classical
FICGS - Search results for classical
There are 69 results for classical in the forum.
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 (2006-05-14 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 (2006-05-29 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 (2006-06-22 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.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 20:15:35)
8-game matches
John... ??? :)
Vladimir Kramnik - Peter Leko (match for WCH classical title)
Vladimir Kramnik - Deep Fritz...
Of course it is desired... Who will remember the names of the players in the last ICCF final tournament ? Even if ICCF doesn't use this format, and (as you say) serious CC players didn't have the opportunity to play such tournament, knockout format is still desired.
My first idea was a pure enormous knockout tournament, but it's obviously not possible (too much rounds, a time problem), that's why I thought about this combined system.
Now look at the chess world : Many players don't understand why FIDE progressively reduces the number of games and time controls in WCH matches. It is the main reason why FIDE world champion title looses value. Not hard / accurate, not spectacular enough !! ..
What many players (me, at least :)) expect is a classical world championship with a big final match. You may have noticed that FICGS champion will have the opportunity to defend his title in a... 24 games match against his challenger... (!!) That's real fight, that's real challenge and that's what I expect to see from a championship, a big opposition between 2 players, and not a round-robin more or less aleatory, with too much names, not understandable for the most.
Now, as we said on TCCMB : FICGS is not "official" matter, chess is for fun here, but chess must be a show and I'm convinced it is relevant in correspondence chess too. We'll see that ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-06 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...
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)
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
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 (2006-10-25 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 ? ;)
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
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-01 11:19:43)
Deep Fritz, Rybka & future
The Chess Challenge 2006 in Bonn between classical world champion Vladimir Kramnik and chess engine Deep Fritz 10 confirms (who ignored ?) the best chess programs can rivalize with the world champion in a match, but it first shows us these calculating monsters still have weaknesses.
Question is : What are the real improvements in Fritz 10 compared to Fritz 9 (engine speaking only) ?
Here is what I think about chess engines nowadays (Fritz 10, Shredder, 10, Junior 10, Hiarcs 10 and particularly Rybka 2.2) :
The way of think to play correspondence chess is (or should be) mostly human one combined with a chess engine algorithm. We follow the tree of moves like a program with our selective algorithm (much better than chess engines), applying our judgement of the position when necessary only. The point is we evaluate moves and we almost never evaluate a position twice.
Chess engines are very good analysis tools but are surprisingly not designed to be very good chess players. I think a major improvement in chess engines should be recognition of 'sufficient moves' : ie. it is no worth to always find the best move at a particular point of the tree, this reflection time could be used later... It depends on the evaluation of the position, on the clocks... Iterative model is quite basic (in a game at least !).
Another point is recognition of traps. This is the start of psychology in chess engines, and basics of the art of war. It first depends on who your opponent is, and on the clocks too. Finally, at the end of the tree, chess engines evaluate positions, but how many evaluate moves ? .. Speculative moves were a step, but it first shew chess engines were not able yet to see what move is worth to be analysed really deeper, consequently creating a 'human' weakness, particularly against some other chess engines.
I don't know how Rybka works, but as far as I read about this one that calculates much less positions (about 10 times) than Fritz, I wouldn't be surprised that Vasik Rajlich had implemented a better approach of human way of think, which is undoubtly the future of chess engines.
A good 'centaur' in ie. Playchess rapid tournaments is first a good choice between Chessbase engines according to the position and clocks. Fritz qualities probably apply best in standard games, where clocks are really designed for him. Among Chessbase engines, Hiarcs is probably the best Blitz player and could be the best correspondence chess player (even if it isn't the best CC tool for humans). Rybka is probably a kind of centaur itself (sorry, herself ;)), knowing when to use (in the tree !) brute force and more selective approachs - not to be compared to Hydra or Deep Blue which, on contrary, use most brute force.
My conclusion is chess engines have much to learn from humans yet, we'll see a Rybka 5 and Fritz 13, with much better results against other chess engines, but their results shouldn't increase a lot against the best humans in future. Finally, it will never be a good correspondence chess player :)
My two cents.
If I find time, I'll continue to implement my own chess engine..... but it's a lot of work :/
Thibault de Vassal (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 :)
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 (2007-05-02 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 (2007-09-26 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.
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 :)
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. :)
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 (2008-06-07 17:28:51)
Hydra vs Adams
Wasn't it classical time control ? (40 moves/2 hours)
What does mean your second question ?
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.
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!
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 ?
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.
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.
Don Groves (2009-10-27 06:16:48)
Shogi
I would learn a classical game like Shogi if it were offered on FICGS
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.
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.
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
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....
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 (2011-07-23 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 (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
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 (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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
There are 11 results for classical in wikichess.
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
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
FICGS : classical , Wikipedia : classical , Dmoz : classical , Google : classical , Yahoo : classical
I like the moment when I break a man's ego. (Bobby Fischer)
By playing at Chess then, we may learn: First: Foresight... Second: Circumspection... Third: Caution... And lastly, we learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present bad appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favorable chance, and that of persevering in the secrets of resources. (Benjamin Franklin)
The most powerful weapon in Chess is to have the next move. (David Bronstein)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess