accepted
FICGS - Search results for accepted
There are 87 results for accepted in the forum.
Per Lea (2006-04-09 11:37:05)
Titles
In my opinion, there are only 2 official sets of titles in the chess world, belonging to the only officialy accepted world-wide chess organisations: ICCF and FIDE.
Elmer Valderrama (2006-04-23 11:56:55)
not PGN
Maybe bringing the text-entry move facility closer to the board might be a quick fix (for the player checking the validity of intended move).
Regarding the format of the on-going games, it appears the player's move is copied "as is" directly to the game score (I have just entered "e7-e5", accepted by the interface as "e5", but it was copied as "1...e7-e5" into the PGN score of the on-going game), regards
Stefano Ghisi (2006-05-01 11:41:45)
Possible bug?
In the game 58 my last move was Rad1. I typed only Rd1 (with no specification of what Rook was to move) and the program has accepted my move as Rfd1.
Be aware! Every move typed and no moved on the board must me verifyed...
Juri Eintalu (2021-09-27 22:56:01)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess
Interesting. I had to make a move AND accept the draw. Then, the system recognized the draw. But the last move I made was not counted. It was also fun that when I tried to ACCEPT a draw, the system warned that several draw offers are punishable. I started to fear whether I have ACCEPTED that draw more than 3 times...
Wayne Lowrance (2006-06-22 17:22:08)
Interesting question for the Gambit's a
Amir, interesting question. do you know that 41 % of queens accepted result in a loss for white.
Even worse Kings gambit (not in favour) 47% of gambits accepted are lost for white.
I do not like offering in general unless I want to play a interesting tactical fight against a conservative positional player. This reason enough to play a queens.
Just my two bits worth.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-22 17:56:59)
King's gambit and statistics...
Wayne, where did you find such (wrong) statistics ??
Gambit (the real thing) is IMO first a psychological attack, most useful against a weaker player... "The best way to refute is to accept it", one said... but queen's gambit is NOT a real gambit and for sure 2. ... dxc4 is not the best move... King's gambit is, but a perfect play most probably also leads to a draw.
Queen's gambit accepted statistics : 33% (1-0), 48% (1/2-1/2), 17% (0-1)
King's gambit statistics : 35% (1-0), 27% (1/2-1/2), 36% (0-1)
... in classical time controls.
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-23 12:26:28)
Blinfolded chess ( part II )
Very recently, however, all the honors of Europe, in this department of indoor games, have been run away with by two young Americans, Morphy and Paulsen. Paul Morphy, a native of New Orleans, seemed to be born with chess in his blood; he played almost from childhood; and at thirteen years of age he proved a formidable antagonist to Herr Lowenthal, a noted Hungarian. In 1857, when just twenty years of age, Morphy encountered Paulsen, a native of Iowa, only a little older than himself, at a chess congress in New Orleans (Editor: It was New York!). All the gray-beards struck their flag to Paulsen, and then he struck to Morphy. Of Morphy's subsequent achievements in regular play, which stamp him as perhaps the first living chess-player (we say this with fear and trembling; however, for the knights of the game are a sensitive race), we will not speak here, for our purpose is only to notice the blindfold performances. At the chess congress above mentioned, he finely played a blindfold game with a leading German player. Early in 1858, he struck the New Orleanists with amazement by playing six games simultaneously, without seeing any other the boards; winning five of them, and exhibiting beautiful play throughout. He then came to Europe, not only to "lick the Britishers," but "all creation;" and it must be admitted that he made great progress towards that achievement. At a meeting of the Chess Association at Birmingham, in August 1858, he played eight games simultaneously, without sight of the boards. His opponents were Lord Lyttelton, and seven other persons, mostly presidents or secretaries of provincial chess clubs. Against such players, and under such tremendous conditions, he won no less than six games out of the eight, drawing a seventh, and losing the eighth. In the following month, he went over and astonished the Parisians in a similar way; he contended blindfold against eight practised players at once, at the Cafe de la Regence, a famous resort of chess-players; and out of these did not lose even one; he was the victor in six, and drew the other two. In the spring of 1859, Morphy contended against eight of the most experienced members of the London Chess Club, including Mr. Mongredien and Mr. Walker, two distinguished players. He won two games, and drew the other six--all the players except himself being wearied out by a very protracted sitting. A few days afterwards, he played with eight members of the St. George's Chess Club, including Lord Cremorne, Lord Arthur Hay, and Captain Kennedy; he won five, and the rest were drawn through want of time to finish them.
Nevertheless, inconceivable as these mental labors are, Morphy yields to Paulsen in blindfold play. There are whispers of twelve or fifteen games having been tried simultaneously by the latter; but the number ten has been most certainly reached, under conditions of the utmost publicity.
On the 7th of October in the present year, at a Divan in the Strand, ten players accepted Mr. Paulsen's challenge to grapple with them all simultaneously, the boards being placed out of his sight. One of the players was M. Sabouroff, secretary to the Russian Embassy in London; the other nine comprised many names well known among chess-players. Ten chess-boards were placed on ten tables in the room. An arm-chair, turned away towards a window, was mounted on a dais. At two o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Paulsen, a quiet, courteous young man, with not a trace of "brag" in him, took his seat in this arm-chair. For twelve mortal hours he never rose, never ate, never smoked, and drank nothing but a little lemonade. What were his mental labors during that time, we shall see. His ten antagonists took their seats at the ten tables; and each table speedily became the centre of a group of spectators, whose comments were not always so silent as in fairness they ought to have been. Paulsen could not see any of the chess-boards. Herr Kling, a noted player and teacher of chess, acted as general manager. He called the boards by numbers--No. 1 to No. 10. Paulsen audibly announced his first move for board No. 1; Kling made that move; the antagonist replied to it; Kling audibly announced the reply; Paulsen considered what should be his second move, and when he had audibly announced his decision, Kling made the proper move on the board. Here No. 1 rested for awhile. No. 2 now made his move, leading to the same course of proceeding as before. Then No. 3 in the same way; then No. 4; and so on to No. 10; after which No. 1 began a new cycle, by playing a second move; and thus they proceeded over and over again.
Now let us see what all this implies and involves. Chess is not one of the most frolicsome of games; indeed, ladies generally declare it to be very dull, seeing that a chess-player is apt to be "grumpy" if spoken to on other matters while playing. The truth is, there is a demand for much mental work in managing a game well; the combinations and subtleties, the attacks and counter-attacks, are so numerous and varied, as to keep the mind pretty fully occupied. Nevertheless, a fine game between two fine players is mere child's play compared with this wonderful achievement of Paulsen. He was obliged to form ten mental pictures; and every picture changed with every move, like the colored bits in a kaleidoscope. Most persons, even though knowing nothing of the game, are aware that it begins with thirty-two pieces of different colors and forms, and that these move about over a board of sixty-four squares. After every change of position in any one of the pieces, Paulsen must have changed his mental picture of the board, the field of battle, and then made that a fixture until the next move was made. This is hard enough in even one game, against an antagonist who has his eyes to help him in planning attacks and defences; but how hard must it be against ten! It is difficult to conceive what is the condition of the mental machinery under such circumstances; and yet, there he sat, the calmest man in the room. When told of his antagonist's doings, one by one, he looked quietly out of window, and rubbed his chin, as a man often does when thinking, and then announced his move--never mistaking No. 1 for No. 7, No. 9 for No. 3--never failing to recover the proper mental picture, and making the proper change in it; never embarrassed; never making an unlawful move, or likely to lose sight (mental sight) of any unlawful move made by his antagonists. Nor did he obtain the least pause for mental rest. Without one minute's interval, as soon as he had announced a move for one board, he was required to attend to the move of another antagonist at another board. Hour after hour did this continue--all the afternoon, all the evening, midnight, until two in the morning. He made two hundred and seventy moves in the twelve hours, twenty-seven per game average; this gave two minutes and a quarter for the consideration of each move. As all his moves were met by corresponding moves on the part of his antagonists, he was called upon to form five hundred and forty complete mental pictures in twelve consecutive hours, each picture representing the exact mode in which all of the sixty-four squares of a chess-board were occupied. Paulsen won two games, lost three, and drew five.
Gino Figlio (2006-07-20 08:42:29)
posting
Hi Thibault,
Gilles accepted so I'll start posting some comments. I believe there has to be an agreement if something changes after the game has started. If the agreement or rule is in place from the start then, it's ok.
Best,
Gino
Elmer Valderrama (2006-08-25 13:08:31)
bug: en-passant captures
In the ongoing games of players Herr, Jeff v Sarihan, Sefa
FICGS_CHESS_RAPID_C_000004 and FIGCS_CHESS_CLASS_G_000003
there is an "en-passant" capture (move 10.dxc6) which is not
allowed by the chess rules (as I know them, maybe FIDE
Congress has already changed them ;)
The pawn c was first moved to c6 (3...c6) and then to c5 (9...c5)
Somehow, the player Herr managed to capture the pawn
by playing 10.dxc6 after 9...c5, which was accepted
by both the player Sarihan and the interface ..(!?!)
And the same happened in the game Ducreux, Regis v Sarihan, Sefa
FIGCS_CHESS_CLASS_F_000007, this time pawn c was moved
twice again (2...c6 and 10...c5) and captured ("of course")
by 11. dxc6.. 8()
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-29 15:57:14)
Fischer vs. Spassky ?
Vladimir Kramnik did not play game 5 !
All this reminds me the first match Fischer vs. Spassky... In a documentary, Boris Spassky said he lost the match when he accepted Fischer's new conditions (ie. playing in another room) in order to continue to play...
Seems to be quite the same situation here...
Now who made the mistake : Kramnik, Topalov or FIDE... I hope game 5 will be replayed.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-30 03:39:05)
Vladimir Kramnik - Open letter
Open Letter To
FIDE President
Kirsan Iljumshinov
Russian Chess Federation
Elista, 29. September 2006
Requests of Vladimir Kramnik
• To proceed with GAME 5
Clause 3.17.1., Schedule 2 of the contract:
“All protests must be submitted in writing to the Appeals Committee not more than 2 hours after the relevant playing session.”
The protest made by the Topalov Team were not made within this window after game 4 (27 September 2006) but only hit the FIDE Office and the Appeals Committee on the rest day (28 September 2006). Therefore the protests are not even relevant and should have been rejected by the Appeals Committee immediately.
Clause 3.18.3., Schedule 2 of the contract:
“After the World Chess Championship Committee agrees with the Organizers on the arrangements in respect of the tournament hall, facilities etc. etc. etc……., no objections from the participants shall be acceptable as long as the conditions are in accordance with the rights of the players granted in their agreements.”
This clause clearly underlines the statement made in today’s Open letter: “By starting the match both participants agreed all the playing conditions de facto and de jure and the conditions are therefore legally binding. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would in our understanding request the approval of both players which is not the case here.”
Therefore it is clear that the Appeals Committee took a completely wrong decision and was obviously not even aware of the Rules and Regulations. The decision of Chief Arbiter Mr. Gijssen to forfeit game 5 was clearly based on a wrong decision of the Appeals Committee and shall be nullified.
Mr. Kramnik is ready to continue the match and to play the 5th game (with a leading score of 3:1) on the conditions that were accepted prior to the start of the match.
• Toilet issue
The toilets connected to the restrooms shall be opened again. This request is in accordance with clauses 3.17.1. and 3.18.3 (see above) and in the general understanding that by starting of the match both participants agreed to all the playing conditions. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would require the approval of both players which is not the case here.
Mr. Kramnik is ready to accept even stricter controls by sealing the toilets before and after inspections. Inspections shall be done before and after each game.
• Exchange of members of the Appeals Committee
We repeat that the Kramnik team does not trust the objectivity of the Appeals Committee anymore. It is evident from this letter and our first Open Letter today that the existing Appeals Committee is biased and incompetent. Mr. Kramnik strongly insists once again that the members of the Appeals Committee will be exchanged immediately.
• Access to Recordings
As Mr. Kramnik in the press conference stated he did not sign a contract for acting in a reality show. The recordings shall be observed by the arbiters. Neither Team Topalov nor Team Kramnik shall have access to the recordings. Investigations shall be in the sole responsibility of the Arbiters.
• Requested Apology
Last but not least Mr. Kramnik believes that Mr. Danailov should apologize to Mr. Kramnik in writing. Remarks such as:
“If the match were to continue, the World Champion will refrain from shaking hands with Mr. Kramnik before the games and will not take part in joint press conferences with him.” and “Veselin Topalov is disturbed by the suspicious behavior of his opponent Mr. Vladimir Kramnik who takes his most significant decisions in the bathroom.” are clearly insulting.
On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely,
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-09 10:56:23)
Server peaks of charge
Hi all and thanks for sharing your views.
I agree with Marc, there's no reason to slow down games by force. I'm just thinking about an emergency system that would delay (a few minutes at most) the moves to appear in 'My messages' and 'My games' with an appropriate message if too many players are sending moves at the same time - in future. Some games run particularly fast (30 moves played in half an hour).
The idea of delaying the sending of moves is interesting but I'm not convinced yet. I fear it wouldn't be used a lot and too many options is not good IMO. (more, the delay wouldn't be 100% accurate) As for me, I just 'accepted' to have 10 or more pending moves continuously, I delete emails (or set email notification off) and come back later to the server... Another way would be to filter moves responded before a defined time in 'My games'. Not so useful...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-27 19:37:08)
Chess quizz :-)
A chess quizz ? ... Feel free to post any funny question about chess.. :)
1/ Who said that : "At night Kramnik is in my dreams. I dream that he has accepted my offer for a return match in Sofia. Or that I make a long stroll with him in Moscow, after which we visit an expensive nightclub. The strange thing is that the two of us are the only visitors there."
Ok, quite easy... The pressure should have been really high... :/
Solution - http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com
Another one... May be interesting :)
2/ Who lost........ ? (question unfinished, just say your first thought :))
Lawrence Nesko (2006-11-20 18:38:08)
En passant?
Hello again, all. Once more, I apologize if my question has been answered before, but I have searched the Help and Forum sections and can't seem to find an answer.
In one of my current games (#4602), I wish to capture my opponent's pawn en passant. I have a pawn sitting upon e4 and he has advanced his pawn from d-2 to d-4. I had always been under the impression that the proper algebraic notation for the capture would be
exd4 ep
However, this was not accepted in the notation field. I tried a couple of more variations (i.e. exd4 e.p.) to no avail.
Fortunately, I was able to execute the move via the board graphic. The move was noted as exd3. Is that the porper algebraic notation, or is that something that is necessary due to the mechanics of the notation field?
Thanks in advance for your patience and reply.
Barry Bell (2006-11-23 06:20:08)
Re:
Hi - There is a section under Help that deals with Computer Play, so to answer your question no computers are not banned. The TD (tournament director) has the ability to create whatever type of tournament he wants as long as he follows A4C rules. The normal tournaments are swiss, the team tournaments are a combination of swiss and round robin. Example: A TD creates a 5 round swiss and states this tournament will be a computer assisted tournament, he states the rules etc etc. as long has it does not break any A4C rules then this type of tournament is accepted. So far we have not had a tournament like this, but provision to allow this type of tournament are already in place.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-04-30 17:32:08)
Rules and morals
Rules just have to be clear before a tournament starts – whether this rules are bad or good will be defined by the individual sight of everyone, so never mind because the rules are known and accepted by all members. Just a bad looser is searching his lost by the rules!
Another thing is the abuse of rules – you can play in accordance with the rules and nevertheless break moral fundamentals. I.e. definitely lost or drawn games (known by both opponents) will not finished (by resign or draw offer/accept) because of the hope that the opponent will have a heart attack before the time control is coming. Or taking care of your rating, it will be done in next rating period later on.
Perhaps it is purely a matter of taste!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-01 00:57:44)
Achim's answer
Achim Mueller asked to close his account, but he wanted to respond to Wolfgang & Sandor, here's his answer :
"A last clarification:
@Wolfgang Utesch:
I wasn't aware of the "ELO-prefering" rule and I still don't find it
here on the webpage. I opened a thread here in this forum and
besides "then win all your games" or "in this case we ensure that
the better player will qualify" there were no substantial arguments
for this pretty unused and unknown rule (not that I agree with these
two "arguments"!). Nonetheless I accepted the rule for this
tournament.
My decision to give up and leave this server is based on an easy
calculation how many games I have to play here to get a - what I
call - competitive rating that somehow equals the advantage, players
with a nominal rating of 2200 - 2500 will have in every tournament
where this rule exists. Because my time is limited my decision was
to leave the server, that's all. I don't complain, I don't take
anything as an excuse. It's simple as it is: I gave it a try here,
became aware of the rule and decided this is the wrong place for me,
ok?
@Sandor Marton-Bardocz :
I didn't say with any word that you are a blocking guy. This was a
_general_ thesis how the player with the best rating can take an
overwhelming advantage at this ruling. All good players (ask anyone
in the region of 2400up at remoteschach, dbf, iecg or iccf) will
confirm that it is most difficult to get 3.5 point out of 4 if at
least 2 players know how to use computers and choose certain
openings.
Finally ... ficgs is a nice place to play, the interface is good and
I assume Thibault put a lot of work into it. So, enjoy your games
here, but also accept that from time to time there might be
players that will leave because of certain issues.
Ciao
Achim"
Rules (and chess WCH rules) - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Thanks Achim. Best wishes & have good games :)
Hannes Rada (2007-06-16 07:01:30)
WCH rules
Thibault, of course you are right, because both player accepted the "terms and conditions" of the championship and they have no reason to complain.
I just wanted to point out that maybe some players would not participate under such circumstances or rules.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-26 16:06:08)
Ratings
The discussion of ratings is very problematic. Ratings on different sites are depending on different premises. What entry level was accepted? How long did you playing there – how often? How much thinking time did you spent per move? Is the basic rating you earned over years to be caused by old tournaments with postcards (maybe without any help of engines – and your opponents did it the same way)? How much care did you spent ratings (i.e. Norm tournaments?!)? Are you a member of the exclusive cycle of an organisation, getting invitations to closed high-level rating tournaments?
Engines (also Rybka) are playing own styles and it depends on whether you can play better or worse against their special styles (knowing their potencies and weaknesses). Old fashioned players (independent from their ratings) will have much more problems to win or to hold draw against engines than players which have positioning themselves at actual situation. In my opinion today Rybka alone with one week thinking time per every move without any other help will reach a rating of about 2.400 at FICGS SM-tournament with an average rating of 2.450.
In an ICCF anniversary tournament (average rating of about 2.600) same Rybka under same conditions will reach a rating about 2.550.
I for myself wouldn’t play longer correspondence chess, if I would have the feeling that any engine is playing better without my command. How long will it still take?
My engine handling is not in this way, that I am waiting for longer times which move is offer by the engine. I have own ideas and I’m trying their possibilities, investigating positions in depth over many moves in all directions. But sometimes engines have the better ideas and I have to accept this!
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-27 10:31:35)
Rules
Rules are very immportant! For all the same rules. If rules will changed about actual serious problems by a few players, it will be a disadvantage for all other players, which have arranged themselves with the same rules, independent from their own difficulties with that. Maybe sometimes they have thought less time for a single move as they would have wished - maybe they have lost therefore, but they have accepted the rules - that is the game (and that is life also).
Sergei Ivanov (2007-08-08 17:07:33)
curator
--- [moderator : name deleted] is the addict and accepted heroin, therefore for Dmitry is very disturbing.
Pablo Schmid (2008-06-10 21:33:16)
Always the same guy
It's always the same guy, I don't even want to write his name, he would be happy. In each topic where he speaks there is a new victim, he is sure to be the most intelligent and take everything personnally, and insult anybody who don't think like him. I don't know why Ilmars's comment have been deleted, I didn't read them but the King of insults seems to have impunity. If you put his name on google you will see how much trouble he makes everywhere. That behavior should really not be accepted here. I never saw a chess player so rude in my life.
Mladen Jankovic (2008-07-09 11:51:48)
re:
I already suggested Garner variant to be accepted as a "small chess" variant. It would be nice, as such variants tend to be fun.
I doubt that another large board variant would be accepted here.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-09 21:49:23)
Marshall Fest
I guess so Thibault. Kasparov never accepted the Marshall - always anti marshall. Still couple of high level white wins recently and Aronian opted for the Berlin the other day....
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 !
Wayne Lowrance (2008-11-14 00:58:53)
Future Rating
Hello Thibault, In the short msg's window all I was asking for was what happened to the feature ! I click on my tournaments, click on magnifying glass, then try to click on elo, but no longer does this respond. What am I doing wrong sir. I accepted a draw offer, wondering what impact it will have
Thank you.
Wayne
Ilmars Cirulis (2009-01-14 14:32:38)
Gambits
Ilmars thinks that queen gambit (accepted) is 1/2-1/2.
Traxler, Latvian, Albin is 1-0. Falbeer is 1/2.
P.S. Ilmars don't know all gambits. Also he has freedom to change his mind (f.e. his last opinion about Evans is 1/2 comparing to start opinion 0-1).
Sophie Leclerc (2009-01-19 05:19:52)
Traxler is lost ?
Come on, If this gambit can give someone an attack then be attack, sacrifice your meterial for a strong and trown the rest at the ennemy king.
That is the traxler way of doing things...
Halloween gambit and queen gambit Are both need, They should be accepted, As halloween gambit refused is a dull game.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-28 03:35:14)
Svante Carl wins FICGS Go WCH (again)
Congratulations to Svante Carl von Erichsen who keeps the FICGS Go champion title by beating Ke Lu 5d on an impressive 5-0 score, also reaching a rating of 2653 !
A rematch just started between our two top Go players, as Ke Lu convincingly won the 3rd FICGS Go WCH preliminary tournament by 7/7
You can follow the games here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000003
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match :
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, first of all congratulations for your win in the FICGS
correspondence Go championship final. Your opponent was Ke Lu 5 dan, you
won 4 games out of 5 already (the last game is not finished yet), how do
you explain such a result?
Svante Carl -
Hello! Thank you very much! It is certainly astonishing for me that I
was able to hold my own in these games. I believe that the main factor
that helped me in getting on even terms with such a strong player was
that I could spend much more time analyzing each move than in a
face-to-face or online direct playing situation.
FICGS - Did you have a particular preparation or plan before to start the games?
Svante Carl - The only things I planned beforehand was to really give my best, and to
make the games as distinct as possible.
FICGS - The site will now try to attract more correspondence Go players from Asia
(with a few chinese, japanese or korean words on the home page already),
what do you think about the games format played at FICGS
(30 days + 1 day / move, chinese rules komi 7.5 points) and the championship rules?
Svante Carl - I like the format. I am also interested in the rules of Go as well as
the rules that surround Go, like tournament rules and time settings.
My current conviction is that the "real, pure" Go rules are area rules
with superko, and territory rules should be seen as a shortcut which
should give the same result. I have come to think that the "Taiwan
rule", i.e. White gets a point of compensation if Black got the last
play (before the first pass), is a sensible part of the rules. FICGS
has taken a very easy route by declaring the rule set and leaving
negotiation of the result to the players. While in the end, it is only
important who won, I think that showing a result as e.g. "White+3",
"Black+Resign" adds a lot of flavour.
As a time system, I think that bonus time (a.k.a. Fischer time), like on
FICGS, is a very general and sensible approach to timing a game like Go.
I think that many "real-world" tournaments and internet servers will
switch to that in the future, for all, blitz, speed, normal, slow, and
correspondence games.
The championship format is quite nice. I like the title
holder/challenger way of tournament series. The only thing I would like
to see is some sort of nigiri to determine the colours in the odd game.
Attracting players from Asia is really a worthwhile goal. I look
forward to playing players from all over the world.
FICGS - Does correspondence Go bring you something more than real time Go?
What is more addictive according to you?
Svante Carl - Since I think that analyzing is a forte of mine, I might be a bit
stronger at correspondence Go than at "real time" Go. I don't think
that one is more addictive than the other.
FICGS - Do you often play real time Go online? What servers do you prefer?
Svante Carl - I usually play on KGS, but not too much, perhaps one or two games per
week on average, often in "bursts". KGS is quite nice, but not perfect.
Sometimes I play at CyberOro, but there is much less communication; I
like to watch pro games there.
FICGS - Do you use softwares that assist you in your games (FICGS rules allow
this)? What do you think about computer Go in general nowadays?
Svante Carl - I only use a board or a simple SGF file viewer for analyzing. There are
no playing programs that could help me. The programs have advanced
quite much recently, but I think that it will still be a long time
before they can beat me in an even game. Currently, most tests of these
programs are against professional players with high handicaps, and I
think that this is a good situation for the bots, since they get
exponentially weaker the further the game is from the end -- high
handicap practically eliminates the opening, their weakest spot. I
would like to see more tests against amateur players at the bots' own level.
FICGS - Do you play other games (board games, video games...), what is your
favourite one?
Svante Carl - Go is certainly my absolute favourite. I also know chess, although I am
really weak at that. I also like "german board games", there are some
really nice pearls there. In video games, well, there are also some
pearls, but they get drowned by a mass of ... not so good games..., I
don't waste time looking at that scene any more. I also played some
online poker, but it wasn't able to keep me interested.
FICGS - Will you defend your title again against Ke Lu who also won
the 3rd wch tournament?
Svante Carl - Of course, I am looking forward to that!
FICGS - Could you give us your impressions on the games, how it
went from the beginning to the end, do you think that
time pressure were a non-negligible factor in the result
(the clocks of Ke Lu were quickly near 1 or 2 days left)?
Svante Carl - I was a bit surprised that he let his time drop to such a low level
right at the beginning, perhaps he was not familiar yet with the vacancy
feature at FICGS. I can't see his reasons for this, or how much time he
actually could spend on his games. I was ahead in each game when it
timed out, though.
I think that game 2 was quite even from the start. The skirmish in the
lower left resulted in me capturing a little group, but he got a nice
framework on the lower side. My prospects of reducing this were a bit
hampered by the fact that my right side group was not completely
settled. I found a way to sacrifice some stones to settle my group
while fixing the framework's extent and keeping sente to secure my top
side, at which time, the game was still almost even, but I think that I
was a few points ahead then. Later, I could seal the top side with some
extra points through some rather blunt forcing moves.
In game 3, my opponent made an approach with White 24 that is usually
regarded as bad in this situation, because the pincer Black 25 works out
very well in conjunction with the stone on the left side. He tried to
settle with White 26, but I refused to make things so easy, even though
the result from the usual joseki would not have been bad. He resisted
Black 27, but I think that White 28 is an overplay. The resulting fight
left me with nice profit in that corner and sente, while he made some
centre thickness. I then tried to carefully neutralize this thickness,
but I may have played some slack moves in the course. Later, I was able
to keep a little moyo in the lower right centre, and then I poked into
his right-side territory where he had left a serious weakness earlier.
Game 1 started out with an interesting fight in the upper right. After
White 42, both the three captured black and the two almost captured
white stones retain some serious aji, which I came back to fix on my
side a few moves later. When I could set up a splitting attack with
Black 77, he was able to connect his two weak groups, but in bad shape.
I continued to keep this dragon separated from the top, planning to
invade the top side afterwards. However, with White 110, instead of
connecting by playing B6, he saved some centre stones, and I proceeded
to separate and kill the dragon. He may have overlooked that my upper
left side group was still able to live after 110 and 111.
In game 4, after White 22, Black's stones on the left side have a
strange relation. The three stones in the corner are a bit far from
C10, but putting another move here is way too slow. He tried to remedy
this situation with the following moves. After Black 27, there are
weaknesses left in both sides' shape. When I entered with White 32, I
thought that his weakness at F13 would let me settle easily, but he
attacked very hard. After White 60, there are some weaknesses in my
shape, but he also has a weakish group in the centre. Playing at K10
with White 76 before taking the two stones with H2 felt very important
to me. At move 94, I couldn't find a good move to complete my moyo at
the top, but I thought that I had found a good point to invade. This
was much harder than I thought, since after Black 95, the 3-3 point
fails to live. With 96 and 98, I thought that I would get a ko, but he
played a line that I had excluded earlier on account of too many cuts in
Black's outside shape. However, with Black 107, he made things very
difficult for me, since cutting at P16 doesn't work out too well -- my
inside group doesn't have enough liberties. I cut at Q14 instead with
the hope to at least get some outside forcing opportunities that might
have been able to keep me in the game. I think that Black 115 should
have been at R12, because after White 116, R12 and N16 have become miai.
Black 117 just doesn't work at all. I really got lucky in the end here.
These impressions are naturally one-sided, and I would be really
interested what stronger players might say about these games.
FICGS - Thank you very much and have good games !
Svante Carl - Thank you!
Michel van der Kemp (2009-04-15 00:38:58)
Ticking box should be only valid way
I also think that checking the box is the only valid way to make a draw offer, written statement should not be accepted. At best it could be a possibility that if someone receives a written request for a draw offer, he could goto the referee (in this case Thibault), and ask how to do with an (invalid) draw offer.
I don't think Thibault should go through logs of games everytime (even if that can be automated), to see if a players have offered a draw.
Normajean Yates (2009-06-04 08:40:10)
another suggestion: draw offer+timeout
another suggestion: suppose *I* make a draw offer and then *opponent* runs out of time; in such a case *my* draw offer is automatically deemed accepted by *opponent*: the result is recorded as a draw.
Or maybe this: giving a disadavtage only to repeated-draw-offerers:
Above rule, but only applied if it is *not* my *first* draw-offer in the game: i.e.:
In a game between player A and player B; if player A make a draw offer and in response player B runs out of time; and further, if there have been two draw offers in the game by player A such that player B has *not* made a draw offer between the said two draw offers by player B; then the draw offer of player A is automatically deemed accepted by player B: the result is recorded as a draw (instead of player B losing on time).
Wayne Lowrance (2009-09-07 23:52:52)
A Big Mouth on Rybka Forum
Howdy Thibault & all.
There is a poster on the Rybka forum who has sort of a big mouth. He claims that Rybka IA feature is not best for CC games, claims it is too time consuming and at any rate he blubbers and brags that those who use IA are not able to defeat him. I am using my own language here in a jist of the conversation of his.
He further says that he never spends more that a matter of hours cogitating his move using a 3 tear "long game" approach to working his moves. Timers such at 60' 40 moves @ 1st tier etc (don't remember his 2nd tier timer. In any case he claims he can get to depth 40 in mid game situations using a "long game" three tier mode. and finds moves that are superior to IA running a day or more (he doesn't seem to understand that most CC players use IA in a special Centaur way and the Program is a tool.
He gives little respect for 2500 CC rated Centaur players using the feature IA. He beats such players all of the time, he say's with his Rybka usage with his very modest hardware against 2500 players using IA. I am skeptical. I asked where he plays CC (out of courosity) and he will not tell where. a Poster in response to his post believe he plays CC where computers are not allowed, I have no idea in this regard. I told him that I play at FICGS where computers are welcome and a 2500 rating on this server is very high. There are many well known players held in high regard playing at FICGS that would "clean his clock" with him playing as he say's he does.
So what is my point. I am wondering if I can invite this guy to join FICGS and that his lofty rating can be accepted. I shall invite him to Join our SM #11 tourney.
Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2009-09-23 02:50:06)
after review
After further consideration and reviewing the responses, I change my vote to #3. After OTB touch-move !no take backs. 2 is the polite thing to do and that influenced me. But there are other considerations. Thibault, keep it simple, no take backs. I have miss moved here but accepted it as the rule !
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-07 16:16:28)
"blitz cc"
Well, FICGS cannot & will not become a fast games server to play eg. "2 0" or even "5 0" (by the way even on the fastest servers, there are lag - and other - problems) but I hope there will be more and more players interested in classical time controls (called blitz here) & 'freestyle chess'... William, I can't remember the last time when you played a fast game here, the page now only refreshes when a move is played, and faster now... With an AJAX interface, it will be almost completely transparent.
Lazaro, actually the fast games with less than 2 moves will be replaced when a new challenge is accepted, to delete the forfeited games.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-24 14:28:18)
USCF / FIDE & other ratings
Hi all,
As you know FIDE / ICCF / IECG ratings can be accepted as provisional or established (in the case of ICCF & IECG) ratings at FICGS. I cannot even remember why USCF ratings weren't accepted so far, it should be the case soon. As far as I can remember, the only point is that USCF_rating ~ FIDE_rating + 100 or the other way.
Do you know other official rating lists (that are not included in FIDE & USCF) available on the internet that should be considered ?
Same question for Go, it seems to me that only AGA & EGF ratings are available on the internet. Do you know if chinese, japanese & korean ratings are available as well ?
Garvin Gray (2010-02-09 16:08:18)
Advanced games : Problems & solutions
An idea might be set a time period that challenges are valid for ie after a person sends out challenges or joins the waiting list, if no one has accepted inside a certain time period (say 15 minutes) the challenge automatically expires.
If the challenger wants to keep their challenge going, they have to re-send, helping to ensure that they are online, or at least near the computer.
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 (2010-03-31 17:22:26)
Touch move option !
Of course you still can write a message to your opponent & offer a draw or resign after you choose the touch move option, but you will have to do all this before to play your move.
If you want to resign without playing a move, naturally you'll have to push the "Send" button after checking the box. I hope this will look obvious to everyone.
If (for chess) you touched a piece that you didn't want to move, of course you're not forced to play it, 3 solutions for "j'adoube" :
- Just go back to My games then choose your game again and play your move. This is the more secure option.
- Play an illegal that should be not accepted, the page will be reloaded.
- Reload the page by focusing the address of the page in your navigator then pushing "Enter" on your keyboard (do NOT use the reload function of your navigator that would re-send a previous form)
Garvin Gray (2010-05-18 06:46:22)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
If you want a rule for this, then I guess it has to be in TER order at the time the next tournament is going to start.
But that does make setting up each tournament more complex.
Or you can let the 'market' decide for you by taking the first person to enter is the person that accepted into the higher division.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-28 20:44:06)
Encyclopedia of gambits
I guess that many of you read the interesting Chessbase article by Kavalek :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6460
The link to the encyclopedia of gambits by Marco Saba was a surprise to me... really interesting, and a huge work!
http://studimonetari.org/edg/
I picked up a few ideas for the next chess thematic tournaments, so there may be the next ones in the future :
Aasum [Van Geet: Hector Gambit] 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 de4 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.f3
Abonyi-Tennison [Reti: Tennison Gambit Accepted] 1.Nf3 d5 2.e4 de4 3.Ng5
[KGA: Allgaier Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ng5 h6 6.Nf7
"Anti-Stonewall" [Dutch: Alapin] 1.d4 f5 2.Qd3 d5 3.g4
[Budapest: Alekhine, Balogh Gambit] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.de5 Ng4 4.e4 d6
Banzai-Leong [French] 1.e4 e6 2.b4
Batavo [Bird: Batavo Gambit] 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.e4
Beyer c.g. [Blackmar-Diemer: Beyer Countergambit] 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5
Birmingham [Polish: Birmingham Gambit] 1.b4 c5
Blackburne - I [Scandinavian: 2.exd5] 1.e4 d5 2.ed5 c6
Böhnke [Scandinavian: Böhnke Gambit] 1.e4 d5 2.ed5 e5
Breyer [KGA: Breyer Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Qf3
De Smet [Nimzowitsch Defence: 2.d4 e5 3.dxe5] 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.de5 d6
[Diemer-Duhm Gambit (DDG) vs. Slav/Caro-Kann] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e4
Gaga [King's Gambit Accepted (KGA)] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.g3
Halasz - II [Sicilian: Halasz Gambit] 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cd4 3.f4
Hickmann [English: Anglo-Dutch] 1.c4 f5 2.e4 fe4 3.d3
Hjoerring c.g. [Benko Gambit] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.e4
Jerome [Giuoco Piano: Jerome Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bf7
Krejcik [Dutch: Krejcik Gambit] 1.d4 f5 2.g4
Lasa [Open Game: Lopez/Mcleod, Lasa Gambit] 1.e4 e5 2.c3 f5
Lasker - III [Bird: From Gambit Accepted] 1.f4 e5 2.fe5 f6
Omega [Indian: Omega Gambit] 1.d4 Nf6 2.e4
Vector [English: Vector] 1.c4 d5 2.cd5 c6
Wheeler [Nimzowitsch Defence: Wheeler Gambit] 1.e4 Nc6 2.b4
Zilbermints - III [Queen's Gambit] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 b5
"Zurigo" [Queen's Pawn Game] 1.d4 d5 2.g4
If you notice more interesting openings, do not hesitate to suggest it here...
Gregory Kohut (2010-06-30 01:16:58)
Encyclopedia of gambits
I suggest the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit or the King's Gambit Accepted Bishop Variation. 1.e4,e5 2.f4,exf4 3.Bc4
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-17 00:29:38)
Svante Carl von Erichsen on Go WCH #4
As you probably read in the news, Svante Carl von Erichsen won the 4th FICGS Go WCH, beating his challenger Huayong Yang 3-2, Svante Carl wins the Go championship for the 4th time in a row!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match & computer Go:
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, congratulations once again for winning
this match against a surprising challenger who started here a few
months ago with a 10 kyu rank, Huayong Yang, now rated 2438 after
scoring 2 points in your 5 games match (which is a great achievement
for sure). What did you think about his play & yours in these games?
Svante Carl - I think that he greatly underestimated his rank initially. As far as
I know, he had not played for a long time and believed that his
ability had therefore deteriorated. I do not think that you can drop
more than one or at most two stones, though -- it is like cycling or
swimming, you never unlearn it. I had the impression that we were
quite evenly matched in summa, but our strengths are in different
aspects of the game; I cannot really put my finger on the difference,
though.
FICGS - After a previous win, you said that you spend a quite long
time to analyze, which probably helps you to reach a higher level
than 2 dan (your EGF rating) compared to OTB play... It looks
obvious to me that correspondence chess moves generally ask for much
more time than Go moves at a high level but I may be wrong, how much
time did you spend on your longest analysis during the match? Do
you remember for which move?
Svante Carl - I usually spend at least a few minutes on each move, except when the
continuation is obvious. I often use more, and if I do not find a
satisfactory move then, I will even postpone the move to another
day, so that I can sleep over it and let my subconcious work on it.
FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your future opponent
before starting your match? Do you think that this is really important
in preparation like it can be in Correspondence chess?
Svante Carl - I sometimes glance over the games in the championship qualification tournament, but I do not try to prepare this way. I do not think that such preparation has any value in Go, especially in correspondence Go,
since you have time during the game to do deep analysis. I usually
try to take each game out of standard fuseki patterns pretty quickly,
anyway. Of course, I know that my opponents in these title matches
are always very tough and demand my utmost respect.
FICGS - Do you still follow the recent developments in computer Go?
What do you think about the latest Go engines? How much time do we
have yet before the best Go players are caught by computers according to you?
Svante Carl - I have the impression that the currently most promising technology
(Monte Carlo/UCT) has the potential to achieve a rank of about 2 or 3
dan (EGF/KGS). I think that the next fundamentally new idea or
breakthrough might add 2 stones, to get to 4 or 5 dan. I do not have
any idea where it might go from that, but I think that it gets always
harder.
What I would find interesting is having more intermediate board sizes.
The best bots are almost on par with the best professionals on 9x9
now. I would propose to try to achieve a similar level on 11x11, then
13x13, then 15x15 etc.. Regarding 9x9, I think that the currently
predominant komi of 7.5 points is too big, and that this has a
negative impact on the experiments because the bots do not play in a
balanced environment. It might be worthwhile to introduce the Taiwan
rule (last move compensation) to get more fine-grained scores.
FICGS - What programs did you use this year to analyze? (just trying, of course it may be part of your secrets ;))
Svante Carl - It is not a secret. I just use an editor, usually EidoGo or CGoban3, to visualize the variations I imagine.
FICGS - Finally, what thoughts would you like to share on your 5
games, that could help us not to miss the best times or to help us to understand the most complex moves...
Svante Carl - I cannot give a detailed commentary, but I can try to summarize my impressions.
I think that Game 5 was quite balanced until move 21, but I think that
the white invasion was a bit ambitious then. Of course, White did not
need to die there, but after moves 32-33 I think that Black had a good
result anyway (move 32 should go out faster in my opinion; note how
E14 helps Black in enclosing White).
In Game 3, I think things got quite difficult for White in the lower
left, but I let him take the initiative by backing off at move 35 (I
should have simply closed off F10 then). White gained control of the
centre as a result, and in the large endgame, I lost too many points there.
In Game 4, I fell behind in the opening through some slow moves (there
was some discussion on the Life-in-19x19 forum about this, see the
link in the comments of that game). In the endgame, Black then lost some points in the centre, so that I was a bit ahead when the game timed out.
In Game 1, I made some bad decisions on the left side, and never
managed to turn things around. I think I was behind by about 5 points in the end.
In Game 2, I think that Black should not have ignored move 24. After
I got quite some territory from my moyo and also reduced his top side, I could play it safe.
I look forward to the games with Olivier Drouot that recently started,
but I also hope that Yang Huayong will re-enter the championship cycle.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 00:17:31)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Our game was already a draw by my first draw offer on move 19. I offered a second draw on move 26 and the third and final draw which you accepted on move 38. You achieved zilch from an opening which has been known as a draw for 100 years. I could have offered a draw on move 4 and most people would accept it in that position.
Sorry but you have to prove your rating should be higher by playing real openings and outplaying the other person in them. Just stating well my rating is higher therefore you are never allowed to offer draws!!! is the most absurd logic I have ever heard.
Your own words on accepting the third draw offer were "You're right, this is a complete draw. Sorry for dragging it out."
Garvin Gray (2010-10-06 01:37:29)
Colour allocation change in WCH round robins
Currently in the WCH Stage 1 groups (new players) thread, there has been a side discussion occurring about allocation of colours in round robins on this site.
Since Thib has said that he is open to discussing it in a new thread, this is a new thread.
I have made mention of the berger pairing tables, which is the accepted format in otb round robins for how to pair round robins fairly.
The Berger pairing table for seven and eight player round robin is now provided:
Round
1 1:8 2:7 3:6 4:5
2 8:5 6:4 7:3 1:2
3 2:8 3:1 4:7 5:6
4 8:6 7:5 1:4 2:3
5 3:8 4:2 5:1 6:7
6 8:7 1:6 2:5 3:4
7 4:8 5:3 6:2 7:1
Peter Unger (2011-01-03 00:26:00)
Private messages to the webmaster
I cant get to the following tournament - why - the accepted participants have no ELO 2300+
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_SM__000008
(type : rated round-robin, time : 30 days, increment : 1 day / move)
7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent)
entry fee : 0 , prize : 20 (E-Points)
elo : 2300+
POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 2106
SVK Gazi, Miroslav 2289
USA Nichols, Scott 2200
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 :)
Garvin Gray (2011-03-02 14:59:29)
Plea for classical rating help
Thib- The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150.
====================
Apologies for the slow replies. From looking at both threads on these items I wanted to wait to see if there were any trends. Not so far.
On to the comment I have picked out above, I just looked at the SM Rapid group and I notice three players who I think have accepted the 10 euro scheme into a tournament with 2300 players.
When I saw your comment about the ticket system, I was concerned that it could mean that a few 2150 ers enter the tournament and it ruins the experience for all.
This seems to have occurred where the scheme is in place to give the opportunity for a person to play higher rated opponents.
In fact, rechecking the SM rapid, no player is above 2300.
Perhaps the 2150 scheme should be limited to one acceptance per 2300 group. When that tournament fills, another 2150 person can accept.
So as it stands, I will not be joining that tournament as it will acheive nothing more than I am getting now, and I would be paying 10 euro for the privilege of getting nothing more than what I get now.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-07 21:18:26)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
On top seeds again, maybe I agreed too fast... Actually I agree that being the top seed is a good way to lose some elo points (but that's not the real point of playing a championship, the current FICGS champion will agree there ;)), but I think that I would prefer to play regular groups as the top seed with the 2100 limit than as the top seed with the 2300 limit. Less points to lose -particularly if the 2000 prov. rating rule is accepted- & more chances to play the next round!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-07 21:45:17)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Well, I see that the idea of "equal chances for everyone" is still in the debate, that's quite strange as I thought it was obvious & accepted that such a thing cannot exist in correspondence chess.
No correspondence chess championship format can give equal chances to everyone because there is no time for this, and to try to do it only gives less chances to the best player to win it.
The way IECG & ICCF do it has probably as many advantages & inconvenients as we do it at FICGS but at the end the efficiency is quite similar to find as accurately as possible the best player among the highest rated ones IMO & everyone have NOT equal chances (either you have to play a few rounds more or there is a TER rule or whatever).
I'm not saying that one format is better than others, some will like the FICGS format, some will prefer other formats, that's all IMO. Do not think that the WBCCC format solves all problems, it tries to avoid the time problem but the number of players is very limited in the running edition.
Finally, why to play another ICCF/IECG championship here?
I think that there is no argument that can justify that all players (including the 8 players of the knockout after all) should play in regular groups, as well as no argument can justify the opposite. It was just a choice to make it different and somewhat looking like the old FIDE championship.
That's why choices 2) & 4) are really best to me. 2) may be better because the range 2100-2400~ may be too large for M groups, but another solution may be to build M (2250-2400)& N (2100-2250) groups like it was done in one WCH cycle, where the number of qualified players were different. Actually the idea of class groups with different numbers of qualified players is really interesting but of course, the chances are not the same for everyone once again.
Whatever the choice, surely it will not be ok for some players for any reason, but I'm now quite sure that a change should be done.
Garvin Gray (2011-04-13 15:20:50)
CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000009
I am against people being able to enter at all after the closing date. That is the point of a entry closing date, is it not. To close entries.
No entries should be accepted after that date, at all.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-14 23:54:45)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
Hello all,
I'd like your opinion on this special case in a WCH tournament (that did not happen yet, as far as I know). Currently rules do not allow to change anything there but I'm not even sure that something should be changed. Please note that I consider that correspondence chess is not all about chess, so resignations in equal positions are most often wins like other wins.
The case: Player A draws or wins a game in a round-robin WCH tournament, then resigns all his other games in equal positions.
Of course this is not good and maybe unfair for the player who offered/accepted the draw or lost the game against him. If player A resigned some other games in equal positions before, the rules allow the referee to adjudicate the game for the other player, but not here.
While I'm writing these lines, I feel and realize that the referee shouldn't be able to change such a result as the limit is unclear (what about 2 games, 3 games, 4 games or 5 games before those resignations in equal positions), but this may be worth to discuss anyway.
Paul Valle (2012-04-12 11:36:49)
King's Gambit solved!
I've been absent from the chess for a while. But suddenly felt the urge to waste some time at work browsing through old chess-articles. Being a huge fan of gambit-play, I thought I’d share the following: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047
Against the King’s Gambit accepted, apparently the only way to hold a theoretical draw is by 3.Be2 …
Don Groves (2012-05-03 08:28:00)
Slow tournament entries
Here is another way to improve speed of games:
Look at Game 59984. My opponent in this game is a slow player and has the maximum of 50 games in progress. His next move is about as obvious as any move can be. He offered to trade queens and I accepted. His next move is clearly to recapture at b3. Any other move is suicide.
However, I made my last move on April 16th, a full two weeks ago and he has yet to respond even though his move is obvious!
I don't always make a move in every game every day, but at least I LOOK AT every game every day to see if any moves are obvious. If we all did this, the games would proceed at a better pace.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-09 01:46:02)
Xiao Tong on his win in 6th FICGS Go WCH
Xiao Tong, winner of the 6th FICGS Go championship, kindly accepted to answer a few questions, here is the first part:
FICGS - Hello Xiao, congratulations once again for winning this nice match. Svante Carl von Erichsen was FICGS champion from the start of the site, after winning 5 championships. What did you think about his play & yours in these games?
Xiao Tong - Mr. Svante Carl von Erichsen is the strongest player I have met on this site. The games are so tough. In the middle of this match I thought I would lose in at least two games. At last I am lucky to have a 4-1 winning.
FICGS - Would you like to tell us a few words about you (where you live, other games you play, Go servers you play on...) so that we know you better?
Xiao Tong - I live in China but when I started to play Go on this site I was visiting France. In China when we play Go face to face, generally it takes 2 or 3 hours. But when we play on the ineternet, we always choose 30sec/move. I always play on TYGEM site, which is a China/Korea cooperated site. Before playing we need to install a client software. You can visit this address http://www.tygembaduk.com
FICGS - Unfortunately you are one of the rare chinese players at FICGS, but obviously they do very well. We all know many chinese Go champions names, could you tell us your opinion on the state of Go in China and in the world nowadays?
Xiao Tong - The past 10 years can be called Korea decade. They won more world championships than Chinese players, because before 1990 few Chinese children studied Go. But when China won several matches between China and Japan in late 1980s, more and more children started to study and play go. And then these millions of Go children grew up. Now Chinese players can get more world champions than Korea. I think besides the several world champions there are 30 young players in China who may win world championships in the future. They aged from 16-25.
FICGS - The best Go engines would now reach a level of 4 or 5 dan, is computer Go something that helps in such a correspondence Go championship according to you (and without revealing your secrets of course)? Do you think it is becoming a danger as it is for chess?
Xiao Tong - I don’t think computer Go engines can do anything. They are too weak.
FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your opponents before starting your games? Do you think that preparation is really important like it is in Correspondence chess?
Xiao Tong - I don’t take much time to analyze my opponents. But I will watch their games to get a first evaluation. World champions need to prepare before the game, because preparation can save their time in game. For me, preparation mean nothing.
FICGS - This FICGS Go championship is still young, what did you think about it? Would you change something, any rule, to improve it?
Xiao Tong - 1, Encourage players to play live games. One game can be finished in 2 hours when they play at 30sec/move. The more they play, the higher the site level will be. 2, when the world champion match is live on net, encourage player watch the games through your site. Let the watcher can bet on the live games. It will be more funny.
Many thanks to Xiao for these instructive answers, to be continued...
Garvin Gray (2012-05-19 15:31:54)
Advanced challenges, time out expiry
I think time has come to implement a time out expiry on advanced games challenges.
If an advanced game challenge has not been accepted by someone with 1 hour of its posting, that challenge expires and is automatically removed from the system.
The challenge would then need to be re-issued.
This would help prevent the issue of players accepting challenges many hours after it was posted and then waiting around for a time out.
It would also help to ensure that the challenger was around to accept their own challenge.
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.
Don Groves (2012-12-02 04:50:44)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
On the entry page for the Chess WCH is written:
deadline : 2012 november 1st
Since new entries are still being accepted, it appears that "deadline" is an incorrect word here. Is there a real deadline and, if so, when is it?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-12-29 22:46:10)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Well, actually many answers are in the tournament regulations...
If I understand well, each player should play from 8 games (!) to 16 games according to the number of servers participating (from 4 to 8), which is a lot...
- Is this ICCF rated? It seems that it is.
- How many boards in the teams? I read 30, which is a lot! Maybe too much.
- Will the teams play in rating order? I have no idea.
If we have players enough to enter this tournament then we can vote for a captain if several players want to be. As for me, I won't be able to play it.
The real question is who will be able to play 8 to 16 games on the ICCF server... As far as I can remember, we never found 30 players for a team event so far, without counting the forfeits.
So far, it seems that 2 servers accepted to participate while Chess.com declined the invitation.
Regulations:
http://www.mocorrchess.narod.ru/wccstc/en/regen.html
5.1. No less than 4 and no more than 8 teams to play the event. The teams represent chess servers. No one server is allowed to enter the event with no more than 1 team. Teams play each other in an each-to-each round-robin tournament.
5.2. Each team plays each team in a team match on 30 boards. Each player of a team plays 2 games (one with White pieces, one with Black pieces) with one player of the other team. Reserve players are prohibited to begin the games.
5.3. The team consists of 30 players. No more than 5 reserve players may be added in a team squad.
5.4. The games are rated for ICCF rating.
5.5. Time control is 30 days for 10 moves (with duplication after 20 days is used for a single move).
5.6. 30 days of leave per year are available for each player.
5.7. The team mates and captain can see the games live. Live transmission for public is delayed by 5 moves.
5.8. ICCF Playing rules are applied for the event. The playing rules may be seen at special page
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-10 17:59:37)
Chess Server Team Tournament
William Fuller is also interested to play. (received by email)
So, I accepted the invitation!
Now we need a team captain... Any volunteers? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-16 15:39:18)
FICGS admin scam me
That's nonsense Horatiu, since this site authorize computer chess, it is perfectly honest to play with machines, and of course I don't have to implement anything to avoid that...
About your money, you bought Epoints... You cannot ask for money just like this, you have to win silver/gold games to claim money prizes according to terms & conditions. You accepted this when registering.
Continuation of the chat:
devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] you just had to click the link...
(2013-01-16 14:18:23)
devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] the conditions are in the link
(2013-01-16 14:18:04)
devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] this is the right email! with correct date
(2013-01-16 14:17:39)
Horatiu Adrian Petrescu (2013-01-16 15:56:49)
FICGS admin scam me
If we play with computer chess ,then is not a game chess anymore for us.It is a game for stupids and lazy brains,or for disabled mental people.
Every one knows Chess is a mind sport."Chess is the game that gives the highest honor human intelligence."(Voltaire) You promote here an activitie to slow down the mind not for its sharpness.
Yes I accepted ,because I was lazy and I didn't read the terms.But this does not mean your rule is corect and legit.
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.
Attila Ba (2013-05-15 14:46:09)
PGN notation for forfeit, loss on time
Artur Wachelka, the creator of MyChess is a very talented programmer. This was the site where I first started to play online chess. He uses this notation in a universal manner: every PGN has a curly bracket comment at the end of it, including ongoing games:
34.Qb2 Nb3 35.f4 Qe7 36.e5 {in progress} *
and draws:
17.Ne2 Re8 18.Qd4 {draw accepted} 1/2-1/2
therefore they speek for themselves.
Mladen Jankovic (2013-05-16 08:33:48)
PGN notation for forfeit, loss on time
There is no such notation in the standard. The standard specifies that a checkmate move should end with '#', instead of '+', as is standard here for other reasons. So if someone wins without checkmating it would be easy to understand what hapened.
You have another problem, any draw would, due to the mechanics of the site, be a draw accepted, as the server does not track 3-fold repetition and such (I might be mistaken).
You have another problem, as the moves are contained in a single line, while the standard specifies 255 character maximum (including newline), and recommends 80 character maximum, for compatibility with older software.
While I have not encountered any problems with that, and nobody so far complained, it still is a break from the standard.
The best place to look for how PGN should work is the standard itself: http://www6.chessclub.com/help/PGN-spec
Thibault de Vassal (2013-07-15 14:16:39)
Interview with new FICGS Go champion
Yen-Wei Huang, winner of the 8th FICGS Go championship, kindly accepted to answer a few questions for this very interesting interview!
_______________________
- Hello Yen-Wei and congratulations for winning the FICGS Go championship! Xiao Tong was obviously a tough opponent, yet you won 5-0, what happened
during this match?
Hi Thib. Thanks again for your kind invitation. Xiao is definitely one
of the strongest Go players on FICGS, and I was really, really lucky
to have won all five games. In fact, I was behind in three of them
until Xiao made some mistakes late in the games: in game 69092, I
forced a tough ko fight which jeopardized my lower group. Xiao made a
mistake at P2 as he missed my T3 could force another ko. Game 69093
was very close towards the end but I think the move at C13 caused him
the game. Game 69096 was even closer that I won by half a point thanks
to the big 7.5 komi. The other two games were not easy either and I am
glad I could have hung on to the lead. Overall I really enjoyed our
match and I would love to have a rematch with Xiao in the future.
- You're from Taiwan, could you tell us a bit more about you? At what age
did you learn Go? Do you have any other ranks (e.g. at other sites)?
I learned Go when I was 5 and I have always enjoyed playing all my
life. I used to play on servers like KGS and Tygem and I was around
6-7 dan on these sites. Recently I don't have that much time to play
so that's why turned to turn-based server like FICGS.
- What do you think about the world of Go these days? Who is the very best
player in the world according to you?
I think the past two years were the "warring period" in the world of
Go. I would say Lee Sedol was the best player two years ago, but he
seems to have lost his dominant position recently. There are many
rising stars that are winning the world champions. I am especially
keeping an eye on Yuta Iyama, who I think is No. 1 in Japan and has
started to threaten the dominance of Chinese and Korean players.
- What about computer Go and its future? How many years do you give to the human before losing to the machine?
As a software engineer I foresee the computer Go beats the world's No.
1 player in two decades. Crazy Stone already beat Yoshio Ishida with
four handicap stones earlier this year, and I believe it wouldn't take
long for computers to beat pros in two handicap stones. The real
challenge will come when computers need to go from handicap games to
even games since they need to advance from defensive mode to attack
mode. I am really excited to see how Artificial Intelligence can
surprise us with its "creative" moves when the time comes.
- Do you use engines or databases? What advice would you give to beginners (and to your future challengers :))?
I know there are many useful Go engines and databases that are being developed these days, unfortunately I don't really know much about
them. I do use http://ps.waltheri.net/ if I need to look something up,
and I go to http://tom.com for commented games (they're in Chinese,
nonetheless). Advice to beginners: just go to any search engine and
you can easily find all the free resources you want. Advice to my
future challengers: just try the new variations since I know none of
them :)
- What new features would you like to see at FICGS?
Firstly I'd like to thank Thib for maintaining such a wonderful site.
I enjoy playing Go and Poker here and maybe I'll start playing Chess
sometime (I really suck so I'm not ready to embarrass myself yet). The
ability to play different games is what makes FICGS unique. As Thib
mentioned earlier, we need much more players, and I think FICGS simply
needs to host much more tournaments, probably some with shorter time
settings. With more games and more player engagement, more people will
stick around. Another feature I'd really like to see is FICGS client for
cellphones/tablets. The main advantage of turn-based servers is that
it allows people to play wherever for whatever period of time: a 1-min
ride in the elevator, a 10-min wait at the bus stop, or a couple of
hours at home. If playing on FICGS is made easier, I know I will be
more addicted to it :)
- Thank you very much and good luck in the next final match...
Thanks! And please go easy on our Poker match...
Garvin Gray (2013-12-05 01:44:30)
WBCCC 2014 Entries Open
Entries for WBCCC 2014 are now open at www.rybkaforum.net.
For those not aware of our event, quite a few of the players here can speak about their experiences in the event, but as organiser I can say that many of the regular players have gotten a lot out of their participation, have improved their play and a lot has been learnt about freestyle correspondence chess in the three years that this event has been running.
Prize money is offered, but how much is determined by players and others willingness to sponsor.
Feel free to contact me by replying to this message, sending me a pm at rybka forum or private message here. A private message here is the least reliable.
Full tournament rules:
1) Tournament will be single round robin, meaning every person will play each other once.
2) A players seed position will be determined by their order of entry. The earlier you enter, the higher your number. The first person to enter will receive number 1. The seed position determines which number a player is in the round robin.
3) Entries open December 1 2013
4) Entries close January 6 2014
5) Play begins January 13 2014
6) Each round will be paired at the start of the event, with the pairings for the entire year published at the start.
7) Each round will have a maximum of four games, most likely two games (just like 2011, 2012 and 2013). The number of games will always be kept to a bare minimum
8) There will be a maximum of six paired rounds.
9) The minimum time control will be 30 days plus 1 hour per move. If the number of games per round needs to increase from 2 to 3 or 4, the time control will be lengthened. For instance, if we have 21 players, so needing 4 games per round to keep the number of games even and use five rounds, instead of the six rounds in 2013.
9) Pairings for future rounds are subject to change due to withdrawal of players and unforeseen circumstances.
10) If a player withdraws, or their games time out without an explanation that is accepted by the arbiter, all their games will be removed from the event. In effect they are no longer a participant in the event and no effect on the final placings.
11) There will be an official entry form that all players will be required to fill out before their entry will be accepted. This is so in case of emergency the organisers have a method of contact outside of Rybka Forum. It will include also include a person other than yourself to contact. Whilst I understand this might seem unnecessary to some, I do hope that events from 2013 (death of Salvador Signes and our inability to get in contact with the family) do show the need for better communication methods.
12) Xfccplay- Xfccplay is the official software provided for WBCCC 2014. Xfccplay is provided for the free use for participants whilst in the event. A user name and password will be provided once registered. Also download instructions will be provided by private message and these must be followed to install the program. The program is provided by chessok and is not to be passed on to anyone and is provided for the sole use of playing in WBCCC. All moves, draw offers etc in WBCCC 2014 must be played on this software.
13) New entrants will be required to play a couple of test games on xfccplay before entries close so that the arbiter is certain that all players are familiar with the software and its features. The organisers do not want to see players withdrawing after the event has begun because they find that they are unfamiliar with the software and get upset because their clock is running. Entries are open from December 1 to January 6. That is over a month to become familiar with the software. The organisers will not accept entries from players who have not tested the software.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-01-09 20:46:20)
Eros Riccio on his win in 9th chess WCH
Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions after his win in the 9th FICGS correspondence chess championship. Once again, his answers are worth to read... including probably a few surprises and valuable informations for most of us!
_____________________________
- Hello again Eros. Congratulations for this new win! So you played Jeroen for the second time in a row, this time in the 12 games format. There were 12 draws but it does not mean a lot. How did things go?
--> Hi Thibault! Nice to answer your questions again :-) I managed to resist again Van Assche's assaults, this time he was well-determined to win, as he made me really suffer in a couple of games. The first game was a semislav, me as Black. He played a rare variation (starting with 14.Be2 followed by 15.Qd3) that was new to me. At first the engines were giving 0.00 evaluations, but after the move 22.Qg3 they started to realize that Black's position was difficult, and they kept increasing their evaluation in White's favor move after move. That was quite a scary thing to see, and I really thought that I could have lost the game. I had to use all the thinking time (leave included) to be able to resist. This new variation impressed me so much that I decided to use it as White myself as a surprise weapon, and in fact it allowed my engine on autoplay on my old I7 980x to win a lot of games as White and a 500 dollars prize getting first place in a strong tournament on Infinity Chess. The second game was a Spanish, me as White. After his 7...0-0 I decided to avoid the Marshall (that would have probably happened if I had played 8.c3) trying the AntiMarshall variation 8.d4. I am now convinced that this variation gives nothing good to White, but I didn't know that yet when I played it! Already after the rare strong move 11...c5! things were starting to get difficult for me. He simply continued with c4 and d5, getting space advantage with his Pawns on the Queenside, while I could find no attack at all on the Kingside. Again I had to be very careful to escape with a draw.
- What can you tell about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you're now ranked #9 with an outstanding rating of 2639 ?
--> My ICCF elo in the past few years has raised. Slowly, but it has raised. I had no defeats and a couple of wins in the Olympiads and European team tournaments started in 2012. I am satisfied of that, as winning nowadays in top correspondence tournaments is very difficult. Important is to remain undefeated.
- Last year, you said that you felt like your play was getting weaker each day because your machine was getting older, did you finally upgrade it? But maybe this is a secret...
--> No. As I wrote earlier, I haven't updated my machine. Fortunately cpu's general speed has kept increasing not as quickly as in the past, so my I7 980x can still compete.
- Did your vision of computer chess evolve after these last 18 months? What do you expect for the next years? Do you plan to become a chess cyborg? ^^
--> Fortunately for our hobby, computer chess isn't rushing towards the "all draws" situation that I talked about a couple of years ago. That's because, fortunately, increasing cpu's power and engine's strenght is getting more and more difficult. Yes, some main lines already lead to all draws often, but chess gives so many openings options that to avoid that, you can simply play subvariations. When played a lot, also subvariations will become main variations. Then again, when the draws rate gets too high, you just pick another less played opening. It will take many years to cover every opening to a high draws rate.
- Your next challenger is Peter W. Anderson, who made a convincingly path through the round-robin cycle before to defeat SM Igor Dolgov 5-3 in the 10th candidates final (by the way he's also playing the 11th candidates final). It seems that you never played him before. How do you feel this match? Do you have any words for your opponent before that the games start?
--> I am happy to play a new player! We have just started our match, again, all my first moves as White were 1.e4. What to say... it's up to him to avoid main lines as Black (he already did it answering with 1...g6 in three games) if he wants to try to win with the black pieces. But the real challenge for him of course will be to try to win with the White pieces. It will be interesting to see if he can find holes in my Black repertoire like Van Assche was able to do. Let's wait and see!
Pablo Schmid (2017-01-22 20:29:46)
Thematic with lowest chances of draw
King's gambit accepted. Probably most of White's gambit too, Schara-Hennig gambit as Black.
Kym Farnik (2018-01-17 04:44:57)
Conditional chess moves (again)
Messages to the opponent.
On a technical note, I would envision a JavaScript too that would allow:
1. The move
2. Conditional Move Line 1 and response Moves ...
Maybe more than one conditional lines
The whole web transaction, Move + Conditionals + messages are validated client side via the JS.
Then the transaction is re-validated on the server (to stop hacking).
The whole transaction is accepted or not.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-23 00:08:33)
Conditional chess moves (again)
The exact rule is "The 50 moves rule is not implemented, please call referee if an obvious draw is not accepted by your opponent. Please note that a forced checkmate in more than 50 moves won't be considered as a draw."
Consequently, if tablebases say there is a draw, it is not always a draw here, e.g. if this is a draw because of the 50/60 moves FIDE rule.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-14 23:12:38)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela
Nelson Bernal Varela is an early FICGS correspondence chess player, now rated 2277 but also rated 2359 at ICCF (Correspondence Chess Master - CCM).
Last but not least, and as all poker holdem players here probably noticed, he is also our ranked #1 for years, who just reached an outstanding poker rating of 2382, while number two is now rated "only" 2212. A good occasion to ask him a few questions, that he kindly accepted to answer.
-----------------------
- Hello Nelson! You are the 2nd most active player at FICGS for years now. Everyone here probably noticed your incredible results in poker tournaments. "Correspondence poker holdem" was probably a strange idea as it is very unusual and very different from "Internet poker". What's your opinion on this and on the presence of a card game (played without money) at FICGS?
NBV: There are more important things than money and one of those is HONOR; It is honorable to be a chess master, international master, grandmaster, world chess champion at ICCF and at FICGS and to be number one in the ranking. It is honorable to be a FICGS world champion at Go and to be first in the ranking, it is honorable to be poker world champion at FICGS poker and in my case, it is an honor to be number one at poker here at FICGS during the last years, understanding that our general level of play has improved remarkably. None of these activities produces money, but to achieve any of the mentioned titles, it is necessary to have extraordinary abilities.
When I was about 18 years old, I had the opportunity to meet a person with immense material wealth, we spent whole evenings playing chess and then I told him my perceptions about each movement of the game. He thanked me for my chess explanations and paid me with good money. That wealthy man in his turn told me about life and recommended that I should always be proud of the gifts I had, since he knew, with all the money he had and being able to hire the best grandmasters in the world, that it could hardly come at the level of chess master. That person told me that the intellect can be turned into money whenever you want.
Now, by playing poker without money at FICGS, I understood that it was my extraordinary and wonderful opportunity to study-learn-perfect and test my poker theories without costing me a single dollar. In FICGS there is no money, but thanks to the knowledge I gained playing poker in FICGS, today I can go after the money in online poker rooms and probably in OTB poker tournaments. I am studying the possibility of becoming a professional poker player.
- The understanding of your opponent's behaviour is usually quite important at Poker. Do you manage to establish some profiles while playing so many simultaneous hands & games? Did you build any method?
NBV: Today I am sure that the most important thing to raise, and keep raising my level in poker, has been to build a psychological profile of mine, to get to know Nelson Bernal Varela in depth and above all to understand me, accept me, love me and be work every day eliminating my technical errors, strategic, psychological that make me play badly. I am aware that in poker I can play perfectly and still lose, what I can not forgive me is playing badly, which is why I work hard correcting my wrong decisions.
Of course, there is a space in my brain where I have built a psychological profile of each contender, that profile I have been able to elaborate with all the information that is provided to me in each hand we play. The way each of us plays, gives reliable information about our personality.
About my method I can write the following: A few years ago, I created a table in excel, where I had all the games with each contender, I identified them with the FICGS numeration and each movement in each hand (preflop, flop, turn, river ) it I was writing and studying; I started to add technical-psychological variables that seemed important to me, resulting in 20 variables that I had to qualify in each movement. With the passage of time and my effort, I no longer needed the excel table and I did not use it again (it was exhausting and time consuming) because I was assimilating things faster and with greater depth. Today I can say that I evaluate these 20 variables in a natural way, as if I was breathing and that when I am at a poker table, online or real, after a few minutes I get the psychological profile of the table and each of my opponents. In the pocket of my shirt I keep a small paper with the list of variables, periodically reread it and I wonder if I should modify, remove or add something.
- You won 1007 poker games, and lost only 380, with a ratio usually going from 57% to 80% according to your best opponents. Undoubtly you know the mathematics hidden behind poker but that may not explain everything. How did you learn to play?
NBV: Mathematics is an ingredient in poker, in the same way that my psychological aspects and of my opponents (I recommend reading-studying about four times the book “The Poker mindset†of Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger), it is vital to understand the Law of Large Numbers. Next I make a list of topics that I consider important to raise the level of poker; compete with EV+ cards, you have to know the small ball theory of Negreanu (but not apply it, hahaha) you have to always look at the texture of the board, you have to evaluate your reality and your future, also that of your opponents (act and power), the position to talk is important, the stack, the personality of the table, know who has the panic button on. All these and other variables must be evaluated in the few seconds they have to make a move and the only important thing is to make the right decision according to the circumstances. There is a good list of poker books to read... it is mandatory to have read about 15 poker books.
- As for me, I may be wrong but I can't imagine that you reached such a rating without special techniques & maybe by optimizing it in some ways... Of course, "rating management" is not a problem, and it is only one thing with a limited impact, but maybe you have some other secrets? What about this "+1" technique that I noticed in many of our games, if this is not a secret? :)
NBV: In these years I have used different techniques that I had to read, study, learn, repeat, modify, invent and sometimes eliminate. Poker is a sport that seems easy, with time one manages to understand that it has an amazing complexity, today I consider poker to be as complex as chess and I study them in a "similar" way. As an example, I have tried to create "openings in poker"; based only on probabilities I invented something that I called mirror theory and another "opening" that I called opposite outs. I am fascinated by mathematics and from the mathematical perspective they are perfect "theories-openings", but I have lost tournaments and a lot of money for applying such theories in mistaken emotional moments. In poker it is important to never lose sight of the Law of Large Numbers and be aware that this LAW likes to make fun of each one of us... I am working on giving an emotional nuance to my theories "mirror" and "opposite outs". There are moments when perfect mathematics becomes an unforgivable psychological error...
For the last few months I have modified my way of playing and my results have improved; Today it must be much more difficult to win a game me, thanks to small and imperceptible adjustments that of course only I know, because I have followed my mistakes-successes-evolution in the game over several years.
- Isn't it too frustrating for you to play heads up only (here at least) ? Of course it is a way to improve this important technical case but we know that many complexities come with 3 to 8 players on the table, which is the most common case in professional poker tournaments.
NBV: Currently I spend little time every day playing heads-up in FICGS, thanks to the fact that I have the profile of each contender. The 4-5 hours that I study poker daily, include practice in micro limits in cash tables of 6 players and tournaments in tables of 8-9 players. I think I'm covering the whole range of possibilities, experiencing game situations between 1 and 8 contenders.
- What do you think about computer analysis in poker? Do you think it could make a difference here just like the way we play advanced chess?
NBV: I think the algorithms are ready to be written in machine language and the question is where are those algorithms? Well, in the brains of the best players in the world and in their games compiled in huge databases. But programming language can be accelerated with artificial intelligence brains, making A.I. studying databases of the best professionals, playing with itself millions of games and building an invincible TACTIC-STRATEGIC SYSTEM, similar to chess software and GO... I think preflop and flop play would be very similar between humans and artificial intelligence, but on the turn and on the river artificial intelligence would take considerable advantage, but in the short time the level of human poker would rise because artificial intelligence would teach us to play poker, this event that would diminish the profits of the professionals. It will always be said in favor of poker that because it is an incomplete game of information, to make computer algorithms are quite complicated, but despite that, I am sure that artificial intelligence will far surpass the best human poker player. It is possible that an artificial intelligence that plays a perfect poker already exists, but unlike GO and chess, poker does produce a lot of money. Due to the money factor, in today's world, it is very difficult that there is a Prometheus willing to steal fire from the gods and give it to mankind...
- How would you describe your relation to games in general?
NBV: I can summarize it in one of the first chess books I had the fortune to read, by the great Danish master Bent Larsen, "I play to win"
- When did you start to play chess & poker? Do you play other games?
NBV: My first contact with chess was at the age of nine, it was love at first sight and until death separates us; I must confess that for some years we have been separated, due to my stupidity and my erroneous decisions. I have always been self-taught in any subject, my method is to buy about 10 to 15 books of the subject that interests me and I read them thoroughly, sometimes 3 or 4 times; already with that information in my head and thanks to the constant practice, I build MY SYSTEM (Nimzowitch) according to my personality, my dreams, my desires, my anguish, my fears... I was youth champion of Bogotá, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.
I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.
I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.
- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?
NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).
I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.
In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.
In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...
- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?
NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha
- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)
I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...
- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)
NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha
- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-07 16:57:06)
Netiquette reinforcement
Hi all,
Following a few problems of provocation and repeated draw offers, I propose to reinforce and specify the netiquette to help players finding the right things to do according to the situation...
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general
Particularly this paragraph:
"It is possible to leave public comments for your games and to send private messages to other members. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Also, no player will make draw offers repeatedly, particularly serveral times in a row. Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game, and/or being immediately and permanently banned.
If a player receives such a message, he may use the "report" link and accepts to use the "block" link that appears then (when playing a move) rather than replying to it. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and may lead to get a limited access to the server during a few weeks, at the moderator's discretion. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.
To maintain a friendly community, any cheating complaint should be addressed to the referee and should not be made publicly in games comments or in the forum, otherwise with the same consequences. Please note that no time will be added to any clock in any case, the game will continue in all cases, in example arguing to wait for the referee's decision will not be accepted. Finally, you agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit.
Publication of a private message without the authors expressed permission is strictly forbidden."
A big difference (I hope) is in the small add "Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game (...)". Better or worst? Any opinions or ideas?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-24 00:15:43)
Some questions to H. Kruse, WCH finalist
After that the last FICGS chess WCH final match finished, the choice was made again to ask a few questions to Eros Riccio's challenger: Herbert Kruse, for the 2nd time. He kindly accepted to answer it so let's learn a bit more on our top-ranked correspondence chess player.
______________________________
Hello Herbert, you're not really a player to introduce as you're very active here and at several chess websites for years, with outstanding ratings in each one (as far as I know), you're the 1st FICGS CUP winner & several times FICGS WCH challenger, each time facing "the wall" Eros Riccio, what could you tell us about yourself particularly as a chess & correspondence chess player?
- i began late with 16 to play my first tournament game, but with 18 i already was kicked out of a night club in company with tony miles ;) (dresscode) had vlastimil hort as trainer for a short time and played in teams with gutman, michalchisin, klovans, gipslis and some other GMs. corr chess i began, because i love to find the truth and because of freestyle, where i began to build very strong computers
What kind of computers do you build? Is it all dedicated to chess?
- i have several dual xeon e5 computers with 64gb ddr3 and 16 to 20 real cores and they all play chess ;)
Once again, GM Eros Riccio managed to draw the 12 games of the match. What are your feelings on these games? How did you estimate your chances to destabilize your opponent in the openings and to create complications enough with White (or Black)?
- this time my feelings were neutral. 1% chances to win, but i hoped he would lose his concentration if i began more games with him (we played 6 other games at the same time)
Doesn't "1% chances to win (the match)" mean about 0.17% to win only one game with White, even when losing one with Black? Isn't it a bit pessimistic after all, or is it the new so called Riccio-effect? :)
- if the strongest players face each other there is no win possible, except some has a mouse slep or forgot something during human interfacing
When did you start playing correspondence chess and what changed since that time? What attracted you most in the game?
- 2004 and evaluation of the position is the key point of improvement since then. attractive was to be better than actual world class players :)
Could you tell us anything on the way you work chess and play your correspondence games? Any tip or secret? (nothing to lose to ask :))
- with black i play for fastest way to 0.00 and with white i try every promising way to make a game for a longer time complicated
Do you use several ones at the same time when analyzing a game? (still grabbing some tips)
- i only use the newest stockfish versions of brainfish and corchess because the other engines are not so good. because i have many games i decide which one gets the most cores and time and let them run in infinity mode until i am happy that can be after 1 week or more sometimes.
You're not far to rank 2nd as a poker player at FICGS, you obviously started to take on Big Chess as well. What other games do you play? Did you consider to play Go already?
- i played go against the german champion and lost so i quit :)) played backgammon money game and internet (in fibs with kit woolsey i played over 100 matches) in bridge i was best bidder in germany 1994 to 1995, but dont play much nowadays
Do you have specific goals to achieve as a player?
- 2 goals, since a long time: be ficgs world champion and win one german bridge championship
How do you imagine correspondence chess evolution within a decade? What kind of engines/computers do you expect to use and what will look like centaur chess according to you? (in other words, what part will remain to the human player in the decision?)
- i think the engines today are already unbeatable, so in 20 years the would still not lose and chess is dead since about 4 years
What did you think about Google Deepmind's Alpha Zero performance vs. Stockfish?
- it was a joke because they let a bad version of stockfish play. i would not have lost one game against az0 and maybe won 2 til 5 out of 100
Conditions of this AlphaZero vs. Stockfish match were very specific (opening books, unbalanced hardware...) What weaknesses did you detect in AlphaZero play?
- it was the lack of precision, what would let it lose against stockfish in its tuned newest version but i look from a view of a player who is used to play with deep 60 :)
It seems that computers did not completely take on Bridge yet, what do you expect within a decade?
- i have not seen bridge programms, but the game is so easy that it must be already mastered by computers
Garvin Gray (2019-01-24 13:56:38)
James Romig
Asking him to find is the site administrator responsibility. I know that sounds like a buck pass, but as following up on game time outs and other question marks is truly the responsibility of the arbiter of the events, in this case, the person in charge of the site, Thibault De Vassal. Not us.
And also, if we have the correct James Romig, he had 45 calendar days available for holidays to use to avoid timing out his games, so that excuse that he went on tour is not a good enough excuse.
He entered the event and is responsible for managing his time. If he knew he was going on concert, he should not have accepted his place if he could not fulfil his commitments.
Steven DuCharme (2019-11-17 17:28:43)
CC Server World Championship Tournament
I have contacted the top player from about 40 sites with the hope they will battle for global supremacy. A forum topic with the title name is at chesstempo.com where games will be played. Optional money play is available at chesshere.com...Herbert Kruse has accepted my invite but has not signed in at chesstempo yet. He is the first and hopefully not the last to respond.
Juri Eintalu (2021-09-09 02:09:40)
Venezuela has been dismissed from ICCF
ICCF announced:
"Venezuela was dismissed from the ICCF (2021-028)."
The number is the number of the proposal accepted by Congress.
In the proposal, it was said that the Venezuelan organizer of several correspondence chess tournaments had vanished with the prize money:
"presumably absconded with the promised prize money".
(https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1341 )
I know that Venezuela organized several correspondence chess tournaments "in support of Venezuela". There are also rumours that because of the US sanctions, Cuba and Venezuela have difficulties with international money transfers.
Juri Eintalu (2021-09-27 16:29:57)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess
I am new on FICGS and I do not understand how to accept a draw offering in chess. I accepted a draw, but after about 12 hours, my clock is still running and the draw is not fixed. I do not want to accept a draw together with making a move, as in the OTB game making a move means rejecting the draw.
Juri Eintalu (2021-10-04 17:37:27)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess
Now, I am pretty sure that to accept a draw on FICGS correspondence chess, one has to make a move, accept a draw, and then send the move together with the acceptance. Only then the system recognizes that the draw has been accepted. The last move is not shown in the final record, it is fictive. It is weird and confusing for the beginners on FICGS. Unfortunately, in the rules, this feature has not been explained.
Juri Eintalu (2021-10-06 12:35:34)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess
Garvin Gray, Here, I have accepted a draw in two games. In both cases, the procedure described by you worked neither on my PC nor on my mobile phone. I do not remember, but perhaps the warning box did not appear at all. In both cases, to access that confirmation box, I did the following: I marked the draw as accepted, then I made a move and then I confirmed it.
Juri Eintalu (2021-11-11 10:18:58)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess
So, now I am using the Fast Moves option. I was offered a draw. On my smartphone, I noticed "Accepted". Then, below the box for messages, I pressed "Send". No draw. I accepted again, but now I pressed the bottom "Send" which is right below the chessboard. Success. I did not have to make a move to accept a draw.
Patrycja Zerowska (2022-10-06 09:54:59)
Threefold repetition
It seems that there is no way to claim a draw by threefold repetition on this site. In the game 136386, where I have Black, the position that occurred after my 50th move, is the same as that after my 58th move, and will be the same after my intended 60th move, namely 60... Bf7. I therefore claim a draw in this game.
Since apparently there is no "automatic arbiter" to process the claim, I called the "referee" on 1 October 2022 (5 days ago), explaining that I made a draw claim as described above (and mentioning my intended move), but I haven't received a reaction yet.
This particular game has been a dead draw at least since move 35. I offered a draw after my 35th move and on my 59th move. Both offers were declined.
1. Why is there no automatic arbiter which processes draw claims? If I am not mistaken, this site exists more than 15 years already, and yet the Laws of Chess are not yet fully implemented.
2. Why can't I stop my clock when I make such a claim? See art. 9.5 of FIDE's Laws of Chess.
3. Why doesn't the arbiter or the referee stop my clock? Without this, a player making a claim can timeout, or, when she is short on time, may be reluctant to make a draw claim.
4. Why doesn't the referee take action? Is there a referee at all?
In the rules section of this site I read: "Also, there is no way to stop the clocks, players cannot claim that they stopped to play after they called the referee for any reason..." This is a violation of the rules of chess; it implies that on this site it is not chess that is being played, but a weird chess variant. Of course I disagree with this corruption of the playing rules, and so should everyone who call themselves chess players!
Your strange rules also state that the referee will "act as soon as possible", but so far, after five days, no referee has shown up. So you are not even acting in agreement to your own rules.
Finally, I find in your rules the following statement: "All games are played until a player resign, accept draw, or lose on time." This is the most ridiculous "rule" I have ever encountered. Not only renders this farcical rule a win by checkmate illegitimate, it is a blatant ignoring of the Laws of Chess, which allow games to be ended by accepted draw claims, or for any other reason at the discretion of an arbiter.
Scott Ligon (2022-10-07 01:20:05)
Threefold repetition
I don't think you have to claim the draw. When threefold repetition occurs (after you submit your next move), I believe the site software will automatically declare the game a draw. In a recent game of mine, that's what happened. I got the email notification that the game was a draw almost immediately after submitting the move that resulted in the third repetition, too quickly for my opponent to have accepted my draw offer. Maybe the draw offer is necessary for the draw to happen, I don't know about that, but if it automatically recognizes the repetition I see no reason why it would matter whether there was a draw offer.
As for when / if the arbiter should act in positions that seem obviously drawn, I don't know how that's handled and I have nothing to say about that.
Pavel Hase (2023-05-23 13:57:57)
Problem players.
Why are players still accepted into tournaments who overwhelmingly fail to finish their games or lose on time? A tady zase jednoho po pár letech vidÃm - stále to samé. Plus nÄ›kolik dalÅ¡Ãch.
Ilmars Cirulis (2024-01-11 08:10:22)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?
Then we explored 13.Ne4 a bit:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 8. Nc3 Nb4 9. O-O c6 10. d4 Qf6 11. Qd1 Ke7 12. Re1 h6 13. Ne4 Qg6 14. a3 Bf5 15. Ng3 Bxc2 16. Qf3 Nd3 17. Re2 Ke8 18. Rxc2 Ne1 19. Qe2 Nxc2 20. Bd3 Qe6 21. Qxc2 Kd8 22. Bd2 Bd6 23. Re1 Kc7 24. b4 a6 25. Nf5 e4 26. Bxe4 Raf8 27. g3 Qd7 28. Nxd6 Qxd6 29. a4 Rf7 30. b5 axb5 31. axb5 Ra8 32. Qb1 1/2-1/2 (Scott offered a draw which I gladly accepted.)
Ilmars Cirulis (2025-02-22 21:23:01)
KGA, Breyer Gambit
King's Gambit Accepted, Breyer Gambit
It goes 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qf3
3.Nf3 and 3.Bc4 is okay, but what do you think about this third move (3.Qf3)?
Cheers!
Stanislas Gounant (2025-02-23 09:55:28)
King's Gambit Accepted, Breyer Gambit
https://www.mjae.com/breyer.html
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2025-07-05 09:48:01)
50 moves rule
''please call referee if an obvious draw is not accepted by your opponent.'' - would such a position at some point count as an ''obvious draw''?
There are 15 results for accepted in wikichess.
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 e5 f4
King's gambit was the most popular opening in the 19th century. White offers a pawn to divert Black's e-pawn and build a full center with d2-d4. In order to hold the extra pawn, Black will have to spend time weakening his kingside with moves like g7-g5. It is now rarely seen at the master level, it being generally thought that Black can obtain a reasonable position either by giving back the gambitted pawn at a later time or holding on to it and consolidating defensively.
Black must decide whether or not to accept the gambit. Since White cannot easily regain the pawn if Black accepts, the King's Gambit Accepted is the most common.
According to Chessbase and correspondence chess statistics, white chances are about 54%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3
The Morra Gambit is an interesting opening against the Sicilian Defence. It is not common in Grandmaster games or correspondence chess, but at club level chess it is an excellent weapon.
White sacrifices a pawn to develop quickly and create attacking chances. In exchange for the gambit pawn, White has a piece developed and a pawn in the center, while Black has nothing but an empty space on c7.
If black wants to refuse the gambit, he can do so with 3... d5 or 3... Nf6, both of which transpose to the Alapin variation of the Sicilian (usually introduced by the move order 1.e4 c5 2.c3). Alternatively, 3... d6 is the Smith-Morra declined proper, and leads to unique lines.
Some interesting games played on FICGS by David Angeli : Game 563, Game 565 (accepted gambit) or Game 555 (declined, with 3. ... d5).
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3
The Morra gambit accepted. (the most common move)
"The best way to refute a gambit is to accept it".
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
David Grosdemange (1912)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5
the benko gambit . when accepted , black have counterplay in the a and b columns , and by the control of the a1-h8 and f1-a6 diagonals .
============
Contributors : David Grosdemange
David Grosdemange (1912)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 cxb5 a6 Nc3
white develops this knight on his best square . after axb5 , white can play e4 (the vilnius variation) or play Cxb5 , who transpose into a totally accepted benkö after Fa6 Cc3 .
============
Contributors : David Grosdemange
David Grosdemange (1912)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 cxb5 a6 Nc3 axb5 Nb5 Ba6 Nc3
this transposed into an accepted benko .
============
Contributors : David Grosdemange
Kjetil Prestesaeter (1600)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4
Grob's Gambit Accepted
============
Contributors : Ron Keyston, Kjetil Prestesaeter
Kjetil Prestesaeter (1600)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4 c4 dxc4
Fritz gambit accepted.
A double edged move, but by no means a bad one. Once white takes the rook, black will have good positional options that is at least equality.
============
Contributors : Ron Keyston, Kieran Child, Kjetil Prestesaeter
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4
Zucketort gambit accepted.
Black's usual reply to an unorthodox opening. It is sound, but only if black recognises he shouldn't try and hold on to the pawn forever.
Chessbase considers this 54% win for white
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
h4 d5 h5 e5 h6 gxh6
Stormtrooper gambit accepted
This is a blunder, but almost nobody will be aware of that. Accepting the pawn in this way significantly weakens black's queenside.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
d4 e5 dxe5
Englund gambit accepted
White has nothing genuine to fear.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Paul König (2287)
d4 d5 e4 dxe4 Nc3 Nf6
Usually accepted by black. The pawn is still defended by the knight on f6.
============
Contributors : June Lorena
Kieran Child (1600)
d4 f5 e4 fxe4
Staunton gambit accepted.
White has now opened up both bishops and will look to attack the awkward-looking e4 pawn in the process. Black may try and hold on to the pawn but probably shouldn't, as white has some tactical ideas around Qh5+ Instead, attempts at castling kingside safely should be preferred.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Terry Godat (2088)
e4 f5
This is Inving gambit. this gambit is the most dengerous weapon to use for black, as it can turn on the face because of Qh5+ the inving Gambit accepted have only four variant possible, After Fxe5. 2... g6, 2... h5 2... Nf6 and 2.. Kf7
the gambit can also be refused with , Nc3, Nf3, d3, f3, g3... or white can play the Advence Inving Gambit Variant (AIGV).
This gambit is not a bad move tough it's is -0.37 for Rybka. ( This opening has no name, i just name it like that for fun) it can also be an inversed From gambit.
============
This gambit, the Fred, is completely unjustified, except as a joke.
Contributors : Yugi Inving, Terry Godat
Gregory Kohut (1592)
d4 Nf6 Nc3 d5 e4 dxe4 f3
The Blackmar Diemer Gambit (BDG).
With intention of rapid development and to open-up f-file.
If the gambitted pawn is accepted (it is usually does) there are two ways to recapture it.
Nxf3 - The Blackmar Diemer Gambit Setup
Qxf3 - The Ryder Gambit Setup
============
Contributors : June Lorena
FICGS : accepted , Wikipedia : accepted , Dmoz : accepted , Google : accepted , Yahoo : accepted
The Pawns are the soul of the game. (Francois Andre Danican Philidor)
I have always a slight feeling of pity for the man who has no knowledge of Chess. (Siegbert Tarrasch)
I have added these principles to the law: get the Knights into action before both Bishops are developed. (Emanuel Lasker)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess