anda
FICGS - Search results for anda
There are 350 results for anda in the forum.
Per Lea (2006-04-10 01:32:41)
Games overview
Thibault: Thanks for quick and positive response. Hannes: thanks for the support (I've also had support from Håkon Anda, in a personal mail)!
I hope others agree as well.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-04-12 09:42:18)
Tournament formulas
I personally think such tournaments are too slow..... a real drag.
10 moves per 40 days seems exactly right for standard tournaments.
Kind regards,
Dinesh.
Hakon Anda (2006-04-14 16:52:42)
Some wishes
I think this server works great after so short time online. However I think there are som possible improvements that could be done:
1. Option that can disable e-mail notification of one own moves.
2. It should be possible to take leave.
3. A better list of our own games, like when last move was done, reflection time left and so on.
4. A flag for every player that shows the nationality and other information that could be found in the rating list.
Best regards,
Hakon Anda
Hakon Anda (2006-04-16 12:14:19)
Re: Some wishes
Hello Thibault. You wrote: "1. Maybe try : Preferences -> Notification checkbox". The problem is that when uncheck this box, one loose also opponents moves with e-mail notification. I wish to get e-mail notification with oppononets moves, but not my own moves.
Hakon Anda (2006-04-16 17:20:42)
Great
Thanks a lot to Thibault for adjusting the features on this server quickly and smooth for best performance and wishes from us players. Great work!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-01 19:01:58)
Class tournaments
Salut David !
About standard & rapid "class" tournaments, they are open to players with ELO rating included into a range, specified just below the tournament name. (ie. CLASS M : 2200 to 2600 , CLASS A : 2000 to 2400 , CLASS B : 1800 to 2200 etc...)
J'espère que tu nous feras profiter de ton gambit favori ;) Bonnes parties !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-26 12:23:16)
First go tournament started
The first go tournament just started !
If you want to discover this famous game (also called 'Weiqi' in mandarin chinese or 'Baduk' in korean), you may see this article in wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_board_game
Trent Parker (2006-05-29 03:03:51)
Sorting your own games
Hello Thibault!
I know that you are working hard on this site already. But could i suggest that a sort function be implemented so that a player could sort their games according to how much time they have on the clock?
Most of my games are long standard games, however i am playing in one rapid play game which, when sorted by game number are quite a long way down the page. On days where i dont have much time to make moves i would prefer to make moves on my rapid games rather than my long games. This is where that sort function would become handy
Once again thanking you for this great chess server.
Trent Parker
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 20:15:35)
8-game matches
John... ??? :)
Vladimir Kramnik - Peter Leko (match for WCH classical title)
Vladimir Kramnik - Deep Fritz...
Of course it is desired... Who will remember the names of the players in the last ICCF final tournament ? Even if ICCF doesn't use this format, and (as you say) serious CC players didn't have the opportunity to play such tournament, knockout format is still desired.
My first idea was a pure enormous knockout tournament, but it's obviously not possible (too much rounds, a time problem), that's why I thought about this combined system.
Now look at the chess world : Many players don't understand why FIDE progressively reduces the number of games and time controls in WCH matches. It is the main reason why FIDE world champion title looses value. Not hard / accurate, not spectacular enough !! ..
What many players (me, at least :)) expect is a classical world championship with a big final match. You may have noticed that FICGS champion will have the opportunity to defend his title in a... 24 games match against his challenger... (!!) That's real fight, that's real challenge and that's what I expect to see from a championship, a big opposition between 2 players, and not a round-robin more or less aleatory, with too much names, not understandable for the most.
Now, as we said on TCCMB : FICGS is not "official" matter, chess is for fun here, but chess must be a show and I'm convinced it is relevant in correspondence chess too. We'll see that ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-22 18:31:31)
What future for correspondence chess ?
You may have noticed this "grave" question on the home page... :)
---------
Are draws and chess engines killing chess game, are the level and play simply standardized by Deep Fritz and Rybka... Is the extraordinary performance by Christophe Léotard at XIX th. ICCF correspondence chess world championship 'chancy', a statistical happening, or is there a place yet for human play in modern correspondence chess ?
"I really believe that Go is destined to take the place of Chess as the leading intellectual game of the Occident, just as it has reigned supreme in the Orient for some four thousand years." (Edward Lasker, international chess master)
"... {it is} something unearthly... if there are sentient beings on other planets, then they play go." (Emanuel Lasker, chess world champion)
It had been said that Chess 960 would replace Chess too. I don't think so...
Any predictions ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-05 01:15:57)
Time control 40 days + 40 d. / 10 moves
Hello Ulrich.
The time control 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves only means you have 40 days more to your clock after you play move 10, move 20 and so on... You may loose the game on time if you don't play the first 10 moves in 40 days, but it doesn't mean that you "always" have to play 10 moves in 40 days during the whole game...
Is it understandable ? :)
Best regards. Thibault
Don Groves (2006-09-16 05:05:55)
Go rules
Thibault, I have searched for "go rules" but cannot find anywhere on FICGS where all the rules are spelled out, komi, passing, etc. What is the standard komi for our games?
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-10-02 18:44:08)
Well...
I'm just a patzer, but since there are all levels of players here...
My computer is low-end for today's standards, and I use only freeware engines for cost restrains. I used about 4 different engines for analysis during my WC and Class G games, but it proved to do less difference than I expected. I was the weak link at all times in the chain, and only in the games I was able to understand why my engine showed certain moves should be made I was able to win.
But I guess you can't always blame on the patzer. I had quite a few instances that it became obvious why I couldn't understand the moves: the engine was wrong. Best way to test this is to let it run a position where it gives a slight advantage to you for 15 minutes. After that, make the moves and check if you have the same score or better. Of course it might be just my below-average computer, but the shareware version of Fruit got me into some really bad spots. The best solution I had up until now was Toga II, as it proved to be pretty solid on that aspect.
Arthur Alfred Macarsindale (2006-11-15 11:31:26)
1996
It was a straightforward email chess akin to postal but by email.I am afraid my knowledge does not extend to Unix (?) and so on!!! So one had a boars set up and the moves came through by email.Primitive by today's standards but it served a purpose.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-21 13:57:05)
Komi 7.5
"In China, the usual compensation point was 5.5, but 7.5 is now standard."
Sources :
http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komidashi
Barry Bell (2006-11-22 04:42:46)
Introduction - Anyone4chess.com
My name is Barry and after corresponding with Thibault on my website (www.anyone4chess.com) for the last few days, Thibault suggested I drop by and post something about our website.
Anyone 4 Chess is not a correspondence chess, we call our system an online a turn based chess system (Association – A4C). The site works on a 7 day cycle for moves and you receive no emails that a move has been made however, if you are entered into one of our free tournaments (all tournaments are free and their will never be any cost to play chess on our system) an email is sent to each player in any tournament that the next round is about to begin.
Anyone 4 Chess is an online turn based chess system however, it also hosts the Association dedicated to promoting, supporting and developing an association for webmasters / players who support this type of chess. We believe there is a place for this type of chess (different from correspondence, OTB and real time chess) and the association will work to promote this type of chess following the example of FIDE and other organization to work towards our mandate and goals.
Thanks
James Stripes (2006-11-22 18:16:03)
PGN standard
"En passant captures do not have any special notation; they are formed as if the captured pawn were on the capturing pawn's destination square."
http://www.saremba.de/chessgml/standards/pgn/pgn-complete.htm
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-01 11:19:43)
Deep Fritz, Rybka & future
The Chess Challenge 2006 in Bonn between classical world champion Vladimir Kramnik and chess engine Deep Fritz 10 confirms (who ignored ?) the best chess programs can rivalize with the world champion in a match, but it first shows us these calculating monsters still have weaknesses.
Question is : What are the real improvements in Fritz 10 compared to Fritz 9 (engine speaking only) ?
Here is what I think about chess engines nowadays (Fritz 10, Shredder, 10, Junior 10, Hiarcs 10 and particularly Rybka 2.2) :
The way of think to play correspondence chess is (or should be) mostly human one combined with a chess engine algorithm. We follow the tree of moves like a program with our selective algorithm (much better than chess engines), applying our judgement of the position when necessary only. The point is we evaluate moves and we almost never evaluate a position twice.
Chess engines are very good analysis tools but are surprisingly not designed to be very good chess players. I think a major improvement in chess engines should be recognition of 'sufficient moves' : ie. it is no worth to always find the best move at a particular point of the tree, this reflection time could be used later... It depends on the evaluation of the position, on the clocks... Iterative model is quite basic (in a game at least !).
Another point is recognition of traps. This is the start of psychology in chess engines, and basics of the art of war. It first depends on who your opponent is, and on the clocks too. Finally, at the end of the tree, chess engines evaluate positions, but how many evaluate moves ? .. Speculative moves were a step, but it first shew chess engines were not able yet to see what move is worth to be analysed really deeper, consequently creating a 'human' weakness, particularly against some other chess engines.
I don't know how Rybka works, but as far as I read about this one that calculates much less positions (about 10 times) than Fritz, I wouldn't be surprised that Vasik Rajlich had implemented a better approach of human way of think, which is undoubtly the future of chess engines.
A good 'centaur' in ie. Playchess rapid tournaments is first a good choice between Chessbase engines according to the position and clocks. Fritz qualities probably apply best in standard games, where clocks are really designed for him. Among Chessbase engines, Hiarcs is probably the best Blitz player and could be the best correspondence chess player (even if it isn't the best CC tool for humans). Rybka is probably a kind of centaur itself (sorry, herself ;)), knowing when to use (in the tree !) brute force and more selective approachs - not to be compared to Hydra or Deep Blue which, on contrary, use most brute force.
My conclusion is chess engines have much to learn from humans yet, we'll see a Rybka 5 and Fritz 13, with much better results against other chess engines, but their results shouldn't increase a lot against the best humans in future. Finally, it will never be a good correspondence chess player :)
My two cents.
If I find time, I'll continue to implement my own chess engine..... but it's a lot of work :/
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-31 14:53:21)
Blitz correspondence chess
Hello Charlie & Elmer.
Still thinking about it, I don't think it should look like standard OTB time control, some points are :
- How many games played at the same time (2-game match or tournament) ?
- Entries in waiting list will have a life period (someone agrees the challenge in the next hour, if not it's canceled)
- Adjournment is a big issue... It could cause many problems :/
- Too many time controls is not good IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-03 01:08:07)
Blitz correspondence chess
Of course not :)
I mean I don't think everyone can play 2 games one 'today' and one 'tomorrow', or even be sure they really could play 'tomorrow'... There would be problems for sure with a "rendez-vous" system.
The advantage of playing White is probably not much greater (maybe not greater at all) than playing Black and to know who's your opponent, particularly with a standard time control, what do you think ?
Anyway everything is possible if no solution is clearly best, but we must avoid the old proposal with White playing ie. the 2 first moves IMO. It may be a funny variant to offer, but this is not real chess game.
Don Groves (2007-01-18 07:25:27)
+1
Fairly standard forum jargon. It means he's seconding your opinion.
Dan Rotaru (2007-01-24 16:42:19)
Suggestion for rating period
I would suggest that the rating period to be monthly instead of every 2 months. I understand the reason for longer periods between calculation being to avoid big differences but 2 months seems a little bit too long for me. I have noticed that some players with high provisional ratings or who started with high provisional ratings still have a much higher rate after they lost all or almost all their games, and players which started with, let’s say, standard 1400 still have lower ratings even they won all the games. And there is no such a difference between the Elo average of the opponents.
My point is that a monthly period will increase the dynamic of the ratings and eventually will lead to a much realistic overall ratings and why not to a more challenging environment.. Of course the number of games played will have the biggest impact on re-adjusting the ratings based on results, but a month period will help for example a player to obtain a higher TER sooner and eventually play on a higher ELO bracket tournament.
The other reason is that I believe many players will want to see how their rating evolves and a month seems more reasonable. As I said it is just a suggestion, others may not agree with me.
Thanks, Dan
Marcus Miranda (2007-02-01 14:43:32)
Computer assistance
I do not know very much about chess, I am just a beginner, but I think that using a computer to help you play your moves is kind of not fair with your opponent, and if both players are using it, seems to be a game between two computer engines. Maybe I just do not know how people use computer assistance, I apologize if I am talking nonsense.
Marcus Miranda (2007-02-02 15:37:22)
Without computer
Thanks Charlie for directing me to the old forum, I thought that a computer engine is unbeatable if you give it enough time, and if this was the case there would be no human touch in the moves you play, I guess I am wrong.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-10 03:08:52)
Rybka, Fritz and future...
Computerchess is definitely an exciting challenge... The community is fast-growing, new versions of chess engines appear every day, many dream to be the next Vasik Rajlich and to produce an engine that would beat the well-known Chessbase engines and the famous Rybka.
These days, I had a look at Fruit 2.1, TogaII and Crafty source code that are available to download, and started to implement new search & evaluation functions. It's quite easy to understand why chess programming is so addictive, so much done and so much to do... finally I did not enter this mad race without an ending, probably for the same reasons Anthony Cozzie (the author of Zap! Chess Zanzibar) and many others retired.
However here are my feelings about future of chess engines, and the fight that just started between most probably Chessbase engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior and Hiarcs) and a new era of chess engines that started with Rybka...
First, it's quite obvious to me that Rybka (now Rybka 2.3) is only another one of a long series of chess engines always stronger than each others ! .. I expect the next ones to reach 50, 100 then 200 points more (and maybe more) on the next chess engines elo rating lists, a scale that definitely can't be compared to human elo rating list ! .. Several reasons to this : (1) Chess engines are human killers at standard time controls, but chess engines are far to play perfect chess yet. (2) The way ratings are calculated.
Rybka taught us several things IMO :
- Algorithms and evaluation functions are no more enough. Now chess engines have to play chess, not only search a tree of chess positions... That's probably what Rybka brought to computerchess. Since Fruit 2.1 & Toga II source code is available, and computerchess community is constantly discussing improvements in algorithms, evaluations of positions and new ideas, to implement a chess engine becomes easier so I have no doubt that new very strong chess engines like Rybka will come.
- To become famous, a chess engine must 'also' beat his rivals. I first thought that Rybka was designed to be an engines killer only (at least before to be an analysis tool) with some tricks exploiting most engines weaknesses. No, Rybka is also a great UCI engine, simply stronger and with many options & features. Like Vasik Rajlich, who is engineer and international chess master, you'll have not only to think like an engineer to create such an engine. However I still don't think it is the best analysis tool for correspondence chess, it doesn't play really better chess and in all cases it is not enough. More, Rybka 3, 4, 5 shouldn't influence correspondence chess (maybe even human vs. machine) much... Computerchess influences computerchess first.
It's written sometimes that the strongest chess engines could reach a IM, even GM level at correspondence chess. I definitely disagree with that, at least for the moment (it will take a long time yet), but as chess engines results tend to approach correspondence chess ones (means more and more draws), I do think chess engines have much to learn from correspondence chess players way of thinking, meaning : A more psychological approach, bonus for traps detection. Evaluate moves, not only positions. A more complex search, not 'only' iterative (brute force is definitely useless). No more anti-human style, speculative moves (=weakness, ie. Deep Junior) for speculative results against strongest chess engines, draws are prefered. To avoid positions not understood by the engine. Longer games, closed games (if supported)... Opening books should look like correspondence chess GMs ones (of course according to the engine's style of play) and no more been made of FIDE GM games. A better time management... Future of computerGo may teach to computerchess about some evaluations.
A chess engine must play good moves AND try to win (which is not always the same). It seems Fruit & Rybka play solid and are waiting to exploit their opponent's weaknesses thanks to a better "chess" algorithm/knowledge. As far as I have seen, Shredder & Fritz still have the best 'eye', they see far but fuzzy. Quite the same about Fruit & Toga developped by a great engineer, Fabien Letouzey : Less chess knowledge but an improved algorithm. As for Rybka, a great chess knowledge and probably a smarter algorithm (not better, smarter !) were probably enough already. The future best chess engines will be made by good chess players...
An interesting point is it could be not so easy, maybe even nonsense, to create the best analysis tool that would also obtain the best results against other chess engines. My first prediction is Rybka won't be the top rated chess engine ever, hundreds of new ideas will appear in all parts of chess programming, slowly breaking Rybka secrets, then speed will be a factor again. Deep Fritz, Junior, Fruit or Hydra are most probably the core of the next generations of chess engines... but there's a lot of work yet :)
My two cents.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-02-15 22:50:39)
Rybka, Fritz and future
I would like to comment. Your post is most interesting. I sort of disagree with you a little bit. But first:
I do agree with you that Rybka may not be the best CC engine. I sort of like F10 for that. Rybka end game is lacking behind several other engines, including Fritz.
Perhaps the best cc engine is a dark horse. named Zap, latest version. Rybka kills Zap according to posting in short games (Blitz) but recent testing evidence by reliable testers indicate that it is one heck of a engine in standard time controls.
In my opinion there are several engines that have proven that Humans have lost a grip in chess play.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-16 02:09:40)
Established rating list
Of course it's a good idea, and it can be discussed. So far, three main reasons for not doing this change :
1) One rating list is much clearer and easier to reach than two.
2) Provisional and established ratings are easy to distinguish already. (grey or not)
3) There could be more strong players in future who will play unrated games -only- at standard time control (2 hours / 40 moves, soon available) and in my opinion, the rating list is first a way to show who is playing there.
Charlie Neil (2007-02-18 12:09:03)
Gameknot Match
Well I know I won my game at Gameknot. And as for further team matches I'll sign up for standard chess without computer assistance thank you. Will Marc and Beranard be Vice Team Captains?.....8-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-18 19:14:30)
ICCF champions league
Hello to all.
While looking for interesting challenges that could take place here at FICGS (ie. simultaneous games at standard time control by a FIDE / ICCF IM-GM, or team challenges against other servers), Valer Eugen Demian (ICCF) suggested we build a team that could play in the next ICCF champions league... If we can build a team, why not ?
Rules of the event (taking place on ICCF server) are here :
http://tables.iccf.com/email/ChLeague/2004/season1faq.htm
What do you think ? .. Did anyone play this tournament already ?
Charlie Neil (2007-02-19 13:52:00)
ICCF champions league
I have played on the ICCF webserver. So, it must be an easy webserver to play on if i can manage it! I think there must be a Ficgs team! More publicity and a chance to meet more chessfriends. Unfortunately I'm not of the standard required to be in a successful team but I can stand on the "touchline" with my Ficgs scarf and shout encouragement. C'mon! Also what about challenges to those sites such itsyourturn and chessworld.net and schemingming.com. you know the ones that aren't free to play on.....
Marcus Miranda (2007-02-21 18:01:11)
Unrelated suggestion
This probably has nothing to do with this topic, but one suggestion I would like to make is to put the tournaments won by the player in the player profile. For me it would be kind of cool since I am a bit far from titles or norms. Anyways it's just a thought. And by the way, this site is great, thanks thibault.
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-27 15:57:30)
Chess and Xiangqi
A very interresting article in Chesscafe (www.chesscafe.com) by K.Müller on some endgame similarities in chess and xiangqi.
Xiangqi is great chess game (one of the greatest, even if I am quite weak at it; and in any cases, by far the greatest chess game by the number of players :-)): in short time limits (standard is 20 minutes per players) you can't beat that game for a exciting tactical mélée... and then if both palyers survive, the endgame is full of subtilities...
BTW *all* K.Müller articles on that site are a must-read! :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-12 15:44:08)
Money chess and Go tournaments
FICGS money chess & Go tournaments will be open today !
At last, after the next update (in a few hours) including legal informations (home page / rules) and the 'My account' page, the money chess & Go games can start.
Players interested are invited to read rules (updated) in its entirety, particularly 04. Entry fees, 05. Prize money, 06. Warranties, 07. Money transfer ...
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Feel free to discuss rules for entry fees and prizes in this thread, some points may have to be clarified yet. It's a long time I think about these rules to make them most interesting at the same time for the players and the server, according to french taxes & laws.
Of course, all free tournaments will remain free. As FICGS becomes a commercial server, the more players will enter money tournaments, the more ads on the internet so the more players :)
Time controls for money chess games & tournaments are 30 minutes + 1 minute / move (lightning), 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves (blitz), 30 days + 1 day / move (rapid), 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves (standard). Thematic chess money games will be played at blitz time control.
Time controls for money Go games & tournaments are 30 minutes + 1 minute / move (lightning) and 30 days + 1 day / move (standard).
Nick Burrows (2007-05-12 22:10:28)
rake
For each 100 euro ticket, ficgs takes 25 euros as a rake?
The standard poker rake for a 100 euro heads up match would be 5 euro only.
This makes it very difficult to only break even.
Thanks, nick.
Garvin Gray (2007-06-04 11:41:42)
Wch 3 in rating order
KAZ Balabaev, Farit 2580
FRA de Vassal, Thibault 2512
USA Ingersol, Harry 2502
NZL Noble, Mark 2497
DEU Schuster, Peter 2480
POL Ostrowski, Leszek 2458
ARG Brunsteins, Daniel 2452
CAN Zubac, Marius 2415
ROU Mathe, Iosif 2414
UKR Khokhlov, Igor 2370
MLT Sammut, Ronald 2362
ROU Helmer, Janos 2343
PRT Pires, Miguel 2270
LKA De Silva, Dinesh 2235
POL Sanner, Zdzislaw 2219
RUS Dyakov, Alexander 2217
DEU Schiller, Wilfried 2217
DEU Koslowski, Volker 2204
DZA Ould Ahmed, Samy 2195
FRA Appendino, Jérome 2192
GBR Taylor, William 2182
GRC Bleker, Frits 2171
DNK Jorgensen, Poulerik 2168
DEU Kesselheim, Peter 2149
CAN Repa, Jason 2144
PRT Louro, Eugénio 2123
USA Kotlyansky, Edward 2114
DEU Markus, Roland 2103
FRA Czekaj, Christophe 2098
AUT Dudulec, Konstantin 2084
CAN Plante, Marc-Eric 2079
LVA Borisovs, Leonids 2078
AUT Mueller, Robert 2069
DEU Unger, Peter 2065
AUT Riha, Josef 2019
POL Skwarczylo, Marek 2018
MUS Stephenson, Andrew 2000
CZE Stanislav, Musil 1990
SCG Vidanovic, Djordje 1966
USA Burden, Don 1959
DEU Haluschka, Rainer 1950
CAN Rotaru, Dan 1937
GBR Wyborn, Graham 1890
GBR Burrows, Nick 1884
POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 1879
BIH Dautovic, Dzenan 1875
AUS Gray, Garvin 1863
USA Minkin, Alexander 1850
GBR Josse, Mark 1806
ARM Khachaturov, Vadim 1803
USA Kotlyanskiy, Ilya 1800
DEU Krueger, Karsten 1800
PRT Vasquez, Fernando 1775
DZA Toutaoui, Khaled 1763
DEU Wosch, Arkadiusz 1746
TUR Yuvarlak, Ugur 1732
ROU Hrubaru, Mircea 1726
ARG Carrizo, José 1724
USA Phillip, Lennox 1700
ROU Kondort, Mihai 1700
ROU Ioan, Bucsa 1700
BRA Miranda, Marcus 1691
VEN Flores, Luis 1680
RUS Ruzin, Mikhail 1639
DEU Faust, Dieter 1627
MYS Behrmann, Klaus 1617
FRA Bellanger, Michel 1606
POL Bester, Kazimierz 1600
DEU Nent, Alexander 1593
PRT Oliveira, Carlos 1586
HUN Nagy, Attila 1549
ROU Ionescu, Catalin 1535
HUN Kis-Kos, Laszlo 1512
ITA Lupinacci, Nicola 1492
BEL De Groof, Pieter 1465
DEU Odendahl, Marcel 1462
USA Hendricks, Richard 1459
BRA Queiroz, Florencio 1444
CZE Pech, Jaroslav 1433
USA Goodwin, Adam 1415
HUN Csoma, Robert 1400
USA Gillz, Nicolas 1400
BGR Toktas, Ibrahim Ugras 1400
IND Veeraiah, Karuppaiah 1400
MEX Ortiz Durán, Esteban 1400
TUR Ilhan, Alper 1400
CHE Margot, Alain 1400
TUR Erdonho, Erdinç 1400
USA Lipsits, Sasha 1400
BRA B. Lima, Edmilson 1400
DEU von Buttlar, Paul 1386
HUN Fenyves, Adam 1330
BGR Stoianov, Stoian 1316
GRC Serd, Than 1300
TUR Ak, Murat 1300
GBR Willoughby, Peter 1294
ARG Orden, Jorge 1264
GBR Neil, Charlie 1212
NLD Oldenhof, Dwight 1203
USA Greer, Stephen 1200
BRA Barradas, Anderson 1194
IND Malvankar, Vikrant 1188
BEL Tuteleers, Bruno 1145
DEU Bothe, Matthias 1143
BGR Stoyanov, Zdravko 1136
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-20 22:54:33)
Internet chess
Well, the discussion with Tryfon Gavriel continues at TCCMB. As I had to explain the way I make FICGS, I copy my responses here :
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.15
Hello again Tryfon !
That's a very interesting discussion...
Actually I have to explain FICGS in its whole to respond :) .. To be continued for sure..
While registering a new member wrote to me a few months ago "Thanks for creating this ultimate chess challenge" or so... That's exactly what I try to do, mostly with the FICGS championship knockout & round-robin rules... Players just want challenge, that's the only assumption I start with, so I try to create interesting challenges. About the intellectual part, you're right but I'm quite sure that top level correspondence chess players still consider their game as an intellectual challenge, much more than a brute force or computer skills one. That's not the case for Advanced chess with fast time controls.
Let's take a look at the bicycle races again... The "Tour de France" is dying IMO.. because everyone understood we "don't know" if the champion is ok.. If doping was allowed (it would be a scandal for health of course), I'm sure the interest would raise again ! I think it is the same for chess & for everything else... The "Tour de France" syndrom happened in Elista with the match Kramnik vs. Topalov... It will have consequences. We need champions and we want true champions, every means are ok for this ! .. So the "engines allowed" rule is the only one possible or reasonable in my opinion.
Of course, chess & correspondence chess are changing, because these "walls" are nearer & nearer... maybe chess will die, maybe not.. The main problem is that in 1997, a super computer became World Champion... this year a "simple" computer Deep Fritz became world champion, soon Rybka on a cellular phone... :) Who is really interested to be a champion in "human category" ? FIDE world chess championship will continue to progressively lose its interest IMO...
Correspondence chess is just starting to grow in popularity and is told to be dying already. Surely correspondence chess will ask more & more time at a high level to win a few points, but it is possible to create more challenge by ie. changing the rating rules (the "design" of Elo rating system will become a problem).. Then, if it is not enough, we'll look for other challenges... It's told for years that Go (Weiqi) will replace chess in western countries... why not Big chess as the "brain only" game if there can't be doping in it.. just trying, as there's no other solution :)
A word about Poker of course, as it's probably the fastest growing game in popularity : IMO this game is at a stade like chess in year 1900, but the same problem will happen, even quicker. At a high level the game will be just more and more boring (if you wish to win real money) or chancy (in a wch tournament), or you'll have to always find weak players (well, not very challenging).
About the simultaneous exhibition against Alekhine or Capablanca, I'm not sure at all they would crush everyone at our chess servers, they are undoubtly more talented than all of us, but I feel it wouldn't be enough in all cases to win against correspondence chess style of play & knowledge accumulated for 50 years... A few players rated OTB 2000-2200 could draw against them IMO...
At last, yes I'm a fan of Sun Tzu's "The art of war" :) .. I strongly believe that correspondence chess will not die in the next few years because players will follow its principles more and more, as the only way to win ! .. Big chess follows the same principles... and Go is the most challenging game because of it too !
Tryfon, I'm not sure that we're opposite in our vision of chess ! .. Our servers have obviousy different goals, nothing more.. I do enjoy playing mad blitz games without chess engines... I just believe that the future of internet chess is "serious (engines allowed, rated) correspondence chess" on one hand and "human chess for fun (no engines, unrated)" on the other hand... The other ways look like nonsense to me.
I hope it responds.
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-28 13:56:08)
Thinking in decades of moves
You mean it would be great to have a 2400+ rapid tournament ?! :)
I think we should keep both formats (standard & rapid) anyway.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-28 16:48:26)
Thinking in decades of moves
Thibault, you've misunderstood! Rapids have 30/+1 day per move. Standards could have 40/+3 days per move. That's the deal!
Marcus Miranda (2007-07-09 18:12:25)
Norms and titles
My guess is that you can only achieve norms in the class M, SM, GM and rapid M tournaments. Once the tournament starts you know the number of points you have to win to get a norm.
Ilmars Cirulis (2007-07-16 04:23:05)
2 Jason
IQ measures only part of personality.
Which standard IQ test can measure emphaty? Without emphaty you are machine, not human. No meaning how big IQ you have.
Jason Repa (2007-07-16 05:19:18)
Sandipan destroys Tiviakov
http://chessmusings.blogspot.com/2007/07/excellent-attacking-game-by-chanda.html
Jason Repa (2007-07-24 03:29:32)
.pgn vs .cbh
The modern chessbase format is .cbh. It has special formatting to provide extra indexing functionality and information such as timestamps. The old chessbase format is A .pgn file is simply a text file that contains a header and a chess game in standard modern algebraic notation. Remove the formatting from a .cbh, save it as *.pgn and, viola you have a .pgn file.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-28 15:12:08)
Rapid tournaments
It seems this time control is ok for most players who use it (sometimes even too slow yet)... If you feel it's difficult, more reasonable would be to play standard class tournaments.
Still thinking about a longer time control.
Garvin Gray (2007-07-29 07:40:12)
another idea
Thibault de Vassal- It seems this time control is ok for most players who use it (sometimes even too slow yet)... If you feel it's difficult, more reasonable would be to play standard class tournaments.
Another suggestion is that I make sure I play the opening moves of any rapid game rather quickly, so I dont get into time trouble early :)
Sergei Ivanov (2007-08-10 10:49:31)
Translit
Soobwenie --- [moderator : name deleted] chto on ub'et Dmitrija, bylo razmeweno na forume:
http://igt.forum24.ru
JEto forum komandy Igejm, on zakrytyj.
Dannoe soobwenie videla vsja komanda Igame.
Posle soobwenija ob ubijstve - kapitan Igame, zaprosil u cheloveka, kotoryj obewal ubit' Dmitrija, podtverzhdenie, chto dannoe soobwenie napisal imenno --- [moderator : name deleted] i poluchil svidetel'stvo mastera FIDE na imja --- [moderator : name deleted].
Tak chto net nikakih somnenij, chto l'vovskij shahmatist --- [moderator : name deleted] ugrozhal ubit' Dmitrija.
Ilmars Cirulis (2007-09-07 02:24:29)
:)
I understand 'software' (it seems that by mistake) as Wikichess, chat, move making etc.
Yes, I know standard meaning of 'software' :P
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-09 16:59:52)
2 games matches
In this "case", you may also choose rapid or standard silver tourneys that are 2-players 2-games matches :)
Garvin Gray (2007-09-09 18:10:04)
hmmmmmmmm!!
I must be missing something. I dont see silver standard or rapid tournaments. All I see are gold ones.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-09 18:15:24)
Ooops !
It seems I made too many updates in the waiting lists these last months... I forgot that I removed silver rapid & standard. Sorry :)
Philip Roe (2007-09-14 17:53:56)
Andrew Stephenson
Thanks for your explanations. They were helpful.
Let me try to say what I meant by unsynchronised rating systems (maybe I could have found a better word)
The difference between your rating and mine is a measure of how likely you are to beat me, and that relationship between rating difference and percentage score is similar for any
system I have come across.
However, the absolute numbers mean little if anything. There was a widespead belief for some time that US players were overrated, even though the system worked fine internally.
My understanding is that from time to time
organisations check to see if they have drifted too far from FIDE standards.
This sort of calibration works fine for human OTB games, but for anything else it is not easy to see how to "set the zero", and that possible mismatch is what I called "unsynchronised".
I think that standard CC practice is to try to give each player
a rating similar to their OTB rating. I do not know how the engine ratings quoted were tied
down, and I imagine that centaur ratings are very difficult to calibrate.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-20 21:30:15)
Chess Friend
I did not think there was ever any money paid out in chess friend but I never played in any round robins so I can't comment on the tie break being used in them. As for repeating the same 15 moves in 4 games because you had too many other games it just seesm farcical to me. Everyone is a strong player at that stage but still .... My point about IECG is just that perhaps (understandably) you take that more seriously and would not agree to 4 short meaningless draws because the others are strong and you have a lot of other games going on. The point i was making is that these 4 draws resulted from your tie break system having a higher TER as your opponent attempted to draw his way to victory and you went along with it. You have set up a system that encourages this sort of approach which is anti chess and , arguably, devalues the concept of a "World Championship" What is your objection to 2 game tie breaks involving accelerated cc rates that I suggested?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-29 13:37:42)
2-player match?
Hello,
It is possible, but limited... With the 2 free E-Points, you may play 20 bullet (10 min+ 20 s.) or lightning (30 min+ 30 s.) bronze games.
There are no 2-player match without entry fee & prize at standard & rapid time controls.
Don Groves (2007-10-21 04:25:53)
Go freestyle tournament
Another consideration is which time zones the players are in. Standard tournaments around here are two hours per game (1 hour on each player's clock plus five, 30 second extra periods.)
Even being all in the same time zone, it's still difficult to play four games per day.
Lionel Vidal (2007-10-21 11:24:52)
Is a one day limit mandatory?
Playing three rounds in one day is already very hard. What would you think of running a tournament for several days (like one round per day): that would mean, say, 4 or 5 days that could be picked from 2 ou 3 consecutives weeks?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-21 13:52:04)
Is a one day limit mandatory?
No it isn't, but unlike "real" tournaments, I assume that players prefer to spend 1 day hard in front of their computer than a whole week end or more for a tourney... But I may be wrong ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-07 15:37:51)
New category (chess rapid 2000-2200)
Hello Andrew. True, but I don't think it is good to develop rapid tournaments too much, simply because it is quite hard to play, the risk is to see more forfeits on time & to concurrence the chess world championship as it is really hard to play 2 or 3 rapid tournaments at the same time. Also the more categories & players in rapid tournaments, the less in standard ones. Rapid tournaments are designed for players rated 1400-2200 who want to establish their rating quickly or to try the chess wch time control.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-11 05:08:02)
Number of games limitation
Hello all.
The current number of running games limitation before the program blocks the access to new standard or rapid tournaments is 60 (which doesn't mean the number of running games is limited to 60)
After having experienced myself the "too many games" effects (more than 80 games, quite stressful and time consuming), and after a few general forfeits by players who probably reached the overdose, I decided to change some parameters to prevent such consequences. In a previous discussion, it had been concluded that it was up to each player to manage this and eventually to take the risk, but definitely too many correspondence games is not the same than playing chess all day.
The number of running games limitation before the program blocks the access to new standard or rapid tournaments (but world championships cycles) will be 30, once more it doesn't mean the number of running games will be limited to 30... Of course faster tournaments will remain unlimited. It should accelerate running games, prevent general forfeits, and help us not to become chess machines, at least "correspondence chess machines" :)
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-11 15:46:30)
30, 40, 50... ?
One player (only) said to me that the 30 running games limitation before the program prevents to enter new standard or rapid tournaments [but wch cycles] was probably not enough. I think 60 is definitely too much...
Poll : What do you think about a reasonable number ?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-14 12:54:32)
new rapid category
Thibault please reconsider your decision and set up a 2000 - 2200 rapid tournament which I think will fill up quickly. there are about 60 active players rated 2000 - 2200 and of these about 5 have more than 10 games going. 2 of these (Jason and Sandor) probably wont enter a 2000-2200 rapid as they are qualified and down for higher level tournaments.If the rapids are for players up to 2200 why have you got higher rated rapid tournaments? Lets get more chess played isnt that what its all about? Incidentally the standard ratings of 2000-2400 and 2200-2600 seems a mistake as no one above 2200 will enter the 2200-2400 tournament. Has anyone else got any views on having a 2000-2200 rapid category?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-14 16:13:39)
new rapid categories
Poll : Do you think that rating ranges for Rapid chess tournaments should be 200 instead of 400 points, like in Standard tournaments (I mean the rating range that separate tournament categories)
Thanks for opinions.
Garvin Gray (2007-11-14 18:26:42)
related issue
I think there is a bigger issue here. It is very rare to see a player who is just under the rating cut off enter said tournament.
For example: Tournament rating range is 1600-2000. It would be very rare indeed for a 1950+ player enter this type of tournament.
Maybe all the rating bands for tournaments need to change ie be moved to 200 points difference, with no cross over.
So the standard tournaments are:
1600- 1799
1800- 1999
2000- 2199
and so on upwards.
Rapid tournaments are:
1700-1899
1900-2099
2100-2299
and so on upwards.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-14 18:47:42)
Cross over & rating cut off
Hi Garvin, that's an interesting idea to have different rating cut off for Standard & Rapid tournaments ! .. Cross over is not a problem IMO, but Rapid tournaments could be displayed this way :
1) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (1900-2300), Rapid B (1500-1900) ... ~400
2) Rapid M (2300+), Rapid A (2100-2300), Rapid B (1900-2100) ... ~200
3) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1700-2100), Rapid B (1300-1700) ... ~400
4) Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ...
~200
Make your choice :)
Garvin Gray (2007-11-16 06:14:13)
Just say yes :)
same vote as before, Option 2.
Will the standard tournaments be different rating cut off to the rapids? Please say yes :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-16 21:52:04)
option 4 -> option 2
My choice is option 4 in a first time.. Option 2 will be ok as soon as we have players rated 2300+ enough IMO, the waiting time is too high at the moment. So I'll change the rapid chess tournaments this way as soon as the next Rapid M tourney starts.. and I'll add a higher category as soon as the waiting time for Standard (Class) M decrease.
Thanks for your suggestions :)
Wayne Lowrance (2007-11-18 23:00:53)
Remove me please
Thibault please remove me from Rapid M waiting list #9. I give up on it and I entered standard class M # 15 and it opened up and were playing too my delight.
I do not want to be overloaded, I am sorry to ask this,. thank you
Wayne
Robert Mueller (2007-12-17 05:54:09)
Why are you opposed to the idea?
Now I am puzzled. I thought there were no conditional moves on this server because it is a technical issue. Why would you be opposed to the idea? It is pretty much standard in correspondence chess, even on servers.
Garvin Gray (2007-12-17 06:12:46)
iccf
it is not standard at iccf for webserver play.
Mladen Jankovic (2007-12-25 21:37:22)
re:
FEN used in encoding the starting position does not include castling information. You can add manually "KQkq" in the FEN line at the end, in the PGN file.
Fritz uses a non-standard encoding of the castling rights for Chess 960, with starting positions of Rooks not on A and H files.
Fritz should recognize castling rights, but the information is not included in the file. This is most likely an accidental omission, or it might have been done to avoid messing with X-FEN and the non-standard Fritz solution.
At this rate I'm becoming a helpdesk. :?
Garvin Gray (2008-02-14 19:02:16)
re-ratings
Hello Thibault,
In these cases, cant you re-rate these 'type of players when you receive further information regarding their standard of play?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-15 01:03:12)
ratings
Well, it should be really exceptional, actually I don't understand why so strong players did not ask for this provisional rating change before starting to play (volunteer ? ;)) .. Anyway, as no rated result has been recorded in this case, a standard 1800 provisional rating seems ok.
Amir Elnemr (2008-02-15 11:31:11)
How to edit GO games on FICGS
Hello all, I am just starting my first Go tournament, I still struggle to understand the so much alien game to myself, anyway, I like to edit and review my chess games externally with winboard, but I don't seem to be able to do the same with GO games, It seems as if the notation used is different than of that used by my software, I use PANDA-gIGo, so if anyone can help me by suggesting another program that can read the game format on FICGS or give me directions on how to edit it with PANDA-gIGo I will be very grateful.
Thank you and have a good day.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-15 14:13:29)
SGF files
Hello Amir, you can download Go games as SGF files [see (download) link at the bottom of the game page] that should be ok to be imported by any Go software (!?). I don't know PANDA-gIGo though...
Marius Zubac (2008-03-02 23:49:06)
2nd GM standard tournament
Hello Thibault. I have now over 2500 and I would like to register for the 2nd GM standard tournament, however for some reason it is closed. Can you look into it please. Thanks, Marius
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-03 12:38:05)
2nd GM standard tournament
Hello Marius, yes it is closed now. The reason is it (most probably) won't be filled before a very long time - we have more and more 2300/2400+ players but not enough yet. Maybe we can change the rating range but it is quite difficult already to fill the next SM tournament waiting list. Any opinion welcome.
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 01:09:36)
Step up, or shut up!
"I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site" Yeah, on this site... I began here as a 1700 (the first rating here)"
Join the club. I started as a 1700 player also. You've lost over 25% of your games. And to weak opponents at that. So I'm quite justified in assuming that I'm a better chess player than you, and by a very wide margin also. The fact that you couldn't figure out on your own why 10...Bf5 is no improvement over 10...Qe7 is just icing on the cake.
But anyway, I've had enough of you whining about your low rating and making excuses for your poor performance in chess. Excuses are for losers.
And there was nothing "arrogant" in any of my statements. The problem here is your stupidity and incapability at understanding what has been said to you. I've already explained to you TWICE that you were wrong in assuming that there was an implication that "material is everything" when I was discussing the recovery of material. That was not said nor implied. What part of this isn't sinking into your skull? How many more times does it need to be repeated for you to be able to understand???
I don't normally give free chess lessons to insolent patzers like you, but I'd be willing to have you a few bullet games on a secure server like playchess.com where in bullet time controls you won't be able to use your chess program to do the thinking for you like you do here. I've already had this type of thing go down with another motormouth on this site. I beat him 100% of the games and posted a link to them. At least he was man enough to step up to the plate and play me. You made the challenge so don't back down with any excuses, like the excuses you used to explain your paltry 1912 rating. And obviously if we're going to play real-time chess with the assumption is that its going to be human mind vs human mind chess, it's going to have to be fast bullet games. Not standard blitz where you have time to see what rybka running on your other computer suggests. Let me know what your playchess.com account name is and when you're able to play.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 14:33:15)
Opening books
I think the truth is that a lot of opening books are not always objective and someimes do not give the best lines or give assessments that are not always accurate. Active GM's someimes keep things back for there own use .. which is understandable I suppose. John watson seems to be an exception to this and produces very high quality opening work. The bottom line is you have to check them all IMO.
Incidentally I am not sure there is much need to keep databases up to date - I suppose that refers to downloading games from TWIC. Most databases are up dated automatically.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 06:48:23)
Poker
"I should have said my statement was about those who know the mechanics of the game"
Actually, you've just confirmed that you don't know anything at all about the game of poker. As is the case for you with chess. And you obviously didn't understand the expression "-EV" , so I'll explain it to you. EV means expected value. It is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome of the event multiplied by the outcome value (or payoff). Thus, it represents the average amount one "expects" as the outcome of the random trial when identical odds are repeated many times. Obviously if this value is a negative number, money-management is completely meaningless as you will lose money in the long run. Money management is actually the easiest thing to figure out. It's a no-brainer for anyone who knows anything about money gaming. It has to do with ensuring that you have enough cash on hand to keep the risk of ruin down to a comfortable level, to account for standard deviation (bad luck). If you're a losing poker player, ie, one in which the net result of all your decisions results in a negative expected value, money management is clearly totally meaningless. This simple concept is quite obvious to most people. I've never before met an adult who required it to be explained to them like this.
People who's minds go beyond the superficial understand that there is much more to poker than working out the simple arithmetic of the game, such as how many outs for a flush/straight.... pot odds, implied pot odds, etc, which is probably what you mean by "knowing the mechanics of the game". Playing that kind of mindless, one-dimensional game might work OK at microlimits, but beyond that you'll need to learn that poker is much more of a game of psychology than it is a game of math. A mathematician by the name of Barry Greenstein, who incidentally has won more than $10,000,000 playing poker, once said that also. I've got a feeling he knows a bit more about the game than you do, lol.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 09:22:21)
Rapid chess entry rating
I disagree with Wayne Lowrance completely. The 2300+ rapid category is an excellent idea. Obviously it's much more difficult to go from 2300-2400 than it is to go from 2200-2300. Without the 2300+ category it's ominously difficult for a 23xx player to get to the next level.
My only complaint is that the standard list doesn't have a 2300+ category as well.
Robert Mueller (2008-06-07 22:48:44)
Why so few top players in Wch 5 ?
I can only speak for myself. 1 move per day is too fast for me. I decided not to sign up for the WCH but play standard time controls (4 days per move) instead.
When I signed up for WCH 4, round 2 of WCH 3 started and then I surprisingly qualified for the WCH 2 final. Suddenly, I had more than 20 fast games in progress. This is too much stress for me.
Don Groves (2008-06-10 02:09:17)
Brackets...
(1) "Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word 'reason', groves."
Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you...
(2) "Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling."
I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology...
(3) "There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments."
This is true and there is a simple fix -- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification...
(4) "I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you."
Poor boy! I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself. I get the feeling though you don't really mind as you seem to love the sound of your own voice so much.
Thibault has decided this anyway and I abide by his decision. Your precious class M tournaments are safe from pollution by losers who are not yet up to your lofty standards.
You can have the last word now -- you always do anyway.
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 08:34:35)
Senility is a terrible thing
How long are you going to keep whining and crying here groves? If I had any doubt about the accuracy of my comments, it would certainly be removed after this emotional protest from you. You're extremely pathetic, even for the standards of a geriatric imbecile. First you say that you won't be posting in this thread anymore, then you prove to everyone reading this that you're a bold-faced liar, in addition to everything else that has been said about you. I proved how patently stupid you are, in point by point form. You don't even realize that you've contradicted yourself repeatedly. You can't even remember your own words.
Do yourself, your family, and society a favor little man, and see someone about euthanasia.
Marc Lacrosse (2008-06-17 07:55:59)
Conditionals ?
I know that this has been discussed before...
But I still feel that possible use of conditional moves would be a nice improvement here.
Nothing mandatory : simply the possibility to tell your opponent : "If you play this move my answer is that one".
I cannot see how it could hurt in any way but I feel that it may help soften (and fasten) the play in situations like forced suites, exchanges and so on.
Your opinion ?
Marc
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-12 22:45:22)
standard categories
Its a purely cosmetic change but perhaps it would be better to adjust the rating categories to: 2200-2400, 2000-2200 etc because thats what they effectively are. Nobody with a 2400+ rating wil join the current 2200-2600 category - they would join the list for 2400-2800. It seems pointless to have the overlap.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-18 17:30:07)
Normajean
Norma is a popular girls name and is of latin origin (meaning norm or standard)has no connection with Norman.(north man) Jean is popular as a boys and girls name. (John , Joanna etc)
Normajean as a single name is completely unknown and not just uncommon or rare. It is like someone deciding to write their name as Susanmary. On the other hand in some places its quite common (more often for females) to be called by their first 2 names: eg Sue Ellen, Mary Pat Mary Jo etc Of course in many jursidictions (UK for example) a person can opt to change their legal name to virtually anything they fancy Simonpeterandrew for example.
Normajean Yates (2008-08-21 05:16:52)
O-O is output standard for pgn, but..
o-o is allowed as input. [again it depends on which version of the pgn standard we are talking about.] Also re Arena: it is just like: most C++ compilers for PCs do not implement the full C++ [or implement it wrong - Arena is a program; compilers are programs; programs have bugs aka features ;)] .
Marc Lacrosse (2008-08-21 10:41:22)
Thibault I fear you are wrong ...
From PGN standard 1994.03.12 (8.2.3.3: Basic SAN move construction):
"SAN kingside castling is indicated by the sequence "O-O"; queenside castling is
indicated by the sequence "O-O-O". Note that the upper case letter "O" is
used, not the digit zero. The use of a zero character is not only incompatible
with traditional text practices, but it can also confuse parsing algorithms
which also have to understand about move numbers and game termination markers.
Also note that the use of the letter "O" is consistent with the practice of
having all chess move symbols start with a letter; also, it follows the
convention that all non-pwn move symbols start with an upper case letter."
So only the "Ooh" letter is allowed, not the "zero" number.
Marc
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-22 20:18:54)
Round Robin qualification
"Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage."
Thibault these are the rules upon which I entered the tournament WCC 3. I have spent an enourmous amount of time sweating blood to beat Janos Helmer so that I won my stage 2 group and qualified for the Round Robin Final now this tournament has started you have 1)placed 6 persons in the tournament which breaches the rules 2) You have placed Miranda Marcus in the tournament even though she did not win stage 2 group but tied on 4 out of 6 and had a lower TER. If I had known you were going to arbitrarily change the rules like this I would have agreed a draw with Janos a long time ago and Marc Lacrosse and I could have both gone through. We have 5 winners and I request you to comply with the WCC rules for this tournament and place the 4 stage 2 winners and and 1 stage 1 group M winner in the Round Robin final. I will wait for your decision before continuing. Thanks. I would like to know other players views on this. I have no objection to the rules being amended for future WCC but I want to know what the rules are when I start a tournament.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-09-11 04:20:36)
It is ok for me....
Using a chess engine is allowed, just an option, but is not mandatory. So, Denis should be in, even if he chooses not to use brain prosthetic, I mean chess engines.
Iouri Basiliev (2008-09-30 09:36:24)
Denis Ivanchenkov
It is interesting and very exciting to know something new about yourself. I'm waiting of your explanations. But, please, take away russian TV's propaganda anti-orange rhetoric. Just your deep reasoning.
Marcus Miranda (2008-10-02 21:33:27)
time limit is part of the game
I believe that time is part of the game, if you let your time run out then that's it.
In my opinion you should not cancel your wins in these games because you think that the position would lead to a draw, just ask yourself: what would be the position if your opponent did not have used more time than permitted? When a game lost on time is adjudicated to a draw or not rated, it says that time is not that important.
Marcus Miranda (2008-11-06 20:11:27)
filter
filter
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-19 16:51:37)
1st FICGS poker standard tournament
The very first Poker Holdem round-robin tournament just started, you may observe the games here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__TOURNAMENT_D__000001
Don Groves (2008-11-20 00:15:55)
Chips?
Since no ePoints are required to enter a standard tournament, how are chips allocated?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-22 13:22:52)
Poker Holdem Championship
Hello all !
The next chess & Go championships waitings lists are now open, this is a good time to share our views for an interesting Poker Holdem world championship scheme (before to open the waiting list)...
It may look like the FICGS Go championship (one round robin tournament involving the 9 highest rated players, then a match between the winner & title holder), or it may be a multi-stages round-robin tournament (with or without a final match).. and so on. What do you think ?
The idea of a cycle looking like the Go championship is that the standard tournaments are in a way also preliminary tournaments of the championship.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-25 13:41:50)
Spreadsheet
What do you mean a spreadsheet ? I did not find a standard format for Poker games, nor Poker games "viewers".
Normajean Yates (2008-11-25 20:27:58)
Don, no it wouldnt...
Have you seen some of the 'obfuscated c contest' winning entries? Those programs are deliberately obfuscated: while in these ones the obfuscation is a side effect of the goal of keeping program size small.
Now if someone could also incorporate Q-search and forward pruning and the 'standard' extensions within 5000 characters...
On a side note: program optimisation [below algorithm level] also obfuscates code - I know: I was consulted as program optimisation specialist from 1988-1991. But *there* one *keeps* the original slow-but-structured version, only commented out. In fact, one '#define's a boolean switch in a small file; so that with a one-character change in that file one can switch between the structured code and and the fast code.
Don Groves (2008-11-26 05:11:13)
Spreadsheet
I'd like to design my own "poker viewer" using Excel (or the equivalent) by reading in a file of plays and displaying the data in a useful format.
If you could just make the plays and the cards dealt at each turn available as a downloadable file, I'll do the rest.
It doesn't matter that there is no standard file format yet. Who knows, yours could eventually become the standard!
Clearly, fame and fortune are only two steps away ;-)
Don Groves (2008-12-15 01:57:22)
A suggestion
Bonjour, Thibault
There are many players here who like to play several moves per week and there are others who sometimes play less than one move per week until forced to move faster by their clock. There are even a few who don't move at all (or rarely) until their clock is red.
Would it be too much work to make another tournament classification? The time control would be 7 days plus 7 days more for each 3 moves, up to a maximum of 7 days. In other words, each player must make a minimum of 3 moves per week.
Those players who can't, or won't, move that often can play in the standard tournaments. Those of us who like to move more often can play in the faster tournaments. Everyone is happy ;-)
Normajean Yates (2008-12-16 15:52:54)
sample game; proper starting pos...
one thing: the starting position is actually
RNBQKBNR/PPPPPPPP/8/8/8/8/pppppppp/rnbqkbnr w - - 0 1
Logically it is the same thing, but this pos makes it look like it is the standard starting position, only the board is reversed!
old Rebel-10 v Rebel-10 sample game:
1. Nc6 Nf3 2. Nb4 Ne5 3. b8=Q Na3 4. Bb7 g1=Q 5. c8=Q b1=Q 6. Qxe5 Qxb4 7. Rb8 Bb2 8. Qh5 Qb5 9. Qh4 c1=Q 10. a8=Q Qxc8 11. Qxc8 Rc1 12. Bc6 Qxc6 13. Qaxc6 Rxc6 14. Qxc6 Qc1 15. Rc8 Qxc6 16. Rxc6 Bg2 17. Re6 a1=Q 18. Nf6 Bxf6 19. Rxf6 Qxf6 20. Qxf6 f1=Q 21. Qa6 d1=Q 22. g8=Q Qf4 23. Qg3+ Qxg3 24. Qa5+ Kf1 25. Bg7 Qxd7+ 26. Kxd7 Qd3+ 27. Ke8 Bc6+ 28. Kf8 Qxg7+ 29. Kxg7 Qd4+ 30. Kg6 Rg1+ 31. Qg5 Be4+ 32. Kh5 h1=Q+ 33. Qh4 Qf3+ 34. Qg4 Qxg4+ 35. Kh6 Qd2# 0-1.
Gultekin Gumusyazici (2008-12-28 18:57:50)
Advanced chess game project
A. Primitives about common chess.
1-Although there is at least 50 more variation of chess game. They are not
evaluated as common as standard.(Since they have no software with bot players
that is strong as human at those variations, And Standart chess players have no tendency for them cause they re not up enough yet with that stupid standart chess game which is most suitable for software. Or might them be less intelligent as expected?)
2-Rules are rules even they are meaningless.
3-It reflects only bi-dimentional thinking.
4-Mostly depend on probability. (Remind
you that probabiliy is a tool applied only known data- "not unknown")
5-No one complains much. (That is Conservation, And it is against the realization of Universe and science).
6-..............
To start with responsing against me please fill your facts about chess here.
Then we can evaluate fact about chess.
To develop advanced chess rules that mostly suits human to enlight his abilities not robots.
Normajean Yates (2009-01-15 05:34:46)
engines and deep analysis...
A year ago, Thibault posted links to record of GMs v engines -- but almost all games were blitz.
raising questions:
1. At standard [2.5 hours / 40 moves] time controls, and at correspondence time controls [like here - or even 1 day/move] - humans are still better than engines. true?
If true, how long are they expected to be better?
[I mean in competitive chess, not in specifically design positions which are at present very difficult for engines]
2. which engine is best for standard and correpondence time controls (as I defined in 1)?
Tom Smith (2009-01-15 07:10:20)
wow...
normajean you are one crazy lady.
Thibault, I have chosen the wrong site I feel, would you please cancel my membership, I entered a standard 40 day tournament, would you please remove from that too as I wouldnt want to hold that up.
Thank you
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-15 12:34:27)
Engines vs. Human
Hi Normajean,
1. At standard time controls, I think Rybka 3 can beat the best GM, there is just no time enough for a human to avoid a single error. But grandmasters probably still have a better vision of the game at least in calm positions. At correspondence time controls, no one can say it but I feel a good GM could rivalize yet with the best engines. This is unlikely to change before a while IMO.
2. The best anti-human engine at any time control is probably Rybka 3, but there will be concurrence soon.
Wayne Lowrance (2009-01-16 05:22:27)
Engines & deep analysis
I agree with Thibault, in blitz or standard time controls Rybka and 2 or 3 others have no pier with human top gm's. But in correspondence time, I think the top GM's will certainly hold their own, or more
Wayne
Normajean Yates (2009-01-16 05:49:31)
thanks thib & wayne - I thought so 2...
..except at standard time controls. At standard I thought top GMs would be better even now :(
IMO, two of the reasons why correspondence is still an exception:
1. engines still understand positional aspects in a clumsy way (mainly through eval function even now I think..)[a]
2. top engines are commercial - so they have to 'show off' to compete in the market - 'showing off time' at corrspondence is too long for the software market.. so top engines are tuned towards faster play...
[a] I wish that after copyright etc. expires, commercial chess engine vendors must be legally forced to make public their algorithms.
(Ideally, I wish - no copyright, only moral right of actual authors! - but that needs a diiferent economic system than capitalism)
Normajean Yates (2009-01-20 07:19:07)
nicola [nicola lupinacci ansered it]
nicola lupinacci posted in the international chat in june last year that:
In bigchess, P=1, N=3, B=5, R=8, Q=11.
One of the points is, bigchess is a bigger board, so compared to chess, long-range pieces (B, N, Q)are much more powerful than short-range ones - specially, B is significantly more powerful than N.
I followed nicola's implicit advice, and as you can check, I've won all 6 of my games in one of the two only bigchess tournaments I am playing: FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__000025.
And I have won all 4 of my completed games in the other one.
[ FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__000030:
all games are in early stages by bigchess standards ]
my two incomplete bigchess games are keenly contested.
In one of them, opp has exchanged two Bs for my two Ns and 2-Pawns: so, that game puts Nicola's idea to test.
Waiting for the top bigchess players to comment on Sophie's and my posts...
Nicola was so good at chess and bigchess, but she stopped playing.
I have pasted her reason (her profile) below: (so why did she stop playing bigchess is what I do not understand. I mean no one has bigchess engine!)
Lupinacci, Nicola (ITA) [member # 1307]
Nicola Lupinacci
I am a chess amateur, playing only for fun! I do not have any chess engine. Good game to everyone!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-27 16:40:31)
We need more Big Chess players !
Come on, let Rybka & other chess engines work in your 8x8 games & play Big Chess with us, that's the real life, amazing chess & the only way to see such incredible moves :)
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=24656&move=85
Waiting lists > Big Chess standard tournaments !
Waiting for strong players in Big Chess standard M tourney.
Michael Aigner (2009-03-08 00:36:05)
Category name
What´s about "The almost Good, the Bad and the Ugly" as a category? - :-)
I think tournaments should be OK, maybe with less participants than in standard tournaments.
I guess we would produce a lot of good stuff for Wikichess ;-)
Robert Mueller (2009-03-21 08:28:45)
Slower Time Controls
I would like to see a World Champion Cycle with slower time controls. I like the WCH tournament, it is just too fast for me. Standard time controls (10 moves in 40 days) would be great. And yes, this means that a cycle will last several years to complete. That is not unusual in correspondence chess.
Garvin Gray (2009-03-31 10:45:47)
200 point rating bands
Apologies for repeating myself but it has been a while for this topic. I argued previously that the rating groups for the tournaments are too wide ie in the standard divisions there is a four hundred point group.
I think this needs to change to a 200 point rating gap in the standard group and have more groups offered.
I know this has been done to a minor extent in the rapid section, so for the standard section, the rating bands would need to be on the opposing one hundred point scale.
The main point I am trying to make is that rarely are the groups comprised of players from all over the 400 points bands, but instead come from players just over the rating limit ie if the lower rating limit is 2000, then most of the players are just over 2000 as they have the most to gain.
So I think there would be more players entering if more groups were offered with 200 point rating bands, instead of the current 400 point rating bands.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-19 03:46:53)
Rules
Thanks Nick ! Normajean has a point on the verbal moves. About rule 11.2 and this issue, the aim is not for me to force a decision, not even to take the good decision as I'm not sure in this case, it is only to build accurate & understandable rules so that every player know what to do without having to ask.
Normajean Yates (2009-04-19 04:41:26)
But thibault, you already have them!
Thibault, you say: About rule 11.2 and this issue, the aim is [...] only to build accurate & understandable rules.
But, on this issue, you already *have* a very easily understandable rule - tick draw offer box and make move and send it (for making draw offer). That is very accurate and easy, isn't it. So what is the problem?
And in general, for rules of games, [except in mathematics :)] it is understood that what is not mentioned is not true (if the situation is such that this is expected by common use of language). For example, about move of the knight, we say that it moves fom one end to the diagonally opposite end of a 2x3 rectangle, and can jump over pieces while doing so. Since nothing else is mentioned about knight moves, it is understood that the knight cannot move legally except in this way. [In mathematics, we would have to explicitly say: 'the knight moves in the above way AND IN NO OTHER WAY.']
Don Groves (2009-04-23 06:52:56)
Please send a move with a draw offer!
I think this is standard in correspondence chess and it is necessary on FICGS because there is no way to respond to a draw offer without also sending a move in return and this is hard to do when it's not your turn!
Normajean Yates (2009-04-24 00:33:24)
me too: I just ignore the draw offer..
It has happened three times here in *one* game: an ongoing chess game of mine here on ficgs. :)
[The first time *I* offered the draw. Opponent moved, thereby automatically declining and cancelling the draw offer. The other two times *opponent* offered the draw and I moved.]
(btw I declined the offers not out of spite but because I have a win: all lines I tried give me a win. It is a most interesting game: since the annotations will not appear on the record; I'll just say that opponent returned my early exchange-sacrifice setting a trap: I could have reached Q and 3 pawns v Q, but opponent would then draw by perpetual! The [probable] winning line has Q and 2 pawns v Q and P, but my centralised Q and promotion threats win!)
It does look to me like a mountain is being made out of less than a molehill.. (not by me - I didn't start this.)
This post was to illustrate how there is *no* problem at all[1]; and neither me nor my opponent (both were playing their first games when the game began) saw any problem at all.
this is my last post on this topic.
[1] If there is at all a problem here, it is of the same level as the 'problem' that the following rule is not mentioned in ficgs-rules:
. 'gn is not allowed in chess unless n is an integer between 1 and 8 inclusive, where 1 and 8 are to interpreted as the standard numerals standing for integers in the ordered real-closed field R, with the *canonical* ordering. (As opposed to, say, an integer in the domain Z[2+i*sqrt(5)] or an integer in some exotic Grothendieck topos).
;)
Normajean Yates (2009-05-11 02:07:31)
thoughts on Big Chess... and tips...
I find bigchess more and more fascinating.. I Think it is a wonderful creation of Thibault's (I presume it is Thib. who created it: any way he offers it seriously on this site...) - the starting position is very well-concieved..
I think Bigchess needs more publicity. This is about the only place one can play it - and here there are 2-3 top-class players; less than 20 middle-standard players (including me); others try it once or twice and for some reason get scared or overwhelmed and give up - I see no reason why..
Bigchess gives no advantage on account of huge memorisation of theory, or of better engines: there are *no* theory books; and there are no known engines in existence (probably there isnt one - too little demand, and writing a *good* engine is somewhat laborious, coming up with a *good* static-eval function is tricky, fast board-implementation issues...), so it is all wits...
In fact last week I spend part of two days writing down whatever theory I could discover [with help from top games], it comes to half a page..
Tips for people who want to try bigchess:
1. Bishops are much more powerful than Knights. (because of much longer range compared to 8x8 chess).
The consensus on the values of bigchess pieces is David Grosdemange's valuation:
pawn=1
knight=2.5 (written 2,5 in the continent, of course)
bishop=4
rook=6
queen=11
2. In the opening position, the c,f,L and o-pawns are unprotected.
So, if white's opening move is with the j2-Knight ( freeing the queen), then on move 2 white can move the Queen and threaten to pick up a pawn by forks.. Similarly for black.
*However*, such pawn gambits are quite playable because the Queen can be forced to make many moves to capture a pawn, while the gambitting side develops their pieces.
3. Most Important For Many People: board for offline analysis.
Best of course, is to take time to draw a 16x16 board on paper and stick it on cardboard. And get hold of four sets of chess pieces.
Another way: print a position, and after a move is made - just update the position using correction fluid (typewriter/printer-ink erasing fluid) or something. That way you don't have to keep printng a lot of positions.
Normajean Yates (2009-05-12 01:15:30)
bigchess thoughts+tips, #3: R v B
[re Daniel Parmet's valuation in his post] - both are longrange pieces but:
1. a Bishop can reach only 128 squares, a Rook can reach all 256. (and all the other standard reasons why the R is [in general] much more powerful than the B, they carry over to bigchess eg a R can confine the opp's K to an edge; K+R v K is standard easy mate, etc.)
2. In 8x8 chess, once you have a semi-open file, one tries to 'boost' a rook up that file (even if one cannot reach the 7th file). This is much more common, and much more commonly advantageous, in bigchess, because one easily creates a 'quasi-semi-open' file by pushing a pawn 4-5 squares ahead, and boosts a Rook up this 'quasi-semi-open' file.
Hence, I feel that just as in 8x8 chess, the Rook is nearly twice as powerful as the Bishop in bigchess.
Marc Lacrosse (2009-06-10 11:08:12)
Garvin : I do not agree
"For the rapid games, I think the issue is the 1 move per game increment.
Perhaps having the time control as 20 days plus 3 days per move would be easier for people to manage and it guarantees that a player will have at least three days per move."
This is simply turning "rapid" games into standard ones !
If you feel that the one-day increment is too short then do enroll in standard tournaments
For what regards myself I already stated that I prefer a small number of fast games over a larger number of slower ones (this is even the reason why I more than once declined to play in advanced wch tournaments that were supposed to begin simultaneousy with other competitions I am in).
Just my two cents.
Marc
Normajean Yates (2009-06-25 21:39:33)
Oh ! Thanks!
Thanks for pointing it out, Mr/Ms Russi Román!
I should have just search for benko/volga games (in the standard move-order) to check if a benko thematic has been held... Thematics #3, #58 and #59 were benko (volga) gambit thematics.
Svante Carl von Erichsen (2009-07-29 00:41:23)
Unusual doesn't mean bad
I think that this is a perfectly valid opening. There have been much stranger openings that have been played by professionals, even though they appear to be "obviously inferior to standard play" (which this opening does not, in my opinion). I'd like to hear a solid reasoning for the stament that Black's first two moves "can't be best".
Scott Nichols (2009-08-13 13:09:47)
Rapid expansion?
Hi Thib, I was wondering what you think about expanding the parameters for rapid tournament from 200 points to 400 points to make it the same as standard tournaments? This would allow for many more rapid tournaments IMHO.
Garvin Gray (2009-08-29 16:05:33)
Issue for 2150 rated players
I am starting to notice an issue with how the rating bands are set for tournaments, both standard and rapid.
Currently I am rated between 2150 and 2200, depending on the rating period. After having been in this rating band for a couple of rating periods, I am noticing it is very difficult to get rated games against players rated above 2200.
This makes it very difficult to improve my rating, or at least have it proven that my playing standard is not deserved of a higher rating, or a lower rating as the case maybe.
I know it is possible to look at my results from players rated similar to myself and try and work out conclusions from there, but to not have the opportunity to play people rated above myself does not afford me the opportunity to see how I go against them, or to record results against higher rated players that might suggest I am underrated.
I suggested awhile ago that each of the tournament bands need to be 200 points apart, with the standard and rapid tournaments operated on odds and evens 200 point rating bands. I still believe this to be the answer to a lot of the sites ills as I still see many tournaments where players just under the rating cut off not entering when the rating band is 400 points.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-30 01:24:36)
Issue for 2150 rated players
That's why WCH round-robin groups are useful to help players to find more quickly their rating... Unfortunately, it seems we go towards a 8 months cycle instead of 6 months.
So your idea is to make the rapid tournaments like the standard (class) ones with 400 points bands -am I right- ?
I'm not sure it will solve the problem but we may try, why not... Any opinion ?
Garvin Gray (2009-08-30 16:23:48)
200 point bands in both!
nooooo, i am suggesting the complete opposite. That in both standard time control and rapid that the bands be 200 points.
It is only that in the standard time control that the bands be 1700-1899, 1900-2099, 2100-2299, 2300-2499 etc and for rapid it would be 1800-1999, 2000-2199, 2200-2399, 2400-2599.
This would mean for a person with a rating of 1950 would be at the top of the ratings for one of the bands and at the bottom of the bands for the other.
Michael Sharland (2009-09-01 03:41:29)
I agree with the Garvin's suggestion
If you look at the waiting list for any of the standard tournaments, you will typically see only players rated in the bottom 100 points of the band. This means that certain ranges are missing profitable opportunities to play and move up their ratings.
By narrowing the standard tournament bands and offsetting them with the rapid tournament bands, you will likely see an increase in signups as more players will find tournaments that align with their desire for the ability to make rating progress.
I am also in this 2100-2199 rating range and feel that there is no tournament that I can sign up for that would help my rating improve. So I find myself waiting for a WCH tournament to move me up or down rather than playing a new tournament as I would like to.
Don Groves (2009-09-01 04:46:20)
Question
What is the rationale for having a 400 point range in standard tournaments and a 200 point range in rapid tournaments?
Daniel Parmet (2009-09-02 03:36:36)
Can't Join tournament?
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_standard_a
The standard Class has the rating band 2000-2400?! Expert to MASTER when its supposed to be class A? On top of that... several 1900s are in the waitinglist .... yet I as a class A player also in the 1900s can't join this because I don't have an X rating for an A tournament? I'm confused...
Don Groves (2009-09-02 05:26:53)
well...
... I guess there are two classes of A players -- standard and rapid.
Garvin Gray (2009-09-02 07:33:40)
to be clear
Apologies if my post irks anyone, but just to be clear, the standard and rapid rating cutoffs have to at the opposite 100 point bands.
So as I said previously,
It is only that in the standard time control that the bands be 1700-1899, 1900-2099, 2100-2299, 2300-2499 etc and for rapid it would be 1800-1999, 2000-2199, 2200-2399, 2400-2599.
Of course this idea also works if Thibault decides to have the standard tournaments using an even rating cutoff ie 1800-1999, 2000-2199 etc.
Scott Nichols (2009-09-16 08:58:46)
Quick Corr. Chess
With the recent narrowing of the band in standard tournaments, it occurred to me that there is even less opportunity to get games than before. For those of us (and I think it is many) who check the site many times daily waiting for the next move, there just isn't enough games to feed our tremendous appetite for chess. I propose a new catagory, Quick Corr. chess, I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but here it is. It would have it's own Quick chess rating. Bands would be, Over 2000, 1600-2000, and under 1600. Time limit-10 days per game, increment-8 hours. I truly believe there is a market for this here. Advanced chess requires that you actually be at the comp. for a length of time till game is done, so it is not an option for many. But as you can see there has been quite an increase in advanced games being played. So---if you are one of those players like me, that check for moves first thing in the morning and last thing at night, sneak your laptop into the bathroom at work to see if your opponent took the sacrifice you just offered, etc., and time after time are disappointed at not seeing any new moves, please offer your support and suggestions on this. Thank you, signed "Starving for chess". :)
Lazaro Munoz (2010-01-29 06:05:09)
Piece Values in Big Chess
I am amazed at the number of opponents that are still applying piece value from regular chess in big chess.
I made some regression analysis based on what we value in regular chess in terms of mobility and applied to big chess. Using the pawn and knight as the standard since in both games 3 pawns will probably beat a knight (if they are separated far enough). I assigned the pawn the value of 1 and and knight a value of 3 and extrapolated variables that we seem to use in valuing the other pieces such as number of squares it can reach, and penalty for being stuck on the same color.
I got the following values:
Pawn=1
Knight=3
Bishop=7 **
Rook=9
Queen=16
** The bishop value changes by pairs available, for example 4 white square bishops don't even come close to value 2 white squares and 2 black squares bishops so this is best value but it can go down to 6 or even 5 as pairs are lost.
Interesting, just like in chess a rook+bishop almost equals a queen and two rooks beat a queen. And a queen equals the value of the pawns (ok similar).
I still find opponents who exchange bishops for knights with impunity, not knowing the true values of the pieces.
I notice that nobody has ever mentioned this. I hope I did not give out some deep secret.
Of course you mileage may vary.
--laz
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-21 22:52:10)
SSDF rating list (march 2010)
The new SSDF rating list reveals at least one thing : Between an old Athlon 1200 and a modern Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, there is at least a 120 point gap. Unfortunately, Ippolit/Ivanhoe/Igorrit/Firebird are still out of the list.
SSDF RATING LIST 2010-03-21 %120316 games played by 311 computers
Rating + - Games Won Oppo
------ --- --- ----- --- ----
1 Deep Rybka 3 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3227 27 -25 1005 83% 2962
2 Naum 4 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3149 25 -23 986 74% 2963
3 Deep Shredder 12 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3124 26 -24 863 70% 2972
4 Deep Fritz 12 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3117 37 -36 373 60% 3043
5 Deep Rybka 3 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 3090 39 -38 332 58% 3033
6 Deep Fritz 11 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3081 22 -21 1142 68% 2946
7 Zappa Mexico II x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3068 27 -26 696 59% 3002
8 Naum 3.1 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3052 30 -29 572 59% 2990
9 Deep Hiarcs 12 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3039 22 -21 1087 61% 2958
10 Deep Shredder 11 x64 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3038 26 -26 726 58% 2981
11 Hiarcs 11.2 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3010 25 -25 761 54% 2984
12 Glaurung 2.2 x64 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 3007 22 -22 1001 60% 2933
13 Shredder 12 256MB A1200 MHz 3006 39 -39 320 45% 3040
14 Naum 4 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2998 29 -29 574 50% 2996
15 Deep Junior 10.1 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2975 25 -25 766 48% 2992
16 Rybka 2.3.1 Arena 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2926 22 -22 964 52% 2912
17 Fritz 11 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2915 27 -27 669 47% 2935
18 Deep Fritz 8 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2912 25 -26 753 39% 2991
19 Shredder 8 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2908 28 -29 603 39% 2984
20 Deep Shredder 11 256MB Athlon 1200 2907 30 -30 534 45% 2941
21 Hiarcs 11.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2879 23 -23 941 49% 2882
22 CM King 3.5 x64 MP 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2866 31 -32 530 33% 2990
23 Junior 10.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2864 19 -20 1271 47% 2882
24 Deep Junior 8 2GB Q6600 2,4 GHz 2859 29 -30 589 36% 2961
25 Fritz 10 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2851 34 -33 458 64% 2749
26 Zap!Chess Z. 256MB Athlon 1200 MH 2842 21 -21 1060 50% 2840
27 Fruit 2.2.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2833 19 -19 1385 62% 2750
28 Spike 1.2 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2817 26 -26 714 57% 2766
29 Chess Tiger 2007 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2775 25 -26 748 46% 2805
29 Rybka 1.0 beta 128MB K6-2 450 MHz 2775 64 -69 115 38% 2860
31 Zap!Chess 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2737 30 -29 562 53% 2713
32 Gandalf 6.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2735 24 -24 855 56% 2693
33 Pocket Fritz 3 Hiarcs Ipaq 214 624 MHz 2733 64 -58 142 66% 2617
34 Chessmaster 9000 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2720 36 -35 385 56% 2680
35 Pro Deo 1.1 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2714 24 -23 876 57% 2660
36 Pocket Shredder Ipaq 114 624 MHz 2698 83 -70 100 74% 2520
37 Deep Sjeng 1.5a 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2675 31 -31 493 52% 2663
38 CEBoard Fruit 2.3.1 XScale 400 400 MHz 2647 65 -61 129 62% 2564
39 Revelation Rybka 2.2 XScale 500 MHz 2632 47 -45 240 62% 2549
39 Ruffian 2.0.0 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2632 49 -49 205 46% 2661
41 Pocket Fritz 3 Glaurung 2.1 Ipaq 614C 2528 69 -74 100 40% 2604
42 Pocket Fritz 2 XScale 400 MHz 2508 48 -46 225 57% 2459
43 Resurrection Rybka 2.2 StrongARM 203 MH 2484 43 -43 260 51% 2477
44 Resurrection Fruit '05 StrongARM 203 MH 2395 67 -63 120 60% 2320
45 Hiarcs 9.5a/9.6 Palm TungstenE OMAP 126 2392 35 -35 400 45% 2426
46 CEBoard Crafty 2004 HP RX4240 400 MHz 2375 52 -54 180 41% 2443
47 R30 v. 2.5 2274 41 -38 343 69% 2136
48 Palm Tiger 2009 Tung C 400 MHz 2229 66 -71 110 38% 2317
49 Chess Genius 1.4 SX1 OMAP 310 120 MHz 2151 50 -48 210 60% 2081
50 Chess Tiger 14.9 Palm m515 16MB 42MHz 2103 69 -74 100 39% 2182
David Evans (2010-04-12 11:51:37)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
Hello as winner of the tour i feel apart from some internet problems the tour was a success.
It needed some more advertising to get more numbers but 30+15 was enough for me to play to a high standard.
Anyone who knows freestyle chess i play under the nick of Ultra-d a freestyle chess player who has made chessbase freestyle tour finals.
I thank u for the games and hope to see u guys in the next one.
D.evans (Ultra-d)
Garvin Gray (2010-04-21 19:06:39)
Wider rating range tournaments
That title reads like I am doing some back-tracking (for those keeping track) and in a way I am.
I have previously asked for the rating bands of the standard and rapid waiting lists to be 200 points apart as rarely does someone join from outside those rating ranges.
Since then I have noticed that I am getting 'stuck' having to play the same people (feels that way at least).
We have only a couple of tournaments a year where players from different rating ranges are paired together and even in the World Champ groups, the 2300's or so are protected from the rest of the membership.
I would like to see some RATED tournaments created which allows more play between players of different rating ranges.
I believe this would also help with rating list accuracy as it gives the potential for players to increase their rating if they perform and would also sort out the over-rated players quite quickly.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-02 15:39:35)
Speeding up Poker games
We could try to change the standard poker time control to e.g. 10 days + 12 hours per move (instead of 30 days + 1 day per move)... I'm not sure if this will be enough and if it will have bad effects, the fact is I do not find a better idea :/
All opinions are welcome...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-02 16:40:48)
Speeding up Poker games
I'm afraid that a few tournaments would not be enough as a test... 2 time controls would be a good idea but I'm not sure if the rating lists would be filled fast enough so if you think that this new one would not bring real problems, maybe we should change the time control for all poker standard tournaments... then the experience will tell what to do!?
Don Groves (2010-05-08 09:12:52)
How many games at once?
Back when FICGS was younger, I believe there was a limit of 50 games at one time.
I think this limit should be reinstated. A player may think he or she can handle 100 or more games but what about the opponents who then must wait up to a year for a game to finish?
I still feel there should be a rule that mandates a shorter maximum time between moves (no more than 7 days) but limiting the number of simultaneous games could have the same effect, that of speeding up games to a reasonable duration.
If a player cannot make at least one move per week in any game, then they don't have enough time for the number of games they are playing.
Hannes Rada (2010-05-08 20:04:09)
How many games at once?
> still feel there should be a rule
> that mandates a shorter maximum time > between moves (no more than 7 days)
I am sure such a rule would cause many players to quit playing here.
Hey this is corr chess and not Blitz !
What is a reasonable duration for cc games ?
I had some games at the ICCF server which took more then 2 years.
Patience is one of the most important skills for a (cc) player.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-10 14:42:11)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
First of all, can we change the incorrect spelling in the thread title, it is start to shit me lol
Anyways, on to the thread topic.
Ok, now I understand what you are talking about Thib. Different tournament winners decide to exercise their right to enter the next highest division at the same time.
Rule One: Winning a tournament entitles you to enter the next highest division up. This is valid for the next tournament only in the division you have qualified for.
Upper qualification can not be stored for use at any future time.
The qualification only exists in the section you qualified in ie standard or rapid. It can not be transferred to the other section.
Thib, I do not think there will be ever be a situation where 5 players try and exercise their qualification rights into the exact same tournament at the same time.
Also the two rules above should help in reducing the chances of this happening.
In cases where two or more players do attempt to enter the same 'upper' division, the first person to pay their entry fee will get entry.
The idea of first person to pay is the earlier the commitment, the more benefit the 'committer' receives.
I have not yet come up with an idea for those who try to exercise their earnt option and miss out. Should they lose their opportunity, or it retained for the next tournament that they could enter.
Could be quite a long reserve list and also by the beginning of the 2nd tournament, the player may have lost more rating points and it can be shown by their results that they probably should not be going up.
Maybe on the reserves list, it should be listed by TER and the highest TER gets first option when it comes to second tournaments.
Does this make sense?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 15:16:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Well, the discussion continued in another thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8555
Garvin's ideas may work fine, but while some players will like the benefits, some others will be deceived not to be able to take advantage of it (quite a chancy factor)...
Here is my new proposal (based on a few Epoints, not real money) :
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Please correct anything that looks unclear and let's discuss it again :) Thanks for all your help Garvin & all!
I'd like to have Wayne, Michel's & other opinions on the proposed changes, is this at least more acceptable according to you?
Garvin Gray (2010-05-11 18:25:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Michel van der Kemp - I think you need to read, or re-read all of the comments and proposals, discussions again.
The key feature of this is that a person has to win their own rating group tournament in either standard or rapid before being able to enter a higher division.
There is no case where anyone can just buy a spot into a higher division. They have to first earn the privilege. Then in simple terms they would only be using the epoints collected from their win of said division.
I really do hope you have read the previous comments over the few threads that have eventuated on this topic, as they are crucial to understand the concept.
I have spent quite a lot of time typing out proposals and thoughts on this idea, so if you have not read them and instead just come into the forum and protested at the first thing you think it wrong, then I will be rather pissed off at you and anyone else that does it.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-13 18:20:15)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Been giving a lot of thought to this post. At first I was opposed to it. I think primarily maybe I was influenced by my thinking " I climbed through the levels", so anyone can if they dedicate the effort as I did.
Now I am swayed to support Garvin Grey posting ideas.
I recognize very well that there are many players qualified to move up but find it frustrating to make headway.
It comes down to this. Chances are if they win a class tournament, they probably deserve to advance an level. If not competitive, they will not stay at that level. So anyhow I am posting as to what I believe the proposal #1 is in fact.
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
That is a paste of your thread Thibault.
If that is what you and Garvin want or close to it then I say why not ! Give it a go.
Wayne
Ilmars Cirulis (2010-06-04 23:08:46)
post music band of your country here :)
http://www.myspace.com/standart
&
http://draugiem.lv/musicartistid24925
your turn! :)
Philip Roe (2010-09-01 04:27:05)
Latest deletions of chat
If I'm right, chat messages are deleted by clicking on the triangle to the left. I have no idea whether this is some kind of standard practice, but I must admit that once (long ago) I wondered "What happens if I click on this? Oh dear, I seem to have deleted it" I feel sure that others must have done the same.
So, Thibault, you have to work around the ignorance of people like me.
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.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-01 13:30:27)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
GG- "2) All the provisional rated players are put into groups by themselves." ,
TB- You mean they play together in special groups?
We can think about it as well but one goal of the championship was to help those players to find their place quicker in the rating list before the next cycles. I'm not sure if a 2300 player provisionnaly rated 1800 is an advantage for anyone else in the group more than seed 1.
GG- It is not an advantage to have an 1800 in your group if they play to a standard of 2100. It is a severe disadvantage.
It means there is one more person in some groups that plays to a rating way above their provisional rating.
I am very concerned that you seem to be putting the needs of increasing those players ratings in the WCH above the integrity of the competition as a whole. It means you are unfairly affecting other players chances of qualifying, just for the sake of allowing new members the chance to gain a few extra rating points.
The new members still have a lot of chances to increase their rating through playing in normal tournaments, which is where the longer term members had to get their ratings from.
I am saying that those with provisional ratings should be seeded into groups by themselves in stage one.
Whoever wins these groups will clearly be about 2100/2200 playing strength and so will not be crushed in stage two anymore than those with long term 2100 ratings.
A secondary option is to seed some of these players using their advanced rating (if they have one), so at least then there does not end up being three or four 2100's trying to qualify from the same group, while having other groups with only one or two 2100's.
Scott Nichols (2010-10-02 13:14:17)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Can you tell me what the standard is for being seeded into round 2? Then I can just wait until I reach that point (if ever) to join WCH, thank you.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-05 13:36:15)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Thibault,
You have missed my original point. I am saying that having a 1800 player in your group can be a DISADVANTAGE.
In none of my postings on this topic have I mentioned anything about ratings, except to express a lot of concern that you seem more concern about using the WCH tournament to improve ratings than to try and qualify the best player from each group and to have each of the groups of as close to equal standard as possible.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-05 16:31:02)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Thibault, I am more than happy to let others give their opinions, but I really do not think you understand at all what point I am trying to make.
This is now three times that you have misunderstood what I am trying to say.
Geez I wish we could quote better in these forums. It would make discussing points much easier.
Thib: So your point is that it is a disadvantage "in the tournament", right? I do not agree with this, if the best player was actually this 1800 player, he should be able to play the championship anyway (and you have the advantage of ratings there for tiebreaks)...
GG- I am not arguing at all that the 1800's should not be able to play in the championship. Please stop mis-quoting me. I have also stated this previously. I am stating that they should be in groups in stage one all by themselves.
The disadvantage is with how the groups are paired and I finding it very difficult to not get completely pissed off with having to explain items many times for you to understand what I am trying to say.
You keep failing to respond directly to my points and I keep having to point out how you have mis-quoted my points, which does not help in the debate at all.
The groups are currently paired in the first stage with the highest rated player in Group 1, second highest rated player in Group 2, third highest rated player in Group 3 and so forth for eleven groups (in this example there are eleven groups). Then the 12th highest rated player is placed in Group 11, the thirteen highest rated player in Group 10 and back we go to the 22nd highest rated player in Group 1. The pattern keeps repeating back and forth until all players in stage one have been allocated to a Group.
Now with the 1800's being seeded in these groups with their 1800 rating is that they end up being about the 4th or 5th seed in some groups, but are not allocated to each group.
Now when some of these 1800 players start performing at a rating of 2100, it means in some groups that the top seeds have received three players of similar playing level and some other groups have not. This makes some of the groups disproportionately unfair.
If these 1800 players were somehow seeded accurately according to their playing standard, meaning they entered stage one in their proper seeding position, it would push all the rest of the players down one spot and so the Group allocations would be fairer.
Another option could also be to make it a rule that players must have a proper rating ie not provisional, before being able to play in the championship. I have tried to avoid suggesting this with my proposal to have them play in a group all by themselves.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2010-10-17 05:38:18)
Serious new Virus
Hi all, the database of my antivirus, is updated sometimes twice per week, so, everyday there are new viruses, trojans and derivatives, and many of them will propagate through emails, so, Thibault's advise standas, "do not open files that you did not ask and so on". If you are too curious, run a cdlive linux and open it from there.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-20 08:42:43)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Wow, finally a new post. :)
I am not sure if you have received an advantage by being in a group with other fully rated players.
My premise is that you should have been a group, or groups, with other provisionally rated players, so that those who have worked to get an accurate rating get to try and qualify in roughly even strength groups (in comparison to all the other qualifying groups).
As someone who has shown themselves to be of decent standard, you would have still probably qualified through that group of provisionals and most likely would not be out of your depth in stage 2.
Which again is the whole premise of my position.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-31 12:10:44)
Freestyle Fun
"new page with a different looking format", yes that's normal, if you see the crosstable (you may enlarge the window so that it appears perfectly) that's ok.
The problem with the other link is ununderstandable to me :/ looks like your browser does not manage cookies/sessions with several tabs.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-12-10 04:17:30)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?
(1) The winner of KO matches is the highest TER in the event of 4-4 from all draws
(2) The winner of KO match is the lower TER entry if games are 4-4 but with wins/loss involved.
(3) If the score is 4-4 with all draws in the KO & RR match then highest TER player wins.
(4) If the score is 4-4 with win/loss then the lower TER player wins.
MY understanding is this correct. Is it more undertandable ? to me it is
Wayne
Dmitri Mamrukov (2011-02-10 08:45:13)
playchess.com
Anybody plays Advanced Chess on playchess.com? I use the standard interface that comes with my paid membership. But in the Engine Room I can't play such chess because I'm told that I can't taskswitch (otherwise, their anti-cheating mechanism would be triggered, even though it's not human chess at all). For that, I need to buy some ChessBase product like the Fritz interface or ChessBase. Is there any way to legally play Centaur games? Anybody tried doing it on 2 computers: on one to make moves (in the standard playchess.com interface) and on the other to analyze with your favorite engine? Thanks.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-21 13:58:24)
Silver chess games, W/B balance
You're right, the main problem is obviously that we are too busy by games played at standard time controls but it is not a reason to try to improve the prize breakdown :)
Garvin Gray (2011-02-27 02:47:16)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Thib, I have explained my point of view quite a few times and when you reply you keep either accidently mis-interpreting it, or are doing it deliberately.
I suspect there might be a language issue between English as a first language and French as a first language.
My issue is with the first stage groups, to which most of the players are allocated.
In none of my previous posts have I mentioned UNDERRATED players ie those who have established ratings on here, but most likely their true playing standard is higher than their rating.
I will try and explain my position again and I now see I am not alone in having this opinion.
With 15 or so groups in the first stage and having some players provisionally rated at 1800, this means those '1800' are seeded in the different groups at player number 3 or 4.
But a few of the '1800's' turn out to be quite stronger than that rating, meaning the genuine rated 2100's in that group get another person who can play to their level, whereas in another group which did not have an '1800er', the group that did not have the provisional 1800 gets a statistical advantage by having one less stronger player to qualify for round two.
Now to the argument that putting the provisionals in groups by themselves only delays the problem.
If there are only one or two provisional groups, then this means that only one or two provisionals make it through to round two.
While this idea makes those groups of questionable standard, it is extremely likely that whoever comes out of the provi groups is going to be of decent standard.
Garvin Gray (2011-02-27 09:28:07)
Plea for classical rating help
I do not have a solution for what I am about to whinge about, but it is a situation I am getting a little tired of on this site and I see the situation as rather terminal to my participation here.
For the last 12 rating periods, I have had a rating between 2100 and 2200. In the one tournament where I got to play a field with consistent 2200's, I scored 50% or better.
What I am noticing more and more is that for me it is impossible to get opportunities to find out what my true standard is on here.
I am continually having to play people rated around myself or below and these includes those who are provisionally rated 1800 or 2100. When these games are drawn or lost, my rating is dragged down quite a bit.
I do not ever get the opportunity get those points back by playing people above 2200.
It is an issue that I am so sick of and I feel that my progress is being stunted because of it. My rating progress is certainly being stunted.
We do have the higher ticket idea, but that still takes six months to win one and that does NOT help a persons rating all that much.
With the WCH cycle as it is, I also do not have an opportunity to qualify straight through to group 2, like those with higher ratings do.
As I said, this is a bit of a whinge, but I really am sick of this issue and would like some more opportunities to try and find out what I am like against higher rated opponents.
It is part of the reason why I have also asked that the top rateds in the WCH are not segregated from the lower rated as they are atm. I think they should be made to start from stage 1.
Only the defending champion and possibly the defeated previous finalist should receive preferential treatment.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 21:02:18)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
@Garvin:
I suggest that all 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 OR that all 2100+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) play the M group at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2 and still 1 for stage 3. This combined to another new rule that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering would have a provisional rating of 2000 would solve IMO this issue (2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the wch) and would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating). The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule. Actually I think I would be very favourable to one of these changes.
@Jimmy:
Fortunately there are players like Garvin, Scott, Gino & others who really helped to build the FICGS rules :) On the numbers of players by rating range, it is quite different from a cycle to another, sometimes we have 2 M groups, sometimes there is no M group at all so I'm not sure if it would be representative. Still I'm not favourable at all to have groups of provisionally rated players.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-02 15:44:26)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Hi Garvin :)
The main point is IMO this suggestion:
"All 2100+, 2150+ or 2200+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) could play the M groups at stage 1 with the new rule that only half the players in these M groups can qualify for stage 2, while the winners will qualify for stage 3 as before.
Combined to another new rule, that would allow new members declaring to use a chess engine (not so many so far, maybe 20%) when registering to get a provisional rating of 2000, it could solve this issue.
Indeed 2000-2100 players would lose less points to those strong provisionally rated players during the regular wch groups, while they keep more chances to qualify for round 2, and it would help to somewhat inflate the ratings that would be a logical thing when seeing the whole correspondence chess standards at the other sites (some already use this 2000 prov. rating).
The ratings may even deflate due to the 10 moves rule."
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2011-04-26 03:22:43)
Active rating lists
Hi Harshil, when I joined my ranking was 1400, now it is over 2000. I only played one class d championship. If you try to play chess rapid tournaments or the ficgs world champion with players whose ranking is higher than yours, you may progress faster. About the ranking system used here, it is pretty standard, you will find it in others chess sites or clubs.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-05-15 13:08:49)
WBCCC Round 3 links and more
Here are the links for Round 3. Plus I have a quick announcement. I have talked to Garvin and I'm in the running to consider adding a 2nd tournament to the WBCCC. Probably called the WBCCC Inv. -> Invitational. This will be more of the standard style of blitz tournament. Something like 14d+1d per move, I don't want to set exact time control yet, I will probably open this discussion up after WBCCC 1 is over. What details I will give is this. What over the prize is next year will split with the other tournament plus a plaque to the winner. My hope is to have another drawing card for the WBCCC and I know this will probably bring more top players in.
Anyway here are the links for you to follow the games you wish to watch this round.
As always we will start at the top boards and work are way down. This time I will just do both of each board at the same time.
B=Board
B1- CumnorChessClub (Kevin D. Plant) vs Fulcrum2000- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21828
B1- ppipper vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin D. Plant)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21814
B2- Kamesh vs ppipper- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21829
B2- Fulcrum2000 vs Kamesh- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21815
B3- jitan vs Sebastian Boehme- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21830
B3- National12 vs jitan- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21816
B4- Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs WeirwindleX- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21817
B4- David Evans vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21831
B5- Sebastian Boehme vs David Evans- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21818
B5- Weirwindle vs Banned for Life- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21832
B6- ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs National12- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21833
B6- donkasand vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21819
B7- tomski1981 vs donkasand- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21834
B7- parmetd (Daniel Parmet) vs tomski1981- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21820
B8- Banned for Life vs Ruben Comes- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21821
B8- indrajit_sg vs parmetd (Daniel Parmet)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21835
B9- Keoki010 (George Clement) vs Indrajit- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21822
B9- Mark Eldridge vs Balabachi- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21837
B10- Wayne Lowrance vs Stephanie- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21838
B10- Balabachi vs Wayne Lowrance- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21823
B11- StephanieX vs Mark_Eldridge- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21824
B11- Omprakash vs Keoki010 (George Clement)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21839
B12- natmaku vs Scott Nichols- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21825
B12- Ruben Comes vs deka- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21840
B13- deka vs Omprakash- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21826
B13- Scott Nichols vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brien)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21841
B14- Schachmatt (Matt O'Brien) vs TheHug (Jimmy Huggins)- http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21827
B14- TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs natmaku http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21842
Before I get off, I would like to thank Thib for letting me ask his great players to play in my tournament. Best wishes to all and enjoy this next year!
Jimmy
Wayne Lowrance (2011-05-26 01:23:39)
I am exhausted
Thibault Eros & friends.
I am exhausted. At 81 years I cannot play chess to my standards. Recent events have drained me and I do not know what to do. I dearly love this site, it has been good to me, I met a lot of friends but I cannot any longer function at the level I expect of myself. Please forgive me. May I drop out of current WBCCC matches with Eros.
Thanks to all for being my friend
Wayne
Jimmy Huggins (2011-06-22 06:54:36)
The rise of freestyle chess again.
Hello to all my FICGS friends! I was wanting to post here to let people know about a live broadcast later today. Me and ICCF GM Arno Nickel will be having a match later to help promote freestyle chess. In truth this is another practice match to try and test a server for freestyle chess. He had own 1st match yesterday. And it was nice to see it being followed. I hope some of you come watch the event. Comments are welcome! :) The match will be at 6:30am Central Standard Time/7:30am Eastern Standard Time/12:30 GMT/ 11:30 Rybka Forum time. Look for a thread in the Rybka Forum/ Computer Chess subforum. The thread will be up several minutes before the match. The time control will be 60min+15sec, which is a common time control for freestyle chess.
For those of you who don't know ICCF GM Arno Nickel. He is in the top 10 in the ICCF and is one of the leading people to promote and bring freestyle chess to the fore front.
I hope to see you today and I'm sure there will be other matches to follow in the future. This will all lead up to a great tournament later on this year. :)
Garvin Gray (2011-08-24 15:33:16)
Comments anyone?
Scott, that should be the function of a private messaging service. But the pm function here is not quite up to that standard. Yet I hope.
Josef Riha (2011-09-02 13:52:33)
Houdini 2.0 is out
But it's not for free! The Standard version is avilable for €39.95 + VAT and the Pro version for €59.95 + VAT.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-10-05 19:44:45)
Official WBCCC freestyle cup 1 to begin
I'm ready to announce, that the first tournament for the freestyle cup will begin 10 days form today on Oct 15th. The first tournament will be 20m+30s. Since right now we have a large number of American players we will probably start in the early morning in the Americans. I figure this to be the best. So 5-7am Central standard time Or 6-8am Eastern Standard time. I would like to get in at least 3 rounds in on Saturday and see how everyone is. We may do one, but 3 is a safe bet. Then we will finish the tournament next Saturday at the same time. There will be some time between for a break probably 20 to 30 minutes. In the next post I will explain what you need to do to get the the free server and what to do once you get it. A lot of you have a user name and password already (WBCCC) but if you don't I will help you with that. One thing I will say is important is to make sure you leave open a chat window with me. In case you run into any problems. I can answer most problems, if not there will be someone there to help assist me. If I need it.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-13 19:52:28)
List ordered by rating
Here is, but as usual the new ratings (january 2012) will be taken in account...
Erwin Thiering 2515
Michael Bergmann 2475
Xavier Pichelin 2454
Thibault de Vassal 2449
Herbert Kruse 2436
Pavel Háse 2332
Ljubomir Tsenkov 2314
Rubén Cómes 2300
Wayne Lowrance 2266
Dariusz Fraczek 2261
Ramil Germanes 2255
Miroslav Gazi 2255
Alexander Blinchevsky 2253
Michael Sharland 2251
Sergey Kokoryukin 2251
Andrey Razumikhin 2250
Valery Nemchenko 2245
Lubos Fric 2241
Kevin D. Plant 2237
Christoph Schroeder 2236
Viktor Shishkin 2234
Slobodan Ilic 2218
Dmitri Mamrukov 2211
Vitaly Rudenko 2203
Alvin Alcala 2203
Carlos Sánchez 2203
Garvin Gray 2200
Scott Nichols 2189
Peter Unger 2181
Martin Zeman 2181
Christian Koch 2167
Stephen Hamby 2163
John Schutte 2136
David Evans 2132
Nelson Bernal Varela 2130
Darren DiAlfonso 2123
Ardiantez Polkwitzauer 2123
Thomas Dineen 2118
Peter W. Anderson 2112
Steve Lim 2110
Yu Ming Hoe 2100
Arkadiusz Wosch 2093
Djordje Kasabasic 2093
Luis Flores 2084
Daniel Parmet 2083
Lalit Kapoor 2080
Erik L. van Dijk 2074
Bernd Wolf 2072
Jose Lopez 2071
Sergey Uzdin 2064
Rodolfo d Ettorre 2064
Janos Helmer 2063
Om Prakash 2053
Mykola Simashkevitch 2043
Alexis Duenas 2037
Ireneusz Kasznia 2036
Mihail Larsky 2028
Joop Simmelink 2026
Pan Hardfeldt 2020
Henri Muller 2000
Jaroslav senior Pech 2000
Jaroslaw Gibas 2000
Bogoljub Teverovski 1997
Willy De Waele 1996
Fernando Vasquez 1992
Jose Moreira 1979
Andrew Endean 1975
Henri-Louis Muller 1972
Jose Maria Velasco 1972
Jordi Domingo 1969
Janeen Walden 1958
Andy Richard 1956
Roberto Migliorini 1949
Erika van Dijk 1943
Daniel Reboredo 1938
Coco Maceda 1938
Michael Rogers 1933
Aleksandr Aksenov 1927
Mariusz Maciej Broniek 1923
Robert Wilhelm 1901
Kieran Moore 1900
John Dyson 1889
Catalin Nita 1888
Daniel Jabot 1878
Johanes Suhardjo 1875
Mikhail Ruzin 1871
Benjamin Block 1863
Ilmar Ambos 1859
Vyacheslav Shchelykalin 1859
Jan Peter Lommler 1844
Stanislas Gounant 1840
Mircea Hrubaru 1838
Sasha Lipsits 1833
Nilson Pereira 1833
Aleksey Payzansky 1804
Jai Prakash Singh 1800
Fredi Brumec 1800
Gleen Duran 1800
Josef Strohmeier 1800
Ryszard Sternik 1776
Stepan Pech 1767
Dieter Faust 1764
Dmitriy Malish 1760
Dimitrios Ropokis 1743
Hasan Kirali 1715
Eddit Moreul 1700
Behzad Shahmiri 1700
Jaimie Wilson 1684
Dinesh Bhandarkar 1682
Philip Roe 1667
Olli Ylönen 1660
Graham Cridland 1655
Juan Alvar 1653
Jeremy Banta 1644
Luís Gonzaga Grego 1643
Pablo Siciliano 1623
Mariusz Jandula 1600
Sergey Biryukov 1598
Alejandro Canovas 1589
Jimmy Huggins 1577
Matthew O Brien 1575
Pablo Ruano 1565
Khaled Toutaoui 1528
Stanimir Denchev 1505
Leo Malagar 1500
Richard Hendricks 1479
Eric Price 1469
Antonio Pereira 1456
Angelo Piantadosi 1420
Simon Huxtable 1388
Peter Krakovsky 1326
Marc-Antoine Leurette 1243
Jorge Orden 1204
Hana Pechova 1204
Jorma Häkkinen 1192
Des Jefferis 1186
Deon Whittaker 1111
Matej Pech 1074
Jiri Mach 1022
Cédric Cavaillé 1003
Jay Melquiades 0909
Jaroslav Pech 0697
Jimmy Huggins (2011-11-28 10:38:22)
WBCCC 2 sign up and WBCCC 1 review
After an exciting WBCCC 1, Own Champion ppipper (José Sanz) wins with a finally score of 7.5 out 10. FICGS top players were in a tied for 2nd with Timothy Cookson, Sebastian Boehme, and Ruben Comes. Credit also has to go to David Evans who had ppipper as White in the last game. And went all out to beat him. In the end Jose pulled out the win with black. For those interested I highly recommend you read this article. About the champion talked about his tournament games.
http://www.chesscafe.com/chessok/chessok.htm
Now I wanted to go a head and open up the sign up for the 2nd edition of WBCCC and tell everyone about the improvements and add ons.
The first major improvement on WBCCC is that it will have a simple to use conditional move system. With our easy downloadable client we use. There is also going to be a 2nd tournament for those who prefer a little more time than own standard tournament of 30days per side. In the 2nd tournament that is going to be called Rybka Forum Grand Prix. Is going to be 30day for the first 40 moves and 30 days Sudden Death after that. So basically you get 30 more days for 40 moves on your clock. Now here is a few more things to know about the tournament. After each move, if you request it. You can have your move noticed to you by email. This is good for the busy person who doesn't check the game forums all the time. The other thing added to the tournament is that there will be a file on hand for everyone to check to see what sites everyone plays on it a head of time. This is good for guys who like to prepare for there opponent. As for other fun things offered. I finalize with chesspublishing.com that they will help for own best game per round and the winners will get there games analyzed by the top players there and will publish them on the forum. Which I can expand to here and the other forums I promote at. For some were scared of the time control, but in truth we only had 2 games time out, but this was because they left there games. Which was a disappointment, but 2 games over a whole tournament was very good! If you maybe interested, but are unsure about the time. I recommend talking to me and when can have a test game to see if you can handle it. Most know with in a week or 2 if they can do it or not. Thanks for the support of Thib and everyone that played this year and anyone that will try this next year!
Jimmy
Garvin Gray (2011-12-14 08:57:09)
5 player double round robins
I am wondering if tournaments would be easier to start if instead of needing 7 players to enter to get a tournament going, this could be reduced to 5 players and be offered as a double round robin.
This would mean that everyone would have to play 8 games instead of 6, but I think that would be ok in return for getting tournaments started more often.
This change would also mean that colours are now irrelevant, so your starting position in the field does not matter.
Entries do slow up across Christmas, as I am noticing by being the only person to enter the Standard M tournament for over a fortnight now.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-15 11:50:39)
5 player double round robins
Thanks William, I was not sure how Thib's comment was to be interpreted. Either the way you have, or that players will take longer to sign up to the next round robin because they have more games to play in the current tournament ie DRR 8 games, SRR 7 players 6 games each.
The concept that I had envisaged is that for the higher rated divisions, at least, they would all change over to 5 players. I am not sure if there is a particular issue in the lower rating divisions, but if the same issue exists there, then they could change as well.
I was not considering in my original concept that only one, either standard or rapid, would stay at 7 players and the other as 5 players.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-15 13:11:44)
5 player double round robins
Yes, William & Garvin answered to both points better than I did :)
Replacing e.g. single RR standard SM tourney only by a double RR would bring some confusion in the structure... But the idea is good anyway. Maybe we could create an entire category (standard, rapid, now standard double) for double RR with only a SM class (while closing the SM class single RR)... I'm not so favourable though. What do you think?
Garvin Gray (2011-12-15 18:10:53)
5 player double round robins
Thib, are you saying that you are considering creating a whole new third category of chess tournaments?
We currently have standard and rapid, all seven player tournaments. Are you proposing that we have a third category, which are five player double round robins?
If you are proposing a whole new third category, then I am not in favour of this idea. We are having enough issues filling the tournaments we already have, I think adding a whole new set of tournaments will just make this situation worse, where players are sprinkled around the three events, but not enough join one particular one to get any of them started.
We have enough players on this site that tournaments should be able to start. So it is not like we are completely short of players in certain categories.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-16 12:06:21)
5 player double round robins
I think it could be trialled in one of the two sections we have atm. So all divisions in either standard or rapid moves to 5 player double round robin.
Could give some useful information.
Btw, changing the SM tourneys does nothing for me at this stage, which was one part of the reason for suggesting this change. It would also have to apply to the M class tournaments too.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-21 03:20:56)
5 player double round robins
Oh btw, my standard group m tournament could have started if it was a 5 player drr ;) :P
instead of having to try and drum up two more opponents :)
Garvin Gray (2011-12-23 00:24:35)
5 player double round robins
Thib, the proposal is only talking about the general standard/rapid and other all entry tournaments (thematic for instance).
My proposal is not about changing tournaments like the ficgs world champs to 5 player drr's as they have no issues with getting players to join.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-23 17:05:47)
5 player double round robins
To try and accommodate a few concerns of some, I think there are three possible options.
1) Change both standard and rapid divisions to 5DRR.
2) Change just one of standard or rapid to 5PDRR and leave the other as 7SRR.
3) Create an entire new division with 5DRR and leave the current standard and rapid as they are.
I think option 2 would be the most useful in providing information on whether the change is successful.
Option 1 is the most committal, as it is changing everything.
Option 3 is worth consideration, but it could lead to insufficient numbers across all three divisions. It could also 'suffer' and not provide useful feedback if the time control and rating bands chosen are not suitable.
If Option 3 was considered, it would need to be something between standard and rapid, perhaps 14 days initial plus 3 days increment.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 15:59:17)
5 player double round robins
Off topic response- In my opinion if ratings are based on a decent system, then they do not need to be protected.
If someone loses a person 600 points below them and vice versa wins, they deserve the points result that those results indicate.
The issue, and I know you already know my opinion on this, is players who are put on some arbitary rating ie 1800, when their playing standard could be any number at all.
If unknown players had to earn their rating through a provisional rating system, then there would not have to be as many concerns.
Garvin Gray (2012-01-02 02:05:43)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
I do not agree at all. I think there needs to be consequences for a person's actions, not just let off with no consequences, perhaps even get an advantage.
If there are mass time-outs, their rating should be returned to where it was (that is their correct playing standard), which means they can not enter the lower waiting list.
The idea that losing on time is part of the game only applies if the game was about 100 moves long and the game was short of time and someone used too much time on one or more moves.
But mass timing out of games is not a general part of the game at all. It is poor form and disrespectful to the site and the other opponents in the tournament and should be punished as such.
If they remain on the same rating, then they should certainly not be allowed to play in the event where they previously entered.
If a player has a legitimate reason for timing out so many games, they can take it up with the site administrator. That option always exists.
Garvin Gray (2012-01-11 07:26:44)
5 player double round robins
how is this matter going in terms of changing one of the standard/rapids to 5PDRR?
No progress seems to have been made on changing it.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-12 21:04:58)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Finally, this discussion to replace the two following discussions that ended on about the same conclusion and to have opinions on this new chess tournament : CHESS STANDARD OPEN (rated double round robin for 5 players, with entry fee 30 epoints & prize 145 epoints, no elo restriction)
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10165
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10127
Don Groves (2012-01-15 12:42:40)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
The first games have begun !
Garvin Gray (2012-01-18 16:48:48)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I think 30 euro is too high an entry fee.
Garvin Gray (2012-01-18 16:52:39)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
And to add, I really am disappointed about the general direction this whole discussion has taken.
It was not my intention to create a tournament of this style when I asked for double round robin. It was my intention to get one of the standard or rapid's to change over to Double round robin, which has not occurred.
I am really starting to get the feeling that this site is starting to move away from the free part and is moving towards a paid site.
More and more tournaments are having entry fees attached to them, which is fine, but then if that is case then the free part of FICGS should be dropped.
Alexis Duenas (2012-01-18 16:54:50)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
30 euro entry fee could be hight 10 euro every one participate
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-18 17:03:41)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Well, I really don't mind if the entry fee is 10 or 30 euro... it could be even free, but would it work? As we had silver & gold games, I just tried to find something between (and it had to be of interest for strong players to play lower rated ones).
The path towards a paid site (as far as I know, much more Epoints are given than taken) will be very... very long :)
The reason for this tournament was mainly that you asked for such a tournament so that more games can start & more quickly, it is also a good experience before to make such drastic changes to modify a whole tournaments category. I'm still not sure it would be a good idea!
Scott Nichols (2012-01-18 17:37:40)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I agree to the idea to change it to 10 Euro entry fee, 30 seems a bit high.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-18 18:19:13)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
IMO strong players will have no interest in this, but well... we can try it.
Scott Nichols (2012-01-18 20:57:37)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Hmmm, I must not be as strong as I thought, :) J/k, I know what you mean. BUT, the whole idea was to get a more variety here, all the free games haven't gone away, you just added something new, which IMO was sorely needed. If you look at the stats Thib, probably last year my games here dropped off, not because I wasn't entering, but because it was hard to find a game. Plus the WBCCC had an impact, at least IMO, I don't know the stats. I still play for the home team as always will as long as you are here Thib, but I also admit, I learned a lot at that forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-20 16:11:36)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I meant 2400+ players, those who will surely lose elo points against you in this open tournament :) Epoints had to be a kind of compensation for those players (if they win btw), that was the idea. And 10 Epoints is really few for 8 standard games, meaning much efforts. Just my opinion of course...
George Clement (2012-01-20 17:12:38)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
When will we try the 10 E-point entry?
Garvin Gray (2012-01-20 17:45:57)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I do not think a few e points either way are going to make a difference to the 2400 players. What most likely matters to them is winning tournaments and titles.
So either way they were not going to enter these events.
Just to start stratching the record ;) my original idea was for these double round robins was for one of the divisions to be replaced with them, not to create a whole new division.
As it currently stands, I really do not see the point of this change as it feels like duplications of other areas of the site.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-21 15:26:16)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I partly agree with you Garvin, but if only one of them is interested in money, it will make these open tournaments quite interesting. I'm still not sure which entry fee is best but it's worth a try with 30 Epoints IMO. By the way I don't think that these tournaments will start so often due to the time control. Let's wait and see.
About changing a whole division, I'm still not so favourable to this. Actually best would be to have 4 divisions (rapid DRR, rapid SRR, standard DRR & standard SRR but we have no players enough for this) but I'm not even sure if class DRR tournaments would be a good thing.
I prefered single round-robin from the start because it was the best way to prevent cheating, it is really hard to win points even with 3 or 4 accounts.
Still thinking about it anyway. (I know, it means delayed for a few months but I don't have a better idea right now :/)
Scott Nichols (2012-01-23 17:29:37)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Another thought: With 30 E-points invested it makes you think before entering. The only reason is if it takes a while for the tournament to fill up, that 30 points could be tied up for a long time doing nothing.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-02 00:47:23)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Well, finally the most seems to want a change of the entry fee & prize. I'm not sure if it's a good idea but let's do it...
For technical reasons the entry fee & prize for the 1st tournament will change too, the 5 players just got back 20 Epoints each.
Don Groves (2012-02-02 07:36:59)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Thib: This is probably a naive question, but do you think any players here have multiple accounts and are trying to win games or ELO points that way?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-02 15:28:34)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Why naive? Actually I saw many many cheaters on other servers before to run FICGS, that's why I preferred single round-robin tournaments and I hope that is the reason why cheaters are rare here!
Anyway the answer is yes, a few players had several account and as far as I know they realized very quickly that cheating would take them more time than becoming GM :)
George Clement (2012-03-18 16:16:34)
Slow tournament entries
I think part of the problem is the slow play on the standard tours. Why not cut the increment time from 40 days to 20 days? That would greatly increase the speed of the tour.
George Clement (2012-04-18 18:35:14)
Slow tournament entries
Only 2 entries in over a month in current standard M. Their are quite a few tours that have only 1 or 2 games to go that are right at the 1 year mark and mostly the same players holding up the finish.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-18 18:40:04)
Slow tournament entries
I think the standard time control is wayyy too long and unnecessary. 10 moves in 20 days would seem more appropriate.
Don Groves (2012-04-19 01:38:09)
Slow tournament entries
@ Michael: You got that right! Not only losing interest but also losing track of what your plan was after weeks of waiting for your opponent to move.
I agree with Garvin that our standard time controls are too long. Another problem is that some players have so many games running simultaneously that they can't keep up. I've noticed two different kinds of these players:
(1) Some players will ignore their new games until they've finished older ones. Thus they don't move at all in new games until they are forced to by the clock.
(2) Others will ignore their older games to play the new ones (openings are fun) and return to the older games only when their clock demands it.
In either case, this kind of behavior is what leads to games lasting 6 months to a year in some cases.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-19 15:16:13)
Slow tournament entries
We must no forget IMHO that playing correspondence chess here has absolutely nothing to do with playing chess at Gameknot...
Playing with one's real name is really not the same as playing with a casual name, the involvement is different. The rapid time control is really hard enough IMHO when analyzing 10+ games seriously. Time controls at ICCF are longer than our standard's one as far as I remember. Times have changed though, engines as well but not everyone can play 1 move in each game a day.
FICGS will never compete with Gameknot in the number of players or games played, but the quality of chess games may be higher in average.
Let's not try to fix a problem too quickly by creating another one. The main problem right now is that no games enough are starting each month, I'm working on!
If once this problem is fixed you still think that standard time control is too long then we can debate it and envisage a change of the time control or to create a new tournaments category.
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-20 05:19:16)
Slow tournament entries
In my almost two years of playing here in FICGS, I have observed one major factor why tournament entries are going down.
For me, it's because of the large difference of the rating brackets in a certain tournament class.
For example, in a standard class M tourney (2200-2400), if I have a rating of 2300-2399, I will not play because possibly almost all of my opponents there will be around 2200+ and the thing is it's very hard to win against these players now and I may lose rating points even if I draw with them.
But by decreasing the difference in the rating brackets, let's say 2300-2400 or even 2300-2350 for example of a certain tournament class, will encourage me to play in these tournaments because the possibility of losing rating points by drawing is minimal.
With these new bracketing, it will also give us an easier way to climb the rating ladder thus encouraging us to play more games!
Garvin Gray (2012-04-20 15:28:37)
Slow tournament entries
Ramil:
When I first came across this site, the rating bands used to be 400 points, and then after a lot of negotiation, debates and cross topics, it was changed to 200, with the even numbers (2400, 2200, 2000) in the standard category, and (2300, 2100, 19000 in the rapid category.
While I understand your point that perhaps these should be changed to 100 point bands as this is what I think the market is trying to say, I think it is an issue of total number of players.
If we had many more players, then each category would fill quicker. Your point is certainly worth discussing and I would not be upset to see it work in practice, but we have had quite a few changes, and another change might just be a bit much for Thibault to consider at this stage.
I could be wrong though ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-22 19:41:26)
LSS move rule
I agree that such a rule would speed up many games, but it would be quite hard for many players & we may lose a a few ones, by accident or not... IMO rapid time control is fast enough (our 60 days rule does not really apply there) while standard time control suits for the others, the only problem is to have players enough to change the rating bands.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-25 09:16:51)
Ficgs World Cup
Ahh now I think I understand some of the previous comments.
What you guys are talking about is a rating floor, not a rating band. With a rating floor of say 1999. So all players must be rated above 1999 to participate.
Not a big fan of a rating floor for this as it goes against the original objective, which is to provide more opportunities for players of different ratings to compete against each other. This does not only apply to 2000's v 2200's, but also applies further down the rating list as well.
The effect is not as pronounced, but still applies for the original objective.
I am in favour of an activity requirement. The standard in otb chess is that a player must have played nine rated games to get a rating, so the minimum activity could be ten completed games.
I am not as strong on the idea of an activity requirement as I am on no rating bands (which is very different to rating floor).
Garvin Gray (2012-04-27 04:16:52)
Ficgs World Cup
Please, no replacements. If people can not organise themselves to add themselves to the entry list before the close of entries, they do not deserve to enter.
I think it is fairer to have one or two players not participate in a group than it is to add players after the event has started.
Please do not use replacements. This concept is meant to be the opposite in almost every way to WCH, and the main idea is to keep it as simple as possible.
Having replacements add a complication that is not required. It will also distort the balance on ratings of each group where forfeited players occur.
How do you ensure that each group where a forfeited player occurs and get a replacement? Otherwise you have filled some groups and not others.
See the hornets nest that is created by using replacements. Please do not use replacements, just let the normal standard tournament factors decide the final placings and people in the final stage.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-29 15:18:06)
Slow tournament entries
The concept of reducing the groups down to 5 players to get tournaments moving was discussed in detail a few months ago and gave birth to the standard open division.
So that item has been done to death. FWIW, I am in favour of changing the main list groups to 5 DRR's, but Thib is not, so it is what it is.
The idea of starting games asap and letting the group fill as it goes has also been discussed previously (like almost all ideas).
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-30 20:32:31)
Slow tournament entries
I really have no idea if something can be improved there. One thing is sure, the average time for a game is not the same according to the rating... I guess that it would be not reasonable to set a rule for each category so...
About the standard time control, if a player has 74 days on his clock and is to add 40 more days, he'll never have more than 100 days anyway.
Maybe this limit can be changed but once more players are free to choose the rapid time control and as for me I really appreciate not to feel too much time pressure in my games and I know that many share this view.
Let's not forget that the FICGS Chess WCH is (as far as I remember) much faster than e.g. IECG or ICCF Championships...
Garvin Gray (2012-06-08 11:07:00)
Second match v Rybka Forum
Following on from my post above, we will now be going with the format originally posted, which is:
1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) Xfccplay will be used for the games played at RF
5) Conditional move system will be used for the games played at RF. Games played here will be using the standard interface.
Both sides are going to have to make compromises. Ficgs players who are not already familiar with xfccplay are going to need to learn how to use it and will also need to join RF.
RF players, who are not members of here already, will need to sign up to here and learn how to use this interface.
I can not give a definite sign up by this date yet as some of the nuts and bolts are still being worked out.
Can everyone start saying if they are going to play? I hope this will be more than just the players who already play in WBCCC as I do hope it is the best players from both sites participating as well.
Dmitri Mamrukov (2012-08-21 06:13:22)
This is Russia :(
Vadim, you say the authorities reacted in a very awkward way? What would be a proper way to handle similar offenses? If you want to protest, get a permit and do so in a peaceful way like it's done in the West. Why double standards?
Garvin Gray (2012-08-25 20:44:17)
money prize tournaments
Hello Michael,
This concept has now evolved into the standard open tournament and has been running for a few months.
Garvin Gray (2012-08-26 14:40:22)
money prize tournaments
Would be? This tournament is already offered. It is called STANDARD OPEN!!!!!
Alexander Blinchevsky (2012-12-03 06:55:41)
Problem with new groups for the chess WC
Wayne wrote: "I do not think it is fair to insert Alexander with those too strong players."
Actually I like to play people stronger than me, so the suggested 3-man group will be very exciting for me.
Any decision will be understandable :)
Dinesh Bhandarkar (2013-01-10 05:47:43)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Iam interested
Neel Basant (2013-01-10 14:40:30)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Confirmed( Interested) Players according to replies.
1.Daniel Parmet
2.Alvin Alcala
3.Bogoljub Teverovski
4.Nick Burrows
5.Wayne Lowrance
6.Neel Basant
7.Ostap Hladky
8.Niklas Hallqvist
9.Arkadiusz Wosch
10.Daniel Blike
11.Josef Zmolil
12.Jiri Mach
13.Jose Moreira
14.Om Prakash
15.John Worthington
16.Garvin Gray
17.Arnab Sengupta
18.Ray Downs
19.Valery Nemchenko
20.Dinesh Bhandarkar
21.Shih-Chu Liao
22.Frits Bleker
23.Thomas Hasyn
24.Sergey Demchenko
25.Maxim Genchev
26.Mathaios Vardoulakis
27.Claudio Cabrera
28.Kieran Moore
29.
30.
Wow..
What a response!!!!!
sure Within 2/3 days will be more than 100 players.
Thib will have a headache while selecting 30 players..
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 18:11:49)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I volunteer to be team captain. But we now have 31 players wanting to play. Also I would point out that we will probably get slaughtered on the lower boards as things stand right now. I saw at least one person wanting an ICCF team average of 2300. I would point out that I think a 2000 player here is 2300 over there but as things stand our FICGS rating average is 1964 based on the top 30 players ratings. For the 9 players that do have ICCF ratings our rating average is 2235.
Here is what information I could collect on our team so far:
Name FICGS Rating ICCF ID ICCF Rating TITLE Comment
1 Ostap Hladky 2527 941012 FIM
2 Valery Nemchenko 2521 940836 2465
3 Frits Bleker 2313 220159 2395
4 Garvin Gray 2281 30503 1993
5 Alvin Alcala 2237 896046
6 Wayne Lowrance 2194 FIM
7 Maxim Genchev 2187 940752 2309 Wants ICCF average of 2300
8 Arkadiusz Wosch 2169 89923 2307
9 Neel Basant 2138 280279
10 Daniel Parmet 2098 514938 2300
11 Om Prakash 2091 280243
12 Bogoljub Teverovski 2083 862003
13 Niklas Hallqvist 2082 451419
14 Kieran Moore 2042 260252
15 William Fuller 2033 514688 2350
16 Dmitry Tsimbalenko 1959 142268
17 Sergey Demchenko 1955 142224 2077
18 Nick Burrows 1944 212164
19 Rich Pinkall Pollei 1900 515095
20 Daniel Blike 1874 515250
21 Jose Moreira 1831 Are you the IM Jose Moreira id#399007, Rating 2390?
22 Thomas Hasyn 1808 865001 1922
23 Mathaios Vardoulakis 1800
24 Dinesh Bhandarkar 1707
25 Shih-Chu Liao 1660
26 Josef Zmolil 1632
27 Ray Downs 1536
28 John Worthington 1510 515287
29 Claudio Cabrera 1462
30 Arnab Sengupta 1340 280192
31 Jiri Mach 1010
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-16 18:10:33)
FICGS admin scam me
Of course I meant players who understood what this site is....
If someone registers while thinking this site is a TV shop website, he may claim that there are no TVs enough to buy on here and say the admin that he should ask all players if they want TVs available to buy but well.... wouldn't it be quite ridiculous?
Players who are not aware that the use of chess engines is encouraged are very rare... The message "As a reminder, the use of chess engines (Rybka, Fritz, Shredder...) is allowed and encouraged in standard chess tournaments." is visible when anyone enters any rated chess tournament.
Is it really necessary to have this message blinking in big size on all pages?
Garvin Gray (2013-01-25 12:30:04)
Show opponents time
@Don: I did not say it was the first time.
@Thib: The last time a user generated forum idea was modifying the groups, which lead to the idea of the highly successful standard open format :o lol
Attila Ba (2013-05-15 01:14:55)
PGN notation for forfeit, loss on time
I dont know if this is the standard way to do it, but at MyChess curly bracket comments are used for this purpose. Like this:
39.Rxg5 a2 40.Ra5 Rc1+ {resigned} 0-1
13.Rxe4 Rxe4 14.Nxd6 {time} 1-0
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
Michael Aigner (2013-05-16 21:57:51)
PGN notation for draw offers
Hi everybody!
As it is nowadays mandatory to document draw offers in the notation of otb games I would find it a good idea (and an interesting piece of information during a later study of the games )to do so in our correspondence games too.
What do you think about it?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-07 01:01:26)
Playing activity top 20 players
Hi Daniel,
There are other ways to play 2200 players and gain rating points: class M tournaments (if you win a class A + ticket, or if you are rated 2150+ with a ticket as well), rapid M (2100-2300) tournaments, also the standard open tournament.
Building its rating is not all about the championship.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-09 01:46:15)
Playing activity top 20 players
I guess there are more strong players at ICCF to build rapid tournaments with more rating ranges, sorry for not being able to do that here :/
Finally, many players got a 2400 rating while starting at 1800 or even less... so maybe than playing a few games at standard time control would have brought you faster results than playing 200 games at rapid time control.
Sorry about that in all cases.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-10 22:25:14)
Playing activity top 20 players
If I remember well, that was a request to help players to reach the next rating band (200 points is a lot when most players who enter waiting lists are near the low limit).
Anyway, now I cannot find any argument to have the same rating ranges for rapid and standard tournaments (maybe "coherence" only).
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-15 23:42:26)
Playing activity top 20 players
I repeat here that I never had the intention to do "better" than ICCF or whatever... When I played at IECG before FICGS, I thought that some things could be different and fit more to a certain number of players (starting by me), so I did it.
I see absolutely no interest to make another IECG or ICCF with less players or so. Consequently, it is fully understandable that ICCF is much better for many players. That's cool! :)
I know that Daniel has a great experience in many chess fields and I always read his posts carefully (whatever my opinion), all opinions and posts in this forum always helped much and I thank you all for this...
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-21 19:48:27)
Playing activity top 20 players
@ Alvin: you mean Iccf events?! what are Fide rapid events if not games played in less than 1 day?
@ Robert: for 1v1 we have rapid silver tournaments, but there is a stake of 10 epoints (or it would be unrated for obvious reasons).
@ Scott: 10 days + 1 day/move does not seem very different from 30 days + 1 day/move, I doubt it can bring more players. Standard time control remain even more popular here. On large cash prizes, I agree for sure :) ...
Garvin Gray (2013-08-31 19:08:25)
New my games feature requested
Thanks Alvin. After my post I also realised this addition is especially useful as quite a few of us having multiple games against the same opponent, so it makes it much easier to work out which tournament it comes from.
For instance I have events from Round Robin Final to standard open. Would be beneficial to know at a glance which one is which :)
Dmitri Mamrukov (2013-10-22 21:50:12)
Kievan Rus
Interesting. But we don't have reliable history beyond 300 years ago as it was largely falsified (as evident today with very recent events). One example is the mythical Mongol-Tatar Yoke, which apparently never happened (despite the propaganda even in Russia). Even the Ancient Egypt is a wide-spread and persistent hoax...
But something like what you described above did exist. It was rather named the Grand Tartaria.
http://www.grandtartaria.com/velikaya-tartariya.php
Thibault de Vassal (2013-11-13 23:31:38)
About the players
Well, you can play bullet/lightning games with connected players but you may use the waiting lists (standard tournaments) to play correspondence games.
The Help section may help as well.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-22 09:17:43)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
I thought I would bring this topic up to let everyone know.
After a few years here, I have decided that it is almost certain that I will no longer be entering standard time control events on this site until the time control changes.
I find that most players in that time control just waste the time provided and are able to play faster, but choose to run their time down, and then make 8 moves in 10 days, then wait another 30 days before making another 8 moves in 10 days, or similar behaviour.
Sorry Thibault, but I have better things to do in my life than have my life wasted like this.
If you want me to return to standard time control events, change the time control.
This means I will only be playing in rapid time control events, which is a much better time control.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-12-23 20:59:07)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Well, as for me I still like very much this time control... It enables me not to accumulate too much stress (mainly because of periods -added to vacation- when I cannot play chess enough) while accumulating a few tournaments.
But I understand for sure your feeling! People do not play at the same rhythm, that's all and that's why we have rapid tournaments (that seem to be about as popular as standard tourneys).
Alvin Alcala (2013-12-24 01:11:27)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Agree Thib, less pressure you have with the standard events while in the rapid I most of the time feel the pressure of the fast time control. Its a matter of taste actually.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-24 07:24:52)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
The issue is not with the amount of time taken when players use a few days per each move, say 3 days on one move, 4 days on the next, 2 days on another and so forth, throughout the 10 moves for 40 days and so arrive at the end of the 10 moves with about 5 days to spare (playing it safe). That is how the time control is 'meant' to work.
No, my issue is with players who completely waste my time with behaviour that shows that they are able to move faster and can do so, but believe that is ok not to do so.
Most of us know exactly who they are and would have no problem naming them. If I had the option not to play them again, I would be comfortable doing so.
This is how they 'game' the time control. At the start of the game, they will make their first few moves in the first few days, leaving 35 or so days for 5 moves, then you will not see them for another 30 days, then they come back and make another 5 moves in 5 days (making the time control).
Then you do not see them again for another 30 days, except for maybe one or two moves, then they make 10 moves in less than 10 days (making the time control again).
And they keep repeating this behaviour for the whole game. Time period after time period.
In my period, this wastes 30 days per cycle of my life and I do hold Thibault partly responsible for it. He designs a time control that allows it to happen.
At least with the rapid time control, players who do this eventually end up having to make one move per day for the rest of the game, so they run the risk of running out of time. They show poor time management and get punished for it.
There is a simple way to stop this behaviour, change the time control.
Josef Riha (2013-12-24 09:38:06)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Hello Garvin, in unrated tournaments the same problem exists.
But another one is this: After a few moves they wait until timeout or resign also in a winning position. I found this very unrespectful and boring.
I can name this persons too.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-24 11:01:28)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Josef: I would prefer not to talk much about unrated events. In terms of priorities for players, unrated events will always be last. So they will be shuffled to the end.
So time priorities for unrated games can always be excused as they are given the least amount of time after, in rough order of importance:
WCH games
Divisions where you have a chance of a norm
Divisions where you have a chance of winning, so win a prize
Division where you can gain points.
Games where you are doing well, which is a vague criteria.
And then everything after that.
As a key supporter and one of the original creator of the standard open events, I would like to see those change to rapid time control from now on. Most of the players in those divisions rarely would need all the time that is offered.
It would also mean more cycles could move quicker.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-28 02:42:08)
Ficgs World Championship 13
Been asked in the results thread, thought I would bring it across to here.
When is it going to start?
I have a secondary comment and suggestion that relates to starting time. Number 12 and the groups from 10 and 11 all started at the same time. That loaded a lot of games at the same time, which I certainly found to be a huge impost and impacted on the standard of play.
I went in one day from only having a few games, to having 10 Round Robin Final games, a second stage final plus a first stage M division all started at the same time.
All these games were started at exactly the same time. Not even a week apart from each other.
I really do wish for this upcoming cycle that the divisions do not start at the same time.
For instances, there is no reason why entries for number 13 could not be open now with the idea of starting February 1.
Then all the second stages/knockouts from previous groups could start in March, which has been commented on by Thib in the chat bar.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-29 23:37:42)
Ficgs World Championship 13
Just because it is clear, does not mean it is best. As you quite often have said. This event is meant to be about finding the best player, hence quite a few of the rules which I do not agree with, but that is your justification.
So if that is the justification, then starting so many games at the same time can not help the standard of play and then hence can not help in getting through as many of the best players as possible.
Costantino Proietti (2013-12-30 21:35:15)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Garvin, I totally agree with you. The answer is: Change the time control. In rapid tournaments too.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-31 15:46:09)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Coasantino: As I commented earlier, the rapids are not too bad. At least a player will eventually end up with 1 day per move only and so may time out. But then we get into the situation of them 'gaming' their vacation and the discussions once again around that.
It is solely to do with the standard time control.
I think the standard time control should be:
20 moves in 40 days, followed by 10 moves in 40 days, followed by 10 moves in 40 days and then 15 days plus 1 day per move from move 41.
Costantino Proietti (2014-01-04 10:20:47)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
I quote again.
Garvin Gray (2014-01-04 10:34:26)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
What do you quote again? Or do you quoth the raven?
Costantino Proietti (2014-01-04 13:35:44)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
I agree with your time control proposal.
It seems a proper suggestion to prevent wasting time.
Don Groves (2014-01-24 03:51:05)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
IMHO, the answer to this problem is to not allow any player to enter a new tournament if that player still has more than X ongoing tournaments. The determination of X remains to be resolved. It needs to be low enough to eliminate players from entering a new tournament and then not making any moves until their clock runs low. This is completely unfair to the other players!
Garvin Gray (2014-01-24 06:26:31)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Don: From my experience I am not sure the issue discussed in this thread really comes from game overload, as in having committed to too many games.
In fact on this site it would be difficult to commit to too many games :o.
Of course if a person has committed themselves to too many games across a number of sites, nothing can be done about that on here with a number cap.
So for this site alone, a game cap I don't think is required. The issue is the time control.
A curiosity- in one of the games to which I am complaining about, where I believe my opponent is 'gaming' the time control, the opponent has just past the time control, but now in a curiosity of the time control, it shows that I have 57 days for 10 moves and my opponent 43 days for 10 moves.
So in spite of having taken about a less 80 less days during the whole game, for this time I receive no credit for this due to the 59 day limit.
Seems like there really is no benefit to getting on with your games on here and the site administrator wants to endorse this behaviour. Certainty does not want to put anything in place to stop it.
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2014-01-24 15:33:08)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Garvin the time control here is even faster than in ICCF (50 days for 10 moves) so the problem is not the t/c but the players abusing it, as you have stated. Why you want to penalize those who find satisfactory the system for the culprit of some rotten fruits?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-01-24 19:43:42)
Is this OUR Dinesh?
You mean Dinesh Bhandarkar ?!
Garvin Gray (2014-02-03 02:10:36)
Standard time control abusers
Suffering again with two players abusing the time control.
Sick of this site with an administrator who will not doing anything about it when he has the ability to do so.
I believe it is time to start naming and shaming these people and will start to do so in the next post after replies from others. I really do not care anymore, it is time this issue is exposed for the disgrace it is. Perhaps by exposing them, they will be gotten rid of. They hide under the cover of anonymity.
I am strongly considering resigning both games, telling Thibault what he can do with his site and leaving. I have had a F****** gutful of these actions and having months of my life wasted.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-04 15:37:11)
Standard time control abusers
Time controls are the only rules... and rules are dedicated to be abused, early or lately. That's the same in life, unfortunately, noone can hope to stop it.
But we can discuss examples (without mentioning names, that's not useful IMO) to try to improve it - while avoiding to complicate it too much.
Garvin Gray (2014-02-08 11:05:53)
Standard time control abusers
Thib, I have not replied to this because this item has been discussed before and I feel that you are not serious in stopping this issue.
There have been discussions in changing the time control, or changing the vacation rules, and other such discussions, and on each and every occasion you have said that there will be no change.
I have been left with the conclusion that you are on the side of the time control abusers and endorse their behaviour and that it is acceptable to have other players lives wasted for 30 days each 40 day period.
I have presented proposal after proposal to stamp out this scourge and you will not do anything about it.
You have the ability to do so and can act immediately.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-08 16:11:32)
Standard time control abusers
Changing the time control will not avoid the ways to abuse it... And we can always complexify rules (e.g. vacation) but it will always be possible to use it to gain time on difficult moves. All this reminds me the way we are governed in France, with the well known no-results...
Finally, I must say that you often had very good ideas for this site (even if many cannot be used yet because we have no players enough) but I think that your view on time controls is really subjective, probably most of us are really ok with the current rules and we can observe alternatives (iccf, wbccc, other sites).
George Clement (2014-02-10 20:26:55)
Standard time control abusers
Thib, I for one agree with Garvin. Currently I believe the reason that no new m or sm tours have started in months is because of the time control abuse. There is no way it should take a modern computer and analyst 30 days to come up with 10 moves. They wait 30 days play 10 fast moves and are gone for 30 days again. It's one of the main reason play on this site is going down. n'est ce pas?
George Clement (2014-02-10 20:37:01)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
I agree with Garvin that this would be a great standard time control.
"
20 moves in 40 days, followed by 10 moves in 40 days, followed by 10 moves in 40 days and then 15 days plus 1 day per move from move 41. "
Why don't we try it? Thib what say you?
Garvin Gray (2014-02-11 11:42:25)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
I would go as far as to say that it is time to abandon the standard time control divisions completely.
Josef Riha (2014-02-12 09:09:44)
Standard time control abusers
For completely different time controls look at chesshere.com!
Garvin Gray (2014-02-12 14:57:59)
Standard time control abusers
I found it difficult on that site to find the time controls for correspondence chess. Also I noticed that the rules forbid engine use. Which does compromise comparisons to this site.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-13 13:30:26)
Standard time control abusers
George, the main reason why no tournaments enough can start is that the number of new players slowly decreases for a while... I tried several things to solve this problem and it didn't work, now I'm trying other things but believe me, I'm doing my possible. The thing is that it takes time (particularly for Google) :/
Garvin Gray (2014-02-15 08:59:20)
Standard time control abusers
Ok, I have long had enough of this and since Thib believes that everything is a ok, it is time to start naming the abusers and their actions.
Perhaps that will force Thib to start taking action against these people, because I, for at least one player, have had a bloody gutful of this player wasting my life.
The player concerned is: Mariusz Maciej Broniek and the game in question is: https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=71232
He has repeatedly made all his moves in the last 5 days of the time control, then let his time run down to the 5 days and then made another 10 moves and rinse-repeat and will do it again.
Mariusz is clearly able to move faster, but is deciding to 'game' the time control in an attempt to either annoy the S*** out of me, or hope that I will resign.
The significance of this game is that whoever wins, wins the tourney and all the e points, totalling 48 e points. I am +10 ahead and it is time Thibault stepped in and put a stop to this behaviour.
Either Thibault applies the 'bringing the game into disrepute rule' against players like this, by firstly giving a warning and then declaring the game lost, or Thibault makes it clear he stands on the side of those who seek to abuse and 'game' the time control and does not give a stuff about the lives of the members who they continue to stuff over.
Scott Nichols (2014-02-15 15:42:10)
Standard time control abusers
I share your sentiments Garvin. I have, and still am playing many of these guys. It seems that they want to win points by extending the game as long as possible and hope to win by the other player either quits, gives gup chess, or dies. Another problem is players who reach a dead lost position, even one move before mate and then just quit moving altogether.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-15 23:44:49)
Standard time control abusers
Garvin, I know why Mariusz can play this way in general (like a few other ones) and this 'may have' nothing to do with any kind of abuse. Anyway this game seems really close to finish and everyone has the right to play games until the end. One could have chosen rules that say "every game with Rybka +/-5.0 is won" or even more complex rules involving evaluation and clocks, but this is not the case here (fortunately, anyway any rule can be abused). One can't know everyone's personal life.
Garvin Gray (2014-02-25 11:36:55)
Standard time control abusers
Broniek is now down to seven days in my game against him and has 9 moves to make. I have no doubt that he will make the time control, then will sit on the game for another 35 days.
Thanks Thibault for wasting my life like this.
You have a choice, you can either be on the side of the abusers or the victims. It is clear which side you are choosing. At the clear cost of the site.
I know why most people are not commenting and this because they are scared to offend you, even though they hate behaviour like this. Instead they just do not participate in the events.
I have noticed that no one is promoting ficgs anymore. Perhaps it is because the members have grown tired of seeing a site admin allowing members to act in manners like this and not being held to account for it.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-26 15:17:40)
Standard time control abusers
Garvin, please tell me what do other sites like ICCF or any other in such cases?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-26 15:19:34)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Just a matter of taste... As for me, I really enjoy it. Rapid tournaments are probably a good compromise, no need to make standard tournaments look like it too much.
George Clement (2014-02-26 18:22:36)
Standard time control abusers
Of the top 25 active users on this site only 7 have active games running!
Peter W. Anderson (2014-02-27 16:00:46)
Standard time control abusers
But I guess that will change a lot on March 1st when next WCh cycle starts.
George Clement (2014-02-27 20:11:20)
Standard time control abusers
Doesn't help if you want to play in a rated tournament!
Peter W. Anderson (2014-02-28 08:36:07)
Standard time control abusers
True!
There are advantages to how the FICGS world champs are organised, but one disadvantage is that you can end up playing lots of Wch games and not really have time for normal tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-28 16:36:56)
Standard time control abusers
This statistic/percentage will increase with time, most probably (quite logical)... It is probably quite the same at ICCF.
Wch is always a problem with standard tournaments, that's one reason why I was not favourable (so far) to add another cycle (cup). But I think there will be more players registering soon, things are evolving in the right way with Google.
Garvin Gray (2014-02-28 17:15:22)
Standard time control abusers
ICCF code of conduct 2: Extremely slow play in a clearly lost position is not proper behaviour in CC play, and is subject to a warning from the TD, and will result in disciplinary action if it continuous or is repeated in other games
Playing Rules- Server
3) Failure to Reply- a. The ICCF Webserver system will automatically generate an Email reminder when a player has not
made a move for 14 days and another, after 28 generated after 35 days of silence by a player.
b. When a player is sent a final reminder after 35 days of response time, he/she must either move or report to the Tournament Director and to his/her opponent, the intention to continue the game, within 5 days of that
reminder. If a player does not move or otherwise report his/her intention to continue, during the 40 days of response
time for the same move, the game may be scored as lost by the Tournament Director.
My own words- The number of days set above are based on 10 moves in 50 days, so for our site we would use a much shorter time period.
I can not answer what happens in practice on iccf as I do not play there.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-28 23:58:27)
Standard time control abusers
We also have here a rule for clearly lost positions but in all cases this is subjective, we should compare many judged positions. As for the Server rule, it is just similar to the 60 days move rule... Finally what ICCF TDs can do if a player makes one move every 25 days in a not "clearly lost" position until approching the time limit? Changing rules will not change anything IMO, there is no way to prevent someone to turn around clear rules to last a game.
Garvin Gray (2014-03-01 03:29:31)
Standard time control abusers
And once again your response is to sit on your hands and do nothing. That is your clear response all the time to this major issue.
You ask for solutions, some of us attempt to offer solutions, you reject them. You ask for other sites rules, we offer them, you reject them saying they won't work. It is clear that you have no intention of doing anything about this and that you really believe that allowing my life to be wasted is acceptable, well I don't and I am sure the others who are trapped in this same situation do not.
I really do not understand how you can think it is acceptable to allow your members to have their lives wasted by players who are clearly just acting out of spite?
Your actions are really against the best interests of this site. I know as the site administrator that is a big call, but I really do feel it is the right call to make.
When you side with the abusers and not the victims, that is what happens.
Garvin Gray (2014-03-01 03:30:21)
Standard time control abusers
You do have a simple solution, btw. Get rid of the standard time control events and just concentrate from now on with rapid time control.
At least events will get started.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-01 23:51:05)
Standard time control abusers
Here is a proposal... I'll post a new topic asking who is favourable to close the class A, class M & class SM tournaments, promoting regularly this new topic in the chat bar.
Then let's wait 7 days exactly. If there are more players wanting to close (temporarily, at least) these waiting lists, then it will be done.
Does it sound acceptable to you?
Garvin Gray (2014-03-02 04:03:47)
Standard time control abusers
I see the idea of a vote as ridiculous and a waste of time. What it could lead to is people voting to keep the class A, M and SM tournaments open because they do not want to deprive the opportunity of someone to play in them, but the status quo remains that no one is joining them.
And what happens if you only get a couple of responses, which is exactly what could happen because of general site apathy?
If you want knowledge of how people feel about these matters, but do not want to publicly speak about the matter because they are afraid to offend the site administrator because they are afraid.
I have given you the absolute 'rounds of the kitchen' repeatedly and often on this issue and have not let up over a number of weeks.
It is natural on the internet that when someone is pushing that hard against the efforts of a volunteer site admin that there will be blowback and the 'pusher (me)' will cop criticism in return.
So far there has been little to none. In fact some of the regulars have been stating that there is an issue as well.
Instead of calling for votes that could just leave all of us in the same ridiculous situation, take the feedback I have provided, and also the inactivity of the groups as the votes that really count ie the marketplace has decided that they do not want those groups, and close the class SM, class M and class A groups immediately.
Josef Riha (2014-03-02 10:21:48)
Standard time control abusers
As I said earlier in this thread, look at chesshere.com. There are no tournament classes here.
You have three possibilities to play a game in CC:
1.) Start your own game and decide the time control and elo-range of your opponent or enter a game at the game list.
2.) If you are a teammember the teamcaptain assigns an opponent to you.
3.) You can apply a Championship with different elo-classes.
In all cases the time control range is mostly between 3 or 7 days. No extra days are added after a move.
If an opponent ran out of time you can remain your opponent to do a move or finish the game immediately. After each game your elopoints are updated and you can see your success (or failure).
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-02 23:20:58)
Standard time control abusers
Chesshere is a very different system indeed. There is a server for any taste, I guess...
Garvin, if there was only you, George & I responding, then you'd be probably 2 to choose to close these waiting lists so I'd do it. But if you think I've installed a terror-like system here, then this is not an option anymore...
Ok, I think this decision is quite terrible but let's do this. Class SM, class M & class A are now closed.
Rapid SM 12 is now empty, rapid M 71 has one player & rapid A 158 has three, let's wait and see how it evolves during a few weeks/months.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2014-03-03 01:40:14)
Standard time control abusers
I can't believe that one player has success with his permanent and aggressive posts. What a terrible development of the server. So I can no longer recommend this website as a chess server.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-03 11:14:15)
Standard time control abusers
Not "any" player though, Heinz-Georg :) You know like me that Garvin has some experience and knowledge on all these topics and I respect it, even if I disagree with him sometimes or often.
In this case, I estimated that either I had to prove some things, or something good could comes out (if I'm wrong). We all know that we miss new players for about 2 years, so it sounds important to do something that can be seen even if the real game is behind the server itself...
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2014-03-03 18:14:56)
Standard time control abusers
Why do you think that a serious player would join FICGS if he cannot play serious correspondence games here? He hasn't done it during the last two years, so he will not do it after this restriction of tournament structure.
IMO time control 30/+1 is only suitable for correspondence cafe chess games. It's enough time for poker games, maybe even go games, but chess? That's enough in no case, if you have to work or want to play on others sides too.
I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case. And in the WCH there is not enough time to play a serious game.
Furthermore, I don't like the preferential treatment (own groups) for the "better" players. I think that many players feel the same way.
By the way I think it's terrible that chess players are condemned here because they spent their time (or vacation) as they need it. According to the rules that is their right.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-03 23:41:34)
Standard time control abusers
At least you join Garvin on the WCH groups point (and consequently the Cup idea)...
Anyway, as there are very few new strong chess players yet, this is a quite good time to try this change. Let's see in a few weeks/months if it has first effects.
Jing Huang (2014-03-04 00:14:15)
Standard time control abusers
I agree with this - "I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case."
I also like the cup idea :)
Garvin Gray (2014-03-04 01:15:06)
Standard time control abusers
FWIW, seems like at least one person thinks I 'got my way'. This is incorrect, I did not 'get my way'.
I wanted Thibault to take action against standard time control abusers, which he has not done.
Btw, in one of my games I am now on move 70 and have mate 13 and I think my opponent is going to make another move and then try and sit on the position for another 35 days.
Will Thibault step in then?
The closing of the three standard class divisions was a response to this issue and the fact that they have not started for a long time and that something needed to be done.
It is only after a decision had been made one way or another that some comments have started to come. I gave, some days, between replies, for others to comment, so others had an opportunity to cast their opinion, disagree, give alternative opinion and also to add new rules if they wish.
Then as nothing was happening with the discussions and my opponents were continuing with their actions, the need become more pressing. I have never said for a second that there is anything wrong at all with a person who moves at a rate of one move every five days.
It is with players who are so arrogant they believe it is their right to waste their opponents lives when they clearly can play at a faster rate. If they can not move at a faster rate, how come they can make 9 moves in 3 days, then not move for 35 days?
A person who is legitimately time poor will make one move every few days to make the time control.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-05 00:23:43)
Standard time control abusers
Garvin, about that particular game you can use the rules to shorten it... the game will not last more than 30 days in this case (see 11.5).
On the ways people use their time, every player has his own reasons and I don't think he should have to say or justify it to see if it suits any "code of conduct". There must be rules and nothing more.
Don Groves (2014-03-09 22:26:32)
Standard time control abusers
I have long ago stated my opinion that, if a player cannot make one move per week (or maybe 10 days) in each game they are playing, then that person is playing too many games. I have come up against the same problems Garvin is talking about many times and invariably players who do this are playing 30 or more games at the same time. My solution is to restrict the number of tournaments a player can enter. No player can enter a new tournament if he/she has more than two tournaments already running.
Don Groves (2014-03-09 22:31:46)
Standard time control abusers
Perhaps the best solution is to require every player to make at least one move in every game during a 10 day period. Unless on vacation, I cannot imagine a serious player could not do this. When I play, I never wait longer than about 3 days in any game.
Timofey Denisov (2014-03-11 03:41:27)
Standard time control abusers
Don Groves, I have reason: "Finalgening" endgames, for sample. It takes very much time :( And this process makes engine very slow, so if I finalgening endgame in one game, I not make moves in all games...
Timofey Denisov (2014-03-11 03:42:43)
Standard time control abusers
Finalgen is http://mtu-media.com/finalgen/home_ing.php
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-12 13:44:36)
Standard time control abusers
Even a 10 days limit per move would not solve the DMD problem... And we had debates on the number of tournaments each player can enter, such a (big) change would not satisfy everyone (for the least, I think).
Joerg Moormann (2014-03-14 23:19:51)
Standard time control abusers
Why not the ICCF rule, that days >20 count double?
Garvin Gray (2014-03-15 15:50:41)
Standard time control abusers
I saw that rule when looking through the iccf rules, but did not really understood how it worked, either in theory, or in practice.
Care to explain?
Timofey Denisov (2014-03-15 18:15:43)
Standard time control abusers
If player not make move after 20 days (vacation days not counting in these 20), then his clock will run 2x times faster until he will make move. After he make move, clock will work as usual.
Garvin Gray (2014-03-16 08:39:10)
Standard time control abusers
So what prevents a player doing these two measures to get around the rule:
1) Putting themselves on one day vacation as allowed on here.
2) Making one move after 19 days, and then sitting on the position again till day 35.
Game would just advance one move.
Timofey Denisov (2014-03-16 11:41:12)
Standard time control abusers
1) not working. Because vacation days just skipping in count, so clock will gain double speed in 21th day (if player took 1-day vacation).
2) Yes... maybe do more? Maybe decline 50-move rule on 6- or even 7- pieces in "normal chess"? (because exist tablebases for these endgames, and players just do moves from database), and next is do adjudgement in 6- pieces positions? Result can be gained from chessok.com, for sample. Or if 7-pieces position you can gain result from latest version Aquarium (licensed, pirated copy can't access to tablebases).
Michael Sayers (2014-04-19 20:40:44)
Standard time control abusers
I want to offer a general apology to my opponents here re. my late start in deployment of moves by maybe 20 days in some games. Since then, I have moved promptly (within the day) of each move received.
This isn't the only venue where I play chess and I was a bit overwhelmed. Then I decided I had an obligation toward my fellow players to follow through reliably with the games.
As to players taking the maximum possible number of days to complete a game, in any system there are unreliable persons, abusers, et c., and when the rules become so numerous and strict as to prevent this then there is no remedy when a decent person needs a little flexibility - intense discomfort caused by some is replaced by slight and persistent discomfort for everybody, and probably no one wants that scenario.
Michael S.
Garvin Gray (2014-04-21 04:18:03)
Standard time control abusers
Hello Michael,
Players starting games 'late' is not unusual. I think we have all done it through a combination of factors.
The issue that has been discussed here does not seem to be something that you are even close to doing, which is in the standard time control, wait until your clock gets down to 5 days, then make 10 moves to make the time control, then wait another 35 days and then make another 10 moves and keep repeating this behaviour.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-21 09:41:12)
Standard time control abusers
Hi Garvin,
Then maybe the solution is reduced maximum time on the clock? "Rapid" could be 10 days +1 day per move, 10 days maximum time available, or there could be no set maximum time, e.g. "rapid" requires a move in 24 hours or forfeit, "standard" requires a move in 72 hours or forfeit. What will happen though is a replacement of some players who always take the maximum time available and those few persons inducing most of the annoyance here (Pareto's principle) - this will be replaced with some players doing a tremendous amount of forfeits.
I'm not sure which is preferred (I don't know which I would prefer to encounter!).
M.
Timofey Denisov (2014-04-21 18:36:30)
Standard time control abusers
Michael Sayers, if you can play so fast every move, I can't play so fast. So if will be only these time controls, I will leave from this server. I want play in correspondence chess, not blitz chess.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-21 18:45:39)
Standard time control abusers
Hi Timofey,
These are just ideas off the top of my head. I don't know what a solution would be to the issues mentioned in the thread. FYI, I don't work for ficgs and am just a fellow member commenting on things :)
Real cc needs three days per move + no big delays except in rare instances (and maybe a courteous message would help, such as "I hope you don't mind but I need a few more days here to figure out what to do", et c.). Courtsey and sincere communication make a lot of things much smoother!
All The Best,
Michael
Michael Sayers (2014-04-21 18:47:59)
Standard time control abusers
p.s. - not everyone uses an engine, some of us still do chess the old fashioned way rather than seeking a quick Rybka/Fritz/Houdini or whatever fix, and doing things the old fashioned way sometimes might need a few days ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2014-04-23 00:19:10)
Standard time control abusers
A problem with starting with only 10 days is players who may start a new tournament late.
Garvin, I must say I sometimes play this way myself when I have few time during a few weeks... I play easiest moves while delaying hard ones, then I concentrate on these difficult games during a short period and play several moves... Everyone may have his reasons.
David Fierry Fraillon (2014-04-23 09:09:36)
Standard time control abusers
Hi all,
I am suffering a player abusing of time control ... he has waiting for 29 days for playing one move and then alternating one move / one day of vacation.
I read all comments on this post and i do agree with both of you (Garvin and Thibault) on main points.
Basically thibault you're wright but maybe you will reconsider your position by looking at it with new eyes :
- In the current WCH at least 6 players are using this ''technic'' : the Pech family (Stepan, Matej, Jaroslav and Jarsolav senior), Pechova and Mach
- They all coming from Czech Republic
So what i think : it is only one player (and i am sure you can check that with IP connection). That player is not interrested in winning elo and is stupid by using the same country.
It is not a person interested by chess it is only someone who want bad on FICGS : and that the point you can use for banning him.
Obviously, I am not sure of what i wrote and in theory i do not agree with writing names of the guilty ... but in that case i think you should consider that guy like a hacker and not like a chess player using a stupid technic for winning elo.
David Fierry Fraillon (2014-04-23 09:34:42)
Standard time control abusers
Just to precise my point :
- Evoluting rules is a good thing and the fact in implies evoluting cheats is also a good thing ( :-) )
- Allowing one day vacation should be authorized vhen too many moves to play
--> If there is a proof (IP connection or date when vacation are taken in my ''6 players case'') we must consider that we are not in a possible case of correspondance chess.
I am sure it does not happen that often.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-23 09:37:40)
Standard time control abusers
I'm not defending the 29 day delay yet the move every two days isn't abnormal for cc chess. M.S.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-04-23 12:27:04)
Standard time control abusers
There have been many discussions here that concluded that human factor (particularly decisions by me) should be reduced to minimum... David, I'm perfectly aware of this case, this is a permanent test for FICGS rules. But reasons for a ban here would be kind of fuzzy and I think we must avoid that.
David Fierry Fraillon (2014-04-23 13:20:16)
Standard time control abusers
okidoki ...
Reasons for ban can be fuzzy i do agree, and i think not in a ''fair play spirit''.
I should have spoken about withdrawal or something else ... whatever i am intersting in playing chess and i always intend to play my Pech's game normally.
It can even be fun to play like that : the challenge is to win by time !!! :-)
In fact i wanted to pointed out that there is maybe different ways than changing rules to avoid time abusers. It's been a long time that i did not seriously play chess, and i am not an expert in cc ... but i am thinking that the actual time rules (combined to the moves interface) are simply really good ...
As a server manager you can find out material evidence of time abusing ( even if it is not as simple as i say ) and a cheater will always find a way to cheat on new rules.
Timofey Denisov (2014-08-15 11:17:28)
Standard time control abusers
Don Groves,
if reduce max number of games simultaneously played, ppl can start more games in OTHER advanced chess servers (LSS, ICCF, bestlogic.ru), or creating some clones (2nd, 3rd accounts).
And max games of play depends of player's hardware and free time on day :)
Don Groves (2014-08-15 01:54:11)
Standard time control abusers
My position has not changed: the main reason for slow play is players who have too many games in progress for the amount of time they can devote to chess. The current level of allowable games is far too high, in my opinion. No one should be allowed to enroll in another tournament if they still have several uncompleted tournaments going on! How many is "several" needs to be decided, but 50, or whatever the limit now is, is way too many!
Don Groves (2014-08-27 13:18:01)
Standard time control abusers
This is true, Timofey. Thibault has no control over how many games are played on other servers, but he can control how many can be played on this server by known slow players. Reducing those games on this server may not eliminate the problem but it clearly could help.
Alexis Alban (2014-08-27 14:49:01)
Standard time control abusers
I don't think that's the problem Don. For example the player Garvin is talking about only has 9 running games. However his profile says that he's doctor, so perhaps life responsibilities is causing his slow play rate.
I have well over 20 games running on this server and 5 on ICCF, and I feel like I can easily handle 20 more. There are times when I'm sitting there just waiting for my turn. I am however not a doctor, although I do work 40 hours a week.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-28 12:50:46)
Standard time control abusers
Alexis Alban: I dont you have read the whole thread and the comments from other posters who have talked about the habits of other players.
There is even a term for this behaviour. It is called DMD- dead mans defense.
And it is described very well.
They sit on their games for 35 days, make no moves, then suddenly are able to make 9 moves in 5 days, then make no more moves for 35 days and then make another 9 moves in 35 days and then it is rinse and repeat, time control and time control.
Meanwhile this is being done in positions where they are in dead lost positions ie mate in 30. They idea is solely to just piss off their opponents, nothing more.
So please do not just try and make this about one player. Standard time control abusers are a cancer on this and other corro chess sites and they should be gotten rid of as fast as possible.
They spread misery and suffering everywhere they go and the only person that really suffers is the opponent, who has to wait and wait for the games to finish, whilst the site admin sits back, does nothing and is just as guilty and the person doing the action.
At the end of the day, the person in charge who sits back and does nothing when they know of poor conduct under their watch is taking place is just as guilty, if not more so, than the original offender. This is because they create the culture that says it is permissable and says to everyone else that this behaviour is tolerated and the site is not to be taken seriously.
Alexis Alban (2014-08-30 17:18:41)
Standard time control abusers
I understand it now, thanks.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-30 23:00:22)
Standard time control abusers
Definitely I'm in trouble with this problem. I still don't get why rapid tournaments (and a bit of patience... e.g. the case described by David) should not be a solution enough when many other players are ok with this standard time control, including DMD in the limit of the rules. Once more, there is no known way to avoid a Dead Man Defence that will always find a way to get around the rules, so...
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:34:50)
Standard time control abusers
Players are ok with the time control, that is not in dispute, it is this behaviour and behaviours like it.
Any arbiter feels that actions during a game are against the general spirit of the game and bring the game of chess in disrepute, they can always use the fide laws of chess PREFACE:
PREFACE
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.
A necessary condition for a game to be rated by FIDE is that it shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
It is recommended that competitive games not rated by FIDE be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Member federations may ask FIDE to give a ruling on matters relating to the Laws of Chess.
And:
Article 11: The conduct of the players
11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
Whilst this is rather broad and rather vague, surely DMD type actions fall under this heading.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:37:06)
Standard time control abusers
As for the idea of the rapid time control- I love the rapid time control, it is just that for my rating, and those around my rating range, very few tournaments start at all.
So to get our fix, we have to look to the standard time control events, and then we run into these issues.
I maintain that you stopped the trail of closing the standard time control divisions wayyyy too early.
Nothing at the top is really starting at this point in time, even though players on this site are active, or trying to be.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:53:40)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
From what I have read here from your response Thibault- I see no grounds AT ALL to not pay the prize.
The rating rule is there for the best interest of the site, because ratings are meant to be the way we all judge what standard of play we are and what divisions we can enter.
So comparing a rating argument with this argument is drawing a rather long bow indeed.
Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?
Already answered about ratings. About winning games without fighting (or playing), Nick entered under the conditions believing the match would take place.
If he entered the match believing it to not take place and David did play, then Nick has taken a risk that has backfired.
The point is that it is not Nick's fault the match did not take place. From my reading of the rules, there is nothing clear that says you can not pay out the prize.
Remember, you are making an absolute ruling here that applies FOREVER. This means that in effect you have taken 100 epoints at least out of Nick's account, his original stake, for just entering a match.
I would ask as site admin. Why would ANY player on this site want to support paid matches after this event and circumstances?
When the site admin can in effect, I was not happy with your match conditions that it was played under, I don't really have anything to point towards, but I did keep your cash anyways.
I for one will not be supporting any matches or tournaments from now on whilst this practice remains in place. I do not want to enter a match, have it not take place and then the site admin say, tough luck, not your fault the match did not take place, but I am keeping your cash.
The more I look at this and type, I am finding it hard to not say that Nick Burrows has been robbed of his cash. These events are real.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-31 13:23:45)
Standard time control abusers
We had so many discussions here about the rules that concluded that no decision should be made involving any human feeling on a chess server... I remember ICCF/IECG tournament director(s) going this way as well and that's the way time/DMD rules were thought and written.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-16 01:12:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hi all,
The recent discussions on FICGS chess wch tie break rules just gave me an idea...
Obviously, there are no satisfying solution (for everyone I mean) for a change in the wch rules. In my opinion, wch rules are great already, even if there are too many draws in matches.
The idea of a cup tournament is here for years but I didn't see any way to include it, in a several rounds version at least, in our calendar because of the wch cycle, the slowly decreasing number of active players, and so on...
But what do you think about this cup format:
An enormous round robin tournament with the 33 (1 player for each piece on the board, it's a symbol but the number is to be discussed) highest rated players who entered the waiting list. It is 32 games per player for 1 round only, duration of games could be the standard one (because there is one round only), longer but maybe fits more the number of games and additional games in other tournaments.
Looks like a great challenge and a real alternative, with very few risks of draw odds, cheating or whatever... It may be the biggest correspondence chess round robin tournament on the internet.
Any opinion? Would you play such tournament?
Garvin Gray (2015-10-17 14:19:12)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
This is different to my Ficgs world cup proposal, which had clear goals in mind.
In my opinion, this just seems like one big round robin and once the games start, it will be rather difficult to feel like the games are anything special, unless the field is red hot.
And a big fat no to the standard time control. Lengthen the rapid type time control if you wish, but do not use the standard type time control.
30 days plus 3 days per move should be satisfactory.
Dann Corbit (2016-01-07 22:20:18)
Thematic tournaments?
May as well advance one full move to get variety. Everyone will respond:
3. .. Nf6
followed by:
4. Bb2
That is quite an interesting opening and much more rarely played than the standard
1. b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 e3 d5
Garvin Gray (2016-01-19 02:55:13)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
As long as the group sizes are large ie 9 or more players, then I do not think it is a great concern if some of the groups have even numbers.
As we experience in any of the groups, be it world champs, standard games, rapids etc, there is always someone who does not play, so even if every group was 8 groups of 9 players, one group would become distorted and would really be an 8 player group with the inevitable consequence of some players receiving 4W/3B and others 3W/4B.
If the group size is large, 10 to 11 players per group, then the difference between 5W/4B and 4W/5B is not that great, compared to a group of 6 players, where the split is 3W/2B.
With large group sizes in the first stage, this could mean only a few groups (say six groups of 11 or so players), then the second stage could be held as a double round robin which solves all the problems.
This rule is already included in the current FICGS World champs for when groups are six players or less, but is rarely used.
Garvin Gray (2016-03-10 00:56:17)
Chess960
And that they are not divided by rating, standard and rapid time controls etc is also an issue.
With chess960, all the top chess engines can be used.
George Jempty (2016-09-02 10:21:48)
Player of the Year
I've been thinking it would be interesting to have nominations for a "Player of the Year" that FICGS members could then vote on. Qualifications could be listed in a manner similar to the following:
1) 15 wins, 13 draws and 0 losses since Oct 2015
2) Rating increase of nearly 250 points (1904-2152) during same time period
3) As 1904 player finished tied for second with score of 4/6 in tournament where average rating was 2041
4) Won a standard B tournament with score of 5.5/6 and a performance rating of 2332
5) Guaranteed tie for first place in a standard A tournament (currently tied for first and is playing in the one remaining game in the tourney against someone one point behind)
6) Currently leading stage 1 group of 2016 World Championship with score of 5/5
7) Finished tied for first in Rapid M tournament for which it was necessary to buy a ticket because TER of 2077 being below normal minimum of 2100
Yes I'm bragging on myself more than a little bit, but still I think that the listed qualifications are pretty objective
Garvin Gray (2016-11-30 08:33:54)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Herbert Kruse- Policies and procedures can be changed at any point in time as situations change, or as events occur.
Where in my post did I say that I was changing the rules after the beginning the game. In fact, I think you would find that the game had ended. That was the point.
The rule I was bringing up is what to do in the future for players who lose games on time. ICCF is generally seen as the standard practice for most rules and procedures, and their policies on this matter is very clear.
So if their policy was to be adopted here, it would start from (insert date), which would hopefully be January 1st 2017.
Sergey Zemlyanov (2017-07-03 22:02:59)
My new match with GM Eros Riccio
Hi all! I just transfer 100 euros to the site in hope to play with GM Eros Riccio in Standart Tournament with 100 e-points as entry fee. I know him as one of the strongest corrchess players of the world, but I'll try to survive in two games. And I'm not going to purposely shut out the game.
Garvin Gray (2017-09-24 15:45:27)
WCh and other ramblings
I think it will be a case of Eros will keep defending the title until he is defeated.
This is not an uncommon situation in a lot of sports where a champion has a long unbeaten streak. Whilst they have some desire to move on to other things, voluntarily ending a many year streak by non participation can feel like all those years wasted.
Therefore, quite often what happens is that the next champion either supersedes the reigning champion because the new champion because they advanced the playing standard, or because the current champion rested on their laurels whilst the competition advanced.
Ilmars Cirulis (2017-11-20 17:48:28)
7 pieces tablebases
I messed up the grammar, but it should be understandable with some effort.
Kym Farnik (2018-01-17 00:34:08)
Conditional chess moves (again)
Hi
First thanks for making your position clear.
Yes, JS talking Ajax to a PHP handler.
I have implemented this type of thing in the past.
Even if the main FICGS code is totally procedural, it is not uncommon to build a new feature using an OO module, and in time either run old and new code in parallel. Or... migrate all the code to a new OO framework over time.
The play move and add conditionals interface would need to be made JS and redesigned. The back end would I expect have a game/move/conditional validator function.
There are plenty of JS chess interfaces that could be used as design input.
I recognize this is a major project for a one man team. I'd say 4-6 weeks of full time effort, possibly longer if we have to design a OO framework for the back end. Hence my offer to help as I'm semi-retired and have time.
A good isolated dev and test environment is mandatory. This is not just a simple site hack.
I hope this helps!
Garvin Gray (2018-01-22 01:06:01)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
The penalties have to be similar to players who are caught using engines at otb tournaments.
Loss of all games in the tournament ie they are kicked out of the tournament and then further sanctions are applied.
But working out how the person used engine assistance is the key question?
Most would say, oh the player choose the top or second ranked engine move almost all of the time. But most decent players would do that anyways.
So that is not a good enough standard. And so that then needs a new test.
It is personally one of the reasons why I did not speak in favour of the event.
Garvin Gray (2018-01-22 01:08:34)
Conditional chess moves (again)
The rules of the site already permit players to claim 6 man tablebase positions, when they appear on the board, as either a win or draw, even if the position is above 50 moves.
That rule is standard across all webserver sites.
Also, even though a position might say mate in 75 and the claim is granted, this does not mean it is outside of the 50 move rule as there maybe a capture or pawn move between the initial position and mate.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-02-25 22:44:25)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?
Hi Garvin! FIDE ? I'm not really surprised... As for ICCF, I don't know much the way it calculates norms but FICGS algorithm looks like the way IECG did it. Anyway I understand your point and that makes sense, of course. I guess that this rule was designed to be not too complex to display and understandable as well. I'm not sure yet about what to conclude on this, but anyway that's true, there is something to dig.
Garvin Gray (2018-02-26 02:50:10)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?
ICCF is the FIDE way. As all events are round robin, each player is told the score they need to achieve to get a Norm before the event begins.
Almost any item can be easily understandable if kept simple, but does this mean it is the best system if it does not produce the most accurate results for player performances?
For Comparison with ICCF: Here you have the point total for all players to get a norm in norm tournaments.
At ICCF: In the Points table, they have columns which show what score each player needs to reach to get that particular norm.
So that information is included in the cross table.
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.
Ilmars Cirulis (2018-03-15 17:53:50)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela
Offtopic question about poker (on FICGS):
Is it possible to make some faster time control, for example, +1 day after completed hand instead of single move?
Like in chess - Standard and Rapid.
Peter W. Anderson (2018-05-15 11:29:42)
Leela Chess Zero
Hello everyone :)
I guess most people here will be aware of the Leela Chess Zero project.
I was interested in whether anyone here is already using Leela? I have run a few of my old FICGS games through it quickly and it gives very different evaluations to the standard engines in some positions - I am not sure if they are better or worse at a quick glance but they are different!
For those who aren't familiar with Leela it is an attempt to recreate something like Alpha Chess Zero for the PC. It is not yet as strong as Stockfish etc but is as strong as most grandmasters and some weaker engines and is gradually increasing in strength as it is trained. It comes in two versions: one to run on the CPU and one to run on a graphics card. A high end graphics card gives the best results, but it runs OK on CPUs.
Leela is nowhere near as tactically strong as the best engines (whether it ever will be on "normal" hardware is an open question). However, to my eyes, it generally exhibits pretty good positional judgement, and so I am figuring it could provide a useful alternative view for correspondence games.
You can contribute to this really interesting project by helping to train it by donating computer time. Helping with the training is pretty straightforward. A guide of how to help is at
https://github.com/glinscott/leela-chess/wiki/Getting-Started
A forum and progress chart is at
http://lczero.org/
I found getting it to run under GUI's as an analysis tool a little more fiddly as it not yet fully UCI compliant. However, I have got it to run OK under Chessbase, Shredder, and Arena OK for analysis. For running matches Arena or something like Cutechess may be best.
I would interested to know your thoughts on this.
Daniel Parmet (2020-04-28 22:59:06)
The State of correspondence chess
I have played correspondence chess now for 13 years. During that time, I have played 983 correspondence games. These days I mostly play at ICCF and some of these issues may be ICCF specific... but since ICCF has no forum and I want to get a sense of the health of correspondence chess in general... I posit my thoughts here.
First of all, I think the number of correspondence players and the number of correspondence games are decreasing across the board on all correspondence websites due to the things I want to talk about.
Second, I primarily shifted my playing to ICCF years ago for two reasons: 1) The higher level of competition available; 2) The norms available. Although I was concerned with their fees which are usually minor but, in many cases, certain organizers do construct outlandish tournaments that you need to be wary of (looking at you Venezuela).
On the first point, I think ICCF is a little more open to high caliber players competing up until a point (they really try to prevent you from playing a 2450+ player until you are 2450+ yourself). And the rating protections get tougher and tougher the further you go but they make it easy to play 2300 players. While most websites outside of ICCF, usually have one annual Cup / WCH or Thematics, these other websites usually make it impossible to play anyone more than a few hundred points above you no matter your rating outside of these few events.
On the second point, I think ICCF norms are somewhat of an illusion. They’ve always been hard and much harder to achieve than OTB norms which received a watering down of requirements of decades ago. In fact, ICCF norms are so much harder than FIDE norms that one actually needs to achieve two norms to receive the prerequisite title in ICCF vs the standard three norms required by FIDE. In the US, for example, there are 116 ICCF Titled players in history (13 GMs, 25 SIM, 78 IMs) vs 828 FIDE Titled players in present (101 GMs 166 IM 561 FMs) [https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml]. Now however, there is a proposal, for the ICCF GM Title only, proposed by Dennis Doren, ICCF Rules Commissioner who really does a lot for correspondence chess, and SIM Uwe Staroske, ICCF Qualifications and Ratings Commissioner, to remove the requirement to have to play GMs to get the GM Title [leaving IM and SIM untouched] [https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1280]. This proposal states, “A search of the ICCF data indicates that 21 players obtained at least 2 GM norms across 24 games but failed to get the GM title because of the requirement of "5 GM" opponents. (Only 5 of those players are currently active).†Leaving aside the fact that this proposal violates the very definition of the GM Title, one must beat the club in order to join it, the proposal further outlines the real problems without addressing them, “The GM Title has already become far harder to earn than it used to be, due to the rating suppression caused by the increase in draws.†Wow, let’s unpack that one line because it is a doozy!
Really, this one line, that is easily overlooked, is two huge problems that correspondence is facing: 1) death by one thousand draw paper cuts and 2) rating deflation. I will argue later that there is a third huge problem but let’s start with the ones acknowledged by ICCF itself. Every correspondence player knows the draw rate is going up. As engines and hardware get stronger, players are able to save positions that in the past would have been lost and we are finding ever easier ways to head straight towards 0.00 as Black. I would love to see a detailed analysis that describes how much harder it has become to win as Black against a decent correspondence player (let’s say someone 2300+). In the last five years, I have beaten three 2300+ players as Black without counting mouseslips (one in 2015, one in 2016 and one any day now in 2020) despite playing extremely aggressive openings like the KID (for the record that’s three Black wins out 103 Black draws or 2.91% Win rate). That may be part of the draw problem, but I have witnessed my own draw rate skyrocket 2014: 82.4% 2015: 86.7% 2016: 90.2% 2017: 90.6% 2018: 91% 2019 is still in progress. Often for these norms, you need to score +2, +3, +4 or +5 despite the fact that +1 usually wins the event… and with the draw rate North of 90% in a 12-13 game event that means you are likely to win 1 game on average… but in many events the entire cross table often sees one to three entire wins (look at a recently completed tournament here where I scored my first IM norm that required +0 and I scored +1). My win was one of five wins in the entire tournament 100/105 = 95.2% draw rate! [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=73482]. People love to tell me that’s fine because we are talking about such a weak event as Category 8 [2449 was the rating average]. Fine, I do not accept your argument but let’s look at the World Championship then shall we? Let’s look at the most recently concluded World Championship 30 which finished on 10/2/2019, Category 13 [2562 was the rating average]. This event was won by the new World Champion SIM Kochemasov, Andrey Leonidovich 2540 [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745]. Congrats to the new World Champion on his two wins! The event had 8 decisive games out 136 or a draw rate of 91.2% (not far off my own). But wait did I say SIM? I did. In fact, congratulations to the World Champion on scoring his final GM norm as well! This World Championship saw 5 SIMs compete in a field with 12 GMs. While 3 of the SIMs finished 1st 2nd and 3rd, only our new World Champion scored a GM norm. The problem is with all the draws that norms are not just becoming hard, but maintaining or increasing one’s rating is becoming hard. And one’s rating is how one receives any decent invites to have a chance at a norm in the first place.
The draws are a death by one thousand cuts as I recently played one of the ICCF’s proposal’s outlined “21 players that could have obtained a GM norm.†My rating is 2389 and his rating is 2504 (although SIM, he is recognized by all his peers as a GM caliber player). As Black, I obtained an easy draw without ever being in any trouble at all. The player had a rather angry initial discussion with me post mortem about how he felt it was wrong that a 2504 should have to play a player as weak as 2389 where the draw would kill his rating. He felt that his rating was being destroyed by these draws with weaker players and that ICCF should protect him from us. He felt I have it easier as a lower rated player because I can gain rating from these draws. Let’s look at his argument that one is causing the other and it is only happening to those 2500+. At the time that draw occurred, I gained exactly 1.17915 rating points from it (and he lost the same); however, this was the first draw in over 40 games in which I *gained* rating points (this statement is no longer true as a few higher rated players have since given me draws but at the time of the game’s conclusion this was the case). Yes, that’s right, ICCF already does such a good job of protecting higher rated players that it actively hands out advice to new players to be very particular about what invites and events they play because the draws could kill their initial rating. I too have experienced a net negative loss of rating points from draws and still seen my rating going up only due to the fact that wins are easier and ever so slightly more common to come by at my level. However, it means I am not exempt from the draw problem. It is patently false that this problem is limited to those 2500+ as in my last 43 draws, I lost rating in 42 of them and gained rating from 1 of them. Therefore, it appears draws are causing rating deflation and this is the real problem in both norms and correspondence in general. With the exception of matches, perhaps there is a way to have draws not count against one’s rating since there are so many of them? It kind of blends the Chess rating concept with that of Bridge where one cannot lose rating points once earned. What we can see is that the player’s argument that draws are causing rating deflation is probably true. One problem is at least partly causing the other one.
There is a third more devious problem worse than the two outlined above in my opinion. While rating deflation, draws, less players and norms are real issues… they are dwarfed by the change in behavior caused by these issues. I know it is a bit overdramatic to talk about such issues in a time of COVID, but there has been a great increase in the number of players playing Dead Man Defense (often shortened by correspondence players to DMD+ and DMD=). It is important to note that the death rate in COVID for those in the elderly category is markedly higher and the correspondence community in general is also markedly higher. I have heard estimates of the average age of correspondence player being 70-75 range though I haven’t seen any data. Back to DMD, what is DMD and why is it such awful behavior? The players are hoping you die before you win so they can claim either a win on time or if it goes to adjudication then at least claim a draw. The other hope is that you might mouse slip by being forced to play more moves which while that would never happen over the board does surprisingly account for a large portion of wins in ICCF correspondence high-level play. One of the main problems this issue causes is that if someone takes an early draw against a player who then goes on to die, the entire rest of the field gets a free half point and you are punished for playing your game quicker than your peers. Often, players over the board resign once mate is unstoppable or a simple endgame is reached in which the result is known to players of all levels. In correspondence, often even sooner than these players will resign or offer draws, knowing that perpetual check is unavoidable should we play another 10 moves past the piece sac against a bare king? How about when the engine reads +25 +30 or +40? So, for the most, correspondence players draw or resign much earlier than one might over the board due to engine and tablebase assistance. On that note, depending on the tournament, players can outright claim wins and draws either on the 6-piece tablebase (always allowed) or the sometimes allowed on an event by event basis the 7-piece tablebase. It is considered out right rude to make a player play all the way to the 6-piece tablebase to claim. I recently claimed one win in a six piece tablebase up an entire piece where my jolly opponent wanted to discuss the game in a post mortem (rarely done in correspondence in general anyways). I declined to even respond to him even though I was already having a very lively and fun post mortem with a Venezuelan on our extremely interesting draw. A worse example is the 92 move game I played with opposite colored bishops where I had two extra pawns. I offered a draw as white and the higher rated player to my lower rated opponent who declined it, forcing me to play to a 7-piece tablebase claim to end the game. This kind of behavior used to be quite rare. In the past, I would say it happened in 1 out of every 100 games… these days it seems to happen in every other game (1/2!). I have seven different opponents right now that are DMD+ against me where the engine reads +148 (or in some cases even sees mate! The 2504 player that complained about my rating earlier also complained someone was DMD+ him… I remarked that I have no less than 7 players DMD+ me and if they would resign? My rating would be about 2450 right which sort of eliminates his claim about our “giant†rating difference). The issue is that due to rating deflation these players need to artificially keep their rating high as long as they can because that’s how they will get their next invite. With the new terrible time control that is not yet Official (although there is a proposal to make it Official: https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1282), players only need to make a move once every 50 days to pointlessly extend the game. I have a DMD= draw currently going on 16 months now where the player is just moving Kg1 Kf1 Kg1 every 50 days. This time control exasperates the DMD problem. When I contacted ICCF Officials to point out the severity of this problem, I was told that I should report it to the TD on a case by case basis only if it is DMD+ as they will not look at DMD= at all. However, it is usually the TDs that are the biggest offenders (6 of the 7 players described above were TDs). In fact, it is usually the same general casts of characters which allows for an easy black list to be created that bars these players from play until they can fix their atrocious behavior. This behavior needs to be punished. These players need to be reprimanded. In the end, lack of norms, rating deflation and the draw death will not make me quit correspondence chess. It is DMD+/DMD= that will make me quit. This experience is my personal experience with high level correspondence over thirteen years and I would love to hear from other correspondence players concerning these problems.
Vadrya Pokshtya (2022-02-17 08:52:23)
Grand Dice Chess
Hello,
I am the author and inventor of chess variants. My chess variants are published on chessvariants.com and some of them can be played on Game Courier.
I would like to present to you a variant of chess with dice that I invented relatively recently and which can already be played on two sites on the Internet.
Grand Dice Chess
The Rules
The game uses a 12x12 board.
Each player has:
4 Kings
24 Pawns
8 Knights
8 Bishops
8 Rooks
4 Queens
White and black occupy the 1st-6th and 7th-12th ranks, respectively, as shown in the diagram.
Unfortunately I can't post an image here, but you can always find it here:
https://granddicechess.blogspot.com/2022/01/grand-dice-chess.html
https://www.chess.com/blog/Pokshtya/grand-dice-chess-battle
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-variants/grand-dice-chess
White starts the game first.
The game uses four dice.
Opponents make moves alternately, throwing 4 dice. The piece to move is determined by a die:
1 = pawn, 2 = knight, 3 = bishop, 4 = rook, 5 = queen and 6 = king.
The player makes four moves at the same time based on the indications of the dice and has the right to refuse (pass) any move that does not suit him, unless it is a pawn move. Unlike in regular dice chess it's allowable to pass moves. And this rule was already applied about a thousand years ago in old variant of Shatranj (Shatranj al-Mustatîla or Oblong Chess), the Arabic pre-decessor of modern chess. However it's not allowed to pass on pawn-moves, except when they are blocked.
Chess pieces move across the board as they do in ordinary chess - according to the standard rules of move and capture.
The only minor exception is for a pawn that is not allowed to move forward two squares from its starting position.
Upon reaching the last rank, the pawn can be promoted to any piece except the king and itself.
There is no castling, check and checkmate in the game.
The goal of the game is to capture four enemy kings.
The first test tournament was held on the site http://abstractgames.ru/index.php
The tournament is attended by 10 people and I received the most positive feedback from them.
The game has proven itself so well that regular tournaments have already been launched.
Yesterday the game was added to Dagaz server https://games.dtco.ru/map
And it's a great place to test the game in person, as registering on the site is very easy and doesn't require any personal information.
The game turned out to be extremely interesting and exciting, replete with puzzling combinations. Surprisingly, with this size of the board and the number of pieces, the average game lasts no more than 30 turns.
Garvin Gray (2021-06-13 11:22:28)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
Now that my ficgs cup group has finished, I feel I can reply without feeling like I am pushing my own barrow.
When I highlighting the issue of when there is a group of 5, I was not intending it to be related to either championship.
This is because, in my view, the issue is the same, regardless of whether the group of view occurs in the WCH, the ficgs cup or a general group game.
I am aware that some people probably have read my replies as being rather strong on this topic, and in some cases, unhelpful, but if you look at it from the viewpoint of having engaged in genuine dialogue, exchanged viewpoints, debated back and forth, and gone over many topics again and again and finally after all that time, have gotten in writing and published rules that changes will be made, and then as soon as the situations come up again, the old rules are enforced again and nothing changes, then it becomes quite a bit more understandable why a negative tone and suspicion is underlaid in the discussions.
And as for why not walk away?
Had I been told that the entire format for the FICGS cup was going to be disbanded, that groups of 5 were going to be used and only single round robin was going to be used and three or four stages were going to be used, then YES, I probably would not have entered, and I would have made my feelings known as to why I was not entering.
And, I would have been looking to not enter any further World Championships as well. I have a Round Robin group coming up, as well as a Stage 2. These I will complete and do my best to advance, but if the old rules are maintained, then I will not be entering any future cycles.
Misha Allport (2021-06-27 18:47:48)
Withdrawal from Standard Tournament
I respectfully request withdrawal from the Standard Tournament -Class E- #000239 for personal reasons. Thank You, Allport, Misha
Thibault de Vassal (2021-06-30 01:11:05)
Withdrawal from Standard Tournament
Hello Misha, your name has been removed (a few days ago already). My best wishes
Ilmars Cirulis (2023-06-03 02:36:50)
GUI for Big Chess?
1) File... -> New Variant
here I choose "standard" and specify "Board size" 16 ranks and 16 files.
2) The FEN for Big Chess starting position is rnb1rbnqknbr1bnr/pppppppnnppppppp/7pp7/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/7PP7/PPPPPPPNNPPPPPPP/RNB1RBNQKNBR1BNR w - - 0 1 (if I haven't made any mistake) - copy it into clipboard
3) Edit -> Paste Position From Clipboard
(or Ctrl+Shift+V)
Juri Eintalu (2022-03-23 17:34:51)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN
The Telegram channel "Chess Patriot" was established on 13 March 2022. FIDE made its complaint about Karjakin to the ethics committee earlier. Probably it was based on Karjakin's two tweets on Twitter, plus Karjakin's public letter to Putin. The complaint was made only 3 days after the Ukraine war started.
After FIDE banned Karjakin for 6 months, he has started to make a war propaganda on his Telegram channel. He asks "reasonable Ukrainians" not to fight and not to defend the Kyiv regime.
Karjakin's Twitter history is fun. After 24. February, several outstanding chess players should be banned as well by FIDE due to the nature of their replies to Karjakin's tweets.
I am sure that FIDE's ethics code did not contain any demand not to support any wars. There is even not any demand not to talk about the ongoing war during the chess competition, etc.
Moreover, this ethics code was applied right before it will be outdated. Since 1 April 2022, that code used to ban Karjakin is not valid anymore.
I am sure that this code was arbitrarily interpreted to ban Karjakin.
Giacomo Rita (2022-04-04 00:22:26)
TITLE FEM
why, despite having two FEM standards, was I not awarded the title?
Patrycja Zerowska (2022-10-08 00:56:47)
Threefold repetition
Mr. Thbault de Vassal, you say that this case is treated the same way on most chess websites. This is not true. At the ICCF website, which is the standard for correspondence chess, the draw must be claimed (this in agreement with the Laws of Chess):
" ICCF:
9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, declares to the tournament director (or the server) the intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
At other websites, the rule is also correctly applied:
chess-mail.com
"8. To check the draw ( threefold repetition ; the fifty-move rule ) : Click on "Send and offer the draw". "
Gameknot:
"To declare the draw in a game due to the threefold repetition rule, please use "Declare draw" link located directly below the game board."
None of these sites violates the correct rule.
The FICGS way of handling this case involves several violations of the rules. First of all, the draw must be claimed. This rule exists for more than 100 years, and the advent of server chess hasn't changed it. Secondly, you require me to make a move, thereby taking back my claim and my intended move. Every beginner is told that it is forbidden to take back a move, a draw claim or a draw offer. Thirdly, you refuse to stop the clocks, allowing a player to lose on time by your inaction. This "inaction" constitutes interference in the course of the game by a third party, which is forbidden. Fourthly, your bot wants to automatically end the game when there is threefold repetition (or 50-move rule). Again this is forbidden by the rules! A bot can only act upon a claim, and never when there is no claim. With all these violations, we are no longer talking about chess, but about an undesirable chess variant.
It would be so easy to add a button under the chess board, where a player can make a draw claim. Why isn't this done?
You or your referee still hasn't taken action, and a whole week has passed since my claim.
I have always - since 1972 - played according to the rules and I refuse to violate the rules here and now. Therefore I won't make a move; it is forbidden.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-03-31 22:52:44)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?
Sorry if I quoted you wrongly... Could you specify?
Yes, first you were talking about wether FIDE and ICCF decisions were justified, but our discussion went on the global case:
you said (quote):
"If country A starts a war against country B, the relevant question is whether that war is justified or unjustified, whether it is a war of aggression or, instead, the attacker has the right to do so. "
"You argue that any context should be analysed in-depth, but you fail to hint at why Russia should be punished and the US should not."
So let's separate discussions: one is about FIDE/ICCF decisions, the other one is about war & its justifications.
About ICCF, I am not aware of a process to ban the russian team just after the invasion, I'm not sure what it means as well... does this mean that the russian team should have played under a neutral banner (that could be understandable), or does this mean that the whole team (every player) was banned?
I have no problem to talk about US war crimes in these countries... if you read my post again, there is a link to a page that deals with it.
I have no problem to talk about war crimes commited by Ukraine as well. There were war crimes for sure. There are proofs of that.
Questions remain: how many, for what aim... Everything will be analyzed.
My additional questions were not provocative, these are real questions to better understand your point of view. But I did not understand your answer (or you did not answer ?!)
Feel free to continue the discussion, you're welcome.
Yeturu Aahlad (2023-06-03 21:23:49)
GUI for Big Chess?
Ilmars, which version of winboard are you using? In 4.8.0, "standard" is "normal". With that, I have reproduced your instructions - Thanks!
File->save game and save position are useful, but the saved files can't just be reopened with a double-click. The board size is not represented in the files. Repeating Ilmars' first step, then file->load game or load position works.
Ilmars Cirulis (2023-06-04 00:14:46)
GUI for Big Chess?
I have the same version. It shows "normal", yes, and i wrote "standard" because of some brain fart, probably.
Juri Eintalu (2023-11-19 01:39:29)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations
Thibault the Vassal:
"Juri, when you say << For example, I am not sure that Hamas "chose" to kill civilians. >>, I'm not sure if your topic is determinism or something else but obviously you cannot be sure of anything. Did you watch the videos? Anyway, any army killing or kidnapping civilians is a war crime for sure and that's most probably terrorism in this case."
I do not understand what you are talking about?
I cannot be sure about the videos because I know that Israel is a liar.
I cannot be sure that it was Hamas as and organization who (intentionally) killed the civilians. Perhaps some members of Hamas enjoyed killing civilians despite the commands of their chiefs.
I cannot be sure that these were members of Hamas who murdered the civilians. Perhaps Israel knew about the attack and these civilians were killed during the attack by, say, the Israeli secret service. Perhaps Netanyahu wanted it to happen to get an excuse to start the carpet bombing of the Gaza Strip.
I cannot be sure that all the civilians killed were killed by Hamas. It is plausible to guess that some civilians were killed by Israeli forces.
After all, I know that earlier, Israel had intentionally killed its own soldiers and its own civilians.
There are or have been such dubious doctrines in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF):
HANNIBAL DIRECTIVE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive
DAHYIA DOCTRINE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
I also know that reportedly here have been some witnesses in Israel, Jews, who have claimed in Israel TV and radio, that they saw that Israeli forces killed civilian hostages and random civilians nearby.
Therefore, I am not in a hurry decide, what actually happened on 07 October 2023.
What I reported above was that I regard it as proven beyond reasonable doubt that Hamas killed some unknown number of civilians.
Finally, Thibault the Vassal, I do not accept your attitude, and particularly I completely condemn the attitude of Herbert Kruse.
Are you both some kind of communists or Stalinists?
It is not a crime not to believe such assertions that have not been sufficiently proven.
If you demand that one must blindly believe whatever propaganda the government or the mainstream media produces, then you are a totalitarianist.
I do not want to talk to such people.
However, now, at least, I know how such people are thinking, who defend absolutely illogical and inconsistent policies.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2024-03-16 20:34:57)
message for Thibault regarding...
... the tournament that I withdrawed from.
Dear Thibault,
February 25. I sent you an email that I had accidentally enrolled in two standard class M tournaments, by clicking a second time before the next page loaded.
This night I saw some new games and assumed it was the new WCC cycle. But upon closer inspection, it was the second Class M tournament that I thought I had withrawn from.
Added to the imminent new WCC this will be a bit much. So is it still possible to fix this?
George Jempty (2025-10-07 17:15:16)
Next thematic tournament
Yeah probably too tame for correspondence, interestingly I do intend to play 4.f3 for the most part, but I came up with the 4.Bf4 idea when investgating the Leningrad variation. After 4.Bg5 c5 now 5.d5?! which had been the standard is considered sub-optimal by the engine which prefers 5.e3, and after 5...h6, I concluded that White didn't have to play 6.Bxf6 or 6.Bh4, which is when I started investigating 4.Bf4. I actually may start playing this in FIDE tournaments where I will probably be much lower rated, exactly to get into such a tame line
Scott Ligon (2025-10-31 12:46:50)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
To make things just slightly interesting. There's no challenge at all in holding the draw with black while playing a standard opening. Modern engines make it trivially easy. But in the Budapest or the Albin Countergambit or Alekhine's Defense, I'm pretty sure black can still hold the draw, but you have to be careful.
George Jempty (2025-11-08 12:11:03)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Hello Garvin Gray, there is a similar rule if you are within 50 points of the floor of the next higher group, and "the field has gotten to the last two entries", and you pay 10 e-points.
I think this policy helps fill up hard to fill groups, like standard-M. Nobody has joined the new/empty rating list for that group in the meantime.
On a personal note, my future rating just since the last update earlier this week, has even gone up over 20 points and now stands at 2199, AND I have a clearly winning position (+3.0 per SF 17) against a 2300.
IMO I am clearly worthy of standard-M, and am not making a mockery of anything.
George Jempty (2025-12-04 13:20:38)
Too many groups for tourneys
The very highest groups take forever to fill up. I think the low bound for the higher groups, rapid or standard, should be 2300.
There are 440 results for anda in wikichess.
Pablo Schmid (1700)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4
The standard open sicilan move.
============
Contributors : Pablo Schmid
Ron Keyston (1522)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be3 a6 f3
A more solid standard reply than 7.g4
============
Contributors : Sebastian Boehme
Max Rau-Chaplin (1600)
e4 d5 exd5 Nf6 d4
3 d4. is the standard move in this position. Rather than attempting to hold its over-extended doubled pawn White plays for a strong center and easy development. From here there are two popular variations, 3 NxF6(main line) and the sharper portugese variation 3 BG4
============
Contributors : Max Rau-Chaplin
Kieran Child (1600)
h4 e5 Rh3 d5 Re3 Nc6 d4 e4 c4 Nf6
A standard move, it develops the knight, and appears to defend d5 and e4.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
d4 e5 dxe5 Nc6
An understandable move. Black attacks the e5 pawn and stakes a claim for the centre.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6
Berlin defence
The standard reply. Black develops normally and will aim to play Nc6 and Bc5 and castle for a typical open game. This move does justify white's early bishop move though, as he can now play d3 and get a middlegame with two active bishops.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5
The standard freeing move.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bc4 Nf6 Nf3
A standard developing move.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5 dxc5 Qa5+ c3 Qxc5 Nf3 Nbc6 Be3 Qa5 Ng5
A terrible move, perhaps somehow believing he could brew up a kingside attack. Nbd2 was mandatory here.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Graham Cridland (1406)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Be7 Qf3
Introducing the standard Qf3 based attacking plan with 0-0-0, g4-g5, etc.
============
Contributors : Graham Cridland
Sebastian Boehme (1999)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nb3
The standard retreat of the knight in this position.
============
Contributors : Sebastian Boehme
Sandor Porkolab (1476)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 b6 c3 Qd7 Nf3
5.Nf3 Standard build up from white
============
Contributors : Sandor Porkolab
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1726)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 d3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1726)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 d3 Bc5 Bg5
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1726)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 d3 Bc5 Bg5 h6 Bh4
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1726)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 d3 Bc5 Bg5 h6 Bh4 O-O Be2
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1726)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 d3 Bc5 Bg5 h6 Bh4 O-O Be2 Re8 O-O
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1726)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 d3 Bc5 Bg5 h6 Bh4 O-O Be2 Re8 O-O Be7 a3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Bd7 Qe2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Nf3 Bg7 Be3 c6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
c4 c6 Nf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
c4 c6 Nf3 d5 b3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Nf3 Bg7 Be3 c6 Qd2 b5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
c4 c6 Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Aleksandar Zivotic (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4 O-O f3
============
Contributors : Aleksandar Zivotic
Aleksandar Zivotic (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Bc4 O-O f3 Nc6 Qe2
============
Contributors : Aleksandar Zivotic
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
c4 c6 Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bg4 e3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Nf3 Bg7 Be3 c6 Qd2 b5 Bd3 Nbd7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
c4 c6 Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bg4 e3 e6 h3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
c4 c6 Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bg4 e3 e6 h3 Bh5 Be2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
c4 c6 Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bg4 e3 e6 h3 Bh5 Be2 Nbd7 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
c4 c6 Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bg4 e3 e6 h3 Bh5 Be2 Nbd7 O-O Bd6 Nc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Nf3 Bg7 Be3 c6 Qd2 b5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bh6 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1726)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Bf5 Ng3 Bg6 N1e2 e5
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1726)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Bf5 Ng3 Bg6 N1e2 e5 dxe5 Qxd1
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1726)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Bf5 Ng3 Bg6 N1e2 e5 dxe5 Qxd1 Kxd1 Nd7
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2035)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Nf3 Bg7 Be3 c6 Qd2 b5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bh6 O-O O-O Qc7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1726)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Bf5 Ng3 Bg6 N1e2 e5 dxe5 Qxd1 Kxd1 Nd7 Bf4 O-O-O
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O c5 Qe2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O c5 Qe2 O-O c3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O Be7 e4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O c5 Qe2 O-O c3 b6 Re1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O Be7 e4 dxe4 Nxe4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O c5 Qe2 O-O c3 b6 Re1 Bb7 Bg5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 Bd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Nc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 c3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 h3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 c3 Nc6 Bb5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O c5 Qe2 O-O c3 b6 Re1 Bb7 Bg5 h6 Bf4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O Be7 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 O-O Rd1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 Nf3 d5 exd5 cxd5 d4
Transpose to wikichess #16076#
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Qb6 Qa4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4 e6 Bg2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Qb6 Qa4 cxd4 Bxc6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4 e6 Bg2 Qxh4 Qd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Qb6 Qa4 cxd4 Bxc6 bxc6 Qxd4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O c5 Qe2 O-O c3 b6 Re1 Bb7 Bg5 h6 Bf4 Nd5 Bd2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O Be7 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 O-O Rd1 Nxe4 Bxe4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4 e6 Bg2 Qxh4 Qd3 Bg6 Qg3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Qb6 Qa4 cxd4 Bxc6 bxc6 Qxd4 e6 Qxb6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 f5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 d5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 a4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O c5 Qe2 O-O c3 b6 Re1 Bb7 Bg5 h6 Bf4 Nd5 Bd2 cxd4 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 Bd3 g6 h3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nge7 c3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Bc4 Bg7
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nge7 c3 Ng6 d4
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 O-O Bd6 d4 f6 dxe5
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Bc4 Bg7 f3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Bc4 Bg7 f3 Nc6 Be3 O-O
Transpose to wikichess #15853#
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 O-O Bd6 d4 f6 dxe5 fxe5 Nxe5
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 O-O Bd6 d4 f6 dxe5 fxe5 Nxe5 Nf6 Nc4
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 a4 c5 c3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O c5 Qe2 O-O c3 b6 Re1 Bb7 Bg5 h6 Bf4 Nd5 Bd2 cxd4 Nxd4 N7f6 Ne4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nge7 c3 Ng6 d4 b5 Bc2
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O c5 Qe2 O-O c3 b6 Re1 Bb7 Bg5 h6 Bf4 Nd5 Bd2 cxd4 Nxd4 N7f6 Ne4 Qc7 Nb5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 Bd3 g6 h3 Be6 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nge7 O-O a6 Bc4 Ng6 Nc3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nge7 O-O a6 Bc4 Ng6 Nc3 Bc5 Nd5
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 a4 c5 c3 Be7 Be3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O c5 Qe2 O-O c3 b6 Re1 Bb7 Bg5 h6 Bf4 Nd5 Bd2 cxd4 Nxd4 N7f6 Ne4 Qc7 Nb5 Qc6 c4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 Bd3 Be7 O-O c5 Qe2 O-O c3 b6 Re1 Bb7 Bg5 h6 Bf4 Nd5 Bd2 cxd4 Nxd4 N7f6 Ne4 Qc7 Nb5 Qc6 c4 Nc7 Nbd6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nge7 c3 Ng6 d4 b5 Bc2 Be7 d5
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 a4 c5 c3 Be7 Be3 b6 Bb5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nge7 c3 Ng6 d4 b5 Bc2 Be7 d5 Nb8 a4
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O Be7 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 O-O Rd1 Nxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bf4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 a4 c5 c3 Be7 Be3 b6 Bb5 Bb7 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O Be7 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 O-O Rd1 Nxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bf4 Nxe4 Qxe4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 Bd3 g6 h3 Be6 O-O Bg7 f4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 a4 c5 c3 Be7 Be3 b6 Bb5 Bb7 O-O O-O Ne5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 Bd3 g6 h3 Be6 O-O Bg7 f4 O-O f5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 Bd3 g6 h3 Be6 O-O Bg7 f4 O-O f5 Bd7 Nf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 a4 c5 c3 Be7 Be3 b6 Bb5 Bb7 O-O O-O Ne5 Nxe5 dxe5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 Bd3 g6 h3 Be6 O-O Bg7 f4 O-O f5 Bd7 Nf3 Na6 Ne5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 Bd3 g6 h3 Be6 O-O Bg7 f4 O-O f5 Bd7 Nf3 Na6 Ne5 Nb4 Bb1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 Bd3 g6 h3 Be6 O-O Bg7 f4 O-O f5 Bd7 Nf3 Na6 Ne5 Nb4 Bb1 Rfd8 Bd2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Nc3 Bf5 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 Qb6 Qxb6 axb6 Bd3 g6 h3 Be6 O-O Bg7 f4 O-O f5 Bd7 Nf3 Na6 Ne5 Nb4 Bb1 Rfd8 Bd2 c5 fxg6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 a4 c5 c3 Be7 Be3 b6 Bb5 Bb7 O-O O-O Ne5 Nxe5 dxe5 Qd5 Qxd5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nge7 O-O a6 Bc4 Ng6 Nc3 Bc5 Nd5 d6 c3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O Be7 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 O-O Rd1 Nxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bf4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Qc8 c5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O Be7 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 O-O Rd1 Nxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bf4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Qc8 c5 Rd8 Ng5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O Be7 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 O-O Rd1 Nxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bf4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Qc8 c5 Rd8 Ng5 Bxg5 Bxg5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 d4 exd4 O-O Bc5 e5 d5 exf6 dxc4 Re1 Be6 Ng5 Qxf6
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Be2 Bc5 O-O d6 a3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Be2 Bc5 O-O d6 a3 a6 d3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Be2 Bc5 O-O d6 a3 a6 d3 h6 h3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 e6
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Be2 Bc5 O-O d6 a3 a6 d3 h6 h3 Be6 Be3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qg6 d3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qg6 d3 exd3 Bxd3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qg6 d3 exd3 Bxd3 Qe6 Be3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 e6 Nf3 Nc6
Transpose to wikichess #1989#
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 e6
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e3 e5 Bxc4 exd4 exd4 Nf6 Nf3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 e6 d4 cxd4
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 e6 d4 cxd4 cxd4 d5
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 e6 d4 cxd4 cxd4 d5 e5 Bb4
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O Be7 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 O-O Rd1 Nxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bf4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Qc8 c5 Rd8 Ng5 Bxg5 Bxg5 f6 Bf4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qg6 d3 exd3 Bxd3 Qe6 Be3 Bb4 O-O
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 b6 Bd3 Bb7 O-O Be7 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 O-O Rd1 Nxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Bf4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Qc8 c5 Rd8 Ng5 Bxg5 Bxg5 f6 Bf4 bxc5 dxc5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 e6 d4 cxd4 cxd4 d5 e5 Bb4 Nc3 Nge7
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 e6 d4 cxd4 cxd4 d5 e5 Bb4 Nc3 Nge7 Bd3 Nf5
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1682)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nge7 O-O a6 Bc4 Ng6 Nc3 Bc5 Nd5 d6 c3 O-O d4
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1654)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 e6 d4 cxd4 cxd4 d5 e5 Bb4 Nc3 Nge7 Bd3 Nf5 O-O O-O
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Aleksandar Zivotic (1422)
e4 e5 Nf3 a6 Nxe5 Nh6
============
Contributors : Aleksandar Zivotic
Aleksandar Zivotic (1422)
e4 e5 Nf3 a6 Nxe5 Nh6 d4 Qe7
============
Contributors : Aleksandar Zivotic
Aleksandar Zivotic (1422)
e4 e5 Nf3 a6 Nxe5 Nh6 d4 Qe7 Nc3 c6
============
Contributors : Aleksandar Zivotic
Aleksandar Zivotic (1422)
e4 e5 Nf3 a6 Nxe5 Nh6 d4 Qe7 Nc3 c6 Bxh6 gxh6
============
Contributors : Aleksandar Zivotic
Aleksandar Zivotic (1422)
e4 e5 Nf3 a6 Nxe5 Nh6 d4 Qe7 Nc3 c6 Bxh6 gxh6 Bc4 d5
============
Contributors : Aleksandar Zivotic
Aleksandar Zivotic (1422)
e4 e5 Nf3 a6 Nxe5 Nh6 d4 Qe7 Nc3 c6 Bxh6 gxh6 Bc4 d5 exd5 f6
============
Contributors : Aleksandar Zivotic
Aleksandar Zivotic (1422)
e4 e5 Nf3 a6 Nxe5 Nh6 d4 Qe7 Nc3 c6 Bxh6 gxh6 Bc4 d5 exd5 f6 Qh5 Kd8
============
Contributors : Aleksandar Zivotic
Aleksandar Zivotic (1422)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 g3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bg2
============
Contributors : Aleksandar Zivotic
Aleksandar Zivotic (1422)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 g3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bg2 O-O O-O
============
Contributors : Aleksandar Zivotic
Giovanni Tanda (2066)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Ng3 e6 a4 c5 c3 Be7 Be3 b6 Bb5 Bb7 O-O O-O Ne5 Nxe5 dxe5 Qd5 Qxd5 Nxd5 Bd2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2 h6 Ne4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2 h6 Ne4 Nxe4 Qxe4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2 h6 Ne4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Nf6 Qe2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2 h6 Ne4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Nf6 Qe2 Qc7 Bd2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2 h6 Ne4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Nf6 Qe2 Qc7 Bd2 b6 O-O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2 h6 Ne4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Nf6 Qe2 Qc7 Bd2 b6 O-O-O Bb7 Ne5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 c3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 f5 d3 Nf6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2 h6 Ne4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Nf6 Qe2 Qc7 Bd2 b6 O-O-O Bb7 Ne5 O-O-O f4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Be7 d4 d6 d5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4 Bxb4 c3 Ba5 d4 d6 Qb3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2 h6 Ne4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Nf6 Qe2 Qc7 Bd2 b6 O-O-O Bb7 Ne5 O-O-O f4 Kb8 Kb1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Bd7 Qe2 Qe7 Qxe7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Be7 d4 d6 d5 Nb8 Bd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2 h6 Ne4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Nf6 Qe2 Qc7 Bd2 b6 O-O-O Bb7 Ne5 O-O-O f4 Kb8 Kb1 c5 dxc5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2 h6 Ne4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Nf6 Qe2 Qc7 Bd2 b6 O-O-O Bb7 Ne5 O-O-O f4 Kb8 Kb1 c5 dxc5 Bxc5 Rhf1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Ng5 Ngf6 Bd3 e6 N1f3 Bd6 Qe2 h6 Ne4 Nxe4 Qxe4 Nf6 Qe2 Qc7 Bd2 b6 O-O-O Bb7 Ne5 O-O-O f4 Kb8 Kb1 c5 dxc5 Bxc5 Rhf1 Rhe8 g4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4 Bxb4 c3 Ba5 d4 d6 Qb3 Qd7 Nbd2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 f5 d3 Nf6 O-O Bc5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 c3 Nxe4 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4 Bxb4 c3 Ba5 d4 d6 Qb3 Qd7 Nbd2 Bb6 a4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Bd7 Qe2 Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 Ne5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4 Bxb4 c3 Ba5 d4 d6 Qb3 Qd7 Nbd2 Bb6 a4 exd4 cxd4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Bd7 Qe2 Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 Ne5 Bb4 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Be7 d4 d6 d5 Nb8 Bd3 Nf6 c4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 c3 Nxe4 O-O d5 Bb5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 f5 d3 Nf6 O-O Bc5 Nc3 d6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 f5 d3 Nf6 O-O Bc5 Nc3 d6 Ng5 Rf8
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Be7 d4 d6 d5 Nb8 Bd3 Nf6 c4 O-O h3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 c3 Nxe4 O-O d5 Bb5 Bd6 d3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 f5 d3 Nf6 O-O Bc5 Nc3 d6 Ng5 Rf8 Nxh7 Rh8
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 f5 d3 Nf6 O-O Bc5 Nc3 d6 Ng5 Rf8 Nxh7 Rh8 Ng5 Qe7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Bd7 Qe2 Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 Ne5 Bb4 O-O Bxc3 Nxd7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Bd7 Qe2 Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 Ne5 Bb4 O-O Bxc3 Nxd7 Nbxd7 bxc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Bd7 Qe2 Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 Ne5 Bb4 O-O Bxc3 Nxd7 Nbxd7 bxc3 Rc8 Rb1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4 Bxb4 c3 Ba5 d4 d6 Qb3 Qd7 Nbd2 Bb6 a4 exd4 cxd4 Nxd4 Qc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4 Bxb4 c3 Ba5 d4 d6 Qb3 Qd7 Nbd2 Bb6 a4 exd4 cxd4 Nxd4 Qc3 Nxf3 gxf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2028)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4 Bxb4 c3 Ba5 d4 d6 Qb3 Qd7 Nbd2 Bb6 a4 exd4 cxd4 Nxd4 Qc3 Nxf3 gxf3 Nf6 Rg1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Bd7 Qe2 Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 Ne5 Bb4 O-O Bxc3 Nxd7 Nbxd7 bxc3 Rc8 Rb1 Rxc3 Bg5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Bd7 Qe2 Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 Ne5 Bb4 O-O Bxc3 Nxd7 Nbxd7 bxc3 Rc8 Rb1 Rxc3 Bg5 b6 Rfc1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Bd7 Qe2 Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 Ne5 Bb4 O-O Bxc3 Nxd7 Nbxd7 bxc3 Rc8 Rb1 Rxc3 Bg5 b6 Rfc1 Rxc1 Rxc1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2084)
d4 d6 c3 g6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2075)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Bb4 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Bd7 Qe2 Qe7 Qxe7 Bxe7 Ne5 Bb4 O-O Bxc3 Nxd7 Nbxd7 bxc3 Rc8 Rb1 Rxc3 Bg5 b6 Rfc1 Rxc1 Rxc1 Kd8 Ba6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2084)
d4 d6 c3 g6 Nf3 Bg7
Transpose to wikichess #11971#
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 Nd4 Bc4 c6
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 Nd4 Bc4 c6 Nxe5 Qf6
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 Nd4 Bc4 c6 Nxe5 Qf6 f4 fxe4
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 Nd4 Bc4 c6 Nxe5 Qf6 f4 fxe4 Bf7 Kd8
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 Nd4 Bc4 c6 Nxe5 Qf6 f4 fxe4 Bf7 Kd8 O-O Nh6
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2084)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Qg4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 fxe4 Nxe4 d5 Nxe5 dxe4 Nxc6 bxc6 Bxc6
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 fxe4 Nxe4 d5 Nxe5 dxe4 Nxc6 bxc6 Bxc6 Bd7 Qh5
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2084)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Qg4 h5 Qf4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2084)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Qg4 h5 Qf4 Bxc5 Bd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2084)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Qg4 h5 Qf4 Bxc5 Bd3 Qb6 c3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2084)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Qg4 h5 Qf4 Bxc5 Bd3 Qb6 c3 Nh6 b4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2084)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Qg4 h5 Qf4 Bxc5 Bd3 Qb6 c3 Nh6 b4 Be7 Nf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Bf4 Bf5 Nbd2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Bf4 Bf5 Nbd2 e6 e3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Bf4 Bf5 Nbd2 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 Bf4 c5 e3 Nc6 c3 Nf6 Nd2 e6
Transpose to wikichess #18409#
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Bf4 Bf5 Nbd2 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 c4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 Nf3 Nc6 c4 cxd4 Nxd4 dxc4 Nxc6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 Nf3 Nc6 c4 cxd4 Nxd4 dxc4 Nxc6 Qxd1 Kxd1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Bf4 Bf5 Nbd2 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 c4 Nf6 Qb3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 Nf3 Nc6 c4 cxd4 Nxd4 dxc4 Nxc6 Qxd1 Kxd1 bxc6 Bxc4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 Nf3 c6 Bf4 Bf5 Nbd2 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 c4 Nf6 Qb3 Qc7 Nh4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 c5 c3 Nc6
Transpose to wikichess #39668#
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 Nf3 Nc6 dxc5
Transpose to wikichess #11161#
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7 Bf4 Nh5 Qd2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7 Bf4 Nh5 Qd2 Nxf4 Qxf4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7 Bf4 Nh5 Bd2 g6 e4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7 Bf4 Nh5 Bd2 g6 e4 dxe4 Nxe4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7 Bf4 Nh5 Qd2 Nxf4 Qxf4 e6 e4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7 Bf4 Nh5 Qd2 Nxf4 Qxf4 e6 e4 b6 exd5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7 Bf4 Nh5 Qd2 Nxf4 Qxf4 e6 e4 b6 exd5 exd5 b4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4 Bb3 b5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 Be7 Be2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 Be7 Be2 d5 exd5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O h6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 Bg7 O-O h6 d4 d6
Transpose to wikichess #60247#
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 Be7 Be2 d5 exd5 Bh4 Kf1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Qf5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 Be7 Be2 d5 exd5 Bh4 Kf1 Bf6 d4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4 Bb3 b5 a3 Qa5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 Be7 Be2 d5 exd5 Bh4 Kf1 Bf6 d4 Ne7 Nc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 Be7 Be2 d5 exd5 Bh4 Kf1 Bf6 d4 Ne7 Nc3 O-O Bxf4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 d5 Bxd5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4 Bb3 b5 a3 Qa5 dxc5 dxc5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 d3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Qf5 g4 Qg6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 h5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 Nf6 Nc3 c6 Bb3 d5 exd5 cxd5 d4 Bd6 Nge2 O-O Bxf4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 Nf6 Nc3 c6 Bb3 d5 exd5 cxd5 d4 Bd6 Nge2 O-O Bxf4 Bxf4 Nxf4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 Ne7 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd5 Bd3 Be7 c4 Ne3 Qe2 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 h5 Qe2 Qe7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 d3 dxe4 Ng1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4 Bb3 b5 a3 Qa5 dxc5 dxc5 Bd5 Rd8
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 d5 Bxd5 Nf6 Nc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 h5 Qe2 Qe7 d4 Bh6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 d3 dxe4 Ng1 Qh4 g3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nf6 fxe5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 d5 Bxd5 Nf6 Nc3 Bb4 Nf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4 Bb3 b5 a3 Qa5 dxc5 dxc5 Bd5 Rd8 Bxa8 Rxd1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 d5 exd5 e4 d3 Nf6 dxe4 Nxe4 Nf3 Bc5 Qe2 Bf5 Nc3 Qe7 Be3 Bxe3 Qxe3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4 Bb3 b5 a3 Qa5 dxc5 dxc5 Bd5 Rd8 Bxa8 Rxd1 Rxd1 b4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 d3 dxe4 Ng1 Qh4 g3 fxg3 Nh3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nf6 fxe5 dxe5 Nxe5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 d5 exd5 e4 d3 Nf6 dxe4 Nxe4 Nf3 Bc5 Qe2 Qe7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 h5 d4 g5 Bc4 h4 Nc3 d6 e5 Bh6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 d5 exd5 e4 d3 Nf6 dxe4 Nxe4 Nf3 Bc5 Qe2 Qe7 Be3 Bd6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nf6 fxe5 dxe5 Nxe5 Qe7 d4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 h5 d4 g5 Bc4 h4 Nc3 d6 e5 Bh6 Qe2 Kf8
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 d5 exd5 e4 d3 Nf6 dxe4 Nxe4 Nf3 Bc5 Qe2 Qe7 Be3 Bd6 Nbd2 Nf6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 d5 Bxd5 Nf6 Nc3 Bb4 Nf3 O-O O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 e6 e3 b6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4 Bb3 b5 a3 Qa5 dxc5 dxc5 Bd5 Rd8 Bxa8 Rxd1 Rxd1 b4 axb4 cxb4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nf6 fxe5 dxe5 Nxe5 Qe7 d4 Bd6 Qf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 h5 d4 g5 Bc4 h4 Nc3 d6 e5 Bh6 Qe2 Kf8 O-O h3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 d5 Bxd5 Nf6 Nc3 Bb4 Nf3 O-O O-O c6 Bb3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Qf5 g4 Qg6 Bxf4 Be7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nc6 Bb5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nf6 fxe5 dxe5 Nxe5 Qe7 d4 Bd6 Qf3 Bxe5 dxe5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 d5 Bxd5 Nf6 Nc3 Bb4 Nf3 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Bxc3 dxc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Qf5 g4 Qg6 Bxf4 Be7 Nc3 d6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 d4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Qf5 g4 Qg6 Bxf4 Be7 Nc3 d6 Bxd6 Bf6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 d4 exd4 cxd4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Qf5 g4 Qg6 Bxf4 Be7 Nc3 d6 Bxd6 Bf6 Bg3 Qxg4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Qf5 g4 Qg6 Bxf4 Be7 Nc3 d6 Bxd6 Bf6 Bg3 Qxg4 Qg2 Qxd4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 d5 Bxd5 Nf6 Nc3 Bb4 Nf3 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Bxc3 dxc3 Qxd1 Rxd1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Qf5 g4 Qg6 Bxf4 Be7 Nc3 d6 Bxd6 Bf6 Bg3 Qxg4 Qg2 Qxd4 Kh1 Bd7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 d4 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Nc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 e3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 e6 e3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4 Bb3 b5 a3 Qa5 dxc5 dxc5 Bd5 Rd8 Bxa8 Rxd1 Rxd1 b4 axb4 cxb4 Nd5 Nxd5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
b4 c6 c4 d5 cxd5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qd8 Bc4 Nf6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Qf5 g4 Qg6 Bxf4 Be7 Nc3 d6 Bxd6 Bf6 Bg3 Qxg4 Qg2 Qxd4 Kh1 Bd7 Rad1 Qg4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 d4 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Nc3 Nge7 f5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Qf5 g4 Qg6 Bxf4 Be7 Nc3 d6 Bxd6 Bf6 Bg3 Qxg4 Qg2 Qxd4 Kh1 Bd7 Rad1 Qg4 Nd5 Bc6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 d4 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Nc3 Nge7 f5 Nb4 Bc4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qd8 Bc4 Nf6 O-O Bc5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4 Bb3 b5 a3 Qa5 dxc5 dxc5 Bd5 Rd8 Bxa8 Rxd1 Rxd1 b4 axb4 cxb4 Nd5 Nxd5 Rxd5 Qb6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Nd7 Bb5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2072)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 Bc4 g4 O-O gxf3 Qxf3 Qf6 e5 Qxe5 Bxf7 Kxf7 d4 Qf5 g4 Qg6 Bxf4 Be7 Nc3 d6 Bxd6 Bf6 Bg3 Qxg4 Qg2 Qxd4 Kh1 Bd7 Rad1 Qg4 Nd5 Bc6 c4 Nd7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
b4 c6 c4 d5 cxd5 cxd5 d4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 e3 Nh5 Be5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d6 Bc4 h6 d4 g5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 e6 e3 Be7 Nd2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Nd7 Bb5 Qc7 Nf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 h5 d4 g5 Bc4 h4 Nc3 d6 e5 Bh6 Qe2 Kf8 O-O h3 g3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 Nf6 Nc3 c6 Bb3 d5 exd5 cxd5 d4 Bd6 Nge2 O-O Bxf4 Bxf4 Nxf4 Re8 Nfe2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4 Bb3 b5 a3 Qa5 dxc5 dxc5 Bd5 Rd8 Bxa8 Rxd1 Rxd1 b4 axb4 cxb4 Nd5 Nxd5 Rxd5 Qb6 Bxb8 Qxb8
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qd8 Bc4 Nf6 O-O Bc5 d4 Be7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qd8 Bc4 Nf6 O-O Bc5 d4 Be7 Bxf4 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
d4 e6 Bf4 f5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Nd7 Bb5 Qc7 Nf3 Bxc5 Bxc5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2083)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 d6 Rb1 g6 h3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O Bc4 Qb4 Bb3 b5 a3 Qa5 dxc5 dxc5 Bd5 Rd8 Bxa8 Rxd1 Rxd1 b4 axb4 cxb4 Nd5 Nxd5 Rxd5 Qb6 Bxb8 Qxb8 Rd8 Bf8
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
d4 e6 Bf4 f5 e3 Nf6
Transpose to wikichess #72587#
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 Bd6 O-O Bxe5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
b4 c6 c4 d5 cxd5 cxd5 d4 Bf5 Nc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
b4 e5 Bb2 d6 c4 Nf6 e3 Be7 Nf3 O-O d4 exd4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
b4 c6 c4 d5 cxd5 cxd5 d4 Bf5 Nc3 e6 e3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 e6 e3 Be7 Nd2 Qc8 Be2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
b4 e5 Bb2 d6 c4 Nf6 e3 Be7 Nf3 O-O d4 exd4 exd4 Re8
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 Bd6 O-O Bxe5 Re1 Qe7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
b4 c6 c4 d5 cxd5 cxd5 d4 Bf5 Nc3 e6 e3 Bxb4 Bb2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
b4 e5 Bb2 d6 c4 Nf6 e3 Be7 Nf3 O-O d4 exd4 exd4 Re8 Be2 d5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
b4 e5 Bb2 d6 c4 Nf6 e3 Be7 Nf3 O-O d4 exd4 exd4 Re8 Be2 d5 c5 Nc6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
b4 c6 c4 d5 cxd5 cxd5 d4 Bf5 Nc3 e6 e3 Bxb4 Bb2 Nf6 h3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
b4 c6 c4 d5 cxd5 cxd5 d4 Bf5 Nc3 e6 e3 Bxb4 Bb2 Nf6 h3 Nbd7 Nf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 Bd6 d4 Nh5 Nc3 Qe7 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 e3 Nh5 Be5 Nhf6 Bd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 Nf6 Nc3 c6 Bb3 d5 exd5 cxd5 d4 Bd6 Nge2 O-O Bxf4 Bxf4 Nxf4 Re8 Nfe2 Nc6 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 e3 Nh5 Be5 Nhf6 Bd3 Bg4 h3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 d5 exd5 e4 d3 Nf6 dxe4 Nxe4 Nf3 Bc5 Qe2 Bf5 Nc3 Qe7 Be3 Bxe3 Qxe3 Nxc3 Qxe7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Bg4 Bxc4
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Bg4 Bxc4 e6 a3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 Nf6 Nc3 c6 Bb3 d5 exd5 cxd5 d4 Bd6 Nge2 O-O Bxf4 Bxf4 Nxf4 Re8 Nfe2 Nc6 O-O Na5 Qd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Bg4 Bxc4 e6 a3 Nbd7 Nbd2
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Bg4 Bxc4 e6 a3 Nbd7 Nbd2 Bd6 Qb3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Dinesh Bhandarkar (1707)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Bg4 Bxc4 e6 a3 Nbd7 Nbd2 Bd6 Qb3 Nb6 Bd3
============
Contributors : Dinesh Bhandarkar
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d6 Bc4 h6 d4 g5 O-O Bg7
Transpose to wikichess #60247#
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 d5 exd5 e4 d3 Nf6 dxe4 Nxe4 Nf3 Bc5 Qe2 Bf5 Nc3 Qe7 Be3 Bxe3 Qxe3 Nxc3 Qxe7 Kxe7 bxc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Nd7 Bb5 Qc7 Nf3 Bxc5 Bxc5 Qxc5 Nc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Bc4 d5 Bxd5 Nf6 Nc3 Bb4 Nf3 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Bxc3 dxc3 Qxd1 Rxd1 Nxe4 Bxf4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2 Ng6 c3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2 Ng6 c3 O-O Re1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 d4 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Nc3 Nge7 f5 Nb4 Bc4 d5 exd5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 d4 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Nc3 Nge7 f5 Nb4 Bc4 d5 exd5 Nxf5 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3 d6 c3 Nc6 Bb5 Bd7 d4 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Nc3 Nge7 f5 Nb4 Bc4 d5 exd5 Nxf5 O-O O-O a3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 e6 e3 Be7 Nd2 Qc8 Be2 Bd8 g4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 e3 Nh5 Be5 Nhf6 Bd3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Nd7 Bb5 Qc7 Nf3 Bxc5 Bxc5 Qxc5 Nc3 Ne7 Qd4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 Bd6 d4 Nh5 Nc3 Qe7 O-O Bxe5 Bb5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 e3 Nh5 Be5 Nhf6 Bd3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nxe5 dxe5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 Bd6 d4 Nh5 Nc3 Qe7 O-O Bxe5 Bb5 Bd7 dxe5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 Bd6 d4 Nh5 Nc3 Qe7 O-O Bxe5 Bb5 Bd7 dxe5 Qc5 Kh2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 e3 Nh5 Be5 Nhf6 Bd3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nxe5 dxe5 Nd7 e6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 Bd6 d4 Nh5 Nc3 Qe7 O-O Bxe5 Bb5 Bd7 dxe5 Qc5 Kh2 Bxb5 Nxb5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 e3 Nh5 Be5 Nhf6 Bd3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nxe5 dxe5 Nd7 e6 Ne5 exf7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 e3 Nh5 Be5 Nhf6 Bd3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nxe5 dxe5 Nd7 e6 Ne5 exf7 Nxf7 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 e3 Nh5 Be5 Nhf6 Bd3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nxe5 dxe5 Nd7 e6 Ne5 exf7 Nxf7 O-O e6 Na4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 e6 e3 Be7 Nd2 Qc8 Be2 Bd8 g4 Bg6 g5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 e6 e3 Be7 Nd2 Qc8 Be2 Bd8 g4 Bg6 g5 Ng8 h4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 e6 e3 Be7 Nd2 Qc8 Be2 Bd8 g4 Bg6 g5 Ng8 h4 h6 gxh6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2 Ng6 c3 O-O Re1 Qb6 a4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2 Ng6 c3 O-O Re1 Qb6 a4 a6 Be3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 e6 e3 Be7 Nd2 Qc8 Be2 Bd8 g4 Bg6 g5 Ng8 h4 h6 gxh6 Nxh6 h5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 e6 e3 Be7 Nd2 Qc8 Be2 Bd8 g4 Bg6 g5 Ng8 h4 h6 gxh6 Nxh6 h5 Bh7 Rg1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2 Ng6 c3 O-O Re1 Qb6 a4 a6 Be3 Bxe3 Qxe3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 e6 e3 Be7 Nd2 Qc8 Be2 Bd8 g4 Bg6 g5 Ng8 h4 h6 gxh6 Nxh6 h5 Bh7 Rg1 Kf8 Bxh6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2 Ng6 c3 O-O Re1 Qb6 a4 a6 Be3 Bxe3 Qxe3 Qxe3 Rxe3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2 Ng6 c3 O-O Re1 Qb6 a4 a6 Be3 Bxe3 Qxe3 Qxe3 Rxe3 Bd7 Nbd2
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 e6 e3 Be7 Nd2 Qc8 Be2 Bd8 g4 Bg6 g5 Ng8 h4 h6 gxh6 Nxh6 h5 Bh7 Rg1 Kf8 Bxh6 gxh6 Qb3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2 Ng6 c3 O-O Re1 Qb6 a4 a6 Be3 Bxe3 Qxe3 Qxe3 Rxe3 Bd7 Nbd2 Rfc8 a5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2 Ng6 c3 O-O Re1 Qb6 a4 a6 Be3 Bxe3 Qxe3 Qxe3 Rxe3 Bd7 Nbd2 Rfc8 a5 Nf4 Bf1
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Nd7 Bb5 Qc7 Nf3 Bxc5 Bxc5 Qxc5 Nc3 Ne7 Qd4 Qxd4 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2 Ng6 c3 O-O Re1 Qb6 a4 a6 Be3 Bxe3 Qxe3 Qxe3 Rxe3 Bd7 Nbd2 Rfc8 a5 Nf4 Bf1 Ne7 g3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Nf3 Bxc5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Nge7 Qe2 Ng6 c3 O-O Re1 Qb6 a4 a6 Be3 Bxe3 Qxe3 Qxe3 Rxe3 Bd7 Nbd2 Rfc8 a5 Nf4 Bf1 Ne7 g3 Nfg6 Nb3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Nd7 Bb5 Qc7 Nf3 Bxc5 Bxc5 Qxc5 Nc3 Ne7 Qd4 Qxd4 Nxd4 a6 Bxd7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Nd7 Bb5 Qc7 Nf3 Bxc5 Bxc5 Qxc5 Nc3 Ne7 Qd4 Qxd4 Nxd4 a6 Bxd7 Bxd7 O-O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Nd7 Bb5 Qc7 Nf3 Bxc5 Bxc5 Qxc5 Nc3 Ne7 Qd4 Qxd4 Nxd4 a6 Bxd7 Bxd7 O-O-O O-O f4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 g6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Nd7 Bb5 Qc7 Nf3 Bxc5 Bxc5 Qxc5 Nc3 Ne7 Qd4 Qxd4 Nxd4 a6 Bxd7 Bxd7 O-O-O O-O f4 b5 a3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 g6 Nf3 Bg7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2044)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Nd7 Bb5 Qc7 Nf3 Bxc5 Bxc5 Qxc5 Nc3 Ne7 Qd4 Qxd4 Nxd4 a6 Bxd7 Bxd7 O-O-O O-O f4 b5 a3 Rfc8 Rd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Qc7 Nc3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Qc7 Nc3 a6 Qh5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Qc7 Nc3 a6 Qh5 Ne7 Bd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Qc7 Nc3 a6 Qh5 Ne7 Bd3 Ng6 Nf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 g6 Nf3 Bg7 Be2 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 g6 Nf3 Bg7 Be2 O-O O-O b6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Qc7 Nc3 a6 Qg4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Qc7 Nc3 a6 Qg4 Nc6 Nf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 b5 c3 Bb7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 Be3 Qc7 Nc3 a6 Qg4 Nc6 Nf3 Nxe5 Nxe5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 g6 Nf3 Bg7 Be2 O-O O-O b6 Nbd2 c5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 b5 c3 Bb7 Qb3 a6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 Bf5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 g6 Nf3 Bg7 Be2 O-O O-O b6 Nbd2 c5 c3 Bb7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 b5 c3 Bb7 Qb3 a6 a4 e6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 e6 Bf4 Ne7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 g6 Nf3 Bg7 Be2 O-O O-O b6 Nbd2 c5 c3 Bb7 h3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 b5 c3 Bb7 Qb3 a6 a4 e6 axb5 axb5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 Bf5 Nd2 e6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 e6 Bf4 Ne7 Nf3 d5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 b5 c3 Bb7 Qb3 a6 a4 e6 axb5 axb5 Rxa8 Bxa8
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 Bf5 Nd2 e6 c4 Nc6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 b5 c3 Bb7 Qb3 a6 a4 e6 axb5 axb5 Rxa8 Bxa8 Qxb5 Nc6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 b5 c3 Bb7 Qb3 a6 a4 e6 axb5 axb5 Rxa8 Bxa8 Qxb5 Nc6 e4 Nf6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 b5 c3 Bb7 Qb3 a6 a4 e6 axb5 axb5 Rxa8 Bxa8 Qxb5 Nc6 e4 Nf6 f3 Be7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 a3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 Bf5 Nd2 e6 c4 Nc6 Ngf3 Bd6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 Bf5 Nd2 e6 c4 Nc6 Ngf3 Bd6 Bxd6 cxd6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 a3 Bxc5 Nf3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 Bf5 Nd2 e6 c4 Nc6 Ngf3 Bd6 Bxd6 cxd6 cxd5 exd5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 d5 e3 Bf5 Nd2 e6 c4 Nc6 Ngf3 Bd6 Bxd6 cxd6 cxd5 exd5 Qb3 O-O
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 a3 Bxc5 Nf3 Ne7 Bd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1834)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 a3 Bxc5 Nf3 Ne7 Bd3 Nbc6 b4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Ne5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Ne5 Nbd7 Bf4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Ne5 Nbd7 Bf4 e6 e3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Ne5 Nbd7 Bf4 e6 e3 Nxe5 Bxe5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 e6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Ne5 Nbd7 Bf4 e6 e3 Nxe5 Bxe5 Be7 Bd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 a6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 d5 Bf4 c5 e3 Nf6
Transpose to wikichess #17410#
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 a6 a3 cxd4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 a6 a3 cxd4 exd4 Be7
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Nxf6 Nxf6 Bd3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Nxf6 Nxf6 Bd3 Bg4 c3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 dxc5 e6 a3 Bxc5 Qg4
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 a6 a3 cxd4 exd4 Be7 Bd3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Nd7 Nf3 Ngf6 Nxf6 Nxf6 Bd3 Bg4 c3 e6 h3
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 Nf6 Bf4 c5 e3 Qb6 Nc3 e6 Nf3 a6 a3 cxd4 exd4 Be7 Bd3 Nc6 Na4 Qa5
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 b6 Bf4 Bb7 e3 d6 Nf3 h6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 b6 Bf4 Bb7 e3 d6 Nf3 h6 Bd3 g6
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
FICGS : anda , Wikipedia : anda , Dmoz : anda , Google : anda , Yahoo : anda
In the perfect Chess combination as in a first-rate short story, the whole plot and counter-plot should lead up to a striking finale, the interest not being allayed until the very last moment. (Yates and Winter)
I play correspondence chess because it is both art and science while chess is art only. (A player at FICGS)
Not only will I predict his triumph over Botvinnik, but I'll go further and say that he'll probably be the greatest Chess player that ever lived. (John Collins)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess