class
FICGS - Search results for class
There are 422 results for class in the forum.
Hannes Rada (2006-04-08 13:20:52)
Thank you !
Thank you Thibault for this great job of creating a chessfriend clone.
Chessfriend had definitely the best and most convenient user-interface for server play.
I Hope many chessfriend-players will migrate to this server.
Once again thank you for your work and support of the correspondence
chess community !
Furthermore
-There is an overlap in the class tournaments concerning the minimun elo requirement.
Can you clarify this ?
- No holiday entitlement is mentioned in the terms and conditions
hannes
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-08 13:37:17)
Class tournaments overlap
Hello Hannes. Thank you for support :)
The overlap offers the possibility for players to register to several class tournaments, at least to choose. I think it won't be used a lot, but it could be something more for the stronger players who will choose to register to "under-class" tournament as well as other players who may play sometimes with stronger players.
Feel free to tell me what you think.
Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-08 17:02:06)
First tournament started !
A small bug delayed (1 hour) the start of the first FICGS tournament (class A) ! Sorry to the players. It's fixed now.
Have good games :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-10 12:26:52)
To low rated players...
A second CLASS M tournament (category 4) already started ! I suppose once FICGS will be sumitted correctly to search engines, more low rated players will join us. Be patient :)
Michal Holes (2006-04-13 10:26:04)
ein Turnier
Hallo! Kann ich bitte fragen, wann beginnt das Turnier ´´FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000001 ´´
Danke fúr die Antwort!
Michal
Hannes Rada (2006-04-13 11:24:49)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000001
Wir benoetigen noch einen Teilnehmer.
We need one more participant.
Patrice Verdier (2006-04-17 23:09:08)
Holidays
I inform all my opponents in my tournament CLASS - M - 00002 that I am in holidays from 17/04 to 22/04
Thanks
Marc Lacrosse (2006-04-20 21:57:33)
unknown openings
There were already a few 1.Nc3 games but they were classified as 1.f4 (through transposition I suppose)...
... But now that I have begun to play you _must_ add 1.Nc3 to the list of played opening moves in the statistics page.
... nothing but normal : 1.Nc3 rules!
:-)))
Marc
Graham Wyborn (2006-04-25 17:42:52)
Please join:-
I joined this site recently and still have not started a game!
Forgive the advert 4 the following games.
We need one more player!
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000002
(type : rated round-robin, time : 40 days, increment : 40 days / 10 moves)
7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent)
elo : 1600-2000
Cridland, Graham (USA) 1700
Grady, Richard (USA) 1654
Höppenstein, Michael (DEU) 1700
Fillion, Nicolas (CAN) 1640
Wyborn, Graham (GBR) 1700
Muller, Henri-Louis (BEL) 1923
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-26 01:33:22)
Finally...
Less than 2 hours later, the second Class C tournament started :)
I hope the first CHESS 960 tournament will begin soon. (Special tournaments category) See the Help section to see the start position. More about Chess 960 / Fischer Random on Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess
Quad tournaments and other categories will appear later, but feel free if you have any idea for special events (teams from countries, other clubs or websites etc...)
David Angeli (2006-05-01 18:42:19)
Tournament class
Hi thibault
About the "tounaments" topic (je sais pas comment on dit rubrique en anglois ! ;o) )
One thing not very clear for a newcomer like me is the difference between the different classes of tournaments : A, M, etc...it is certainly explained somewhere but i'm a bit lazy and it would be easier if it was explained on the same page .
Thanks to your site i'm back to correspondence chess :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-01 19:01:58)
Class tournaments
Salut David !
About standard & rapid "class" tournaments, they are open to players with ELO rating included into a range, specified just below the tournament name. (ie. CLASS M : 2200 to 2600 , CLASS A : 2000 to 2400 , CLASS B : 1800 to 2200 etc...)
J'espère que tu nous feras profiter de ton gambit favori ;) Bonnes parties !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-03 04:41:09)
Start positions
It seems to me that changing the start position from classical chess is "sufficient"... The purpose was, according to Fischer, to avoid databases and to favour creativity.. The same positions in the whole tournament allows to compare & analyze a bit deeper, maybe understand better the position. The start position will be different for the next tournament (working on). There are "only" 960 positions, there will be repetitions anyway... And what do you think about the Fischer rules ? Seems strange to me. I wonder if everyone knows how to castle in other start positions (king or rooks at different places)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-05 15:19:03)
FICGS world championship
Hello to all.
Please post here all your questions / suggestions about the FICGS world championship rules.
There are many answers to bring yet : about the building of groups, who exactly will play which stage, etc...
It seems that many players like this scheme : knockout / round-robin tournament, that is more fair and much more interesting than a pure round-robin cycle. The final match rules are particularly hard (24 games, 30 days + 1 day / move), but I think it's a good way to make it different and give value to the title. Rules are not far from the old classical world championship, the champion will only play the next final match against the challenger...
FICGS WCH Rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tournament
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-06 16:58:07)
FICGS cup...
Bonjour Sebastien.
Non, pas encore. D'abord pour ne pas multiplier les tournois, au risque de diviser leur popularité. Le problème reste d'imaginer une formule un peu originale, qui ne ressemble pas trop au championnat du monde (donc peut-être éviter le classique cycle de tournois round-robin). A suivre...
(about a FICGS cup, the problem is to imagine an original scheme, that doesn't look like too much to the FICGS world championship... a classical round-robin cycle is maybe 'not enough' to justify this special event)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-07 21:14:00)
"Help"
Hello Henrik. Sorry if this is not clear enough. Maybe try first to read help section, then take a look at the waiting lists : choose a tournament category, ie. "class tournaments", then click on a tournament name and follow the instructions. (you enter a waiting list after 4 clicks)
Have good games...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-09 16:08:33)
Cup / Wch
Bonjour Sébastien.
J'avoue que j'ai du mal à trouver de quoi justifier l'existence d'un tournoi "cup" utilisant la même formule ou presque que le championnat du monde, à part diviser l'intérêt et la fréquentation de l'un et de l'autre... Il est bien dommage que le système suisse ne puisse pas s'appliquer aux tournois de jeux par correspondance... Peut-être, pourquoi pas, proposer une coupe (façon championnat) d'échecs 960, ou réservée aux joueurs classés au dessus d'une barre ELO à déterminer...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-14 16:07:16)
"Blitz" cup...
Thank you Heinz Georg, for the files you sent to me.
Now I understand better the work and ideas of Reimund Lutzenberger in Chessfriend.com, a great experimentation field for sure...
I first concluded some things not to do in FICGS WCH. In example, a player rated 2500 (even provisional rating from fide) shouldn't have to play in the first stage against a low-rated player in a world championship [but that could be possible in a cup tournament cycle]. So I'll add special rules for high rated players (who are not qualified for the WCH knockout tournament) to begin directly in a 2nd stage tournament...
I agree with Dinesh, the aim is not to use the same formulas, even good ones. Anyway I think we can find new interesting (better :)) ones. But as the WCH is already a rapid tournament cycle, the CUP could be an unrated "blitz" (30 days per game with no increment, or even 10 days + 1 hour / move) knockout (2 games / match + playoffs) !! Something quite "brutal" and unfair between correspondence chess & classical rythms. What do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-19 11:43:00)
re : Délai de réflexion
Bonjour Henri.
Ce sont là ni plus ni moins les règles des échecs par correspondance ! :) Une partie peut en effet durer un an dans certains cas, et c'est souvent le cas dans d'autres organisations. Force est de constater que les parties se déroulent ici beaucoup plus rapidement que dans d'autres organisations, mais il n'y a pas d'autres règles de temps raisonnables (ce n'est pas faute d'y avoir pensé). Tout le monde ne peut pas jouer aussi rapidement, il est quasi impossible de trouver une demi mesure entre les cadences classiques et les cadences par correspondance utilisant un incrément d'un jour par coup minimum...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-23 12:16:14)
Help
Hello Amir.
You could try to enter a waiting list. (ie. FICGS CHESS CLASS SM in CHESS CLASS category)...
Anyway, feel free to read the Help section.
Phil Cook (2006-05-25 12:18:34)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_G__000001
Have I entered the above tournament?I dont see my name anywhere.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-25 12:22:25)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_G__000001
Did you confirm your registration at this tournament ?
(please don't post your messages several times ;))
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-29 18:50:09)
Actually...
... this game is frightening :) (wasn't classical chess enough ?)
Games 'should be' (??) more strategic and most of chess theory should apply, but I already fear the middlegame.. and more the endgame !
Hey Heinz-Georg, what do you think ? ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-30 13:23:44)
1st SM chess tournament, elo 2443
The first FICGS CHESS SM tournament just started !
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_SM__000001.html
3 ICCF titled players, 1 FIDE GM, 1 IECG titled player, and 2 'newbies'.. :)
FEM norm : 3 points, FIM norm : 3.5 points, FSM norm : 4 points, FGM norm : 4.5 points...
Have good games !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-31 11:36:44)
Hall of fame
Hello Wayne. That's true... I was thinking about that but no quite good idea yet. We could list all tournament winners at the bottom of 'Hall of fame' page.
It would be difficult to apply a 'ticket' system so that tournament winners can entry a higher class tournament. (and there's no obligation to copy other organizations rules...)
Anyway, finished tournaments will be announced regularly.
If you have another idea...
Kuzma Pecotic (2006-06-03 07:28:29)
Incorrect move
This is my game:
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_A__000003"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2006.04.22"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Pecotic,Kuzma"]
[Black "Sobrecases,Guy"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2179"]
[BlackElo "2105"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qc7 9.f4 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qb6 11.Bd3 Qxb2 12.O-O Qd4+ 13.Kh1 Ba6 14.Bxa6 Qxe4 15.Rb1 Qa4 16.Bd3 f5 17.*
For what reason: Incorrect move : 17.exf6
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-05 14:11:42)
Rules : Forfeiting / Replacement
Hello to all.
As a few players stopped to play (forfeit) in their games, I answer here to questions from their opponents.
- Rated games lost on time / forfeited are not calculated for the winner's (only) rating if less than 10 moves have been played and position is equal.
- If a player forfeits in a rated tournament without having played a single move, his games will be lost and he will be replaced, ie. FICGS CHESS CLASS B 000003 ... furthermore, his account will be closed. (obvious cheating)
Best wishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-13 11:58:41)
2 players matches
Hello Amir.
Sorry, this is not possible yet to invite players for a 2-games match.
Nevertheless, you can start a game with Nigel instantly just entering the FICGS CHESS CLASS M 000005 tournament waiting list. One player more, and the tournament will start !
Another way, as it would be an interesting match for sure, I can create a special match if Nigel agrees to play.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-13 18:02:00)
Chess tournament
FICGS CHESS CLASS M 000005 just started. Another strong tournament I'll follow with interest :)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000005.html
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-16 13:19:00)
the GM class tournament...
I was interested to see that a tourney dedicated to the GMs of this site was available. So I tried to enrol, but my rating is too low :-) but yet I am a GM :-) I think it would be a great thing if we could enrol in it.
Merci d'avance thibault
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-16 13:28:21)
FICGS CHESS CLASS M 000005
well apparently I cannot enter the tournament due to rating retrictions
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-16 19:24:41)
Retard et explications
Bonjour Pablo.
La règle de la qualification au 2ème tour des joueurs 2300+ ne date pas d'hier, et j'avais annoncé une mise à jour des règles. Les discussions n'arrivant souvent également qu'au dernier moment, je dirais seulement : Mieux vaut tard que jamais :)
.. mieux vaut changer des règles non-optimisées avant le début des tournois qu'entre deux cycles... Je le répète, les règles changeront tant qu'elles pourront être améliorées significativement (comme partout ailleurs). Il me faut un peu de temps pour adapter et trouver de nouvelles dénominations pour les tournois (notamment celui qui permettra aux joueurs classés 2300+ de jouer avant l'heure).
Le plus important reste que le championnat attire les joueurs ayant un classement élevé comme moins élevé. Dans les règles originales, de nombreux joueurs n'auraient pas pu jouer tout de suite. Un retard reste un retard, certes... Désolé pour cela, mais je pense que ça en vaut la peine.
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-22 15:47:42)
Interesting question for the Gambit's a
Gambits are the schizophrenics of the chess openings. Most players love to play through a finished game that starts as a gambit, but few players dare to play gambits themselves.
Gambits lead to attacking games that avoid the calculated buildup preceding a classic attack. Can the gambiteer justify the material disadvantage? Can the opponent overcome the positional disadvantage that comes with grabbing the gambit sacrifice?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-22 17:56:59)
King's gambit and statistics...
Wayne, where did you find such (wrong) statistics ??
Gambit (the real thing) is IMO first a psychological attack, most useful against a weaker player... "The best way to refute is to accept it", one said... but queen's gambit is NOT a real gambit and for sure 2. ... dxc4 is not the best move... King's gambit is, but a perfect play most probably also leads to a draw.
Queen's gambit accepted statistics : 33% (1-0), 48% (1/2-1/2), 17% (0-1)
King's gambit statistics : 35% (1-0), 27% (1/2-1/2), 36% (0-1)
... in classical time controls.
Peter Konig (2006-07-02 10:50:19)
rules & ratings
Hi,
the rules on registration were different, and stating personal rating seemed just to be of informative value, no checking of numbers or anything. Now, it seems that I have a disadvantage by stating that, I feel treated second class (I wholeheartedly ackowledge that there are much stronger players around) and my motivation dropped considerably.
it is like in real live. There are people earning more or less money, but they should be equal before the law (rules). That's in the spirit of 1789!
Je t'embrasse, Peter Konig
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-02 12:52:15)
rules & ratings
Hello Peter.
Indeed, you were one of the very first registered players. I have fixed the rules since this time, though it seems to me this point was the same already.
Anyway, ratings of course are not only informative (like in life :)), as it allows to play class tournaments. Now, there must be a way to choose a winner in certain cases, even if there's no "perfect" way. But if you win the tournament, there's no discussion. It only lights the battle a little more... When a player register he can ask for a >1700 rating only if he has got an "official" rating already, so the influence of choice is not so important at registration.
Your reference to 1789 is amazing, but actually we ARE equal before the law (rules). Doesn't mean the law is perfectly fair, that's impossible, of course. Like in life... The rules slightly favourize the best players. Je t'embrasse itou :)
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-07-02 23:58:24)
Re: Football world cup :-)
It was a victory that really teaches something. While the Brazilian squad tried to hide itself from their obvious flaws, masking them behind big names, France faced its problems, fixed them, and is very close of being a great team.
A really classy victory for the French. Perhaps the bit of motivation they needed to achieve greater things. ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 12:02:45)
triche et fair-play
Bonjour Henri-Louis.
Encore une fois cela fait partie intégrante du jeu par correspondance... Il n'est pas rare que les joueurs "gèrent" leurs défaites et victoires dans le temps pour les faire coincider avec les calculs de classement de leur choix. Le problème est identique à l'ICCF et ailleurs, et il n'y a aucune solution ou règle raisonnable pouvant régler le problème. Lorsqu'on a compris que le jeu par correspondance est une question de plusieurs mois, on finit par comprendre que le problème est somme toute négligeable...
De nombreuses parties jouées sur le serveur sont jouées beaucoup plus rapidement qu'à la normale, cela n'empêche qu'il s'agit d'échecs par correspondance, avec la cadence du jeu par correspondance. Diminuer le temps par coup ne changerait absolument pas le problème si tu y réfléchis bien. Quoiqu'il en soit, concernant la partie dont tu avais fait appel, qu'elle se termine maintenant ou fin aout, ça ne change rien, elle sera prise en compte dans le classement de septembre.
Pour finir, je rappelle qu'il existe une cadence "rapide" (tournois rapides, championnat), c'est donc le choix de chacun. Patience :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 20:15:35)
8-game matches
John... ??? :)
Vladimir Kramnik - Peter Leko (match for WCH classical title)
Vladimir Kramnik - Deep Fritz...
Of course it is desired... Who will remember the names of the players in the last ICCF final tournament ? Even if ICCF doesn't use this format, and (as you say) serious CC players didn't have the opportunity to play such tournament, knockout format is still desired.
My first idea was a pure enormous knockout tournament, but it's obviously not possible (too much rounds, a time problem), that's why I thought about this combined system.
Now look at the chess world : Many players don't understand why FIDE progressively reduces the number of games and time controls in WCH matches. It is the main reason why FIDE world champion title looses value. Not hard / accurate, not spectacular enough !! ..
What many players (me, at least :)) expect is a classical world championship with a big final match. You may have noticed that FICGS champion will have the opportunity to defend his title in a... 24 games match against his challenger... (!!) That's real fight, that's real challenge and that's what I expect to see from a championship, a big opposition between 2 players, and not a round-robin more or less aleatory, with too much names, not understandable for the most.
Now, as we said on TCCMB : FICGS is not "official" matter, chess is for fun here, but chess must be a show and I'm convinced it is relevant in correspondence chess too. We'll see that ;)
Ryaad Aabid (2006-07-07 16:46:31)
Game 1006
Hi !
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_D__000005 , in the mentioned game above , White clock was 0 days yesterday , while today turned from 0 days to 5 days !
Best regards.
Ryaad
Pablo Schmid (2006-07-19 22:11:56)
Bug inscription ?
Je vois un certain David ******, 1200 ELO inscrit (ou du moins dans la liste des inscrits) dans de nombreux tounois supérieurs à sa classe ELO, s'agit-il d'un bug? Il serait bien de le désinscrire des tournois hors de sa classe ELO par équité pour les autres joueurs, merci.
Eric Berthelot (2006-07-21 09:59:50)
Mise à jour classement ELO
Thibault, peux-tu me dire quand sont mis à jour les ELO ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-21 11:24:02)
Mise a jour classement ELO
Bonjour Eric.
Tout est là (11.7) : http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general
"The rating period is 2 months. The first period of a year starts on January 1st. For ratings calculations, the opponents' Tournament Entry Rating (TER), which are valid on the day of the rating run, are used."
La prochaine mise à jour sera donc pour le 1er septembre.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-24 13:03:25)
Future of correspondence chess......
That's a fine analysis, Glen.
However, it's legitimate to consider that chess at a higher level is becoming much harder so that some of the very best players may stop their career, thinking that it's no worth the energy anymore, for results more influenced by 'chance' in statistics...
How many "super-grandmasters" (2700+) said that each point over this mark represents more and more work ?
It's probably the same (and more) in correspondence chess. I do think that it's still possible to improve a lot ! .. but there's a lack of a higher class of players. That's a pity the very best correspondence chess players (ie. former ICCF world champions : Joop van Oosterom, Gert Jan Timmerman...) retire or at least don't defend their title since they achieved it. Of course it's a lot of time, but result is the top class appear to be bigger and there's no clear champion. That's not good IMO to popularize correspondence chess.
All games need champions. I read recently on a Go forum that the success of Chess nowadays was due to his champions (Go is not popular yet in the west because there's noone to represent it, except a manga [Hikaru No Go]..), Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer... That's true IMO, and that's what particularly misses to correspondence chess. Maybe things won't change in ICCF (maybe I should pretend to the board :)), but anyway that's why I chose the knockout system for the FICGS world chess championship, and the possibility for the winner to play a final against a challenger. We'll see...
Pablo Schmid (2006-07-27 03:04:03)
2 parties rated non comptées?
Salut De Vassal, j'ai un petit problème: j'ai 6 victoires en rated, mais que 4 sont calculées, et ce, depuis un moment. Qu'en est-il des 2 autres parties classées que j'ai gagnées?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-27 03:33:26)
parties non classées
Bonjour Pablo !
Les parties gagnées avant le 10ème coup (abandons / forfaits) ne sont pas comptabilisées pour plus d'équité, un autre moyen également d'éviter une triche évidente (voir règles). Je suppose qu'il doit s'agir de ce cas !?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-27 11:20:24)
ajout en cours ;)
ce ne sera pas dans la liste ELO mais dans la liste des joueurs (classés par ordre alphabétique).
http://www.ficgs.com/directory_players.html
je suis en train de le rajouter, ça devrait être en ligne d'ici quelques minutes...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-28 21:09:39)
parties non classées
Je réponds ici au cas où, après l'email. De quelle partie s'agissait il ? C'était probablement du à la limite des 350 points d'écart en cas de victoire si l'adversaire avait un classement beaucoup plus faible...
Marc Lacrosse (2006-08-02 22:14:10)
Request for adjudication & rules
In game *** my opponent has a completely lost position for more than 2 months by now and refuses to resign.
How long will he require that I play child-level uninteresting moves?
I announce mate in 8 moves and request adjudication against this completely disgraceful way of playing.
I am evidently able to prove the win.
I already said how I felt this kind of proceeding to be completely disgusting.
If my requirement is not fulfilled I will leave this site being the first master-class tournament winner.
Nice...
Marc
Wayne Lowrance (2006-08-16 04:03:16)
please look at his record in the class b
no text
Elmer Valderrama (2006-08-25 13:08:31)
bug: en-passant captures
In the ongoing games of players Herr, Jeff v Sarihan, Sefa
FICGS_CHESS_RAPID_C_000004 and FIGCS_CHESS_CLASS_G_000003
there is an "en-passant" capture (move 10.dxc6) which is not
allowed by the chess rules (as I know them, maybe FIDE
Congress has already changed them ;)
The pawn c was first moved to c6 (3...c6) and then to c5 (9...c5)
Somehow, the player Herr managed to capture the pawn
by playing 10.dxc6 after 9...c5, which was accepted
by both the player Sarihan and the interface ..(!?!)
And the same happened in the game Ducreux, Regis v Sarihan, Sefa
FIGCS_CHESS_CLASS_F_000007, this time pawn c was moved
twice again (2...c6 and 10...c5) and captured ("of course")
by 11. dxc6.. 8()
Ryaad Aabid (2006-08-27 14:33:55)
CheckMate = Not lost yet
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000006
(type : rated round-robin ,
increment : 40 days / 10 moves)
Game 972
Hi!
The mentioned game is still at my games list !
Thanks for your attention.
Ryaad
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-06 15:43:12)
FIDE WCH : Kramnik vs. Topalov
Do you believe it ? .. now it's most probably almost sure :-)
We'll have a new FIDE-Classical world champion in a few weeks !
A reminder : This will be a 12-games match, taking place from September 21 to October 13 in the capital of Kalmykia (whose president is FIDE president : Kirsan Ilyumzhinov himself), Elista. In case of equality, four rapid games will be played, if equality again two blitz games will be played and finally a sudden death blitz game. The prize fund of one million US dollars will be equally divided between Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov, whatever the result. The looser won't play the next world championship tournament (quite strange).
Anyway, that's a great thing for chess, even if I'm not very optimistic for the next FIDE world championship cycles, particularly if the world champion has to play a knockout tournament, instead of a classical 12 or 24 games match...
My favourite in this match is still Kramnik because of his style, but Topalov is really getting stronger IMO... It will be a hard match !
Any predictions about the result & games ? .. Will Vladimir Kramnik play his Berlin defense in the Ruy Lopez again...
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-14 05:19:28)
Greetings from GameKnot :)
Hello friends, my name is Thomas, and I am the representative from GameKnot. We look forward to playing a match against you! GameKnot has played two matches vs. other sites in the past, and we have enjoyed the competition very much. It is my sincere hope that we can pull this thing off! As FICGS is a newer site with a smaller community than ours, we hope that you guys can field a team of approximately 12-20 players of ALL ratings ranges. We intend to put up at least 2 players in each of 7 ratings classes (U2400, U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400, and U1200). The rules of the match are currently being negotiated between Thibault and myself, and we would like to commence as soon as possible. I highly encourage the members of FICGS to participate, as these matches are a lot of fun! You guys will get a chance to visit our site, and we yours. Please contact Thibault and sign on! We look forward to seeing you OTB :)
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-09-16 23:46:58)
Udate from GameKnot:
I just wanted to give you guys a heads up as to the players from my site that are being CONSIDERED for playing in the match. As ratings fluctuate, I have simply rounded and given approximate strength:
mateintwo - 2400+
cyrano - 2400+
cairo - 2300+
fmgaigin - 2300+
drdesoto - 2300+
papani - 2300+
harlekin - 2300+
nestorix - 2300+
drunken_rabbit - 2200+
kumpan - 2200+
grandpatzer - 2200+
os5213 - 2200+
carlosmart - 2200+
chrisp - 2100+
nottop - 2100+
gloomy_den - 1900+
thumper - 1700+
gwalchmai - 1600+
tugger - 1600+
yanm - 1500+
mattw - 1500+
patagusto - 1500+
tag1153 - 1400+
cjjpeterson - 1400+
simian9 - 1400+
eqj2 - 1400+
hollcanna - 1300+
dewillget8 - 1200+
mozz - 1200+
These GameKnot players have expressed an interest in playing. More will sign on I'm sure, as I have set Oct 1, 2006 as the sign up deadline. I will put together our team during the first week of October, and will be ready to commence play by the second week of October. During the interim, Thibault and I will finalize the details of the match. I realize that this short list is very master and expert heavy, but have no worries - I will be contacting more of our A, B, C, and D class players and asking them to participate. We look forward to the match:)
Thomas
Marc Lacrosse (2006-09-19 11:45:18)
A tool for knowing each others' chess
In the "classement" page (the one that lists all current members), it could be nice to have two additional columns :
Finished games
Running games
giving the number of games the player is involved with
And (ideally?) clicking on one of the numbers could lead to a listing of the corresponding games in PGN? :-)
It could be a nice tool for knowing who is who, who plays what, who is active or not.
Your opinion ?
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-29 02:21:57)
Request to play a SMTournament
Hello Daniel.
Ok, I arrange that.
CLASS SM tournament waiting list is quite long to fill yet, but this should be exceptionnal.
Best wishes.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-29 13:14:25)
Kramnik's team says...........
Kramnik threatens to stop playing the match......
29.09.2006 Statement from the team of Vladimir Kramnik, rejecting the decision of the Appeals Committee of FIDE : "The protests of the Topalov team and the suspicions in the press release of Mr. Topalov are utterly disgraceful and are touching Mr. Kramnik’s privacy."
Elista, 29 September 2006
Open Letter to FIDE President H.E. Kirsan Iljumshinov
Copied to Executive Committee of Kalmykia Mr. Valery Bovaev, Chief Arbiter Mr. Geurt Gijssen, Russian Chess Federation
Dear Mr. President,
The Appeals Committee of the World Championship Match between Veselin Topalov and Vladimir Kramnik made the following decision on the protest of the Topalov Team:
“to close both the toilets in the players rest rooms and to open another toilet that will be available only to the two players”
The Kramnik team received the mentioned decision a few hours before the start of game 5 and was officially informed about the protest of Mr. Topalov only yesterday evening, 10 p.m., 28 September 2006. With such a decision the WCC Committee is clearly violating both the rules and regulations of the WCC match and the rights of Mr. Kramnik.
The relevant clause in contract of Mr. Kramnik expels: “FIDE shall provide a rest room and toilette for the players during the WCC match in the playing hall and close to the stage (if possible backstage) to be equipped with a live monitor furnished with coffee and tea as well as with light refreshments.”
The reasons that Mr. Kramnik is entering his own bathroom often is simple: The restroom is small and Mr. Kramnik likes to walk and therefore uses the space of the bathroom as well. The Appeals Committee has been informed about the issue before they decided. It should also be mentioned that Mr. Kramnik has to drink a lot of water during the games.
On the request of Mr. Topalov the agreed live monitors have been removed as well as the shower cabines in the bath rooms. The moves are provided on demonstration boards only. The substance of Mr. Topalov protests (dated 22, 24 and 28 September 2006) were basically always met by the approval of the Appeals Committee. Everything has been done here to satisfy Mr. Topalov’s requests.
On a regulary basis the restrooms and toiletts are heavily checked by specialists, obviously local police forces. This goes together with the arrival of the players. The arbiters are observing all the measures. One representative of each team has the right of being present in order to observe the activities. The playing area is banned from signals and the glas wall protects from any kind of view contact and/or body language. There is not a single reason or evidence to believe that a player would have any kind of cheating possibilities.
It is and was no problem for the organization to assure all necessary measures in order to avoid any kind of cheating. By starting the match both participants agreed all the playing conditions de facto and de jure and the conditions are therefore legally binding. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would in our understanding request the approval of both players which is not the case here.
Mr. Kramnik believes that the latest decision should increasingly concern the world of chess as it shows very clearly and once again the biased stand of the Appeals Committee members involved. In person: Mr. Makropolous, Mr. Azmaiparashivili (well known as a close friend to Mr. Danailov), Mr. Gelfer (now replaced by Mr. Vega). Therefore Mr. Kramnik requests to exchange the mentioned persons immediately. Enough is enough.
We would like to add that the recent decision not only insults Mr. Kramnik but is clearly critizing both the excellent work of the local organisation at Elista and the nominated arbiters. Yesterday evening the chief arbiter and the head of the excutive committee once again confirmed that the indirect accusations of cheating are nonsense.
The protests of the Topalov team into the direction of Mr. Kramnik and the suspicions in the press release of Mr. Topalov are utterly disgraceful and are touching Mr. Kramnik’s privacy. We do not think that the Topalov team has any right of getting access to the recordings. This shall be job of the nominated arbiters only.
The Topalov team includes a parapsychologist and more people which are obviously having no other tasks as to distract and to insult Mr. Kramnik especially since their team is realizing that Mr. Topalov finds himself in a difficult situation. This is what we call an utterly unfair behaviour which is not in accordance with the FIDE Code of Ethics. The decision taken by the Appeals Committee can only be seen as another attempt to disturb Mr. Kramniks concentration since it is difficult to understand what kind of improvement it shall be to have one toilet instead of two.
Our team does not trust the objectivity of the Appeals Committee anymore. Therefore it makes no sense for us to bring a protest to this table and Mr. Kramnik strongly insists once again that the members of the Appeals Committee will be changed immediately and that the heads of the Organizing Committee are taking their responsibilities.
In the meanwhile Mr. Kramnik will stop playing this match as long as FIDE is not ready to respect Mr. Kramnik’s rights, in this case to use the toilet of his own restroom whenever he wishes to do so.
Further and more detailed legal investigations are already in process.
On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely,
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-30 01:26:09)
Server / Email - Time control
Hello to all.
Two players, formerly playing email chess at ICCF, recently lost a game on time with the 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control and mentioned the difference between FICGS and email chess ways to count time.
FICGS time controls are a bit harder because there's no classical email chess 'bonus day' added for each move due to time difference between countries. It seems to me that the difference is not so important with 40 days... On the contrary, the 30 days + 1 day / move scheme is quite hard ! ...
Now the question : Do you think a slower time control should be offered in future ?
Thanks for feedback. Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-30 03:31:40)
Topalov vs. FIDE vs. Kramnik
I agree with you, Nigel.
Obviously Topalov's team 'manipulates' FIDE against Kramnik. Worked quite well... But now the situation seems to be best for both Topalov and Kramnik... If the match does not continue Kramnik will stay clear classical World Chess Champion (3-1) with a new legitimacy, Topalov will stay clear FIDE World Chess Champion (playing the best chess) and FIDE will remain... the organizer of chess championships in Kalmykia... :/
Finally, only FIDE made a clear mistake during the event, but is it so important... Kramnik wins, Topalov wins, Ilyumzhinov always wins...
I hope the match will continue but I'm not very optimistic.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-30 03:39:05)
Vladimir Kramnik - Open letter
Open Letter To
FIDE President
Kirsan Iljumshinov
Russian Chess Federation
Elista, 29. September 2006
Requests of Vladimir Kramnik
• To proceed with GAME 5
Clause 3.17.1., Schedule 2 of the contract:
“All protests must be submitted in writing to the Appeals Committee not more than 2 hours after the relevant playing session.”
The protest made by the Topalov Team were not made within this window after game 4 (27 September 2006) but only hit the FIDE Office and the Appeals Committee on the rest day (28 September 2006). Therefore the protests are not even relevant and should have been rejected by the Appeals Committee immediately.
Clause 3.18.3., Schedule 2 of the contract:
“After the World Chess Championship Committee agrees with the Organizers on the arrangements in respect of the tournament hall, facilities etc. etc. etc……., no objections from the participants shall be acceptable as long as the conditions are in accordance with the rights of the players granted in their agreements.”
This clause clearly underlines the statement made in today’s Open letter: “By starting the match both participants agreed all the playing conditions de facto and de jure and the conditions are therefore legally binding. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would in our understanding request the approval of both players which is not the case here.”
Therefore it is clear that the Appeals Committee took a completely wrong decision and was obviously not even aware of the Rules and Regulations. The decision of Chief Arbiter Mr. Gijssen to forfeit game 5 was clearly based on a wrong decision of the Appeals Committee and shall be nullified.
Mr. Kramnik is ready to continue the match and to play the 5th game (with a leading score of 3:1) on the conditions that were accepted prior to the start of the match.
• Toilet issue
The toilets connected to the restrooms shall be opened again. This request is in accordance with clauses 3.17.1. and 3.18.3 (see above) and in the general understanding that by starting of the match both participants agreed to all the playing conditions. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would require the approval of both players which is not the case here.
Mr. Kramnik is ready to accept even stricter controls by sealing the toilets before and after inspections. Inspections shall be done before and after each game.
• Exchange of members of the Appeals Committee
We repeat that the Kramnik team does not trust the objectivity of the Appeals Committee anymore. It is evident from this letter and our first Open Letter today that the existing Appeals Committee is biased and incompetent. Mr. Kramnik strongly insists once again that the members of the Appeals Committee will be exchanged immediately.
• Access to Recordings
As Mr. Kramnik in the press conference stated he did not sign a contract for acting in a reality show. The recordings shall be observed by the arbiters. Neither Team Topalov nor Team Kramnik shall have access to the recordings. Investigations shall be in the sole responsibility of the Arbiters.
• Requested Apology
Last but not least Mr. Kramnik believes that Mr. Danailov should apologize to Mr. Kramnik in writing. Remarks such as:
“If the match were to continue, the World Champion will refrain from shaking hands with Mr. Kramnik before the games and will not take part in joint press conferences with him.” and “Veselin Topalov is disturbed by the suspicious behavior of his opponent Mr. Vladimir Kramnik who takes his most significant decisions in the bathroom.” are clearly insulting.
On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely,
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-09-30 08:11:32)
hmm...
I'm playing only Class G right now and I have two games left, but I never got to a tight spot in it when I had WC and Class G at the same time. In 12 games I have always been with less time than my opponents, so I guess that says something.
OTOH, 30 + 1day was really hard to manage, although none of my opponents ever got into time trouble (i.e. less than 10 days).
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-02 15:11:16)
Kramnik plays under protest
Official statement and protest by V. Kramnik
To FIDE President H.E. Kirsan Iljumshinov
To the WCC Appeals Committee
On 2 October 2006 my manager received the following decision from FIDE:
“Tomorrow, 2 October 2006, at 15.00, the 6th Game of the World Chess Championship Match a Topalov-Kramnik with the score 3:2 in favour of Kramnik, will take place.”
Based on this decision I make the following statement:
I inform that I am ready to proceed playing the match by reserving all my rights. My further participation will be subject to the condition to clarify my rights regarding game five at later stage.
I do not agree with the decision made by FIDE and I formally protest against it. The decisions made on my requests, especially the resignation of the Appeals Committee, opening the toilets to the restrooms again, are chrystal clear admissions of FIDE of having taken a false decision. Logically FIDE admits herewith that it was a mistake to start game five by violating the rules and regulations of the competition and by changing the agreed playing rules and conditions during the match without my approval.
I deeply regret the unsportsmanlike and unequaled behaviour of my opponent whom FIDE donated a victory outside of the board by using dirty tricks.
High level functionaries inside FIDE once again were making the professional part of the chess world a disgraceful playground of their own interests. I strongly believe and hope that the course of these events made it obvious to everyone that drastic changes with regard to the professional management structures inside FIDE are evident.
By deciding just a couple of hours ago I had to assess between my personal interests and the interests of the entire chess world. It is very difficult to play under these circumstances. But I came to the conclusion to proceed under protest because I do not want to disappoint the overwhelming majority of the chess fans which are hoping for the unification since so many years.
I also had in mind the people of Kalmykia which are doing their utmost to organize this match on the highest level possible.
Last but not least I would like to thank very much for all the support I experienced during these days.
Elista, 2 October 2006
Vladimir Kramnik
Classical World Chess Champion
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-10-02 18:44:08)
Well...
I'm just a patzer, but since there are all levels of players here...
My computer is low-end for today's standards, and I use only freeware engines for cost restrains. I used about 4 different engines for analysis during my WC and Class G games, but it proved to do less difference than I expected. I was the weak link at all times in the chain, and only in the games I was able to understand why my engine showed certain moves should be made I was able to win.
But I guess you can't always blame on the patzer. I had quite a few instances that it became obvious why I couldn't understand the moves: the engine was wrong. Best way to test this is to let it run a position where it gives a slight advantage to you for 15 minutes. After that, make the moves and check if you have the same score or better. Of course it might be just my below-average computer, but the shareware version of Fruit got me into some really bad spots. The best solution I had up until now was Toga II, as it proved to be pretty solid on that aspect.
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)
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-10-12 20:16:30)
Rapid & Blitz
http://members.aon.at/sfischl/rapid.txt
http://members.aon.at/sfischl/blitz.txt
Amazing as it might be, it looks Kramnik has more chance of snatching the title if it goes past the rapid games.
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/event/kratop06/kratop0.html has a sumary of their encounters and a PGN containing all of them, classical, rapid, and blitz.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-13 18:13:05)
Re: Game of time ?!?!
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_SM__000002.html
I must say this is a quite strange strategy, if it is... Several 2300+ players continuously are in zeitnot (and finally loose some games on time). I don't think it can influence 'much' the play at correspondence chess time controls so that's probably their only way to manage time. Some can't play faster, obviously... Some also play at IECG, ICCF and so on. Anyway nothing can prevent that...
Hannes Rada (2006-10-14 00:03:36)
Tactics ?
Hi Wolfgang,
I am playing against this guy in
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000002
But I do not have a problem with this tactic, if it can be called a tactic.
Maybe it should be simply called Zeitnot ....
Why do you bother about that ?
It's wíthin the rules.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-20 14:09:35)
Re: Mate in 292 moves
The minimum number of pawn captures is 8, that's a funny problem :)
Now here is the solution for the mate :
http://www.chess-problem.com/classic4.htm
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-10-21 12:09:00)
Best game
The "Best Game" should be a figurehead of the FICS-Site - but is it? I don't think so. That so an exotic opening experiment (particularly with black) will run in a real loosing position, is not very suprising. And also the praised last move is found by several engines in a very short time! What we (this site) need is a very high classed game with surprising twists - which engines never can find. And it must be with very good comments on most moves. Looking for this - that is the real challenge for all of us! Wolfgang
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-25 13:37:13)
Rating / 8-game match
Anyway this result is quite unusual in correspondence chess... :)
Conditions were best to realize such an increase of rating, and a part of the forfeit reasons are probably out of the match (a flag gate)... 6 games out of 8 were rated as a win in this match between Farit & John, with no other result for Farit when the rating calculation occured. It happened, it can happen, I think it won't happen often (I would be surprised if such a case occurs in semi-finals) but in all ways : That's great ! .. IMO :)
There's a part of "injustice" in all most watched sports and games, it's an essential element ! .. The biggest one 'strangely' is in soccer. At another level, chess stars choose their tournaments and manage their FIDE rating, remember ie. this match Etienne Bacrot (2470) vs. Vassily Smyslov (2510, wch) in Albert, with this result 5-1
An obvious, topical and nearer example : FIDE classical (old) world championship system is deeply unfair (for the challenger) but it MUST be kept !
As I said above, the concept (added to fast time control) may create some - rare - rating peaks, but effects are limited and I'm convinced it's interesting enough to try it.
To be continued... in a few years ? ;)
Dorel Oltean (2006-11-10 22:00:27)
retire, come back. What's next ?
I’m playing in two tournaments with Mr Marez : class M02 and WCH M01.
Mr Marez had practically retired from the FICGS tournaments because he did not play for a very long period (one-two month). He lost on time 4 of 5 remaining games in each tournament. Now he comes back to continue the games he did not lose on time. By proceeding like that he is not fair to all the participants in the given tournaments, ruins the results and gives a not serious character, an amateur-like flavor to the tournaments.
On top of that he is now registered for other tournaments.
I think someone must do something about that.
Sebastien Marez (2006-11-11 07:11:18)
temps de réflexion
Je suis revenu, car j'ai trouver un equilibre en les deux serveurs et que votre site me plait aussi. Il est vrai que le temps des parties sur FICGS est bcp trop long, le fait d attendre trop devient vite enervant et lassant, amenant ainsi un desinteret complet. Le fait de perdre mon classement n 'est pas important car je le retrouverais. Je comprends Mr OLTEAN, car je risque de lui enlever toutes ses chances dans les tournois respectifs. Il faut applique la meme regle que pour l'IECG sans reponse au bout de 30jrs les parties sont perdues, mais surtout reduire la cadence des parties pour retrouver un interet plus grand.
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-11 10:24:20)
Can't enter in waiting list
Hello Thibault,
why I can't enter the waiting list for FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_SM__000004 ?
Greetings, Wolfgang
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-14 16:47:18)
Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz, 2006
In less than 2 weeks from now, classical & FIDE world champion Vladimir Kramnik will play the best (at least most famous) chess program Deep Fritz 10 !
From november 25 to december 5, 2006 at the Federal Art Hall in Bonn. One million US dollars for Kramnik if he defeats Deep Fritz, half this amount otherwise...
We did not forget the previous match in Bahrain (2002), that ended with a 3-3 score.
Do you feel Fritz improved enough to beat a player like Kramnik, who most probably improved his play too... Will Kramnik play rather different openings than in his match against Topalov ? .. Anyway it should be an interesting match to follow.
A few links :
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=95
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2947
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-15 23:49:04)
Classical
A new chessboard has just been added : Classical (quite big)
Also a new background : Flying
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-16 01:26:09)
Players needed
Hello all. We need 4 more players to fill out the Class A 000009 tournament
rating range is 2000-2400.
It should be a nice tourney.
Wayne Lowrance
Ryaad Aabid (2006-11-16 01:42:44)
Something to be changed
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000005 Game 741
The clock of my opponent was almost 0:0
He came and has done his move #22 until the move #31 , then he hid after his clock drank 40 days!
What type players is there?
I think something should be changed.
Another opponent (Game 1265) has appeared after his clock became almost 3 days!
Either I am an unlucky player, or there is somerule should be changed.
Because of this I will leave, but never leave those 2 games for the rubbish of the chess:Adrian and Balogh.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-17 17:51:23)
Need one more player
Class A 000009. We have 6 strong players. Need one more. rating 2000-2200
welcome
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-17 18:59:02)
Tournaments with money prizes
Hello to all.
Finally, Chess & Go tournaments with money prizes will begin in 2007 january !
"Money chess" is an all times controversy, many players play for fun only (even at the highest levels), others like much more this way of play. I think it's simply the most challenging, finally it quite looks like classical tournaments.
About Go, things are quite different, as software & particularly engines are a negligible factor in the play. The best players will probably always win, but weak players may be interested in a lesson.
You may have noticed some changes in the waiting list categories for money tournaments :
Two formats for 2-players matches will be available, 8 games matches (time control 30 days + 1 day / move) and 2 games duels (time control 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves) renewed in case of a draw.
Simultaneous games will be also organized with international masters for both games, with prizes shared if some players could beat the masters.
Of course, it won't change anything to the free tournaments & championships, it will be optional only. I hope it will help to provide prizes for the FICGS chess & Go world championships (sponsors are welcome :)) ...
The membership page - Terms and Conditions - has also been updated.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Some major changes (as in money tournaments pages) might happen until 2007 january.
Feel free to post here if you have any comment or suggestion.
Best wishes.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-18 00:52:42)
Player needed
A challenge your invited to the Class A 000009 2000-2400 tournament. There are six players now, top rated is 2300+. Room for one more player.
Cmon and enjoy a nice tourney.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-01 11:19:43)
Deep Fritz, Rybka & future
The Chess Challenge 2006 in Bonn between classical world champion Vladimir Kramnik and chess engine Deep Fritz 10 confirms (who ignored ?) the best chess programs can rivalize with the world champion in a match, but it first shows us these calculating monsters still have weaknesses.
Question is : What are the real improvements in Fritz 10 compared to Fritz 9 (engine speaking only) ?
Here is what I think about chess engines nowadays (Fritz 10, Shredder, 10, Junior 10, Hiarcs 10 and particularly Rybka 2.2) :
The way of think to play correspondence chess is (or should be) mostly human one combined with a chess engine algorithm. We follow the tree of moves like a program with our selective algorithm (much better than chess engines), applying our judgement of the position when necessary only. The point is we evaluate moves and we almost never evaluate a position twice.
Chess engines are very good analysis tools but are surprisingly not designed to be very good chess players. I think a major improvement in chess engines should be recognition of 'sufficient moves' : ie. it is no worth to always find the best move at a particular point of the tree, this reflection time could be used later... It depends on the evaluation of the position, on the clocks... Iterative model is quite basic (in a game at least !).
Another point is recognition of traps. This is the start of psychology in chess engines, and basics of the art of war. It first depends on who your opponent is, and on the clocks too. Finally, at the end of the tree, chess engines evaluate positions, but how many evaluate moves ? .. Speculative moves were a step, but it first shew chess engines were not able yet to see what move is worth to be analysed really deeper, consequently creating a 'human' weakness, particularly against some other chess engines.
I don't know how Rybka works, but as far as I read about this one that calculates much less positions (about 10 times) than Fritz, I wouldn't be surprised that Vasik Rajlich had implemented a better approach of human way of think, which is undoubtly the future of chess engines.
A good 'centaur' in ie. Playchess rapid tournaments is first a good choice between Chessbase engines according to the position and clocks. Fritz qualities probably apply best in standard games, where clocks are really designed for him. Among Chessbase engines, Hiarcs is probably the best Blitz player and could be the best correspondence chess player (even if it isn't the best CC tool for humans). Rybka is probably a kind of centaur itself (sorry, herself ;)), knowing when to use (in the tree !) brute force and more selective approachs - not to be compared to Hydra or Deep Blue which, on contrary, use most brute force.
My conclusion is chess engines have much to learn from humans yet, we'll see a Rybka 5 and Fritz 13, with much better results against other chess engines, but their results shouldn't increase a lot against the best humans in future. Finally, it will never be a good correspondence chess player :)
My two cents.
If I find time, I'll continue to implement my own chess engine..... but it's a lot of work :/
Elmer Valderrama (2006-12-01 22:13:19)
good news and bad news
Some good news and bad news for "deep" Fritz 10 (& CB..)
The good news is that game 4 was drawn with the computer
playing a respectable good ending as White which forced
Kramnik to display all his arsenal of strategic knowledge
in endgames and his World class mastery to calmly withhold a
difficult position...
The bad news is that "shallow" Toga would have played the
same good moves made by Kramnik :-}
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-02 08:55:46)
Intuition?! What for ?
3 out of 4? Really? Which test-matches are you refering to?
Leotard made a test (won :-) and with grand manner) but that was years ago, and besides, he is one of the very best :-)
Then there is the match against a panel of different engines by Ham: even if he does not play at the same level than Leotard, he is quite a good player!... and the results were very far from 3 to 4 for human :-( (that was also years ago!)
Then there are the hydra matches... :-( the results are not very good also for humans and the game comments are very instructive: against first class expertise chess knowledge and intuition, the 'dump' brute force machine managed to handle quite well complex ending positions...at least as well as all correspondence players but the very best (I would say the top 20 at most :-()
Maybe there is some recent test I am not aware of?
But the point really is: who can play like, say, Leotard? Of course, he says he can crush computers, just by playing them like 2500 rated players... well, I can believe that... but when I play a fritz-push-button opponent, I am only a 2300 player... have I to use also an engine to have a chance (and one game out of ten, be very proud to have chosen another move than one of the few the engine suggested as best and still not have lost... ok, just kidding :-)?
It can be still fun, but I think it is not the same kind of chess Leotard alludes to when speaking of himself in his after match interview :-)
Elmer Valderrama (2006-12-04 14:18:02)
intuition
I disagree, chess knowledge can't be equated to intuition, here
is my long post about it
(why am I writing about the same things all over and over and at the
same time of year, I dunno ;)
1. Players without any intuition whatsoever but great working
capabilitites (as Botvinnik, Fischer, Kasparov, ..engines..)
-they never relie on intuition (they dont have any at all after all)
so everything must be subject to calculation, they have the
"hardware" (perfect body and mental conditions, rigorous training,
perfect visual/realistic representation of positions and a great
chess knowledge which must be kept fresh in mind -if not, they wouldn't
have reference points to judge/evaluate resulting positions.
When on top form they can beat anybody and I mean ANY body: human,
extraterrestial,
ultragalactic, trans-natural, hyper-divine,etc, and for an overwhelming
score, like 6-0 ;)..well you know what I mean.
The drawback well you already know it, it last a mig, except for
the engines, no-one can keep up with this regime
(GK could for a long time, but resorting
to short breaks (not playing for WC, choosing carefully where to play
etc,) But most important it's impossible to implement for long if the
"hardware" -see above- starts to "leak oil" then it's all over..
This can be brought up to an art, like Kasparov or Fischer, it is more
powerful than understanding chess as a natural tongue (as intuitive
players) because the "top-form" competitive element is always
present and the "hardware" works in pristine conditions.
From the above it follows of course that engines are the ultimate
chess warrior over the board at least (and only there, not in CC)
2. Those who have strategical intuition. (Capablanca, Petrosian, Karpov
maybe Anand..)The general impression is that
they are simply lazy people: not need to work out any thing as they
just "know" where pieces should go and what the point is of their
moves, usually there is no need for deep calculations, just two or three
moves (4 to 6 plies) to corroborate the "feeling" and the game is won.
The "feeling" is hard to express in words, and usually is lost if
expressed in words ;). It goes beyond a simply pattern recognition,
or a full database of chess knowledge, it is about predicting the
future possibilities (not having real positions in mind, just the
"possibilities" or general lines of play in future positions which
may or may not happen to appear for real in the game.
They can play for long long time and win a lot of tournaments
(Karpov I believe have the record of won tournaments)
3. Those who have special understanding in unbalanced positions
(Alekhine, Tal, Korchnoi..) They are dynamic players who love
to calculate but not for the sake of finding the best of the best of
the best of the moves (as those in group 1 would do), they
calculate SOME variations, those who have meaning to them
I see them as players of group 2 with a more or less working
"hardware" i.e they are not going to trust 2 or 3 moves variations
neither they are going to speculate on the future possibilities
without any ground/basic calculation under it. Their "feeling" is
again hard to express in words, but I believe it is something like
calculating a 10-12 plies variation with every position in-between
being subconciously excrutinated for crushing unexpected turning moves
(this is not done by players of group 1, they would calculate
"normal replies" in that 10-12 plies variation and would have to
go deeper (like 20-30 plies to see the point ;)
So that "feeling" is what enable us to compose music, create
art etc but also it is something that enable us to err like fools :(
Whether it can be mimicked by software or not it's an open question
but as I said a calculation 40-50 plies deep it's practically
equal to using intuition...
Obviously the above classification of G Kasparov it's a bit
rough in the sense that there are very few "pure intuitive"
players (of either group 2 or 3) as mentioned by Don in his post
most of the players is a mix of talent I believe, if I had to
choose a pure intuitive player from those groups I would point
Capablanca and Korchnoi, and of course Kasparov of group 1
Marius Zubac (2006-12-16 02:51:34)
Vacation clock frozen, with 1 exception
Hello Thibault. Before I requested my vacation I have captured all the situation of my running games including the number of days. The clock is frozen for all games except my game 2932 from FICGS_CHESS_CLASS_SM_000002 against Mr. de Silva. Initially it was 51 days. Today I looked again and is 49. Maybe there is a bug somewhere. Please look into it. Thank you.
Best whishes for the Holliday season,
Marius
Wayne Lowrance (2006-12-31 22:59:37)
Strong players needed
Class A 000012 Tournament needs two more strong player near 2200 to complete the field. Will be nice strong tournament to start 07
Thank you Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-03 12:04:10)
Blitz correspondence chess
Actually I'm thinking about 1-game match in the classical way, there will be draws, hard to avoid it. "Silver thematic" is a good idea for another category (ie. with no draws). About tournaments with several rounds / several days, well, why not... maybe later :)
Elmer Valderrama (2007-01-13 11:23:38)
WikiEndings?
..is it feasible? (I'm sure it is, it's just a rhetorical question ;)
I believe
endgame theory (and players) would benefit from a endgame section in Wikichess
contributed by members taken from their practice, especially if
general "rules of thumb" and guidelines are outlined together with
analysis. Specially interesting I think would be many-pawn endings and other practical
endings which are given poor coverage in the books and are less investigated
(and, as it seems, there are always holes in the analysis even from very strong players,
there would be a lot of room for improvement of the articles until a
general consensus is reached)
Subsections could be created in the lines of the ECO classification for
endgames, it would then be easy to find/correct/contribute in a given
position.
Any thoughts?
Marc Lacrosse (2007-01-17 22:39:46)
I will not be able to play
I also won a stage one group.
But inbetween I have too many games running (here + master class ICCF).
So I won't be able to play in stage 2.
I wish we could get more precise timings next time so that we can plan things more adequately.
Marc
Hossein Dabbaghyan (2007-01-18 02:10:52)
how can I play in the "class tournament"
Hi
I would like to play in the class tournament here on Ficgs....how can I enter this tournament and start playing? I appreciate any help....
Don Groves (2007-01-18 07:29:24)
Entering a class tournament
Click on "Waiting lists" then "FICGS Chess Class Tournaments." Click on the tournament that fits your rating and confirm your entry.
Mladen Jankovic (2007-01-25 15:58:46)
Horrible players wanted ;)
Horrible players wanted to start the Class G tournament no. 10.
We'll also take anyone whose rating currently sucks, n00bs, and generaly just anyone who has ELO rating 1200 or less.
Mladen Jankovic (2007-01-25 15:59:21)
direct link
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_class_g
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-17 12:26:13)
Les échecs en France
Here is the agreement just signed by the ministry of education and the french chess federation - fédération française des échecs (F.F.E.)
This should help to promote chess in France.
CONVENTION-CADRE
Établie entre les soussignés :
L'État - Ministère de l'Education nationale, de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
représenté par Monsieur Gilles de Robien, ministre,
ci-dessous dénommé " le Ministère "
et
La Fédération française des échecs
représenté par Monsieur Jean-Claude Moingt, président,
ci-dessous dénommé " la Fédération "
Rappelant
Que le jeu d'échecs, activité à la fois ludique et sportive, constitue aussi et surtout une activité intellectuelle qui permet de développer des compétences diverses chez ceux qui le pratiquent, et notamment chez les jeunes auprès de qui il constitue un réel vecteur de formation ;
Que la pratique des échecs encourage notamment le développement des capacités intellectuelles telles que la mémoire, le raisonnement logique, la capacité d'abstraction, l'analyse de problème et la mise en oeuvre de stratégies de résolution ;
Que la pratique des échecs contribue également à la construction de la personnalité en encourageant l'attention, l'imagination, l'anticipation, le jugement et la confiance en soi ;
Que le jeu d'échecs, école de concentration et de maîtrise de la pensée, est enfin une école de maîtrise de soi qui favorise l'apprentissage des règles et le respect d'autrui, et à ce titre participe de l'apprentissage de la citoyenneté ;
Considérant
Que, pour toutes ces raisons, le jeu d'échecs constitue un complément légitime et pertinent des activités éducatives proposées par l'Ecole ;
Que de nombreuses expériences menées en académies ont permis de mettre en oeuvre des projets de qualité associant des établissements scolaires et des clubs d'échecs dans un cadre réfléchi et concerté entre les parties concernées ;
Que ces initiatives ont permis de développer des pratiques et des outils permettant une exploitation du jeu d'échecs dans un cadre scolaire et/ou périscolaire ;
Il a été convenu ce qui suit :
Article 1 - Objectifs
Par la présente convention le Ministère et la Fédération affirment leur volonté commune de favoriser le développement de la pratique du jeu d'échecs dans les écoles, les collèges et les lycées. Ils se donnent comme objectifs la mise en oeuvre de deux axes de travail privilégiés :
- le jeu d'échecs au service de l'égalité des chances, l'expérience montrant que la pratique des échecs peut constituer pour des élèves en difficulté scolaire une occasion privilégiée de se remotiver et de se remettre sur la voie de la réussite scolaire ;
- la dimension éducative du jeu d'échecs auprès du plus grand nombre, en favorisant la transférabilité des acquis entre les pratiques ludiques et les situations d'apprentissage.
Article 2 - Egalité des chances
Le Ministère et la Fédération conviennent de développer l'accès de la pratique des échecs auprès des publics scolaires qui en sont les plus éloignés pour des raisons sociales ou géographiques. Le partenariat portera en particulier sur des actions impliquant :
- les collèges " ambition réussite ", qui visent à offrir un cadre d'excellence à des publics scolaires confrontés aux plus grandes difficultés socio-économiques. La contribution de la Fédération consistera notamment en mise à disposition de matériel (ludique et/ou pédagogique), en actions de sensibilisation ou de formation organisées dans le cadre des établissements concernés, en appariements des collèges avec des clubs de proximité ou encore en parrainage de certains collèges par des joueurs de haut niveau recommandés par la Fédération.
- l'opération " Ecole ouverte ", qui accueille les jeunes dans les EPLE pendant les vacances scolaires pour leur proposer des activités de loisirs à visée éducative. Parce qu'il conjugue les dimensions ludique et formatrice, le jeu d'échecs correspond bien à l'esprit de ce dispositif qui contribue à modifier l'image de l'école auprès des jeunes.
- les dispositifs relais (classes et ateliers), qui accueillent temporairement des élèves en voie de décrochage ou de désocialisation. La pratique des échecs peut permettre à ces jeunes de reprendre goût à l'activité intellectuelle, tout en leur inculquant le respect des règles et de l'autre.
Article 3 - Action éducative
De façon plus générale, le Ministère et la Fédération conviennent d'encourager la connaissance et la pratique des échecs auprès du plus grand nombre. A ce titre, ils pourront notamment :
- développer la pratique des échecs dans le cadre des activités péri-scolaires au sein des internats scolaires, des clubs et des foyers socio-éducatifs, en partenariat avec les clubs locaux.
- mettre en place des actions de sensibilisation et/ou de formation dans les écoles et les établissements volontaires, en rapprochant les équipes éducatives et les clubs selon des modalités à préciser entre les partenaires concernés : enseignement et pratique dans le temps scolaire ou périscolaire, projets thématiques fédérateurs s'appuyant sur les dispositifs transversaux, opérations d'information et d'animation, tournois scolaires à l'échelle d'une ville ou d'un bassin, etc.
- développer des ressources en co-édition, en lien avec le réseau des CRDP et des CDDP (sites Internet de jeu pour les écoles, dépliants de présentation, outils pédagogiques, etc.).
Article 4 - Contribution des partenaires
La Fédération française des échecs s'engage à apporter aux écoles, collèges et lycées qui en font la demande une aide en matériel ou en ressources diverses (publications, outils pédagogiques etc.). Dans le cas d'actions spécifiques conduites au sein des établissements dans les temps scolaire ou périscolaire, les cadres qualifiés de la Fédération ou de ses organes déconcentrés devront avoir reçu un accord préalable du Ministère et/ou de ses services déconcentrés ; ils pourront apporter des aides techniques ponctuelles auprès des enseignants qui en feront la demande après avoir pris l'avis des corps d'inspection.
De son côté, le Ministère s'engage à diffuser, par le biais de son réseau de communication et de diffusion ainsi que par l'intermédiaire de ses services déconcentrés, l'information nécessaire à la mise en oeuvre de ce partenariat.
Article 5 - Communication
L'application du présent accord-cadre peut donner lieu à des déclarations et communications aux médias par chacun des partenaires, lesquels conviennent de se concerter préalablement.
Article 6 - Mise en oeuvre et suivi
Les partenaires conviennent de se réunir au moins une fois par an pour examiner les conditions de mise en œuvre de l'accord-cadre et dresser un état des lieux des actions entreprises sur la période de l'année écoulée.
Article 7 - Durée
La présente convention est signée pour une durée de trois ans à compter de la date de la signature. A l'issue de ces trois années un bilan global permettra de faire le point sur l'évolution des pratiques à l'école, au collège et au lycée et d'étudier sur cette base les termes du renouvellement de la convention. Elle peut être résiliée par l'une ou l'autre des parties, à l'expiration d'un délai de trois mois suivant l'envoi d'une lettre recommandée avec accusé de réception valant mise en demeure.
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-02-21 18:51:49)
standing suggestion
the thing i try to explain is the follow:
if you are the last player that enter in a tournament, your name in the standing is the last, also if you win or for example arrive third.
Now the question is:
is possible to see the tournament standing with the leader in the first position of the standing, the player who arrived second in the second place of the standing, etc etc?
for example, if you see FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000001, the winner is in the last position of the standing.
Is possible to see this standing with this order?:
Unger 5.5/6
Muller 4.5/6
Holes 4/6
Ghisi 3/6
Baron 2/6
Guralivu 1/6
Rattay 1/6
sorry for my bad english and thanks thibault for your time :-)
Marc Lacrosse (2007-02-24 21:22:11)
not so simple ...
"I think Kasparov is the best for his aggressivity, Capablanca for his semplicity, and Alechine for his tattics."
This is way too simple...
Remember Kasparov drawing game after game for recovering after Karpov led by 5-0 in their match ...
Capablanca's play was full of tactics (I would better say full of sophisticated ways to avoid tactics - which _is_ tactics at a supreme degree).
Alekhine's tactics were most of the time allowed by too weak opposition. Among great tactical geniuses far stronger than Alekhine in this field I would cite Bronstein, Tal, Spassky, Nezmetdinov, Fischer, Shirov, Kasparov, Topalov ...
But there are also :
- Positional geniuses : Morphy, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Petrosian, and an entire class above them all Karpov, Ivanchuk, Kramnik.
- Opening prep geniuses : Botvinnik, Fischer, Kasparov
- Endgame geniuses : Rubinstein, Karpov, Korchnoi...
Well a difficult question because all top class players had several masterpieces in any of these fields ...
Pablo Schmid (2011-07-13 23:01:37)
Shogi in ficgs?
Thanks for the link, but I think there is no real conclusion. Chinese chess and Japanese are really "classical" boards games that are quite related to chess, maybe it's not a bad idea to include these games, with the hope to get more asian players for example. If you are not convinced by that idea we could do a poll in this site for the inclusion of shogi, chinese chess, both or none?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-28 04:11:59)
Class GM : 2500+ players needed
Hello to all.
Even if the number of very strong players should increase significantly during next months, it may be interesting to reduce the limitation for GM class tournaments from 2600 to 2500... It could return to 2600+ later if there are players enough of this level to fill such a waiting list.
Until this moment, players rated 2500+ are welcome for a bloody tournament :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-28 15:46:28)
Droppers
I feel that for at least 3 players in this tournament the problem is they had too many games at the same time ! (FICGS + IECG + ICCF ;))
What is strange is they all came back a few months later and registered for new tournaments. This is a real problem... The best answer to this in my opinion is rating that can decrease quite quickly, some will have to fight hard to enter a class M tournament again. In some cases of course there are personal reasons, it is hard to know and that's a pity to ban such players... :/
So it wasn't a good tournament, sorry about that. Still thinking about a new rule.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-03-28 19:32:07)
You change the rules or I leave :-)
A few comments in french (sorry : easyer for me)
Deux situations distinctes se produisent :
1. Quelqu'un a mal évalué et s'est engagé dans trop de parties, ou bien a un problème de santé, ou un changement de ses possibilités de loisirs. Il décide d'abandonner un tournoi, abandonne toutes ses parties, donne une petite explication à ses adversaires et bien sûr ne se réinscrit à rien dans l'immédiat. Désagréable mais bien sûr tout à fait admissible. La moindre des choses est qu'on lui interdise de s'inscrire à quoi que ce soit tant que ce qui reste de parties n'est pas terminé (ou abandonné) et que la prochaine réinscription se limite au départ à un seul tournoi qui devra être complètement terminé avant de pouvoir à nouveau cumuler plusieurs inscriptions simultanées.
2. Quelqu'un s'inscrit à de multiples tournois et s'arrête de jouer dans ceux où il est mal parti. Il ne prévient rien ni personne et laisse son temps s'écouler. Entretemps il s'inscrit à d'autres tournois et procède de même. De temps en temps il termine un tournoi si celui-ci parait mieux engagé. Ce joueur(?)-ci est simplement un parasite, un gâcheur de plaisir et un fausseur de résultats pour ceux qui le rencontrent. Mon opinion est sans appel : exclusion pure et simple de celui qui laisse s'éteindre des parties sans aucun commentaire tout en s'inscrivant à de nouveaux tournois. Je ne vois aucune justification possible à une telle attitude.
Je comprends que certains ne partagent pas cette opinion radicale
Quoiqu'il en soit, j'estime que le minimum exigible en faveur de ceux qui ont déjà été confronté à des "droppers" est de leur offrir un moyen de ne pas se trouver à nouveau confrontés aux mêmes parasites dans un autre tournoi.
Je m'explique : actuellement si je m'inscris dans un nouveau tournoi je n'ai aucune assurance quant à l'identité de ceux qui viendront s'inscrire après moi, et je risque à donc à nouveau d'être confronté à quelques-uns de ces personnages que je suis fermement décidé à ne plus rencontrer.
Je n'accepte pas cette perspective
Dès lors, tant qu'il n'y aura pas une modification de règlement qui me permettra d'éviter qu'un "dropper" connu s'inscrive dans un tournoi où je prendrai part, je ne jouerai plus sur FICGS.
Marc
PS Pour ma part, m'étant déjà engagé dans ce tournoi qui a complètement avorté et dans un tournoi master class ICCF, j'ai renoncé à ma qualification dans le championnat FICGS pour éviter de me trouver dans l'obligation éventuelle de renoncer à certaines parties. Le moins qu'on puisse dire est que l'attitude de certains ne me récompense pas vraiment de ma prudence ...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-29 04:57:34)
:o)
Merci pour la plaidoirie détaillée :) ... Bon, je suppose que l'idée d'une pénalité restrictive sur les inscriptions est assez bonne, mais peut être insuffisante également. Une pénalité immédiate sur le classement (entrainant une chute de catégorie) pourrait être plus persuasive, j'y pense !
Voilà ce que j'ai pu observer pour ma part jusqu'ici :
Les classements de ces joueurs (notamment dans ton tournoi) baissent malgré tout suffisamment vite pour qu'ils ne puissent pas se réinscrire dans les mêmes catégories, c'est le cas pour 4 des joueurs de ce tournoi, passés sous la barre des 2200.
Certains parasites qui, en effet, volontairement ont tenté de s'inscrire dans un maximum de tournois et abandonner toutes leurs parties pour troubler les classements ont eu un effet minime, pour la simple raison que je les vois faire et mets fin à leurs parties avant les 10 coups pour la plupart, ce qui n'a que peu d'incidence au final. Certains jouent maintenant leurs parties jusqu'au bout, les autres sont partis.
La plus grande cause de forfait en proportion est la "simple visite", le joueur qui s'inscrit, joue quelques coups dans un tournoi puis disparait... La rançon de la simplicité d'inscription et de la gratuité, contre laquelle je ne peux pas grand chose. J'ai pensé à mettre en place un système de limite de nombre de parties progressif, mais je ne suis pas sûr encore que ce soit positif.
Au final, j'ai tout de même envie de croire que ce qui s'est passé dans ce tournoi (à ce niveau) restera exceptionnel... Mais je suis d'accord pour trouver une solution à ce problème, au moins de garantir de ne plus pouvoir rencontrer ces adversaires avant un bon moment.
La pénalité immédiate sur le classement me parait être la seule solution. Toute autre suggestion bienvenue...
Charlie Neil (2007-03-29 19:32:56)
Double RR tournaments
I prefer single pairings. I know double pairings are the norm in postal clubs. 6 games with 6 others as opposed to 8 games with 4 people can make a difference. I'm sure the waiting time for tournaments to start will drop. But...... What about class tourneys being double paring 5 players and rapid tourneys being 7 players single pairing?
Charlie Neil (2007-03-30 21:13:10)
Time Controls
I think Marc has a point about a cummulative time limit in some time controls. in the class tournaments you could amass a huge ammount of time, if you were a fast player, and then use the clock and play really slowly and upset the rythym of your opponent. I like both time controls available, in Class and Rapid events, but if there is a demand for 5days +1day with a maximum of 20 days should we give it a try. as for drop-outs and silent withdrawals.....that's all in the game. (At least I get 1 point!) I am still dubious about double round robin tournaments but maybe you could try them in the Rapid events first. 5 player double pairings say every second tournament, and back to 7 player single pairing in the other......just a suggestion.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-07 04:50:03)
Double RR Tournaments
It doesn't influence much the result in class tournaments IMO, it does in WCH tournaments only... Anyway single round-robin is more fun !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-07 06:11:03)
Double RR tournaments
The point is there shouldn't have stronger (I mean really) players in class tournaments... Anyway, several players already asked not to change current formula & single round-robin tournaments.
But I'll organize more special events and / or I'll create a new category using double round-robin.
Achim Mueller (2007-04-22 00:42:15)
Some more answers ;-)
@Don Burden
Full ack! If the rules stay as they are now it definitely makes sense to have groups of 11 or 13 players with e.g. 2 qualifiers.
@Mikhail Ruzin
Believe it or not, I would have been glad to play in group 02! There are seven "life" players and I bet a score of 4.5 or maybe even 4 points may be enough to qualify. In group 12 it's only 4 life players, and a result of 5 points (maybe 5.5 points) won't be enough for one player. There are only two remaining games, and all three strong life players have 4.5(one game to play), 4.5(1) and 4(2).
In this special situation exactly three games will decide who will quailify if you take a deeper look at the results and the contents of the games.
@Thibault
I never said it's easy for a 2300 ELO player if he plays for a draw only. But it's a big advantage for a player in a region between 2200 and 2500 if is aware that a draw will have the same quality as a victory against a certain competitor. Take a look at the world class cc players. There is a ~70% draw rate in the big tournaments, so the probability will be more than 70% if a player seriously tries to force a draw by choosing a certain opening and avoiding complicated variations.
Ciao
acepoint
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-22 12:32:08)
win against Anand :-)
Great & congrats ! :) .. such a thing does not happen every day. It's a real honor to beat a top class player, even in a simul - and with Black. (would have been even more pleasant in "real life" for sure)
Do you still play some FIDE events / tournaments, Marc ?
Nick Burrows (2007-04-23 01:50:31)
my 64 pence worth...
I must admit that i have always disliked the Fide WC rule. It seems to be there to protect the champion rather than creating a level playing field.
The fide WC is also played over 24 games rather than 5 in the groups here.
My humble opinion is that for the WC groups of 11/13 or double round robin, would be fairer and give the skillfull players more oportunity to demonstrate that skill.
It is quite likely that in a group of 5, with just 1 or 2 critical games - the better player could finish even and be eliminated. Fine for class groups, but surely the in a 'World Championships' its worth exploring a little extra detail to find the real deserving winner.
A healthy debate! No matter what, thankyou for the provision of such a great site :)
Sandor Marton-Bardocz (2007-04-30 11:54:47)
WCH Stage 1 rules
Hi everyone!
Let me introduce my self :-) I'm the highest rated player in the Wch stage 1 group 12 "the blocking guy" how Achim described me...whatever that means..
1. there is no dead draw in my opinion likewise there is no absolute winning lines, openings in a chess game...And this is most true in our "centaur, human-engine tandem" era where lines are very "unstable" to say the least..so I
don't believe that one can play for a absolute draw without any risk..avoiding complicated variations...the variations complexity is very relativ...line can be "cristal clear" for one and most complicated for other..In my opinion high rates of draws among world class cc player isn't because they all play for draws ...It's a tendency..like it was in otb chess among super gm-s...not long ago...until the "no draw alowed" rules were aplied...i don't want to speculate why this happens..
2. If someone really want to win...then should play for a win ...no matter what regulations are applied for that particular tournament
3. I think that if someone might want to take a look to the game that I played against mister Deeb in the same tournament ...starting from the move 17 of mine...hardly can to argue that I wanted to play for draws just to achieve equal points to advance. I think that none of the engines can even "smell" the outcome of the game in that position after 17..d5!?...so...saying that nowdays it's easier to achieve draws because of engines....it's a little bit
exaggerated The plan started with the move 17 ...d5!? that I have played it was an absolute rejection of a drawish (by repetation) position...and it was played just because i wanted to ...play.. not to advance in a higher stage of the tournament or something...even though the final outcome ( just in my opinion! and this isn't an absolute true by far) is probably ...still a draw.
4. The regulations regarding the advance in the higher stages of the tournament..now this are definitly arguable!there are pro's and con's...and always be. We don't have plausible answers for this kind of issues...because it's is a subjectiv matter. I'm not convinced too that "higher rated player advance"is the right regulation..few examples...just look for example ...Kramnik - Leko WCH .
a. ..challenger and his fans can say.."hey he didn't beat him...why should remain WChampion?! He didn't proved that he is better!"
b. ..Wchampion and his fans can say.."hey u want my crown?! than beat me, and take it! draw isn't enough!"
The line of examples doesn't stops here ..i don't want to prolong this subject...No rule can satisfy both sides...polemics, flame are always present :-)
5. None can predict what will be the process in a group...If 2-3 or even 4 players changes they mind and doesn't
really play..that's it, and none can't do a thing about that ...maybe some sanctions later...i don't believe it will do any good anyway...
6. In the game betwen me and Achim...I don't think that I choosed a draw line...I think that I had the initiative but probably it wasn't enough for a win, Achim overforced it ....which isn't a bad thing but probably not with the plan he had preferred.
good day for everyone!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-02 19:10:02)
sb tie breaks
... it will be discussed every 6 months for sure ;)
While writing WCH rules, the main goal was not only (or firstly) to make it fair. It should be a spectacular and exciting challenge first ! .. Nothing was more unfair than the old FIDE WCH cycle and that was great. Once more these rules have not be designed to 'choose' the best player in the tournament, but more probably the best player. Another advantage of rating preference is you know the challenge when each group starts, result is not decided during the tournament, according to the games of your opponents with the same number of points.
At last, I just wanted to make it different. So you may play in the ICCF & IECG world championship tournaments if you prefer the classical round-robin system :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-06 05:51:55)
E-Points + 25% , affiliate links
Hello to all, now trying to promote tournaments with entry fees & money prizes :)
You may have seen in rules that there are 2 'rakes' for money tournaments, a one-time 25% and a 'rake' per tournament which is very low... From now and until september 31, you'll be given 25% E-Points more when buying E-Points through Moneybookers or Paypal (see "My account" page), which nearly cancels the main rake !
Also it is now possible to win E-Points by becoming an affiliate & helping to promote FICGS... All details in "My account" page : For each new member refered by your link on the web, you'll be given E-Points (now 0,5 per member)... Of course urls and new members are verified, but anyway it is quite easy to reach the 10 E-Points silver ticket !
There could be E-Points prizes for free tournaments (class SM & class M) soon...
It is also possible to post your websites in FICGS directory :
http://www.ficgs.com/directory.html
Graham Cridland (2007-06-06 21:22:22)
Next Round Winners
Aronian
Leko
Gelfand
Grischuk
You heard it here first. Aronian, Leko, and Grischuk just outclass their opponents, and Gelfand is currently much better prepared than Kamsky.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-12 19:11:21)
More rating lists ?
What about more rating lists at FICGS ?
- Correspondence chess active & inactive players lists
- Blitz & lightning rating list
- Big chess rating list (class tournaments !?)
- Go rating list
Also there could be casual blitz & lightning chess tournaments with entry fee & prizes, blitz & lightning games with a tiny entry fee (no prize) and more ways to win E-Points...
Feel free if you have any comment or idea...
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-17 13:47:10)
New tournaments
Hi Thibault,
What about organizing some Swiss tournaments? I think that a Swiss for Money tournaments would generate a lot of interest because the more players participate the bigger the prize fund would be. I would also enjoy playing a Correspondence chess Swiss tournament let's say: “FICGS Annual Open Tournament”. Therefore players from different rating brackets can play against each other, apart from the WCH. Right now in the class tournaments I keep playing against few players again and again.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-19 18:50:56)
Rated or not rated ?
... which brings a question : Should (all) money tournaments be rated !?
Maybe there should be class tournaments also, but it's a bit early. I'm not sure yet. Any opinion ?
Denis Stork (2007-06-21 22:11:39)
from Russia with love
Greetings to all!
So here we are, fresh new Russian players, to participate in FICGS vs. IGAME match.
I'd like to give a short explanation of our "disguising identities". The thing is that mostly our names really won't say anything to you. iGame is just an amateurs' site and with the upcoming match we have a good chance to find out which material we really made of. :)
So show us maser-class. And let the strongest win! :)
Good night and good luck ! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-26 16:28:41)
Ratings
Fully agreed ! .. By the way, what performance could achieve Rybka (mp) in a CLASS M or CLASS A tournament. Finally, in average about 2200-2300 IMO.
Marcus Miranda (2007-07-09 18:12:25)
Norms and titles
My guess is that you can only achieve norms in the class M, SM, GM and rapid M tournaments. Once the tournament starts you know the number of points you have to win to get a norm.
Jason Repa (2007-07-12 22:15:04)
One more needed for 2200 - 2600 tourney!
We've been waiting for the 7th player for the class "M" section to sign up for about a week now. Anyone interested?
Jason Repa (2007-07-15 19:59:20)
Rybka vs. Human
Wolfgang, YOU cool down.
I never specified any "devoutness" to IQ definition but as I said, it appears you're a bit confused as to what IQ is. You seem to think it has something to do with social skills, or other miscellaneous skills. But we've been over this already. You should have caught on by now.
Social "intelligence", survival ability, etc, are examples of skills, not intelligence. According to your logic, or more precisely, your lack of logic, a world-class yo yo expert has an IQ of 180, a world-class rock climber has an IQ of 180, etc. Heck, anyone who is good at anything has an IQ of 180.
Is some of this starting to sink in yet?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-28 15:12:08)
Rapid tournaments
It seems this time control is ok for most players who use it (sometimes even too slow yet)... If you feel it's difficult, more reasonable would be to play standard class tournaments.
Still thinking about a longer time control.
Garvin Gray (2007-07-29 07:40:12)
another idea
Thibault de Vassal- It seems this time control is ok for most players who use it (sometimes even too slow yet)... If you feel it's difficult, more reasonable would be to play standard class tournaments.
Another suggestion is that I make sure I play the opening moves of any rapid game rather quickly, so I dont get into time trouble early :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-15 22:28:39)
Mode d'emploi
Bonjour Daniel.
Il est possible de jouer pour le plaisir (pas d'enjeu, pas de classement) en participant aux tournois "unrated", notamment dans 'Waiting lists' puis 'Chess special tournaments' : les tournois thématiques et de chess 960 ne sont pas classés !
Tous les autres tournois sont joués pour les classements 'échecs par correspondance', 'advanced chess' ou le classement du 'Go'. Parmi ceux-ci, certains ont un droit d'entrée et des prix.
Pour le fonctionnement du site une fois qu'un tournoi a commencé, voir la section 'Help'.
Bonnes parties !
Viktor Savinov (2007-09-03 12:27:34)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001
Two months tournament FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001
is not formed. Perhaps, to lower a rating of the admission up to 2490-2470? To admit in tournament of GM FIDE & GM ICCF, having put them a conditional rating 2500? Perhaps, to dispatch players personal invitations?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-03 23:41:38)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001
Actually this waiting list was initially open to 2600+ players. As there was too few players of this level, the range was changed to 2500+ a few months ago.
Now, as Viktor is the only player rated 2600+ who entered the waiting list, I suppose we could change the range one more time...
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-07 12:44:20)
To Jason
Hello Jason !
It’s just a question to have the possibility to play correspondence chess (for fun, not neccesarily studying or analysis, just the pleasure of finding moves, ideas (you know, what Bronstein called imagination) not rating, not to be classified as expert, or I don’t know what…) with people without computer. If they lie and use computer ; OK, we can’t be sure, but I’m certain you could accept that some players can trust other players when they say they don’t use computers. For example, I trust Philip when he said this, it’s just a question of being a gentleman. If there are cheaters ok, so what… Rybka will win
And I don’t undestand your topic about class of players : I hope I‘ve the right of posting some commentaries on this forum, despite the fact being largely behind you in term of rating… I think we can still play chess without computer, and with rating or not, it’s the same game for me. Philip and I just think it could be kind to play with other players with a kind of gentleman’s agreement. Sorry if it bother you
Dirk Ghysens (2007-09-14 09:28:07)
Openings
Why is the Indian Defense so strong?
Because there are more than a billion Indians.
What is the best weapon against a Sicilian?
An AK47 ... or fleeing.
Why doesn't anybody play the American Defense?
Because its moves are 'classified'.
Why wasn't the Scotch popular in the 1920's?
Because of the Prohibition.
Jason Repa (2007-09-08 12:26:56)
"No engines" Tournaments
I suspect you'll get a whole new breed of forum posts where accusations will be disguised as compliments such as: "Johnny So and So really played an excellent game! He was accurate like a machine against me", etc.
You'll also hear allot of twisted soapbox rants about how "morally superior" the allegedly non engine consulting players are.
This is what the forums on second rate sits such as RedHotPawn, ChessHere, etc are filled with, in addition to absurd claims of so-called "engine detection technology", which is obviously impossible. On RHP in particular, the site admin are software developers with extremely modest uscf ratings in the C-class range, yet somehow they deem themselves qualified to make such difficult judgment calls, which are at best a probability guess, even for a strong chess player.
I thought it was precisely this kind of nonsense you were trying to avoid when you decided to make it an up front policy of "freestyle" chess at will at FICGS.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-11 14:23:06)
Games
You mean ? .. Is there a problem to find the games ?
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-11 17:28:37)
Games
Ok, so you'd like a PGN file with only this tournament's games. Indeed, this option does not exist (yet). However it is possible to see all games boards on a single page :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001&boards=1
Gene Sensabaugh (2007-09-12 16:18:56)
Gene Sensabaugh
I am still trying to make a decision to use a chess engine or not.If for example
my moves are the majority of the time according to Fritz10 are inferior I can't see how it's going to help me accept to gain rating points.Say during a game I consult Fritz and for example I have overlooked a mate in 10.Which move would you choose?I have serious doubts that many people on here can beat Fritz10 unless they are grandmaster class.In a game you consult your engine select between it's choices and select one of"it's" choices.You receive a move and the process repeats.So why compete against human players most likely inferior to engine analysis?
Albert H. Alberts (2007-09-18 17:04:14)
110 best chess moves ever
All: Dutch GM Tim Krabbe has compiled "110 best chess moves ever".I computerevaluated them.Most of them are spotted by machines and if not: they are refuted. Notably nr. Topalov-Shirov and a classic 1960 Spasski-Bronstein.www.howtofoolfritz.com.
Albert Alberts Amsterdam.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-26 18:45:47)
Chess, love... ego
In a discussion where Susan Polgar (in her new forum, see link below) encourages members to ask questions to strong OTB GM & IM, I suggested to ask them :
"...how the venue of Rybka and other engines crushing them OTB (ie. Hydra-Adams) in classical games affected their love of the game ! .. More than learning us & them humility, obviously noone can feel the same than Bobby Fischer in front of the chessboard anymore (and probably before him also). How can a human player love the game like he did, nowadays ? .. What is the place of the ego in this strange relationship ? Finally... do they play other games more and more as time passes ?"
An interesting point, undoubtly to be discussed, is the place of ego in the love of the game IMO. Go players may have an interesting point in this discussion ;)
http://www.chessdiscussion.com
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=196
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-10 22:13:10)
More stressful ? :)
... more seriously, I suppose this time control was directly inspired from the over the board chess classical time control : 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves (correspondence "blitz" time control @ FICGS) .. so, no advantage IMO, a historical issue only.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-11-02 00:13:09)
Change in class M rapid
Thibault I dont like that change at all. When I signed the entry was 2200. I do not like that to be lowered to 2100/ I think the division was just fine. Ive been busting my butt to get to that 2200 window. Would you please remove me from the waiting list. Thank you
wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2007-11-02 00:16:42)
Change in class M rapid
Why in the world would you make an important change like that without consultation of your members.
One member complained and you made a change like that ? Your bad my friend
Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2007-11-02 00:20:53)
remove me please
okey dokie, please remove me, as I posted I think it is a lousy change. The higher that class the less the response, what is suprizing about that. It is not a matter of interest.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-02 20:55:37)
Videogames & the future of Board Games
Quite funny to see the same discussion on GoDiscussions.com and ChessDiscussion.com forums :
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=457
http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4644
<<
Apparently, two years ago there was a major exhibition sponsored by the Asia Society in American museums called "Asian Games: The Art of Contest." I have been fortunate enough to get a copy of the exhibition book. I found a quote there that I would like you to comment on:
“We hope that this exhibition, in addition to persuading visitors of the historical importance of games, will also stimulate an interest in playing board games. As computer gamers sit in solitary oblivion frantically pressing buttons to manipulate images on screens, it is worth considering how such games could have succeeded, to a large extent, in eclipsing real board games. The answer may be that they have appropriated much of the best of traditional board games. But it is also worth pointing out that the appeal of most electronic games is ephemeral. Ask a teenager if he still plays the same game he played two years ago, and the answer will inevitably be no. We can predict with confidence that twenty years from now, of the electronic games currently in fashion, it is only those versions of classic board games—chess, weiqi/go and perhaps backgammon—that will still enjoy widespread popularity.
Does the future of chess, weiqi and backgammon, then, lie solely in electronic media? We hope not. However convenient it may be to play chess or weiqi on the internet, nothing can replace the face-to-face social interaction of real games playing—and indeed the attraction of such games as spectacle. It is no coincidence that there is a trend now among jaded electronic games players to return to board games. This renewed interest undoubtedly reflects the need to compete with a real (as opposed to real-time) person. But there may be another reason for this development. The physical satisfaction of holding a well-crafted gaming piece or die, or of hearing the sonorous click of the pieces as they are placed on the board, does not exist in an electronic universe. No culture better understood the aesthetics of games than the Japanese, whose go, sugoroku, and shogi boards were not only objects of exquisite beauty, but were also designed to enhance the sound of piece struck against board. If, in addition to stimulating more research on Asian games, this exhibition prompts some of its visitors to take up chess, xiangqi, or weiqi—or even better, to work out the rules of liubo—then we will be entirely satisfied.”
Colin Mackenzie and Irving Finkel, “Preface”, Asian Games: The Art of Contest (Asia Society), p. 17
>>
Interesting !
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-06 15:41:01)
Go categories
In response to a french player who thinks that it could be harder to reach the 600 points mark (15 kyu) in the Kyu category :
Bonjour... A propos des catégories Kyu, je pense au contraire que ce sera encore l'une des catégories les plus jouées, sinon la plus jouée. L'écart de 500 points par catégorie est encore un peu grand mais devrait permettre l'accession assez rapidement à la catégorie au dessus car : 1. Les classements pris en compte à chaque résultat sont les classements en cours (non TER). 2. Le calcul fait en sorte que le classement des vainqueurs progresse assez rapidement. 3. J'enregistrerai plus de nouveaux joueurs à 17 ou 18 kyu au lieu de 20 kyu... 4. S'il y avait des catégories jusque 30 kyu, il y aurait moins de joueurs dans chacune... En bref, je pense que dans la pratique cela ira.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-16 21:52:04)
option 4 -> option 2
My choice is option 4 in a first time.. Option 2 will be ok as soon as we have players rated 2300+ enough IMO, the waiting time is too high at the moment. So I'll change the rapid chess tournaments this way as soon as the next Rapid M tourney starts.. and I'll add a higher category as soon as the waiting time for Standard (Class) M decrease.
Thanks for your suggestions :)
Robert Mueller (2007-11-18 08:52:18)
Class M Waiting List
Hello Thibault,
I noticed that in the Chess Class M (ELO 2200-2600) Waiting List there are two players with a rating of well under 2200 (2174 and 2147). I suppose, they had a rating higher that 2200 when they signed up, but dropped under 2200 before the tournament was started. Shouldn't they be removed from the waiting list now?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-18 15:21:04)
Class M Waiting List
Hello Robert, it wouldn't be conventional to remove players from waiting lists IMO. These players just lost their 2200+ rating but they probably deserve to play this tournament. Rating considered is the one you have when you enter a waiting list. Kind of "last chance" :)
Wayne Lowrance (2007-11-18 23:00:53)
Remove me please
Thibault please remove me from Rapid M waiting list #9. I give up on it and I entered standard class M # 15 and it opened up and were playing too my delight.
I do not want to be overloaded, I am sorry to ask this,. thank you
Wayne
Marc Lacrosse (2007-11-23 21:00:02)
Any strong player for Rapid class M 00 ?
... Three players are awaited for completing rapid class M tournament 009.
There are already four players enrolled (2147-2215 Elo)
I (2373) would be pleased to join if two 2300+ do come with me for completing the table.
Anyone interested ?
... We need more strong tournaments.
Marc
Garvin Gray (2007-12-15 17:28:26)
wild cards
I think a wild card would be a good idea for the higher rated tournaments if there was a rating limit to the wild card.
For instance, after a certain amount of time for entries, entry is allowed for one person rated less than 100 points below the lower rating cutoff.
This wild card player will not be outclassed and if a new player might even be quite under rated and competitive in the tournment.
The point is that after a certain time given for normal entries, I think most players already registered in the tournament would rather the tournament to start than to keep waiting around.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-16 16:31:33)
Make your chess variant :)
"Too many draws, chess is dead", one read such things quite often for a few years. True or not, what about to imagine a new variant like Chess-Vodka (one move or capture, one mouthful.. funny games :))
Ok, I can't implement Zubrowka on this server :) , but we could imagine a funny rule that would let the game rules very near classical chess but with more mad games, less drawish & giving equal chances to both players (main point being FUN)?!
Any ideas ?
William Taylor (2007-12-18 12:28:27)
Atomic
Implement atomic ches...
Ok, so it's not very similar to classical chess, but it's great fun! When there is a capture, all pieces (but not pawns) within a 1-square radius (including the capturing and captured pieces) blow up. The aim is to blow up your opponent's king. There are very few draws, but white does seem to have an advantage.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-15 20:31:55)
analyze board : update
The analyze board is online for classical chess, click the A option (available in "move_express" page only) then play your own lines :)
Julien Coll (2008-02-02 01:47:00)
can great board game classics...
...like Shôgi and Xiangqi be too many? ;) Shôgi is also a fun, exciting and very different game comparing with the two others ;-) .
I've seen only a few people playing to shôgi and xiangqi (I've tried the two games... and prefer Shôgi :) ) in kurnik (15 persons maxi)... but that was a couple of months ago :)
Bye :)
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 10:14:41)
Rating changes
1) There was never a "rule" stating that a player has carte blanche to drop as many rating points as they want and still enter a tournament for which they do not meet the rating criterion.
2) Thibault has already manually removed players from rating lists for this reason. Nobody is being "penalized" except the players who are legitimately qualified to play in that category and who must play with the lower category player. The rating average is being erroneously brought down. The player who's rating was lowered is free to enter the correct waiting list for which his rating qualifies.
3) Your "C" class rating category is hardly comparable to the "M" class category where this has been an issue, so your opinion, even if it did have a shred of merit, which I proved it doesn't, is moot anyway.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2008-05-12 20:02:28)
Rating changes
Hello to all,
I think a player should be removed from the waiting list if his rating is out of the restriction of the tournament.
In my opinion TER means the rating at the start of the tournament not at the entry into the waiting list. If the tournament starts the current rating is used as TER.
For example in FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000015
the games with Jason (!) and Sandor were rated with 2174 and 2147 and not with >= 2200 (their ratings when they entered the waiting list).
No words in the rules about this theme?
Best, Heinz-Georg
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 21:42:44)
Rating changes
Nice of you to quote the one single solitary "M" class tournament that I was a few points short of 2200, out of the 7 such tournaments that I've played in, Mr. Lehnhoff, But my point stands. I would have had no problem waiting one more rating cycle back then if the rules were such to maintain the integrity of the rating categories.
As for the provocation that's going on here....It's amazing the lengths someone will go to for petty "revenge" after you beat them in chess.
Also, there is no point in quoting a "future rating" if you're not taking into consideration your losing games, some of which may end before the next rating cycle begins, that may indeed put someone under 2200.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 12:54:06)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
My obsessive fan is quoting my game with Bucsa Ioan played last year. Actually you have it backwards Stephenson. I trusted my database, which wasn't up to date. I wasn't even consulting an engine until around move 18, when it's already lost for Black. I thought quite a bit about alternative lines in this game, but found myself agreeing with the Psakhis analysis. That line is recommended by Psakhis in his book "French Defence - Steinitz, Classical, and other Systems". Additionally, 13...0-0 has been played by the likes of GM Dreev, as well as GM Marjanovic, as recently as 2003. But alas, it pays to keep your databases up to date for correspondence chess.
The game was a valuable learning experience for me. I'm very happy that it occurred. My otb opponents will never get me in that position as a result :)
I can't help but feel sorry for you Stephenson. Firstly I'm sorry that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. Secondly, I'm sorry that you don't play otb chess and appreciate the joy of playing chess using your own mind. But then again, in your case, maybe that's a good thing. :)
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:36:18)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What a <1500 player like yourself "has always taken" is meaningless. What is objectively true and factual is what counts. As has been explained to you repeatedly, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings, not even to chess in fact. Are you beginning to understand or still confused?
Also, there is no simple (deduct x) formula to get a FIDE equivalent. Sometimes a national rating is worth more than a FIDE rating. There are various factors to consider.
There is no "magic" about a FIDE rating. You just need to play in FIDE rated events. I've beaten many FIDE rated players otb, including FMs. It's really no big deal.
I never said 2000 was some sort of "high rating", so don't start with the lies again Stephenson. But compared to a guy like you who is rated under 1500, I'm like a more evolved being. Is that why you're so frustrated to the point of stalking me as you're doing? Is it a combination of that and the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess? When are you going to get over that? When are you going to stop whining and crying?
Why don't we play fact to face otb chess, if you have lots of Euro to throw around as you're claiming. Fly to Canada and I'll play you a match for 5000 euro. First to win 6 games or something like that. I'd probably have to spot you 5/6 just to make the match somewhat competitive.
I never challenged you to bullet chess, my <1500 rated acquaintance, but that would be the only other way to play human mind vs human mind chess. I'm certainly not about to fly to the third world country you live in, just to beat some "C" class chess player in person.
Let's take a little tally here. I've already beaten you at correspondence chess, and you've made it clear you want no part of playing chess at time controls that doesn't allow you to consult your program, so I've effectively won that as well. What is left? Arm wrestling? I kinda like my chances there too!
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-19 06:49:44)
Free tournaments with prizes
Hello to all.
You may have noticed that some free tournaments now have prizes :
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS__SM : 15 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS__M : 5 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS__A : 1 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID__SM : 7 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID__M : 2 Epoints
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID__A : 1 Epoints
FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__M : 15 Epoints
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_PRO : 45 Epoints
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN : 15 Epoints
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_III : 5 Epoints
FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_KYU_II : 1 Epoints
Membership and Help sections have been updated, see :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#prize
"When a player wins a free tournament with a prize in E-Points, the current prize displayed for that tournament when the winners list is updated is added to his FICGS account. Prizes may change (most probably increase) during free events at the tournament director's discretion."
Previous chess class SM winners and a few others have received these prizes already.
It is also possible to win free Epoints by posting your affiliate link (see My account) on the web. For each new player referred by this link, 1 Epoint will be added to your account.
Thanks to all, I hope prizes can grow in the near future, also for the WCH cycles :)
Best wishes, Thibault
Benjamin Block (2008-05-19 15:06:03)
Nice!
why have the GM class 2600+ in rating? Nobody in this site have that high rating?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-19 17:05:27)
Class GM
Hi Benjamin, I can't provide a 45 Epoints prize for 2500+ free tournaments at the moment and we still need more 2400+ players to start class SM tournaments, so class GM is still like closed at the moment.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-07 17:28:51)
Hydra vs Adams
Wasn't it classical time control ? (40 moves/2 hours)
What does mean your second question ?
Don Groves (2008-06-09 06:47:09)
Brackets - both Chess and Go
In response to Garvin Gray's first response in this thread: There is a way around the problem of being stuck at a certain rating because you never get to play against higher rated players (which is necessary to move up) -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating. This is done on at least one site already (IECG, if I recall correctly). If the player in question does not improve his/her rating enough to stay at the higher level, he/she drops back into the lower classification. Thibault would have to agree to allow this of course. I think it's a good way to reward the winner of a tournament.
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 08:12:28)
Brackets - both Chess and Go
" -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating."
This idea seems interesting, on the surface, but on closer inspection it's not feasible. The FICGS tournament categories are dependent on certain rating averages that determine the level of points required in order to achieve norms for various FICGS titles, starting at class "M" and higher. Throwing in lower rated players would dilute the rating average of the entire tournament. It's also unfair to the rest of the players in that tournament who are legitimately qualified to be there. They are forced to play a lower rated opponent artificially and now THEY are at a big disadvantage in their attempt to gain the points required to get to the next level.
Additionally, I don't think groves thought about this long enough to realize that there is no guarantee that each "A" level tournament will end precisely as each "M" level tournament does. What if two "A" level events are completed in the time it takes for one "M" level event to finish, which isn't an unreasonable possibility as the "M" level players generally take the game more seriously and tend to use their time more? Should we then throw in TWO players into an "M" level event that don't deserve to be there? At any rate, it's a poor idea. If someone is winning tournaments, they're definitely gaining rating points and will qualify legitimately for the next rating level soon enough.
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.
Don Groves (2008-06-10 02:09:17)
Brackets...
(1) "Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word 'reason', groves."
Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you...
(2) "Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling."
I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology...
(3) "There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments."
This is true and there is a simple fix -- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification...
(4) "I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you."
Poor boy! I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself. I get the feeling though you don't really mind as you seem to love the sound of your own voice so much.
Thibault has decided this anyway and I abide by his decision. Your precious class M tournaments are safe from pollution by losers who are not yet up to your lofty standards.
You can have the last word now -- you always do anyway.
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 04:52:22)
Senility is a terrible thing
"Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you"
Sorry groves, but I was simply stating facts. It's difficult to find anything to say about you that you won't construe as an "insult". Everything that has spewed out of your keyboard thus far is evidence of your complete lack of reasoning ability, and very modest IQ.
"I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology"
You "think" a lot of nonsense that isn't true, groves. This is nothing new.
"-- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification"
I realize that with your condition you can scarcely recall your own words from moments ago, but it was YOUR idea that the player in question be seeded into the higher rating classification event REGARDLESS of their rating. So now the little light bulb went on in that melon head of yours and you now realize what I was telling you earlier....about there being no guarantee that the tournament winner is rated near the top of his classification? If you're going to change what you proposed earlier, and only allow players who are within 25 elo of the higher classification, what's the point of it? You might as well let him get the remaining 25 elo on his own and enter the higher classification event normally.
I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself.
You're doing an awful lot of apologizing, groves. Your very existence seems to be one big apology. I'm sure quite a few people in your life have to repeat themselves, ad nauseum, for your benefit.
"You can have the last word now"
The last word should have been my previous post. As usual, you've contributed nothing of value here. Just more pathetic whining and blabbering, as per usual.
Garvin Gray (2008-07-04 16:49:20)
norms?
Are norms available from Class M tournaments?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-04 22:54:33)
norms in Class M
It all depends on the rating average.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-13 16:42:36)
rating categories
Most probably true, however it helps some tournaments (class E, F, G) to start faster. I might change this later though.
Normajean Yates (2008-07-18 00:41:49)
how did member's name change?
in the FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_B__000049 tourney, Paulo Cerini after resigning against me (he put a Q en prise - no credit to me), became Frank Gavin in all his games. [now there is no member called Paulo Cerini] How?
by rule 11.2 last paragraph? Kafka, Calvino, Bunuel, or 1984/testify[RATM] (who controls the present controls the past)? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-18 17:51:09)
Rapid tournaments
Hello Olivier,
WCH and rapid tournaments time control is 30 days + 1 day / move.
BTW 1 move a week may be too slow for classical time control 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves in some cases :/
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-28 18:18:20)
8 games matches
"But as i have to win at least one game I feel this is easier to achieve with white ..."
Theorically (only ?). Anyway I made this choice during my match because I had about 80 running games at that time (quite inhuman :)) so I managed my rating :/
You know that this time control 30 days + 1 day / move is quite different from classical 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves, the pressure in the 8 games may be important, also the psychological factor [playing White feels more (sometimes too much) secure ie(?): Xavier won his 2 games with Black in the first Candidates final] and I'm convinced that every game counts these ways. The tie break rule (highest rating is qualified in case of eight draws) did not apply so often by the way.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-16 12:29:32)
Questions to Xavier Pichelin
Xavier Pichelin is 1st FICGS chess champion after beating IM Gino Figlio in the first candidates final, he accepted to talk about his match, the tournament, his views around correspondence chess, chess engines and so on... The most important part may be he'll defend his title against the winner of the 2nd candidates final :)
Unfortunately, the complete interview is in french only as he doesn't speak english, but if someone finds a good translator (if possible better than Babelfish), he may post it in this thread. Thanks !
- Bonjour Xavier et tout d'abord félicitations pour ta victoire dans le match
qui t'opposait au MI (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Pérou] dans la finale des candidats. Tu
devais éviter à tout prix la nulle dans toutes les parties, finalement les noirs
t'ont porté chance, comment expliques-tu ce résultat ?
Xavier : Bonjour, merci pour les félicitations.
C'est vrai qu'en cas de nulles pour toutes les parties, le règlement indique Figlio Vainqueur en cas d'égalité avec victoire(s) et défaite(s) je remporte le match. Donc il fallait que je prenne des risques en attaquant et c'est avec les noirs que je l'ai fait car je pensais que Gino, dans ces parties, attendrait sans prendre de risques pour assurer les nulles.
- Peux-tu nous décrire la manière dont tu as abordé ce match contre Gino et
son déroulement au fur et à mesure des différentes phases du jeu ?
X : C'est assez simple, dans ce match je n'étais pas du tout favori car
avec plus de 200 points ELO FICGS en ma défaveur, et Gino titré Maître
International avec plus de 2480 point ELO ICCF, je pensais que je n'allais pas
résister sur 8 parties simultanées car sur une partie tout est possible mais
sur 8 parties... c'était pour moi un grand défi !
Pour le déroulement du jeu j'ai joué la diversité sur mes débuts avec les blancs
4 parties 4 coups différents : 1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 1.Cf3.
Gino a fait de même : 1.e4 1.d4 1.Cf3 1.Cc3.
Ce qui m'a fait douter aussi car 1.Cc3 m'a surpris, je pensais qu'il avait prévu
un début tonitruand et c'est là que je me suis dit qu'il fallait que je prenne
des risques avec les noirs. Au fur et à mesure des différentes phases du jeu
j'ai assuré les nulles des positions équilibrées pour me concacrer a deux
parties avantageuses dont une avec les blancs et une avec les noirs pour au
moins faire la différence dans une partie pour assurer la victoire.
Et en fin de compte c'est 3 victoires qui me reviennent, ce qui me paraissait
impossible étant donnée la qualité du jeu de Gino joué sur ce site pour arriver
à la finale des candidats du championnat.
- Tu as réalisé pendant le championnat un parcours sans faute, aucune
défaite à signaler, tu affiches également des statistiques stratosphériques à
78% contre une moyenne elo à près de 2200, quel est ton secret ?
X : Mon secret? Je n'ai pas de secret. Si j'avais un secret je ne le
dévoilerais pas sinon je ne gagnerais plus ! Je pense que j'ai eu un petit peu
de chance car il s'en est fallu de peu que je ne sois pas qualifié au stage 3
(robin-round final) car il y avait 3 joueurs à égalité et j'ai eu l'avantage du
classement du départ de ce tournoi comme l'indique le règlement. Quant à mes
statistiques, c'est aussi grâce aux erreurs de mes adversaires qui m'ont permis
de gagner des parties équilibrées.
- Que penses-tu du système mi-ko, mi-toutes-rondes du championnat FICGS et
de ses départages inédits lors des matchs en 8 parties ? Quelles modifications y
apporterais-tu ?
X : Très bonne question !
Le système mi-ko pour moi est un peu trop rapide car un coup par jour c'est des
heures d'analyses pour exploiter une position compliquée, ce qui est difficile
quand on à plusieurs parties en cours. Surtout quand on travaille.
C'est peut-être aussi grâce à cette cadence que mes adversaires, faute de temps,
ont fait des imprécisions sur certaines postions ou exploité mes erreurs.
Mais cette cadence a un avantage par rapport aux cadences ICCF qui est de 5
jours par coup, c'est que les parties durent 5 fois moins longtemps !
Le départage inédit des matchs en 8 parties est excellent, obliger le favori à
assurer tous les matchs nulles pour gagner ce duel et sinon
d'obtenir une victoire supplémentaire contre le challenger est un mode très bien
pensé. La modification que je pourrais y apporter est peut-être la gestion du
temps qui est rapide pour un système de jeu par serveur.
Peut-être augmenter l'horloge de départ de 15 jours, soit de commencer avec 45
jours contre 30 en ce moment. Et aussi la possibilité des prendre des vacances
uniquement sur le tournoi en cours afin de gérer les autres parties du site.
Par exemple prendre 7 jours de vacances sur un tournoi d'échecs du championnat
et pouvoir jouer un tournoi de Big Chess, de Go ou un autre tournoi
d'échecs pendant ces vacances. Pouvoir choisir une date de début de vacances à
l'avance serait également appréciable.
- Pourquoi t'être investi dans les échecs par correspondance ?
T'apportent-ils d'autres satisfactions par rapport aux échecs classiques et au
blitz ?
X : Je préfère les échecs par correspondance par rapport au temps.
Car les échecs classiques se jouent souvent le week-end, à une heure précise et
souvent en déplacement pour effectuer un tournoi.
L'avantage, pour moi, des échecs par correspondance est que je puisse me
connecter à n'importe quelle heure pour jouer mes coups, ce qui me
permet, par exemple, de faire des repas de famille le week-end et le soir tard
de jouer un coup, ce qui n'est pas possible aux échecs classiques.
- Tu as su ne pas céder à la tentation et te limiter à jouer un nombre très
raisonnable de parties sur le site tout le long du championnat, penses-tu
néanmoins que les échecs par correspondance soient addictifs et à quel point ?
Ont-ils des répercussions sur ta vie de tous les jours ?
X : Oui ! Limiter mon nombre de parties en cours est pour moi essentiel pour
essayer d'avoir des parties de qualité plutôt que de quantité.
Avoir beaucoup de parties en simultanée est quand même une chose très difficile
à gérer !
C'est peut-être la clé de ma victoire contre Figlio, j'ai regardé ses parties en
cours, il en avait pas loin de 90 sur le site de l'ICCF, cela a pu se ressentir
sur son temps d'analyse consacré à nos 8 parties sur FICGS.
Sur la vie de tous les jours les répercussions sont familiales car il est vrai
que je passe plus de temps à analyser les parties et moins temps avec ma
famille, ce qui est assez difficile pour moi.
Mais quand les résultats sont là je ne regrette pas !
- Que penses-tu de la place actuelle des moteurs d'analyse (Rybka, Shredder, Fritz et autres) dans les échecs par correspondance ? Quelles sont pour toi les
qualités complémentaires essentielles du joueur par correspondance, devenu
centaure avec la machine pour jambes ?
X : Les moteurs d'analyses dans les échecs par correspondances sont utilisés par
95% des joueurs...
Maintenant il faut s'adapter et savoir utiliser ces machines à calculer.
Car jouer simplement le meilleur coup de Rybka 3, de Fritz 12 ou Hiarcs 12 sans
réfléchir mentalement mène à la nulle si l'adversaire fait de même ou
possiblement à perdre si l'adversaire se donne la peine de réfléchir en les
utilisant également.
En sachant que lorsqu'on est dans le milieu de partie ces logiciels vous donnent
souvent 4 à 5 coups evalués de manière semblable, et c'est là qu'il faut choisir
le bon coup alors que celui-ci n'est même pas forcément cité par le moteur
d'analyse...
- Tu joues désormais au Big Chess sur le site, curiosité ou intérêt ? Que
penses-tu de cette version étrange des échecs ?
X : Par curiosité et par amusement et je pense que Rybka 3 ne joue pas encore au
Big Chess !
Cette version est quasiment inédite je ne connaissais pas cette forme de jeu
d'échecs auparavant donc celui qui a inventé ce jeu a très bien fait !
A propos c'est moi qui vous pose une question sur le Big chess... Y a t-il
possiblité de roquer avec ce jeu si oui comment? (NDLR : Non, il est impossible
de roquer au Big Chess)
- Et enfin la question que tout le monde se pose, particulièrement François et
Wolfgang qui disputent la deuxième finale des candidats, penses-tu pouvoir
défendre ton titre l'an prochain ? :)
X : Bien sûr ! Je défendrai le titre ! J'aimerais si possible savoir la date et
la cadence du match. Et je souhaite à François et Wolfgang une belle finale !
Je dois faire honneur à cette compétition qui est bien organisée !
- Le match devrait pouvoir débuter durant la première semaine de janvier 2009, la cadence sera à nouveau de 30 jours et 1 jour supplémentaire par coup.
Merci pour tes réponses, et encore bravo pour cette belle performance !
X : Merci ! Et à bientôt ! Bonne continuation à tous et bonnes parties !
Benjamin Block (2008-08-18 08:52:18)
Try to translate!
I think it is something like that?
Hello Xavier and first congratulations on your victory in the match which t'opposait the MI (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru] in the final candidates. You should avoid at all costs void in all parties, finally brought blacks t'ont chance, how do you explain this result?
X
avier: Hello, thank you for the congratulations. It is true that in case of zero for all parties, the regulation states Figlio winner in the event of a tie with victory (s) and defeat (s) I won the match. So I had to take risks in attacking and it is with blacks that I did it because I thought Gino, in these parts, expected without taking risks to ensure the void.
-- Can you tell us about how you approached this match against Gino and his conduct as different phases of the game?
X: It's pretty simple, in this match I was not at all favorite because with more than 200 ELO points FICGS to my disadvantage, and Gino titled Master International, with more than 2480 ELO ICCF point, I thought I n ' not resist going on 8 simultaneous games as a part everything is possible but on 8 parts ... it was for me a great challenge! In the course of the game I played diversity in my beginnings with white 4 parts 4 different strokes: 1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 1.Cf3. Gino did the same: 1.e4 1.d4 1.Cf3 1.Cc3. What made me doubt also because 1.Cc3 surprised me, I thought he had planned an early tonitruand and this is where I said that I should take risks with blacks. As the different phases of the game I assured the zero positions balanced for me concacrer deal has two parts, one with blanks and one with the black for at least make a difference in part to ensure victory. And ultimately it 3 victories me back, which seemed impossible given the quality of the game Gino played on this site to reach the final of the championship candidates.
-- You have made during a championship course without fault, no losses to report, you also posters statistics stratospheric to 78% against an average elo to about 2200, what's your secret?
X: My secret? I have no secret. If I had a secret I do not dévoilerais if I do win more! I think I got a little lucky because he is required by little I am not qualified to stage 3 (round-robin final) because there were 3 players equally and I had l 'advantage classifying the departure of this tournament as indicated by the regulation. As for my statistics, it is also thanks to the errors of my opponents who allowed me to win parts in balance.
-- What do you think the system mid-ko, semi-all-round championship FICGS and its new départages in matches in 8 parties? What changes would it be?
X: Very good question! The system mid-ko for me is a little too fast since a coup by day is overtime analyses to operate a complicated position, which is difficult when several parties in progress. Especially when you work. It is perhaps also through this pace that my opponents lack of time, made some uncertainty regarding postions or exploited my mistakes. But the pace has an advantage over the cadences ICCF which is 5 days a coup is that the parties had to 5 times less time! The départage new games to 8 parts is excellent, forcing the favorite to ensure all matches to nil win this duel and otherwise obtain an additional victory against the challenger is a very well thought out. The amendment that I could make is perhaps time management which is fast for a game system per server. Perhaps increase the clock starting 15 days, starting with 45 against 30 days at this time. And also the possibility of taking a vacation only on the tournament underway to manage other parts of the site. For example, take 7 days vacation on a chess tournament championship and be able to play a tournament Big Chess, Go or another chess tournament during the holidays. Being able to choose a start date of holidays in advance would also be appreciated.
-- Why t'être invested in correspondence chess? T'apportent there are other rewards compared to traditional chess and blitz?
X: I prefer chess match over time. For the classical chess is often play the weekend at a specific time and often on the move to make a tournament. The advantage for me, correspondence chess is that I can connect at any time to play my shots, which allows me, for example, making family meals on weekends and late at night to play a coup, which is not possible chess classics.
-- You knew not to succumb to the temptation and you only play a very reasonable number of parties on the site throughout the championship, do you think nevertheless that the correspondence chess are addictive and at what point? Did they affect your everyday life?
X: Yes! Limiting my number of games in progress is essential for me to try to have parts of quality rather than quantity. Have a lot of parts simultaneously is still something very difficult to manage! This is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio, I watched its games in progress, it had nearly 90 on the site of the ICCF, it has been felt on his time devoted to analysis our parties on FICGS 8. On the everyday life impacts are family because it is true that I spend more time to analyze the parts and less time with my family, which is quite difficult for me. But when the results are there I do not regret!
-- What do you think about the current position of engines for analysis (Rybka, Shredder, Fritz and others) in correspondence chess? What are the qualities you complementary core player by correspondence, now centaur with the machine for legs?
X: The engines of analyses in chess matches are used by 95% of players ... Now we must adapt and learn to use these machines to calculate. Car simply play the best shot of Rybka 3, Fritz 12 or Hiarcs 12 mentally without thinking leads to zero if the opponent does the same or possibly lose if the opponent gives himself the trouble to consider using them as well. Knowing that when you're in the middle part of these programs give you often 4 to 5 strokes assessed similarly, and that is that we must choose the right time when it is not even necessarily cited by the analysis engine ...
-- You get the Big Chess now on the site, curiosity or interest? What do you think of this strange version of chess?
X: For curiosity and fun and I think Rybka 3 is not yet the Big Chess! This version is almost unprecedented I did not know this form of chess before therefore the one who invented this game was very well done! About I'm the one who asks you a question on the Big chess ... Is there possibility of castle with this game if so, how? (Editor's note: No, it is impossible to castle the Big Chess)
-- And finally the question that everyone arises, especially Francis and Wolfgang disputing that the second final candidates, think you can defend your title next year? :)
X: of course! I will defend the title! I would like if possible to know the timing and pace of the match. And I wish Francis and Wolfgang a beautiful final! I must honor in this competition which is well organized!
-- The match should be able to start during the first week of January 2009, the pace will again 30 days and 1 additional day by coup. Thank you for your answers, and even congratulations for this excellent performance!
X: Thank you! And see you! Bonne continuation to all and good parties!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-18 16:06:16)
translation
I will have a go off the top of my head at giving a sense of the interview in english (I dont know the phrase tonitruand but I am guessing it means dynamic!)?:
Hi Xavier and first of all congratulations on your success in the candidates final match against IM (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru]
You had to avoid drawing all the games and finally you succeded with the black pieces. How did that happen?
Xavier: Hi thank you. Its true that if all the games had been drawn then under the rules Figlio would have won whereas if the match was drawn but with a win and loss I would win. Because of this I had to take risks and attack. It was with Black that I did this because I thought that Gino would play safely to be sure of a draw.
- Tell us how you approched the match and how the different phases of the game went
x: Its quite simple, I was not the favorite I have 200 ELO less on FICGS and Gino is an IM on ICCF with a 2480 rating. I did not think I could survive 8 games at once - in a single game anything is possible but 8 games .... it was a big challenge for me! In the openings I chose 4 different moves 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3 Gino chose 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nc3 I was surpised by 1 Nc3 because I was expecting dynamic openings and it was then that I decided I must take some risks with black. I kept most of the games balanced with a draw in hand and concentrated on 2 games 1 white and 1 black to get a result. In the end I got 3 wins which seemed an impossibility given the quality of the games Gino had played on this site to reach the final.
- you have not lost any games in the championship and you have fantastic statistics 78% against an average elo of about 2200. What is your secret?
x: My secret? I havent any secret and if I did I would not say because I would not win anymore! I think I have been a bit lucky because in the the Round Robin final there were 3 of us on the same score and I went through under the rules because of my rating. As for my statistics I was helped by mistakes by opponents who allowed me to win some drawn games.
- What do you think of the system for the FICGS championship (round robin and knock out matches)and what changes would you make?
x: Very good question. The matches are a bit too fast for me - 1 day per move when there are hours of analysis needed to exploit a complicated position its difficult when you have several games running Particularly if you are working. Perhaps that is why my opponents have made errors or failed to exploit my mistakes.
But this time limit has an advantage over ICCF where it is 5 days per move the games here are 5 times quicker! Having 8 game matches is an excellent idea and obliging the favorite to draw all the games and the challenger to get a at least 1 victory is very well thought out. The change that I would suggest is to have 15 days extra starting time that is 45 days at the start instead of 30 and also the possibilty to take holidays for tournaments for example take 7 days for championship games and to be able to play big chess go or another chess tournament during the holiday. To be able to choose the start of a holiday in advance would also be good.
- Why do you like cc and how does it compare to blitz and normal chess?
x: I prefer cc because of the time factor. Classical chess is often played at the week end at a fixed time and you have to travel to the tournament. The advantage for me at cc is that I can connect at any time to play a move which allows me for example to have meals with the family at the weekend. Late night moves for example are not possible at classical chess.
- You limited the number of your games on the site to a reasonable amount throughout the championship. Do you think nonetheless that cc is addictive? Does it affect your daily life?
x: Yes! Limiting the number of my games is essential to try to have games of quality not quantity. Having a lot of games going at the same time is something very difficult to handle. It is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio - I looked at his games - he had not less than 80 games going on at ICCF this must have affected the amount of time he could spend analysing his 8 games at FICGS. The effects on daily life are felt by the family because the reality is if I spend more time analysing the games I spend less time with the family. Thats difficult for me. But when the results come I dont regret it!
- What do you think of the role of chess engines (Rybka Fritz etc)in cc. What are for you the important skills of a cc player - to supplement the machine?
x: Chess engines are used in cc by 95% of players. You have to adapt yourself and know how to use the engines. To play just the best move of Rybka 3 Fritz 12 or Hiracs 12 without thinking leads to a draw if your opponent does the same or to a loss if your opponent is thinking. You have to choose bewteen 4 or 5 moves with a similer evaluation from the engine during a game and sometimes the best move is not among these.
- You play Big chess. Interest or curiosity? What do you think of this strange version of chess?
X : Curiosity and amusement and I think Rrybka 3 cannot yet play Big Chess! This version is new and I did not know it and the inventor has done a good job! By the way I would like to ask is it possible to castle at Big Chess?
[No its not possible]
- Finally the question that everyone is asking particularly Francois and Wolfgang who are contesting the 2nd candidates final. Do think you will be able to defend your title next year? :)
x: Definitely I will defend the title I would like to know if possible the date and time limits for the match. I wish Francois and Wolfgang a great match! I would also like to express my appreciation for this tournament which has been well organised!
- the match should start in the first week in January next year the time limit will be 30 days plus 1 day per move. Thank you for your answers and once again congratulations on a great performance.
x: Thank you. Cheers. Best wishes to everyone and good games!
William Taylor (2008-09-18 13:25:56)
Big Chess Championship
I know there was a discussion some time ago about a big chess championship here on FICGS. Now the first 'M' class big chess tournament has started and I think big chess has enough regular players to try a championship. What do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-22 17:07:19)
Big Chess ratings
They are because "provisional big chess ratings" are correspondence (classical) chess ratings minus 300 points. I estimated this was a good idea because Big Chess was quite different but I'm not sure anymore... What do you think ?
William Taylor (2008-09-22 18:36:07)
An idea
We could perhaps use the 'M' class tournament that has just started to decide the first Big Chess champion. Thereafter a challenger could be decided by a similar high-rated tournament, or else by an open tournament or series of tournaments if it's thought that the rating system isn't reliable enough.
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.
Normajean Yates (2008-11-07 20:38:47)
coorection.. I meant type 1.e4 c5 -
of course. Please read what I mean, not what I type :) [adapted from a classroom response attributed to Richard Feynman]
Don Groves (2008-12-15 01:57:22)
A suggestion
Bonjour, Thibault
There are many players here who like to play several moves per week and there are others who sometimes play less than one move per week until forced to move faster by their clock. There are even a few who don't move at all (or rarely) until their clock is red.
Would it be too much work to make another tournament classification? The time control would be 7 days plus 7 days more for each 3 moves, up to a maximum of 7 days. In other words, each player must make a minimum of 3 moves per week.
Those players who can't, or won't, move that often can play in the standard tournaments. Those of us who like to move more often can play in the faster tournaments. Everyone is happy ;-)
Scott Nichols (2008-12-15 02:07:23)
Agree to this.
There should be a class for faster players. Too many players use a vacation to delay the inevitable defeat. They should know--"There is no dishonor in resigning", the dishonor lies with the person who just cannot admit defeat.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-08 21:17:38)
Paragraphs
See at the top of the page : "please use <br > html tag to begin a new line"
About the tournament tables, did you try to click the magnifying glass near the name of the tournament ? ie :
http://www.ficgs.com/crosstable_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000001.html
About the tournament page & diagrams, that's a nice suggestion, I may change this quickly.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-11 11:58:44)
Unrated class tournaments ?
Now I just wonder if there should be unrated class tournaments, maybe less categories (maybe 2000+ and 2000- would be ok) but it may be more interesting for strong players... I'm not sure, what do you think ?!
Scott Nichols (2009-03-18 10:28:13)
Ratings floor.
Hi Thibault. One thing I would like to see implemented is a ratings floor here. By this I mean a player can never drop below one class below his/her ratings peak. e.g., a player with a 1951 rating can never drop below 1600, a 2001 player can never drop below 1800.
In the U.S. (and maybe worldwide, not sure) we have this system to keep strong players from sandbagging and artificially let their rating drop so they can play in the lower sections of big money tournaments.
On FICGS I don't think that is a big problem. The problem here is that Corr. chess takes long term dedication and some players tend to drop out for whatever reason and resign all their games or just quit and let their time run out. This also drops their ratings artificially low levels.
Then, as it seems to always happen, Caissa's power sweeps over them and they get back in. Or, they just bought a new super computer and want to show it off. Anyway, when they do get back in....you have an expert player coming in with a very low rating. This to me is unfair to the other players who try very hard on their ratings. e.g., In the current world Ch. cycle I am playing a very strong player who is over 800 points below my rating.
I would appreciate any other opinions on this subject. Thank you.
Wayne Lowrance (2009-03-24 16:51:19)
another suggestion
My thinking is not favourable for slower time controls. There are already tournament classes that are very thin and increasing the number of tournament options only delutes the base of tournaments.
By the way, Tribault if you want to increase participation, open up some faster tournament bases. Not like blitz or such, but faster. I think that would be a better improvement than slowing down. Holy cow some of my games have gone on close to a year, or seems that way anyhow. I am content with the classes/timers as they are.
By the way, hardy congratulations on auto rersign on mate . :) (about time hehehehe) kidding of course.
Wayne
Denis Ivanchenkov (2009-03-29 14:14:21)
Wayne Lowrance
>By the way, Thibault if you want to increase participation, open up some faster tournament bases.
imho 1 day/move, 2 day/move or 3 day/move - these time conntrols more demanding for players.
and I'd like to suggest one more idea - so call ladder tournaments (well, this may be too complicated to develop corresponding soft - but this is just a suggestion). so the essence of such tournament is that we have "ladder" classes H (lowest), G, F, ... and A - the highest one. In the beginning all players belong to H class. And there are open 5/7/9-player tournaments starting in each class - they are just waiting until filled and then open again. each tournament is all-play-all 1 game with fast (1 d/m 2d/m 3d/m) control. When tournament is finnished the winner (or several winners in case of a tier) is promoted one class up. Similarly, the player (players) occupying the last position is demoted one class down (except for H classers). So winning the tournaments is actually a "climbing" the ladder.
this scheme was used in igame.ru and was pretty popular among players.
i suggested this scheme to chess-online.ru - unfortunately they were pretty hesitant as to realization (maybe due to soft development complexity?)
Normajean Yates (2009-05-11 02:07:31)
thoughts on Big Chess... and tips...
I find bigchess more and more fascinating.. I Think it is a wonderful creation of Thibault's (I presume it is Thib. who created it: any way he offers it seriously on this site...) - the starting position is very well-concieved..
I think Bigchess needs more publicity. This is about the only place one can play it - and here there are 2-3 top-class players; less than 20 middle-standard players (including me); others try it once or twice and for some reason get scared or overwhelmed and give up - I see no reason why..
Bigchess gives no advantage on account of huge memorisation of theory, or of better engines: there are *no* theory books; and there are no known engines in existence (probably there isnt one - too little demand, and writing a *good* engine is somewhat laborious, coming up with a *good* static-eval function is tricky, fast board-implementation issues...), so it is all wits...
In fact last week I spend part of two days writing down whatever theory I could discover [with help from top games], it comes to half a page..
Tips for people who want to try bigchess:
1. Bishops are much more powerful than Knights. (because of much longer range compared to 8x8 chess).
The consensus on the values of bigchess pieces is David Grosdemange's valuation:
pawn=1
knight=2.5 (written 2,5 in the continent, of course)
bishop=4
rook=6
queen=11
2. In the opening position, the c,f,L and o-pawns are unprotected.
So, if white's opening move is with the j2-Knight ( freeing the queen), then on move 2 white can move the Queen and threaten to pick up a pawn by forks.. Similarly for black.
*However*, such pawn gambits are quite playable because the Queen can be forced to make many moves to capture a pawn, while the gambitting side develops their pieces.
3. Most Important For Many People: board for offline analysis.
Best of course, is to take time to draw a 16x16 board on paper and stick it on cardboard. And get hold of four sets of chess pieces.
Another way: print a position, and after a move is made - just update the position using correction fluid (typewriter/printer-ink erasing fluid) or something. That way you don't have to keep printng a lot of positions.
Normajean Yates (2009-05-22 01:53:05)
re William Taylor: one of those things..
One of those cases where it is *not* easiest to explain the easiest/most elegant way [unless one is physically present..]
This is IMO also one of the reasons why - given decently competent teachers - online/distance-education is no substitute for attending classes the old-fashioned way... attending a few classes anyway ;)
[Back to concentrating on what I was doing ie listening to old
Barbra-Streisand-songs on this machine.. :)]
Normajean Yates (2009-05-23 03:07:04)
Parmet: !! Greek mythology&Classics!
they have everything! [well *almost* ;)]
Normajean Yates (2009-05-26 12:31:32)
Thib. - best wishes for site in these ..
.. recession times.Improvements, to-do lists etc. can wait if necessary.
I fell in love with the site at first sight - such a classy approach - not like some of the garish american sites.
So I hope that in these times of recession, there is no serious cash flow problems you are facing... I am sure all of us want this site to live long!
Again I say; improvements, to-do lists etc. can wait if necessary: please concentrate on cash flow [if there is a serious problem there] -- that is the practical thing to do. This site is excellent as it is now!
Again, best wishes to Thibault the person, and may ficgs live long!
Hristos Banikas (2009-06-01 18:04:10)
All
I would like to withdraw from all the waiting lists with my name temporarily. That is to say both class GM and SM.
Regards
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-22 16:41:00)
Discussion at Rybkachess
That's an interesting discussion... Once more, the confusion reigns between Freestyle chess (commonly played at classical & blitz time controls) and Correspondence Chess, particularly for centaur players who did not experience correspondence chess at a 2500+ level.
IMO (in brief) on several points :
1) All these made-for-engines books have no other interest than to "manipulate" chess engines & other made-for-engines books, actually this has almost nothing to do with correspondence chess (where they are completely useless at a high level, let's say 2300+) or even chess.
2) Many players do not realize the multitude of factors that appear to be more important that the basic strength of centaurs once the correspondence chess 2400 mark is reached and that still increases at 2500 and 2600... The higher the level, the more "opening books" depend on the recent games played by the opponent (and his level), the number of current games played, the score to reach in 8 games matches, the importance of rating, the goal in life, even the month/season for a few players and many other things according to the persons... Actually these "openings books" just live the time to use it one time, so a better term is preparation, actually opening books do not exist anymore in correspondence chess at a very high level, at most it may be useful against weaker players.
3) The previous point is enough to explain the rating changes of most 2400+ players ! In example...
- GM Farit Balabaev is a very experienced player who constantly has(had) more than 100 running correspondence chess games at several places for years, he's also a fast player, it is quite logical to me that he looks for quiet games and fast draws (or lose sometimes to very strong players who want to win more)
- Wolfgang Utesch, FICGS WCH finalist, like many players at one time in their life, decided that other things were more important and that correspondence chess was too time consuming, particularly once the 2500 mark has been reached...
- Eros Riccio obviously decided to win every correspondence chess competition at FICGS while playing a high number of games at several places AFTER having topped the FICGS rating list with the highest rating so far (which he did), so it is natural to look for a few quick draws in matches if 8 draws mean a victory for him (and a few rating points lost, that is quite inhuman anyway :))
- Michael Aigner tops most FICGS rating lists by playing only games at 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control, which is an enormous performance as obviously the longer the time control, the higher the rate of draws. I do not know how many current games he's playing at ICCF or IECG and other organisations but I suspect he plays a quite reasonable number of games.
- Xavier Pichelin may top the FICGS rating list this year as he's an incredibly dangerous player with White and Black and with a reasonable number of running games.
Many strong players also choose to play some tournaments for "fun" or to experiment openings and may lose some points while their real strength is over 2500 or more... so it is quite hard to make the difference between the real strength and correspondence chess ratings. So many parameters... It is likely that we'll see one day a 12 games match between Eros and Xavier (Michael do not play fast correspondence chess time control, yet I hope), we all wonder what rating could achieve Vasik Rajlich (Rybka's creator) and other very strong freestyle players but it is very hard to predict only by knowing their results in freestyle tournaments. Correspondence chess is a mirror of real life.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-23 17:11:00)
waiting lists 2400+
Hello Arno,
5 months for the next class SM tournament is quite long indeed. I may ask to all players in the waiting lists but in my experience I doubt that everyone will agree and it would be not fair that I take such a decision without asking.
Summer is not the most active season for chess but most players register for new tournaments just after the new rating list is published (next week, july 1st) so let's see... moreover the next WCH cycle will not start before november so I hope that a few players will register for this tournament.
To be continued.
Nick Burrows (2009-07-04 07:55:18)
Minimum rating idea
A common problem encountered in correspondance chess is that of strong players forefitting several games and their rating dropping by hundreds of points
This spoils the tourny for lower rated players who often have a 2200 rated player in their group with a misleading rating of 1600.
It also de-stabilises the ratings across the whole site as many players grades are false.
Lastly, and of least concern because players who made the drop deserve some handicap - the artificially low-graded player has a whole year of uncompetitive matches as he waits to regain points.
In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level.
The equivalent here would be that your rating has a minimum value, equal to the highest rating requirement of a tournament class you have previously won.
This seems to solve the problems experienced by many on this site.
It may be said that the rating drop is a necessary deterrent to prevent players from doing this. My experience is that it occurs from factors out of one's control (illness) and any deterrant is irrelevant - just as a death penalty doesn't stop heroin addicts from stealing!
What d'yall think?
Scott Nichols (2009-07-05 15:49:11)
Good idea!
I brought this up one other time Nick. Thib wanted more discussion on it. Maybe a players rating could be "provisional" until he has played 20 games and then it could become "established" rating. I think a player should never drop more than one class below his/her highest established rating. If the classes are 1600-1799, 1800-1999 etc. Then a player who reached for example 1983 could never drop below 1600. Or, if a player reached 2001, he/she could never drop below 1800.
Nick Burrows (2009-07-05 16:12:04)
rating drop
I suppose that is the best way to do it. Even a drop from 1993 > 1600 seems a little too big to me. I think this one whole class drop should be the absolute maximum drop allowed.
Nick Burrows (2009-07-05 16:16:49)
Recent groups
It actually seems the norm rather than the exception that the lower groups are 'stacked' with at least 1 or 2 ex-2000+ rated players with low ratings
In my first Class C group after my rating drop there were 4 of us battling it out!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-07-05 23:14:20)
Interesting idea
"In o.t.b tournaments in England, a method employed to stop rating cheats is that a player who has won a certain class of tournament previously, cannot re-enter at that level."
I quite like the idea in this way. Maybe it can be improved even without complicating the rules too much. Anyway if someone wants to make trouble in some tournaments (it did happen), there's no perfect way to prevent him and it is better in class B or A (2000+) than in class 2400+ IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-07-10 18:30:31)
combining
Well, we are 5 players in the waiting list right now, summer is obviously the less active season but I think we should wait for 2 more players anyway. Players in the GM waiting list are free to join the class SM anyway.
About the WCH, the waiting lists should be open in august.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-01 22:28:54)
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave wins Biel 2009
Finally, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave emerged from the 2600 GM field to convincingly win the top tournament of Biel, a category 19 double round robin tournament, ahead of super GMs like Vassily Ivanchuk, Alexander Morozevich or Boris Gelfand. At eighteen and with a FIDE rating of 2703 he may be the next french good surprise in the top class players and bring some fresh blood in such tournaments. Does anyone have an opinion on his style of play or something ? :)
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-11 20:08:24)
Quotes!
The following 11 quotes are all by me:
1- "Experiences are the keys to life."
2- "Happy endings are just stories that haven't finished yet."
3- "If you expect nothing then the following will happen: either 1) you will receive nothing and thus can be happy your expectations were met or 2) You will receive something and thus be happy you have received something. And.... Happiness ensues..."
4- "Step up and face your fear or you will never be what you should be."
5- "A mistake is only a mistake if you let it happen twice. Otherwise it is a learning experience. your experience."
6- "Life is painting a picture over many years with different paints and tools."
7- ""Horney concluded that love was at least a temporary escape from all her anxiety and insecurity" - Karen Horney
Does anyone else think that someoe named 'Horney' shouldn't be talking about love?"
8- "Take each event in a singularity and say if time passes will any of this matter?"
9- "Plans are ideas that never come to fruition."
10- "You should only get upset about the little things cause you have no control over the big things."
11- "Causing another problem without fixing the initial problem just makes the initial problem worse as time continues"
The following are classic quotes:
11- "If you lose the game you should win the analysis!"
12- "Every passing minute is a chance to turn it all around." - Vanilla Sky
13- "Life is pain my dear and anyone who says otherwise is selling something." - Princess Bride
14- "The 7ps: Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance" - U.S. Military
15- "Water water everywhere but not a drop to drink!" - Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner
16- "You can get in way more trouble with a good idea than a bad idea cause you forget the good idea has limits" - Warren Buffet
17- "Teach a child to be polite and courteous and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto the freeway."
18- "Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone."
19- "There is no tomorrow without the pains and pleasures of today" - Gabriel
20- "If life weren't this complicated, it would be nowhere near as fun. Why? WHY NOT!" - Catch-22
21- "When you've done things right people won't know you've done anything at all." - Futurama
22- "The right perception of any matter and a misunderstanding of the same matter do not wholly exclude each other." - Kafka's the trial
23- "the Trausi follow the normal practices of Thracians in general, except in one particular- their behaviour, namely, on the occasion of a birth or a death. When a baby is born the family sits round and mourns at the thought of the sufferings the infant must endure now that it has entered the world, and goes through the whole catalogue of human sorrows; but when somebody dies, they bury him with merriment and rejoicing, and point out how happy he now is and how many miseries he has at last escaped." -Herodotus Viv
24- "When a Persian herald demanded the surrender of arms, the king shouted back 'come here to get them'; and when he had seen that he was surrounded, he commanded his men to have a good breakfast since their dinner would be served in hell." - Herodotus
25- "I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
26- "Why, we don't even know what living means now, what it is, and what it is called? Leave us alone without books and we shall be lost and in confusion at once. We shall not know what to join on to, what to cling to, what to love and what to hate, what to respect and what to despise." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky Notes from the Underground
27- "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." - Scott Adams
28- "Nobody is always a winner and anyone who says otherwise either is a liar or doesn't play poker."
29- “The darkness immutable tranquility holds sway.” - Jun’ichiro Tanizaki
30- “People who are constantly asking 'why' are like tourists who stand in front of a building reading Baedeker and are so busy reading the history of its construction, etc., that they are prevented from seeing the building.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
31- “Either move or be moved.” - Ezra Pound
32- "The real meditation is the meditation of one's identity..... You try finding out why you're you and not somebody else. And who in the blazes are you anyhow??" - Ezra Pound.
33- “The image is more than an idea. It is a vortex or cluster of fused ideas and is endowed with energy.” - Ezra Pound
34- “The thought working its way towards the light.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
35- “There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.” - Ansel Adams
36- “When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.” - Ansel Adams
37- "Wanting to think is one thing; having a talent for thinking is another." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
38- “Philosophers use a language that is already deformed as though by shoes that are too tight” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
39- “Nothing is more important for teaching us to understand the concepts we have than constructing fictitious ones” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
40- “don’t for heaven’s sake, be afraid of talking nonsense! But you must pay attention to your nonsense” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
41- “In a conversation: One person throws a ball; the other does not know: whether he is supposed to throw it back, or throw it to a third person, or leave it on the ground, or pick it up and put it in his pocket, etc” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
42- “I really do think with my pen, because my head often knows nothing about what my hand is writing” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
43- “What I am writing here may be feeble stuff; well, then I am just not capable of bringing the big, important thing to light. But hidden in these feeble remarks are great prospects.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
44- “I ask countless irrelevant questions. If only I can succeed in hacking my way through this forest!” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
45- “Even to have expressed a false thought boldly and clearly is already to have gained a great deal” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
46- “Don’t concern yourself with what, presumably no one but you grasps!” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
47- “when you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there” - Ludwig Wittgenstein
48- "You cannot step into the same river twice." - Heraclitus
49- "Eternity is a child playing, playing checkers; the kingdom belongs to a child." - Heraclitus
50- "Nothing endures but change." - Heraclitus
51- "For a guest remembers all his days the hospitable man who showed him kindness." - Odyssey Book 15 Line 75
52- "Watching [GM Nigel] Short peruse the photos of young women, I had a fanciful notion that the development of specialized skills and character traits in early childhood is like a country fair in which you are alotted a fixed number of tickets to spend on the various concessions. This particular fixed number of tickets to spend on the various concessions. This particular fair is of short duration and happens only once in a lifetime. Nigel took the chess roller-coaster a dozen times, and rode the honesty ride twice, and so he had insufficient tickets left to take the Train Beyond Adolescence more than a stop or two. I myself missed the athletic concession, and I should have ridden -damn it- the chess coaster three or four times." - King's Gambit: A Son, A Father, and the World's Most Dangerous Game by Paul Hoffman page335
53- “I don’t know, but I do know with great precision why nobody else knows either.” - John H. Cochrane
54- "One must have chaos within oneself, to give birth to a dancing star." - Friedrich Nietsche
55- "I created chaos on the chess board and my strength lay in finding hidden harmonies. I always cultivated being at peace in chaos. manifest your unique character on the chess board." - Josh Waitzkin
56- "Leave numbers behind and ride the wave of the game." - Josh Waitzkin
57- "The weakness of an artist is dogma." - Josh Waitzkin
58- "Everything i've learned, i've eventually unlearned. I spend more time unlearning than learning. You must challenge your own micro thought constructs." - Josh Waitzkin
59- "It is like a tunnel, the deeper you get into the more you see there is to learn." - Josh Waitzkin
60- "Your emotions are there for a reason. Observe their ripple." - Josh Waitzkin
61- "The same mold, teachers have learned a certain way. great teachers should listen first." - Josh Waitzkin
62- "Change from psychology and technical errors, transition from opening prep to first middlegame decision or tactical to strategical." - Josh Waitzkin
63- "There is some part about any discipline that should appeal to any person." - Josh Waitzkin
64- "Identify thematic connections by breaking down the walls between different disciplines." - Josh Waitzkin
65- "You know your country is dying when you have to make a distinction between what is moral and ethical, and what is legal." - John de Armond
66- "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
67- "When you stop learning you start dying." - Scott Adams
68- "If you could buy some people for what they are worth, and sell them for what they "think" they are worth, there would always be a profit margin."
69- "Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about."
70- "Life is too short to waste time hating anyone."
71- "When in doubt, just take the next small step."
72- "When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer."
73- "Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will this matter?" - Ellis
74- "If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back."
75- "Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need."
76- "There are three sides to every story: your side, their side and the truth." - Bablyon 5
77- "Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher." - Japanese Proverb
My apologies if some of the classics are in the ficgs quote file already as I just keep my own (and pull quotes from everywhere). I tried to cull out the duplicates.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-30 01:24:36)
Issue for 2150 rated players
That's why WCH round-robin groups are useful to help players to find more quickly their rating... Unfortunately, it seems we go towards a 8 months cycle instead of 6 months.
So your idea is to make the rapid tournaments like the standard (class) ones with 400 points bands -am I right- ?
I'm not sure it will solve the problem but we may try, why not... Any opinion ?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-02 02:06:53)
Response
The rationale for the 400 points bands in class tournaments and 200 bands in rapid tournaments is to reduce the number of opportunities to play rapid tournaments (that are much more time consuming and may lead to general forfeits)... I still do not understand why 400 points bands are a problem as most players play the tournaments that may help to increase their rating (as Michael said, by the way the Rapid M seems quite dedicated for 2100-2199 rated players, actually a future improvement may be 100 points bands).
Anyway, I see no strong reason not to try this change... let's do it unless someone sees this strong reason.
Daniel Parmet (2009-09-02 03:36:36)
Can't Join tournament?
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_standard_a
The standard Class has the rating band 2000-2400?! Expert to MASTER when its supposed to be class A? On top of that... several 1900s are in the waitinglist .... yet I as a class A player also in the 1900s can't join this because I don't have an X rating for an A tournament? I'm confused...
Don Groves (2009-09-02 05:26:53)
well...
... I guess there are two classes of A players -- standard and rapid.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-02 16:18:33)
Rating bands change
Ok, I've changed the rating bands for class tournaments as Garvin & Don suggested... Let's try and see.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-02 16:20:51)
class A / rapid A
There's no A players, only class A & rapid A tournaments. Indeed those 1900 players were over 2000 when they signed up, that's fair IMO and I see no other good way to deal with it.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-14 21:22:36)
Rating cutoffs change
Hi Wayne, no problem :) .. The responses are in this discussion, right ?
Garvin, it seems to me that this is a minor change (only for chess class tournaments) that does not change anything to most players, I did not want to annoy all members with such an email.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-19 22:14:20)
Rating bands
Well, you have to win even more games to enter the upper rating category and I'm not sure it is always a fair system for the winner of a tournament to access it, based on the argument you quoted & also is it fair to play more games to finally win one tournament and lose elo points because of the number of games played at the same time, what happens if 3 or 4 players win a tournament ? (we could use the WCH tournament rules but is it appropriate in this case)
Moreover IMHO, such a rule wouldn't be necessary for ratings below 2200. On the other hand, it may be envisaged to casually offer to the winner of a 2000+ tournament to enter an upper waiting list to complete a waiting list in certain conditions, eg. if his rating is not more than 100 points below the upper rating band (it may be an idea to launch the 11th class SM tournament), what do you think ?
Don Groves (2009-09-21 04:11:45)
rating bands
I agree with that: Under certain conditions, such as being less than 100 ELO points below the next higher rating and winning a lower rated tournament, a player gets a one time opportunity to play in the next higher group. If the player's rating is above the limit after the tournament, he/she remains in the higher class; otherwise they must play again in the lower class.
This would help fill higher rated tournaments faster and also allow players to advance more rapidly if they are good enough. This should apply to all FICGS games, Go and Poker included.
Don Groves (2009-10-27 06:16:48)
Shogi
I would learn a classical game like Shogi if it were offered on FICGS
Lazaro Munoz (2009-10-30 19:09:42)
rating bands
That is the way LSS (IECG's server) works. If you come in first place in a section, you get a ticket to higher section. If you win two sections you get two promotion tickets to a higher section, etc. If you have no more tickets you will only be able to enter in current rating group for class tournaments, everyone can join the opens of course.
I guess if you win a section in which you were promoted into, you would get a super-ticket to a two-level up (at least you can dream).
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-07 16:16:28)
"blitz cc"
Well, FICGS cannot & will not become a fast games server to play eg. "2 0" or even "5 0" (by the way even on the fastest servers, there are lag - and other - problems) but I hope there will be more and more players interested in classical time controls (called blitz here) & 'freestyle chess'... William, I can't remember the last time when you played a fast game here, the page now only refreshes when a move is played, and faster now... With an AJAX interface, it will be almost completely transparent.
Lazaro, actually the fast games with less than 2 moves will be replaced when a new challenge is accepted, to delete the forfeited games.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-13 16:44:56)
Centaur chess
Hi John, I'm afraid there's no clear answer to these questions, in my experience it is not possible to classify chess engines so accurately, each position is differently understood by chess engines, and actually is differently not understood, in example many great moves were found in some way "by chance" by engines like Deep Junior... But this is old computer chess already, Junior has not been updated for a while and Rybka is probably best in all parts of the game for a few years (maybe that is to change).
As Michel said, experience is the key IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-02 18:28:19)
Major update : Chess openings & endgames
A major update just occured, finished FICGS chess games (Go & poker as well) are now analyzed by the server that gives the name of each known opening & classifies the games by endgames, castlings & promotions !
Best, now you can find games by material on the board (like Chessbase) for endgames with less than 10 pieces. Just click "Search games" in the menu, eg. enter KRPP vs. KRP (whatever the order of the letters & colors), and you'll find among others this game (see the description of the game at the bottom of the page) :
http://www.ficgs.com/game_3724.html
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=3724
Note : Finished games are not analyzed in real time, but this update clearly opens new perspectives :)
Please do not hesitate to comment this update or to report any bug you may see.
Pablo Schmid (2009-12-27 13:42:31)
Rating calculation
Salut Thibault, bon j'écris en français cette fois, j'ai lu les explications sur les calculs mais ça me semble assez obscur, alors je vais poser des questions proches de ma situation. Imaginons que je commence un tournoi 2000-2200 avec un rating à 2000 pile et que je fais un score de 50% contre des joueurs à 2050 de moyenne, en théorie je devrais gagner quelques points non? Et maintenant mon classement réel a monté depuis le début du tournoi disons à 2120, et du coup le 50% contre cette moyenne à 2050 me ferait perdre des points si on compte mon rating le plus récent. Alors est-ce que c'est mon ELO de départ qui va être pris en compte ou mon ELO actuel? En gros je suis en train de me demander s'il est intéressant de commencer un tournoi avant la nouvelle liste avec un classement supérieur sur cette liste, ou si cela ne change rien voire désavantageux...
J'espère que tu auras compris ma question et merci d'avance pour ta réponse :)
A +
Pablo
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-27 19:13:04)
Rating calculation
Re... nos réponses précédentes se sont croisées, désolé :) Le prochain classement est calculé en tenant compte du classement courant donc cela ne change rien puisque l'on ne peut pas vraiment prévoir quand se termineront les parties... on gagne forcément des points en faisant 50% contre des joueurs qui avaient un TER plus fort que le classement courant, idem dans l'autre sens. En général, la "gestion" des résultats n'influe que très peu sur le classement final.
Michel van der Kemp (2010-01-05 16:55:19)
If anyone could comment any game...
Thank you.
Would it also be possible to link the new comments back to the forum? So people now which comments were made? Or some other way to browse through the comments?
Could be interesting if some high class players would comment their games.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-03-10 12:34:40)
Tournament Leaders
I am confused. In my section FICGS_CHESS_CLASS_C_000127 I have a full point lead and have had this lead for several weeks, yet I am listed as co-leader with another player (Panov) [I am not complaining, just confused]. I know that I have completed a game more than Panov. Is this 'leadership' based on total points? If so it has a bug; if it is based on points gained vs points loss then we are tied (just like every player would be at the beginning of the tournament). Btw, my game against Panov was a draw, I don't if that goes into the calculation and we both have a game in progress against the same opponent.
Garvin Gray (2010-03-19 08:34:38)
Blitz time controls
Hello all,
I was wondering what others thought about this. I have just finished a match with Scott Nichols at blitz time controls ie 40 moves in 2 hours followed by 40 moves in 2 hours etc.
In my opinion, the second time period would be improved if it was 20 moves in 1 hour. The classical time control for the last 100 years or so has been 40 moves in (insert time here) followed by 20 moves in (insert time here).
In my match with Scott, it was quite common for the games to go only 50 moves or so, which meant we had 2 hours available for just ten moves or so.
Garvin Gray (2010-03-22 14:42:00)
Blitz time controls
The Classical time controls now being used are
1) 40 moves in 2 hours, 20 moves in 1 hour followed by 15 mins + 30 seconds.
Also used sometimes is 2)
40 moves in 100 mins, 20 moves in 50 mins fb 15 mins, all with a 30 second increment from move one.
I think the second time control would be better here as it guarantees that each player has some time to make their move, considering slow internet connections and technical issues.
Andres E. Leon (2010-03-31 19:06:50)
Difference between class A / rapid A
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_A Tournaments admits chess players with 2000-2200 ELO and FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A is for 1900-2100 ELO players. Why there is this difference?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-31 19:15:30)
Difference between class A / rapid A
Hello Andres.
The reason is that many players asked for this to help players rated 2000-2100 to reach the 2200 mark.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-01 01:20:04)
Difference between class A / rapid A
The main reason is that in one division you are one of the top rated players and in the other you are one of the bottom rated players.
Also, by having the rating bands as they are means it is more likely that different players will meet, which increases interest and also makes the rating system more accurate.
Andres E. Leon (2010-04-01 14:45:00)
Difference between class A / rapid A
Thank you very much for your answer. And someone knows when FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP waiting list is going to be open, and when is the estimated date to start the games? Thank you in advance.
Daniel Parmet (2010-04-03 21:17:31)
Difference between class A / rapid A
of course some people hold completely the opposite opinion and find these rating bands ridiculous.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-03 21:25:06)
Difference between class A / rapid A
Of course :) That's why there's no such easy decision.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-13 22:30:46)
Big chess ratings
Hi Lazaro!
"Big chess ratings are first estimated from current correspondence chess ratings (current rating -300 points, with at least 1400), then adjusted in real time after each result (...)"
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_big_chess
When you entered your first big chess tournament, the TER was not specified but your current correspondence chess rating was used (minus 300) to calculate your first big chess rating with your first result, so a rating of 1609 seems ok taking account of your opponents ratings. The first results may look quite arbitrary but some rules prevent to lose too many points when losing against a strong opponent with a low rating. Anyway there should be more class categories to get more chances to improve ratings (to be continued), we needed more players but maybe we can do it now.
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-04-24 01:17:43)
Wider rating range tournaments
What about paying an entering fee? Example If I want to play in a higher class tournament, for example M class, I pay an amount of whatever e points the tournament director( in our cases Thibault) stablishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-23 00:26:49)
Wider rating range tournaments
The problem is either it would ask a big update to make it automatic or an action from a tournament director each time... If I make an update, it should probably work for all class tournaments. This is the system used by IECG but I'm not sure if it is best, and what if several players share first place & so on... Ratings move faster than at IECG to avoid that and allow players to reach higher categories in a shorter time. Simple rules are often best IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-24 17:02:39)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Tano-Urayoán just posted an interesting idea in the following discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8507
I was totally opposed to this idea at a first sight, but after a while I found some real advantages.
The idea : Any player could pay an entry fee to enter a high class chess tournament (e.g. 20 Euros for class M, 40 for class SM, 60 for class GM), whatever his rating.
Of course what we all see first is : Anyone can pay to make increase his rating faster, that is just unfair!
But let's imagine that a player rated 1800 pays an entry fee of 40 Euros to enter the class SM waiting list.
1) The waiting list will be filled faster!
2) If this player is actually stronger than its rating show, he'll find its place faster (the other players will not lose so many points because their ratings are protected - see rating calculation rules).
3) There could be such an extra rule: Players who are already in the waiting list or who will play the tournament may share 50% of the entry fee in Epoints, which would be a kind of compensation for them.
4) These entry fees will help to have more prizes in free tournaments (another compensation) and bigger prizes in e.g. freestyle cups, although I don't have any idea on how many players would be interested in this, so the site will become more popular and so on...
Anyway, please share your views if you have any idea to improve this one, and your opinion is needed here of course!
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-24 20:25:52)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I do not like it. What you will see is a higher bracket classification in the waiting list stage will see presumably some qualified players entry, soon to be filled up with a host of players with deep pockets entering, so it ends up being not a higher bracket but a lower class bracket. This just does not seem fair. It means (as you have already pointed out) players with deep pockets can buy there way into rating points. I will not support or tolerate that notion if I can avoid it.
Scott Nichols (2010-04-24 23:44:18)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I agree with Wayne totally.
Don Groves (2010-04-25 01:45:46)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I still like the idea of allowing the winner of a tournament to enter the next higher level one time. It serves the same purpose as this suggestion but is limited to one player at a time so it doesn't dilute the level of play in the higher tournament. It also helps a new player find their appropriate level faster.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 01:50:10)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Okay, that's what I thought :)
Anyway, the silver games are another way to play stronger players. So that was not necessary in any case.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-25 02:00:36)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Thibault, I have been here since the beginning. I have grown with FICGS. I am very proud to be a member of FICGS in good standing.
I see dangers ahead for you and our FICGS.
You need to be very careful my friend about Changing the overall makeup of FICGS. I think overall the "E" point conditions here is ok, as long as it does not infringe outward from where it is now> This latest proposal (buying into a high classification) is very bad and changes the premise of FICGS, which is: If you are good, diligent and work hard you will advance and be rewarded. Tites should not come easy. Same for rating points. For if they do come easy then they have no meaning.
Players who have earned their stripes do merit certain considerations, that is good and proper.
Another potential problem that I see is that FICGS is headed in a direction down yahoo chess lane. We all like these bullet games, they are fun. I am not at all suggesting their elimination. I am just counseling "be careful". Do not let it become the face of FICGS chess. Yahoo chess is a total disaster. I do not want our site to even look in that direction.
I have been monitoring the chatter on bullet chess and it is great, all are enjoying it.
That covers the main points of interest for me. I am not against changes. I do not want changes that change the make up of FICGS as we know it now.
Its your server, you may do as you wish of course
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 02:52:37)
FICGS
I understand you Wayne, I don't want to make such mistakes and that's why we talk so much about these changes in this forum :)
On entry fees for a higher class tournament, I agree on the main point of course, but some advantages had to be discussed. The success of this site is also money and money prizes in the future IMO so I prefer to discuss such ideas than to do nothing.
That was the first point. Then there are some other points that remain to be discussed IMO : 1) Maybe correspondence chess ratings should increase (in average) as engines become stronger. 2) Titles calculation rules should probably be harder as a consequence, maybe it should have been changed already.
Correspondence/Advanced chess is constantly evolving, our marks move fast, so rules may have to change. I don't think that FICGS can turn into a kind of Yahoo chess (I did not ever play there btw), the most important thing is the atmosphere and I know that if I make a mistake, someone will let me know very quickly as it happened once a few months ago. We all make that success in that way!
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-25 03:14:27)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Thibault, okey dokie, I understand you, for sure, and you are right at reviewing your change options. You should. I am only one voice but I wanted to be heard.
I have said enough on Money entry into a high classification. You know I do not like it.
I agree 100% with your thinking regarding money. You need to profit. So any change that goes there and does not affect membership in a negative way is good for you. If the membership do not like certain changes, and they leave then money for you is affected. So it is a two way street.
Regarding chess rating should overall increase. Ok with me but do not see any advantage, all relative.
Regarding Increasing Title requirements.
That may be valid. Not sure one way or the other. Gotta think on that. But shooting from the hips, sounds ok.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 18:50:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
By the way it would be possible to set as a limit 1 "sponsoring" player per tournament as well.
Maybe this rule would look like more acceptable if I can make an update so that winners in a tournament get a ticket to entry a higher class tournament.
Once again, I'm not saying I want this "entry fee for higher class tournament" rule at any price, but if we find a way to make it not too unacceptable, maybe it would be worth a try before to see the real consequences so let's discuss it again!
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-25 21:47:28)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
OK, were getting closer. How about this:
The winner of a tournament class "just below" the next higher class gets a free ride into that class. No money needed! I sorta think this is ok
Wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-25 21:50:58)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Or, maybe you want the money entrance requirement to compensate the "class" players for permitting the entry.
I am ok with this as well
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 22:02:41)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I'm not sure if I understood well your last message, would you have an example?
Michel van der Kemp (2010-04-27 10:44:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
For reasons already mentioned by others I would be opposed to people being able to buy themselves tickets to higher tournaments.
The idea of earning a ticket for a higher tournament by winning a tournament seems fair, and seems similar to what ICCF has. I would be in favour of that idea.
Garvin Gray (2010-04-27 12:12:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
As already stated, I am in favour of the winner of the immediate section below being able to earn a spot in the higher division.
I do have a slight change of position. In previous posts I have stated that in the case of a tie for first, it should be the highest TER that goes through.
Now I think about it, it should be the person with the highest rating at the END of the tournament.
Hannes Rada (2010-04-27 23:52:33)
interesting games and rating
I think interesting games as well as boring games can be played in every class ...:-)
And rating means nothing nowadays.
1800 Elo player can be as strong or weak as a 2600 Elo rated player.
It's quite interesting: on the ICCF-forum the people are complaining that it is not possible to win a cc-game anymore.
Here people are claiming that it is not possible to increase the rating anymore.
Guys simply play chess, try different openings + ideas and you will have again fun, even if you don't win the game or you don't increase your rating :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-08 21:08:51)
New proposition
Here's a new idea, based on the fact that I don't think I'll have time (before a while, at least) to implement a script that would allow 1 or 2 tournament's winners to enter a higher class waiting list... many particular cases, not so easy.
The idea :
We could allow one (actually 2 would be still ok IMO) tournament's winner to enter a higher class waiting list for 10 Epoints (not Euros, big difference as most Epoints are won in free tournaments and cannot be cashed out if not played in tournaments with entry fee). I would place the players in the waiting lists by myself but finally it may satisfy everyone -> A player rated 1900 could enter a 2000+ waiting list but could not enter a 2200+ waiting list, the server can offer more Epoints prizes (that just increased for chess tournaments, by the way), and players could find their place more easily in the ratings.
Any opinion?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-08 23:45:26)
New proposition
Actually the main problem is IMO what to do if let's say 5 players rated 2000-2200 suddenly ask for an entry in a 2200+ (class M) waiting list... It may take so much time for the 5th player to be able to enter it (waiting for a 3rd M tournament starts if 2 players can have a ticket per tournament) that he may reach the 2200 mark before that his ticket be useful.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-09 23:24:12)
How many games at once?
Of course it is laughable, I took the extreme opposites but while everything goes faster & faster on the internet and everyone MUST become more & more addicted so that the world runs fine (just meaning more money), my choice is definitely not to follow that way, also because this system will not work so long IMO. People will slowly quit Facebook after a time or at least will not use it the same way, and many already started to stop to play all these thousands stupid applications. Maybe it cannot be really a good comparison but the idea is there.
Correspondence chess was much slower before email chess & server chess, and it is now fast enough IMO. I don't know how other players feel it, some ones have time for sure, as for me I have some time to play but a 14 days limit per move would be really stressful to me though... I cannot imagine how many games more I would have lost with such a rule.
I know that a few players would like faster moves, however I feel that most players are fine with the current rules and I really want everyone to be cool here. We've lost a bunch of good players because of the previous rules such as unlimited number of games.
Now we should debate it game after game as most players who would like faster moves at chess still play in class tournaments (while rapid category was designed for them). Go is a game of patience definitely, but I have some work to do to accelerate some games (something towards automatic adjudication), and the major problem will be for poker games.
So, what are we talking about? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-09 23:31:20)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Sorry Garvin, I was not clear enough, I meant "what to do if let's say 5 players rated 2000-2200 (who won 5 different tournaments !) suddenly ask for an entry in a 2200+ (class M) waiting list".
We can discuss your other suggestions of course, everything is possible there, but we must find an "agreement" on the other points before :)
> The entry fee for this qualified player should be the amount they won in their previous division.
I guess that we could try this way, but it seems a bit unfair for the winners of strong tournaments, any other opinion?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 15:14:35)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Garvin, you can change the title for your posts in the discussion :)
Well, all your ideas may work fine, let's discuss it again in the original discussion on this topic :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8545
I just made a new proposal there.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 15:16:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Well, the discussion continued in another thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8555
Garvin's ideas may work fine, but while some players will like the benefits, some others will be deceived not to be able to take advantage of it (quite a chancy factor)...
Here is my new proposal (based on a few Epoints, not real money) :
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Please correct anything that looks unclear and let's discuss it again :) Thanks for all your help Garvin & all!
I'd like to have Wayne, Michel's & other opinions on the proposed changes, is this at least more acceptable according to you?
Michel van der Kemp (2010-05-11 16:42:20)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I just dont like the possibility to buy oneself tickets for higher tournaments. What's next? Next FIDE world championship challenger is going to be the one that brings the largest bag of money to the table?
Perhaps a commercial aspect to this justifies this idea. I know it's a lot of work to keep a site like this running, and FICGS gets many improvements all the time. It makes sense to get some revenue out of it, to compensate so much work.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 18:01:16)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Hi Michel! Thanks again for discussing it.
> What's next? Next FIDE world championship challenger is going to be the one that brings the largest bag of money to the table?
I don't know if this was designed to be humor (I guess, but maybe you meant FICGS instead of FIDE?) but in the context of current FIDE rules I find it very funny :) .. by the way if the same rules were applied at FICGS, anyone could challenge the champion for the title for $500,000 or something like this. Of course that would be great for FICGS and the current champion may appreciate such a prize as well, but that's not the point here.
However yes this FIDE rule may be compared to my suggestion, at a very different level though (the basic idea is the same: to build prizes for more interesting [free?] competitions), in my opinion an entry fee of 10 Epoints is quite different from what I suggested before already. Note that even if FICGS was not free, it would not justify such special entry fee more (not saying it cannot be justified!), after all there's an entry fee in the vast majority of OTB tournaments, if you don't pay it (but GM/IM that are generally invited to play for free - and most often take the prize), you cannot improve your rating, the problem is that the entry fee depends on the tournament, and the entry fee for closed tournaments (the main/only way to get norms) is often much higer.
I agree that things are somewhat different here as the main idea of FICGS is to be completely free. So the real question is : "Is FICGS still 'free' if a tournament's winner can choose to pay an entry fee in a virtual money (by the way it is quite easy to get Epoints without having to pay anything) to enter the next tournaments category".
- If despite of all the answer is "no", then FICGS is NOT free right now anyway as any player can play a rated 2 games match RAPID SILVER with an entry fee against a higher rated player to have more chances to win elo points. This way even IECG was not free (chessfriend), and even if something is really 100% free, it still doesn't mean fair, which is the main point here. Even if a tournament's winner could enter the next tournament's category for free, such a rule would NEVER be completely fair, as I described the particular cases.
Quite complex :)
Finally I'm not saying you're wrong in any way. Free or not free is a really complex question IMO, in my point of view, FICGS will remain free as noone needs to pay to become champion or to achieve the highest ratings (unlike FIDE). But if it is 99% free only while offering money prizes, I'd choose it anyway for sure.
Benjamin Block (2010-05-11 18:19:01)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Ficgs is still free... I think it can be very good indeed.
1.Some players maybe want training...
2.It will also stop an inflation. Because some new player came here and already have a high rating from example iccf.
And they start playing this site. Maybe they don´t have time for the games and left this site. With just giving a way some points.
Am i right?
Garvin Gray (2010-05-11 18:25:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Michel van der Kemp - I think you need to read, or re-read all of the comments and proposals, discussions again.
The key feature of this is that a person has to win their own rating group tournament in either standard or rapid before being able to enter a higher division.
There is no case where anyone can just buy a spot into a higher division. They have to first earn the privilege. Then in simple terms they would only be using the epoints collected from their win of said division.
I really do hope you have read the previous comments over the few threads that have eventuated on this topic, as they are crucial to understand the concept.
I have spent quite a lot of time typing out proposals and thoughts on this idea, so if you have not read them and instead just come into the forum and protested at the first thing you think it wrong, then I will be rather pissed off at you and anyone else that does it.
Stephane Legrand (2010-05-11 18:37:09)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I agree with Garvin, Wayne .... I am in favour of the winner of the immediate section below being able to earn a spot in the higher division.
An i propose that if this player obtains 50% or more he can have a new one in this division.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 18:48:52)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Stéphane, please specify if you agree any conditions (which ones?) described a few posts above... that's the main point.
Garvin, I need some opinions like Michel's one (even if I cannot convince him), it helps me to make my ideas clearer and to bring better arguments. I feel that we approach something now, but we really have to specify what conditions we're talking about (e.g. entry fee in Epoints or real money) when discussing. So should I understand that you agree my previous posts?
Stephane Legrand (2010-05-11 19:09:42)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I was totally opposed to the idea of entry fee at a first sight, but after a while maybe you can propose the 2 solutions for tournaments (entry fee possible or not to enter a high class chess tournament)
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-11 19:25:22)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I am very much in favor of the winner of his/her own class tournament earning as a prize the right to play one up class. This actually brings a relevant prize to the tournaments! Up until I have had no reason to care if I won a tournament or not. Why? What do I get? Pride? Ego? Bragging Rights? Epoints? I get nothing! Now I earn the right to player stronger players! A true prize indeed!
I don't agree if two players tie though that one just mystically be given the prize and the other not. I understand you don't want to dilute the rating pool... but you can force one person to wait til waiting list fills and each person can sit in it one at a time.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 19:34:50)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Stéphane, the point is I cannot add this rule without any entry fee (as explained many posts above or in the other thread).
Daniel, I agree with your last point!
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-11 19:39:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I very much like option 1. I would also point out that this is the appeal of the WCH tournament. You get to play some stronger players and if you manage to win your group... your prize is even stronger players!
Kamesh Nookala (2010-05-11 19:57:10)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Dear Thib,
Points 1 and 4 are quite good. However, here comes the question.
What if the winner of the preceding (lower) category, after paying 10 e-points and entering into the next higher rated tour, fares decent enof, for e.g. finishes 2nd in the higher category (or doesn't lose a single game)? Will he have to again win his category of event and then pay 10 e-points and join the immediate higher rated event again? Or, he will "earn" a chance to play that higher rated category again considering his previous performance?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 20:14:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Hi Kamesh, I think we should just follow the conditions that I copy again here (valid for choice #1, a tournament winner may buy a ticket if) :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Let's say the winner of a class B tournament then wins a class A tournament after having bought a ticket, he has good chances to see his rating increased after the next rating calculation and before that his possibility to buy a new ticket (for class M) expires. Maybe the possibility to buy a ticket should be valid 3 months, I'm not sure.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-05-11 20:22:57)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Dear Thib,
All this stuff is way too much for my little 1 kb brain to understand. Whatever, you guys decide, I am prepared for that, coz, you guys wont do things without a genuine reason and a valid discussion !
I will keep on trying to march ahead !
Peter Marriott (2010-05-11 21:17:18)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I agree with Thib. This is pretty confusing... I'm sure whatever you guys choose will be fine, though! :P
Peter Marriott (2010-05-11 21:17:56)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
oops, *I agree with Kam
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-11 21:53:09)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Away to complicated for many of us.
Wayne
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-05-12 05:58:32)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Option 6 no change at all.
Wayne Lowrence exposed that with hard work you could gain your way to the top
Garvin Gray (2010-05-12 08:51:01)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
To answer one point, as opposed to point one hehe.
While it is true with hard work and good results, it is possible to get into the very high rating groups, the way this site works makes it very difficult indeed.
In fact, it is more likely that a persons rating will stay the same or reduce due to the fact that more players come into the system, take away rating points from those with established ratings and this keeps happening.
With how this site is set up, there are very few opportunities for players in the 2100 rating group to get back those points by playing opponents in the 2200-2300 or more as it stands atm.
So it is highly likely that a player, or players, could be improving their games, but their rating does not improve because they do not have the opportunity to improve their rating because they do not play people rated above them as much as they are playing people rated below them.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-12 08:55:30)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Options 1 and 6 are the only options in my opinion.
As I have already commented many times now, if you allow people to just buy their way in, then it creates disadvantages for those without much money and goes against the grain of this whole site.
While I am voting for option 1, if it is a choice between anyone can pay to enter a division up or there are no promotion opportunities at all, I WILL CHANGE MY VOTE TO OPTION 6- NO CHANGE AT ALL.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-12 08:59:48)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Thib- I really think this voting idea is the wrong direction indeed.
The number of votes that you will receive will be so small as a representative of the whole site that it is not representative at all.
Furthermore, those voting most likely will not have read all of the history, counter-arguments and posts that have been made explaining why things are being proposed.
I am getting quite frustrated at reading some of the posts. I really would just like to see option 1 enacted by yourself, even for a trial period of one year.
One year might seem like a long time, but considering that this rule would only apply from when new tournaments have started, it could take a while for tournament winners to become apparent and then for them to accept their entry and then for those 'going up' to have achieved results that are worthy of analysis.
Scott Nichols (2010-05-12 13:14:12)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I like things the way they are...:)
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-12 16:42:29)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Eliminating the voice of the players down to just one being more representative. Now that is an original thought. I think many of us here are weary of this proposal.
Thibault I trust your judgement. Whatever you wish, is ok with me.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-12 16:51:21)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Not exactly a vote Garvin, anyway a few opinions are much better than nothing and still matter to discuss.
My answer to Scott & Tano-Urayoán : I agree that none of these proposals is more fair than the current rules, but here is why at least choice #1 has also many advantages, for FICGS but also for the players : Of course, those who made it the hardest way like Wayne may feel that this is unfair to change the rules, but rules constantly evolve & this would be really a minor change (in the case of choice #1). The point is that while e.g. IECG uses this promotion system, it is unfair the same way that a player from IECG can register at FICGS with his IECG rating that benefited of this rule. From the start FICGS rules were harder than IECG rules when registering, but as ratings move faster here I thought that it would be a compensation, but it is not a reason enough not to improve the rules again if possible.
The reality according to me : choice #1 is less fair than current rules, and choice #4 is even more unfair, but the current rules aren't so fair either. Rules that would be completely fair may exist but would have too many bad consequences for sure, and at least FICGS would not have been a success by using it. Anyway, I will not take any decision today, let's wait for some more arguments, the whole discussion is actually even more interesting than the point that is discussed in. Finally, I'm quite favourable to try (as Garvin suggested) the choice #1 and discuss the consequences after a few months.
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-12 20:25:24)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I think option1 is the best. But I completely agree with Garvin. Why not try it? We tried those silly rating band idea even though we knew it was bad. Why not try this? I think its a good idea. I agree that options 2-5 are silly.
Right now as it stands, you get nothing for winning a tournament, you might not even get many points either. If you are 1990ish and beat 6 1800s. They might have been much stronger than 1800 but the results also came in slowly 1/1 for each rating period... you don't stand to gain very many points maybe not even enough to get you to the next rating band... but you would be guaranteed to play the next rating band for sure because you won the tournament. I think you'll see alot of the invitations into the rating bands helping people out that are only missing it by a few rating points anyways. Besides its a REAL prize for winning the tournament, right now all we give is a pat on the back!
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-13 18:20:15)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Been giving a lot of thought to this post. At first I was opposed to it. I think primarily maybe I was influenced by my thinking " I climbed through the levels", so anyone can if they dedicate the effort as I did.
Now I am swayed to support Garvin Grey posting ideas.
I recognize very well that there are many players qualified to move up but find it frustrating to make headway.
It comes down to this. Chances are if they win a class tournament, they probably deserve to advance an level. If not competitive, they will not stay at that level. So anyhow I am posting as to what I believe the proposal #1 is in fact.
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
That is a paste of your thread Thibault.
If that is what you and Garvin want or close to it then I say why not ! Give it a go.
Wayne
Garvin Gray (2010-05-15 11:43:02)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Thank you for your compliment Wayne.
Another benefit is that it will allow the higher divisions to fill quicker, allowing more games between the top players.
I quite often see posts asking for more players to join the top divisions. With this idea, while it will mean one person from the lower group, it will still allow more games between the 6 'genuine' people in that division.
Garvin Gray (2010-05-15 11:45:34)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Just thought of another benefit. This idea might also get those who are just under the rating cutoff to start joining tournaments where they think there is nothing to gain except loss of rating points.
So in a 2000-2200 rating division, 2150+ might start entering knowing that they can win that division and get to the next upper division, rather than just having to get there on rating alone.
So this idea could provide a compensatory return for being in a group with 6 other people rated lower.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-17 23:18:18)
Question
Still thinking about the last Garvin's idea... the real question is IMO: can one estimate that it is fair that a player who is 50 elo points below the rating cutoff, let's say a player rated 2150, have the same right than the winner of a previous class A tournament to buy a ticket for the next class M tournament?
There are advantages to this idea of course, a problem is that there will be even less possibilites for tournaments winners to have a ticket... (well, it goes in the other way also)
I like the idea though... My personal answer to this question would be probably: All this is far too complicated to be summarized this way to this question, winning a tournament IS a matter of chance also, winning a game IS a matter of chance (we prefer to call it statistics) also, and this rule, whatever the details, IS unfair anyway. So there is no clear answer IMHO, but if someone has one, please share it now :)
Garvin Gray (2010-05-18 06:46:22)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
If you want a rule for this, then I guess it has to be in TER order at the time the next tournament is going to start.
But that does make setting up each tournament more complex.
Or you can let the 'market' decide for you by taking the first person to enter is the person that accepted into the higher division.
Arno Bezemer (2010-05-20 14:57:17)
Late resignation
Normally I don't mind to play out a winning position, but my opponent in game 32535 keeps on playing for ever, with just a pawn vs my rook and 2 pawns. On the lowest level i can maybe understand this but not in a class M 2200+ tournament. Is there anything i can do about it?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-07-07 12:07:52)
Class GM 2 : Rating average 2496
It seems to me that the strongest FICGS chess tournament (7 players or more) so far just started, I would like to apologize to my opponents, if I didn't lose so many points, it would have been a category 11 tournament for sure... :/
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_GM__000002
Good luck everyone!
Scott Nichols (2010-08-09 21:12:59)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Just a note to say how this new rule is affecting at least one player here (me), :) I "earned" entry to a higher class tournament by winning the class just below. I paid my ten E-points and received entry into the next higher class. We have been playing for a while and I am holding my own ok. I have met new players and am overjoyed at the chance to play them. They are all friendly and welcoming. Life couldn't be better, ......but....... Maybe it's just me, but I feel at this point that I never REALLY earned my way into this realm. The old way was to suffer through months and years of climbing the rating ladder a little at a time and then finally reach that next level. Also, just my opinion, is that these days there really isn't a big difference in strengths between 1850 and 2450 given that we all have fast computers running on Rybka mostly. The difference I find is the human side of the ratings. The old days whether Shredder could beat Fritz, or Deep Junior could beat Hiarcs are long gone. So I guess what I'm trying to say without rambling any further, is that as much as I like playing in the higher section, I would prefer to "EARN" it the old way. Just one players opinion, Thank you
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-10 00:01:37)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
It is true that there isn't a big difference in strengths between "many" 2150 and 2450... That's a reason why this rule may be useful IMO, particularly while 2450 ratings are somewhat "protected", it is more an advantage for you than a disadvantage for 2450 players.
Anyway this is still an experiment... So far, only 2 or 3 players used such a ticket.
Don Groves (2010-08-10 10:00:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Scott: In a way you did earn it, you won a next lower rated tournament which "earned" you the right to play one time in a higher rated one. The purpose is to allow players to improve their ratings faster if they are good enough to win some games at the higher rating.
As you say though, and Thibault seems to agree, with fast processors and the best software, there isn't as much difference between players as there used to be.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-12 22:46:32)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
Hello all, 2 players are needed for a replacement in the tournaments CHESS CLASS GM #2 (average 2496) and CHESS RAPID SM #6 (average 2408).
Please send me a private message (or email info*ficgs.com) if you're interested, thanks in advance.
Note: There's no specific rule when choosing players for replacements so the fastest players with the strongest ELO will play.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-08-13 06:59:29)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
What has happened in GM#2. PM me if you wish
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-13 10:50:25)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
One player did not play a single move yet, with a few days only at his clock, same in rapid SM 6...
Garvin Gray (2010-08-13 12:27:02)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
You have email Thib.
Daniel Parmet (2010-08-14 04:15:28)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
I'd play but i'm sure you can't use someone so weak :P
Robert Mueller (2010-08-21 06:23:05)
Waiting for CLASS_SM_000013
Hello Thibault,
On May 1, I signed up for the CLASS_SM_000013. It has been almost four months now and there are still only two players signed up for this event (including myself).
Wouldn't it make sense to merge the SM (Elo 2400 to 2600) and GM (Elo 2500+) classes?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-21 09:23:04)
Waiting for CLASS_SM_000013
Hello Robert,
It is possible that the class GM waiting list be closed in a while if no new player enter it... I'll deal with it in a few days. It is always the same thing in July/August though.
Garvin Gray (2010-08-28 06:21:22)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
what has happened with this?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-30 19:01:07)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
Nothing so far but we have time. Maybe the next rating list will help...
Michael Aigner (2010-09-02 21:05:44)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
Hello Thibault,
I saw you are still looking for a replacement in this tourny. If it is Ok for you and the other participant I would be happy to join the group.
Michael
Michael Aigner (2010-09-02 21:07:21)
Forgot to say which one =:o
By the wa, I am talking about the Class GM 2 tourney. Ts, ts, ts...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-03 00:14:50)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
Hi Michael, you're in... Have nice games!
Sebastian Boehme (2010-09-03 21:14:40)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
Hoping for a replacement of SM 6 sooner or later also.
No hurries of course. :)
Garvin Gray (2010-09-03 21:18:15)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
Sebi,
Are you talking about replacing Voyna Alexandr?
I have already said I am keen and did email Thibault.
Sebastian Boehme (2010-09-03 21:27:54)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
Yes Garvin sorry for being not too precise. The guy hasn't made a move at all in these games.
Looking forward to maybe have a game with you again!
Scott Nichols (2010-09-05 23:33:10)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
What is the time limit for replacing players? I have already finished all but one game in Rapid_SM__00006. It wouldn't seem right to add a player at this late stage.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-06 23:44:35)
Replacement in Class GM 2 & rapid SM 6
I agree, a late replacement is not a perfect solution... but there is probably no perfect solution in that particular case :/
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 23:45:16)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Yep, I'm afraid you're a lost cause. No players cannot get away with whatever they want in tournaments read the rulebook dude. You are rating crazy. Do you not realize that for a person to improve they have to be playing beyond their rating? Ratings represent past performance. You need to judge a position based on its features not the person's playing its rating. Many positions reach draw positions early in the game as ours did when people play unambitiously. But I give up trying to convince you of your illogical ways.
Just know this: it is irrelevant whether you use the right to offer draw but it is important that you have it so your point is mute here as well.
A funny incident also happened a few weeks ago: two players kept offering each other draws every 2 moves, declining their opponent's draw then offering it themselves two moves later. It was funny because it was perpetual check and they both knew it. But everytime they offered a draw, the other one would decide maybe he'll mess up. Turn it down and offer it again about 2-3 moves later. By the end of the game each player had offered the other over 15 draws in the perpetual check scenario but the game managed to end decisively strangely.
And btw, your definition of respect and others will different. I certainly don't respect someone cause they've had more time than me to study and made a 2001 rating. I already explained I have no respect for Corr ratings whatsoever. I have also explained my rating does not represent my strength because I do not take it seriously. Do I respect people that have made a career of this? Of course. But I digress because here opinions will vary wildly and be to each their own. We have left the realm of facts. I just think it amusing to always remember that however good you are, there is always some one better. Or put even better, if you could buy a man for what he is actually worth and sell him for he thinks he's worth there would always be a huge profit. Ie there is always arrogance involved when you include ratings. A fun quote to conclude on: "First-class players lose to second-class players because second-class players sometimes play a first-class game." - Siegbert Tarrasch
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-20 01:22:07)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Haha you're psycho, you call me the bull head yet you're the one who has managed to make 7! posts without a single point. All insults. Obama this Obama that. What the f does Obama have to do with anything? You brought up and you keep bringing him up for god knows what reason.
Your lack of logic is astounding. You admit 1 rating point is enough that the lower rated should still be allowed to offer a draw but not at 80pts. What about 2 pts can he offer a draw here or is it still illegal? Where do you draw the line? Can't you see how stupid this is? You know ratings are considered on 200 pt bands right and anything within 200pts is always considered comparable skill levels hence why terms such as Class B( 1600 1799) and Class A 1800 (1999) developed in the first place. Guess what, 80 pts is less than 200 so its the same skill band hence why they were in the same tournament in the first place.
I know exactly what a maxim is and what a rule is. I know the damn difference. You seem to not understand that your proposition is not acceptable as either. In no circumstance should rating ever matter when a player is thinking about whether he/she wants to offer a draw. It is irrelevant as I've proved to you time and time again.
I do care about my OTB rating yes because I try my hardest there when I have time. But my corr rating nope. Its meaningless. I've given draws in winning positions many times because I don't care. What you describe is utter insanity (must be your philosophy). You realize whether your 2084 or 2240 or 2300 or 2400 you're just a fish right? Trying to brag like its an accomplishment is a joke beyond all measure. There is ALWAYS someone better. As IM William Hartson aptly put it, "playing chess badly is where the growth is."
And don't worry you don't have to check for my tournaments as TD because I wouldn't permit you in my tournament anyways. I don't want known trouble makers.
oh well: " If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong."
Jonathan Gresham (2013-10-12 23:24:13)
Communism
I've been reading about Communism and have concluded that I agree with a lot of the points that the book brings up in favor of it. The working class would overthrow the middle or rich class and thus establishing a one class system. The only thing that would have to be sacrificed would be freedom of speech but when it comes down to it freedom of speech can be sacrificed justly. In exchange for that you would get free education, healthcare etc. Things would be communal being that you would work within communities and share the wealth. This kind of idea has been put forward before and has failed but I believe that with the right leader it is possible.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 17:58:43)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Hi Philip, thanks for taking some time to give us these numbers, really appreciated!
Well, I did not hide that I thought about this championship this way, simply because I wanted it also to look like the old classical chess championship. The point that is discussed here is a tiny detail only compared to the whole idea... Of course the 8 players of the knockout cycle have much better chances to reach the final, and the current champion is by far the favourite. Why to play a WCH that would be a boring copy of IECG & ICCF WCH?
I think that everyone has a real chance though, maybe hardly on 1 cycle but by playing 2 or 3! Have a look at Edward Kotlyanskiy's tournaments, he started WCH 3 with a rating of 2132, seed #2 in a RR group... he is champion!
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_10__000003.html
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-25 21:16:09)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Well, I still do not understand how a scoring system can exist in a knockout tournament... but let's take an example, what the tournament will look like if you have 16 players? Best is to do a complete simulation.
As I just posted on Rybkaforum, I suggest several double round-robin class tournaments of 5 players with a longer time control (on forums I suggest 10 days + 3 days per move). The whole tournament would be played in 1 round, with less stress for everyone as I really think that 30 days + 1 day/move is the fastest acceptable correspondence chess time control.
Hannes Rada (2010-12-15 21:56:00)
Chess positions too complex for engines
Hi Thibault,
Thank you for the examples.
I do not agree with your position against Peter Schuster. Almost every engine is now playing Qe2 i.o. Tb1 ?
So the engines now 'understand' this position a little bit.
Your position against Wolfgang Utesch is a classical fortress and indeed a bit funny. Here all engines show +5 and Rybka even +6 .... :-)
The 'tragedy' here is not the final position, but the fact the engines would go for such a position in their analysis, as it seems to be a clear win for white. I would file this under typical missing endgame understanding.
I.e. Rybka still does not understand wrong bishop endgames....
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-17 20:45:40)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
... and there wouldn't be any rating range there like in class tourneys. So another question is : must these tournaments be rated or not.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-12-17 21:06:59)
7 players tournament with fee & prize
By the way Thib I've read a few threads here today about prizes and classes for tournaments. And how you would want to win a tournament to move up in a tournament class or that was the debate. With that thinking, I wonder if that is part of the reason. Why my tourney is as popular as it is. It gives some players of lesser rating a chance to play higher rated players. An as you said in your next line. My tournament will technically not be rated. Even tho ratings will be used for pairing purposes. With the system in place. I believe a lot of the lower rated players will get a chance to play players 200 rating points or higher at some point in the tournament. Anyway thanks for the explanation. Getting excited with less than 2 weeks to go before pairing and 3 weeks after that before the tournament is underway. I've had a couple more names to my list and was happy to hear kam was going to play.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-09 20:28:47)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Okay, after another long thinking on the different effects of the possible changes, I think that we should try in a first time the following (something between proposals 2 & 4 plus minor improvements):
"All 2150+ players (but the 8 of the knockout tournament) will play M & N class groups at stage 1. The two players with the highest scores (or TER in case of equality) of the M group will qualify for the round-robin final, while the player with the lowest score (or TER in case of equality) will be eliminated, the others will qualify for stage 2. The winner of the N group will qualify for the round-robin final and at most half the players in the group will qualify for stage 2, the others will be eliminated.
Also the new members declaring to use a chess engine when registering will get a provisional rating of 2000."
Let's see the effects during the next cycle, if things are not ok we'll reconsider the idea to prevent the provisionals to enter the wch waiting list. I don't like complex rules but I like the idea of "progressive" rules. Any argument in another way is always welcome.
Don Groves (2011-01-24 03:42:49)
How to play in here..
You can play in the lowest rating group. For example, Class F in Chess is for players rated below 1200.
Garvin Gray (2011-02-27 09:28:07)
Plea for classical rating help
I do not have a solution for what I am about to whinge about, but it is a situation I am getting a little tired of on this site and I see the situation as rather terminal to my participation here.
For the last 12 rating periods, I have had a rating between 2100 and 2200. In the one tournament where I got to play a field with consistent 2200's, I scored 50% or better.
What I am noticing more and more is that for me it is impossible to get opportunities to find out what my true standard is on here.
I am continually having to play people rated around myself or below and these includes those who are provisionally rated 1800 or 2100. When these games are drawn or lost, my rating is dragged down quite a bit.
I do not ever get the opportunity get those points back by playing people above 2200.
It is an issue that I am so sick of and I feel that my progress is being stunted because of it. My rating progress is certainly being stunted.
We do have the higher ticket idea, but that still takes six months to win one and that does NOT help a persons rating all that much.
With the WCH cycle as it is, I also do not have an opportunity to qualify straight through to group 2, like those with higher ratings do.
As I said, this is a bit of a whinge, but I really am sick of this issue and would like some more opportunities to try and find out what I am like against higher rated opponents.
It is part of the reason why I have also asked that the top rateds in the WCH are not segregated from the lower rated as they are atm. I think they should be made to start from stage 1.
Only the defending champion and possibly the defeated previous finalist should receive preferential treatment.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-27 21:20:59)
Plea for classical rating help
I don't know if only the defending champion and/or finalist "should" have any treatment after all... That's the whole debate of the FIDE WCH and I wanted to make it quite the opposite way.
On the opportunities for 2100-2200 players to cross the 2200 barrier, your last 4 ratings were 2160, 2157, 2160 & 2135. The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150. I'm not trying to sell anything there but it is an option that is dedicated to help in such cases.
On the WCH cycle, maybe another idea would be to "extend" the M Groups idea to the 2200-2300 players. With 2200 to ~2400 players in these groups, there will be more strong players in Stage 2... I'm not sure about the whole consequences but it may be worth a try, what do you think?
Garvin Gray (2011-02-28 02:09:54)
Plea for classical rating help
I do know what my previous rating are. That is my point, my rating is stationary and I believe this is because I am not getting the EVEN opportunity to improve it by playing higher rated players often enough.
If I had many games against 2200+ers and had a poor record, then the conclusion would be very different ie not good enough yet for that rating.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-28 16:05:47)
Plea for classical rating help
My point is that you never entered a class M waiting list while you were able to do it during maybe 6 months... During this time you entered many Rapid M & Class A tournaments (you play many games) so there may be also a rating management question into the problem IMHO. The same way you played 3 rapid silver tournaments, 2 against players with low ratings and 1 against Eros (good opportunity!) that you lost. These times many ~2200 rated players enter this waiting list.
Anyway I'll make other proposals in the other discussion today.
Daniel Parmet (2011-02-28 23:29:13)
Plea for classical rating help
I feel I have the same problem as Garvin. But it does not bother me as much as I consider playing otb the real place for improvement. I just use corr as a chance to test my otb ideas. However, I still try to seek out the strongest players I am allowed to play. The restrictions I have found in most correspondence sites though is that I am not allowed to play the stronger players. The 2150 rule does not help me as I am at a mere 2100.
Daniel Parmet (2011-02-28 23:31:07)
Plea for classical rating help
Actually my rating will probably take a severe plunge on the May 1st list because many of my games against 1900-2000s will be drawn each one will majorly drag my rating down despite the fact this is the predicted outcome as black.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-28 23:37:33)
Plea for classical rating help
I guess that is one reason why you like my tournament. You get a chance to face strong players at every point, almost.
Daniel Parmet (2011-02-28 23:50:22)
Plea for classical rating help
yes this is exactly why I love your tournament ;) losses do not bother me. I learn from them. This has been my philosophy ever since I picked up chess a mere 3 years ago. What bothers me is all the restrictions people put into to place to prevent players from improving. Most do it unintentionally. However, many US organizers do it intentionally. They either cap their event sections strictly for 2200+ or they make insane rating determine entry fees. For a non 2400+ player to enter a GM norm swiss event it can cost $400. Or for an expert to enter a 2200+ section will cost you an extra $50 at the Goichberg style events or an extra $100 for the National Open.
It is this kind lunacy that makes improvement hard. You can have all the time and money in the world and still find through no lack of effort or skill that you are not allowed to improve.
I find most of the otb tournaments I am allowed to play in now... I usually end up being seed 1 or 2. Not exactly encouragement for me to use my whole weekend is it? I would dream to be able to enter a swiss where I am the bottom seed. But for this to happen I have to break the barriers without the extreme advantage of being allowed to play strong players.
FYI, I practice what I speak. The local tournament I am running next in my area will feature 5 masters (1 IM, 2 FM and 2 NM) - and it has a low entry fee. This is the type of event I wish was more common...
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-01 11:04:48)
Plea for classical rating help
Same problem in France as for OTB chess (as far as I remember).
Daniel, I see that you made it the very hard way too (starting from 1300), it took a while to reach 2087 but I have no doubt that you'll reach 2100, then you can enter a Rapid M (by the way a ticket can do it already). There are solutions!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-01 11:17:27)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
The idea of this championship was to have a tournament looking like the old classical FIDE WCH, so it would be a non-sense to me to make such changes (the chess world will always be divided into 2 categories on this point :)), I'm not opposed to create something like a Cup tournament (the Freestyle tournament is one example) but it would be probably too much already for the addicted players that we are, so the WBCCC is a good alternative.
Glad to see that Daniel agrees on the 2000 prov. rating, does anyone have any opinion on the suggestions I made just after "@Garvin:" in my previous post?
Garvin Gray (2011-03-02 14:59:29)
Plea for classical rating help
Thib- The tickets system also allow you to enter the CLASS M (2200+) waiting list for 10 Epoints if your rating is above 2150.
====================
Apologies for the slow replies. From looking at both threads on these items I wanted to wait to see if there were any trends. Not so far.
On to the comment I have picked out above, I just looked at the SM Rapid group and I notice three players who I think have accepted the 10 euro scheme into a tournament with 2300 players.
When I saw your comment about the ticket system, I was concerned that it could mean that a few 2150 ers enter the tournament and it ruins the experience for all.
This seems to have occurred where the scheme is in place to give the opportunity for a person to play higher rated opponents.
In fact, rechecking the SM rapid, no player is above 2300.
Perhaps the 2150 scheme should be limited to one acceptance per 2300 group. When that tournament fills, another 2150 person can accept.
So as it stands, I will not be joining that tournament as it will acheive nothing more than I am getting now, and I would be paying 10 euro for the privilege of getting nothing more than what I get now.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-03 14:26:01)
Plea for classical rating help
Sorry as well, I missed your last message in this discussion. So...
1) On tickets for class M ("...if your rating is above 2150"), that was my point, nothing prevented you to use this trick when your rating was above 2150.
2) On the next Rapid SM, only 2 players used it, Marius was above 2300 then lost many elo points as he had to forfeit several games, Miroslav also was above 2300 and lost a few points. That's a border case and it may happen. Anyway only 2 players under the rating limit can enter a waiting list.
3) To clarify, there is no 2150 scheme! 2150 is for the case of Class M, for Rapid SM you have to be rated 2250-2299 or to win a Rapid M event to use the ticket system.
4) You are probably right on the Rapid SM case anyway, maybe the ticket system rule should allow players to use a ticket only if there are no more than 2 players (including players not using a ticket) under the rating range.
5) Anyway you couldn't enter the Rapid SM waiting list unless you win a Rapid M tournament. But my point was only that you could have joinded a Class M several times (with most players rated above 2200)...
Garvin Gray (2011-03-05 11:51:24)
Plea for classical rating help
Been thinking about this issue a bit more.
I think the only solution is that more tournaments are specially run where players from the different rating bands meet more often.
So there should be a couple of more tournaments where there are no special divisions where the top players are put together against each other, rather than having to fight it out from round one with the rest of the riff raff.
This idea seems great, but the old question comes up, it only works for the intended purpose if players from the top end of the rating list actually participate.
Would they? I am sceptical.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-07 21:09:18)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Hi Daniel! In brief (before my huge next post):
"How hard to play 9 games": Not hard, but it may take months, maybe more than a year. That's a problem :/
On top seeds, I agree and that's the point to make "class groups" as much as possible. So everyone cannot have equal chances.
On the number of players per group, it only depends on the total number of players in the waiting list. Sometimes it is not possible to build groups of 9 players.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-07 21:45:17)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Well, I see that the idea of "equal chances for everyone" is still in the debate, that's quite strange as I thought it was obvious & accepted that such a thing cannot exist in correspondence chess.
No correspondence chess championship format can give equal chances to everyone because there is no time for this, and to try to do it only gives less chances to the best player to win it.
The way IECG & ICCF do it has probably as many advantages & inconvenients as we do it at FICGS but at the end the efficiency is quite similar to find as accurately as possible the best player among the highest rated ones IMO & everyone have NOT equal chances (either you have to play a few rounds more or there is a TER rule or whatever).
I'm not saying that one format is better than others, some will like the FICGS format, some will prefer other formats, that's all IMO. Do not think that the WBCCC format solves all problems, it tries to avoid the time problem but the number of players is very limited in the running edition.
Finally, why to play another ICCF/IECG championship here?
I think that there is no argument that can justify that all players (including the 8 players of the knockout after all) should play in regular groups, as well as no argument can justify the opposite. It was just a choice to make it different and somewhat looking like the old FIDE championship.
That's why choices 2) & 4) are really best to me. 2) may be better because the range 2100-2400~ may be too large for M groups, but another solution may be to build M (2250-2400)& N (2100-2250) groups like it was done in one WCH cycle, where the number of qualified players were different. Actually the idea of class groups with different numbers of qualified players is really interesting but of course, the chances are not the same for everyone once again.
Whatever the choice, surely it will not be ok for some players for any reason, but I'm now quite sure that a change should be done.
Wayne Lowrance (2011-03-08 06:19:02)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Howdy all. I have stayed out of this discussion. I am biased for sure. Garvin I can see your side, it is tough. But I believe in the existing format. Maybe a few minor tweaks are ok, we will see I guess. Garvin if your good enough, in time you will climb the ladder. If that is your goal. I have played at ficgs for what seems like forever. I started out at 1400.I came here with a previous 4 year record at another side with a rating of 2300.
I did not think I would ever get past 2200. In fact a member told me face to face via ficgs I would never go higher. I got all the more determined. This does not help you but I just wanted to tell you it can be done.
Maybe it is not fair.
Another personnel observation of apparent unfairness. aboard a ship in the navy first class petty officers get to jump ahead in the chow line. It is not fair, but that is the way it was. Man when I promoted to first class I had no compulsion to jump in ahead of long chow line.
So Thibault I ask for no drastic step to ficgs rating posture.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-10 02:45:04)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I'm not clear enough, as too often :/
Let's say that there are 33 players over 2150 in the waiting list. 8 will play the knockout, 7 (over 2300) will play the M group and 18 will play in two N groups of 9 players. From the M group, 2 will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 will play round 2. From the N groups, 1 from each one will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 from each one will play round 2. So from these 33 players, 12 will play in the round-robin groups stage 2.
Maybe this formulation (that should be included into the wch rules) will be clearer:
"Players with a rating superior or equal to 2300 will play 1st stage in class M groups if possible. From these groups the two players obtaining the best score will qualify for the round-robin final stage 3, the player obtaining the lowest score will be eliminated, the others will play stage 2.
Other players with a rating superior or equal to 2150 will play 1st stage in class N groups if possible. From these groups the winner will qualify for the round-robin final, at most half the players from these groups will qualify for round 2."
Kevin D. Plant (2011-04-20 12:18:31)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000041
Why does it show the following
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000041
Leaders : George Clement Mark Eldridge
who have 2/4 and I have 2.5/4
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-21 11:53:57)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000041
The tournaments leaders/winners are not updated in real time. Now it should be ok.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-04-24 12:03:10)
Active rating lists
Hello Harshil.
It is mathematical, actually. Your rating cannot reach 2000 if you play only class D tournaments (players rated 1400-1600), which is your case. By the way you played only 3 chess rated tournaments, that is still quite few...
High correspondence chess ratings take always 1 full year to be reached, every strong player knows that.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2011-04-26 03:22:43)
Active rating lists
Hi Harshil, when I joined my ranking was 1400, now it is over 2000. I only played one class d championship. If you try to play chess rapid tournaments or the ficgs world champion with players whose ranking is higher than yours, you may progress faster. About the ranking system used here, it is pretty standard, you will find it in others chess sites or clubs.
Don Groves (2011-04-28 23:45:42)
Active rating lists
Thib: I agree it easy to reach 1800 starting from 1600. But that's not the problem. The problem is it's much harder to reach 2000 starting from 1600 and unless one reaches 2000 one cannot play in Class A where most of the best players are.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-23 01:45:13)
No more draws (over the board)
An interesting idea by Rustam Kasimdzhanov to avoid draws in classical chess tournaments...
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7387
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-12 23:38:39)
World Championship
Hello Des,
It has been discussed many times when the server was created. The aim here was to "find" the best player while avoiding the chancy factor (as much as possible) and by the shortest way. It was also to look like the old classical FIDE championship, that was much more spectacular than the current one.
Anyway it will always be matter of discuss :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-15 13:11:44)
5 player double round robins
Yes, William & Garvin answered to both points better than I did :)
Replacing e.g. single RR standard SM tourney only by a double RR would bring some confusion in the structure... But the idea is good anyway. Maybe we could create an entire category (standard, rapid, now standard double) for double RR with only a SM class (while closing the SM class single RR)... I'm not so favourable though. What do you think?
Garvin Gray (2011-12-16 12:06:21)
5 player double round robins
I think it could be trialled in one of the two sections we have atm. So all divisions in either standard or rapid moves to 5 player double round robin.
Could give some useful information.
Btw, changing the SM tourneys does nothing for me at this stage, which was one part of the reason for suggesting this change. It would also have to apply to the M class tournaments too.
Scott Nichols (2011-12-27 19:50:26)
Achieving playing norms
As soon as Class_M__000044 finishes I should get my third FEM norm, :)) I needed 4.5 of 6 and I finished 5.0 of 6. I think it is my style Alvin, I go out on many limbs trying for the win instead of draw. I have went 6/6 in M class, but on the other hand I've went 2/6 and maybe lower. The titles are HARD to get and something to be proud of.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-02 00:30:38)
On rules & players who lost 300 pts
Ah. This is actually another problem :) I think there shouldn't be a change there, but the problem was actually e.g. if a chess player rated 2400+ loses 300 points, so he is now 2100 and enters a class A waiting list. Is it fair for the other 2100 players in that waiting list...
Garvin Gray (2012-01-02 02:12:58)
Chess world championship #10
Hey Thib, you certainly do have a sense of humour lol
In my group of 9 players in class M, there is Scott Nichols, Alvin Alcala and myself. Nice to see I get some new opponents lol
George Clement (2012-01-09 18:46:39)
Ratings UpDates
Why not update the ratings each month?
When you lose a few rating points and drop just below the minumum for the next class a player wouldn't have to wait for 2 months to get back into the class.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-21 15:26:16)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
I partly agree with you Garvin, but if only one of them is interested in money, it will make these open tournaments quite interesting. I'm still not sure which entry fee is best but it's worth a try with 30 Epoints IMO. By the way I don't think that these tournaments will start so often due to the time control. Let's wait and see.
About changing a whole division, I'm still not so favourable to this. Actually best would be to have 4 divisions (rapid DRR, rapid SRR, standard DRR & standard SRR but we have no players enough for this) but I'm not even sure if class DRR tournaments would be a good thing.
I prefered single round-robin from the start because it was the best way to prevent cheating, it is really hard to win points even with 3 or 4 accounts.
Still thinking about it anyway. (I know, it means delayed for a few months but I don't have a better idea right now :/)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-04 14:54:47)
From Gambit Thematic Tournament
Let's go for the Lasa gambit (1.e4 e5 2.c3 f5) :) we'll try a more classical opening after that
Paul Campanella (2012-02-26 19:44:53)
New Player Ratings
I started at a 1600 rating. Personally, I find it completely UNACCEPTABLE that new players start at 1800 because it is a misrepresentation of their poker skills.
I started playing poker approximately a year ago on this site and I had to work exceptionally hard to make it into the top 20. As a past low ranked 1600 player... it was not easy to advance my elo to 1800+. It took considerable time and dicipline to hone my skills and get to the B-Level Tournaments. Playing those lower ranked players developed my skill because it taught me to expect the unexpected and learn all about odds and player styles.
Allow me to present some examples of players in relation to starting point and current rating:
A) I started out as a 1600 player... there were many people that were low ranked. As of now, the only 2 players that I recall advancing from a low rank to the top 20 are Paul Campanella (#16) and Dmitriy Panov (#17).
B) Slobodan Ilic (#6) and Trond Amile (#11) are both high rated good players but the reality is that it is much easier for people like them who entered in as 1800 elo to advance to the top compared to people who entered in at 1600 elo.
Now it seems that all new players get a "free ride" to the B-Class Tournaments and 200 elo points for doing absolutely nothing!
Starting at 1600 elo and advancing through the ranks is the true definition of skill. In order for players' ratings to accurately represent their skills, EVERYONE should start at 1600 and WORK their way up!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-27 02:22:02)
Folding in Poker
Well, mathematically poker ratings below about 1900 mean something of a different nature (level of course but also the number of games played) than ratings over 1900 because it is much easier to win points below 2000 (see rules) and it was even easier before february 2011, so it would be much easier after the change asked by Scott. A player who starts at 1600 will need to play more games than a player who starts at 1800 to reach 2000, but not necessarily to make more efforts. In addition there are ways to manage ratings to enter certain waiting lists more quickly. Also, considering the slow inflation that exists the contrary of what you say is true in a certain measure as well, new players will have to play more games than you to reach the top, actually the whole thing is really complex.
But... anyway I'll try not to change the rules again/too many times to avoid such (logical) reactions and that's why I take time to think about this one again.
I think that this change would make the poker ratings more attractive but less realistic and accurate so...... any other opinions? :)
Also, new players DO NOT get a free ride to the B class tournaments, many still start with 1600 according to the level they pretend when registering. So the difference is not so much, actually it may help you to climb the scale faster if you can beat a 1800 player easily... Really complex as I said but anyway I think that ratings are more accurate when players can start at different levels, because more players in the different categories mean more games in each one (players will find their rating faster) and because everybody do not lie every time. Everybody will not agree with this but I have a certain experience with the chess ratings now and I'm quite certain that most changes were good ones, so probably for poker.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-04 22:08:50)
FICGS poker ratings
Let's continue the debate that started in this discussion:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10306
I'm still not sure of what is best but our top ranked poker player for a while (Nelson Bernal Varela) obviously participated to the discussion his way by resigning all his poker games to show us how much time it will take to regain his points.
His rating was about 2200, now 1924 and the date is march 4th, 2012.
As we're playing single round-robin tournaments only, the rating list was not so distorted but this is not at the advantage of class B players. Of course I do not encourage this behaviour in any way!
However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.
This would actually justify - in my point of view (maybe Nelson's one too but I'm still not sure of what he's thinking about that) - the current poker rating system, so let's wait 1 month or 2 before to decide to make this change or not.
As a reminder, the initial proposal was: "should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now ?"
Garvin Gray (2012-03-04 23:47:06)
FICGS poker ratings
I am more alarmed than anything that a person's selfish actions, regardless of who they are, are not only tolerated, but are encouraged by statements like this:
However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.
His actions now affect many players, which includes denying a place to someone in a tournament that he otherwise should not be allowed to enter ie class B tournaments where by all reports he is too good for.
How about we all do this to see how the rating system goes? I find his actions appalling and he deserves to be banned.
If this was done in chess, would the response be the same? If so and someone did it and the same response was given, I would be looking for another site to play at.
I believe people who act like this deserve to have their rating re-set and then spend quite a lot of time on the sidelines. They should forfeit all their games, but not lose any rating points.
What does this site stand for, I think that is one of the main questions? I play poker on here for something to do in the middle of my chess games, even though I am not particularly interested.
My playing of poker will stop if it is treated with such contempt.
George Clement (2012-03-14 16:11:57)
Slow tournament entries
It sure looks like the tournament entries are going down in almost all classes.
Ramil Germanes (2012-04-20 05:19:16)
Slow tournament entries
In my almost two years of playing here in FICGS, I have observed one major factor why tournament entries are going down.
For me, it's because of the large difference of the rating brackets in a certain tournament class.
For example, in a standard class M tourney (2200-2400), if I have a rating of 2300-2399, I will not play because possibly almost all of my opponents there will be around 2200+ and the thing is it's very hard to win against these players now and I may lose rating points even if I draw with them.
But by decreasing the difference in the rating brackets, let's say 2300-2400 or even 2300-2350 for example of a certain tournament class, will encourage me to play in these tournaments because the possibility of losing rating points by drawing is minimal.
With these new bracketing, it will also give us an easier way to climb the rating ladder thus encouraging us to play more games!
Garvin Gray (2012-04-20 15:24:51)
Slow tournament entries
Thib: I do apologise in advance if this reply is regarded as too strong, it is not meant to offend, but could be taken by yourself or someone else as too strong.
In my opinion, creating ANOTHER division is possibly the worst decision that could be made. Leaving the time control as is would be a better decision.
We have three divisions classical rating sections, plus an advanced rating list and multiple thematic, unrated, epoint and other options.
I think adding another division would just spread things out wayyy too far.
It is not like we have an over abundance of players and need to offer more options to satisfy a wide market.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-21 01:34:43)
Slow tournament entries
Well my reason for not playing at FICGS (despite the fact it is the best site out there!) has been that I can't play the stronger opponents. The rating restrictions have forced me to ONLY play unrated events here or seek other places to play.
However, other than ICCF which costs money there are no other places to play strong players. I just had the most horrendous chess experience of all time at LSS. So my conclusion is that I have probably reached the end of my correspondence career altogether save the ocassional unrated ficgs game if I notice a strong cue up in one of them. I certainly won't be playing my rating class ever again.
The problem IS NOT the time control. The time control here is lovely. I am curious what Thib's solution might be.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-21 18:05:09)
Slow tournament entries
The FICGS WCH is held every 8 months, so about twice a year. I'm still not opposed at all to organize a "CUP" event but it would take many rounds as well and I'm afraid it kills regular tournaments, so we probably need more players for this.
@Daniel: your current rating is 2080, I cannot believe that it is not possible for you to win points in CLASS A... If you win one (or reach 2150) you could enter a CLASS M with 10 Epoints, seems far from impossible.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-22 15:03:40)
Slow tournament entries
Sure but I don't get it, all players in next class A (or previous one) are over 2000 !?
Peter W. Anderson (2012-04-22 15:39:16)
Slow tournament entries
Let me start by saying that I really like this place. The software is reliable, the interface is clean and people are generally polite. Thank you Thibault.
I don't buy Daniel's argument about the bandings. It is quite possible to score 5 or 5.5 in a class A, and it is quite possible to move swiftly through class A.
I am trying to move through Class M. I may or may not suceed. If I don't, I won't be complaining about not being able to play stronger players, I will blame myself for not playing better.
My only concern is what happens if I do manage to reach 2300. The rapid time control suits me (I am retired) and I would not have the patience for the slower time control. As far as I can see no-one over 2300 enters rapids. So I might end up having nobody to play apart from in WCH.
There are two solutions that I can see. One is to adopt Garvin's mixed ability group suggestion; this could be in addition to the existing banded tournaments.
The other is simply to get more members, so that there are more people willing to play in a particular category. I for one will try to do my bit to recruit some people onto here.
Garvin Gray (2012-05-12 17:26:45)
Playing poker for e-points
Paul,
In general parlance, poker is regarded as a gambling game and so the idea that poker is also played in classic tournament fashion, just like every other sport, has never really caught on in legal terms.
The general version is more of the casino style with players joining in whenever they want and leaving whenever they want (or have lost their cash), rather than tournaments where everyone pays an entry fee and there is a winner at the end.
Combined with that is that chess has never been associated as a 'gambling' game or sport.
Remember also that in quite a lot of countries chess is a full recognised sport, or at least mindsport. So in those countries if playing for money in chess was illegal, then so would playing for money in all sports.
Thib- I wonder if playing for epoints in classic tournament fashion is legal, just like in irl poker tournaments?
That could be one option.
Thibault de Vassal (2024-03-18 15:41:26)
message for Thibault regarding...
Hello. Sure... I saw that you started all your games in class M, so you would like to withdraw from WCH ?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-04-21 00:44:14)
Poker rating anomaly
Hello Attila,
This is not an anomaly... this is the 10 moves rule! At least 10 moves must have been played by both players so that the winner's rating increases. This rule prevents several things, e.g. effects of early forfeits, unnatural wins and obvious cheating. This is classified as an unnatural win. Sorry about that, but this rule is necessary.
Scott Nichols (2013-04-23 00:39:31)
!!! The Next world chess Champion !!!
Carlsen is in a class by himself, much the same as Fischer was in the late 60's and early 70's. Anand had a tremendous talent, but the years do take there toll. I predict not only a win by Carlsen, but a shattering of Anand's ego and will leave no doubt in the world of chess, finally the questions will be answered.
Alvin Alcala (2013-05-15 19:38:55)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Classic hippo setup. You played like a real virtuoso of hippo. Very nice game :)
Jonathan Gresham (2013-10-18 02:30:18)
Communism
In exchange for dictatorial power and personal freedom you would get a classless society, jobs and shelter provided by the government and goods shared among workers.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-07 01:01:26)
Playing activity top 20 players
Hi Daniel,
There are other ways to play 2200 players and gain rating points: class M tournaments (if you win a class A + ticket, or if you are rated 2150+ with a ticket as well), rapid M (2100-2300) tournaments, also the standard open tournament.
Building its rating is not all about the championship.
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-09 01:53:58)
Playing activity top 20 players
Please Thib, I do not point out these problems to complain or make you feel bad. I just want you to know where you can improve. I also want you to know you've done an amazing job here and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If you need volunteer time/help, I will be one of the first to come forward to aid you. None of these comments are made as an attack on you, I want you to know I appreciate what you have done.
Regarding rapid/classical time controls, I did not care which I played. The fact that I ended up playing more rapid than classical has to do with the fact I always chose the HARDER option available to me in terms of opponent strength. Since you alternate the rating bands via rapid vs classical - that usually meant only one time control was available to me.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-06-10 00:16:11)
Playing activity top 20 players
I do understand that you choose the stronger opponents (like most strong players), that's why you could have chosen the class M tournament with the ticket opportunity... That's the point I still don't get.
Thanks for your words and your proposal... I'm always looking for ideas to spread the word about FICGS in the chess world. The more players, the more fun for everyone!
Robert Knighton (2013-06-24 14:59:21)
Playing activity top 20 players
20 days removed is a lot of time.
A tournament class which disallows vacation time would in itself be interesting.
combining the two would make for a very different tournament class.
Garvin Gray (2013-08-31 09:27:36)
New my games feature requested
I would like to see an additional heading item added to the my games page.
Currently I have a heap of games going. Some of them are class time control and some are rapid time control.
I think it would improve the site and make 'things' much easier if in the space between each tournament games, a new heading was added telling you either:
1) The actual name of the tournament those particular games belong to
or
2) Just a listing of class or rapid.
Because currently a game says 10 days remaining, but 10 days and 8 moves to the time control in a class event is different to having 10 days remaining in a rapid.
This would then make it easier to prioritise games.
Joerg Moormann (2013-09-02 13:30:18)
Withdraw from a waiting list?
Hi,
is it possible to withdraw from a waiting list? I couldnt find a button for that.
I registered for FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_E__000167 (ELO 1200-1400), some weeks ago, but meanwhile my rating is 1505.
Paul Campanella (2013-09-15 13:03:20)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Will this rule apply to poker and GO tournaments or just chess?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-09-16 00:40:34)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
It applies to all games (as far as I remember :))
Paul Campanella (2013-10-01 00:14:47)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
It's really not fair because the previous people worked their way through the ranks in order to get their ratings instead of just entering into a tournament the easier way.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2013-10-18 12:07:02)
Communism
As history of XX century tells us, the classless society in reality is just impossible. I was living in the communist country the most part of my life, and I know very well that society with its own classes. Go to North Korea or Cuba if you like communism.
Garvin Gray (2013-10-20 12:50:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Was attempting to find the thread on allowing players to enter the next section up by winning the lower section.
Time for a review of this practice I think now that it has been going for a year or so.
I think it has had some benefits, I certainly have benefited from it ie have helped moved me up the rating list faster than otherwise would have occurred, I have noticed a couple of large issues.
In some groups, the waiting lists are taking much longer to form when two players from a lower rating group have entered early.
For instance a 2300+ group can be showing players with ratings of 2150 or so. This is possible when two players buy their ticket after winning a lower division and then their rating drops. This situation has occurred.
From then on for that group to form, it requires another 5 2300 players to join the group. That is a long and tedious process.
I think the rules on the upgrade ticket process need to be re-written to as follows:
A player, who has won the lower division, can only use the higher division ticket, once five or more places have been filled in that group.
The purpose of this rule change should hopefully show to keep 'strong' players that if they get in quick they can get a group going full of players of the ratings they want.
The market can then choose by entering quickly and watching the rating lists.
With the current situation of difficulty getting divisions started due to the number of wch groups started at the same time, some changes are required.
I think this rule is one area that needs to be reviewed urgently.
Emile Trigance (2013-12-13 19:44:54)
Classement
Je joue depuis plusieurs années et je n'ai aucun classement, aucune statistique, que dois-je faire ou que n'ai-je pas fait pour les activer ?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-12-13 23:06:09)
Classement
Bonjour Emile, oui en effet... il se trouve que vous avez toujours joué les tournois marqués "unrated". Il vous suffit de jouer des tournois "class" ou "rapid" (marqués "rated" sous le nom du tournoi) pour construire votre classement.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-12-15 00:56:10)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Hi Garvin, sorry for the (very long) delay!
You're absolutely right here. Actually, I tried to work this way already in some cases but it was not enough, obviously...
There may be disappointments in some cases but it's probably worth a try, so the rule will be rewritten that way!
Garvin Gray (2013-12-15 10:33:57)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Another suggestion :) I notice you have said the rule has been re-written, but where it is displayed. To make the 'ticket' rule etc more obvious, it should be contained on the page when someone clicks on the link that takes you to entering a divisions. Say I click on class sm 19 (the current division in question), it would give the ticket rules.
So, when does the new ticket rules start?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-12-16 18:44:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Right now, it is fully displayed in the rules page only.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#tickets
The ticket option is reminded (with a link to rules) in each email specifying that a tournament is won and on the "My messages" page. I'll probably add it to the Waiting list pages soon.
By the rules have been updated!
Alvin Alcala (2013-12-17 17:47:32)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Is it possible under "preferences" we have a message we earned a ticket?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-01 23:51:05)
Standard time control abusers
Here is a proposal... I'll post a new topic asking who is favourable to close the class A, class M & class SM tournaments, promoting regularly this new topic in the chat bar.
Then let's wait 7 days exactly. If there are more players wanting to close (temporarily, at least) these waiting lists, then it will be done.
Does it sound acceptable to you?
Garvin Gray (2014-03-02 04:03:47)
Standard time control abusers
I see the idea of a vote as ridiculous and a waste of time. What it could lead to is people voting to keep the class A, M and SM tournaments open because they do not want to deprive the opportunity of someone to play in them, but the status quo remains that no one is joining them.
And what happens if you only get a couple of responses, which is exactly what could happen because of general site apathy?
If you want knowledge of how people feel about these matters, but do not want to publicly speak about the matter because they are afraid to offend the site administrator because they are afraid.
I have given you the absolute 'rounds of the kitchen' repeatedly and often on this issue and have not let up over a number of weeks.
It is natural on the internet that when someone is pushing that hard against the efforts of a volunteer site admin that there will be blowback and the 'pusher (me)' will cop criticism in return.
So far there has been little to none. In fact some of the regulars have been stating that there is an issue as well.
Instead of calling for votes that could just leave all of us in the same ridiculous situation, take the feedback I have provided, and also the inactivity of the groups as the votes that really count ie the marketplace has decided that they do not want those groups, and close the class SM, class M and class A groups immediately.
Josef Riha (2014-03-02 10:21:48)
Standard time control abusers
As I said earlier in this thread, look at chesshere.com. There are no tournament classes here.
You have three possibilities to play a game in CC:
1.) Start your own game and decide the time control and elo-range of your opponent or enter a game at the game list.
2.) If you are a teammember the teamcaptain assigns an opponent to you.
3.) You can apply a Championship with different elo-classes.
In all cases the time control range is mostly between 3 or 7 days. No extra days are added after a move.
If an opponent ran out of time you can remain your opponent to do a move or finish the game immediately. After each game your elopoints are updated and you can see your success (or failure).
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-02 23:20:58)
Standard time control abusers
Chesshere is a very different system indeed. There is a server for any taste, I guess...
Garvin, if there was only you, George & I responding, then you'd be probably 2 to choose to close these waiting lists so I'd do it. But if you think I've installed a terror-like system here, then this is not an option anymore...
Ok, I think this decision is quite terrible but let's do this. Class SM, class M & class A are now closed.
Rapid SM 12 is now empty, rapid M 71 has one player & rapid A 158 has three, let's wait and see how it evolves during a few weeks/months.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-03 11:22:35)
Class A, class M & class SM closed
Hello all,
Waiting lists for chess class A, class M & class SM tournaments are temporarily closed as an experiment, following the discussion in the thread:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11507
My sincere apologies to players who entered it already, but anyway you all know that class & rapid tournaments are difficult to start for 2 years now, so we're working on different ways to improve the situation.
Of course, you can send me an email if you want to remove your name from these waiting lists.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2014-03-03 18:14:56)
Standard time control abusers
Why do you think that a serious player would join FICGS if he cannot play serious correspondence games here? He hasn't done it during the last two years, so he will not do it after this restriction of tournament structure.
IMO time control 30/+1 is only suitable for correspondence cafe chess games. It's enough time for poker games, maybe even go games, but chess? That's enough in no case, if you have to work or want to play on others sides too.
I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case. And in the WCH there is not enough time to play a serious game.
Furthermore, I don't like the preferential treatment (own groups) for the "better" players. I think that many players feel the same way.
By the way I think it's terrible that chess players are condemned here because they spent their time (or vacation) as they need it. According to the rules that is their right.
Jing Huang (2014-03-04 00:14:15)
Standard time control abusers
I agree with this - "I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case."
I also like the cup idea :)
Garvin Gray (2014-03-04 01:06:29)
Class A, class M & class SM closed
I think you need to organise a return of epoints to those who use tickets and epoints to enter the class events.
Garvin Gray (2014-03-04 01:15:06)
Standard time control abusers
FWIW, seems like at least one person thinks I 'got my way'. This is incorrect, I did not 'get my way'.
I wanted Thibault to take action against standard time control abusers, which he has not done.
Btw, in one of my games I am now on move 70 and have mate 13 and I think my opponent is going to make another move and then try and sit on the position for another 35 days.
Will Thibault step in then?
The closing of the three standard class divisions was a response to this issue and the fact that they have not started for a long time and that something needed to be done.
It is only after a decision had been made one way or another that some comments have started to come. I gave, some days, between replies, for others to comment, so others had an opportunity to cast their opinion, disagree, give alternative opinion and also to add new rules if they wish.
Then as nothing was happening with the discussions and my opponents were continuing with their actions, the need become more pressing. I have never said for a second that there is anything wrong at all with a person who moves at a rate of one move every five days.
It is with players who are so arrogant they believe it is their right to waste their opponents lives when they clearly can play at a faster rate. If they can not move at a faster rate, how come they can make 9 moves in 3 days, then not move for 35 days?
A person who is legitimately time poor will make one move every few days to make the time control.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-19 17:05:02)
remove from non-started tournaments
Is it possible for a player to have himself removed from the waiting list of tournaments which have not begun if he might not be able to complete the obligations and if he doesn't make this mistake again?
(specifically
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_B__000205,
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000210,
FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_B__000217,
FICGS__CHESS__NO_ENGINES_TOURNAMENT__000071,
and
FICGS__CHESS__UNRATED_TOURNAMENT__000037
- these are many!!!).
Much appreciated if possible :)
Michael S.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-05-13 23:01:16)
Class A, class M & class SM closed
It is now about 70 days that these waiting lists are closed, time to make a point.
The situation was the following on march 2 : "Rapid SM 12 is now empty, rapid M 71 has one player & rapid A 158 has three"
Now, Rapid SM 12 has one player , rapid M 72 (one started) has two players & rapid A 161 (three started) has one.
However only one player rated above 2200 entered the Rapid M tournament that started, and another one the current waiting list. On the other hand, respectively 2, 3 & 4 players rated above 2000 entered the Rapid A tournaments.
My conclusion is that closing class SM & class M tournaments waiting lists was not really useful while it was more useful for class A. Finally, probably one or two rapid A would have started during this period if class A was not closed.
Of course the main problem remains the lack of new players.
I now re-open the class SM, M & A waiting lists. Let's see how it evolves.
Jing Huang (2014-05-25 11:44:03)
Class A, class M & class SM closed
To attract the new players, I have some suggestions:
(1) A league format might be interesting. (e.g. littlegolem)
(2) The way of displaying the tournament results matters a lot. You can try something different and see the effects:)
Garvin Gray (2014-06-01 14:57:20)
Class A, class M & class SM closed
I agree with both of these points.
Point number 1 has been thrashed around a lot.
Point number 2 needs to be embraced. Currently the site really does feel like just one game to the next. It is very difficult to work out how each game fits in to the grand scheme of things.
As Thib has just had to point out to Neel, next stage starts Nov 1. This should all be displayed clearly as part of the wch section on the left hand side.
Perhaps what is required is a full site overhaul to change the layout so the tournament results can be displayed more clearly.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-10-27 20:44:31)
Tournaments rating ranges
Hello all,
As you may know, certain top tournaments are really too long to start... After a long wait, I finally decided to test this new rule:
12. Tournament rules
(...) Please note that the referee may change the rating ranges if a tournament takes too much time to start (such cases are quite rare).
As an example, for the tournament chess class SM, I just changed the low rating limit to 2300 only to find the 7th player. The rating limit will return to 2400 after that. This is not a good thing according to me but it may be the "less worst"... To be continued.
Feel free to tell what you think about this.
Garvin Gray (2014-10-28 23:52:30)
Tournaments rating ranges
The top class sm rating division should be abandoned. There are not enough players to fill it. It only started due to two ticketed players and dropping the rating limit.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-10-31 15:40:17)
Tournaments rating ranges
Maybe a new low rating limit for class SM should be 2350... Any opinion?
Garvin Gray (2015-01-10 17:24:43)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules
Currently I believe there are two players who have been allowed to enter two divisions who under the current rules are actually ineligible and their entries should be withdrawn.
The current rules state:
Tickets for a higher class tournament : However, when you win a rated tournament (only after that you receive an email specifying it or when the tournaments list shows your name as winner or co-winner of the tournament) or if your rating is at most 50 points below the low rating limit of the next class tournament's waiting list, it is now possible to buy a ticket for the next class tournament's waiting list (for example if you win a chess class A tournament, you may ask for a ticket for the next class M tournament) for 10 Epoints if the following conditions are filled : 1) No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise. 2) The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the tournament's waiting list. 3) At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list. 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament. 5) The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 1 year after the end of the won tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament]. 6) As the price for any ticket is 10 Epoints, the player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
The key regulation- and I recall this because I had it included for a specific reason- is: 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament.
The reason for this regulation is that the division is meant for the players of those ratings and it is clear that having to players with ratings significantly lower than the minimum rating will reduce the chances of them entering.
So those using tickets are entered last, in positions 6 and 7, only after it becomes clear that the division can not be filled without them.
So under the published regulations, both players should be removed and put in their correct divisions.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-01-11 01:07:34)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules
You're absolutely right Garvin... Thank you! Looks like I'm not used to this new rule yet :(
There was a ticket a few days ago for the rapid SM tournament, so I made the necessary here. The entry in class GM seems older but anyway this tournament may not start before a while, or at all. This waiting list is closed for the moment.
Garvin Gray (2015-01-11 05:13:18)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules
You can move Herbert Kruse down to his correct division since Class GM 3 is not open at this stage.
He would then be in his correct division and it would be the highest division available at this stage.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-01-11 20:49:12)
Class GM 3 and Rapid SM 12 entry rules
I can do this, but should I move anyone from any rating list to another for any reason? I never did until now (as far as I remember), so I prefer not to. Herbert can enter any other rating list if he wishes.
Alvin Alcala (2015-07-10 14:46:26)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Hi everyone. GM Arno wants to post in this thread as he has trouble logging in.
Introducing a 3/4-1/4 score for stalemate does not mean changing the whole game. Lasker and Réti, the fathers of this idea, knew quite well what they did, when they said, it's only a minor change (btw following the ancient chess, when mates were rare and a stalemated player had to pay half of his stake).
Some people on ChessBase argued and feared that the game might become bloodless as players would fear to sacrify material. But that's a wrong assessment.
Here is a "normal" classical GM game with a Morra Gambit, that could have happened the same way under the new rule:
E.Berg - S. Rocha (POR 2013)
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 7.0–0 Nf6 8.Bf4 Bg4 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 e6 11.Rfd1 Qc7 12.Rac1 Be7 13.Bb3 Rc8 14.Nd5 exd5 15.exd5 Ne5 16.Qe3 Qd7 17.Rxc8+ Qxc8 18.Bxe5 0–0 19.Bf4 Qd7 20.Rc1 Bd8 21.Qd4 Re8 22.Qb4 Be7 23.Ba4 b5 24.Bb3 Rc8 25.Rxc8+ Qxc8 26.a4 Qc5 27.Qe1 Kf8 28.Be3 Qc7 29.axb5 axb5 30.Qb4 Qb7 31.g4 h6 32.Qd4 Nd7 33.Qe4 Bf6 34.Qb4 Qa6 35.Bc2 Ne5 36.Kg2 Nc4 37.Bc1 g5 38.Bd3 Qa1 39.Bxc4 bxc4 40.Qxc4 Bxb2 41.Be3 Bf6 42.Qc8+ Kg7 43.Qf5 Qc3 44.Qe4 Qb2 45.Qf5 Qc3 46.Qe4 Qb2 47.h4 gxh4 48.Qf4 Qe5 49.Qxh6+ Kg8 50.Kg1 h3 51.Qxh3 ½–½
Follow the comments in the MegaBase.
White sacrifies a pawn at move 3. He regains it at move 18 by a typical piece sacrifice. Later White, who is pressing a lot, while Black defends quite well, could have won a pawn by 38.b3 (instead of 38.Bd3?): e.g. 38...Qa1 39.Bxg5 hxg5 40.bxc4 bxc4 41.Qxc4.
Berg argues he might have had practical winning chances. Either 1-0 or 1/2. So what is the big difference, if we would say: either 1-0, 3/4 or 1/2? It's just making the game more exciting, more fair and a bit less drawish, what is badly needed for correspondence chess.
The basic wrong assessment is that it might be significantly easier to achieve a stalemate advantage. But it isn't (and that's why only a small percentage of games will end like that). Last but not least, players who achieve a clear endgame advantage deserve a 3/4 point instead of 1/2. K+P, K+B, K+N vs. K should be a difference to K vs. K."
Thanks again, Arno
Garvin Gray (2015-09-27 12:55:00)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I will carry this point on a bit. Thibault defense for the current system is that it maintains the old classical system of the world championship.
But even fide has recognised that the draw odds to the champion gave too much advantage, and that is in over the board play, never mind in engine chess.
The defending champion already receives two advantages- the right to be in the final match, and if that match is lost, then is in the next qualifying match.
And then the champion in the championship match also receives draw odds.
When you see it written like this, do you now see how much of an advantage the defending champion actually does receive?
And this all goes back to when the site was first set up.
It is not like Eros had to play through from the first stage against all the beginners and fight his way and defeat the previous defending champion to win the title.
David Fierry Fraillon (2016-05-11 21:35:58)
Bugs after the server crash
New games times look strange to me :
I guess Thib has put a time increment to avoid the time lost during the server crash.
What i find strange (on my games only of course) :
- a player who it was not the turn to play also get the time increment
- on the tournament FICGS_CLASSE_A_000166 :
the increment seems to be 6-7 days more than it should be
A player who was on vacation get a 7+19 days increment. I think the solution in that case is to increase the number of vacation days instead.
I will check my other tournament and i'll be back
David Fierry Fraillon (2016-05-11 21:46:12)
Bugs after the server crash
Tournament FICGS_CLASSE_A_000170
- i 'm also finding that strange 7 days increment ina ally my games, for both player
The good news :
-that over day increment seems to be a constant
-no moves lost
-As you said the more than 100 days bug does not exist after playing one move
i played one move : it looks to be a good move :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2016-07-03 02:06:18)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
The rules specify that (in other words) "all games draw means retaining title". You may consider it as a win... or not. But in all cases, Eros did what was necessary to take then retain the title according to the rules.
Btw, it happened in 1987 with Kasparov vs. Karpov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1987
"In modern times there will be no winner if there is no gain": That's a choice... but many people were deceived to see blitz games or so to decide championships initially played at classical time controls. As for me, I would feel the same if a correspondence chess champ was decided by a few advanced chess games.
Finally, I completely understand your point of view, but is this an absolute truth?
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-19 21:33:23)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Hmm... I didn't think about a FULL THEMATIC CHAMPIONSHIP before, that's an interesting idea from Pablo IMO (that would invite us to play -still classical chess- romantic style chess).
And last but not least, it would be possible here (while solutions with fractions of points are much more complicated to code & organize).
Roger Llull (2017-01-20 17:29:03)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
No, you can't mix thematic Elo with classic Elo because you are more likely to lose as black in thematic chess. What you can do is to create a separate Elo for thematic chess. Also I don't think it's good to mix thematic and classic in a championship. I stand by my suggestion to create a system to allow site users to "create" thematic tournaments using our Epoints.
Roger Llull (2017-01-20 21:29:00)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Pablo, changes to the WCH wouldn't make a difference for many years because the rules of each running event can't be changed now without sacrificing site credibility.
But I don't think this is about fixing the WCH final. This is about getting rid of the big frustration that represents the almost total impossibility of winning at the top level.
You can't mix thematic and classic CC Elos for the same reason you can't mix the Elo of classic time controls and the Elo of bullet time controls.
Thibault has an opportunity to bring new life to correspondence chess, but we need to see things from a different perspective. Let's make the most of what's already in place, -like Epoints- and introduce ways to add and influence new events even before they start. Because connecting with others and participating in more ways would bring new interest and benefit a lot more people than tring to fix what's already perfect -sort of- but stale.
Garvin Gray (2018-01-17 03:45:40)
Conditional chess moves (again)
Problems to identify and solutions:
As a starting point for the games:
Conditional moves would be restricted to the classical chess style. We have to start somewhere and this is the tried and tested format and most well known. So there are already sites out there using conditional moves in classical chess.
As for draw offers. If a player wants to offer a draw, the linear conditional move line stops at that move. They have to input their move and the draw offer by ticking the box.
Then the move passes to player B with the draw offer and they have to accept or decline the draw offer and play their move.
And then play resumes as normal with linear conditional moves.
This is how linear conditional moves worked when I ran the WBCCC events.
I am not sure what you mean by messages?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-14 23:12:38)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela
Nelson Bernal Varela is an early FICGS correspondence chess player, now rated 2277 but also rated 2359 at ICCF (Correspondence Chess Master - CCM).
Last but not least, and as all poker holdem players here probably noticed, he is also our ranked #1 for years, who just reached an outstanding poker rating of 2382, while number two is now rated "only" 2212. A good occasion to ask him a few questions, that he kindly accepted to answer.
-----------------------
- Hello Nelson! You are the 2nd most active player at FICGS for years now. Everyone here probably noticed your incredible results in poker tournaments. "Correspondence poker holdem" was probably a strange idea as it is very unusual and very different from "Internet poker". What's your opinion on this and on the presence of a card game (played without money) at FICGS?
NBV: There are more important things than money and one of those is HONOR; It is honorable to be a chess master, international master, grandmaster, world chess champion at ICCF and at FICGS and to be number one in the ranking. It is honorable to be a FICGS world champion at Go and to be first in the ranking, it is honorable to be poker world champion at FICGS poker and in my case, it is an honor to be number one at poker here at FICGS during the last years, understanding that our general level of play has improved remarkably. None of these activities produces money, but to achieve any of the mentioned titles, it is necessary to have extraordinary abilities.
When I was about 18 years old, I had the opportunity to meet a person with immense material wealth, we spent whole evenings playing chess and then I told him my perceptions about each movement of the game. He thanked me for my chess explanations and paid me with good money. That wealthy man in his turn told me about life and recommended that I should always be proud of the gifts I had, since he knew, with all the money he had and being able to hire the best grandmasters in the world, that it could hardly come at the level of chess master. That person told me that the intellect can be turned into money whenever you want.
Now, by playing poker without money at FICGS, I understood that it was my extraordinary and wonderful opportunity to study-learn-perfect and test my poker theories without costing me a single dollar. In FICGS there is no money, but thanks to the knowledge I gained playing poker in FICGS, today I can go after the money in online poker rooms and probably in OTB poker tournaments. I am studying the possibility of becoming a professional poker player.
- The understanding of your opponent's behaviour is usually quite important at Poker. Do you manage to establish some profiles while playing so many simultaneous hands & games? Did you build any method?
NBV: Today I am sure that the most important thing to raise, and keep raising my level in poker, has been to build a psychological profile of mine, to get to know Nelson Bernal Varela in depth and above all to understand me, accept me, love me and be work every day eliminating my technical errors, strategic, psychological that make me play badly. I am aware that in poker I can play perfectly and still lose, what I can not forgive me is playing badly, which is why I work hard correcting my wrong decisions.
Of course, there is a space in my brain where I have built a psychological profile of each contender, that profile I have been able to elaborate with all the information that is provided to me in each hand we play. The way each of us plays, gives reliable information about our personality.
About my method I can write the following: A few years ago, I created a table in excel, where I had all the games with each contender, I identified them with the FICGS numeration and each movement in each hand (preflop, flop, turn, river ) it I was writing and studying; I started to add technical-psychological variables that seemed important to me, resulting in 20 variables that I had to qualify in each movement. With the passage of time and my effort, I no longer needed the excel table and I did not use it again (it was exhausting and time consuming) because I was assimilating things faster and with greater depth. Today I can say that I evaluate these 20 variables in a natural way, as if I was breathing and that when I am at a poker table, online or real, after a few minutes I get the psychological profile of the table and each of my opponents. In the pocket of my shirt I keep a small paper with the list of variables, periodically reread it and I wonder if I should modify, remove or add something.
- You won 1007 poker games, and lost only 380, with a ratio usually going from 57% to 80% according to your best opponents. Undoubtly you know the mathematics hidden behind poker but that may not explain everything. How did you learn to play?
NBV: Mathematics is an ingredient in poker, in the same way that my psychological aspects and of my opponents (I recommend reading-studying about four times the book “The Poker mindset†of Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger), it is vital to understand the Law of Large Numbers. Next I make a list of topics that I consider important to raise the level of poker; compete with EV+ cards, you have to know the small ball theory of Negreanu (but not apply it, hahaha) you have to always look at the texture of the board, you have to evaluate your reality and your future, also that of your opponents (act and power), the position to talk is important, the stack, the personality of the table, know who has the panic button on. All these and other variables must be evaluated in the few seconds they have to make a move and the only important thing is to make the right decision according to the circumstances. There is a good list of poker books to read... it is mandatory to have read about 15 poker books.
- As for me, I may be wrong but I can't imagine that you reached such a rating without special techniques & maybe by optimizing it in some ways... Of course, "rating management" is not a problem, and it is only one thing with a limited impact, but maybe you have some other secrets? What about this "+1" technique that I noticed in many of our games, if this is not a secret? :)
NBV: In these years I have used different techniques that I had to read, study, learn, repeat, modify, invent and sometimes eliminate. Poker is a sport that seems easy, with time one manages to understand that it has an amazing complexity, today I consider poker to be as complex as chess and I study them in a "similar" way. As an example, I have tried to create "openings in poker"; based only on probabilities I invented something that I called mirror theory and another "opening" that I called opposite outs. I am fascinated by mathematics and from the mathematical perspective they are perfect "theories-openings", but I have lost tournaments and a lot of money for applying such theories in mistaken emotional moments. In poker it is important to never lose sight of the Law of Large Numbers and be aware that this LAW likes to make fun of each one of us... I am working on giving an emotional nuance to my theories "mirror" and "opposite outs". There are moments when perfect mathematics becomes an unforgivable psychological error...
For the last few months I have modified my way of playing and my results have improved; Today it must be much more difficult to win a game me, thanks to small and imperceptible adjustments that of course only I know, because I have followed my mistakes-successes-evolution in the game over several years.
- Isn't it too frustrating for you to play heads up only (here at least) ? Of course it is a way to improve this important technical case but we know that many complexities come with 3 to 8 players on the table, which is the most common case in professional poker tournaments.
NBV: Currently I spend little time every day playing heads-up in FICGS, thanks to the fact that I have the profile of each contender. The 4-5 hours that I study poker daily, include practice in micro limits in cash tables of 6 players and tournaments in tables of 8-9 players. I think I'm covering the whole range of possibilities, experiencing game situations between 1 and 8 contenders.
- What do you think about computer analysis in poker? Do you think it could make a difference here just like the way we play advanced chess?
NBV: I think the algorithms are ready to be written in machine language and the question is where are those algorithms? Well, in the brains of the best players in the world and in their games compiled in huge databases. But programming language can be accelerated with artificial intelligence brains, making A.I. studying databases of the best professionals, playing with itself millions of games and building an invincible TACTIC-STRATEGIC SYSTEM, similar to chess software and GO... I think preflop and flop play would be very similar between humans and artificial intelligence, but on the turn and on the river artificial intelligence would take considerable advantage, but in the short time the level of human poker would rise because artificial intelligence would teach us to play poker, this event that would diminish the profits of the professionals. It will always be said in favor of poker that because it is an incomplete game of information, to make computer algorithms are quite complicated, but despite that, I am sure that artificial intelligence will far surpass the best human poker player. It is possible that an artificial intelligence that plays a perfect poker already exists, but unlike GO and chess, poker does produce a lot of money. Due to the money factor, in today's world, it is very difficult that there is a Prometheus willing to steal fire from the gods and give it to mankind...
- How would you describe your relation to games in general?
NBV: I can summarize it in one of the first chess books I had the fortune to read, by the great Danish master Bent Larsen, "I play to win"
- When did you start to play chess & poker? Do you play other games?
NBV: My first contact with chess was at the age of nine, it was love at first sight and until death separates us; I must confess that for some years we have been separated, due to my stupidity and my erroneous decisions. I have always been self-taught in any subject, my method is to buy about 10 to 15 books of the subject that interests me and I read them thoroughly, sometimes 3 or 4 times; already with that information in my head and thanks to the constant practice, I build MY SYSTEM (Nimzowitch) according to my personality, my dreams, my desires, my anguish, my fears... I was youth champion of Bogotá, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.
I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.
I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.
- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?
NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).
I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.
In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.
In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...
- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?
NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha
- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)
I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...
- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)
NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha
- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-24 00:15:43)
Some questions to H. Kruse, WCH finalist
After that the last FICGS chess WCH final match finished, the choice was made again to ask a few questions to Eros Riccio's challenger: Herbert Kruse, for the 2nd time. He kindly accepted to answer it so let's learn a bit more on our top-ranked correspondence chess player.
______________________________
Hello Herbert, you're not really a player to introduce as you're very active here and at several chess websites for years, with outstanding ratings in each one (as far as I know), you're the 1st FICGS CUP winner & several times FICGS WCH challenger, each time facing "the wall" Eros Riccio, what could you tell us about yourself particularly as a chess & correspondence chess player?
- i began late with 16 to play my first tournament game, but with 18 i already was kicked out of a night club in company with tony miles ;) (dresscode) had vlastimil hort as trainer for a short time and played in teams with gutman, michalchisin, klovans, gipslis and some other GMs. corr chess i began, because i love to find the truth and because of freestyle, where i began to build very strong computers
What kind of computers do you build? Is it all dedicated to chess?
- i have several dual xeon e5 computers with 64gb ddr3 and 16 to 20 real cores and they all play chess ;)
Once again, GM Eros Riccio managed to draw the 12 games of the match. What are your feelings on these games? How did you estimate your chances to destabilize your opponent in the openings and to create complications enough with White (or Black)?
- this time my feelings were neutral. 1% chances to win, but i hoped he would lose his concentration if i began more games with him (we played 6 other games at the same time)
Doesn't "1% chances to win (the match)" mean about 0.17% to win only one game with White, even when losing one with Black? Isn't it a bit pessimistic after all, or is it the new so called Riccio-effect? :)
- if the strongest players face each other there is no win possible, except some has a mouse slep or forgot something during human interfacing
When did you start playing correspondence chess and what changed since that time? What attracted you most in the game?
- 2004 and evaluation of the position is the key point of improvement since then. attractive was to be better than actual world class players :)
Could you tell us anything on the way you work chess and play your correspondence games? Any tip or secret? (nothing to lose to ask :))
- with black i play for fastest way to 0.00 and with white i try every promising way to make a game for a longer time complicated
Do you use several ones at the same time when analyzing a game? (still grabbing some tips)
- i only use the newest stockfish versions of brainfish and corchess because the other engines are not so good. because i have many games i decide which one gets the most cores and time and let them run in infinity mode until i am happy that can be after 1 week or more sometimes.
You're not far to rank 2nd as a poker player at FICGS, you obviously started to take on Big Chess as well. What other games do you play? Did you consider to play Go already?
- i played go against the german champion and lost so i quit :)) played backgammon money game and internet (in fibs with kit woolsey i played over 100 matches) in bridge i was best bidder in germany 1994 to 1995, but dont play much nowadays
Do you have specific goals to achieve as a player?
- 2 goals, since a long time: be ficgs world champion and win one german bridge championship
How do you imagine correspondence chess evolution within a decade? What kind of engines/computers do you expect to use and what will look like centaur chess according to you? (in other words, what part will remain to the human player in the decision?)
- i think the engines today are already unbeatable, so in 20 years the would still not lose and chess is dead since about 4 years
What did you think about Google Deepmind's Alpha Zero performance vs. Stockfish?
- it was a joke because they let a bad version of stockfish play. i would not have lost one game against az0 and maybe won 2 til 5 out of 100
Conditions of this AlphaZero vs. Stockfish match were very specific (opening books, unbalanced hardware...) What weaknesses did you detect in AlphaZero play?
- it was the lack of precision, what would let it lose against stockfish in its tuned newest version but i look from a view of a player who is used to play with deep 60 :)
It seems that computers did not completely take on Bridge yet, what do you expect within a decade?
- i have not seen bridge programms, but the game is so easy that it must be already mastered by computers
William Taylor (2018-10-27 12:03:10)
World Championship Tie-breaks
For many years, the reigning classical world chess champion had draw odds. The chess world eventually realised this was both unfair to the challenger and uninteresting for the spectators, and introduced a rapid and blitz playoff match for use in the event that the players remained tied after the classical portion of the match. There have always been, and will continue to be grumbles about this system (mostly that the classical WC should be decided by classical games), but overall it is popular (as I imagine can be seen from online viewing figures from the Carlsen-Karjakin match, for example) and, to my mind at least, fairer than the alternative. I propose something similar for the FICGS WC match: an advanced chess tie-break match. Granted, there is the same objection as for the classical WC match - advanced chess is not the same as correspondence chess. However, the combatants will already have had ample opportunity (12 games) to decide matters in that format. An advanced chess tie-break would provide much more sporting interest, as the current system is becoming a bit predictable (this is not in any way a dig at the incumbent, Eros Riccio, who is just doing what he has to do, and doing it very well). I think the match would also be great for promoting FICGS - you could stream it live on Twitch, for example, perhaps with commentary. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Garvin Gray (2019-01-24 08:14:14)
James Romig
Fred Delaforet expressed concern regarding James Romig's health or otherwise after James lost on time in seven of their games.
Doing a google search, I was able to find a James Romig from USA (same location as listed here on ficgs) and that person is 48 years old and is a high class musician.
No death or funeral notices mentioned that I could see.
Misha Allport (2021-06-27 18:47:48)
Withdrawal from Standard Tournament
I respectfully request withdrawal from the Standard Tournament -Class E- #000239 for personal reasons. Thank You, Allport, Misha
Juri Eintalu (2022-05-10 10:32:44)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN
The wars can be unique, but they are classified as "just/unjust" wars or "justified/unjustified" wars.
JUST WAR
Encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/just-war
The West is of the opinion that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is an unjustified war.
Karjakin is of the opinion that it is justified war.
My arguments above assumed that if the Ukrainian war is unjustified, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were even much more unjustified.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2024-03-16 20:34:57)
message for Thibault regarding...
... the tournament that I withdrawed from.
Dear Thibault,
February 25. I sent you an email that I had accidentally enrolled in two standard class M tournaments, by clicking a second time before the next page loaded.
This night I saw some new games and assumed it was the new WCC cycle. But upon closer inspection, it was the second Class M tournament that I thought I had withrawn from.
Added to the imminent new WCC this will be a bit much. So is it still possible to fix this?
Garvin Gray (2025-11-18 02:55:42)
Clarification of Rating Groups
It is really annoying when the site owner does not bother to clarify this issue and instead leaves it to the players to have to dig through the rules themselves to sort out this issue.
Tickets for a higher class tournament :
However, when you win a rated tournament (only after that you receive an email specifying it or when the tournaments list shows your name as winner or co-winner of the tournament) or if your rating is at most 50 points below the low rating limit of the next class tournament's waiting list, it is now possible to buy a ticket for the next class tournament's waiting list (for example if you win a chess class A tournament, you may ask for a ticket for the next class M tournament) for 10 Epoints if the following conditions are filled : 1) No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise. 2) The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the tournament's waiting list. 3) At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list. 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament. 5) The possibility to buy a ticket is valid after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament]. 6) As the price for any ticket is 10 Epoints, the player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Garvin Gray (2026-01-28 17:36:07)
Too many groups for tourneys
Time to wind the clock back quite a few years. What I suggested as a solution to this issue was that the rating bands for the class tourneys and the rapid tourneys should have rating bands of 200 point differences, but they be at a different cut off.
What this meant in practice is.
Class tournaments
2600 +
2599 - 2400
2399 - 2200
2199 - 2000
1999 - 1800
and so forth
And then the rapids would be
2500 +
2499 - 2300
2299 - 2100
2099 - 1900
1899 - 1700
and so forth
I think after quite a bit of discussion, Thibault decided that this idea was either too much effort, or that the rating bands I was proposing was too restrictive.
I think the evidence over the years has proven my conclusions more correct.
Players do not enter the rating band tournaments when there is a 400 point difference. These events only get filled by players who have a ticket from a lower tourney win, or they buy their way in by being less than 50 points in.
But, to beat the drum again. If Thibault is not on board, it does not happen.
And at this point in time, I am more concerned with fixing the 5 player round robin WCH group issue.
Garvin Gray (2026-02-13 02:36:18)
Is rating just a number on this site?
I am taking this comment from the chat to this forum for further discussion.
In my opinion, this statement is false. On this site, your rating is not just a number. Your rating dictates which tournaments you can enter and most importantly, when you enter a class/rapid group tournament, or a wch tournament, your rating dictates your chances of success.
Example: If you have made it through to the round robin final and you are the seventh seed, this means generally there is about 50 rating points between the top seed and the bottom seed.
But with TER being used as the first tie break, if you are the bottom seed, you have to win the group outright. Any ties and you are done. And so forth if you are the sixth player by rating for anyone higher.
The top seed in that group, who could only be the top seed by 1 or 2 points, in effect gets draw odds against the field. That is such an enormous advantage that it can not be understated how much of an advantage it is.
I think it is now so clear that your rating on this site is not just a number. It dictates everything about your playing experience. From which tournaments you can enter, to how you progress in the wch cycle and if you can get tickets to higher level tournaments.
Garvin Gray (2026-02-22 07:45:14)
Is rating just a number on this site?
There are two types of tickets.
The first kind is when you win a lower class/rapid event and that qualifies you to enter the next higher rated event, but you have to wait until five players above the rating cut off have already entered.
This system was introduced to get tournaments started as each tournament would sit for months waiting for seven players who had ratings above the rating cut off to enter.
And then Thibault has extended the system to pay to enter, where you need to be 50 points lower than the rating cut off.
As has been said previously, one of the biggest issues is not either of these concepts, it is the difference in the rating bands for entering a tournament.
When a tournament is 2200 to 2600, no one who is rated 2500 is going to enter that event when 4 players who are rated between 2200 and 2300 have already entered.
I have already proposed a solution to this, but once again Thibault will not embrace change and we are stuck with what we have.
And I am going to say this directly. Those who are playing on here are growing increasing frustrated and how it is being run.
From TER, to rating bands, to tickets and many other issues, nothing changes.
And I think quite a few of us are reaching the point of walking away. I certainly am.
There is no point continuing on when the site owner will not change anything anymore. The only option left is to leave.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-03-13 23:17:02)
Post-tickets FICGS
The long answer:
FICGS story is a quite simple & classic one, the reasons why it's declining are quite obvious, and unfortunately the solutions aren't. A bit of story:
1. Luckily, FICGS.com was created when there were a demand, just after IECG stopped... It grew very quickly, and I was in a rush to code it (FICGS was the very first dynamic website I ran from A to Z), there were ideas from everywhere. FICGS.com was the shortest domain name available, but not a so good one. Quite hard to remember, hard to tell, not clear for search engines (unlike chess.com which is a perfect one). Maybe it was a mistake to choose it, I can't tell. Either it meant "Free Internet Chess Games Server" or "Free Internet Correspondence Games Server", so I added another game, Go (Weiqi), to FICGS, which is a quite heavy decision: After that, FICGS is not only a chess server anymore.
2. A few years after, there are several thousands players (a few hundreds active). The number of new players slowly decreases month after month but a few sponsors come. Obviously, the way I coded FICGS made it more and more difficult to fully update from a PHP version to another one, or to change it in deep. Even now, I'm not sure to regret it though cause I couldn't have done it differently, so it is what it is. At this time, chess.com was less interesting than FICGS (my taste), but success is already here thanks to a perfect marketing formula: best domain name & pay for options. On the contrary, I chose to keep FICGS completely free.
3. Chess engines explode, correspondence chess continues its evolution (human's thinking decreases in moves decision), finally I add another game that is in a hype: poker texas holdem. New sponsors come, I still play correspondence chess myself but now I play another game even more: Google. FICGS also extends this way and it works in some ways. At its peak, FICGS is about the 32,000th most visited website worldwide. But the number of players continues to decrease, Android & phones started to change the landscape already. Chess.com released its app and added probably its best feature: a quick Stockfish analysis with evaluation & explanation for each move (which is excellent for blitz games but quite a non-sense for a correspondence chess website).
4. The number of players suddenly declines very quickly, I react by creating FICGS apps for Android, a dozen apps... On some apps, you can play against the machine, virtual opponents, chess 960, blindfold & so on. But the way to maintain it is not easy at all for many reasons, but the main one is that Google (Playstore) constantly change technical things & rules. After a few years, I even have to completely remake it, losing what was acquired. And some apps still fail to re-appear at Playstore, that's why I just made the APK files available to direct download. But these applications confirm something clear: blitz is more fun and attracts much more players. Changing rating ranges for correspondence chess tournaments or championships formats won't be a solution for this.
5. FICGS is now 20 years old! Internet completely changed over the years but it survived longer than Messenger, Skype & many other great services. If you look at many websites, new versions of their modern interfaces are often worst (bugs or options) than previous ones. FICGS was never perfect, maybe even clear, but at least it remained coherent. Now Google (just like all major services) is mainly governed by AI, sponsors left - that does not change anything, FICGS will continue to run. I created other websites, but none so far successfully helped in a way or another to solve the problem we encounter here: how to increase the number of correspondence chess, Go or poker players again? If FICGS becomes a pure correspondence chess site again with a brand new interface, I'm quite sure that wouldn't change anything or almost. I might be wrong of course, but according to me, this is a deep problem, connected to society evolutions, computers, phones, our attention, time, even health & so on... In my personal case, I wish to play correspondence chess again, but still cannot find the time to do it. Finally I have no idea what internet will look like within 5 years, but FICGS will be there. Maybe an AI will find a solution soon ^^ Meanwhile, I received many ideas to improve FICGS and I have to thank you very much for this. Few ideas were released for reasons I explained here (but new ones are always wecome), I hope you'll better understand it by reading this.
Have good games & take care!
There are 17 results for class in wikichess.
Francisco Pessoa (2528)
e4
King's Pawn Game refers to any chess opening where White opens with 1.e4, the most popular of the twenty possible opening moves. Since nearly all of these openings have names of their own, the term "King's Pawn Game", unlike Queen's Pawn Game is rarely used to describe the opening of the game.
King's Pawn Games are further classified by whether Black responds with 1...e5 or not.
Openings beginning with 1.e4 e5 are called Double King's Pawn Games (or Openings), Symmetrical King's Pawn Games (or Openings), or Open Games—these terms are equivalent. Openings where Black responds to 1.e4 with a move other than 1...e5 are called Asymmetrical King's Pawn Games (or Openings) or Semi-open Games.
According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Mark Noble, Francisco Pessoa
Thibault de Vassal (2522)
d4
Queen's Pawn Game refer to any chess opening which starts with 1.d4, the second most popular opening move, but is now usually used to describe openings where White opens with 1.d4 but does not follow through with an early pawn advance to c4. Some of these openings have individual names as well.
In the 1800s and early 1900s, 1.e4 was by far the most common opening move by White, while the different openings starting with 1.d4 were considered somewhat unusual and therefore classed together as "Queen's Pawn Game".
As the merits of 1.d4 started to be explored it was the Queen's Gambit which was played most often; more popular than all other 1.d4 openings combined. The term "Queen's Pawn Game" was then narrowed down to any opening with 1.d4 which was not a Queen's Gambit. Eventually, through the efforts of the hypermodernists, the various Indian Defences, such as the King's Indian, Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian, became more popular, and as these openings were named, the term "Queen's Pawn Game" narrowed further.
According to Chessbase, white chances are about 58%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2522)
e4 e6
The French defence has a reputation for solidity and resilience, though it can result in a somewhat cramped game for Black in the early stages. Black often gains counterattacking possibilities on the queenside while White tends to concentrate on the kingside.
The defence is named after a match played by correspondence between the cities of London and Paris in 1834 (although earlier examples of games with the opening do exist). In the early 20th century, Géza Maróczy was perhaps the first world-class player to make it his primary weapon against 1.e4. It is currently Black's third most popular reply to 1.e4, behind only 1...c5 and 1...e5. Players including Viktor Korchnoi, Mikhail Botvinnik, Wolfgang Uhlmann and Nigel Short have been particularly fond of it. More recently, the defence has featured strongly in the opening repertoires of Evgeny Bareev, Alexander Khalifman, Alexander Morozevich, and Teimour Radjabov.
According to chessbase, black chances are about 43%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Toncho Tenev
Sebastien Marez (2377)
e4 c6
The Caro-Kann, like the Sicilian Defense and French Defense, is classified as a "semi-open game", but it is thought to be more passive and drawish than either of those openings.
The opening is named after the German players Horatio Caro and Marcus Kann who analyzed the opening in 1886.
According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Sebastien Marez
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
c4
The English Opening is the fourth most popular opening move in chess. White begins the fight for the center by staking a claim to the d5 square. Common responses are 1...e5 (which can lead to positions similar to the Sicilian Defence but with opposite colors), 1...c5 (the Symmetrical Variation), and 1...Nf6. Also perfectly playable are 1...e6 (often leading to a Queen's Gambit Declined after 2.d4 d5) and 1...c6 (often leading to a Slav Defence after 2.d4 d5, a Caro-Kann Defence after 2.e4 d5, or a Reti Opening after 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3).
The English is a very flexible opening. Although many lines of the English have a distinct character, it often transposes into other openings. If White plays an early d4, the game will usually transpose into either the Queen's Gambit or an Indian defence.
The English derives its name from the English (unofficial) world champion, Howard Staunton, who played it during his 1843 match with Amant. It fell out of favor (the opening was notably disdained by Morphy), but is now recognized as a solid opening that may be used to reach both classical and hypermodern positions. Botvinnik, Karpov, and Kasparov all employed it during their world championship matches. Bobby Fischer created a stir when he switched to it from the King's Pawn against Boris Spassky in 1972.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Daniel Barrish (2000)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6
Here we've reached the initial position of the famous Sicilian Dragon. For those who are interested in astronomy, its name refers to the black pawn structure d6-e7-f7-g6-h7, which has resemblance with the Dragon Constellation.
Usually White has (generally speaking, of course) two ways at his disposal:
-quiet positional play by castling short, in order to put some positional pressure thanks to his slight space advantage.
-sharp play by castling long, and simultaneous king's attack for both sides, which often leads to real bloodbaths.
============
There are 2 main ways for white to play here: The "passive" classical and minor variations and the aggresive yugoslav attack. the yugoslav has been proven much better
Contributors : Julien Coll, Daniel Barrish
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 e6 d4
The French defense classical variation, played at 95% cases.
According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%
============
Contributors : Toncho Tenev, Thibault de Vassal
Kostis Megalios (1400)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3
Classical Variation.
The most popular reply to the Caro-Cann.
============
Contributors : David Grosdemange, Kostis Megalios
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4
Classical variation.
According to Chessbase, white chances are about 59%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3
The classical variation.
According to Chessbase, white chances are about 61%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Pablo Schmid (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 c3
The Giuco Piano. An old and classical line. It prepares d4 but often leads to a gambit.
============
Contributors : Pablo Schmid
Rémi Marois (1500)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Be7
the classical line.
============
Contributors : Rémi Marois
Ralph Marconi (2095)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6
Classical Variation.
============
Contributors : Ralph Marconi
Ron Keyston (1522)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2
Classical Scheveningen
============
Contributors : Ron Keyston
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3 Be7 Bd3
This creates the classic formation for White. If Black plays ...d5, he creates a hole on e5 for the White night. But if he doesn't play ...d5, then White himself can play d5 and then feed the knight onto e6 via d4.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Sophie Leclerc (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5
Whit this move, black has now an important treath. the knight manaver f5-d4 and c6-b4 and taking on c2, the classical forks to take a rook.
Of course, White can do something to this treath right away.
============
Contributors : Sophie Leclerc
Lauri Lahnasalo (1600)
c4 e5 Nf3 e4 Nd4 Nc6 Nc2 d5
High class alternative. As played in Maleja-Bu Xiangzhi Stepelnakert A 2005.
============
Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo
FICGS : class , Wikipedia : class , Dmoz : class , Google : class , Yahoo : class
Life is a kind of Chess, with struggle, competition, good and ill events. (Benjamin Franklin)
If you aren't afraid of Spassky, then I have removed the element of money. (Jim Slater)
It is no time to be playing Chess when the house is on fire. (Italian Proverb)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess