award
FICGS - Search results for award
There are 32 results for award in the forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-13 15:46:55)
New Titles
Hello Paul-Iosif.
Interesting new idea. In my opinion, there are too many titles & titled players already from official & "non-official" organizations. I think this is a mistake from FIDE / ICCF they couldn't remedy anymore. Titles from other organizations and particularly IECG are not really a problem "more", cause they are hard to achieve (rare), but I don't think this could be so attractive for players. To get a title is a reward itself. Maybe even EM title shouldn't exist.
But I think that ie. a KM title (over GM) could be an interesting idea !
Anyway, I'm ok with the commission idea, we'll vote that too.
Another interesting & controversial idea is (as IECG do) titles not to be awarded for life ! If player's rating decrease, he could lost his title... but I don't think this is very fair.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-13 16:05:35)
I agree...
... that would be unfair.
About players that will never achieve a title, I think most important is to stimulate motivation, and titles (I think) are awarded in this way. Don't you think categories FI, FII, FIII are in a way the rating itself ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-14 04:54:25)
Proposal from a visitor (anonymous)
" >>> Hi Thibault
Congratulations for the launch of your new CC server!
I fully support your initiative and hope I will join very soon.
Meanwhile I would like to share some ideas about the Ficgs
Titles, which I also fully and unconditionally support.
My proposal is to adopt/or "recognize" any title awarded
by FIDE/ICCF/IECG as a FGM, FSIM, FIM, FEM titles.
(e.g. not just IECG IM = FIM, but all others too).
That is, a ICCF GM should be named FGM much as a FIDE GM,
or IECG GM (or SIM, IM or EM for CC).
There shouldn't be special treatment to those players
with a title from FIDE/ICCF
Then, to differentiate them, there could be a color
scheme or a footnote explaining the procedence of
the title: FGM (ICCF) ...FSIM (IECG) and simply FSIM for
the truly SIM title obtained at FICGS.
In adition, those players who do not have a title,
but have norms either at FIDE/ICCF/IECG (my case ;)
either will have them "homologated" (as the titles are)
or better, when/if the title has been awarded later, his Ficgs
title will be "updated" to the newly awarded title
(by FIDE/ICCF/IECG), which must be the highest of
them all (as in IECG SIM > ICCF IM > FEM ..etc)
This way FICGS will be the first organization
to homologate norms and titles in CC world ;) <<< "
Wayne Lowrance (2006-05-31 02:11:25)
tournament winner
any "attaboy" awards for winning a tournament....has anyone one a tourney yet...i see no place to announce tourney winners etc.....wayne
John Knudsen (2006-07-06 06:41:08)
Leave/Reflection Time
Hi Thibault:
I understand this now - thanks. And I like the limitation on accumulated reflection time - this is a great idea.
Still, the stated reflection time was given as 30 days +1 per move, and when you are on leave, you are not moving. To award an extra day reflection time on days that you do not more (i.e., vacation) is not logical at all. Your reflection time should remain unchanged from the day that you last moved. Any smart guy that has not used leave, and is running out of time on his games will just take his 30 days leave, and presto - he has 30 days more reflection time. This possibility, by itself, makes the reflection time a joke, in my opinion. John
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-10 16:16:37)
To be continued...
Open Letter
To
FIDE President
H.E. Kirsan Illyumzhinov
To
Head of the 2006 Executive Committee
Mr. Valery Bovaev
Dear Mr President, Gentlemen,
Having received innumerable published and unpublished inquiries I would like to clarify, in the name of Vladimir Kramnik and his team, our position in the decision taken by FIDE regarding the fifth game of the current World Championship match.
As you know Vladimir Kramnik is playing the current match under protest. Nothing has changed in our attitude, which is documented by Kramnik’s actions around the fifth game and our statements, protests and letters:
29.09.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=104
02.10.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=106
04.10.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=107
Consistent with this standpoint Vladimir Kramnik will be playing this match, including a possible tiebreak, up to the last move under protest.
Should the decision of FIDE regarding the fifth game have any influence on the awarding of the World Championship title, with Mr Topalov receiving the title after being granted a free point for the unplayed game, Mr Kramnik declares unequivocally: “I will not recognize Mr Topalov as World Champion under these conditions, and I will take legal action against FIDE at the end of the World Championship.”
The damage done to Mr Kramnik in public opinion (e.g. the slander campaign) after the illegal release of private video images by the then FIDE Appeals Committee or the WCC 2006 Executive Committee to the Topalov team, and the subsequent release of these video images and private information of Mr Kramnik in his restroom to the mass media, as well as the interruption of the match, which broke Mr Kramnik’s concentration and playing rhythm, will all be part of the legal action which will be initiated.
As a sign of good will Mr Kramnik once again requests FIDE to arrange for game five to be played out on the board immediately after game 12. This in our opinion is the only way to alleviate the personal, sporting, judicial and ethical injuries that have been incurred by Mr Kramnik.
Elista, October 10, 2006
On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-15 12:18:28)
Go : Korean awards
Korean awards 2006
Best player of the year: Lee Sedol, 9-dan
Fighting spirit prize: Seo Bongsu, 9-dan
Best junior master: Paek Hongsuk, 5-dan
Top female prize: Rui Naiwei, 9-dan
Best Korean amateur: U Dongha, 7-dan
Most popular male and female players: Lee Changho, 9-dan and Park Chiun, 6-dan
Korean records 2006
The highest number of wins: Lee Sedol, 9-dan, 78-28
The highest winning percentage: Paek Hongsuk, 5-dan, 77%
The longest winning streak: Lee Sedol, 9-dan, 14 games straight (2.13.2006 -3.21.2006)
From IGN "Goama" newsletter - http://gogame.info
Elmer Valderrama (2007-01-20 10:48:05)
practical play
I believe this can happen at all levels: at +2700 level for example,
A Morozevich illustrates the case, +2951 Perf in Pamplona, not
too awesome in big events, Linares or WCs :/
-I think he might be easily the Most Practical Player of All Time --if that award exists--
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-21 13:59:06)
FICGS titles
Hello Spiros.
FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM are titles awarded by FICGS.
Requirements are not the same as in ICCF but it quite looks like : ICCF titles are EM (Email Master), IM (International Master), SM (Senior Master), GM (Gran Master).
Note : In rating list, a GM player could be a FIDE GM or ICCF GM...
See rules (11.7 - 11.8) :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating
Best wishes.
Jason Repa (2007-04-23 03:43:01)
win against Anand
Did you receive any prize/award?
Marc Lacrosse (2007-04-23 09:43:40)
prize/award ?
Not at all, and this is normal : it was a charity action intended to raise funds for handicapped children in India.
My main reward was quite a few congratulations and a also some bitter accusations regarding computer cheating by myself ...
These are not easy to answer ...
How can I prove that I did not use computers ?
Marc
Jason Repa (2007-04-23 10:04:00)
Cheating Accusations
My advice is to take the accusations with a grain of salt. I'm a very good blitz/bullet player and years ago before I found out about ICC and Playchess.com I used to play at the crappy free sites such as yahoo and pogo. I would often be the strongest and highest rated player in the room and would get constantly accused of being a "prog". I would say take it as a compliment but these people are too stupid to understand what a good move or good technique is. They make the accusation based on successful results only.
As for your game with Anand. I think it's ridiculous to accuse you of program assistance. For starters, the game isn't very important. It's just an unrated simul game with no prize whatsoever. It seems to me you should have received some sort of award, not necessarily cash, but something chess related and of value. I understand it's for charity, but I can't see who in their right mind would pay money to play in a simul when there is no incentive to win. You might as well just write a check to send directly to the handicapped children of India.
When Chapters bookstore hired me to do a chess simul it was a fundraiser for our chess club. I didn't lose any games, but the sole person to merely draw me (28-0-1) in the 29 games I played received a free tournament entry ($30 value) to one of our local monthly events. I thought this was a great idea and had the benefit of bringing a new player into our club.
Matt Lasley (2007-04-27 15:24:15)
Reward consistency
You could say that the forfeiture points are awarded for consistency. That's a valuable trait. Perhaps such points may not reflect play yet, but the consistency that lead to their award will show up in your game play in the long run. So, the points are deserved either way.
And as T said, the algorithm takes care of it anyway. Ratings are a measure of history, not a measure of skill.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-07-12 18:24:02)
game 8029
Responded in international chat, but it is rather cumberson.
My thoughts. White still has 10 days on his clock, so I would think he has the right to slow play it here.
In addition white has winning chances, that should be considered.
Lastly if you do adjudicate it Thibault I guess you would award a draw.
If white is holding up progress it would seem to me the fault is not his but in the selection of match time controls. White has every right to expect to use all of his clock, do you not agree Thibault. :)
Wayne
Dinesh De Silva (2007-08-09 06:51:22)
Real names in chess websites
I have some critical suggestions:
1. Chess websites should allow players only to play under their REAL NAMES. Using any nicknames or fake names should be prohibited, as it leads to all sorts of confusion at one point or another.
2. In chess websites, whenever a question of which player to give captaincy arrives, the highest rated player should always be given first choice, UNLESS that player declines or that player has been proven to have broken rules or rules state a specific way of choosing a captain.
3. In chess websites, accusations against any player should be rejected IF there is no clear proof.
4. Players who still continue abusing each other after some warnings should be disqualified/thrown out. There should be no favourations whatsoever.
5. When awarding titles, it should be clearly stated from where the title was earned fom. For example, if a player gets an IM title at Igame, it should be stated as Igame IM.
Lincoln Tomlin (2008-03-27 19:31:52)
RAPID_A__000041 points error
Hi Thibault,
Myself and two other players finished the first 3 games against each other in FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000041, all games being drawn. We have all been awarded 1/2 point in total instead of 1 point each so far?
Regards
Arnab Sengupta (2008-06-03 19:43:09)
good
cool....i like the idea.....we can try it.....E-points can be awarded...
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 11:05:13)
Brackets - Chess and Go
"Thanks for your reasoned response"
Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word "reason", groves.
"(1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution"
It is very much a dilution. As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.
"Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group"
Total rubbish. You just finished saying, in your previous post, that you propose to allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification REGARDLESS of his/her rating. There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments.
"and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern."
And AGAIN, As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.
"Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below"
Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling. Not that this has any relevance in terms of supporting your position anyway.
"The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament."
I just finished explaining to you that there is no guarantee that the "M" class tournaments will end at the same time as the "A" class tournaments. Not only do "M" class players tend to take the game more seriously and move slower, but there are more "A" class players than "M" so it takes longer to fill an "M" class list, hence less "M" class tournaments are played. If you propose to have only one "A" class player sent to an "M" class tournament at a time, then you'll quickly accumulate a waiting list backlog of "A" class players waiting to be seeded into a tournament they don't legitimately qualify for, stretching for decades. The other reasons I mentioned are MORE than enough reason to ditch this suggestion. This is just gravy.
Additionally, and once again, as I just finished explaining to you, if someone is winning tournaments, they're gaining rating points and will soon be able to qualify for the new rating category through legitimate means. So there is no reason at all to provide such "handouts".
I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-09 00:08:30)
Fire on board...
Open letter by Gata Kamsky :
"Dear President, gentelmen, Susan,
When I first saw Bill's letter I was happy, because finally USCF has been showing strong support for their representative. Whether there could be a better solution or a more diplomatic one is a good question, but the reality is that there is no time to negotiate and given FIDE's strong-arm history of negotiating, it is not likely to succeed.
When I spoke with FIDE Vice President Mr. Makropoulos in Greece, it was decided that both my team and Mr. Topalov's team would meet during the rest day at the Olympiad in Dresden to negotiate and discuss everything, including technical details. With their last public statement, Mr. Illumjinov not only attempted to revoke his personal guarantee of the match, but he also imposed the time limit of one week for the players to acceed to his demands and at the same time re-awarded the bid to the Bulgarian Federation, which was the original FIDE's intention in the first place. You all are aware of the clause in the FIDE regulation for this "special" match that gave the Bulgarian Chess Federation a privilege of matching any bid that is coming from my side, which effectively ruined any attempt to find and submit a bid from the United States.
Throughout the negotiations with my managers, FIDE did nothing to find a sponsor on their own, despite the fact that it was solely FIDE's decision to create this match, and thus to allow Mr. Topalov a backdoor into the final steps of the qualification proceedings for the world championship title, quite unfairly, I might add.
FIDE's entire purpose, for chess players, for fairness, has been changed into a special interest group organization and I personally believe that any negotiations with FIDE rulers or tsars, or whatever you like to call them, will be unsuccessful.
The time for the negotiation is over and the only way to fight FIDE is to expose their mistakes, and perhaps fight them in a court of law if and when FIDE broke the law. Therefore, I would respectfully request all USCF Board members to unite and find ways to make sure that justice and fairness will prevail.
Sincerely,
Gata Kamsky
Saturday, November 8, 2008"
More informations on Chessbase news :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5004
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2008-11-16 09:35:45)
We do not know, what happen
Well continences happens, I lost almost all my games from a tournament by time ( the one's I did not lose , the opponent forfeited and the other was awarded by Thibault) because I was kidnapped in a carjacking and when I got back to my computer my time expired so as the saying goes s..t happens
Garvin Gray (2009-06-04 10:27:27)
hmm
This seems odd and if the server does automatically award the draw in this situation you describe, then it goes against the fide laws of chess.
The player has to agree to the draw for the game to be concluded as such. If the player runs out of time before agreeing to a draw, then they have lost.
It seems pretty cut and dried to me.
Don Groves (2009-09-05 00:09:13)
Too much French wine?
CHENNAI, India (Reuters) - A leading French chess player turned up drunk and dozed off after just 11 moves in an international tournament in Kolkata, losing the round on technical grounds, domestic media reported Friday.
Grandmaster Vladislav Tkachiev arrived for Thursday's match against India's Praveen Kumar in such an inebriated state that he could hardly sit in his chair and soon fell asleep, resting his head on the table, Hindustan Times newspaper reported.
Indian papers carried pictures of the world number 58 sleeping and the organizers' futile attempts to wake his up.
The game was awarded to the Indian on the technical ground of Tkachiev being unable to complete his moves within the stipulated time of an hour and 30 minutes, the paper said.
The player was warned and reprimanded by the organizers afterwards but has been allowed to take part in the remainder of the competition, the paper said.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-01-24 19:34:39)
Resign before 10th move
Hello HOST,
I didnt know about this forum earlier and posted in the International Chat. I am sorry for that stupid mistake of mine. But the problem which i faced now is this. There is a guy whom i defeated in all 4 meetings where i played vs. him. This poor guy found me yet again and having known by now that he cant beat me, he simply resigned. I have no grievance against him. But in my very first Rapid B tour here at ficgs, i got an advantage of +-1.00 (approx.) vs. a player who simply resigned after my white 10th move. This meant that though I am awarded with a win, yet because my opponent resigned simply instead of playing the 10th move, he denied me earning some elo. That also implies that he saved his elo by simply resigning.
I dont know much above this site as i am pretty new to this. However, i have been already a victim of this sort of activities. For e.g., I could simply resign when i play bad openings and evals dip before 10th move and i can simply save my elo. That means i can simply resign vs. Big Guys as Black and play as Black only vs. weak players.
Just thought to express my views. Rest upto the moderators
Scott Nichols (2010-09-19 23:26:52)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Of course you don't get it, and by this point I am sure you never will. In the analogies, we all have met "these" type of people. Sometimes they get punished, sometimes not. I think anyone playing in your tournaments could get away with most anything.
AGAIN, in my system as you call it, it is just a GENERAL rule of conduct. Of course players rated 1 point apart do not fall into this category. The main point I make is that most players take their rating seriously. Players work their whole life to achieve a Master or Grandmaster title. They are titles awarded players as a token of respect for their accomplishment from their peers. Maybe we aren't IM's or GM's, but our rating has been EARNED.
So for one player who is a good deal lower rated than the other to offer a draw, especially in the early part of the game, is showing a lack of respect for what that person has accomplished.
If fact one draw offer is not bad at all, no matter what, it happens, but to keep at it again and again is bad form.
Don Groves (2011-07-16 17:52:35)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
I thought the original point was that those who lost or drew with the dropout would be penalized when the other players got the full point, even if they were losing or only even against the dropout. But if the referee adjudicates those remaining games, the full point will only be awarded if the dropout was losing anyway. Right?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-08-19 11:43:45)
Rybka banned from ICGA
Clone or not clone, I'm not sure if this question is worth something in computer chess but ICGA did it: Rybka was banned and stripped of titles...
I just partly read RybkaInvestigation document, a few points are particularly ridiculous (like 2.2 "Sudden Strength Increase"), I have no idea on the other ones and I'm not sure if this is really important in the real world.
Finally, the punishment:
- to strip Rajlich of all ICGA Tournament Titles and,
- force the return of trophies and prize funds to the ICGA and,
- ban his programs from future competitions until he can satisfy the ICGA that they are no longer derivatives and that he has satisfied the conditions of any other penalties the ICGA imposes.
- encourage other tournaments (Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, TACCL, etc.) to disallow the entry of Rybka until it is proven “clean”.
ICGA Panel Members
The Secretariat members:
Robert Hyatt - (Crafty, Cray Blitz, World Computer Chess Champion in 1983 and 1986)
Mark Lefler (author of Now)
Harvey Williamson (part of Hiarcs Team)
Panel members:
Albert Silver (software designer for Chess Assistant (1999-2002); currently editor of
Chessbase News (2010-present))
Amir Ban (author of Junior: World Champion 2002, 2004, 2006, World microcomputer
Champion 1997, 2001)
Charles Roberson (author of NoonianChess)
Christophe Theron (author of Chess Tiger)
Dariusz Czechowski (author of Darmenios)
Don Dailey (author of Cilkchess, Star Socrates, Rex, Komodo)
Eric Hallsworth (part of Hiarcs Team, Publisher of Selective Search magazine)
Fabien Letousky (author of Fruit)
Frederic Friedel (Chessbase.com)
Gerd Isenberg (author of IsiChess)
Gyula Horvath (author of Pandix, Brainstorm)
Ingo Bauer (Shredder team)
Jan Krabbenbos (Tournament Director of Leiden tournaments)
Kai Himstedt (author of Gridchess and Cluster Toga)
Ken Thompson (creator of Belle Chess Machine, World Computer Chess Champion
1980, Turing Award winner 1983, creator of B and C programming languages,
Unix and Plan 9 developer).
Marcel van Kervinck (author of Rookie)
Maciej Szmit (assistant professor at Technical University of Lodz)
Mark Watkins (MAGMA Computer Algebra Group, School of Mathematics and
Statistics, University of Sydney)
Mark Uniacke (Hiarcs, World Microcomputer Champion 1993)
Mincho Georgiev (Pawny)
Olivier Deville (Tournament Director of ChessWars)
Omid David (author of Falcon)
Peter Skinner (Tournament Director of CCT--the major annual online computer chess
tournament)
Ralf Schäfer (author of Spike)
Richard Vida (author of Critter)
Richard Pijl (author of The Baron)
Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (author of Shredder, multiple world champions from 1996-2007)
Thomas Mayer (author of Quark)
Tord Romstad (author of Stockfish, Glaurung)
Tom Pronk (ProChess, Much)
Vladan Vuckovic (Axon, Achilles)
Wylie Garvin (game Programmer at Ubisoft Montreal)
Yngvi Björnsson (The Turk)
Zach Wegner (author of ZCT and Rondo, an upgraded version of Anthony Cozzie’s
Zappa program, which was world champion in 2005)
ICGA Board
President - David N.L. Levy
Vice-President: Yngvi Björnsson
Secretary-Treasurer: Hiroyuki Iida
Programmers Representative: Rémi Coulom
WCCC Tournament Director
Jaap van den Herik
http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/rybkaevidence/RybkaInvestigation.pdf
http://www.chess.com/news/rybka-banned-and-stripped-of-titles-3798
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQshTNJ4pSM
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-22 18:49:49)
Answer from Ortwin
Well, here is the answer from Dr. Ortwin Paetzold (LSS/IECG) that he asked me to post here. I'm glad to do it of course so that we can hear from both sides and make our own opinion with:
>>>>>>>>>>
Daniel Parmet is twisting the reality a bit. I take the right to quote my full answers, however as I do not have the permission to do so, I will not post the notes from Daniel to me, unless he quoted it here himself already.
Fact 1 is that Daniel has not read the rules of LSS or forgot about them. There is a function in LSS which lets the webmaster check this esp. in case of rule questions. Therefore he might not have known about the rule, however, when registering on LSS each player is asked to study the rules and to play according to them. I am sure, the same holds for FICGS and any other server.
Fact 2 is that on 4th April Daniel Parmet has lost a game on time by violating the 30-days-rule. The server automatically stopped the game and awarded the point to the opponent, independent from the position. The server also imposed the two week suspension to start a new tournament. The 30-days-rule was installed at IECG more than 10 years ago and I had included it into LSS right from the beginning. Daniel Parmet asked politely why the admin has cancelled his game (which I had not).
Fact 3 is that in my answer about the query why the game was finished, I have answered with reference to the rules:
“Your game was forfeited, because you did not move for 30 days. This is the maximum number of days to be used per individual move, independent of the total amount of time you have left. See the Rules and Usage Section under "Violation of Time Control". This is also the reason of your two-week-suspension. “
In his response Daniel Parmet called the LSS “a joke of a site”.
Fact 4 is that I answered to this insultation:
“Well, it is not my fault that you have not read the rules during the past five years you have played here! To be honest, this is impressing!”
I do not think this is more rude than insulting me/LSS because one has made a mistake!
Fact 5 is that I did not remove him from the waiting list of the LSS Anniversary 2012 as requested, because I thought that – once Daniel thinks reasonably about the case – he might want to continue, esp. as he wanted to continue all other games. Furthermore LSS has a feature where each player can remove himself from the waitinglist of this tournament. This all happened on 5th April! I then forgot about the matter.
Fact 6 is that on 19th April the LSS Anniverary groups were created including Daniel Parmet to one of the groups. As he was no longer suspended that time I missed that he still was on the waitinglist. I would otherwise have tried to get a replacement, which I did in other cases . When he claimed not to play in the anniversary on 20th April, I decided to remove him from all tournaments he was playing. As the tournaments were in an early stage (start date 15th Feb, Parmet finished only 3/10 and 1/12 games in them), I believe it makes less impact to withdraw a player then letting him influence the outcome, esp. as e.g. he would not use a potential qualification to the LSS WC Semi-Final or the Consolation Finals. I commented that action with the following message:
‘I have withdrawn you from this "joke of a site" (your own - wrong - words. It is not my fault that you have not read the rules!)
Thanks for playing here.’
The answer was unfriendly so I decided to cancel the membership permanently.
I would like to thank Thibault for the opportunity to express my view. I do not intend to comment anyfurther in this matter, as I think the two different versions are speaking for themselves.
George Clement (2012-04-22 19:19:23)
LSS Move Rule
" violating the 30-days-rule. The server automatically stopped the game and awarded the point to the opponent, independent from the position. The server also imposed the two week suspension to start a new tournament. The 30-days-rule was installed at IECG more than 10 years ago and I had included it into LSS right from the beginning."
I like the idea behind this rule on LSS, IMHO it would solve some of the slow entry problems by making players move faster, which is a big part of the entry problem. I think anyone can make a least 1 move in 10 days, using todays hardware/software and communications. What do you think fellow members? I have no problem with players using time off thier clock but why wait 30 days make 10 moves then wait another 30 days?
Garvin Gray (2018-09-09 02:43:30)
Netiquette reinforcement
4, 5 and 6 need to be read together.
4 and 5 are where the arbiter declared the game lost for the player who breached the rules. The arbiter then needs to decide what score to award the opponent.
So 4 is to increase the points scored in the game to the maximum available for that game. This usually is 1 point.
5 is reducing the offenders score to zero.
What these two provisions also cover is where an offence is found out later in the tournament. So for here on ficgs, the arbiter found out that late in a tournament that one player had been abusing opponents regularly.
4 and 5 allows you to adjusts the scores of those completed games.
6 declares lost the game by the offending player. But the reason for the provision of 'deciding the opponents score' is that a position on the board might arise where the non-offender might not be able to construct a checkmate position with the material they have (lets say just a bare king). Then the score would be (0 - 0.5). The offender scores zero and the non offender, who can not win the game because they can not checkmate their opponent, receives 0.5
7 and 8 should be 'self explanatory'.
Giacomo Rita (2022-04-04 00:22:26)
TITLE FEM
why, despite having two FEM standards, was I not awarded the title?
Thibault de Vassal (2023-01-02 03:18:49)
poker reflection time
The prize is the one specified in the WCH waiting list page at the time it is awarded... it never changed so far so it will be 100 epoints.
Wow, different matter but I realize I never took the time to made the change discussed before. Thanks for the reminder.
Alan Ludgate (2026-04-01 05:26:40)
Post-tickets FICGS
Thanks for this post. Here are my ideas.
The problem for the 2400+ rated players is:-
most have left or stopped playing (not sure why) - so those who want to play have to reduce their activity or (probably) lose rating points. This is leading to a downward spiral.
To get more games played, how about:-
1. Award rating points as prizes.
And/or 2. Allow players to buy rating points, say 30 per year, provided they play at least say 10 games that year.
And/or 3. Players who play no games in a year to lose say 30 rating points. Players who play say 10 or more games in a year to get 30 rating points reward.
Adjust the numbers after a trial period.
There are 0 results for award in wikichess.
FICGS : award , Wikipedia : award , Dmoz : award , Google : award , Yahoo : award
It is not a move, even the best move that you must seek, but a realizable plan. (Eugene Znosko-Borovsky)
Don't even mention losing to me. I can't stand to think of it. (Bobby Fischer)
Many Chess players were surprised when after the game, Fischer quietly explained: 'I had already analyzed this possibility' in a position which I thought was not possible to foresee from the opening. (Mikhail Tal)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess