this time limit has an advantage over ICCF where it is 5 days per move the games here are 5 times quicker! Having 8 game matches is an excellent idea and obliging the favorite to draw all the games and the challenger to get a at least 1 victory is very well thought out. The change that I would suggest is to have 15 days extra starting time that is 45 days at the start instead of 30 and also the possibilty to take holidays for tournaments for example take 7 days for championship games and to be able to play big chess go or another chess tournament during the holiday. To be able to choose the start of a holiday in advance would also be good. - Why do you like cc and how does it compare to blitz and normal chess? x: I prefer cc because of the time factor. Classical chess is often played at the week end at a fixed time and you have to travel to the tournament. The advantage for me at cc is that I can connect at any time to play a move which allows me for example to have meals with the family at the weekend. Late night moves for example are not possible at classical chess. - You limited the number of your games on the site to a reasonable amount throughout the championship. Do you think nonetheless that cc is addictive? Does it affect your daily life? x: Yes! Limiting the number of my games is essential to try to have games of quality not quantity. Having a lot of games going at the same time is something very difficult to handle. It is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio - I looked at his games - he had not less than 80 games going on at ICCF this must have affected the amount of time he could spend analysing his 8 games at FICGS. The effects on daily life are felt by the family because the reality is if I spend more time analysing the games I spend less time with the family. Thats difficult for me. But when the results come I dont regret it! - What do you think of the role of chess engines (Rybka Fritz etc)in cc. What are for you the important skills of a cc player - to supplement the machine? x: Chess engines are used in cc by 95% of players. You have to adapt yourself and know how to use the engines. To play just the best move of Rybka 3 Fritz 12 or Hiracs 12 without thinking leads to a draw if your opponent does the same or to a loss if your opponent is thinking. You have to choose bewteen 4 or 5 moves with a similer evaluation from the engine during a game and sometimes the best move is not among these. - You play Big chess. Interest or curiosity? What do you think of this strange version of chess? X : Curiosity and amusement and I think Rrybka 3 cannot yet play Big Chess! This version is new and I did not know it and the inventor has done a good job! By the way I would like to ask is it possible to castle at Big Chess? [No its not possible] - Finally the question that everyone is asking particularly Francois and Wolfgang who are contesting the 2nd candidates final. Do think you will be able to defend your title next year? :) x: Definitely I will defend the title I would like to know if possible the date and time limits for the match. I wish Francois and Wolfgang a great match! I would also like to express my appreciation for this tournament which has been well organised! - the match should start in the first week in January next year the time limit will be 30 days plus 1 day per move. Thank you for your answers and once again congratulations on a great performance. x: Thank you. Cheers. Best wishes to everyone and good games!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-10 19:32:43)
Use of engines
FICGS rules authorize the use of chess engines (like any other kind of help) but in "NO ENGINES" tournaments.. So engines are ok in this tournament also. Do you want to take part anyway ?
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-09-11 04:20:36)
It is ok for me....
Using a chess engine is allowed, just an option, but is not mandatory. So, Denis should be in, even if he chooses not to use brain prosthetic, I mean chess engines.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-22 22:43:23)
Ratings
Chess ratings increase quite quickly here, once you reach 2000-2100, every player most probably use chess engines, but there must be such rules (max. provisional rating) to guarantee the quality of the games at a higher level. It shouldn't take more than 4 or 6 months to reach a 2200 level. Correspondence chess is a game of patience :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-06 15:21:14)
Rybka 4, Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13 & future...
What about a small point on chess engines ?
A few months ago, it was quite predictable to me that Chessbase engines (well, Rybka 3 actually also is a Chessbase engine now) like Fritz, Shredder & Hiarcs were dedicated to catch Rybka in the computer chess rating lists.
The current CEGT 40/20 (AMD 4200+) rating list shows :
Rybka 3 x64 4CPU 3202
Rybka 2.3.2a x64 4CPU 3079
Deep Fritz 11 4CPU 3031
Zappa Mexico II x64 4CPU 3022
Shredder WM Edition Bonn 4CPU 3011
Naum 3.1 x64 4CPU 3011
Hiarcs 12 MP 4CPU 2968
In other words, Rybka 3 always has a quite large advance, but all other ones filled the major part of the gap with Rybka 2.3.2, including free chess engines. What future for chess engines now ? What kind of improvement can we expect from Rybka 4, Fritz 12, Shredder 12, Hiarcs 13 and co. ?
IMO one future version in theory may reach 3600 or more in such rating lists (which probably doesn't mean anything compared to the human rating list) but the interest of programmers may now decrease in this race where efforts/money can be compared to the grandmasters involvement to enter the elo top 100... What do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-26 20:26:06)
Pichelin - Utesch
Hi Hannes, as far as I experienced, Xavier is an excellent chess player, beyond Rybka & chess engines, with a very good understanding of the game and very efficient ideas, also in quiet positions. Wolfgang is able to make very deep & accurate analysis in complex or strange positions while playing fastly, really hard to play. Moreover both have a coherent, maybe different, global match strategy.
In my opinion, we may see quite surprising and long games, that could be decided in a way since the opening, I mean psychology could be the key in such a match. The way the pieces will be dealt may show some things.
50 / 50 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-30 20:19:18)
Chess engines & databases
Hello Bradley, it's all in the rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Everything's allowed (but in the NO ENGINES category). Using chess engines is recommended if you want to make deep analysis & reach the highest ratings. The only way to cheat (that is strictly forbidden) is to mirror 2 games, as explained in the rules.
Best wishes for the new year,
Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-11 14:27:55)
Engines allowed
Hello Tom, actually there is a "NO ENGINES" tournament category. Well, I'll try to make it clearer. It is not possible to verify if engines are used or not in any correspondence chess place, so chess engines are allowed in all tournaments but this specified category where games are not rated.
If you really want to play "chess" without engines, you may try BIG CHESS here :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-12 23:54:09)
Engines allowed
Actually many (most, probably) correspondence chess sites allow the use of chess engines, to start with ICCF, the "International Correspondence Chess Federation".
Gino Figlio (2009-01-14 01:24:15)
the "cheating" agenda
This has nothing to do with Mr. Smith but I know some people that like to push the idea that use of chess engines is "cheating" because they are also involved in the business of selling services that detect "cheaters". I have heard from this first hand and was even offered the "service" when I was involved in ICCF management. They want to sell their product to webmasters and therefore need to create the right atmosphere in the cc community to serve their business interest. It's a good idea to ask for a disclaimer before discussing this issue with new visitors.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-18 18:20:34)
SSDF rating list
Current SSDF ratings for the best chess engines running on 2GB Q6600 2.4 GHz are :
Deep Rybka 3 x64 - 3226
Deep Fritz 11 - 3086
Zappa Mexico II x64 - 3064
Naum 3.1 x64 - 3046
Deep Shredder 11 - 3043
Deep Hiarcs 12 x64 - 3033
Hiarcs 11.2 MP - 3008
Deep Junior 10.1 - 2981
By the way, how long before a new Deep Junior version...
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-24 14:51:22)
Chess computers & nodes by seconds
What about a thread on chess dedicated computers... dual-core, quad-core or even 10 years old tired processor ?
It could be interesting to gather some informations here on hardware evolution by comparing the speed of chess engines [nodes by second], specifying the operating system & the program that runs the engines (Arena, Chessbase, Fritz 11 interface & so on...)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-27 16:40:31)
We need more Big Chess players !
Come on, let Rybka & other chess engines work in your 8x8 games & play Big Chess with us, that's the real life, amazing chess & the only way to see such incredible moves :)
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=24656&move=85
Waiting lists > Big Chess standard tournaments !
Waiting for strong players in Big Chess standard M tourney.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-28 10:46:32)
NPS comparison
The only fact is you know more about all this than me :) Great that you find time to enlight us with these details on chess engines.
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2009-01-31 09:19:05)
Mr Yates
Crafty current version is 22.10 and is still developing. Right now Dr. Hyatt is working in improving the paralellization. More info of the engine is found at computer chess forum as the author is a regular poster there.
Some people say that Rybka is a product of open source of Fruit, but that is another debate. Right now there are good open sources engines mainly glaurung, stockfish (glaurung derivative) there are also interesting projects with toga derivatives, cyclone, grapefruit, mad prune, etc.
Again I refer to an interesting discussion in talkchess about the advances in the past 10 years, software or hardware, Dr Hyatt explains that hardware development has been more important than new methods in search or evaluations of chess engines.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-31 15:38:45)
Dr. Hyatt
"Dr Hyatt explains that hardware development has been more important than new methods in search or evaluations of chess engines."
Surprising... maybe in a certain measure.
Hannes Rada (2009-02-04 22:11:14)
engines not supported
Hi Thibault,
Those beasts are not designed for running chess engines ....... :-)
Don Groves (2009-02-04 23:59:42)
Not easy to compare
Chess engines probably use almost exclusively integer operations rather than floating point, so direct comparison is difficult. But the parallel use of 1.6 million processors would make an amazing difference for properly coded engines!
Currently, Rybka only uses up to 4K processors but that's an easy change to make. Imagine being able to simultaneously compute the best few lines to a depth of 25 ply in a minute or so...
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-03 17:15:24)
At most...
I agree tambien, of course. At most, some positions are "dead", really easy to understand perfectly.
True, it is not so easy to throw some fire on the board in real games at a high level, so in correspondence chess games, but every good player know he has to (if he wants some chances to win at least), so this is the main part of the game nowadays, and when there's fire on board the complexity of the position may be sometimes far away from human and/or chess engines understanding. The problem is that human nature make us reproduce known positions much more than unknown ones, unlike chess engines, that's why computer games are not so often draws and may be really funny to watch !
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-22 16:41:00)
Discussion at Rybkachess
That's an interesting discussion... Once more, the confusion reigns between Freestyle chess (commonly played at classical & blitz time controls) and Correspondence Chess, particularly for centaur players who did not experience correspondence chess at a 2500+ level.
IMO (in brief) on several points :
1) All these made-for-engines books have no other interest than to "manipulate" chess engines & other made-for-engines books, actually this has almost nothing to do with correspondence chess (where they are completely useless at a high level, let's say 2300+) or even chess.
2) Many players do not realize the multitude of factors that appear to be more important that the basic strength of centaurs once the correspondence chess 2400 mark is reached and that still increases at 2500 and 2600... The higher the level, the more "opening books" depend on the recent games played by the opponent (and his level), the number of current games played, the score to reach in 8 games matches, the importance of rating, the goal in life, even the month/season for a few players and many other things according to the persons... Actually these "openings books" just live the time to use it one time, so a better term is preparation, actually opening books do not exist anymore in correspondence chess at a very high level, at most it may be useful against weaker players.
3) The previous point is enough to explain the rating changes of most 2400+ players ! In example...
- GM Farit Balabaev is a very experienced player who constantly has(had) more than 100 running correspondence chess games at several places for years, he's also a fast player, it is quite logical to me that he looks for quiet games and fast draws (or lose sometimes to very strong players who want to win more)
- Wolfgang Utesch, FICGS WCH finalist, like many players at one time in their life, decided that other things were more important and that correspondence chess was too time consuming, particularly once the 2500 mark has been reached...
- Eros Riccio obviously decided to win every correspondence chess competition at FICGS while playing a high number of games at several places AFTER having topped the FICGS rating list with the highest rating so far (which he did), so it is natural to look for a few quick draws in matches if 8 draws mean a victory for him (and a few rating points lost, that is quite inhuman anyway :))
- Michael Aigner tops most FICGS rating lists by playing only games at 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control, which is an enormous performance as obviously the longer the time control, the higher the rate of draws. I do not know how many current games he's playing at ICCF or IECG and other organisations but I suspect he plays a quite reasonable number of games.
- Xavier Pichelin may top the FICGS rating list this year as he's an incredibly dangerous player with White and Black and with a reasonable number of running games.
Many strong players also choose to play some tournaments for "fun" or to experiment openings and may lose some points while their real strength is over 2500 or more... so it is quite hard to make the difference between the real strength and correspondence chess ratings. So many parameters... It is likely that we'll see one day a 12 games match between Eros and Xavier (Michael do not play fast correspondence chess time control, yet I hope), we all wonder what rating could achieve Vasik Rajlich (Rybka's creator) and other very strong freestyle players but it is very hard to predict only by knowing their results in freestyle tournaments. Correspondence chess is a mirror of real life.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-07 02:28:21)
Najdorf vs. Petroff
When I have no time enough - that is quite often - I also tend to play Najdorf in all my games (white & black), as IMO it looks like more a perfect geometric shape (kind of spiral) that looks quite "simple" & that chess engines & humans 'generally' play quite well/logically. Also it gives more chances with both colors, particularly against a weaker opponent, as most pieces stay on the board while avoiding symetrical positions.
Finally the Sicilian Najdorf looks quite reassuring, that defines most often the human choice... I used to play many other openings more often, some are much more interesting in some ways with more psychological, strategic & tactical issues, but I must recognize that the more I play against or with engines, the more I play like them, particularly when I feel a general "zeitnot".
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-13 16:44:56)
Centaur chess
Hi John, I'm afraid there's no clear answer to these questions, in my experience it is not possible to classify chess engines so accurately, each position is differently understood by chess engines, and actually is differently not understood, in example many great moves were found in some way "by chance" by engines like Deep Junior... But this is old computer chess already, Junior has not been updated for a while and Rybka is probably best in all parts of the game for a few years (maybe that is to change).
As Michel said, experience is the key IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-17 12:15:57)
One engine vs. several engines
Naum discontinued ? Really ? That would be bad news...
In my experience, other engines do not really give "additional informations". One chess engine give informations, several chess engines give odds. Other (weaker) chess engines may give bad odds as well and actually quite often. Only your analysis will give you true informations, you just have to explore not only the best variant provided by your engine.
Finally most important is to NOT trust chess engines IMO. In most cases at correspondence chess against strong players, in some ways "I" won some games (by analysis and ideas) and "engines" made me lose some others, that's correspondence chess... (hear me, of course it was my entire responsibility in all my losses & I wouldn't have been able to get good results without the help of engines :))
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-29 14:37:07)
Rybka demise
Thanks for sharing your views on the current computer chess world, Wayne. It is always interesting :) As for Rybka, I did not (want to) imagine this outcome... I continue to think that the little fish would have been catched by her older brothers within a few months/years. But if Rybka's source code has indeed been compromised, the future of chess engines is quite uncertain.
In a way, it could have some interesting consequences for correspondence chess to see clones with the same strength playing different chess.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-16 10:37:01)
Interview with E. Kotlyanskiy
Congrats again to Edward Kotlyanskiy, new FICGS chess champion after beating Xavier Pichelin (2577) in the 12 games final match of the 3rd cycle.
Edward kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match and correspondence chess in general :
_________________________
> Hi Edward, first of all congratulations for winning this 12 games match against the former FICGS chess champion, Xavier Pichelin. You had to score at least one point more than your opponent, what was your strategy when the games started?
Knowing that I had to score at least +1 against Xavier, I had to try to get the games into complex positions where there are many options to play for both sides. At the point when the games started, I was the underdog to Xavier (mainly due to the face that I was rated about 200 points lower). In part, I think that one of the reasons why Xavier allowed the games to reach such complex positions is due to the fact that his rating was undoubtedly higher than mine and therefore he probably assumed that he could “outplay” me. Although this was simultaneously a brave and admirable choice, I think an option that many other players would have pursued would have been to play “drawish” lines with the hope of having all of the games ending in draws. I have great respect for Xavier due to the fact that he didn't choose such a path and allowed us to put on a hard fought show that was worth watching.
> What could you say on the hot moments of the match?
The first game in which I thought I had very good chances to win was game 34739. In this game (particularly on move 18) Xavier played the move Nb8?? Looking back at the move, I realized that the game was lost for him. I assumed that Xavier probably underestimated the threat of f5. There were no good responses and/or countermeasures for the move f5. For example, if 19) gxf5, I have 20) Nxh5 Nc6 21) Rc3! Bxh4 (Qd8 was also possible) 22) Qf4 Be7 23) g4! His king is just clearly caught in the attack! 19) exf5 also fails to 20) e6 f6 (trying to keep the king safe) 21) Bxh5!! gxh5 22) Nc6 Rc3 and therefore it’s easy to see that it is just a matter of time. Xavier did try something better although even that failed due to some nice moves. I believe that 21) g7 came as a surprise to Xavier (or that at least he hadn't seen this move when playing Nb8). After Nxh5 (another neat move), another line that I thought Xavier would enter (which is also losing) is 22) Qxc2 23) Qxc2 Rxc2 24) Nf6+! Bxf6 25) exf6. Clearly my pawns are just too strong! Knowing that I am winning after the mentioned alternatives, the other games (although I won three others) were just necessary to hold without falling for any tactics/tricks.
A second game I want to briefly comment on is game 34729. I played a very nice (although I am not sure if it is winning just yet) move known as 17.a4! It was a very nice way to open the position on both of our kings. In all honesty, the move that I think was winning in this situation 25) Rd3, I did not even consider too highly until the position reached that very move. After a relatively short analysis, I was indeed pleasantly surprised to see that; overall, it was completely winning for me.
> What could you say on the advantages and inconveniences of this 12 games match format played at a quite fast time control?
From the days when I first starting playing correspondence chess, I have always been accustomed to making moves rather quickly. In fact, when I first started playing, in some games I made moves within 10 minutes of looking at the position. Although I take a lot more time to analyze now-a-days, I still consider the speed of my play to be relatively faster compared to most other correspondence players. Playing 12 games simultaneously can have drawbacks as not having enough time to properly analyze; however, I didn't have such a problem. With the exception of a few games that I was playing on IECG at the start of the FICGS Championship, the 12 game series was my main concern.
> Without revealing your secrets, how would you define modern correspondence chess as a centaur (playing with chess engines)?
These days, it is impossible to play correspondence chess on a high level without consulting the engine. It is also unlikely that one can achieve a lot of success just by following the engine blindly (even after a long analysis). Personally, I know that some of my friends believe that in correspondence chess you are just following the engine but I believe that most “high level” correspondence players know that it just doesn't work that way.
In my opinion, one of the most important skills that a correspondence player should have is having some sense of where the engine he is analyzing with is faulty. To give a well known example, many people know that there are certain endgame positions that an engine alone can't be trusted in (a simple case is the wrong color bishop). In essence, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of whatever engine you are analyzing with is critical to playing correspondence chess at a “high level”.
> Why did you choose to play correspondence chess, do you play OTB (over the board) chess as well?
Before starting correspondence chess, I played OTB chess for quite a few years. When my schedule became busy, I realized that I wouldn't have much time to play OTB in clubs. I came across correspondence chess and got hooked on it very quickly. Also, I began to enjoy more of the subtleties of the game; something that is just lacking in OTB blitz games. I imagine that some people prefer to play practical chess (OTB) in which a move order wouldn't make much of a difference; however, I guess I am a perfectionist and believe the game should be played on as high of a level as possible.
> How many correspondence games do you usually play at the same time (on different chess servers or by email)? Would you say that it is an addiction?
Usually, I played about 5 to 10 games on average on all different sites. I did play via email on IECC but wasn't fond of playing by email therefore I went back to server only sites (IECG, FICGS, Schemingmind).
I can definitely say that correspondence chess is an addiction. All too often, I catch myself analyzing games when I really should be doing something much more time sensitive. Well, at least I can say that this addiction paid off in that I am the new FICGS champion!
> Are you interested in other games?
As far as board games go, chess is primarily the only game I play. At times I do play games like monopoly and scrabble with my friends. Another interest that I have is billiards.
> The next challenger for the FICGS chess champion title is SM Eros Riccio (winner of several PlayChess PAL freestyle tournaments). Do you think that you'll play him? What does this perspective inspire in you?
I can't wait to play Eros! I believe that he would be my toughest opponent yet (although I have played GM Leitão, Rafael (fide elo: 2619) and managed to draw). Eros is like an unstoppable juggernaut in corr chess. That said, I look forward to our games and I am certain that they will simultaneously be challenging and entertaining.
> Thanks and best of luck in your future games!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-05 00:58:06)
Advanced chess ratings calculation
For some reasons that I'll explain below, I updated the advanced chess (bullet, lightning, blitz, freestyle) rating calculation rules to the following :
"Performance = Opponent Current Rating if the game is drawn, + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.
The following bonus / malus applied to White and to Black makes ratings fair, as it is not possible to force a player to take White or Black before a game :
(White) Performance = Performance - 50
(Black) Performance = Performance + 50
If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his :
New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10
Otherwise :
New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is greater than 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.
In case of a draw or loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200. A player who wins a game cannot lose Elo points, a player who loses a game cannot win Elo points."
More details :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess
The rule that just changed is "If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his : New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10".
This rule will probably be updated again in a few months with a rating limit of 2200 instead of 2400, when advanced chess ratings will be more coherent with correspondence chess ratings.
The reasons are :
1) Advanced/freestyle chess is often neglected partly because players will likely lose some rating points (many strong players using Rybka 3-like engines still have a rating of 1800 or 2000, there are several reasons to this), the main point is probably the interface but I'm fixing it (e.g. the new touch-move option - see Preferences).
2) Chess engines are just stronger and stronger while the ratings do not increase with the previous rules, as a consequence players who just tried advanced chess once years ago shouldn't still top the rating list. It is of course a way for players to find their place quicker in the rating list & to incitate players to play more games as well.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-11 15:31:25)
Freestyle Cup: Time control
The point is IMO would a longer time control mean more draws ? In another hand the less we have time, the less risks we take (or not!?) to create interesting positions and a longer time control may mean more brain/instinct and less chess engines in the games...
To be discussed again and again.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-12 21:08:23)
NEW # 1
New number 1 or not, the gap decreases... All this was predictable (and it was predicted) even if Rybka was untouchable for the most when the gap was over 100 elo points... but after that Chessbase intelligently scheduled the improvements of Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs & finally Rybka, came Naum, Stockfish, Ippolit & its clones RobboLito, Ivanhoe & Firebird.
Clones or not clones, anyway now it seems obvious for everyone that it will be harder and harder to make money with chess engines, just like with everything else on the internet... The beginning of the decadence (according to its meaning) ?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-14 16:22:00)
Firebird, Ivanhoe vs. Rybka
There are several articles that are worth to read on Firebird & the other chess engines from the Ippolit series, also on the history of chess engines from Fritz, Shredder, Hiarcs & Junior to Stockfish and programmers/clones issues, particularly at Chessvibes & ChessNinja :
Chess engine controversy
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/chess-engine-controversy/
New fish in town
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2010/04/new-fish-in-town.htm
Adam Clontz (2010-05-01 18:27:28)
chess engines
i'm new on here.... does pretty much everybody use a chess engine? i never have.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-01 19:44:21)
chess engines
Hello Adam, yes chess engines are authorized & encouraged here... Many reasons to this, there was numerous discussions in this forum on this question (I'll try to find some links if you wish).
There is a NO ENGINES category in the CHESS SPECIAL TOURNAMENTS (see waiting lists), but of course you cannot be sure that you will not play against an engine...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 12:15:16)
Big chess world championship
The very 1st Big Chess world championship (ever!) waiting list is open, the tournaments will start on july 1st, 2010.
Now it is time to promote again this incredible game where chess players may be quite lost during the first games (the value of the pieces may move quite fast), its complexity is probably somewhere between chess & Go...
Just let your chess engines on your chess games, you only need your brain on the 16x16 board, join the fun! :)
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-16 21:42:34)
Quick review Chess Engines
Howdy, Rybka 4 Beta 5 is out for beta testing. It is much too early to draw conclusions regarding elo strength. So far it is not looking great.
Many of the bugs from R3 are at present in R5 beta. For example the tablebase bug, bishop under promotion still not fixed, 5.04/5.12 bug tree search is reportedly still there.
In addition It is said to have severe time problem.
This is a summary of what I have been reading. But, these reports are beta remember. So R4 may still be top program after release.
In the mean time Stockfish and fire are 2 programs that are right there with rybka3 and maybe a little stronger. On my computer testing R3 is still tops.
Now, there is a new program, Houdini is available. I downloaded it this morning and have been running eng-eng matches with R3, 2 threads. So far Houdini is holding it's own. You can download the program here.
http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm
I think CC players now have many equally strong engines available to help with their Centaur abilities and should be interesting to see the progressions Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-16 21:44:15)
Quick review Chess Engines
Ooops I made a bad reference R5 beta s/b of course, R4 Beta
My bad
Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-18 17:05:05)
Quick review Chess Engines
And now, it is being talked that the engine is a rybka clone and therefore it's name cannot be mentioned in the Rybka forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-02 03:03:10)
Fire 1.31 vs. Rybka 4
It seems that the forthcoming match between the top chess engines will be Rybka 4 (just released) versus Fire 1.31 (a new free engine from the Ippolit/Ivanhoe/Robbolito series that may be a clone of Rybka but we still have no clue about this). By the way does anyone know the differences between Fire 1.31 and Firebird 1.2, it seems to me that only the name changed.
Of course Stockfish & Naum are in the race but it will be interesting to see if the creator of Rybka has found a way to keep its great engine above its supposed clones.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-30 13:35:58)
Next freestyle tournament
A "freestyle chess tournament" is (according to me) a chess tournament played OTB or on the internet by players using any kind of help (chess engines [Rybka, Fire, Houdini, Fritz, Shredder, whatever...], databases, other players...) with a fast time control (a few hours per game at most).
The "FICGS chess freestyle cup" is a freestyle chess tournament played on the internet...
As "correspondence" implies all freestyle features but the fast time control, freestyle 'must' probably mean played at a fast time control, or the two words would mean the same.
Well, it may be worth to add the final definition in the Help section after all :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-30 21:07:31)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his win in the 4th FICGS chess WCH, and explained how one particular game influenced another one that he finally won:
- Hi Eros, first of all congratulations for your latest outstanding results at FICGS, you won the Freestyle tournament, now two chess championships in a row... When the privilege of the champion is to defend his title without playing the preliminary tournaments, you are involved in all championship cycles & a few regular tournaments, do you plan to avoid that anyone can even reach the championship final in the future? :-)
Thanks! I must admit that this is really a magic moment for me in chess... if you consider that despite my recent ICCF Grand Master Title, probably I will also soon win my third italian Correspondence Champion Title out of three participations in the Italian Final Tournaments. And now also this huge satisfaction of being the FICGS Champion! I look forward to seeing a new challenger soon, I wonder who he will be, but let me enjoy the next few months for now ;-)
- What are your impressions on the games? Did you have any strategy from the beginning to the end? Finally did it work or was there another factor? (without revealing your secrets, of course :))
The games in the opening were as I expected, all Najdorf Sicilians except one game where I played 1.d4. My goal was to win at least one game, so I tried different aggressive variations as White (6.Bg5, 6.f3, 6.Be3 and 6.h3) with the hope of catching Edward unprepared on at least one of these, but uff, he was very well prepared on each one of them! A curious thing is that my biggest chance of winning happened in a game where I had the Black pieces! So Edward had to take some risks in one of his games where he had Black (the games where he had White were already finished or all very drawish) he was forced to avoid an easy draw he had (the 6.h3 game) and eventually he lost that game. Happy of having reached my goal of winning at least one game, I accepted his draw offer in that other game (6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Be2) where I had good winning chances.
- You probably noticed, like many correspondence chess players, that the hardware still fastly improves while chess engines are continuously getting stronger, particularly since that "supposed" clones of Rybka (some may be even stronger than Rybka herself) appeared in the race. Do you think that the rate of draws will be so high soon that it may definitely kill correspondence chess? Do you have any opinion on these new engines?
I think that despite the big improvement of Hardwares and engines, we are still very far (and we will still be in the next 5 years, hopefully) from a situation where all the games will most probably end in a draw. So I think we can enjoy correspondence chess for many more years in the future, even if of course the Draw percentage at the highest levels will be higher and higher.
- I remember that you were surprised to win your match against Alberto in the Candidates Final of the 5th cycle (the reason why you do not even have to defend your title this time), the WCH rules (particularly the co-existence of the round-robin tournament & knockout tournament) are obviously not well understood by all players, what do you think about this system and the tie in 8 games matches? Are there changes you'd like to see in the future?
Yes, I really was! We were both convinced that with all draws, the higher rated player would have won (Alberto was higher rated than me in that match). Anyway it was our fault, as we didn't read the rules carefully. I am not sure what changes could be done in the future... maybe this is anyway the best setup, no new ideas are coming to my mind right now.
- Do you have a few more words for Edward after these nice games? Maybe also for your future opponents? :)
It was a real pleasure for me to play him, not only for the interesting games we played, but also for the friendly chats we had during the exchanges of the moves. I hope to play him again in the future for a rematch.
- Thanks for your answers and congratulations again!
Welcome, and thanks ;-)
_________
It is very interesting to see that a even a player like Eros prefered to minimize the risks (avoiding mouse drops or whatever) as much as possible by accepting a draw in a game where he had winning chances. Correspondence chess is definitely not all about chess, that's probably the lesson.
Also it is reassuring to read that correspondence chess is NOT dead yet, nor soon :)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-03 13:57:46)
Houdini and draw rate evolution at ICCF
No, chess engines are not to solve chess yet :) But this blog (link posted by Wolff Morrow in the chat) is quite interesting anyway!
http://blog.chess.com/FirebrandX/are-computers-closing-in-on-solving-chess
There you'll find the draw rate evolution at ICCF these last years, a clear influence of the strongest chess engines (Rybka, Houdini, Fire, IvanHoe, Stockfish & so on...)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-27 23:39:12)
Eros Riccio wins 6th and 7th chess WCH
By beating Alberto Gueci in the final match of the 6th chess championship & Ostap Hladky in the candidates final of the 7th chess championship, Eros Riccio will remain FICGS chess champion for at least 16 months! After this huge performance, Eros accepted to answer a few questions:
----------------------------------
- Hello Eros and congratulations again for winning your 3rd and 4th (respectively 6th and 7th cycles) FICGS chess championships in a row, beating Alerto Gueci in the 12 games match of the final match and Ostap Hladky in the 8 games match of the candidates final so that you meet yourself in the last round that thus will not happen for the 3rd time of the championship (first time was during the first cycle because there was no champion yet). All games of the two matches were drawn, but it does not say much on the intensity of the match as we all know your strategy since your win in your first final match vs. Edward Kotlyanskiy when you explained that your preferred a draw that guarantees the victory than a possible win where a mouse slip is still possible. Obviously your strategy works very well but one can add that you had an impressive number of running games at the rapid time control, so very much pressure... How did you live these last months of correspondence chess and these two matches?
Hi Thib! And thanks once again for the congratulations. These 28 games (let's not forget also the 8 games match against Gino Figlio) probably started in the worst moment for me, just a few months after the very important European Team Championship on ICCF had started. When I told my captain that I was starting another 28 games... he was very disappointed and worried, as he had repeated a lot of times to every player of our team not to start new tournaments and to focus only on this tournament. Also for this reason I had decided not to join the new Italian Championship and other tournaments and to withdraw from the Champions League, but unfortunately I had no control on when to start my FICGS games. So... my priority was for my ICCF games, and fortunately for me all I needed to do in my FICGS Matches to win was to make draws, and that's what I tried to do in most of my games as fast as possible, and to my surprise my opponents accepted to draw many games quite quickly, not trying to fight each game "to death" like I would have done if I would have been them. This of course only created quick boring games, but I didn't see the point in putting energy in trying to win games myself.... I think my opponents should have done that!
- We all know that you and Alberto are good friends from long time, did it influence your match in the 6th WCH in any way according to you?
Well, it's a good think knowing your opponent's habits... you can send your moves as soon as you know he goes to bed :-)
- Ostap Hladky is undoubtly one of the strongest players at FICGS, was this match (7th WCH candidates final) very different from the other one?
Hladky was the strongest player I had ever played on FICGS, he is very unpredictable, he simply plays unexpected moves that engines don't suggest, but if you show them those moves, they slowly realize those are very good moves. I risked to lose more than one game vs him, even as White. Luckily I still managed to draw, and in my opinion he also accepted some draws too quickly.
- With the last evolutions of chess engines, playing better & better chess, would you say that you now spend less time on each game or not at all?
I don't spend less time on my games, I still try to use (almost) all the time on my "clock". Trying to analyze as many variations as possible with the time you are given has little to do with engines improvement, who still are far from being able to always suggesting the best move by simply letting them run for hours on a static position. You need to analyze going "forward" in the position in order to be able to find the best moves.
- By the way, it is said sometimes (again) that correspondence chess will not survive the decade, what do you think? Do you envisage to change for Go or poker like many players? :)
Wins and Losses still happen even at the highest levels at the present time. I think that many years still have to pass before having all draws in high level tournaments. When that happens... and it will probably happen sooner or later as chess in my opinion is a draw with perfect play... then probably new rules will be introduced, maybe the board will be enlarged and even new pieces with new movements might be invented.
- You now are ICCF GM with an impressive 2624 rating, how are going your other correspondence chess competitions? Do you have any goal to reach yet?
All my ICCF tournaments are going good, and very soon I will be Italian Champion once again (just waiting my last opponent to resign a lost position). I still haven't reached the first place in the italian elo rating list though. That would be a goal I would surely have pleasure in reaching, and of course I would like to win the ICCF's World Championship at least once. After that I can retire :-)
- Thank you Eros, also for this great correspondence chess lesson.
Welcome Thib! A pleasure for me.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-16 14:10:41)
FICGS admin scam me
Ah.... Obviously you really did not read the terms and conditions... actually you don't even know what this site is all about.
Actually, it is specified in terms & conditions that we ENCOURAGE the use of chess engines!
FICGS is a "computer chess" website before everything else.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-16 18:10:33)
FICGS admin scam me
Of course I meant players who understood what this site is....
If someone registers while thinking this site is a TV shop website, he may claim that there are no TVs enough to buy on here and say the admin that he should ask all players if they want TVs available to buy but well.... wouldn't it be quite ridiculous?
Players who are not aware that the use of chess engines is encouraged are very rare... The message "As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Rybka, Fritz, Shredder...) is allowed and encouraged in standard chess tournaments." is visible when anyone enters any rated chess tournament.
Is it really necessary to have this message blinking in big size on all pages?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-07 13:17:57)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
As you may know, Eros Riccio won the 8th FICGS chess championship by beating Jeroen Van Assche (who remains undeafeated though, he did not lose a single chess game at FICGS yet) in the candidates final, preventing him to play Eros again in the final.
Eros kindly accepted to answer a few questions:
- Hello Eros. First of all, congratulations for winning this 8th FICGS correspondence chess championship. Once again, you did not even have to play the 12 games match to defend your title as you won the qualifying tournament. In these conditions, the challenge was really tough for Jeroen Van Assche, in despite of his prodigious chess. He had to beat you consecutively in the candidates final (8 games match), then in the final (12 games match). How did things go in this candidates final?
Eros: Hi Thibault, thanks again! I was also worried to have to play a very strong player like Van Assche, but fortunately I had again the advantage that all draws were enough to win, and so my strategy was again not to take risks in all my games. As White it was easy... and surprisingly also as Black. The only game where I had to be more careful than others was this one: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qf3 h6 8.Be3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.Qg3 b5 11.a3 Rb8. Here Jeroen surprised me with an interesting novelty, 12.Kb1. The two times I had played this position I was White against Gueci and Kruse, and in both games I continued with 12.Bxb5 but couldn't get more than a draw. The idea of 12.Kb1 is to sacrifice a Pawn for the initiative after 12...b4 13.axb4 Rxb4 14.Nb3 Nxe4. The White Bishops are very strong after 15.Nxe4 Rxe4 16.Bd3 Ra4 17.Bd4 and fully compensate the Pawn less. Anyway I managed to defend, and when I was finally able to trade the Queens we agreed for the Draw.
- You also won the ICCF Umansky Memorial a few weeks ago, the italian correspondence chess championship (again) as well, obviously you played numerous games last year, what do you plan for the next months? By the way, Jeroen already qualified for the candidates final of the 9th cycle, meaning that he may play you in the final match next year if you defend your title again, is there a chance that we can see a revenge?
Eros: Yes, like in the past, also last year I have played a lot of games... anyway for the future I am planning to reduce my games a lot. At the moment, except a few games in minor tournaments, I am only playing for the italian colors at the Olympiads and European Championship, for ICCF. I didn't register for the new Italian Championship this time... I prefer to wait that another individual top ICCF Tournament starts. And of course I am also waiting to meet my next challenger for the FICGS Final! Maybe it will be Van Assche again, we have to see if he beats his opponent in the semifinal (actually next candidates final).
- It looks like a few chess engines reached a certain maturity, I mean algorithms. As a consequence, the computer speed may become the major evolution factor during the next years, that is generally slower than the program's improvements (but the future may have surprises, of course). What do you expect from the computer chess world in the next few years and its impact on correspondence chess?
Eros: As I have already said in a previous interview, being chess probably a draw with perfect play, the more engines get stronger, the more draws we will see. That's quite obvious.
- You probably do not play chess over the board so often, yet you have a quite good ELO! (about 2200, while many correspondence chess masters are rated below 2000 or not rated at all) By the way, I can certify that you are a strong blitz player after we met a few years ago. Do you still play tournaments?
Eros: I am not playing otb chess for a few years, my peak was 22... and a few points, I don't remember exactly. One of the main reasons why I stopped is because later, when analyzing my games with an engine... every time I got frustrated a lot seeing all the blunders I was making.
- Do you estimate that playing OTB chess is good to improve at correspondence chess?
Eros: Yes, it's useful especially if you develop a strategical style, then also in your corr. games you can see more easily "long-term-strategy" plans, which is still the "weakest strenght" in all engines.
- Do you feel that you're still improving at correspondence chess? If yes, is it mainly a question of opening book or something else?
Eros: Improving at corr. chess... hmm... I will surprise you with my thought about this matter! I think I can evaluate my strenght according to the speed of the computer I am analyzing my games with. When I bought this computer, 3 years ago, I felt like I could beat the corr. World Champion. Now... as my computer is becoming older and older, I feel like my play is getting weaker each day it passes. So my answer is that I am still getting worse at corr. chess, not improving.
Philip Roe (2013-10-03 21:01:42)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
Bogoljub,
When you enter the tournament by clicking on the waiting list, you are told that "chess engines, databases and opening books are strictly forbidden". I guess the idea is to reproduce OTB conditions as closely as possible.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-05-15 00:02:50)
Alcala wins 1st Centaur Weekend Tourney
Our freestyle chess champion Alvin Alcala just did it again at InfinityChess server by convincingly winning the last freestyle tournament that took place on May 8th, 2015. Frank Karl Werner finished 2nd, half a point from Alvin.
All details are reported by GM Arno Nickel... One notable thing is that all players used either Stockfish 6 or Komodo 9, most probably the strongest chess engines these days.
Congrats once again Alvin, your results are definitely not the fruit of chance :)
http://infinitychess.com/Web/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=215
Thibault de Vassal (2015-07-12 01:04:29)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I'm afraid Jan is right... and Eros says it himself, he takes no risk! So it's not only a question of a drawish game in the context of chess engines, but also of a drawish behaviour. Unless starting playing Go, we'll probably have to change many important rules in chess to make it really exciting again.
Jan Ohlin (2015-09-24 11:37:26)
The draw problem, part two
I found same lessons about chess engines blunder at youtube also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N20YQZ7xmjE
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-27 00:38:13)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Ok, I agree with that.
Here is a first try for FICGS cup rules:
"FICGS world cup championship is a multi stages tournament. All players who entered the waiting list are involved in single round-robin tournaments (2 stages or more will probably be necessary). All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Stockfish, Houdini, Rybka...) is allowed and encouraged in cup tournaments. Norms are possible according to FICGS general rules.
Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5 to 33 players (most probably 7 to 13). The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with most wins (and if necessary the player with the lowest tournament entry rating, then the lowest current rating) among the best scores, is declared winner and qualified for the next stage if any. Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. There will be no replacements in these tournaments.
In the case of a withdrawal, the games won't be rated if a player warns the referee before the tournament starts and at most 15 days after a new stage started but the first one."
Anything to add?
Garvin Gray (2016-01-27 03:38:32)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I think I have a different view on a couple of points, based in part in relation to the feedback I read to comments about TER.
Also, it comes from how I view the structure of the first stage, which is only a few groups and large numbers in each group ie 6 groups of 11 players, rather than 11 groups of 6 players.
========================================
FICGS world cup championship is a two stages tournament. All players who entered the waiting list are involved in single round-robin tournaments.
All games during the whole cycle are played in 30 days + 1 day / move. As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Stockfish, Houdini, Rybka...) is allowed and encouraged in cup tournaments.
Norms are possible according to FICGS general rules.
Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5 to 33 players (most probably 7 to 13). The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. If there is a tie for first place in a group, each player advances to the second stage.
Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. There will be no replacements in these tournaments.
=======================================
Effects- with only a small number of groups, and ties for first progressing, it is possible the second stage final could have 7,8,9 or 13 players. That will be determined.
But what I see is the main factor is that with large groups and ties going through, is all the players know they have to make a decent score to advance from the start. A good TER will not get the job done.
Also, if the scores at the top of a group are close, there is more incentive for players to attempt to get a score from their games as being the only one to advance knocks out everyone else, without any complaints about TER rules.
An entry limit will need to be put on when the final stage is double round robin. If there are six qualifiers to the final stage, then it should be DRR. 7 players in the final would make 12 games. Is that too much?
Thibault de Vassal (2016-02-11 21:28:37)
Stockfish 7, Komodo 9.2 or 9.3
Chess engines keep going, what do you think about the most recent ones? Do you prefer Stockfish 7, Komodo 9.3 and why?
Both engines reach about 3340 on the CEGT rating list, this definitely looks like stratosferic levels compared to the old Fritz, Rybka, Junior & so on :)
Garvin Gray (2016-03-10 00:56:17)
Chess960
And that they are not divided by rating, standard and rapid time controls etc is also an issue.
With chess960, all the top chess engines can be used.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-18 03:32:56)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Finally, here is a new interview with FICGS correspondence chess champion GM Eros Riccio, who gives us his (surprising?) impressions on his latest win in the championship, his current match and correspondence chess nowadays... A good matter to think about!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000012
____________
- Hi again Eros... Once more, congratulations for winning this final match in the 12th FICGS correspondence chess championship. This time, it seems that things went quite differently than in your previous matches (you scored 9 out of 12, which is a huge performance at this level), could you tell us what happened in these games?
--> Hi, yes, finally we have seen some wins after a very long series of draws. I was surprised too, I didn't risk to lose any game and I could even win one as Black... What to say, my opponent was simply not as challenging as the previous ones.
- It's a long time since you won the previous match, would you like to tell us about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you now rank #9 with an outstanding 2643 rating?
--> My latest final on FICGS were my only games of 2016. On ICCF I have taken some rest, the too high draw rate didn't incentive me to start new tournaments, also because drawing all games with a high rating means losing points.
- In the next final match (13th cycle), you play Peter W. Anderson for the 3rd time... so you probably know each other's opening book quite well. What do you expect for in this match?
--> Anderson is a very tough opponent, it's not a coincidence that he reached the final for the third time. I tried to win at least one game as White, but he's incredibly hard to beat. I experimented with almost anything possible against his modern defence, but I could never find a single weakness in his repertoire. I will see what to invent this time against his terrific 1...g6.
- As you probably know, another Go champion (Lee Sedol) lost a 5-games match to AlphaGo this year, while chess engines (now Stockfish 8, Houdini 5 Komodo 10...) slowly but surely continue to improve... Still waiting for the quantum computers. How do you feel things should go in the next years? Did your way of playing advanced chess or correspondence chess change these last years?
--> I have said a lot already about the very high draw rate of the recent years... I am surprised that some changes haven't been done already, like switching to chess 960, even modifying some chess rules, or at least giving 1,5 points for one win. Otherwise a lot of players will lose interest in seeing a series of all draws in the tournaments they play. I am one of those players who lost interest in correspondence chess, and even in blitz chess, engine vs engine, as we can see the extremely high draw rate situation there too.
- Finally, what can we wish for you for the next year? :)
--> Wish me to lose the match with Anderson :-) even I got bored of seeing myself there over and over in the final! That will bring some new air and that way I can take some total rest in corr. chess.
- Many thanks for your time, have a great match!
--> Welcome, and thanks.
Garvin Gray (2017-12-23 00:53:39)
Monte Carlo Analysis
In the Fritz 16 gui, you choose Monte Carlo Analysis from the header options, just like you would if you were choosing infinite analysis or deep position analysis and the many other types of game styles.
Your main engine must be Fritz 16, which seems to be a pain. This is one of my questions about this analysis style. Will explain more below.
Then after choosing Monte Carlo Analysis, Fritz gui will change over to MCA and a new screen will appear with options:
Search depth: default is 5. The first is the search depth, with a default of "5". This controls how far ahead (in half-moves, or "plies") the engine will look before making a move. For example, if you leave this at "5", the engine will look 2.5 moves ahead before making a move. Remember, the engine is going to be playing a lot of games against itself and storing the moves in the form of a tree, so the search depth is important. You must realize, however, that there's something of a tradeoff here; the higher you set the search depth, the more time the engine will need to make each move -- so you're trading time for depth. On the other hand, setting a lower search depth means that many more games will be played in a given amount of time, but that the moves themselves are likely to be more superficial.
Keep in mind, too, that you should use only odd numbers for the search depth, because chess engines tend to develop a tactical "blind spot" when made to analyze at even ply depths. Rule of thumb: odd numbers good, even numbers bad.
The second setting is the "width" of the tree. This is similar in some ways to the "Branching factor" in Deep Position Analysis and is another "space for time" tradeoff. If you create a "Narrow" tree, you won't see many alternative moves displayed in your game tree but the overall process of playing games and generating the tree will be faster. "Broad" trees show more alternatives but take longer to generate (it requires more processor time and thus slows down the chess engine).
-------------------------------------
So in all from my reading- what I can seem to deduce is- MCA plays many games against itself starting from the set position. The longer you leave the analysis, the more 'reliable' the results.
The question, or issue I am having at the moment for testing is, in the Fritz gui, I am having to use Fritz 16 as the main engine but am not seeing the analysis change to any other engines, so am wondering how long before it does, or will it only analysis the position in Fritz 16?
Considering at the start when you were loading your setting, you were given the option of four engines, this seems confusing to me.
So I thought I would ask if someone else had more experience with MCA and how it works?
Also, what about Deep position analysis? We could start a thread about that one too.
Daniel Parmet (2017-12-24 18:51:20)
Monte Carlo Analysis
I thought the whole idea of IDEA was a human thought merge of computer analysis through MCA?
I had the thought about using MCA with chess engines as the brain nearly 5 years ago at work. My boss loved the idea and tasked me with it. However, I have no coding skills so my ability was limited to what was available which was extremely limited at the time.
The best way to think of MCA is to accept that we don't know what move is best (hence why Alphazero didn't have or want an opening book or games database). From here now, it's like trying to predict what's best and what will come from flipping a coin 5 million times. You know in a coin scenario that it is 50%. But what about the stock market? A lottery ticket? A game of black jack? Or Chess? Each individual decision could yield 50.1% in favor and by MCA you will find it. It will create a tree that shows a RANGE of your worst possibilities to best on a probalistic manner. The most common use is for wealth management investing.
As for how to change off the Fritz engine, I don't know. I could never figure that out (though I only have the Fritz 13 gui). I guess I was hoping this feature would be improved over time. Perhaps now due to Alphazero, it will be.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-22 00:51:19)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
New topic to discuss what should be done when chess engines are probably or obviously used in no engines tournaments. Not so easy to judge, and it would be easy to make it quite invisible IMHO.
- Elo rating points loss?
- Loss of all games in the tournament?
- Nothing (comments will be enough)
Any other idea or preference?
Garvin Gray (2018-01-22 01:06:01)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
The penalties have to be similar to players who are caught using engines at otb tournaments.
Loss of all games in the tournament ie they are kicked out of the tournament and then further sanctions are applied.
But working out how the person used engine assistance is the key question?
Most would say, oh the player choose the top or second ranked engine move almost all of the time. But most decent players would do that anyways.
So that is not a good enough standard. And so that then needs a new test.
It is personally one of the reasons why I did not speak in favour of the event.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-22 02:00:23)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
I did not mean for the King tourney in particular. All no engines tournaments would run under that rule. But you're right, not so easy and many would say such human decision is not good for a chess server.
Herbert Kruse (2018-01-22 09:12:32)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
where is the point in playing with an engine in no engine tournaments, there is nothing to win
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-22 19:45:30)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
I guess that some people just like to win games :)
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-23 00:43:23)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
... at least, for those who think by themselves (a vast majority, I guess), here's some help :)
http://image.farnik.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Think_In_Chess
Good advices here but it will not be enough to save some of my games ;)
Kym Farnik (2018-01-24 09:33:59)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
Most of that Article above is taken from the writings of C (Cecil) J S Purdy, the first Correspondence Chess World Champion [1950-1953] (a fellow Australian).
His games http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=31309
More information...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Purdy
Thibault de Vassal (2018-06-30 20:22:16)
Interview with 15th chess WCH finalist
For once, as Eros & I couldn't find much more to say after all his consecutive wins, I asked Ramil Germanes these few questions around his match & correspondence chess (with what may look like a quite surprising conclusion).
_______________________
- Hello Ramil, many thanks for answering those few questions! This is a first time with the WCH finalist, as the winner (Eros again) agreeded this could be an interesting experiment for a change, so we'll probably have a quite different point of view this time! You just finished your games to score 6-6 (12 draws), Eros retaining the title again. I guess this was the first time you played such a correspondence chess match, what are your impressions on this knockout format?
Yes this is the first time I've played a world championship match although I played before in earlier editions of this world championship but not reaching the challenger level. My impression? Its great playing for the world championship but I know its nearly impossible to beat the world champion.
- Let's rewind a few months backward, would you make other choices, in openings or anything?
I don't know. Tbh, I'm not very good on chess theory and not very updated as well. So I'm just playing basic moves hoping for opportunities to come up.
- So, is Eros beatable in this final match according to you? (please give us some hope) ^^
With how quickly you can search information and the strength of chess engines nowadays, its almost impossible to beat him unless you have access to alpha zero (haha). Though maybe Herbert Kruse can pull it off.
- What can you tell us about yourself and your relation to chess & correspondence chess?
I'm just an ordinary guy from the Philipines who happens to love playing chess. But my love of computers is what brought me to correspondence chess and to ficgs.
- Do you play other games, e.g. Go, Shogi, cards games?
No I don't know how to play those games.
- Could you tell us how these 12 games went from your own point of view?
For me, the games went through their normal course. Both of us didn't made any major mistakes so all games were drawn. That's just how it went. Though there were new moves on some the games it doesn't really changes result of the older games played before.
- Would you share a few tips to play good correspondence chess in 2018, or at least to beat the best chess engines? :)
Sorry but i dont know. I will be the new world champion by now if i know, hehehe.
- You told me that your computer configuration was basically a quad-core i5 3570 / 4gb on Fritz GUI (about 10,500 kn/s) / Windows 10, and we know that many of us (Eros included) still use such configs or even dual-core, would an octa-core have brought a significant advantage to you to win this match according to you?
Oh I don't know they still have those configurations. But I've already encountered opponents in Infinity Chess with 18-22 cores configs. Anyways, an octa-core or faster cpu would definitely be going to speed up my analysis and will let me analyze more lines and variations which may improves my overall play.
Honestly, I don't have that much time these days for correspondence chess. In my match against Eros, I had only about 1 hour of analysis time before work and about another 1 hour after work. Since I already have a family and 2 kids, they have to be my priority first. And I think somebody also can relate to this. So a faster cpu would be very helpful in the match and maybe will give a better chance than a slower cpu.
- As far as I know, you love to build computers, did you use or think about using several ones at the same time for analysis?
No. I only used one computer in my match against Eros. I have 2 other computers but both are slower.
- How much time you've been playing correspondence chess & how do you feel the way the game changed over the years?
I've been playing correspondence chess since 2010 and I have observed that its easier to win games in the past when chess engines were still weaker. Because you notice some players depend only on engine moves and engines still commit mistakes and you can exploit those mistakes if you "investigate" further.
Unlike now, engines are very strong that even players who rely solely on engines moves will be very hard to beat. It lessens the gap of players that know how to "use" the engines and the ones who do not.
- Finally, what makes you love correspondence chess in 2018?
I will always love chess and correspondence chess but what makes it exciting now is the rise of the new kind of engines.
Engines like Leela chess zero that has a different approach in playing chess. Maybe more of these kind of chess engines will be seen in the future. Because of its use of monte carlo analysis and neural networks, we are starting to see moves that we have never seen before. Very aggressive attacks and moves defying opening principles can now be seen. Correspondence chess is getting exciting again!
Fred de la Foret (2019-03-02 17:40:51)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
Is the King's Gambit a bad opening to play for correspondence chess engine players ? It seems to be only a futile opening in failure against strong chess engines.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-06-21 13:42:20)
Fat Fritz 2 vs. Stockfish 13
Chess engines still evolve, now we have Stock... err, Fat Fritz 2 (based on Stockfish 12) on Fritz 17 GUI, and the famous free chess engine Stockfish 13, both using neural networks on CPU and not GPU anymore (if I understood well).
Did anyone try both of them to compare it, or to compare to former versions like Stockfish 11 ? What learnings?
Thibault de Vassal (2020-07-30 01:28:33)
Chess engines levels from 1985 to 2020
What do you think about these elo estimations for chess engines, from Mephisto to DeepBlue, then AlphaZero and Stockfish, Komodo & so on?
Old names surfacing: Rybka of course, all Chessbase engines (Fritz, Junior, Hiarcs & Shredder) but also older but well known names like Fruit, Crafty, Chess Tiger, Chess Genius, Chessmaster, Rebel, Saitek, Nimzo and many others... Those graphics are always funny to watch :)
Thibault de Vassal (2020-07-30 23:26:18)
Chess engines levels from 1985 to 2020
Much better with the Youtube link ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wljgxS7tZVE
Graham Kerr (2020-08-02 00:34:05)
Chess engines levels from 1985 to 2020
would have been a whole lot better if it used a
rating based on performance rather than just someone's estimate...
Herbert Kruse (2020-08-05 01:02:23)
Chess engines levels from 1985 to 2020
i liked those engines most with mainly one person behind it, so chess genius and shredder
Thibault de Vassal (2020-12-08 15:33:13)
What happened to all the players?
Thanks for the enlightments!
1) Interesting idea, I did not think it this way but that sounds credible.
2) Too many possible reasons IMHO, first could be the lower rate benefits/investment, added to the constantly growing place of chess engines (particularly since the Rybka era) in the game and the way our lives changed all over the years (real life, social networks, Netflix & so on).
3) That's quite surprising to me but well, at least chess found a way :)
4) I did not hear about that rule yet, what's the idea?
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-02 22:48:22)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
Without chess engines, there is always a chance, right? :)
Paul Brand Lyard (2021-07-18 21:09:29)
Chess engines levels from 1985 to 2020
Lc0 27.0 is a very nice engine to play,with Shredder, and the SF12 nuue is great.
Paul Brand Lyard (2021-07-18 21:19:39)
Chess engines levels from 1985 to 2020
Lc0 27.0 is a very nice engine to play,with Shredder, and the SF12 nuue is great.
So,the new "21 one moves#" played on 2020, on engine SF11 nuue
by
" The Sandra Lyard13061975 Inventor Annapurna'chess,and chess player", Stockfish11.
Stanislas Gounant (2022-01-18 22:12:07)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments
Are players using chess engibnes welcome in thematic tournaments?
Thibault de Vassal (2022-01-18 23:59:07)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments
Yes, engines, databases & so on... everything is authorized in thematic tourneys.
Stanislas Gounant (2022-01-19 02:39:00)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments
I know it's authorized, but is it welcome ?
Thibault de Vassal (2022-01-19 11:13:44)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments
Theorically at least, it is encouraged :) I hope it is welcome in practice...
Stanislas Gounant (2022-01-19 17:13:11)
Chess engines in thematic tournaments
ok i enter in the tournament
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-10 17:06:10)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
Because the optimal defenses by black are so boring! And they don't offer any counter-play, specially against lower-rated opponents that could easily draw as white with those. In uncommon variations they have to think, and that's the only chance they slip.
There's also the aspect of overconfidence, chess engines have gotten so strong one thinks they can defend anything. That was a mistake I made last time I played a Benoni and lost, I thought I played the strongest defense, who knows if my opponent could also have defeated someone else in the same line, but it was a problem of evaluation, not depth, the engine was showing 1.0 scores for positions that were lost, and they were so complicated I couldn't keep up. Near the end my opponent wasn't even playing the moves I predicted and cut the game like a knife through butter.
But I'll always rather lose a game like that than playing the same boring defense that draws against anything but it's a snore fest, apparently I could just play moves from 300 million nodes blindly and draw anyway.
So I continue to play dubious lines and appreciate opponents that deviate from the norm to spice things up, I could easily be over 2300 at the cost of boring games, but I'll be getting there soon anyway and finally find out how people on that tier play against me, since I've never been able to join tournaments of that caliber.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-03-13 23:17:02)
Post-tickets FICGS
The long answer:
FICGS story is a quite simple & classic one, the reasons why it's declining are quite obvious, and unfortunately the solutions aren't. A bit of story:
1. Luckily, FICGS.com was created when there were a demand, just after IECG stopped... It grew very quickly, and I was in a rush to code it (FICGS was the very first dynamic website I ran from A to Z), there were ideas from everywhere. FICGS.com was the shortest domain name available, but not a so good one. Quite hard to remember, hard to tell, not clear for search engines (unlike chess.com which is a perfect one). Maybe it was a mistake to choose it, I can't tell. Either it meant "Free Internet Chess Games Server" or "Free Internet Correspondence Games Server", so I added another game, Go (Weiqi), to FICGS, which is a quite heavy decision: After that, FICGS is not only a chess server anymore.
2. A few years after, there are several thousands players (a few hundreds active). The number of new players slowly decreases month after month but a few sponsors come. Obviously, the way I coded FICGS made it more and more difficult to fully update from a PHP version to another one, or to change it in deep. Even now, I'm not sure to regret it though cause I couldn't have done it differently, so it is what it is. At this time, chess.com was less interesting than FICGS (my taste), but success is already here thanks to a perfect marketing formula: best domain name & pay for options. On the contrary, I chose to keep FICGS completely free.
3. Chess engines explode, correspondence chess continues its evolution (human's thinking decreases in moves decision), finally I add another game that is in a hype: poker texas holdem. New sponsors come, I still play correspondence chess myself but now I play another game even more: Google. FICGS also extends this way and it works in some ways. At its peak, FICGS is about the 32,000th most visited website worldwide. But the number of players continues to decrease, Android & phones started to change the landscape already. Chess.com released its app and added probably its best feature: a quick Stockfish analysis with evaluation & explanation for each move (which is excellent for blitz games but quite a non-sense for a correspondence chess website).
4. The number of players suddenly declines very quickly, I react by creating FICGS apps for Android, a dozen apps... On some apps, you can play against the machine, virtual opponents, chess 960, blindfold & so on. But the way to maintain it is not easy at all for many reasons, but the main one is that Google (Playstore) constantly change technical things & rules. After a few years, I even have to completely remake it, losing what was acquired. And some apps still fail to re-appear at Playstore, that's why I just made the APK files available to direct download. But these applications confirm something clear: blitz is more fun and attracts much more players. Changing rating ranges for correspondence chess tournaments or championships formats won't be a solution for this.
5. FICGS is now 20 years old! Internet completely changed over the years but it survived longer than Messenger, Skype & many other great services. If you look at many websites, new versions of their modern interfaces are often worst (bugs or options) than previous ones. FICGS was never perfect, maybe even clear, but at least it remained coherent. Now Google (just like all major services) is mainly governed by AI, sponsors left - that does not change anything, FICGS will continue to run. I created other websites, but none so far successfully helped in a way or another to solve the problem we encounter here: how to increase the number of correspondence chess, Go or poker players again? If FICGS becomes a pure correspondence chess site again with a brand new interface, I'm quite sure that wouldn't change anything or almost. I might be wrong of course, but according to me, this is a deep problem, connected to society evolutions, computers, phones, our attention, time, even health & so on... In my personal case, I wish to play correspondence chess again, but still cannot find the time to do it. Finally I have no idea what internet will look like within 5 years, but FICGS will be there. Maybe an AI will find a solution soon ^^ Meanwhile, I received many ideas to improve FICGS and I have to thank you very much for this. Few ideas were released for reasons I explained here (but new ones are always wecome), I hope you'll better understand it by reading this.
Have good games & take care!
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
Social network : create your photo albums, discuss with your friends...
Hot news & buzz : discover the latest news and buzz on the internet...
Discussions : questions and answers, forums on almost everything...
Seo forums : search engines optimisation forums, web directory...
Play the strongest international correspondence chess players !
|
Riccio, Eros (ITA) [member # 186] Correspondence chess : 2475 GM Ranked # 38 in the rating list. Rating history : No change this year. Advanced chess : 2443  This member may have a profile in the social network. |
 | Correspondence chess World championship Play chess games Go (weiqi, baduk) Advanced chess Play big chess Chess trainer apk Rated tournaments Poker texas hold'em Fischer random chess |  |