andrew
FICGS - Search results for andrew
There are 253 results for andrew in the forum.
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
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-22 14:49:55)
Ukrainian
As to the Ukranian version, I can be of no help here. :) Sure, Andrew Sumets is the right guy to do that, should he feels that way. You can ask him for contribution. As to the rest of the missing versions, I've no idea who can take trouble to do them. :)
Cheers,
Alex
Andrew Stephenson (2007-07-04 20:49:43)
(repetition)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-07-04 20:51:20)
Real names
"While registering, using your real name is really appreciated and helps to build this friendly atmosphere .." I would really appreciate it if Thibault would use his real name or at least reveal it. No offence meant but it seems strange to write a statement like the above and then use a nickname.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-06 11:22:37)
Unsolved, definitely + @ Andrew
It seems we forgot the original posts of this sub-discussion :)
Thibault de Vassal is (of course!) my real name... I just said that I played under my director's name [I made movies] in another correspondence chess organization before to play here. I'm quite surprised no-one found it yet :)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-07-10 11:11:52)
FICGS Data base of Games
Is there a searchable database of games on FICGS? How can I search for games by a particular player? Compliments to Thibault on an excellent site.
Nick Burrows (2007-07-10 12:35:13)
Search Games
Hi Andrew,
Click on 'Search Games' in the left hand column, and enter any players name.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-08-06 03:23:55)
Search games
How do you use the search by opening facility of the search games option? ECO clssification did not work nor the general name.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-06 13:39:42)
Search by opening
Hello Andrew.
Did you try to enter a line ie. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 .. or.. e4 c5 Nf3 d6 ?
By name or ECO, feel free to try this link :
http://www.ficgs.com/directory_openings.html
Andrew Stephenson (2007-08-08 22:55:21)
Search games
Thanks Thibault that works great
Andrew Stephenson (2007-08-11 23:40:27)
IGame ratings
Just curious but is the player curator listed as no 2 in IGAME ratings (2513) the same player curator on chess-mail.com rated at no 3 (2530)? On chess mail curator plays under an israeli flag.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-08-11 23:49:31)
Real names and databases
Do games with fictitious names ever get into databases like Mega Corre etc? I get the feeling that chess sites that use nicknames dont get onto databases so the games are less accesible maybe even lost?
Ivan Pljusnin (2007-08-12 01:41:19)
2 Andrew Stephenson
In fact there is a database of IGAME games in pgn format, about 400000 games. Formally speaking, it is not free: you have to register and buy membership and then you can download it. But somewhere it can be downloaded for free, I remember. If you wish I can give you a link, but I have to find it.
Our administrator does not send our games to MEGA Corre or any other chess databases, I am sure. From this point of view FICGS is much better.
Ivan Pljusnin (2007-08-12 03:39:21)
2 Andrew Stephenson
I think, curator on IGAME and curator on chess-mail is the same person. Here is his IGAME info:
country - israel
city - natania
bitth date - 13.03.1963
As far as I know, he was invited in IGAME team but refused to play. However, I am not sure that he is stronger than some of our team players. For example, look at this:
http://www.igame.ru/chess/gm.htm?gid=219934
or at this:
http://www.igame.ru/chess/gm.htm?gid=195761
GipsyFlame (=Pligin) and Red (aka Orlov) play in the IGAME team.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-03 18:24:51)
(repetition)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-03 18:25:05)
Ajudication
Thibault is there any way for the sever to link to table bases and automatically give a result? I face playing 39 moves to give mate in a queen v R + P ending
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-03 23:27:30)
Adjudication
Hello Andrew.
That's an idea, but your opponent is not supposed to use tablebases, he may just want to see how you'll checkmate him and learn from the game. Correspondence chess shouldn't be more computerized IMO, so only 'obvious' endgames will be adjudicated.
You may call the referee in a few more moves.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-04 03:04:33)
Adjudication
Thanks Thibault. Although saying "your opponent is not supposed to use tablebases" is a bit like saying "your opponent is not supposed to use a computer" all the table bases are a click away and everyone is going to use them.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-05 05:04:29)
Adjudication
Thibault I understand that to some players it might be unacceptable to have the game suddenly declared lost or drawn in a Q v Q+P ending or R+P v N+p ending. In my view these players should opt for the non computer tournaments you are going to set up. To cover the point raised: yes there can remain a need for a referee which should be human. Linking to table bases does not affect the beauty of an endgame Thibault its just a small range at the moment of 6 piece endings. There is no aesthetic value in following the moves advised by the tablebase the value is in getting there. Every strong player is consulting the tablebases when analysing positions leading to 6 piece situations so automating table base adjudications in say A M and WCC tournaments seems completely logical. Yes strong tournaments are played only for the sporting result Thibault I dont think anyone would choose an inferior move for the beauty they might try it to take a risk to win by complicating the game. I have seen 30+ moves games of yours of absolute poisened pawn Najdorf theory leading to a dead draw ..... I guess what I am trying to avoid is opponents dragging out games which are table base won. In the case of reasonable strong opponents 2100+ in my view this is because they just dont want to resign. by the way how do you call for the referee?
Garvin Gray (2007-09-05 06:30:28)
calling referee
Andrew- By the way how do you call for the referee?
Scroll down in the game window in question and press call referee and follow instructions. It is located under the move notation/game score.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-05 06:40:22)
Referee
Thanks Garvin! I should add that we are spoilt (at least I feel I am!) by Thibault's magnificent work on setting up running and maintaining this site so always want to ask for more!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-05 12:42:02)
Adjudication
Hello again Andrew, thanks for discussing this interesting point that is a part of the discussion about the Dead Man's Defence. See this thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=2828
There is no way to avoid a player to last a game IMO... New rules first mean new ways to get round it and too many rules should be avoided. I still think there are some 'tricky' moves in tablebases, at least beautiful moves so it should be up to the winner to call the referee or not and it should be up to the referee to adjudicate it or not.
Maybe time will make me change my mind, but not today I think :)
Best, Thibault
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-06 22:10:04)
Rybka
Hi Thibault
Could you say a bit more about Rybka how it has changed things? I have only ever used Fritz. CC for me is about chess research finding the truth about certain positions and openings and it helps in "real" chess. Its a fairly level playing field as all the programs are affordable but it sounds like us non rybka folk are at a disadvantage! And in the real chess world computer assisted work is obviously a huge part of the game.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 18:20:05)
Insults
Thibault you have been over tolerant of abusive posting in the forum already and that has contributed to the situation. Sorry to say that but it must be obvious to anyone who has read the discussions. The key problem is personal attacks on people and not provocation. It is not acceptable to respond to a point with a string of insults denigrating person. Incidentally Thibault is it not possible simply to deny someone access to the blog so there posts cannot be seen by anyone as a punishment and they receive a message to that effect? No need to deny or retrict them access to the server as a whole. This is what ICC do in the same situation. Also if someone is punished in this way there is no need for it to be broadcast it is enough they know that their posts or responses cannot be read. So the offender carries on using the server and playing chess but cannot make posts - but of course they can read them!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 18:39:27)
Insults
Hello Andrew.
"Limited access to the server" means (like ICC) that a player still can play his moves, but can't post anymore, ie. on the forum. About tolerance, I have been less tolerant in the past, but like in any game, some turned round the rules and the result was not so good. Trust me, it is not possible to say after 15 messages (provocation -> insults) who "started" and who must be banned.
Anyway, "I will always beat you ! - Show me, let's play a game !" won't be considered as provocation, but provocation about the person (including the IQ / rating 'formula') has not its place in this forum IMO.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 20:58:28)
Insults
Hi Thibault for me its clear that personal attacks deserve restriction eg describing someone as a hypocrite
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 21:05:48)
chess engines
Following Thibault's comments about Rybka having changed correpondence chess I purchased the rybka engine. It is a very good program but I dont see how it has affected cc anymore than Fritz.
I have used Fritz 8 and 9 extensively for analysis and have until now no experience of other engines. Although I have just downloaded Toga II which is an excellent engine (and free!!) if anyone wants a free engine this is a top program that downloads in seconds and is up there with the commercial programs.
I noticed Rybka seems more conservative evaluating positions than Fritz. However it has blind spots. For an example taken from the current chess cafe "Yasser Annotates" (Ivanchuk Seirawan 1990)after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe 4 Nxe Bc5 5 Ng3 Bg6 6 h5 h6 7 Nf3 Nd7 8 h5 Bh7 9 Bd3 Bxd 10 Qxd Ngf6 11 Bf4 e6 12 0-0-0 Be7 13 c4 b5 Black offers a pawn my reaction is not to take - otb I would never take. Why open the c file for black and grabbing the pawn by Qxb5 looks risky with only 2 pawns to cover the king and open b and c files. Fritz prefers 14 c5 with 14 cxd followed by 15 Kb1 as 2nd choice after 3 minutes ply 15 depth
Rybka r chooses 14 cxb cxb then 15 Qxb5?! even after 1 hour at ply 19! In cc I would look at 14cxb and 15 Qxb5 to see if I could survive and win with the extra pawn but working with Fritz it takes but a few minutes to see black has compensation after 15 Qxb5 Nd5. When 16 Be5 gives an inferior endgame for white and 16 Bd2 Rb8 gives an attack for black. The top professionals work with a range of programs Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Hiracs and Rybka to generate ideas.
Does anyone have any views on these other program's characteristics?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 23:31:53)
chess engines
Hi Jason
As Thibault post indicates Toga is a fruit flavour ie fruit variant. Check CEGT rating list for single version engines (http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating.htm) Toga II is at no3 and Fruit 2.3 is at no 5 position. As for our game no engine is ever going to save me! Maybe 28 ..Rc8 would have held but earlier on 14 exd6 Bf6 15 Bxf8 Kxf6 16 Qf3 looks really disgusting for black. I am not going to blame the opening but Fritz and I are back to the Najdorf! Apparently Aagard had a book out on offbeat sicilianl ines in which he could find no way for white to gain an advantage in this Prins line hmm Im sceptical.
Thibault - thanks for expanding on your comments. I note your point about calm positions. The game I cited is the sort of wild position where Rybka is not so good later in the game it is convinced that 19 ..Nxf2 is good for black a move which loses and which fritz rejects fairly quickly.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-11 22:04:32)
Chess comp ratings
Rybka is most dominant in the single processor versions when it comes to multi processor versions the gap is less and suddenly Zap chess appears. I am not sure why this is. Another point thats interesting is Rybkas endgame evaluations there is some significant difference with Fritz here. It seems a bit overoptimistic but sometimes it seems right. Finally a striking point when using Rybka is how comparatively few positions it is analysing per second compared to Fritz maybe only 10%. This illustrates Thibaults point about Rybka's far greater reliance on chess knowledge.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-11 22:13:14)
(repetition)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-12 07:36:30)
chess engines endgame play
Right Thibault! I am becoming more impressed with Rybka's endgame knowledge. It seems to have the extra pawn on just one side situations well understood. Is there any engine that is recognised as being the strongest at endgames? This is certainly an area where cc has helped me enormously as it has forced me to get some endgame books (and actually study them!)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-12 07:44:02)
(repetition)
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-12 16:51:49)
Gene
ok Gene let me give you my experience as to why you should use an engine in cc. 1) I have learnt a lot about certain openings and I remember lot more effective systems 2) finding the truth about a position is fun and instructive 3) I have acquired some endgame knowledge I never would have got. 4) Generally I wil try to understand why the engines like certain moves and drill down into the position trying altrentives until I get it. Sometimes in very wild positions its tough. Most of the the time this reinforces principles of develpoment pawn structure piece dynamism and I find it rubs off on my understanding. One proviso - if you take on too many games a lot of this wont work!
Facing a much lower rated player you have to do research and prepare something - trotting down the main line poisened pawn Najdorf may not be the way to go. A lot of top players go for catalan and english openings hoping to utilise their chess knowledge and research.
One thing is for sure always playing the best move of your engine is going to drop 1/2 points and lose some games and that includes Rybka. Finally all this stuff is done by all the top professionals in the otb chess. One example I faced the line that Kramnik got crushed with by Topalov playing b5 and f4. I looked at the game notes and databases and couldnt find a good response 45 minutes with fritz and I cracked it and in the process gained some insight into the opening. In fact its a harmless variation if you know the antidote but over the board one slip and Kram was toasted
Philip Roe (2007-09-13 00:37:23)
Andrew Stephenson
You post makes a lot of sense, and I can absolutely agree that being a centaur can be fun and educational
(Centaurs in Greek mythology, by the way, were a highly respected race, and usually described as happy) However, I am puzzled by something which maybe you or someone else can explain.
You and others assert that playing the engines first choice every time will drop points against an intelligent centaur. Does it not follow that a centaur should have a higher rating than its engine? But in fact the ratings quoted for the top engines are substantially higher than the ratings of anyone on FICGS, which seems a paradox.
Does the explanation lie in unsynchronized rating systems, or am I just missing something? This question has nothing to do with value judgements,
merely with satisfying a curiosity.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-13 06:35:12)
Ratings
Hi Phillip
I don't know what "an unsynchronised rating system" is. However at the rate of play 40/20 for example I am not sure I would be able to improve so much on the engines first choices. At the free style tournament stand alones do pretty well. If I needed 45 minutes to find one best move in the Topalov Kramnik line..... So yes a centaur can easily have a higher rating than the engine(s) he is using at cc time rates (on the same hardware). For one thing the centaur can use different engines and for another its a bit like taking a move back all the time and pushing past any horizon limitations plus there is the restrictions of opening books that all engines have. However I am not going to play my own cc games against Fritz 10 (Fritz 9 in my case)by giving it 1 day or even 10 minutes per move because I am not motivated - you need the human element for that. Hope that helps.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-13 06:37:19)
Bug
Andrew, please do not reload pages. It's better to use the links for that (ie. forum), duplicate posts should be avoided by the program but there's a small bug with some symbols.
Thanks :)
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 (2007-09-13 19:04:01)
Droit de ...
Sorry about duplicate Thibault will avoidi t i was wondering how it happened dont remember pressing the reload but must have done! Please remove all the personal attacks Thibault from this thread. Thanks
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-16 05:22:53)
Clarification
Sorry I have not followed this very well but for the sake of clarification what is your real name as in that which appears on your birth certificate and passport??
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-16 05:29:56)
Kramnik
I fancy Kramnik to win because his black game is a bit more solid and his white openings are more flexible than anand. Anands game 1 for example was a bit ropey. On the other hand he scored a cracker against Aronian as black.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-16 05:36:38)
IECG WC 2006 final + Clarification
Thanks Wolfgang :) .. Andrew, my name is Thibault de Vassal.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-16 08:06:27)
Film Director
Thanks Thibault. 2 questions. 1) Thibault De Vassal is a cool name perfect imo for a film director why did you switch for your film directing to another name?
2) where did you find the assumed sirname "Gordh" Is it a family name or did you invent it? Will check out your film work I a film junky and often go to film festivals etc
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-19 13:11:27)
Password
Thibault if I want to change my password how do I do that?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-19 13:30:17)
password change
Brilliant - thanks Thibault
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-20 13:58:05)
chessfriends
I remember that chessfriends.com used to have the opposite rule ie the player with the lower elo advanced in the knockout. I guess their reasoning was if your better rated you should be able to prove it. As Thibault mentioned he may be a victim of the FICGS rule in his match against Farit Balabaev. He has the higher TER and his opponent as taken 4 draws as white by repeating the same 15 move sequence in his 4 white games (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd 4 Nxd Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6 8 Qd2 Qxb2 9 Rb1 Qa3 10 f5 Nc6 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 Nxc6 bxc6 13 Be2 Be7 14 0-0 0-0 15 Rb3 Qc5+ 1/2 1/2) Not the greatest advert for cc games! It requires cooperation for this to happen although its dangerous for black to deviate after 9 Rb1. Still there are perfectly viable alternatives IMO in the Najdorf against 6 Bg5 other than this line. I suggest going to a 2 game mini match play off series at 5 days reserve and 1 day per move increment until there is a win. This would provide incentive to go for a result for the higher rated player in the main match. I would retain the lower rated player wins rule for decisive games (but overall draw) for the main match but leave it equal for the playoffs.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-20 19:32:38)
chessfriend
I dont think its plausible that the rule inspired anyone to lose Thibault -it was for a memorial tournament and although there were (supposedly) cash prizes (which never trasnpired)I think it just inspired the people with the higher rating to try to win. As for your explanation as to why you just bailed out on 4 games its difficult to respond other than to say it doesn't show you supporting your own concept of an 8 game match or the importance of the FICGS "world championship" stage that you had reached. I guess you will take the IECG "world championship" more seriously. I think having 2 game play offs at a fast time rate to a decision is a better way to go.
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?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-20 23:11:48)
chessfriend
Yes tournaments are different from matches but to take 50% of the match games as identical 15 move draws seems extreme and without parallel. Again it can only have been good for Farit to give up all his white games because his higher TER means he can get through by drawing his 4 black games so its really a 4 game match where black wins if he draws the 4 games. Anyway I just think it devalues the event to do that and the tie break rules encourage it - but lets agree to differ!
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-21 18:52:24)
Tie Breaks
Farit just to clarify things, you lost your drawn match against Peter Schuster (despite being the higher rated player) because of the rule that the lower rated player wins in the event of a drawn match, where there has been at least one win by the lower rated player. So the 4 draws by you are drawing attention to the problems with the tie break by rating approach (albeit the higher rated player wins if all games drawn part of the rule) Well at least we understand your side of it - that you were actually making a point.
Wolfgang I understand the rule is a compromise no need to cry however surely its right to review the experience and see if we can improve? The problem I have, based on the experience, is that it just makes the site look bad and silly to have 4 identical 15 move games. Thats not chess - in my view its absurd. So lets examine the experience and refine the process. A 2 game play off series at a very fast cc time rate ( 1-5 day reserve + 1 day increment)would, I believe, get a result. Its still a compromise because the time for cc is very short. At the same time lets re -think having the championship every 6 months idea - I think thats a big factor behind Thibault's tie break by rating rule. Its leading to overcrowding and its pretty hard to follow perhaps 1 every 9 months or year? Incidentally Thibault how do you break the tie if both have the same TER? Just a thought!
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-21 20:34:37)
Tie Breaks
Thansk for the reply Thibault. on the delay front I think it would be less than 6 months maybe 1 or 2 months. First the effect of this delay would impact on only very few top players in completing the final stages. Overall the quantity of chess games and opportunities would be unaffected as new championships start every 6 months so the amount of playing is the same. Second "If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account." Ok this will be rare but you cannot really be saying that a match would be decided perhaps 1 or 2 months after completion when the next rating is done? Third "The special rule, at least, force one player to avoid it." yes but it didn't did it? You took the 4 draws in 15 moves because you had too many games and your opponent was a strong player! My point is not about the unfairness of the rule Thibault its the effect of it - in this case 4 identical 15 move draws is not a good advert for the site, the World Championship FICGS or the players.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-23 13:23:38)
Log out
Thibault I get logged out of the site automatically after a certain time is there anyway I can extend the time before the sysytem logs me out forcing me to log back in?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-25 10:28:20)
Match
I have to say guys having worked quite a bit now with Rybka (single procesor version) it has some flaws defending against attacking positions - sometimes underestimating the attackers chances and not just in irrational or very complex positions. So whatever the role of opening books (obviously big) I am not surprised at the result so far. Thats to take nothing away from Rybka - great program.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-10-04 20:45:13)
Schuster win
Witty ending to the Schuster Figlio game. I always feel very uncomfortable as black in this line if e5 or c5 cannot be played. So 15 ..c5!? might do the trick eg 16 cxd5 exd5 17 dxc5 Bxc5 18 Nxd5 Nxd5 19 Rxd5 Bxe3 and it looks like black can hold this. It also gives some point to 6..Be4 inducing f3 and creating a weakness on e3 - although I have never understood why black wants to make white play f3 anyway!
Andrew Stephenson (2007-10-06 19:20:34)
Slave
Definitely thibault is a slave to this site - the amount of time he must spend on it and play cc, mind boggling. Thibault do you actually have a full time job as well as all this?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-07 15:03:22)
New category (chess rapid 2000-2200)
Thibault I think there may be a case for rapid tournament category 2000 - 2200 as there may be enough players in that category at the moment who might not feel very motivated to enter the 1800 - 2200 but would go for a 2000 - 2200 event. In the available tournament 1800 - 2200 for example no player above 2000 has entered. Just a thought.
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.
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?
Wayne Lowrance (2007-11-14 18:23:35)
ummmmm, not a good idea
Doesnt get my vote, sorry Andrew
Wayne
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-14 20:32:07)
New Category
I agree with Garvins point completely. I think there are crossover probs. I like Thibaults suggestion for the display of Rapid tournaments - people can then choose there category - great idea. There is plenty of scope for sub 2000 to progress under this format and I dont see any downside.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-14 20:38:49)
New category
Sorry I should have said I like the 200 band ranges options 2 and 4 - preferably option 2 as under option 4 I doubt you would see any 2200+ players entering. Wayne why do not want the bands to be reduced to 200 point differentials? dont you think there are a lot of players 2000 - 2200 who would like to play rapid?
Wayne Lowrance (2007-11-15 17:30:30)
new category
Hello Andrew. I have changed my thinking on this. 2000-2200> I would think 200 throughout would work.
Wayne
Andrew Stephenson (2007-11-16 08:57:17)
option 2
yes option 2 gets my vote
Andrew Stephenson (2007-12-08 21:30:53)
Back button
Thibault I find that if I enter tournaments then view a particular tournament then an individual game when I try to use the back button to return to the tournament cross table from the individual game it does not work but keeps returning me to the individual game. This is a bit tedious as it means re entering tournaments and selecting the particular tournament. Is there any way to fix this?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-12-13 14:31:21)
cheating
what sort of cheating were you referring to Thibault?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-12-26 20:08:02)
conditionals
They are a good idea I think the truth of many cc games is decided in a perimeter of a few moves and Wolfgang is right so much boring and unecessary work is involved in getting to those critical points. After 1 or 2 moves with conditionals you could have gone straight to the draw in some of your games Thibault!! Just joking! Please articulate your opposition to the concept a little more.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-12-27 09:44:35)
option 4
Thibault please consider implementing option 4 now. I cannot see the current rapid M 00009 tournament filling up for a long long time but there are IMO plenty of 2100 players who would sign up for an option 4 tourney who are not going for the rapid A 000035
Andrew Stephenson (2007-12-29 13:31:04)
New Category
ok Thibault look forward to the changes perhaps in a few months time we can revisit the matter ......
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-07 06:22:01)
Search games
How can you use search games to find games in a particular variation?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-07 07:37:49)
holidays and forfeit
Yes wolfgang he will forfeit although he still has time left he is on holday until Feb 1 and the clock will still run. I never understoofd the logic of running the clock and allowing holidays. This rule is misguided and unecessary I wish Thibault would get rid of it. I think victor does not realise he will forfeit and this will lead to a set of stupid losses I do not see how that helps good chess to be played nor do I see allowing clocks to be stopped would prolong the games to an unnacceptable length. Clearly a very unsatisfactory situation.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-08 08:37:49)
Lost on time
Well I think it maybe too late to save Victors participation as the game against Harry Ingersoll is already declared lost on time. Its an interesting position and game, Victor is a pawn down but has active play as compensation its not lost at all. I expect when he sees this game lost he will just resign the rest. So we will lose the participation of the highest rated player because of a rule that is not well understood and occurs without warning. The only way to save that and play chess is if Harry agrees to play on I would understand if he didnt but its a mess frankly
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-10 07:31:34)
Thanks
Thanks to Wolfgang for pointing it out to Thibault for reacting so quickly and flexibly and to the players for being so sporting - chess is the winner!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-14 10:08:25)
challenges
Thibault I must confess to being mystified by this: a name appears in the box entitled challenge a player, the name varies. Whats happening? does the system generate random names of those currently on line to offer up in case I want to challenge?? Or is the player challenging me?? Out of curiosity I have occasionally pressed the challenge button but nothing appears to happen. All in all quite baffling - now I ignore it!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-14 16:19:56)
challenges
Hi Andrew, yes players are ordered by login time (then roll so looks like random) while they most probably should be ordered by rating. Maybe soon... If a player challenges you, a line with an "accept" option appears below the box. If you challenge a player, a line that you can remove by clicking the double arrows appears below the box and your opponent is warned. But I have to make new improvements to increase the interest of these bullet/blitz bronze games - maybe it should be free after all :) .. Now, the empty games (without any moves) will be deleted by new ones...
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-15 11:20:51)
challenges
ok tks thibault
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-15 18:59:44)
winner
The winner of tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04 was Robert Mueller because he had the highest TER of those on 4/6. Thats the rule!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-17 14:04:20)
Result
TER stands for tournament entry rating ie the rating you had when the tournament starts. It is shown in the tournament crosstable along with the current rating. This TER is what decides in the event of a tie. However there is a slight contradiction when this rule is applied in matches. In this situation in the event of a tie the higher TER wins EXCEPT if there has been a result on both sides ie not all games were drawn then the lower TER player goes through. By analogy with Peters situation I think the rule might be ammended so that the higher TER goes through except when one of the tied players has beaten another tied player and in this situation is deemed to have a higher TER (as between them)for the purpose of the tie break. The point of this ammendment is that it still gives a tie break winner BUT it reflects the result bewteen individuals for tie break purposes as the result might indicate that the entry TER is not reflective of current relative strength. To late for you Peter I am afraid but worth a thought.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-06 21:07:47)
WCH candidates final tie break rule
Thibault I noticed on reading the rules for the candidates final that "the knockout tournament winner is qualified for stage 5 if all games are draw, the round-robin cycle winner if not all games are draw." Why did you not just stick with the tie break rule that applies for all other matches? Namely the higher TER (tournament entry rating)goes through on even score if all games drawn or lower TER on even score if not all drawn? Why have you made a special different tie break rule for the candidates final match?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-07 02:59:03)
Tie break rules
Yes knock out winner likely to have higher rating. However the round robin winner might have increased rating in getting to the candidate final. For example in 000002 Harry Ingersol could draw all his games in the knockout final and drop from his rating of TER 2555 and go through to candidate final (his future rating at the moment predicted at 2493)The other contestant Wolfgang has a predicted rating at 2489. Whereas Daniel Brunsteins could put in a strong showing winning the round robin final and improve his TER of 2476 (future rating estimated at 2487)Its quite possible that he could go into a candidates match with the higher TER and lose where all the games are drawn under the present rule. Why not just keep to the higher TER winner for an even result with draws and the lower TER tie break winning in a tie where the ganes were not all drawn
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-07 09:33:55)
cycle entry rating??
Thibault now your really confusing me?? I do not think there is any concept of cycle entry rating being followed in your WC system! In the knockout stages players ratings change so there entry rating changes in different stages. eg Wolfgang entered the quarter finals for 000002 with a TER of 2460 he was successful (against you)and played the semi final with improved TER 2523 and for the the knockout TER was the same 2523 with Harry had TER with 2456 for quarters but went to semis with TER 2459 and for knockout final his TER changed again to 2555. Now if CER is operating Thibault, the knockout final match should contain entry ratings at the start of the cycle ...this is extremely important because that would have wolfgang on 2460 and Harry on 2456 which will make a difference as it reverses the TER at present showing in that match leading to opposite results in the event of a tie. The same occurs for the stages and round robin finals - updated ratings are used for tie breaks at each stage. Anyway for the next cycle why do you not just change the candidate tie break rule to make it consistent with all the other tie break rules ie based on TER at the time the stage commences. It does not make any sense to give an advantage to say the no 8 rated player at the start of the cycle who goes into knockout over the no 9 rated player going into the stage and round robin. Both players will benefit from improved TER during the course of the cycle before they meet in the candidates final where there strength at that entry point should be a tie breaking factor and not where there rating was 1 year or more years earlier- the more so as their changed ratings since will/may have been used as tie breakers along the way anyway. Either that or introduce cycle entry ratings concept and keep ratings fixed for the duration of the cycle for tie break purposes for all matches and stages!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-07 18:50:03)
Candidates final tie break rule
I vote for 1 consistent single tie break system for all matches and round robins: player higher TER at the start wins if all games drawn loses if not all games drawn. The tie break rule is complex enough without suddenly switching. To answer your 2 points Thibault:
1) The round robin winner is a sort of "challenger" to the knock out winner thus its right to give the knock out a tie break win if all games drawn and require the round robin winner to win a game to go through on a tie. But the whole process is a method of determining a challenger for the WCC not a challenger to one of the top eight.
2) Tie break system is different for WCC challenger ie champ keeps title in the event of a draw. Well this isdifferent and its easy to understand that its necessary to beat the champ to take the title. This difference does not explain having a different tie break system in the candidates - there is no challenge here and no title at stake.
Each cycle is a challenger selection process and we need 1 consistent tie break method for each stage.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-10 14:55:28)
opening novelties
Thibault there is a section for best games which receives votes. I was wondering whether it would be possible to do the same thing for opening novelties?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-11 02:00:06)
opening novelties
Hi Andrew, I'm not sure it is good to multiply these sections, even if it would be interesting... but it is possible to talk about novelties in wikichess and/or this forum.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-12 20:56:41)
3 fold repetition
Hi thibault I was just wondering is there a draw rule on FICGS by 3 fold move repetition?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-13 00:33:31)
Threefold repetition
Hi Andrew. The server should recognize most cases and adjudicate games by itself, yes.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-14 13:40:04)
ratings
Hi thibault some time ago I think you suggested that you were going to start people at a higher rating? Maybe 1800? At present you have some players starting at very low ratings who are obviously going to be strong cc players. One outstanding example is Zack Stephen at 1300. He won the PAL/CSS frestyle advanced chess tournament in 2005 and as ZackS has remained at the top getting high places each year Just a thought .....
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-14 15:02:47)
provisional ratings
Hi Andrew, yes new players usually start with a 1800 rating, but if the player specify a rating below (or an official rating). I did not notice Zack's provisional rating, quite strange, but anyway it should increase very fast.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-14 17:10:57)
Rule
Hi Thibault just to clarify your answer there IS a draw by 3 fold repetition rule at FICGS? What happens if the server does not notice? As an insurance should the player making the claim notify the referee that he intends to play a move that will lead to the the same position appearing on the board (with the same player to move) for the 3rd time?
Garvin Gray (2008-02-14 19:00:38)
draw claims
Hello Andrew,
A point about the laws of chess from your last post.
The player who is claiming the draw via three repetition of position does not actually play the third move on the board. They are to get the arbiter (in this case referee) and indicate which move they wish to play.
The arbiter then makes the required ruling (draw or incorrect claim).
By the laws of chess, if you were to play the move on the board, it is then your opponent's move and you can not make any claim for a draw.
So taking this for server play, the server should not say draw until one person has made a successful claim. The reason for this is that both players may still want to play on after the third repetition.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-03-07 03:56:18)
Get well
I am sorry you are not well - our game is extremely interesting. Get well soon
Andrew Stephenson (2008-03-10 07:55:42)
Announcing resignation
Just a thought Thibault, announcing that you "will resign all my ongoing games" - before having done so is this binding? Is it the OTB equivalent of saying I resign presumably not I suppose ideally its better to resign then make the explanation?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-03-15 22:39:44)
computers
Yes I believe it is allowed at ICCF though cite any document
Glen D. Shields (2008-03-16 10:51:41)
ICCF
Andrew is correct. Computer use is not forbidden by ICCF nor IECG. Neither organization mentions computer use in its rules. The assumption is if it is not forbidden, it is allowed.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-03-18 08:00:21)
Rapid categories
Well thibault we had a long discussion about this with a lot of input and agreement you stated that you would implement the following:
"Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ... ~200"
you have completely gone back on this and your new range is hopeless - you will get 1900 and maybe some 2000 players thats it nowhere for 2000 +_ - 2300 players to go
Please check the archives reconsider and implement the range agreed to
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-18 15:53:20)
Rapid categories
Hello Andrew, I remember well our discussion :) I made this quick change because I saw most waiting lists empty and I had no more time, but the idea is still to create 200 points range categories (the only difference is the 2300+ one, I have to find a way to keep quite coherent names and rating ranges, working on, maybe a SM category 2300+).
Andrew Stephenson (2008-03-28 18:57:10)
time per move
Thibault the time per move rule and vacation rules need to be changed as they create a ridculous situation. Example you have under the time per move rule 10 days (but 20 toal days) left and without thinking take 11 days vacation - you have resigned the game! the game is lost because you cannot cancel the vacation and cannot move!! This is an easy mistake to make becase the my games summary just shows the total moves left, This seems harsh and you should at least allow vacation to be cancelled at any time I cannot see any down side to that.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-03-29 18:35:09)
time per move / vacation
Hello Andrew. This issue has been fixed a few months ago, all clocks are verified, if you try to take 11 days vacation in this case, a warning message in red appears... also the My games summary shows the time left for each move taking account of the time per move rule, so it should be ok... But I'll add a note in the vacation page about this.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-03-29 21:36:49)
time
Hi Thibault whats the cut off point for the warning? Does it just show up if the vacation exceeds the time left or within 1 day? Can the vacation time leave you with 1 minute or 1 hour for your move? I am wrong about the My games time - it does show the time to move time - sorry!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-04-06 23:50:54)
checkmate
Hi Thibault I think in the case of checkmate the system should end the game there and then. I say that not because it would necessarily reduce players spinning out games but because playing on a server this should be automated. Isn't checkmate always the end eg in email (ie non server cc)chess?? I had no idea it wasnt here it is on other servers I have played on. actually I think many players dont know that checkmate does not end the game here and that they have to wait for time to elapse so I dont think players would all stop the move before checkmate abd it would reduce time in some games. Incidentally stalemate should also be an automated draw
Andrew Stephenson (2008-04-15 10:33:37)
Rating
The ICCF is the only body sanctioned for correspondence chess by FIDE. All ICCF titles, championships and ratings are recognised by FIDE - this is what Wikipedia says and I believe it is correct.
Garvin Gray (2008-04-15 11:46:49)
otb v iccf ratings
To add a bit more to Andrew's answer.
While ICCF is fide recognised?, it does not mean an online player can turn up to an over the board tournament and use that ICCF rating or ICCF title in an otb tournament.
Only ratings attained over the board can be used for other otb tournaments.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-04-19 08:20:38)
Alberto Guecci
I see Alberto has got into the round robin final of the 8th Freestyle chess tournament under the name Spaghetti chess - congratulations Alberto and best of luck in the final which is showing on the Playchess server on April 25-27th
Andrew Stephenson (2008-04-29 10:17:10)
messages
Hi Thibault I sent you a private message - did you get it??
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-01 13:42:03)
time controls
The server is accessed on the site, you can tick the box on log in and then your password will come up automatically, once in you go to waiting lists and enter a tournament that your starting rating permits, the time controls are described under the categories (world championship is the same as the rapid time control), check the my games to see when you have games click on the game and you can play with the server keeping all the records. Hope that helps
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-01 13:43:46)
free
Whats FICS?? - this is FICGS and its free
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-01 13:50:35)
hours for the computer
I don't se much benefit to letting the computer think for hours frankly wants it gets to 20 + ply. There all sorts of horizons in positions that letting the computer run for a year wont sort out. Marc why are you playing this c3 stuff against the sicilian with such great kit? You play the same openings all the time and I thought it was because you had not much time!!!
Marc Lacrosse (2008-05-01 18:03:17)
to Andrew
"I don't se much benefit to letting the computer think for hours frankly wants it gets to 20 + ply. There all sorts of horizons in positions that letting the computer run for a year wont sort out."
There are other ways to use engines than letting simply one of them run for hours.
You may interactively walk along the various branches of the tree going from current position with one or several engines running.
You may also have engines playing some kind of test matches against each other from the current position or from any critical position that you identify along the possible continuations.
You can use Rybka randomizer against itself or against other engines for more exhaustive evaluation through test games
And so on ...
"Marc why are you playing this c3 stuff against the sicilian with such great kit? You play the same openings all the time and I thought it was because you had not much time!!!"
1. I never played this disreputed c3 stuff against the 2..d6 sicilian (with or without the 4.Be2 pawn offer) before january 2008 in my 140+ former serious correspondence games
Indeed I did choose it because I erroneously enrolled in three new tournaments simultaneously and I feared to miss time for serious analysis due to heavy workload at that time.
Results are a bit disappointing with it : five draws so far and two unfinished games that I should win (one win is sure and the other one is probable).
This should lead to a 64% result and a 2333 elo performance. Not shining but not that bad insn't it ?
2. I like playing unorthodox openings in correspondence play.
I do not see any interest in beginning my games with 30 moves of overanalysed theory.
Most often I decide for a side variation and I do play it in as many games as possible simultaneously : I do the analysis job once for all while being fully "in the mood" of a similar set of positions.
Then I change for something else
I won't probably ever play any more game with the line I played against you.
3. An exception is the Basman-Sale Sicilian (2..e6 4..Bc5).
I like it a lot and even have a web site devoted to it (http://chessbazaar.mlweb.info/basmansale/index.html)
I am in a running series of more than twenty corr. games without a single loss with it and decided not to stop using it until defeat happens
I probably analysed it more than anybody : I have several thousands of analysed lines in my files.
I am just busy to consider switching to something more agressive for cases where I need to play for a win as Black.
Regards
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-01 19:00:56)
private message
Hi Andrew, I'm afraid I've not received it, but I received some others without any problems :/ .. Please re-send.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-01 19:50:21)
Marc
Thanks for the informative reply! I do the interactive walk thing you mentioned its very useful though you need reasonable power to have several engines running at once - this you have! I am afraid I dont know how to organise test matches but sounds good. same with Rybka randomiser I have the engine but no idea how to use the randomiser and get it to play itself. 2 wins from the c3 is good as I think it gives white nothing ..but in the line I chose I noticed that after Gelfand (as black) got a draw against Adams with this line Adams repeated it aginst Kasparov who varied. So I guess Adams had an improvement perhap it was what you played? - as black has to find some very accurate moves . Incidentally I very nearly played 5..g5!!? which is really interesting but as my other games were promising decided to settle for taking a draw
I like the Basman-Sale and although I have given up e4 in cc will play e4 if we play again as I have some ideas against it. Thanks for the reply
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-02 16:56:33)
arena
Thanks! I have downloaded it - just need to figure out how to use it - but it looks good
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-03 06:15:39)
Game 17894
Hi Wolfgang I looked at this game last week - a nice game but I am not sure how complicated it is now ....rooks are generally better than bishops and it does help to have a king near the action!! Its like having an extra piece.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-03 06:22:50)
Arena
I have loaded Rybka into Arena and it seems to be performing at a superchetged rate - unfortunately I cannot make sense of its analysis out put. I am used to a Fritz environment where you can select how many different moves it displays and it ranks them and assisgnsa value + 1.1 etc. it does the same for other uci engines. In arena hoe do I get this kind of output??
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-05-03 07:15:10)
Game 17894
Hi Andrew, I analyzed this position without an absolute certain result yet. White is clear better, but the way of win is very, very small (if it exist). Enjoy looking what will happen in this game next time!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-03 09:28:38)
From??
Completely lost for black imo its madness to throw away a pawn like this at cc - I suppose there might be some way to grovel for a draw after 4..Nf6 black will probably get his pawn back unless white plays e3 and d4 when he has the hole on e4 has a kind of compensation. After 4..g5 can put up more of a fight with 5...Nc6 at least white doesnt get quite such a massive a massive centre All black has are some tactical tricks and a temporary lead in development once white avoids these and gets his pieces out of the box its dire for black. The last GM to play this as black (Kotronias) got a completely lost position although he won the game! On the other hand 1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white .... if everyone would reply with the From I would play nothing else but f4!!!
Josef Riha (2008-05-03 15:48:18)
Arena
Hello Andrew, try out the following:
Open the Engine-Paramter dialogue of Rybka and then:
Display PV Tips...on
Win Percentage to Hash Usage...on
Display Current Move...on
Preserve Analysis...on
For more information look at www.rybkachess.com and click on Parameters FAQ on the left side of the screen.
With best wishes, Josef.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-05 12:50:53)
From here to eternity
Yes there might be some variations that are survivable especially OTB but at cc its tough to give up a pawn so early on. I think f4 is a perfectly ok first move (like b4) I just think it does not give any prospect of an opening advantage at cc because there is no surprise value and the black player has the time to research and find a response that equalises fairly quickly. That is why very few GM's have F4 as a main white weapon - it does not give enough prospects for an advantage - at the highest levels. Please note that qualification. I quite agree real chess is between people in real time and cc is a form of research competition. Getting experience for real world chess is a great reason to play a line at cc. There are exceptions OTB I often play the exchange french and have had good success (played by Kasparov Tal Morphy and others) I would not play it at cc though! In fact OTB I always play e4 but at cc gave it up because I see no way to get any adavantage against the caro kahn. Just relaying the moves the computer suggests does not, I think, give much chance of success against good players at cc.
As for the From I do not believe in g5 white has to avoid the tricks and develop and is a pawn up. Not so easy otb!! - but at cc not so much of a problem. As for Nc6 yes I was talking about this move after 5 g3 and you are probably right I will try to look at the game you gave and do some analysis. As for the Mestel variation I thought black would get the pawn back unless e3 and d4 are played but again that was based on a quick look. Anyway perhaps the thematic tournament wil provide some answers.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-05 14:18:51)
Will follow
Yes actually I did not find the way either - but got the feeling their might be a problem like win somewhere!! Good luck to both players
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 01:52:34)
Problem like win
Yes I thought so - I felt there was something there! Maybe it seems like luck because its not easy to explain how the answer is found it seems to be stumbled across.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 12:10:33)
Strictly for the birds
Thanks for the link for the games they are nice. Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response! Better to play like Of course 1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily. The "waste" is that white has the first move and a lead in development and chances for an advantage. 1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side.
I would like to show with analysis exactly what I mean. Black has many good systems here is one. 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 g3 (e3 is the other way to play more on that) Bg7 4 Bg2 Nf6 already black is equal IMO. GM Jakubiec (2524) played this position 3 times last year as white against Rozentalis (2581), Bartel(2608) and Kadziolka (2295) and won all 3 games! He would 0-0 play Q-h4 and g4 f5 and roll them over! In every game black got an advantage in the opening and lost but at cc thats not going to happen. In each game it was easy to see blacks mistakes and to see the right move to maintain an advantage for black.
The other set up for white is to play 3 e3 (instead of g3)Bg7 4 Be2 (4 c4 is interesting)Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 and now after c5 its level but I would rather play black. Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta. These Dutch reversed attacks can be scary to face otb but they are harmless at cc. Conclusion: 1 f4 is a dangerous move otb especially where the opponent is not expecting it but against an accurate cc player it does not offer any hope of an opening advantage - its a waste if the goal is to get some opening advantage - its productive if the goal is to gain experience and insight into f4 for use in real chess.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 15:01:06)
A bird in the hand
I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable - they are both off beat openings. On the question of chess knowledge I do not know how much he knows about b4? It can also be a dangerous practical weapon and can pose the black player more problems than f4. It is played by serious professional chess players in tournaments eg GM Christian Bauer (2626) has played it several times successfully this year and quite a few IM's regularly play it with success.
Now to comparing rating sizes something I confess to not having done since I was in short trousers. My current rating is 2225 with a future rating of 2247 but with 2 rapid games in the pipe line this should be a future rating of 2300 + shortly lets see. Mr Repas rating is 2281 with a future rating at the moment of 2316. How significant is that? Well I had the opportunity to look at his games to see what his rating is made up of. 10 of his wins have come against the same opponent Sandor Porkolab and in 7 of these Mr Porkolab abandoned the games in level, drawn or in some cases better position for him. Given that in these "wins" he was often rated over 2100 or in one case over 2200 this has boosted Mr Repa's rating significantly. He has not so far had much success in WCC not having got past stage 2.
As reference to my loss was made I can say that this was in a variation (the Prins of the sicilian) that I believe is unsound. Actually I overstepped the time limit while on vacation although I think the game could not be saved I learnt my lesson and do not play dodgy openings any more.
I have never on the other hand been busted after 17 moves in a main line opening at cc as sadly Mr Repa found himslef against Bucsa Loan (Game 1249),then rated 1700. Then again I have stopped trusting the books and analyse for myself.
Still less could I imagine being lost in a cc game after 16 moves in an exchange French (by tranposition) An instructive loss to Torsten Opas ( game 4388)- won with simple developing moves - worth playing over. Incidentally proves what I was saying about the exchange french it can be dangerous - although not of course, at cc.
Finally there is Mr Repa's pet Bird shot down by Mr Kotlyansky in the approved way as follows 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 g7 4 Be2 Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d4 c5 7 dxc5 Qc7 and Black was fine winning in 72 moves. Never having lost with f4 did not include this because I suppose it was a bullet bronze game.
I am afraid I am naive enough to think that people play chess on the server to win and increase their rating - clearly there are people who play to learn and strengthen their game and for whom results and rating are secondary. No doubt such people would not be interested in anything so vulgar as comparing ratings. Neverthe less its all just opinion and we are all free to express it within the rules of the server. So: f4 is a waste of time at cc little more than an invitation to draw and the From is unsound and almost like resigning.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 18:04:40)
From RIP
"would like to know how you refute the line which begin with 10..Bf5 instead of your opponent's move 10..Qe7. It usually continues with 10..Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 and now what?" The answer is 13 Be3 and after Be6 14 Bf2 f5 15 Nd2 GM Kotronius tried 15..Qf7 16 0-0-0 Bxa2 when 17 e5 looks winning. Instead 16..fxe4! 17 Bxe4 Bxa2 and maybe black can hold with Na5 to come. Obviously 14 e5 is critical after 14 ..Bxe5 15 Bxc6 Rxh2 16 Rxh2 Bxg3+ 17 Rf2 black gets 2 pawns for a piece and an exposed king but white still has some winning chances. That leaves 13 ..Bd7 but the bishop is more passive and will probably end up going to e6 after f5 etc White has 14 Bf2 or 14 Kd1! intending Kc2 and Nd2 both look good. The problem for black is that his long term comp is the h file pressure which doesnt balance whites extra centre pawn. IMO
Pablo Schmid (2008-05-06 20:13:21)
To Andrew
I would play 13..Bd7 to leave the e-file open. If 14.Bf2 then I play 14..f5 and I see nothing wrong for Black for the moment. 14.Kd1, I didn't look at that move, it seems interesting but really, Iam not that afraid. RIP? Easy to say...
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-07 05:15:58)
f4 or not f4
1.0 Pablo here is a link you should read: http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-analysis/A_BRAND_NEW_Chessbase_9_for_sale_on_eBay_92649.html
2.0 Mr Repa here is a comment about the Dutch defense: "Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4
3.0 Mr Repa's chess federation of canada rating is listed as 2010 with an active rating of 1737. If he reaches am expected rating here of, by his account, 2370+ then everyone will be impressed particularly as Mr Repa says "I think I'm a bit out gunned here.I'm running BATTLE CHESS on a Commodore 64. I believe its running at 1.023 MHz."
4.0 It might be battle chess that accounted for the following cc (!) game as black he played against Torsten Opas 1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Be7 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 a6 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.Re1 Re8 13.Qf3 Qd6 14.Re3 Qb4 15.Rae1 Bd8 16.Qf5 Qxd4 (oops)17.Bxf6 Bxf6 and the game is already lost
5.0 Together with his loss with 1f4 that he forgot about here is another example of the correct treatment of f4 by black against Mr Repa 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.b3 Bg7 5.Bb2 O-O 6.Be2 b6 7.O-O Bb7 8.d3 c5 9.Ne5 Nfd7 10.d4 e6 11.Nd2 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 completely dead for white no prospects and duly drawn. Like I said 1 f4 is a waste at cc. I doubt we shall see Mr Repa use it again against a good opponent on this site.
6.0 All the games I referred to were white victories OTB with 1. f4 "Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny - thats the whole point. At cc Sengupta's play would not be impressive but otb it was effective. Incidentally the game was played in 2004 in India
8.0 1 g4 is like 1 b4? Well that is clearly wrong. There have been no GM - GM encounters with 1 g4 there have been several with 1 b4 including Topalov v Malakhatsov. Over 50 IM's and a dozen GM's have played 1 b4 very few have ever played g4. 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly.
9.0 "What is weird is that the conversation began with quite civil exchanges before tiny criticisms quickly escalated to nuclear mode despite my genuine and exhaustive efforts at diffusion and removal of misinterpretation" Can anyone guess who is being written about here on another chess site?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-10 19:56:31)
quote
A good slow man you can work with a dishonest brilliant one will kill you every time - Warren Buffet
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-10 20:10:02)
Quote
Don't worry about life we're just passing through anyway - New York Taxi Driver
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-12 11:40:20)
Rating changes
I agree with Don Groves - there is no need to make the change suggested IMO
Garvin Gray (2008-05-12 14:39:06)
calculation
Now seeing the last replies from Andrew and Jason, the only calculation that is really required is:
How long till Thibault either locks this thread or deletes the resulting posts from Andrew and Jason?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-12 14:40:08)
Rating changes
"11. 1. Netiquette
(...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden (...). In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private."
Don the more I think about it the more I think your view is correct there is no need to make the drastic change that was proposed. I have a current rating of 2225 and future rating of 2247 but have no problem with a person whose rating falls after they enter a 2200 tournament I am in. However it would be good to get other players views as this proposed change would affect players of all levels.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-12 22:43:14)
Rating changes
I think thats the right the decision Thibault to leave the TER rule as it stands.
As for the issue of provocation there is no place for insults or abuse towards anybody.
Everyone should feel free to express an opinion about a subject without facing ridicule or abuse. Debate can be robust but it should be courteous.
As for responding - I am happy to act in the face of insults etc as if nothing has been said and leave it up to Thibault to take action.
At the same time I feel completely free to agree/disagree with any view thats posted and will continue to do so. If thats not possible then its not a forum anymore
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 07:12:22)
Netiquette
Looking back over discussions on this I see its tough to make progress:
"The one who responds, particularly with insults (even ie. "hypocrite", or "thief"), has a greater responsability IMO. This remains a judgement and this has nothing to do in this forum. Better is to warn a moderator"
"Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules : No reason & no evidence will allow anyone to insult anyone in this forum anymore."
I agreed with these comments of Thibault before and I agree with them now.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 09:59:15)
Provocation
Again I find myself in complete agreement with Thibault on this issue. Whatever differences there might have been in the past everyone should feel free to express their opinion. Often the best response is silence for example eg: starting a thread and getting no replies at all. That can be a message in itself.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 11:30:35)
French traps
The French defence is one of the best replies to 1 e4 - accidents however are always possible as the following correspondence game shows with black playing into a lost position after just 13 moves:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6 9.Qd2 Qxb2 10.Rb1 Qa3 11.Bb5 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bb4 13.O-O O-O ?? (black had to play 13 ..a6 although he will still be under pressure) 14 Rb3 Qa5 15.Qe3 Nb6 16.Qg3 Nc4 17 f5! and the correspondence game finished Rd8 18.Rf4 Bf8 19.Rg4 Kh8 20.f6 g6 21.Rh4 h6 22.Kh1 Kg8 23.Qh3 Kh7 24.Bc5 Rd6 25.g4 Qd8 26.g5 h5 27.Rxh5+
These things happen OTB but French defence players have known of this since Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 which went 19 f6 g6 20 Rh4 a6 21 Qh3 h5 22 Rxh5!! gxh5 23 Qxh5 axb5 24 Kf2 and white won. since then 13 0-0 has been avoided.
Of course at cc a player has time to research the databases and access to powerful chess engines at no cost.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 12:00:22)
Quote
I am sorry I thought it was clear the comments in my post Netiquette were not my comments at all - they were quotations cut and pasted from Thibault himself - they are his words not mine, they came from a previous thread on Netiquette.
Specifically the comment:
"Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules : No reason & no evidence will allow anyone to insult anyone in this forum anymore."
This is Thibault directly addressing someone it not a comment from me. That is why I prefaced my posting with the words
"Looking back over discussions on this I see its tough to make progress"
I was looking back over previous discussions and it seemed to me that we were covering the same ground and progress was difficult
I thought in the present discussion these words were relevant and it was fair to quote them. IMO these comments are as valid now as they were when Thibault made them.
Thats is why in the posting I said:
"I agreed with these comments of Thibault before and I agree with them now."
My view is simple - using insulting words is not permitted under any circumstances and if I have a problem with any words used I will contact Thibault privately and I will not complain in the forum.
So I will continue to post to argue my point of view in a courteous manner
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 12:07:15)
Trusting engines
I should add that if you play through the game with an engine it will show black doing ok and even better some time after the position is lost. So its a good example of not just playing the move the engine suggests but actually analysing the position.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 13:22:56)
Provocation
I am sorry I cannot respond to a lot of what you have posted as such a response would breach the rules.
I have not examined all your losses - just the French games - so I do not know how instructive they are I will try to review them later but I can't promise anything.
However I am a great believer in checking lines I play with the database to see whats been learnt and how the top GM's handle the particular lines.
All I learnt from my loss was not to play that particular line and to cut out all dodgy openings. In fact the line you played is not the strongest and I believe black can equalise - unfortunately I found an even stronger line for white which seems to refute the entire variation. There is however a book by an english GM from 2007 which looks at sicilian side lines and claims that there is no refutation.
When I have time I will stick all the analysis up and people can make up their own minds.
On correspondence taking someone's OTB chess to the next level I am a bit sceptical. It definitely has a significant effect on the accuracy of opening play and this can get some valuable wins by itself. But other progress needs separate study and training. Silmans Reassess your chess for example will increase the rating of any one below FIDE 2300 if studied intensively IMO.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 13:57:40)
Databases and books
Well I dont think a book should ever be trusted for cc no matter who has written it. It should always be critically examined - playing 18 moves from the book without switching on the engine seems very risky.
I think the position is lost after 13..0-0 14 Rb3 Qa5 15 Qd3 and I see no defence here. The only Dreev game I have in this line continued .. Nb6 16 Qg3 Nc4 and a draw was agreed.(Ivanchuk-Dreev 1993) Chess engines were not as good then and 17 f5 wins as was later discovered.
Where are these GM games from 2003?? Its strange that your database does not have Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 In fact an earlier game Ernst - Grigutavicus (1999)had seen white crash through with 15 Qf2 Nb8 16 f5 - although Nb8 does not look a very good move. Whats the date of this Psakhis book? I hope its not after 2001!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 14:12:54)
Advice
The recommendation was freely given if it does not interest you thats fine. My point remains cc helps opening accuracy im not sure it translates into much else OTB
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 14:19:23)
Pachman
Yes its true there is a lot of great stuff in these old books Rudolfo but I like to check 'em I have got some Nunn stuff from the same time - incredibly accurate he may have been the best writer of opening books of modern times. Although I am basing that on his Najdorf books not other stuff on the Pirc etc which I dont know so well.
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.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 14:50:21)
ELO ratings
I believe ELO ratings are used for FIDE ratings I did not know you had a FIDE rating. I must say that ELO 2000 is an average to good club player and over 2200 in my experience is a good OTB rating. But looking at some of your OTB games between 1900 - 2000 seems to be the level of chess that I can see. Its ok - but the reality is that players do not improve very much after a certain age ......
Anyway at cc people tend to have it both ways if they win its because they are better players if they lose or draw its not real chess its just computers and it does not mean anything.
I am sure we will play again at cc and then you can demonstrate your skill. If I win I will not place a great emphasis on it. It not difficult to draw a cc game if you have the resources to hand.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 14:57:54)
Updating databases
The professional chess players I know down load TWIC then filter the stuff they are interested in into sub-databases. But what has this got to do with not having a 2001 game in 2007??. Unless a person has some ancient chess base data base - but then why would they not look online and cross check?? It took me about 3 minutes to find some relevant games including the 2001 game showing 13 ...0-0?? as losing.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 15:47:39)
Mr cfc
Frankly I have alway taken someone saying they have an ELO rating to refer to having a FIDE rating and not a national rating
I understand that you need to deduct about 35 points from sub 2200 ratings to get a FIDE equivalent. Well I have never met anyone before who thought that FIDE 2000 was such a high rating I dont mean that in a bad way I am just surprised that you think this is high.
As for beating me at chess I thought this was not real chess? Well like I said there is a sense in having it both ways. Look we could easily organise a money match at cc say for Euro 1000 6, 8, 10 games whatever you want, rapid time limit you can have white in every game and I can give you 3 to 1 odds. You win 1 game you get Euro 3000 you fail to win a game I get Euro 1000. All you have to do is win a game you can even lose all the other games.
Well like I said it does not prove anything - its a research competition. I dont want to hustle you but you have been making a lot of statements so if you are interested .......
But please dont challenge me to bullet games on playchess......
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 16:00:22)
ELO
Well like I stated elsewhere talking of ELO points I take to refer to FIDE rating not national ratings irrespective of the underlying methodology used to calculate the national rating. I guess we will have to agree to differ on that one. Sorry I cannot respond to the grammer stuff - its against the rules.
On the game we played check out the available database games and that may give you an answer. Like I said in another post the line I believe is the refutation is not what you played - I will put up the analysis when I have more time.
At the risk of repeating myself I still dont understand why you cannot find a 2001 game or what sort of databases you are looking at but I guess we have reached a dead end there too.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-14 00:06:15)
Patience
Hello Hannes (& all).
Let's be patient :) Jason & Andrew have many things to tell to themselves and I must say it is a quite interesting "experience". Maybe we can change the rules at the end so let's wait for the end of the storm, then we can talk about chess for sure ;)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-15 04:10:11)
Openings
Hi Hannes
I think the Modern Benoni is playable but needs a lot of work. Hector Walsh 16th on the IECG list (2497) used it in the IECG Cup 2002 final (just ended!) with games that started in 2006. He played it 3 times including the critical line 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 etc and got 3 draws against opposition of 2150, 2300 and 2400.
Garvin Gray (2008-05-15 05:56:12)
Modern Benoni Taimonov variation
Hello Andrew,
So Hector allowed white to play the Taimonov variation in all three of those games, is that correct?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-15 10:11:02)
Benoni
Hi Garvin
No f4 occurred in just 1 game but Hector played the sequence Nf6 and e6. This year Topalov, Aronian Malakhov and Gashimov have all allowed f4 in the Benoni but it only happened in the Gashimov game. Top GM games seem to have a bias towards Sicilians Slavs and Semi slavs. Is it true that the Ruy Lopez is not so popular at top cc? It is extremely popular at GM level perhaps this reflects a bias at cc at the top level for Queenside openings. It certainly seems a lot easier to get a draw against e4 at cc.
Hannes Rada (2008-05-15 23:06:25)
Openings
Hi Andrew,
" It certainly seems a lot easier to get a draw against e4 at cc."
I've the same feeling.
But the top player vanOsteroom prefers definitely 1.e4 !
Does anybody know if 1.e4 or 1.d4 is played more often here at FICGS ?
"He played it 3 times including the critical line 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 etc and got 3 draws against opposition of 2150, 2300 and 2400."
Can this be considered as a success ?
50 % against lower rated opponents ?
Normally Benoni is played when you want or have to win with black ...
However Hector Walsh seems to have some fighting spirit.
Andrew do you know the IECG server ?
From time to time I get invitations from the IECG guys for their tournamengs, but never played there.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-15 23:14:37)
Books and databases
This thread is really about how reliance on books and lack of research can get someone into trouble ie a lost position after 13 moves in a main line opening - even with plenty of time and powerful chess engines available. Actually its not even necessary to own an up to date database to avoid this - the resources are freely available to anyone with an internet connection.
The point about ELO is dead I think referring to ELO points is associated with FIDE ratings irrespective of the fact that most national rating systems use ELO's methodology. Mr Repa does not agree - thats it.
"but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base ..."
I don't read anything into the omission of the word "someone" here nor the numerous spelling mistakes that have cropped up.
Incidentally the book I referred to with analysis of the dodgy siscilain variation is called Experts V the Sicilian with different chapters by various GM's and IM's including a chapter on the pin variation about which one reviewer says:
"we get no less than 12 pages on the silly Pin Variation, and in the end Aagaard seems unable to prove a certain advantage!" Whatever the truth about that variation its highly risky and not recommended for cc!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-15 23:36:07)
IECG
Hi Hannes
Your right Hectors Benoni didn't draw blood but I guess its playable. Actually I dont like to play against it as it provokes a crisis very early on and the hard work starts quickly!
On FICGS I think queen side openings are preferred by the top players eg WCH knockout matches - the exception is Peter Schuster who seems to play e4 a lot and is successful with it.
Thanks for telling me about Van Osteroom's e4 preference I am keen to see what he plays against c6! - I mean the classical variation.
Sorry I dont know too much about the IECG server.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-16 18:19:42)
Beating FM's
If you have beaten more than 1 FM in a classical time control ie not rapid or blitz or bullet that is good on the other hand in short time controls it doesn't mean much at all I agree.
Its tough to improve or learn about chess from blitz or bullet unless you go over the game ie for opening accuracy or tactical shots missed and make notes.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-16 18:32:40)
ELO ELO
"I was talking about updating the database with current theory and critical lines. "
So what are you doing if not examining the latest games played and what better source is there than TWIC? How do you examine these if not downloading and filtering out the openings you are interested in by high rated players?
Anything else is going to be taking other peoples selections eg New In chess opening surveys or subscribing to a chess opening service. Even then the best way of keeping a database up to date is with TWIC.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-06-10 15:28:32)
Comments
I give up Ilmars - why?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-06-10 15:31:45)
Comments
Sorry I see Ilmars comment has been deleted
Andrew Stephenson (2008-06-10 18:09:02)
No apology necessary
You have nothing to apologise for Wayne your comments were reasonable. It is up to Thibault to enforce the policy and to stop this kind of thing happening. To have this happen every time different opinions are expressed is very damaging for the site. I respect everyone on this site whatever their grading and whether they agree or disagree with me. If someone cannot control their language and become abusive they should not be allowed to post on the forum - its that simple.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-06-17 09:43:26)
Conditionals
Yes good idea. IMO no need to trial it though could be limited to rapid tournament where time saving is perhaps more important
Andrew Stephenson (2008-06-20 20:45:46)
Why
Playing on in a completely lost position is to get to the next rating adjustment. Particularly when the loss would take them below a threshold - in this case 2300. Your opponent will probably resign on July 1st. Nice game by the way although I didnt like 6 ..Bxf3 (why give up the bishop?)I think 6..Bh5 then e6-d5 and black is fine. 12 Rc1 was a great move! A few moves later and black is suddenly in big trouble
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-04 05:40:40)
open games
I recommend you start with 1 e4 and follow up with lines that involve an early d4 eg 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 and now 2 ...Nc6 3 d4 or 2..Nf6 3 d4
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-09 22:18:10)
Derrida
Strongly advise against reading anything by the chap although I did enjoy his defense to being caught with a big bag of dope in prague - it was planted on him when he visited Franz Kafka's grave - hmmm yeah ok.
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 (2008-07-12 22:52:44)
rating 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 (2008-07-13 11:51:17)
Withdrawal WCH-2--3-00004
My apologies to the other participants in this stage 2 which has just started but I have to withdraw. Due to business and personal commitments I cannot sustain the rapid time limit so I have decided to resign all the games to try to minimise inconvenience. I had actually forgotten about this otherwise I would have informed Thibault before hand
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-13 16:39:58)
Replacement
Hi Andrew, a replacement has been done in this tournament.
Best wishes,
Thibault
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-13 22:57:05)
ok
Good point Dirk I had not realised that
about 2400+ tournaments nor Thibaults point about E F and G tournaments :)
You may well be right Garvin - cant remember!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-14 21:41:51)
hmmm
I remember you previously posted about this game having, after many hours, found a problem like win. It sesm that this was wrong!
I guess that 89 ...Be7 followed by g5 holds the draw and white just got the order of moves mixed up and played g5 first. It happens....
On the other hand 25 ..Bd3 seems unecessarily risky while 25 ...Ra5 looks fine for black. Still you kept up the pressure and often you make your own luck :))
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-15 22:46:50)
@ Rybka ELO 3000
Yes - I agree I think Rybka has about ELO 3000 :))
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-16 21:19:41)
Pre decision
What does the phrase pre decision mean?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-18 04:55:03)
Mirror mirror on the wall
To put Thibaults explanation another way: the person doing the mirroring aleays plays his moves after the other other person. So after a while you can see who is the real player and who is the reflection.
Thibault has a system of rules that are very open and liberal but there are limits. For example at FICGS it is allowed to discuss a game that is not yet finished!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-18 04:57:18)
Good question
Good question on the name change - at the same time I thought at FICGS you are supposed to use your real name?? Normajean??
Normajean Yates (2008-07-18 14:55:32)
to Andrew Stephenson & Thibault
Andrew Stephenson,
Normajean Yates IS my real name. Is Andrew Stephenson yours? from *mauritius*? doesnt sound mauritian to me ... doesnt that place have a - you know - reputation for you-know-what?
I'll stop this as soon as you do. Or Thibault steps in. I think i smell early signs of harassment.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-18 16:41:13)
Apology
[moderated ;)]. Right now I am off to listen to some Johnny Cash songs. He is very popular in Mauritius. Not a lot of people know that.
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.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-21 16:00:32)
cc sites
Sites like ICCF and IECG seem to be like FICGS - very few women members. Chess.com is not just an exclusive cc site and has a lot more varied chess content - not just cc. Perhaps thats part of the reason. However some sites like chessbase are cringeingly sexist - never missing an opportunity to show pics of the "pretty girls" together with 1950's style comments.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-26 13:30:44)
Good quotes
"Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist."
"If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts."
"There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper" - hmmm
And finally a self evident truth:
"Woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff to prove that they are worthy of woman's attention."
Obviously all these quotes are from a woman :) How do you like them apples??
Normajean Yates (2008-07-26 14:27:09)
Rodolfo ... I am playing that song ..
right now on this computer - can you hear it? :)
Andrew, the woman who said all that you cited [Martha Stewart?] is in the ultimate analysis a victim of social programming.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-26 21:42:52)
The lady rocks
Normajean the lady who said that is a feminist lesbian (not martha):)
"By midlife and early old age, as the hormones of both genders change, women are in total, despotic control of their marriages."
"women's goodwill is crucial for preserving the male ego, which requires, alas, daily maintenance"
"It is woman's destiny to rule men. Not to insult them, demean them, or stereotype them as oppressors"
"Women are in league with each other, a secret conspiracy of hearts and pheromones"
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-27 16:04:37)
Logged off
Thibault is there anyway to prevent being auto logged off and sent to the ticker tape message screen?
Normajean Yates (2008-07-27 16:17:50)
question to Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson you seem to know a lot about this person that you keep quoting. Perhaps you even happen to know said person's *name*, supposing said person has one? :D
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-27 19:03:50)
:)
Surely you can track down who said these quotes Normajean? I will give you a clue she is an american professor:
"Today, the ideal male is the gay man,and the ideal female is the worker female, the woman who can work in a coal mine just like all the other men."
Such is the brave new world of the politically correct!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-27 22:35:25)
Like chess
Yes of course like posting something connected with chess! You are right:)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-27 22:36:38)
Not much
Sometimes very quick 1 or 2 minutes!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-28 00:18:07)
Logged off
Hi Andrew. "Sometimes" ? What do you mean ? Does it also happen on other forums using sessions ?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-28 01:03:35)
Sometimes
I mean I always get logged off just the time varies
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-30 11:03:31)
Databases
Thibault I believe FICGS games do not get into any of the databases (mega corr etc) Is there any way to get these games in? I have seen some tremendous novelties in FICGS that I have not found anywhere else. It seems this knowledge is hidden ....
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-30 13:01:18)
Databases
Benjamin, I think Andrew meant to share FICGS games in known correspondence chess databases (not programs).
That's a good idea but it's probably a question of time only, or I may ask the owners... why not.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-03 12:46:18)
Round Robin qualification
Thibault looking at the WCC rules for Round Robin tournaments. It says: "If necessary, a player could be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player." This must be how Marc Lacrosse came to be in the Round Robin final for 02 as he was not in any stage 1 or stage 2 tournaments for 02. With 5 qualifiers from stage 2 and a stage 1 M winner a 7th player was needed. How did you decide which player to leave out of stage 1 M 02 and put directly in the RR final? Presumably not TER as both Brunsteins and Marius had higher TER's. This is not a problem for 03 as there will be 4 stage 2 qualifiers and 1 stage 1 M winner. Just curious:)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-03 18:56:16)
Round Robin qualification
Hi Andrew, that's right : Marc did not play round 1 & 2 in the WCH 02. As far as I can remember, Marc couldn't play round 2 in WCH 1 (he won Group 20) and due to his rating at this time - I don't remember if he entered a waiting list for replacements - I've included him in this tournament. Such a case will probably happen again if necessary.
Marc Lacrosse (2008-08-03 20:34:52)
No extra qualification required!
Hi all
To Andrew : I really did not ask for this invitation: i am already unable to face all tournaments for which I qualified.
- I just won WCH-04-group M01
- At the same time I just began to play my quarter-final match in Wch-05
- and if I am not wrong I am not far from winning WCH-03-stage2-group02 (possibly ex aequo with you)...
... so really I do not need to get extra qualifying opportunities !
Marc
PS If I remember correctly you had some critical comments on my recent opening choices. It seems that they did not work too miserably so far.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-03 21:50:22)
Will try to help!
Hi Marc
We were talking about WCH 2 which is history now as the round robin final for which you received a direct entry was won by Francois Caire (equal with Alberto Gueci). As far as WCH 3 is concerned I will do my best to reduce your burden of games by winning my last game:)) But this could be difficult as Janos has other ideas!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-05 09:14:08)
Not Gloria
Yur quote about if men could get pregnant is Florynce R Kennedy - not Gloria Steinem. Steinem was quoting Kennedy
Don Groves (2008-08-06 03:06:27)
Thank you Andrew...
... for the correction. I see she has many other good quotes also ;-)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-07 16:00:12)
Longest game
I just wondered whats the longest game game ever played on FICGS - in terms of moves? Potentially it could be very long as the 50 move draw rule does not apply automaticaaly on this site.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-08 20:05:20)
Marshall fest
We have 4 marshall gambits in Caire Utesch match....
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-09 03:35:42)
Pins and swords
"The pin is mightier than the sword" is apparently a quote from Fred Reinfield being a play on pen is mightier than the sword etc. The addition "but the fork is mightier thn the pin" might just be something someone on chess.com made up!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-09 21:49:23)
Marshall Fest
I guess so Thibault. Kasparov never accepted the Marshall - always anti marshall. Still couple of high level white wins recently and Aronian opted for the Berlin the other day....
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-09 21:55:37)
Mogo
Did the human have a handicap in the 1 hour game? Does the player moving 2nd generally get some points/stones to compensate between equally rated players?
Don Groves (2008-08-10 00:32:11)
Komi
Yes, Andrew, the second player is compensated with some number of stones, usually between 5.5 and 7.5 (ties are eliminated). This is called komi. I don't know what the komi was in the MoGo match.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-10 07:45:29)
Mogo
So mogo gets to put down 9 stones to start with but I dont know whether he moved first or second - it sounds like he moved first and there was no Komi. Anyway its a big handicap but the breakthrough appears to be that the win was achieved on a 19x19 board in a "long" game (1 hour) Kim didnt use so much of his time but said more time spent would not have made any difference prononcing Mogo invincible at 9 stones and very difficult with 8 stones. The programmers were excited because they said 1 year ago they needed 18 stones now 9 and maybe a year to lose the other 9! If they can maintain this rate of improvement then they are suggesting that in a few years mogo could be the strongest go player in the world. Interestingly there is a reversal here with chess: programs being stronger against humans the shorter the game (ie blitz) but Mogo did better with more time! I guess this is about the time Mogo needs to assess the long term consequences of each move.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-10 07:58:24)
Fischers move
White has chosen 12 g3 - in all 4 games - a slightly unusual move order - but I expect black to head down the main "highway" where very few deviations have been seen on the white side. 4 wins or 4 draws? The next 3/4 moves will determine the nature of the game - very interesting!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-12 08:54:10)
Latvian
I dont think black has anything better than 8...fxe maybe 9...d5 is better. But Whites 8 Nc3 seems a very good strong simple move. Its strange that it has not been analysed because the position has been looked at by Nunn and Watson - but that was in the pre Rybka era. Now 3...Nc6 looks too risky at cc.
So 3 Nxe5 Qf6 is the best chance. Game 18479 (ongoing) is perhaps the most that black can hope for - for some people not much fun but for latvian fans survival is a triumph!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-12 21:32:49)
No novelty
F Perez-Cruz v F Acosta 1994 correspondence Massow Memorial (1-0 32) 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nc6 4 Qh5+ g6 5 Nxg6 Nf6 6 Qh3 hxg6 7 Qxh8 Qe7 8 Nc3! The game continued with Nb4 9 d4?! (9 d3 looks like an easy win) Nxe4 10 Nxe4 Qxe4+ 11 Be3 Kf7?! (had to play 11..f4 12 Bd3 Nxd3 [12 ..Qxg2 13 Qe5+ Be7 13 Be4] 13 cxd3 Qxg2 14 Rf1 d6 when he can fight on) 12 Bd3 Nxd3 13 cxd3 with a won position.
If I faced this Nc6 line I would play after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nc6 4 d4! (John Nunn's refutation) this squelches all blacks hopes for play. What now for black? 4..Nf6 5 Nxc6 dxc6 6 e5 which looks like a pawn odds game. I dont know.
Normajean Yates (2008-08-13 03:43:54)
Thanks, Andrew!
Thanks that is for ALL your posts here on that latvian fraser line :) and specially the last one. So my opp narrowly missed immortality in the subfootnotes of chess history ;)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-13 19:51:51)
Very cool
I joined the random design club - its awesome as they say in Hollywood. I like the chess player images in the wall paper.
Normajean Yates (2008-08-13 19:58:40)
Wecome!
Welcome to the RANDOM login club, Andrew!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-14 20:31:38)
FICGS
The best is a) as it describes the games played on the server. Bigchess can be seen as a chess variant and if "games" is supposed to cover just this and go it seems an exaggeration. However if Poker is to be included then b) would win my vote.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-15 05:01:18)
Registered
This is registered not active members?
Normajean Yates (2008-08-15 10:02:29)
last on latvian fraser..
um - actually I found that I *had* found Perez-Cruz v Decosta, as well as another another: Ritter Aguillar v Asensio Lisan - starting 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nc6 4 Qh5+ g6 5 Nxg6 Nf6 6 Qh3 hxg6 7 Qxh8 Qe7 8 Nc3!. But both went 1-0, and I had failed to find one that *didn't* go 1-0. By the time I posted it here I forgot what it was that I had failed to find... sorry
Anyway I am glad I posted the queation because I did not know the Nunn refutation. Thanks again, Andrew!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-15 18:00:45)
Nunn "refutation"
Here is a summary of the analysis after e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nc6 4 d4!:
a.) 4
fxe4 5.Nxc6 dxc6 6.Qh5+ Ke7
b.) 4
Nxd5 5.dxe5 d6 (5
Qe7 6.Qd4 and White is a pawn up, threatening Nc3-d5 Nunn) 6.Bf4! Black's position flat out sucks!
c.) 4
Nf6 5.Nxc6 dxc6 6.e5 with a clear extra pawn.
d.) 4
Qh4!? 5.Nf3 Qxe4+ 6.Be2 Black's Queen is exposed eg 6
Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Re1 with advantage 8
0-0? loses to 9.Bc4+.
e) 4...Qe7 is not analysed. 5 Nc3! (5 Nxc6 Qxe4+ 6 Be2 Qxc6 7 0-0 d5 8 Nc3 Kf7! and blacks not too bad) 5...fxe4 (5...Nxe5 6 Nb5!)6 Nb5 Kd8 7 Bf4 Nxe5 (7..Nf6 8 Nxc7!) 8 dxe5 and black cant develop eg Nh6 9 e6!d6 10 Qd5!
In line a) 4..fxe4 5 Nxc6 Black can try bxc6!?(instead of dxc6)6 Qh5+ Ke7 planning to play Kf7 and d5. This might be the best try and although I white is better the positions are a bit unclear. After 4..fxe4 white also has 5 Bc4 d5 6 Bb5 Qd6 (6..Ne7 7 0-0 is strong) 7 c4 a6 when white will probably get the e pawn but black gets the bishop pair.
So I am not now sure its a refutation!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-16 22:10:38)
Burden of games!
" and if I am not wrong I am not far from winning WCH-03-stage2-group02 (possibly ex aequo with you)..."
I think I might have some good news for you Marc :)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-18 16:06:16)
translation
I will have a go off the top of my head at giving a sense of the interview in english (I dont know the phrase tonitruand but I am guessing it means dynamic!)?:
Hi Xavier and first of all congratulations on your success in the candidates final match against IM (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru]
You had to avoid drawing all the games and finally you succeded with the black pieces. How did that happen?
Xavier: Hi thank you. Its true that if all the games had been drawn then under the rules Figlio would have won whereas if the match was drawn but with a win and loss I would win. Because of this I had to take risks and attack. It was with Black that I did this because I thought that Gino would play safely to be sure of a draw.
- Tell us how you approched the match and how the different phases of the game went
x: Its quite simple, I was not the favorite I have 200 ELO less on FICGS and Gino is an IM on ICCF with a 2480 rating. I did not think I could survive 8 games at once - in a single game anything is possible but 8 games .... it was a big challenge for me! In the openings I chose 4 different moves 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3 Gino chose 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nc3 I was surpised by 1 Nc3 because I was expecting dynamic openings and it was then that I decided I must take some risks with black. I kept most of the games balanced with a draw in hand and concentrated on 2 games 1 white and 1 black to get a result. In the end I got 3 wins which seemed an impossibility given the quality of the games Gino had played on this site to reach the final.
- you have not lost any games in the championship and you have fantastic statistics 78% against an average elo of about 2200. What is your secret?
x: My secret? I havent any secret and if I did I would not say because I would not win anymore! I think I have been a bit lucky because in the the Round Robin final there were 3 of us on the same score and I went through under the rules because of my rating. As for my statistics I was helped by mistakes by opponents who allowed me to win some drawn games.
- What do you think of the system for the FICGS championship (round robin and knock out matches)and what changes would you make?
x: Very good question. The matches are a bit too fast for me - 1 day per move when there are hours of analysis needed to exploit a complicated position its difficult when you have several games running Particularly if you are working. Perhaps that is why my opponents have made errors or failed to exploit my mistakes.
But this time limit has an advantage over ICCF where it is 5 days per move the games here are 5 times quicker! Having 8 game matches is an excellent idea and obliging the favorite to draw all the games and the challenger to get a at least 1 victory is very well thought out. The change that I would suggest is to have 15 days extra starting time that is 45 days at the start instead of 30 and also the possibilty to take holidays for tournaments for example take 7 days for championship games and to be able to play big chess go or another chess tournament during the holiday. To be able to choose the start of a holiday in advance would also be good.
- Why do you like cc and how does it compare to blitz and normal chess?
x: I prefer cc because of the time factor. Classical chess is often played at the week end at a fixed time and you have to travel to the tournament. The advantage for me at cc is that I can connect at any time to play a move which allows me for example to have meals with the family at the weekend. Late night moves for example are not possible at classical chess.
- You limited the number of your games on the site to a reasonable amount throughout the championship. Do you think nonetheless that cc is addictive? Does it affect your daily life?
x: Yes! Limiting the number of my games is essential to try to have games of quality not quantity. Having a lot of games going at the same time is something very difficult to handle. It is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio - I looked at his games - he had not less than 80 games going on at ICCF this must have affected the amount of time he could spend analysing his 8 games at FICGS. The effects on daily life are felt by the family because the reality is if I spend more time analysing the games I spend less time with the family. Thats difficult for me. But when the results come I dont regret it!
- What do you think of the role of chess engines (Rybka Fritz etc)in cc. What are for you the important skills of a cc player - to supplement the machine?
x: Chess engines are used in cc by 95% of players. You have to adapt yourself and know how to use the engines. To play just the best move of Rybka 3 Fritz 12 or Hiracs 12 without thinking leads to a draw if your opponent does the same or to a loss if your opponent is thinking. You have to choose bewteen 4 or 5 moves with a similer evaluation from the engine during a game and sometimes the best move is not among these.
- You play Big chess. Interest or curiosity? What do you think of this strange version of chess?
X : Curiosity and amusement and I think Rrybka 3 cannot yet play Big Chess! This version is new and I did not know it and the inventor has done a good job! By the way I would like to ask is it possible to castle at Big Chess?
[No its not possible]
- Finally the question that everyone is asking particularly Francois and Wolfgang who are contesting the 2nd candidates final. Do think you will be able to defend your title next year? :)
x: Definitely I will defend the title I would like to know if possible the date and time limits for the match. I wish Francois and Wolfgang a great match! I would also like to express my appreciation for this tournament which has been well organised!
- the match should start in the first week in January next year the time limit will be 30 days plus 1 day per move. Thank you for your answers and once again congratulations on a great performance.
x: Thank you. Cheers. Best wishes to everyone and good games!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-19 02:16:39)
Its a win !!!!
You must be joking!! Thibault its a definite win it will be over in a few moves!!
If anyone thinks black can survive please suggest some moves. The key to the win is that the best black can do is reach the position in a) below with Bishop and 2 pawns v R and 1 pawn. White wins becuse his king has access to e4, the Bishop is restricted by his pawns on a7 and e5 and most importantly his passed a pawn is not advanced.
It has been completely lost since move 63 ...Kxf4 Janos should have taken with the pawn 63..exf4 would have allowed him to reach a table base draw. On 66 Kd3 I had the win completely worked out and have been replying instantly since then. Adjudicating this is a draw is just plain wrong. Anyone who spends time on this position will see the win I have outlined and that there is no defence. The winning method is to force an exchange of rooks by Rc4-g4 with mating threats against the Black king - black cannot allow this and must play Rd4 allowing exchange of a pair rooks when the resulting R+P v B+P+P is won. Before playing Rc4 white checks with the other rook to cut off the f file. The only way to avoid the rook exchange is to allow the white King access to e4 - at the moment the black rook cuts off d3 and the bishop if it goes to b6 will cut off e3. If the king gets to e4 either the e5 pawn drops or the king gets to d5 and e6 either result is fatal
Here are the main lines:
a) 72..Bb6 73 Rg8+ Kf5 (73..Kh5 74 Rc1 Rd4 75 Rh1+ wins the rook) 74 Rf8+ Kg5 75 Rc4! Rd4 (see below a1 for 75..Bd4)76 Rxd4! exd4 77 Kd3 (This ending is completely won the white king penetrates through e4, the black bishop is useless - remove pawn at d4 and its a table base win) Here are the main lines 77... Bc5 78 Rc8 Bb6 79 Ke4 Kf6 80 f4 Kf7 81 f5 Kf6 82 Rc2 Kf7 83 Ke5 a5 84 Rc6 Bd8 85 Bc7+ Kxd4 Table base win Or 77 ...Kg6 78 Ke4 Kg7 79 Rc8 Kf6 80 f4 (if the pawn on d4 falls eg 80 ..Ba5 81 Kxd4 its a table base win) Ke7 81 f5 Kf6 82 Rc2 Ke7 (82 ..d3 83 Rc6+ Kg5 84 Rg6+ and Kxd3 = TB win) 83 Ke5 Kf7 84 Rb2 d3 85 f6 with a simple win
a1)..75..Bd4 (instead of Rd4) 76 Kd3 Ba1+ 77 Ke4 Ra5 78 Rg8+ Kf6 79 Rc6+ Kf7 80 Rgc8 Ra4+ 81 Rc4 Rxc4+ (black cannot avoid exchanging) 82 Rxc4+ and this ending like the one above is completely won. eg 82... Ke6 (82...a5 83 Rc5 a4 84 Ra5 x a4 = TB win) 83 Rc6+ Kd7 84 Kd5 Bd4 85 Rh6 a5 (any Bishop moves loses a pawn = TB win) 86 Rh7+ Kd8 87 f4 x e5 = TB win
b) If the Bishop does not go to b6 the white king gets via e3 to e4 and then penetrates through the white squares d5 and e6 and its over. Sample lines:
b1) 72 ..Kf4/f5 73 Rf8+ Kg6 74 Ke3 Rd1 75 Ke4 Re1+ 76 Kd5 Be7 77 Re8 Bf6 78 Ke6 e4 79 Rc5+ and the bishop is lost
b2) 72..Ba5 73 Ke3 Rb5 74 Rg8+ Kf5 75 Rf8+ Kg5 76 Ke4 Rb4+ 77 Kxe5 with a simple win
b3)72 ..Rd7 73 Rxe5+ (take a pair of rooks off = TB win) Kf4 74 Rcc5 Rg7 75 Re4+ Kg3 76 Rc1 Bb6 77 Rh1 a5 78 Rhh4 - Reg4+ exchanges rooks = TB win
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-19 05:44:37)
Game 18078
Hi Andrew, I must say I did not analyzed the game at all yet, I just looked at the position and trusted your previous post to Marc in the forum ('good news for you, Marc'). I'll take some time to do it soon.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-19 07:33:54)
my own fault!
Ok Thibault! My good news for Mark meant I was winning so I was reducing the burden of his games - he wouldnt qualify so he has less games !! :)hence the title on my post. I think I should have been a bit more specific!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-19 12:21:49)
Correction
In the analysis given below in "Its a win" under a) I omitted the move 86 Ra6 for white. It should read "85 Ra6 Bc7+ 86 Kxd4 with Table base win" and not "85 Bc7+ Kxd4 with Table base win"
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-19 17:17:59)
Adjudications
Hi Benjamin I am not sure what you mean by help people without asking.
The rules refer to adjudications as follows:
"11. 5. Adjudications
In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious."
At the end of 11.5 is states: "There are no time limit for games else but the clocks, but it may be announced that certain multi-stages tournaments will have one. At the end of this time limit, a referee committee will adjudicate games."
Obviously it was bit worrying without warning to have an announcement saying hey seems like a draw I am going to adjudicate. A draw would mean that I would not win the tournament - a win means I win the tournament so its an important game.
But as I am certain the game is won and can demonstrate this I am not concerned - I have no idea what Janos thinks. I dont think this is the best way to handle this but this is where we are - I am just glad it happened after Janos played 63...Kxf4 which was the losing move. We are only about 12 moves away from 6 man table base wins in almost all cases. Please post any anlysis about the position you would like as Thibault has asked for comment
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-08-19 18:05:34)
It seems, ...
... Andrew is right!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-22 19:01:06)
Game 18078 : win
Game 18078 is finally adjudicated as a win for Andrew. Sorry to Janos, that's a pity it can't finish but it is really necessary so that the next cycle can start.
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.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-22 23:19:03)
cant count
I realise there are 7 players in the round robin final ie 2 extra tied players. My point remains why 7 rather than 5? Why did I have to spend that time trying to beat Janos when I could go through on a tie?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-23 00:03:38)
Round Robin final WCH 3
Hi Andrew, I understand your point of view, on one hand rules specify : "If necessary, a player could be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player" which does not exactly fit to this case (2 players have been invited). On the other hand, rules give administrators the final decision in all cases - also rules may change whenever necessary - and of course the aim is simply to make it well. As it has been discussed in the past, WCH tournaments with 5 players give tournament entry ratings a too big importance and such a tournament lose some interest, 7 players should be a minimum (I may change the WCH rules this way, to be discussed)
5 players in this tournament won their group, 2 players have been invited and tied for first in their group. This does not mean : "Two players tied for first then have been invited." .. Maybe this was a mistake and we'll discuss it. Once again I understand your point of view, I think it wouldn't be acceptable to change it now but I'll accept all comments on this choice and I'll make the rules more accurate while taking account of this.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-23 09:07:33)
Wasted time
I understand the point about 5 players being a small group but I used up my holidays trying to beat Janos what would have happened if the game was a draw who would have been invited?? Janos twice offered a draw and frankly the only reason I did not accept was because I followed the rules and believed I needed to win to qualify for the final. How were you going to determine who to invite?? You knew that this situation was going to arise from the moment stage 2 started as there were only 4 groups and 1 M group there could only be 5 winners.
Not only that but when I raised the issue of Marcs earlier partcipiation in round robin final I actually stated that this time as we will have 5 winners then the sitaution would not arise the group is complete so no invitations arise and in your reply you agreed I do not see why it is too late please comply with the rules as you have no right to invite other players in the rules do not allow it. Saying the administrators decision is final is saying you can suddenly change any rule at any time for any reason.
I now face 6 opponents instead of 4 without any vacation time.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-23 17:59:14)
still a mystery
I know understand that you had decided (I dont know when??) that you would not allow 5 person round robin finals. So you were going to "invite" two players to make up the numbers in WCC 3 final. Nobody knew this only you. Second you are reserving the right to invite anyone according to make up the numbers according to your own preferences . It may be some all of those who tied for 1st place or you may choose to invite some other highly rated players who did not enter the tournament. Nobody knows! Firstly lets reduce the "invitations" as follows: 1) WCC tournaments will be made of at least 7 players. 2) Any shortfall will be made up of the best losers from the previous stage 3)Best losers will be selected from those who tied for place in a group in the previous stage ranked by tournament entry rating and /or from those who came 2nd ranked by tournament entry rating.
Under these rules everone knows where they stand and its transparent fair and consistent with existing rules.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-08-24 09:06:56)
Andrew, stop scathing criticism
on Thibault. Maybe he did some controversial decisions. But everybody who have to do decisions can be out in his calculations. In summery Thibault do a very good job and we all have to be thankful to him for all his work on this site.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-24 11:52:22)
separate criticism from suggestion
Whatever decisions Thibault made are past and I never doubted his good intentions. However I made a suggestion for the future which is in itelf not a criticism but a response to his invitation to comment on his proposed rule ammendments. I suggested a system for adding to numbers based on the best losers (those tied for 1st place, those placed 2nd etc) and if necessary to rank the best losers by tournament entry rating so if there were 2 slots to be filled and 3 persons who tied for first place in the groups (ie they were 2nd in their group because of lower TER than the winner) the top 2 by TER would qualify. I would also like to suggest an Ajuducations process 1) having indicative finish dates in WCC 2)if the Tournament director feels a game needs to be adjuducated (ie finish date reached)requesting both players to submit their views with analysis 3)having an adjudication commitee who will agree on the result within a set time period. These are just thoughts for possible improvement perhaps they are unnecessary. Anyway they are not intended as criticism scathing or otherwise!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-26 21:26:09)
To be continued...
Hi Andrew & all, sorry for the delay, I'll try to respond in a few days ! My best wishes, Thibault
Don Groves (2008-09-20 05:03:31)
MoGo
Hi, Andrew -- It would be an amazing feat if MoGo programmers could eliminate its nine-stone handicap in only one year of development. With each stone eliminated, the combinatorial aspects increase exponentially and the human advantage in pattern recognition and game understanding increases in proportion.
FYI - In a handicap game, the weaker player always goes first (ie., plays black). The handicap stones are placed on predetermined points and that constitutes black's first turn. White plays next and they alternate the remainder of the game. Komi still applies unless otherwise agreed.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-09-24 16:03:18)
Latvian meatballs
With best play black gets into an ending and trys to grovel his way to a draw a pawn down. The main line runs: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4 fxe4 5.Nc3 Qf7 6 e3 c6 7.d3 exd3 8.Bxd3 d5 9.O-O I think any deviations from this by black give an even worse game At this point Black can try 9...Bc5 then 10 b4! Bd6 (10..Bxc4 11 Ncxd5 is crushing)11 Re1 Ne7 12 Nexd5 cxd5 13 Nb5 Bxb4 (0-0 14 Nxd6) 14 Bd2 0-0 15 Bxb4 and the d5 pawn will drop leaving white as usual a pawn up for nothing 9...Bd6 10 Re1 Ne7 11 Nexd5 cxd5 12 Nb5 0-0 13 Nxd6 Qxf2+ 14 Kh1 Nbc6 (14 ..Bg4 15 Qd2 Qh4 16 b4 is great for white)15 Rf1 Bg4 16 Bxh7+ Kh8 17 Rxf2 Bxd1 18 Be3 d4 19 Rxf8+ Rxf8 20 Bg1 Kxh7 21 Rxd1 leaving the usual technically lost ending for black!!
Iouri Basiliev (2008-09-25 11:58:00)
Andrew Stephenson
Hey Andrew,
why You don't playing in the match black or white? For me 4.d4 is the best whites move. Developing, space, defence - all in one :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-02 11:50:49)
Game 16370, towards a new rule ?
What do you think about this case :
http://www.ficgs.com/game_16370.html
Last move : Qe4+ 2008 September 30 19:57:40
White clock - 94 days 18:34:55 (58 days 08:20:25)
Black clock - 0 day 01:19:54
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_A__000032"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2007.11.30"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Koch,Christian"]
[Black "Stephenson,Andrew"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2140"]
[BlackElo "2104"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.h3 Be7 9.Qf3 O-O 10.O-O-O b5 11.g4 b4 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.exd5 Bc8 14.Kb1 Nd7 15.Qe2 Bb7 16.f4 Qc7 17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Qf2 Bd8 19.Bg2 a5 20.Nd4 a4 21.Rhe1 a3 22.b3 Ra5 23.Nf5 g6 24.Nh6+ Kg7 25.Qf4 Bxd5 26.Bxd5 Rxd5 27.Qxb4 Qc6 28.Rxd5 Qxd5 29.Qf4 f6 30.Bc1 Qc5 31.Rd1 Ba5 32.Qe4 Rc8 33.c4 Bb4 34.h4 Qc6 35.Rd5 Re8 36.Qf4 Bc5 37.Bd2 Qb7 38.Bc3 Bb4 39.g5 f5 40.Qd2 Bxc3 41.Qxc3 Kf8 42.Kc1 Qb6 43.c5 Qc6 44.Rxd6 Qh1+ 45.Kc2 Qe4+ 46.Kc1 Qh1+ 47.Kc2 Qe4+ 48.*
So here player Black has good chances to lose the game on time, even if the best thing player White can do is to draw the game. In my opinion, "in general" player Black should play his next move, unless an analysis prove that the game is a forced draw - according to the rules, http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#adjudications - and eventually the result will be corrected after the game, but I'd like to know what other players think about this situation in general...
Thanks for helping to build strong rules.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-03 09:06:04)
Rules
I think you are right Thibault ie amend the rule as you suggest. However maybe change the wording put EXCEPT instead of BUT ("except games where an advantage is obvious")otherwise the english is difficult to understand (but so much better than my french!!)In this case though perhaps Marius is not going to play anymore moves at all in which case it could be classified as silent withdrawal?? At the level he is at it he surely does not need the time to get the positions the fact is that Marius (probably because he has got lot of games/commitments elsewhere) is not playing much at all in FICGS - looks like he will forfeit in the Round Robin final for example....
The existing rules make a distinction between matches and other tournaments. if you follow the other posters then it seems that they are saying that you should not have the rule for silent withdrawals or even losses under 10 moves?? So I vote for the extension proposed by Thibault it seems logical to me for matches - they are not primarily about rating. The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent when they just stopped playing and it has nothing much to do with relative playing strength. On the other hand Thibault it will give you a cool rating!! :)
Both view points are valid - its true time is a part of the game - but rules involve compromise and the proposed amendment just extends the principle already there........
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-03 22:42:17)
Psychology
I give an edge to Kramnik not in terms of chess ability or strength but he seems stronger psychologically more able to take the pressure. On the other hand the match is a bit short 8 games which I think is good for Anand. Finally Anand is favourite in the tie break games. For me the key opening questions are: Whats kramniks e4 defence? my bet is at least 1 outing for the Marshall which Anand has performed badly against and the Caro Kahn (which Kramnik has hardly ever played) and no Petroff at all! I think Anand will stick with his semi slav. After his problem in the Leko match Anand will not be able to surprise Kramnik with 1 d4! My prediction: either 1 win and the rest drawn for Kramnik in the classical games or an Anand win in the rapid tie breaks.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-04 14:01:29)
12 games
Of course the match is 12 games dont know why I said 8??
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-04 19:35:26)
re : In response to Don
You wouldn't be penalized in that case. All this is about 8 games match, as Andrew said "The idea is that it is too distorting to have a rating that shows a 6-0 win over a similer high level opponent". The whole problem is just to know where to put the limit.
Well, as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too, but 8 wins this way shouldn't be taken in consideration.
Consequently, I propose a new rule, quite reasonable, that could satisfy everyone (finally even my rating :)), here is :
"11.6 "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases, including losses on time whatever the context in a 2 players tournament, ie. chess championship's 8-games matches, except games where an advantage is obvious, in this case at most 2 of these games will be rated."
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-05 20:04:28)
Slight amendment
Thibault thinking about your point that "as it is possible to win elo points this way (loss on time in equal or winning position) in round-robin tournaments, it should be possible in 8 games matches too" I suggest the follwoing "Rating changes will occur, in 2 player matches, for losses on time (whatever the reason) within the following constraints: the game(s) is at least 10 moves, only 1 time loss game will be rated unless there is a game where the winner is clearly better in which case a maximum of 2 games may be rated"
My idea is that if someone forefeits all their games on move 11 in a match there should be 1 game rated (as in a tournament) so there is a price to pay but not too distorting. If in the 8 games say 5 are level and 3 (or 2 or 1) are clearly advantageous then 2 games could be rated. Alternatively just give 1 rated game as a max irrespective of advantage or not (ie just the first loss) provided it at least 10 moves. I am thinking of 2 situations a 6-0 result over 10 moves dead equal positions there should be some rating penalty (like tournaments) On the other hand soemone could let the clock run out in 6 games just before being mated in each game to avoid heavy rating penalty they should take a 2 game hit.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-05 21:50:02)
Sorry
..I must have misunderstood I thought if games were forfeit on time in matches even after 10 moves they were not rated only rated if the games were better ie the foreited party was clearly worse?? So in the case of a an 8 games match 11 moves completed all lost on time in dead equal positions there would be no rating effect ie no price paid?? In a tournament game they would be these losses would be rated. I thought your proposal was to rate the losses in matches up to a max of 2 games ONLY if it was 10+ moves AND the position was clearly better.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-05 23:03:12)
The Many Faces of Go
...is the name of the program that just won the Go section in the Beijing International Computer Games Association tournament. It won all 12 games which included beating the 2nd place program MoGo. In the 9 x 9 Go competition Many Faces also triumphed winning 15 out of 18 games but was beaten by MoGo who took 3rd after a playoff with the program Leela. the chess of course was won by Rybka
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-06 21:15:21)
complete results
Here's the link for the complete results http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/tournament.php?id=181
Iy seems smartgo did not compete.....
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-14 22:01:56)
exchange slav
Difficult to know what Kramnik was up to in this game. 8 Qb3 has been regarded as pretty harmless and is not much played at GM level - he must have had some new idea - apparently 15 Qxb7 is new but black was always going to get the pawn back. After 6 months preperation and 3 full time seconds a bit strange! I am sure Anand will go full power for the point tomorrow - I still cannot quite believe that Kramnik will play the Petroff he avoided it against Kasparov and I am sure he will avoid it in this match also.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-11-03 10:47:42)
Free style cup games...
...are not linked to wikichess which is a shame because there are some very important theoretical games there!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-03 13:13:53)
Freestyle cup games
Hi Andrew, which games & wikichess articles are you refering to ? As Wikichess does not have hashtables yet, a transposition may hide some games.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-01 08:15:20)
Marshall to win..
At cc no real chance for a black win but not easy for white to get much chance either. Although I dont know if many cc players want to go through the extended end game suffering Wolfgang seems to enjoy :)15...a5!? looks like a simpler less masochistic way to get the draw rather than Wolfgangs 15...Rae8 Still why Caire plays exactly the same variation of the Marshall in all 4 white games????? - against a higher rated opponent it makes no match sense at all. I suppose your not going to lose games on time playing the same variation:):)
Marc Lacrosse (2008-12-01 08:45:01)
To Andrew
"(...)why Caire plays exactly the same variation of the Marshall in all 4 white games????? - against a higher rated opponent it makes no match sense at all. I suppose your not going to lose games on time playing the same variation:)"
Hi Andrew in my FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000005 playing the exact same variation in my four black games was the key to win the match: all four were drawn whereas I managed to win 3.5/4 in my four white games (with four variations of one of these silly sideline sicilians you seem not to praise too much).
... what is the optimal strategy for these matches remains to be determined. The "all-draws-favors-higher-rating" rule is very interesting. I like it very much.
Marc
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-01 15:34:03)
cant argue...
..with your results Marc. However the current champion won FICGS with exactly the strategy I favour and exactly the opposite to your strategy. So thats powerful evidence in favour of the varying openings approach. Well done on winning your match - lets see how far you get with your strategy. As for these side line sicilians I never called them silly Marc your being over sensitive. I thought that it was easy to equalise against them and get a draw at cc. I still believe that and proved it in our game. However I do think your opponent (as black) was playing ambitiously to win! Now thats a different story .....
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-01 15:37:40)
cant argue...
..with your results Marc. However the current champion won FICGS with exactly the strategy I favour and exactly the opposite to your strategy. So thats powerful evidence in favour of the varying openings approach. Well done on winning your match - lets see how far you get with your strategy. As for these side line sicilians I never called them silly Marc your being over sensitive. I thought that it was easy to equalise against them and get a draw at cc. I still believe that and proved it in our game. However I do think your opponent (as black) was playing ambitiously to win! Now thats a different story .....
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-01 22:09:55)
15...a5!?
I dont know of any games but when I was following the game and before 15 ...Rae8 I started investigating this move and the more I looked at it the more I liked it - its a very annoying move for white at just the right moment. However Wolfgangs approach seemed to work I just would not have had the courage to enter those endgames
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-02 16:21:04)
Drugs in chess
I have read views of players who claimed that there are prescription drugs (eg modafinil) that enhance concentration and thus performance in chess tournaments - significant improvement but not dramatic. However even small improvements could prove extremely useful at the top levels. Of course no one would ever admit it but I assume if there is some effectiveness then some top players will definitely be taking them. Drug testing at the higher levels is quite reasonable if chess is seeking olympic status.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-03 05:33:42)
Mix the yoghurt...
..with coffee and get double the effect although I suppose the heat will kill the bacteria :):)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-06 21:51:23)
Reaching a peak
My gut feeling is that rating improvements will tail off and we will not see any program crack 3400. I dont know the sales figures but looking for example at New In chess analysis by Carlsen he seems to use only Rybka and perhaps this program is becoming completely dominant among GM's. Perhaps the biggest impact will be hardware improvements allowing faster deeper analysis. This will mean fewer points missed and quicker conclusions as the time needed for the program to dig into the position shortens. You can still see examples of theoretical analysis in recent New in Chess Year books where misjudgements have been made because they needed to keep the program running a bit longer to see the evaluation flip but I think this will decrease ........
Andrew Stephenson (2009-01-01 20:02:58)
Vacation - "Each january 1st, ......
the server sets the number of days to 30 for all players." Not so far! Thibault does it happen at the end of January 1st?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-10 13:01:25)
Simultaneous Chess World Record
After the records by Ulf Anderson, Andrew Martin and Susan Polgar, the current Simultaneous Chess World Record has been established this year by Kiril Georgiev, who played 360 opponents at the same time, now Iranian GM Morteza Mahjoob wants to play 500 opponents to bring it at a new level.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5659
Is this kind of record worth something according to you or just a nonsense?
Mircea Hrubaru (2010-04-25 13:51:18)
Anand vs. Topalov, world championship
We must credit our mate Dmitry Domanov for the 16...Qd6!? move (1/2-1/2 Stephenson, Andrew (2256) - Domanov, Dmitry (2202) / FICGS__CHESS__WCH_ROUND_ROBIN_FINAL__000003 (1), FICGS 2008 and 0-1 Agustin, Santos (2010) - Domanov, Dmitry (2181) / FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_09__000006 (1), FICGS 2009).
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
Andrew Fischhof (2015-04-15 07:09:00)
GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000010
Just curious ... what happened to
FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000010?
Thanks :)
Thibault de Vassal (2015-04-15 14:17:15)
FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000010
Hello Andrew.
Well, just like Eros Riccio in a few chess championships, Yen-Wei Huang won both preliminary tournament and previous final match, so he didn't have to defend his title (he should have played against himself).
There are 247 results for andrew in wikichess.
Gino Figlio (2454)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6
The definition of the Najdorf from other Sicilians, a good move taking control of the b5 square, and preparing b5, this opening named after the Argentinian GM Miguel Najdorf who poularized the opening, but he did not create it as is often the case with so many modern openings. A6 is also designed to play e5 without white being able to reply with Bb5+
============
Contributors : Steven Hanly, Andrew Stephenson, Gino Figlio
Andrew Stephenson (2000)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bc4 e6 Bb3 Nbd7
At one time thought to be unplayable for black was the main choice of Kasparov when facing Bc4
============
Contributors : Rémi Marois, Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson (2237)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6
============
Contributors : Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson (2237)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bd3
============
Contributors : Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson (2237)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bd3 Nbd7
============
Contributors : Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson (2237)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bd3 Nbd7 O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson (2237)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bd3 Nbd7 O-O dxc4
============
Contributors : Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson (2237)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bd3 Nbd7 O-O dxc4 Bxc4
============
Contributors : Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Stephenson (2237)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bd3 Nbd7 O-O dxc4 Bxc4 Bd6
============
Contributors : Andrew Stephenson
Andrew Endean (1845)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 Bb4
Transpose to wikichess #6731#
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 g6 c4 Bg7 g3 O-O Bg2 c6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 g6 c4 Bg7 g3 O-O Bg2 c6 O-O d5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 g6 c4 Bg7 g3 O-O Bg2 c6 O-O d5 cxd5 cxd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 g6 c4 Bg7 g3 O-O Bg2 c6 O-O d5 cxd5 cxd5 Nc3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 Nbd7 Bc4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (1894)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 e3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (1894)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6 e3 Nd7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1800)
Nf3 Nf6 g3 g6 c4
Transpose to wikichess #19235#
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (1894)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6 e3 Nd7 Bd3 dxc4 Bxc4 g6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 Bd6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nf3 Bg7 e3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nf3 Bg7 e3 O-O Be2
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 Nbd7 Bc4 e6 Bb3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 g6 c4 Bg7 g3 O-O Bg2 c6 O-O d5 cxd5 cxd5 Nc3 Nc6 h3 Ne4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 Nbd7 Bc4 e6 Bb3 Be7 O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 e3 Bg7 Nf3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 Nf3 Bg7 Bg5 dxc4 e4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5 Nf3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 e3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O h3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 f5 g3 e6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
g4 g5 Bg2
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
e4 c6 Nf3 d5 e5 Bg4 d4 e6 Nbd2 c5 h3 Bh5 Be2
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 Nf3 Bg7 Bg5 dxc4 e4 b6 Bxc4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 e3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O h3 c6 cxd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Be3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 f5 g3 e6 Bg2 Nf6
Transpose to wikichess #5612#
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nf3 Bg7 e3 O-O Be2 d5 cxd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
g4 g5 Bg2 Bg7 d4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 Bd6 O-O a6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (1894)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 h3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1800)
e4 c6 Nf3 d5 e5 Bg4 d4 e6 Nbd2 c5 h3 Bh5 Be2 Nc6 c3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 Nf3 Bg7 Bg5 dxc4 e4 b6 Bxc4 O-O e5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 d5 a3 Be7
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 Bd6 O-O a6 Bxc6 dxc6
Transpose to wikichess #11955#
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 e3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O h3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Be3 c5 Qd2
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nf3 Bg7 e3 O-O Be2 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
g4 g5 Bg2 Bg7 d4 c5 Nf3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 d5 a3 Be7 Nf3 O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 Nf3 Bg7 Bg5 dxc4 e4 b6 Bxc4 O-O e5 Ne8 h4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
g4 g5 Bg2 Bg7 d4 c5 Nf3 cxd4 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 d5 a3 Be7 Nf3 O-O cxd5 exd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 d5 a3 Be7 Nf3 O-O cxd5 exd5 Bg5 h6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Bc4 c5 Ne2 cxd4 cxd4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nf3 Bg7 e3 O-O Be2 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nb6 O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Bb4 e5 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 Qa5 Bd2 Ne7
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 h3 b5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 e3 Bg7 Nf3 O-O h3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1800)
g4 g5 Bg2 Bg7 d4 c5 Nf3 cxd4 Nxd4 d5 Nc3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (1929)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (1929)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7 Bf4 Nh5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (1929)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7 Bf4 Nh5 Bd2 Nhf6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (1929)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7 Bf4 Nh5 Bd2 Nhf6 Qc2 g6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (1929)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Be6 Nc3 h6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (1929)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Nbd7 Bf4 Nh5 Bd2 Nhf6 Qc2 g6 g3 e5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (1929)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Be6 Nc3 h6 Ne5 c5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (1929)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Be6 Nc3 h6 Ne5 c5 Qf3 Qc7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (1929)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Be6 Nc3 h6 Ne5 c5 Qf3 Qc7 d5 Nxd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (1929)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Be6 Nc3 h6 Ne5 c5 Qf3 Qc7 d5 Nxd5 Nxf7 Bxf7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 c5 d5 d6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Bf5 cxd5 Nxd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Bf5 cxd5 Nxd5 Qb3 Nb6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 Nbd7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Bf5 cxd5 Nxd5 Qb3 Nb6 e4 Bg6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Bf5 cxd5 Nxd5 Qb3 Nb6 e4 Bg6 a4 f6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Nb3 Bb4 Bd3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 Nbd7 O-O e5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 Bb3 b5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 Bb3 b5 a4 b4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 Nbd7 O-O e5 Be3 Re8
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2 b5 O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 f3 d5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 c5 cxd5 Nxd5 dxc5 Qa5 e4 Nf6 Be3 O-O Kf2
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 f3 d5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 c5 cxd5 Nxd5 dxc5 Qa5 e4 Nf6 Be3 O-O Kf2 Nfd7 Rb1
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Bf5 cxd5 Nxd5 Qb3 Nb6 e4 Bg6 a4 f6 a5 Bf7
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Nb3 Bb4 Bd3 d5 exd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 b5 a4 Bd7
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 Ne5 c5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 Nbd7 O-O e5 Be3 Re8 d5 Nh5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 b5 a4 Bd7 axb5 Bxb5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 c3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 d4 Nc6 Nf3 Bg4 Be2 e6 h3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 g3 d6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 b5 a4 Bd7 axb5 Bxb5 Na3 c6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 Bb3 b5 a4 b4 Nbd2 Be7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2 b5 O-O Bb7 b4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 g3 d6 Bg2 c6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 Bb3 b5 a4 b4 Nbd2 Be7 e4 Nc6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 Ne5 c5 Na3 cxd4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Nb3 Bb4 Bd3 d5 exd5 Nxd5 O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 g3 d6 Bg2 c6 e4 O-O
Transpose to wikichess #37093#
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 c3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 d4 Nc6 Nf3 Bg4 Be2 e6 h3 Bh5 c4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2 b5 O-O Bb7 b4 Nbd7 a4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2 b5 O-O Bb7 b4 Nbd7 a4 Rc8 Ra3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2 b5 O-O Bb7 b4 Nbd7 a4 Rc8 Ra3 d5 Rb1
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 Ne5 c5 Na3 cxd4 Naxc4 Bc5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 b5 a4 Bd7 axb5 Bxb5 Na3 c6 Bxc4 Bxc4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Nd5 c4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 f3 d5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 c5 cxd5 Nxd5 dxc5 Qa5 e4 Nf6 Be3 O-O Kf2 Nfd7 Rb1 Rd8 Qb3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 Bb3 b5 a4 b4 Nbd2 Be7 e4 Nc6 e5 Nd7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2 b5 O-O Bb7 b4 Nbd7 a4 Rc8 Ra3 d5 Rb1 e5 axb5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 Ne5 c5 Na3 cxd4 Naxc4 Bc5 O-O O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Nd5 c4 Nb6 c5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2 b5 O-O Bb7 b4 Nbd7 a4 Rc8 Ra3 d5 Rb1 e5 axb5 a5 Nxd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 b5 a4 Bd7 axb5 Bxb5 Na3 c6 Bxc4 Bxc4 Nxc4 e6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 b5 a4 Bd7 axb5 Bxb5 Na3 c6 Bxc4 Bxc4 Nxc4 e6 Nf3 Nf6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Nf3 Bb4 Bd2
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Nd5 c4 Nb6 c5 Nd5 g3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 c3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 d4 Nc6 Nf3 Bg4 Be2 e6 h3 Bh5 c4 Qd8 d5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2 b5 O-O Bb7 b4 Nbd7 a4 Rc8 Ra3 d5 Rb1 e5 axb5 a5 Nxd5 Bxd5 b6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 Bb3 b5 a4 b4 Nbd2 Be7 e4 Nc6 e5 Nd7 Nc4 cxd4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2 b5 O-O Bb7 b4 Nbd7 a4 Rc8 Ra3 d5 Rb1 e5 axb5 a5 Nxd5 Bxd5 b6 Nxb6 exd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2 b5 O-O Bb7 b4 Nbd7 a4 Rc8 Ra3 d5 Rb1 e5 axb5 a5 Nxd5 Bxd5 b6 Nxb6 exd5 Bxb4 Nb5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Qc7 Qd2 b5 O-O Bb7 b4 Nbd7 a4 Rc8 Ra3 d5 Rb1 e5 axb5 a5 Nxd5 Bxd5 b6 Nxb6 exd5 Bxb4 Nb5 Bxd2 Nxc7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Nb3 Be7 Qf3 Nbd7 O-O-O Qc7 g4 h6 Bxf6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 f3 d5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 c5 cxd5 Nxd5 dxc5 Qa5 e4 Nf6 Be3 O-O Kf2 Nfd7 Rb1 Rd8 Qb3 Qc7 Rd1
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 Bb3 b5 a4 b4 Nbd2 Be7 e4 Nc6 e5 Nd7 Nc4 cxd4 Nxd4 Ndxe5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 Be7 Nf3 O-O O-O c6
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 f3 d5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 c5 cxd5 Nxd5 dxc5 Qa5 e4 Nf6 Be3 O-O Kf2 Nfd7 Rb1 Rd8 Qb3 Qc7 Rd1 Rf8 Qc4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 Bb3 b5 a4 b4 Nbd2 Be7 e4 Nc6 e5 Nd7 Nc4 cxd4 Nxd4 Ndxe5 Nxc6 Nxc6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 Bb3 b5 a4 b4 Nbd2 Be7 e4 Nc6 e5 Nd7 Nc4 cxd4 Nxd4 Ndxe5 Nxc6 Nxc6 Bf4 Qxd1
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Nf3 Bb4 Bd2 Bxc3 Bxc3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d3 Bc5 g3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 f3 d5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 c5 cxd5 Nxd5 dxc5 Qa5 e4 Nf6 Be3 O-O Kf2 Nfd7 Rb1 Rd8 Qb3 Qc7 Rd1 Rf8 Qc4 Ne5 Qa4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 Bb3 b5 a4 b4 Nbd2 Be7 e4 Nc6 e5 Nd7 Nc4 cxd4 Nxd4 Ndxe5 Nxc6 Nxc6 Bf4 Qxd1 Rfxd1 e5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Nf3 Bb4 Bd2 Bxc3 Bxc3 Nxe4 Bxe5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 Nf6 e3 d5 Bd3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 f3 d5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 c5 cxd5 Nxd5 dxc5 Qa5 e4 Nf6 Be3 O-O Kf2 Nfd7 Rb1 Rd8 Qb3 Qc7 Rd1 Rf8 Qc4 Ne5 Qa4 Bd7 Qc2
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 Nf6 e3 d5 Bd3 c5 c3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d3 Bc5 g3 d6 Bg2
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d3 Bc5 g3 d6 Bg2 Nf6 O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 d5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 d5 exd5 Nxd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 f3 d5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 c5 cxd5 Nxd5 dxc5 Qa5 e4 Nf6 Be3 O-O Kf2 Nfd7 Rb1 Rd8 Qb3 Qc7 Rd1 Rf8 Qc4 Ne5 Qa4 Bd7 Qc2 Rc8 Be2
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 f3 d5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 c5 cxd5 Nxd5 dxc5 Qa5 e4 Nf6 Be3 O-O Kf2 Nfd7 Rb1 Rd8 Qb3 Qc7 Rd1 Rf8 Qc4 Ne5 Qa4 Bd7 Qc2 Rc8 Be2 Be8 f4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Nb3 Be7 Qf3 Nbd7 O-O-O Qc7 g4 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 e5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Nb3 Be7 Qf3 Nbd7 O-O-O Qc7 g4 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 e5 dxe5 f5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 Bb3 b5 a4 b4 Nbd2 Be7 e4 Nc6 e5 Nd7 Nc4 cxd4 Nxd4 Ndxe5 Nxc6 Nxc6 Bf4 Qxd1 Rfxd1 e5 Nxe5 Nxe5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 d5 exd5 Nxd5 Re1 Bb4
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Nxg5 hxg5
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Ponting (1539)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d3 Bc5 g3 d6 Bg2 Nf6 O-O O-O c3
============
Contributors : Andrew Ponting
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Nb3 Be7 Qf3 Nbd7 O-O-O Qc7 g4 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 e5 dxe5 f5 Nb6 Ne4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6 Be2
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Nb3 Be7 Qf3 Nbd7 O-O-O Qc7 g4 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 e5 dxe5 f5 Nb6 Ne4 Nd5 fxe6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6 Be2 Qc7 O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6 Be2 Qc7 O-O Nf4 Rfe1
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6 Be2 Qc7 O-O Nf4 Rfe1 Nxe2 Qxe2
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Nb3 Be7 Qf3 Nbd7 O-O-O Qc7 g4 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 e5 dxe5 f5 Nb6 Ne4 Nd5 fxe6 fxe6 g5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Nb3 Be7 Qf3 Nbd7 O-O-O Qc7 g4 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 e5 dxe5 f5 Nb6 Ne4 Nd5 fxe6 fxe6 g5 hxg5 Bh3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6 Be2 Qc7 O-O Nf4 Rfe1 Nxe2 Qxe2 O-O e5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6 Be2 Qc7 O-O Nf4 Rfe1 Nxe2 Qxe2 O-O e5 d6 Bf4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Nb3 Be7 Qf3 Nbd7 O-O-O Qc7 g4 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 e5 dxe5 f5 Nb6 Ne4 Nd5 fxe6 fxe6 g5 hxg5 Bh3 Be7 Bg4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 c3 Nf6 e5 Nd5 d4 cxd4 cxd4 d6 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nb6 Bb5 dxe5 Nxe5 Bd7 Nxd7 Qxd7 Nc3 e6 O-O Be7 Qg4 O-O Rd1 Rfd8 Bh6 g6 Rac1 Rac8 Qf3 Nd5 Bc4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2007)
e4 c5 c3 Nf6 e5 Nd5 d4 cxd4 cxd4 d6 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nb6 Bb5 dxe5 Nxe5 Bd7 Nxd7 Qxd7 Nc3 e6 O-O Be7 Qg4 O-O Rd1 Rfd8 Bh6 g6 Rac1 Rac8 Qf3 Nd5 Bc4 Nxc3 bxc3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2110)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 O-O Bg5 c5 a3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2110)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 O-O Bg5 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2110)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 O-O Bg5 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 h6 Bh4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2110)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 O-O Bg5 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 h6 Bh4 cxd4 cxd4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2110)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 e6 Nc3 exd5 cxd5 d6 Nf3 Bg4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2110)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 e6 Nc3 exd5 cxd5 d6 Nf3 Bg4 Nd2 g6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2110)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 e6 Nc3 exd5 cxd5 d6 Nf3 Bg4 Nd2 g6 Nc4 Be7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2110)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 c5 dxc5 O-O a3 Bxc5 Nf3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2110)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 e6 Nc3 exd5 cxd5 d6 Nf3 Bg4 Nd2 g6 Nc4 Be7 Bh6 a6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2110)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 c5 dxc5 O-O a3 Bxc5 Nf3 Nc6 Bg5 h6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2110)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 c5 dxc5 O-O a3 Bxc5 Nf3 Nc6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 a6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Qd2
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Qd2 b5 f3
Transpose to wikichess #11023#
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 Bf4 Nbd7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 h6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 h6 e3 e6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 h6 e3 e6 Be2 Be7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 h6 e3 e6 Be2 Be7 O-O O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Bb7 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 Qc2 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 O-O Bd3 c5 O-O Qc7 Qe2 Nc6 d5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 h6 e3 e6 Be2 Be7 O-O O-O Rac1 Bd8
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Bb7 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 Qc2 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 O-O Bd3 c5 O-O Qc7 Qe2 Nc6 d5 Na5 Bc2
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 h6 e3 e6 Be2 Be7 O-O O-O Rac1 Bd8 Bd6 Re8
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 h6 e3 e6 Be2 Be7 O-O O-O Rac1 Bd8 Bd6 Re8 Ne5 Bc7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Bb7 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 Qc2 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 O-O Bd3 c5 O-O Qc7 Qe2 Nc6 d5 Na5 Bc2 exd5 exd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 h6 e3 e6 Be2 Be7 O-O O-O Rac1 Bd8 Bd6 Re8 Ne5 Bc7 f4 Bxd6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 h6 e3 e6 Be2 Be7 O-O O-O Rac1 Bd8 Bd6 Re8 Ne5 Bc7 f4 Bxd6 cxd6 Ne4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Bb7 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 Qc2 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 O-O Bd3 c5 O-O Qc7 Qe2 Nc6 d5 Na5 Bc2 exd5 exd5 Bf6 Bg5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6 c5 Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 Bf4 Nbd7 h3 h6 e3 e6 Be2 Be7 O-O O-O Rac1 Bd8 Bd6 Re8 Ne5 Bc7 f4 Bxd6 cxd6 Ne4 Nxe4 Bxe4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Bb7 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 Qc2 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 O-O Bd3 c5 O-O Qc7 Qe2 Nc6 d5 Na5 Bc2 exd5 exd5 Bf6 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Bb7 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 Qc2 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 O-O Bd3 c5 O-O Qc7 Qe2 Nc6 d5 Na5 Bc2 exd5 exd5 Bf6 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 g6 f4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2123)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Bb7 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 Qc2 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 O-O Bd3 c5 O-O Qc7 Qe2 Nc6 d5 Na5 Bc2 exd5 exd5 Bf6 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 g6 f4 Bxd5 Nxh7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Jeselson (1814)
e4 e5 Nc3 Nc6 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5
Transpose to wikichess #146606#
============
Contributors : Andrew Jeselson
Andrew Jeselson (1814)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Bc4 Ne7 Nc3 c6
Transpose to wikichess #34750#
============
Contributors : Andrew Jeselson
Andrew Jeselson (1814)
b4 Nf6 Bb2 a5 b5
============
Contributors : Andrew Jeselson
Andrew Jeselson (1814)
b4 Nf6 Bb2 a5 b5 d6 e3
============
Contributors : Andrew Jeselson
Andrew Jeselson (1814)
b4 Nf6 Bb2 a5 b5 d6 e3 e5 c4
Transpose to wikichess #88446#
============
Contributors : Andrew Jeselson
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Bc4 c5 Ne2 Nc6 Be3 O-O O-O Na5 Bd3 b6 Rc1 e5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6 Nxc4 Nd5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6 Nxc4 Nd5 e4 Ne7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Be7 Qd2 O-O a3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6 Nxc4 Nd5 e4 Ne7 Bb2 Nbc6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6 Nxc4 Nd5 e4 Ne7 Bb2 Nbc6 Nbd2 O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6 Nxc4 Nd5 e4 Ne7 Bb2 Nbc6 Nbd2 O-O Kg1 b5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6 Nxc4 Nd5 e4 Ne7 Bb2 Nbc6 Nbd2 O-O Kg1 b5 Ne3 e5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6 Nxc4 Nd5 e4 Ne7 Bb2 Nbc6 Nbd2 O-O Kg1 b5 Ne3 e5 dxe5 Bxe5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Re1 Nbd7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6 Nxc4 Nd5 e4 Ne7 Bb2 Nbc6 Nbd2 O-O Kg1 b5 Ne3 e5 dxe5 Bxe5 Bxe5 Nxe5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6 Nxc4 Nd5 e4 Ne7 Bb2 Nbc6 Nbd2 O-O Kg1 b5 Ne3 e5 dxe5 Bxe5 Bxe5 Nxe5 Nf3 Nxf3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6 Nxc4 Nd5 e4 Ne7 Bb2 Nbc6 Nbd2 O-O Kg1 b5 Ne3 e5 dxe5 Bxe5 Bxe5 Nxe5 Nf3 Nxf3 Bxf3 Bb7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Be7 Qd2 O-O a3 e5 Nb3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3 Ba6 b3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Ne5 Bb4 Kf1 Bd6 Nxc4 Nd5 e4 Ne7 Bb2 Nbc6 Nbd2 O-O Kg1 b5 Ne3 e5 dxe5 Bxe5 Bxe5 Nxe5 Nf3 Nxf3 Bxf3 Bb7 Kg2 f5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Be7 Qd2 O-O a3 e5 Nb3 Be6 O-O-O
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Be7 Qd2 O-O a3 e5 Nb3 Be6 O-O-O Nbd7 h3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Be7 Qd2 O-O a3 e5 Nb3 Be6 O-O-O Nbd7 h3 b5 g4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Re1 Nbd7 Qc2 Re8
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Re1 Nbd7 Qc2 Re8 Rd1 Qe7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Re1 Nbd7 Qc2 Re8 Rd1 Qe7 Nb5 Nb8
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Be7 Qd2 O-O a3 e5 Nb3 Be6 O-O-O Nbd7 h3 b5 g4 h6 Kb1
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Re1 Nbd7 Qc2 Re8 Rd1 Qe7 Nb5 Nb8 d5 a5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Be7 Qd2 O-O a3 e5 Nb3 Be6 O-O-O Nbd7 h3 b5 g4 h6 Kb1 Nb6 f4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Re1 Nbd7 Qc2 Re8 Rd1 Qe7 Nb5 Nb8 d5 a5 Bd2 b6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Be7 Qd2 O-O a3 e5 Nb3 Be6 O-O-O Nbd7 h3 b5 g4 h6 Kb1 Nb6 f4 Nc4 Qc1
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Be7 Qd2 O-O a3 e5 Nb3 Be6 O-O-O Nbd7 h3 b5 g4 h6 Kb1 Nb6 f4 Nc4 Qc1 exf4 Bxf4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Re1 Nbd7 Qc2 Re8 Rd1 Qe7 Nb5 Nb8 d5 a5 Bd2 b6 b3 Na6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Re1 Nbd7 Qc2 Re8 Rd1 Qe7 Nb5 Nb8 d5 a5 Bd2 b6 b3 Na6 Ne1 Nc5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Be7 Qd2 O-O a3 e5 Nb3 Be6 O-O-O Nbd7 h3 b5 g4 h6 Kb1 Nb6 f4 Nc4 Qc1 exf4 Bxf4 Qc7 Bxc4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Re1 Nbd7 Qc2 Re8 Rd1 Qe7 Nb5 Nb8 d5 a5 Bd2 b6 b3 Na6 Ne1 Nc5 Bf3 Nh7
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Rb1 a5
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 Be2 Be7 Qd2 O-O a3 e5 Nb3 Be6 O-O-O Nbd7 h3 b5 g4 h6 Kb1 Nb6 f4 Nc4 Qc1 exf4 Bxf4 Qc7 Bxc4 bxc4 Nd4
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Re1 Nbd7 Qc2 Re8 Rd1 Qe7 Nb5 Nb8 d5 a5 Bd2 b6 b3 Na6 Ne1 Nc5 Bf3 Nh7 Nd3 Nxd3
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
Andrew Endean (2006)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O h6 Rb1 a5 Re1 Nc6
============
Contributors : Andrew Endean
FICGS : andrew , Wikipedia : andrew , Dmoz : andrew , Google : andrew , Yahoo : andrew
No price is too great for the scalp of the enemy King. (Koblentz)
Only the player with the initiative has the right to attack. (Wilhelm Steinitz)
By the beauty of his games, the clarity of his play, and the brilliance of his ideas, Fischer made himself an artist of the same stature as Brahms, Rembrandt, and Shakespeare. (David Levy)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess