ecam
FICGS - Search results for ecam
There are 33 results for ecam in the forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-23 13:48:27)
French websites
Quelques liens de sites français tout d'abord :
http://www.france-echecs.com
(le forum français bien connu)
http://echecsmag.over-blog.com
(un nouveau magazine sans lange de bois)
http://www.asso-ecam.com
(les échecs par correspondance sans assistance informatique)
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 15:02:56)
Infinite repetition
Well, it might work, but that seems unfair to black IMO, because it creates discrepancies in the rules depending on you being sente or gote.
Admitedly, the komi can be seen as such discrepancy, but all it does is forcing sente to be bit more aggresive, the stategy and tactics, the feeling of the game being globally the same. What you propose would induce a kind of strategic play on the rules... not really Go anymore!
I realise I may not be clear: as an extreme example of rules discrepanies, just consider Renju. Here the rules are different for sente and gote and the strategy is indeed really different for both! While this is fine in Renju, because actually it became the heart of the game, I do not think Go needs it.
Besides, it would spoil somehow IMO the aesthetic feeling of the game flow.
Just my opinions of course :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-20 16:05:08)
Sicilian opening & Kasparov
I quote from Amir analysis : "But if you want to win, the Sicilian is really the best choice."
I fully agree, I'll just add: but Sveshnikov sicilian :)
Actually, (not a surprise) you just have to see how Black pieces are conducted by Garry Kasparov in sicilian opening to understand what lines to follow, why it is the best choice... and why he became the best player of all times.
He simply always wanted to win, never draw... It is an illustration of a quote in this interesting (but failed) movie by Guy Ritchie, "Revolver" : "To win against a weaker opponent, you have to extend the game field."
Finally, it's the exact opposite of what Bobby Fischer said : "I don't believe in psychology, I believe in good moves". That's not enough IMO, chess openings are a psychologic battle that reflect the state of mind and will. It often decides in a way the result of the game, not by moves, but by the intention.
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-23 12:26:28)
Blinfolded chess ( part II )
Very recently, however, all the honors of Europe, in this department of indoor games, have been run away with by two young Americans, Morphy and Paulsen. Paul Morphy, a native of New Orleans, seemed to be born with chess in his blood; he played almost from childhood; and at thirteen years of age he proved a formidable antagonist to Herr Lowenthal, a noted Hungarian. In 1857, when just twenty years of age, Morphy encountered Paulsen, a native of Iowa, only a little older than himself, at a chess congress in New Orleans (Editor: It was New York!). All the gray-beards struck their flag to Paulsen, and then he struck to Morphy. Of Morphy's subsequent achievements in regular play, which stamp him as perhaps the first living chess-player (we say this with fear and trembling; however, for the knights of the game are a sensitive race), we will not speak here, for our purpose is only to notice the blindfold performances. At the chess congress above mentioned, he finely played a blindfold game with a leading German player. Early in 1858, he struck the New Orleanists with amazement by playing six games simultaneously, without seeing any other the boards; winning five of them, and exhibiting beautiful play throughout. He then came to Europe, not only to "lick the Britishers," but "all creation;" and it must be admitted that he made great progress towards that achievement. At a meeting of the Chess Association at Birmingham, in August 1858, he played eight games simultaneously, without sight of the boards. His opponents were Lord Lyttelton, and seven other persons, mostly presidents or secretaries of provincial chess clubs. Against such players, and under such tremendous conditions, he won no less than six games out of the eight, drawing a seventh, and losing the eighth. In the following month, he went over and astonished the Parisians in a similar way; he contended blindfold against eight practised players at once, at the Cafe de la Regence, a famous resort of chess-players; and out of these did not lose even one; he was the victor in six, and drew the other two. In the spring of 1859, Morphy contended against eight of the most experienced members of the London Chess Club, including Mr. Mongredien and Mr. Walker, two distinguished players. He won two games, and drew the other six--all the players except himself being wearied out by a very protracted sitting. A few days afterwards, he played with eight members of the St. George's Chess Club, including Lord Cremorne, Lord Arthur Hay, and Captain Kennedy; he won five, and the rest were drawn through want of time to finish them.
Nevertheless, inconceivable as these mental labors are, Morphy yields to Paulsen in blindfold play. There are whispers of twelve or fifteen games having been tried simultaneously by the latter; but the number ten has been most certainly reached, under conditions of the utmost publicity.
On the 7th of October in the present year, at a Divan in the Strand, ten players accepted Mr. Paulsen's challenge to grapple with them all simultaneously, the boards being placed out of his sight. One of the players was M. Sabouroff, secretary to the Russian Embassy in London; the other nine comprised many names well known among chess-players. Ten chess-boards were placed on ten tables in the room. An arm-chair, turned away towards a window, was mounted on a dais. At two o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Paulsen, a quiet, courteous young man, with not a trace of "brag" in him, took his seat in this arm-chair. For twelve mortal hours he never rose, never ate, never smoked, and drank nothing but a little lemonade. What were his mental labors during that time, we shall see. His ten antagonists took their seats at the ten tables; and each table speedily became the centre of a group of spectators, whose comments were not always so silent as in fairness they ought to have been. Paulsen could not see any of the chess-boards. Herr Kling, a noted player and teacher of chess, acted as general manager. He called the boards by numbers--No. 1 to No. 10. Paulsen audibly announced his first move for board No. 1; Kling made that move; the antagonist replied to it; Kling audibly announced the reply; Paulsen considered what should be his second move, and when he had audibly announced his decision, Kling made the proper move on the board. Here No. 1 rested for awhile. No. 2 now made his move, leading to the same course of proceeding as before. Then No. 3 in the same way; then No. 4; and so on to No. 10; after which No. 1 began a new cycle, by playing a second move; and thus they proceeded over and over again.
Now let us see what all this implies and involves. Chess is not one of the most frolicsome of games; indeed, ladies generally declare it to be very dull, seeing that a chess-player is apt to be "grumpy" if spoken to on other matters while playing. The truth is, there is a demand for much mental work in managing a game well; the combinations and subtleties, the attacks and counter-attacks, are so numerous and varied, as to keep the mind pretty fully occupied. Nevertheless, a fine game between two fine players is mere child's play compared with this wonderful achievement of Paulsen. He was obliged to form ten mental pictures; and every picture changed with every move, like the colored bits in a kaleidoscope. Most persons, even though knowing nothing of the game, are aware that it begins with thirty-two pieces of different colors and forms, and that these move about over a board of sixty-four squares. After every change of position in any one of the pieces, Paulsen must have changed his mental picture of the board, the field of battle, and then made that a fixture until the next move was made. This is hard enough in even one game, against an antagonist who has his eyes to help him in planning attacks and defences; but how hard must it be against ten! It is difficult to conceive what is the condition of the mental machinery under such circumstances; and yet, there he sat, the calmest man in the room. When told of his antagonist's doings, one by one, he looked quietly out of window, and rubbed his chin, as a man often does when thinking, and then announced his move--never mistaking No. 1 for No. 7, No. 9 for No. 3--never failing to recover the proper mental picture, and making the proper change in it; never embarrassed; never making an unlawful move, or likely to lose sight (mental sight) of any unlawful move made by his antagonists. Nor did he obtain the least pause for mental rest. Without one minute's interval, as soon as he had announced a move for one board, he was required to attend to the move of another antagonist at another board. Hour after hour did this continue--all the afternoon, all the evening, midnight, until two in the morning. He made two hundred and seventy moves in the twelve hours, twenty-seven per game average; this gave two minutes and a quarter for the consideration of each move. As all his moves were met by corresponding moves on the part of his antagonists, he was called upon to form five hundred and forty complete mental pictures in twelve consecutive hours, each picture representing the exact mode in which all of the sixty-four squares of a chess-board were occupied. Paulsen won two games, lost three, and drew five.
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 (2006-10-11 23:22:42)
Designs : Bug fixed
A bug for some green designs (that became plain white) has just been corrected...
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.
Ryaad Aabid (2006-11-16 09:28:27)
Suggestion
All openings became known nowadays.
If the opponents ends the openinig step, the clock will automatically be changed from 30 or 40 days to 7 or 10 days.
If the player has no time enough to visit the website during 7 or 10 days, he/she should take vacation, otherwise to leave! instead of bothering his/her opponents.
Thank you Thibault,
Ryaad
Ryaad Aabid (2006-12-09 02:57:17)
At last
I could know WHEN to do my moves for the 2 mentioned games successfully!
At last my last 2 opponents became out of time.
Thanks to FICGS and good luck for all.
Ryaad
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-01 00:57:44)
Achim's answer
Achim Mueller asked to close his account, but he wanted to respond to Wolfgang & Sandor, here's his answer :
"A last clarification:
@Wolfgang Utesch:
I wasn't aware of the "ELO-prefering" rule and I still don't find it
here on the webpage. I opened a thread here in this forum and
besides "then win all your games" or "in this case we ensure that
the better player will qualify" there were no substantial arguments
for this pretty unused and unknown rule (not that I agree with these
two "arguments"!). Nonetheless I accepted the rule for this
tournament.
My decision to give up and leave this server is based on an easy
calculation how many games I have to play here to get a - what I
call - competitive rating that somehow equals the advantage, players
with a nominal rating of 2200 - 2500 will have in every tournament
where this rule exists. Because my time is limited my decision was
to leave the server, that's all. I don't complain, I don't take
anything as an excuse. It's simple as it is: I gave it a try here,
became aware of the rule and decided this is the wrong place for me,
ok?
@Sandor Marton-Bardocz :
I didn't say with any word that you are a blocking guy. This was a
_general_ thesis how the player with the best rating can take an
overwhelming advantage at this ruling. All good players (ask anyone
in the region of 2400up at remoteschach, dbf, iecg or iccf) will
confirm that it is most difficult to get 3.5 point out of 4 if at
least 2 players know how to use computers and choose certain
openings.
Finally ... ficgs is a nice place to play, the interface is good and
I assume Thibault put a lot of work into it. So, enjoy your games
here, but also accept that from time to time there might be
players that will leave because of certain issues.
Ciao
Achim"
Rules (and chess WCH rules) - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Thanks Achim. Best wishes & have good games :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-20 22:54:33)
Internet chess
Well, the discussion with Tryfon Gavriel continues at TCCMB. As I had to explain the way I make FICGS, I copy my responses here :
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.15
Hello again Tryfon !
That's a very interesting discussion...
Actually I have to explain FICGS in its whole to respond :) .. To be continued for sure..
While registering a new member wrote to me a few months ago "Thanks for creating this ultimate chess challenge" or so... That's exactly what I try to do, mostly with the FICGS championship knockout & round-robin rules... Players just want challenge, that's the only assumption I start with, so I try to create interesting challenges. About the intellectual part, you're right but I'm quite sure that top level correspondence chess players still consider their game as an intellectual challenge, much more than a brute force or computer skills one. That's not the case for Advanced chess with fast time controls.
Let's take a look at the bicycle races again... The "Tour de France" is dying IMO.. because everyone understood we "don't know" if the champion is ok.. If doping was allowed (it would be a scandal for health of course), I'm sure the interest would raise again ! I think it is the same for chess & for everything else... The "Tour de France" syndrom happened in Elista with the match Kramnik vs. Topalov... It will have consequences. We need champions and we want true champions, every means are ok for this ! .. So the "engines allowed" rule is the only one possible or reasonable in my opinion.
Of course, chess & correspondence chess are changing, because these "walls" are nearer & nearer... maybe chess will die, maybe not.. The main problem is that in 1997, a super computer became World Champion... this year a "simple" computer Deep Fritz became world champion, soon Rybka on a cellular phone... :) Who is really interested to be a champion in "human category" ? FIDE world chess championship will continue to progressively lose its interest IMO...
Correspondence chess is just starting to grow in popularity and is told to be dying already. Surely correspondence chess will ask more & more time at a high level to win a few points, but it is possible to create more challenge by ie. changing the rating rules (the "design" of Elo rating system will become a problem).. Then, if it is not enough, we'll look for other challenges... It's told for years that Go (Weiqi) will replace chess in western countries... why not Big chess as the "brain only" game if there can't be doping in it.. just trying, as there's no other solution :)
A word about Poker of course, as it's probably the fastest growing game in popularity : IMO this game is at a stade like chess in year 1900, but the same problem will happen, even quicker. At a high level the game will be just more and more boring (if you wish to win real money) or chancy (in a wch tournament), or you'll have to always find weak players (well, not very challenging).
About the simultaneous exhibition against Alekhine or Capablanca, I'm not sure at all they would crush everyone at our chess servers, they are undoubtly more talented than all of us, but I feel it wouldn't be enough in all cases to win against correspondence chess style of play & knowledge accumulated for 50 years... A few players rated OTB 2000-2200 could draw against them IMO...
At last, yes I'm a fan of Sun Tzu's "The art of war" :) .. I strongly believe that correspondence chess will not die in the next few years because players will follow its principles more and more, as the only way to win ! .. Big chess follows the same principles... and Go is the most challenging game because of it too !
Tryfon, I'm not sure that we're opposite in our vision of chess ! .. Our servers have obviousy different goals, nothing more.. I do enjoy playing mad blitz games without chess engines... I just believe that the future of internet chess is "serious (engines allowed, rated) correspondence chess" on one hand and "human chess for fun (no engines, unrated)" on the other hand... The other ways look like nonsense to me.
I hope it responds.
Best wishes, Thibault
Mladen Jankovic (2007-09-03 16:55:11)
Actually
The waiting list is active since the site first became online. That is a lot more than two months.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-08 03:57:29)
Linux / MySQL
Hello Mladen.
Yes, MySQL. About the Linux distribution, Debian.. (if I remember well :))
And yes again, I did script all the site, already more than 500 php files (!) .. I was far to imagine this server when I started it ! .. Still much work to improve it for fast games... Finally, as it became quite huge, there are still (always) minor bugs that I correct as soon as I see them.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-27 22:37:57)
Baduk and chance : 1dan in LG cup final
A Go player ranked 1 dan is about 800 elo points below a 9 dan player (whatever the ranking system ?!), meaning about no chance to win a game against such an opponent, right ?! .. How is it possible to see a 1 dan player at this level in one of the main Go tournaments in the world ?
Of course everything can happen in a Go game, but I suppose it is not the case during a whole tournament...
From IGN Goama newsletter - http://gogame.info
"An interview with Han Sanghoon, 1-dan, the first 1-dan in Go history, who entered the final match of the World Go Championship (LG cup)
- Congratulations! What was the most difficult game in this tournament?
- The last one with On Sojin, 4-dan. It was really close finally and I think, that I was slightly behind until the endgame stage
- You became a professional about 1 year ago. Did you think that you can reach the final match of the World Go Championship so quickly?
- I remember that it was very hard to become a professional. I was almost 18 and it was my last chance to win the qualification among inseis. Of course, I did not think, that I can show good results quickly. I was surprised, that professional tournaments are not much harder than the insei league :)
- What are your weakest and strongest parts in Go?
- I am weak at the opening, but I feel myself confident in middlegame fights. Usually I try to defend my groups solidly, before fighting
- Who is the hardest opponent for you?
- Yun Junsang, 6-dan. I lost him twice and feel that he is much stronger than me. Also his Go style is very impressive
- What do you think about your final match with Lee Sedol, 9-dan. How big are your chances?
- I never played him before, but I saw lot of his game records and I know that Lee Sedol, 9-dan is much stronger than me. Any way, I will try to win the match! Usually I am not afraid of the star opponents at all!"
Dinesh De Silva (2008-01-06 11:04:48)
Re: FICGS i .o. FICS :-)
First it was "hanging chads" that became popular. Now it's a "hanging G", I guess. The "G" seems to be in the spotlight these days. Hence a G spot.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 23:08:30)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!
"I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable"
You would. But we all know what happened to you when you and I played chess. I beat you in 33 moves. And we can see how not only do you not provide a game that's at least somewhat representative of the critical lines of the opening, but you can't even figure out when the supposed game was played, or whether or not White or Black won, and you only post a tiny fraction of it to boot. So evidently, what YOU think is not exactly to be regarded in high esteem here. Most people wouldn't have required my explanation where I described quite clearly how there have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today. They would already understand on their own, or would at least be intelligent enough to look up the information without having to have their hand held and have it spoon fed to them. But even after all this, you STILL don't understand. And you mention Christian Bauer who only pissed around with 1.b4 when he was playing opponents 400 elo LOWER RATED! One of his fabulous wins this year, that you were alluding to, was against 1861 rated Jacques Decamps, lol. The rest of the time they were 2100-2300. Has he ever played 1.b4 against another GM? (never mind super GM, as 1.f4 has many times been played against)
An opening move like 1.b4 might be fairly compared to something such as 1.g4. You won't see any dedicated chapter in MCO to either of those openings, but they're at least interesting enough to warrant some discussion in the "misc flank openings" chapter. 1.f4 might better be compared to something like Larsen's 1.b3. A sound sideline.
You want to talk about ratings? I've had to build up my rating from starting at the default of 1700, by winning 117 games (one of them against you), because I wasn't aware when I opened the account that the admin would let you start with your established elo. It's not surprising I played Sandor Porkulab a lot of times, as we both were very active playing a lot of games. Unlike you who started with the advantage of an inflated rating, which was somewhat tempered after that beating I gave you last year.
Sometimes in correspondence chess people abandon games and don't log in again. This was the case with Sandor Porkulab, although I had already beaten him a few times in games that were played to completion, and he wasn't better in any of the games that were abandoned. You're lying through your teeth there, or perhaps you're just too incompetent and dishonest to assess the games objectively. Why would Porkulab have 7 games against me where he was "level or better" when I had already beaten the guy every time we played before that? Did you even look at those games? Or is this just your pathetic way of trying to "score points" by using lies and deception? Additionally, the way the elo system works is that even if you do get a few easy points from say a win from an abandoned game that perhaps might have ended in a draw, that gain is quickly diluted and your rating naturalized as you play more games, because you win less points when you win,(or draw a higher rated opponent) and lose more when you lose (or draw a lower rated opponent), than you would have if you didn't receive those points. I've played many games since then and my rating here is probably where it would have been If I had not played Porkulab at all. Or if not already will soon be. So this is a pretty weak argument from you. A better argument is the fact that I CRUSHED you in 33 moves when we played. Porkolab at least gave me a decent fight when I played him. That's more than I can say for you. I felt like all I had to do was outsmart a machine when you and I played. I didn't have to worry about any human judgment from a real chess player getting in the way of my victory!
As for me getting a lost position after 17 moves against someone? For starters, I've played about 190 games here. What have you played.....32? And I think that's a testament to the fact that, unlike you, I'm a REAL chess player, so my goal here isn't to simply try to win the most online CC games to try to give myself some artificial illusion of ability. I don't always play what I consider to be the objectively best moves because I like to experiment and LEARN SOMETHING from the time I spend here. But having said that, I STILL outperform you greatly, and crushed you when we played last year. I'm also higher rated with a higher future rating, even though you had the advantage of started with a boosted initial rating. So much for what you "think" you know about the strongest moves in cc, lol.
And your future rating is only 2247, not 2300+. If you want to discuss what might happen after some of your current games are resolved, don't sell me short at 2316, which is already a given. Talk about the 2370+ I expect to have after some of MY current games are resolved. If you want to argue/debate with someone, learn to do it in an intelligent and fair way. So far all you've accomplished is to lose the paltry amount of credibility you once had.
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)? :)
Normajean Yates (2008-08-15 18:32:37)
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
so it seems! in the 1920s or so in MCO-4 Reuben Fine dismissed the greco countergambit in 4 lines as a blunder! (this was AFTER the latvian work due to which it became later known as the latvian gambit)! So the battle rages on, even with fraser? But it does seem that the fraser exchange-sac line is dead - leaving the R-sac line.
Denis Ivanchenkov (2008-09-28 17:30:23)
Iouri Basiliev
"I would accept any language by voting majority". For you to know
that majority of people in Crimea are
Russian speaking people.
"It could be tatarian in Crimea in 10 years from now"
It'l happen not until Turkish language became second official language in German.
Again
"I would accept any language by voting majority". Western "dermocrats" and their supporters here in Ukraine showed very clear that they "accept" only those views of "voting majority" that correspond to their own interests.
and this is you and others like you to blame that word "democracy" (not so bad concept actually) turned into CURSE here in Ukraine and in Russia.
Denis Ivanchenkov (2008-09-30 00:08:25)
Iouri Basiliev
"<<you think it is good to use communist methods -
making LESS than 10% of russian language schools>>
where i sad this?"
you just became bold enough to order me what to do:
"Nowadays the situation is opposite.
If you living in Ukraine, spend some
time to learn ukrainian if you are able"
and this is actuall means that you are
considering that this is right (and good of course).
so stop making a fool of you and just read what you are saying.
I live in Central Ukraine where Russian speaking people
are minority - so I don't say that Russian should
be introduced here. But in East and South and 100% in Crimea
Russian WILL BE introduced by people - whatever you(foreigner/traitor/
agent of western influence) want/order/dislike.
Scott Nichols (2008-12-15 23:08:08)
Don a new Quad?!
I'm glad that little bit of info became public, thanks Thib.
Normajean Yates (2009-05-17 03:09:39)
Don : point of etymology revisited!
Don Groves posted and I agreed:'"The Arabic suffix "uddin" or "idin" means "of the faith." Hence a mujahidin is a "warrior of the faith," or a holy warrior.'
Still havent gotten down to learning to use the oxford arabic-english dictionary, but:
Don, I'm afraid your derivation won't do - you might still be right, but not for the reason you gave.
You see, mujahideen is just the plural of 'mujahid', 'mujahid' = one who does 'jihad' [arabic and hebrew are both semitic languages: people who use the term 'anti-semite' often forget this (because of the nonscientific 'ham' and 'sam' myths thrown in - so like hebrew, arabic has this - root in the middle, and modification affects the root and possibly adds prefix and suffix.. i remember reading this in chomsky - linguistic paper not political)
Khatoon (= lady; no religious overtone here); plural Khwateen = ladies
Talib (=student); plural Taliban
Mujahid (='jihad'-doer); plural Mujahideen
So we are back to the question:
Etymologically speaking, does 'jihad' just mean war, or does it mean holy war? (the current meaning is a different question..)
On this point: until 2001 no one including me would see any problem in saying - such-and-such is a lone crusader for human rights (or for animal rights, or for the separation of church and state, or for whatever cause) -
Bush-Cheney-Blair&co since ensured that the word 'crusade' became an avoidable word again..
Imagine reading the following sentence in 1999, and in 2009:
"Richard Dawkins has launched a *crusade* against all religions in general, and against christianity in paricular." ;)
Scott Nichols (2009-06-03 03:09:30)
Chess is dead? Not hardly.
In his book "The world of chess" by Anthony Saidy the following paragraph appears. "Later in his (Capablanca) career, his play became ever more technical and drawish. He expressed the idea that with the perfection of modern knowledge it would soon be impossible to win a game against a master. Chess would soon reach a "draw death". He even proposed interchanging the initial positions of the Bishops and Knights to inject new life into the game."
An exact quote found earlier in this same book exemplifies more of what this thread is about---In reply to a Steinitz comment Tchigorin replied "Chess is a limitless forum for the human imagination. Each position is a fresh challenge. Rules and book openings, to the creative player, are no more than guidelines to be transcended. Individualize. Each position is new--terra incognita that may contain the seed of a beautiful combination. Gladly give up a pawn in return for the attack. Play chess with joy."
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-04 19:20:34)
Karpov vs. Kasparov rematch
You are probably aware of this promising rematch between former world chess champions Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov. (Valencia - Spain, september 21-24, 2009)
What do you think about the possible games ? Is Karpov now too old, is Kasparov able to concentrate on chess only again ? What can be their state of mind during such a match, 25 years after their first match that became legendary...
It should be a great event anyway, maybe even more interesting than the last FIDE chess championships. (By the way I don't know if there will be sponsors and/or prizes)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-16 10:37:01)
Interview with E. Kotlyanskiy
Congrats again to Edward Kotlyanskiy, new FICGS chess champion after beating Xavier Pichelin (2577) in the 12 games final match of the 3rd cycle.
Edward kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match and correspondence chess in general :
_________________________
> Hi Edward, first of all congratulations for winning this 12 games match against the former FICGS chess champion, Xavier Pichelin. You had to score at least one point more than your opponent, what was your strategy when the games started?
Knowing that I had to score at least +1 against Xavier, I had to try to get the games into complex positions where there are many options to play for both sides. At the point when the games started, I was the underdog to Xavier (mainly due to the face that I was rated about 200 points lower). In part, I think that one of the reasons why Xavier allowed the games to reach such complex positions is due to the fact that his rating was undoubtedly higher than mine and therefore he probably assumed that he could “outplay” me. Although this was simultaneously a brave and admirable choice, I think an option that many other players would have pursued would have been to play “drawish” lines with the hope of having all of the games ending in draws. I have great respect for Xavier due to the fact that he didn't choose such a path and allowed us to put on a hard fought show that was worth watching.
> What could you say on the hot moments of the match?
The first game in which I thought I had very good chances to win was game 34739. In this game (particularly on move 18) Xavier played the move Nb8?? Looking back at the move, I realized that the game was lost for him. I assumed that Xavier probably underestimated the threat of f5. There were no good responses and/or countermeasures for the move f5. For example, if 19) gxf5, I have 20) Nxh5 Nc6 21) Rc3! Bxh4 (Qd8 was also possible) 22) Qf4 Be7 23) g4! His king is just clearly caught in the attack! 19) exf5 also fails to 20) e6 f6 (trying to keep the king safe) 21) Bxh5!! gxh5 22) Nc6 Rc3 and therefore it’s easy to see that it is just a matter of time. Xavier did try something better although even that failed due to some nice moves. I believe that 21) g7 came as a surprise to Xavier (or that at least he hadn't seen this move when playing Nb8). After Nxh5 (another neat move), another line that I thought Xavier would enter (which is also losing) is 22) Qxc2 23) Qxc2 Rxc2 24) Nf6+! Bxf6 25) exf6. Clearly my pawns are just too strong! Knowing that I am winning after the mentioned alternatives, the other games (although I won three others) were just necessary to hold without falling for any tactics/tricks.
A second game I want to briefly comment on is game 34729. I played a very nice (although I am not sure if it is winning just yet) move known as 17.a4! It was a very nice way to open the position on both of our kings. In all honesty, the move that I think was winning in this situation 25) Rd3, I did not even consider too highly until the position reached that very move. After a relatively short analysis, I was indeed pleasantly surprised to see that; overall, it was completely winning for me.
> What could you say on the advantages and inconveniences of this 12 games match format played at a quite fast time control?
From the days when I first starting playing correspondence chess, I have always been accustomed to making moves rather quickly. In fact, when I first started playing, in some games I made moves within 10 minutes of looking at the position. Although I take a lot more time to analyze now-a-days, I still consider the speed of my play to be relatively faster compared to most other correspondence players. Playing 12 games simultaneously can have drawbacks as not having enough time to properly analyze; however, I didn't have such a problem. With the exception of a few games that I was playing on IECG at the start of the FICGS Championship, the 12 game series was my main concern.
> Without revealing your secrets, how would you define modern correspondence chess as a centaur (playing with chess engines)?
These days, it is impossible to play correspondence chess on a high level without consulting the engine. It is also unlikely that one can achieve a lot of success just by following the engine blindly (even after a long analysis). Personally, I know that some of my friends believe that in correspondence chess you are just following the engine but I believe that most “high level” correspondence players know that it just doesn't work that way.
In my opinion, one of the most important skills that a correspondence player should have is having some sense of where the engine he is analyzing with is faulty. To give a well known example, many people know that there are certain endgame positions that an engine alone can't be trusted in (a simple case is the wrong color bishop). In essence, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of whatever engine you are analyzing with is critical to playing correspondence chess at a “high level”.
> Why did you choose to play correspondence chess, do you play OTB (over the board) chess as well?
Before starting correspondence chess, I played OTB chess for quite a few years. When my schedule became busy, I realized that I wouldn't have much time to play OTB in clubs. I came across correspondence chess and got hooked on it very quickly. Also, I began to enjoy more of the subtleties of the game; something that is just lacking in OTB blitz games. I imagine that some people prefer to play practical chess (OTB) in which a move order wouldn't make much of a difference; however, I guess I am a perfectionist and believe the game should be played on as high of a level as possible.
> How many correspondence games do you usually play at the same time (on different chess servers or by email)? Would you say that it is an addiction?
Usually, I played about 5 to 10 games on average on all different sites. I did play via email on IECC but wasn't fond of playing by email therefore I went back to server only sites (IECG, FICGS, Schemingmind).
I can definitely say that correspondence chess is an addiction. All too often, I catch myself analyzing games when I really should be doing something much more time sensitive. Well, at least I can say that this addiction paid off in that I am the new FICGS champion!
> Are you interested in other games?
As far as board games go, chess is primarily the only game I play. At times I do play games like monopoly and scrabble with my friends. Another interest that I have is billiards.
> The next challenger for the FICGS chess champion title is SM Eros Riccio (winner of several PlayChess PAL freestyle tournaments). Do you think that you'll play him? What does this perspective inspire in you?
I can't wait to play Eros! I believe that he would be my toughest opponent yet (although I have played GM Leitão, Rafael (fide elo: 2619) and managed to draw). Eros is like an unstoppable juggernaut in corr chess. That said, I look forward to our games and I am certain that they will simultaneously be challenging and entertaining.
> Thanks and best of luck in your future games!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-20 12:40:03)
In Chessbase & forums
Hey, looks like I missed many things, William became a chess star already with his website! There was an article in Chessbase & numerous discussions in chess forums...
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6725
http://france-echecs.com/index.php?mode=showComment&art=20101014033737124 (french)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-12 14:38:22)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?
That's what I say to myself each time I lose a game after having played a move too fast :) Computers are still really weak in some complex positions (also in the middle game) but for some reasons we trust it... At the same time we always try to play openings that allow such positions, so not everything is lost yet.
The 80's were a great period for correspondence chess indeed. A friend of mine became very strong while playing corr. chess only during these years.
Don Groves (2011-04-26 05:49:34)
Active rating lists
The same happened in Poker. The first players who joined were given a 1600 rating. Then after a while it became 1800. I agree this is a problem that should be addressed!
Dmitri Mamrukov (2012-08-21 06:04:19)
This is Russia :(
Vadim, oil prices fluctuated over years. Up and down. The real question is how much revenue the Russian budget received (hence, how good the lifestyle is). In the 1990s, almost none as oligarchs reaped most in their offshores and deposited their "earnings" in Western banks.
"This honey collection is the best-guarded secret of capitalist superiority."
Caribbean Sea Pirates in Crisis
http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Crisis_Ed.htm
That changed after the nationalization (either directly or oligarchs became socially responsible) happened after 2000.
Ilmars Cirulis (2017-12-14 12:09:18)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish
Conspiracy theories and not understanding of Deepmind motivation.
They tested if the concept works. It was success. They are satisfied and start working on other interesting/useful stuff, as they mostly don't care about chess.
The only training of AlphaZero happened when it played against itself. Stockfish was just an opponent to play against - to check how strong has AlphaZero became.
AlphaZero too had no opening book or endgame tablebases, so that's not relevant. Etc. etc., basically too much conspiracy theories and too much caring about which is the most strongest engine (at least in comparison to Deepmind, as they are totally chill about it, imho :D). :)
Steven DuCharme (2019-12-08 19:51:08)
IECG chess-server.net
If you mean www.chess-server.net it's going well enough imo. It will apparently be upgraded (redesigned) before year's end.
IECG ended operations 12/31/2010 when it became chess-server.net.
Where did you see the news about that sites' traffic?
George Jempty (2025-11-12 16:06:48)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
I guess for me it's kind of personal because I played the Budapest on and off for decades, even beat an IM with it in a simul, but eventually became convinced it was borderline unsound. I think you can get interesting games without playing *too* unsoundly, for instance as Black I play the Siesta
Ulises Pineda (2026-02-21 04:35:44)
Is rating just a number on this site?
It became just a number after tickets were introduced.
I could easily have been 2400 if tickets were promoted from the beginning and I bought them whenever it was possible, even though I would have been playing at the same level.
For rating to matter you can't just let players play in the next tier, there's the strong 2400 players that got there beating others on their tiers or lower, but now there'll be 2400 players that bought tickets and drew their games of that tier, making it be just a number.
There are 4 results for ecam in wikichess.
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 (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4
The gambit is named after Captain William Davies Evans, the first player known to have employed it. The first game with the opening is considered to be Evans - McDonnell, London 1827, although in that game a slightly different move order was tried (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O d6 and only now 5. b4). The gambit became very popular shortly after that, being employed a number of times in the series of games between McDonnell and Louis de la Bourdonnais in 1834. Players such as Adolf Anderssen, Paul Morphy and Mikhail Chigorin subsequently took it up. It was out of favour for much of the 20th century, although John Nunn and Jan Timman played some games with it in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and in the 1990s Garry Kasparov used it in a few of his games (notably a famous 25-move win against Viswanathan Anand in Riga, 1995), which prompted a brief revival of interest in it.
The Evans Gambit is basically an aggressive variant of the Giuoco Piano, which normally continues with the positional moves 4. c3 or 4. d3. The idea behind the move 4. b4 is to give up a pawn in order to secure a strong centre and bear down on Black's weak-point, f7. Ideas based on Ba3, preventing black from castling, are also often in the air. The most obvious and most usual way for Black to meet the gambit is to accept it with 4... Bxb4, after which White plays 5. c3 and Black usually follows up with 5... Ba5 (5... Be7 and, less often 5... Bc5 and 5... Bd6 are also played). White usually follows up with 6. d4.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 g6
The Smyslov Defence is a quiet positional system played occasionally by Vassily Smyslov and Boris Spassky. It became popular in the 1980s when it was shown that 4.c3 a6! gives Black a good game. Later it was found that after 4.d4 exd4 5.Bg5 White has the advantage, and the variation is rarely played today. An interesting gambit line 4.d4 ed4 5.c3 has also been recommended by Alexander Khalifman, although some of the resulting positions are yet to be tested extensively.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 e3
the normal continuation..
White plan include the exchange of the white square bishop for black's queen knight, b3 Bb2, d3, Ne5 + Nd2-f3-g5....
Altought, this is white's dream, it do not always happen.
lasker had the habit of playing Bd3 when black take long to develop the queen knight and let black scrap his pawn structure. In fact here, white became black and fight for equality.
============
Contributors : Gerard Gonet, Luc-Olivier Leclerc
FICGS : ecam , Wikipedia : ecam , Dmoz : ecam , Google : ecam , Yahoo : ecam
Chess is like war on a board. (Bobby Fischer)
The Pawns are the soul of the game. (Francois Andre Danican Philidor)
Nonsense was the last thing Fischer was interested in, as far as Chess was concerned. (Elie Agur)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess