endgame
FICGS - Search results for endgame
There are 135 results for endgame in the forum.
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 ? ;)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-05-29 20:47:01)
Big chess
The middlegame could be a challenge, particularly if you have no board to test the consequences of your move. And what do you think about an endgame with 12 pawns and 3 rook or 5 knights on each side? What are the values of the pieces? There is much to investigate there. Perhaps I should write a computer program ... (just a joke)
James Stripes (2006-09-18 15:56:13)
27 years ago
When I first played correspondence chess, books were encouraged and the few chess engines in existence were garbage. Good quality engines and comprehensive databases have changed the nature of correspondence play.
Nearly everyone permits databases (electronic books), although endgame tablebases are less clear. Engines are permitted some places, while banned others. This site is my first foray into CC where engine use is permitted, but I've played at dozens of sites where I can use databases. (I don't believe I've ever reached a position in which tablebases would be useful, except a few elementary positions that any average player could win against Kramnik.)
These inter-site matches, it seems to me, nurture connections across the broad community of correspondence players--a rapidly expanding coterie of chess aficionados thanks to the likes of GameKnot and similar sites.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-10 19:49:12)
Opposite color bishops
These endgames are much easier than same color bishops or rooks endings.. The bishop & king can block the opponent's pawns (1, 2, 3 or more) in most cases, and the bishop can be exchanged against one or two pawns... In most cases the bishop has only to make aleatory moves and it's a draw.
There's a famous position with 8 pawns up... It's a draw too.
With rooks, it all depends... Sometimes it's harder to get a draw with opposite color bishops than same color ones.
See the 'endgames' Wikipedia article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame#Bishops_on_opposite_colors
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-12 18:45:39)
Nice endgame
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=wikichess&article=3536
I quote you : "That's the nice endgame, which is won for White! .... really??? - definitely, but very complicate!"
Do you mean this is the line played by your opponent (Peter Daus, I presume) ?
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-12 18:50:50)
Nice endgame
Certainly not! He didn't play it the best way.
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-12 20:33:06)
Nice endgame
In complex positions it is always hard to show all lines I investigated during the game in depth (!!!) and then to be confronted with an other line suddenly, independent of its value. I don't think, that 61...Rh5 (instead of 61...Rg1) will be a fundamental better move, but for evidence I have to do a lot of work!
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-12 19:54:37)
Nice endgame
Now I have to look deaper in all the variations I investigated during the game. Here are many lines which are the same as in other variations before. So I need time now to compare it all - to be continued later on!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-12 20:03:22)
Nice endgame
Really hard. This is not a clear win (still not sure it is)... :)
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-13 11:16:00)
Nice endgame
I'm quite confident of to find the solution this week. Currently I think, that after 61...Rh5 62.Kg4! (and not 62.Kf4?!) and after i.e. 62...Rh1 63.Rb6! (63...Ba4 64.e5!) will be the best.
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-14 17:07:52)
Nice endgame
Going on! 61...Rh5 62.Kg4!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-15 12:50:38)
Nice endgame
I'm still on... That's hard ! :)
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-15 12:23:59)
Nice endgame
I don't think so! I didn'nt found any win after: 54.fxg6?! Bxg6 55.Kg3 Qa7!
The engines are not very helpfully for solving this kind of positions!
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-15 16:33:53)
Nice endgame
It is another endgame, but I didn't find any clear win with Rook+Knight+2 Pawns vs. Queen. But in the other endgame 3 Pawn vs. Bishop there is a clear winning way - complicate, but clear!
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-11-15 16:40:51)
Nice endgame, too! :)
Ok, I will look for clear win!
For me that endgame is easier than another one. Here black has only one piece instead of two. :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-16 23:48:55)
Nice endgame
Hello Wolfgang.
No need to play it anymore..... g5 ! wins.
But is it the only winning move... That's another study. Actually, this game looks like numerous high-level correspondence chess wins, "winning" moves are quite natural & clear and it may be very hard to know the first loosing move (which is always unique). Not very spectacular, but very technical & instructive. Thanks :)
Elmer Valderrama (2006-11-27 19:40:07)
not that Deep?
..CB shooting themselves in the foot as this reveals "Deep" Fritz 10 is reeling
in the endings :/
Not so "the others" which wouldn't play that endgame like that.
Elmer Valderrama (2006-12-01 22:13:19)
good news and bad news
Some good news and bad news for "deep" Fritz 10 (& CB..)
The good news is that game 4 was drawn with the computer
playing a respectable good ending as White which forced
Kramnik to display all his arsenal of strategic knowledge
in endgames and his World class mastery to calmly withhold a
difficult position...
The bad news is that "shallow" Toga would have played the
same good moves made by Kramnik :-}
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-16 04:45:50)
Last game - Stage 1 / WCH 1
Stage 2 / WCH 1 did not begin yet... one 'undecided' game, take a look at game 1755 !
http://www.ficgs.com/game_1755.html
A double-zeitnot at correspondence chess time control, and an interesting endgame :)
Elmer Valderrama (2007-01-13 11:23:38)
WikiEndings?
..is it feasible? (I'm sure it is, it's just a rhetorical question ;)
I believe
endgame theory (and players) would benefit from a endgame section in Wikichess
contributed by members taken from their practice, especially if
general "rules of thumb" and guidelines are outlined together with
analysis. Specially interesting I think would be many-pawn endings and other practical
endings which are given poor coverage in the books and are less investigated
(and, as it seems, there are always holes in the analysis even from very strong players,
there would be a lot of room for improvement of the articles until a
general consensus is reached)
Subsections could be created in the lines of the ECO classification for
endgames, it would then be easy to find/correct/contribute in a given
position.
Any thoughts?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-17 13:41:03)
Tablebases 7 pieces
I've read that Nalimov ending tablebases 7-pieces should be completed in 2012 ...
Quite impressive, it should enlighten many interesting endgames.
Ilmars Cirulis (2007-02-17 15:13:58)
one more
http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html
Marc Lacrosse (2007-02-24 21:22:11)
not so simple ...
"I think Kasparov is the best for his aggressivity, Capablanca for his semplicity, and Alechine for his tattics."
This is way too simple...
Remember Kasparov drawing game after game for recovering after Karpov led by 5-0 in their match ...
Capablanca's play was full of tactics (I would better say full of sophisticated ways to avoid tactics - which _is_ tactics at a supreme degree).
Alekhine's tactics were most of the time allowed by too weak opposition. Among great tactical geniuses far stronger than Alekhine in this field I would cite Bronstein, Tal, Spassky, Nezmetdinov, Fischer, Shirov, Kasparov, Topalov ...
But there are also :
- Positional geniuses : Morphy, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Petrosian, and an entire class above them all Karpov, Ivanchuk, Kramnik.
- Opening prep geniuses : Botvinnik, Fischer, Kasparov
- Endgame geniuses : Rubinstein, Karpov, Korchnoi...
Well a difficult question because all top class players had several masterpieces in any of these fields ...
Don Groves (2007-03-26 02:04:20)
Computer Go
Yes, we were saying the same things about Chess 30 years ago. This is one reason I feel as I do, the fact that computer capabilities are still increasing just as fast as they did over that period. From experience, using the past 30 years as a guide, I just cannot bring myself to doubt there is much they won't do in the next 30 years. The reason I mentioned neural networks is that they are very good at pattern recognition which must be a large part of the solution if computers are to excel at Go. I do not think a brute force approach, or even a statistical one, will ever succeed at computer Go except in the endgame where they can dominate as they do in Chess once the number of possible moves becomes small enough. But if neural nets can be trained to recognize good shape and then apply basic fundamentals in the opening and early middle game, we already know they will excel in the endgame. It's the latter part of the middle game where I think the action will be in designing computer Go programs -- where fundamentals are not enough and there are still too many moves available to use brute force. But, if computers are ever good enough to get to a winnable endgame, watch out ;-)
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-27 15:57:30)
Chess and Xiangqi
A very interresting article in Chesscafe (www.chesscafe.com) by K.Müller on some endgame similarities in chess and xiangqi.
Xiangqi is great chess game (one of the greatest, even if I am quite weak at it; and in any cases, by far the greatest chess game by the number of players :-)): in short time limits (standard is 20 minutes per players) you can't beat that game for a exciting tactical mélée... and then if both palyers survive, the endgame is full of subtilities...
BTW *all* K.Müller articles on that site are a must-read! :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-07 14:32:34)
science,art and bluff
The environment is different but there's a lot of bluff in correspondence chess IMO, even if the number of draws is higher at 2400+ level. It is no more based on obvious mistakes but on apparent "weak" moves that actually can win ie. a long endgame, particularly moves that are completely missed by the best chess engines such as Rybka. This kind of moves happens often yet, fortunately.
Albert H. Alberts (2007-05-13 09:45:39)
shesnikov
ALL:
Here is a possible novelty in the Shesnikov:1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bf6 gf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0 Bd5 13.ed5 Ne7 and now tournament lines go say Re1 to respond e4 with Bf1 and win over Nc2/a4 in the endgame.
TRY 14. c3 Bg7 15. g4!? e4 16.Bc2 b4 17.cb4!? Bb2 18. Kh1 and now I was able to win for white after both Ba1 or Ba3 having gf5/Be4 or Ba4 and an open g-( and c and b)-file for white.Suppose g4 is healthy no black tournament player will engage in Shesnikov for a while? www.howtofoolfritz.com updated late april. Albert H.Alberts
Don Burden (2007-05-17 00:45:25)
Fighting against Tablebases
Needing over a terabyte of disk space, I doubt if anyone actually has the 6 piece tablebase installed on their computer, though a position can be queried at:
http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html
BTW, I've played endgames here where I had to play the game out to checkmate where my opponent had just a king and a few locked pawns, while I had an advantage of a queen, rook, and several extra pawns.
Michael Aigner (2007-06-15 12:53:31)
It depends
Hello Thibault
In my opinion is Rybka very strong in the middle game as long as you got a position where a kingside attack is not possible - otherwise you should use some other engine. My experiance is that Rybka nedds some more plys to see the danger (or opportunity to attack), than other engines do.
In Endgames it is also good but check always with Fritz or Shredder if you want to avoid ending in a dead drawn ending with an Rybka evaluation of +1
Best regards
Michael
Graham Cridland (2007-06-15 17:29:55)
Game 11393
Just finished an interesting game in the Scandinavian. Pretty level most of the way, although both sides must have missed some chances.
A couple of questions: First, in the final position, what is the evaluation of the endgame after 31 ... Qc8 32 Qe5+ Qc7 33 Qxg7 Rxg7 34 Re8+ Qc8 35 Rxc8 Kxc8 36 Rxg7 (thus far all forced) 36...Rxd4 37 Rh7 Rf4 38 Rxh6 Rxf2 39 Rg6 Rh2 40 h6 (this exact endgame can be reached by other move orders in Cridland-Khayman)?
I looked at the ending for a long time, as it seemed to be my only option other than forcing a draw (32 Qe3 Re4 33 Qd2 isn't attractive).
But I think it's drawn! White's only plan is bringing the king to g1 to release the back rank, but that gives black time to rush forward with pawns and king on the Queenside. White can get to h7 by Rg8+ Kc7, Rg7+ Kb6, h7 at some point, but then what?
It looked so attractive at first.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-16 07:52:47)
Dead Man's Defense
Nobody has to install 6-pieces-endings on his own computer today. You can just have a look at internet site:
http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html
Mircea Hrubaru (2007-06-16 14:12:43)
More on Strelka
Hello all,
Well, it seems that all the fuss on wether Strelka is a clone has ended. Strela by Yuri Ostripov (St. Petersburg, Russia) is his original work and this was strongly tested by trustful persons in computerchess.
Yet its status (a very materialistic engine, with very few endgame knowledge) makes this engine a very goo future hope. Yuri is currently improving Strelka so we must expect spectacular progress very soon (at least I hope that).
Regards,
Mircea
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-26 01:35:03)
A guide to Endgames Tablebases
Endgames tablebases fully explained, a great page :
http://horizonchess.com/FAQ/Winboard/egtb.html
* [A.1] What is a endgame tablebase? How do they work? How much stronger will it make my chess program play?
* [A.2] What are the different endgame tablebases formats out there? What are the differences?
* [A.3] Where can I learn more about the endgame table formats?
* [A.4] What are the Chess programs that support endgame tables? Which format do they support?
* [A.5] Where can I get endgame tablebase?
* [A.6] Where can I buy tablebases?
* [A.7] Where can I download tablebases?
* [A.8] How do I generate tablebases on my computer?
* [A.9] How large are the tablebase files? Can I put then all into one directory? Do I have to use a complete set of 5 men tablebases?
* [A.10] Questions about 6 men endgame tablebases. Which are the most useful?
* [A.11] How do I find out which tablebase is corrupted? How do I know the endgame tablebases are working?
* [A.12] What is datacomp.exe? Where can I get it?
* [A.13] How do I get Crafty to work with Endgame tablebases?
* [A.14] How can I get Fritz to use Endgame tablebases?
* [A.15] What is the difference between tablebases download from Dr Hyatt's ftp site and those on the Chessbase endgame turbo CD? Can they be used together?
* [A.16] What are the files ending with .tbs? What about those with nbb and nbw? Do i need both?
* [A.17] Help, the endgame tablebases are not working properly!
* [A.18] Can I use tablebase files in zipped form?
* [A.19] Where can I get a useful graphical browser to view endgame tablebases? What about an online searchable database?
* [A.20] Misc questions
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2007-08-05 07:38:46)
Translation (most accurate i could do)
"The ending is clearly drawn. There is no way to force in as the white king is badly placed and could not escape the black queen's checks. Luzuriaga's analysis starts with 48. Qe5+ so we assumed that would had been the move he played if the game had continued. If black's reply 48. Kg8, a bad move (Luzuriaga's analysis) that will result in a lost position for black. De Silva analyses that 48. Kh7 will result in a drawn endgame. I have checked all the variations in the computer and the result is the same for all of them DRAW."
Ulrich Imbeck (2007-08-27 01:48:36)
Go-Endgame at ficgs-GUI
At an Go-Endgame someone begins to pass.
How can i pass here at the ficgs-GUI?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-27 02:27:07)
Go-Endgame at ficgs-GUI
Hello Ulrich.
This is the current message displayed before to enter a Go tournament :
"Rules for Go are chinese rules, as defined by the Chinese Weiqi Association. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then resign or call referee) or game is adjudicated. It's up to the players to discuss the score at the end of the game, so calling referee should be exceptional. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Positional superko rule apply, it's impossible to repeat a previous board position ('incorrect move' message would be displayed).
Please note that you can pass, just entering 'pass' [then push 'move' button and 'confirm' your move] but one player has to resign or call referee to end the game."
Best wishes, Thibault
Ulrich Imbeck (2007-08-31 00:47:59)
Go-Endgame at ficgs
Are you the referee, Thibault?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-31 09:24:51)
Go-Endgame at ficgs
Yes... Until now, I am the only referee at FICGS. (fortunately, this is not much work :))
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-03 23:27:30)
Adjudication
Hello Andrew.
That's an idea, but your opponent is not supposed to use tablebases, he may just want to see how you'll checkmate him and learn from the game. Correspondence chess shouldn't be more computerized IMO, so only 'obvious' endgames will be adjudicated.
You may call the referee in a few more moves.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-04 10:54:46)
Adjudication
There are still players here that don't even know what actually is a chess engine (true)... Even if the rules must avoid human judgement as much as possible, I think the main 'referee' should remain a human, not a program. Do we play correspondence chess for the result only ? What program could say what endgame is beautiful and worth to be played...
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-05 05:04:29)
Adjudication
Thibault I understand that to some players it might be unacceptable to have the game suddenly declared lost or drawn in a Q v Q+P ending or R+P v N+p ending. In my view these players should opt for the non computer tournaments you are going to set up. To cover the point raised: yes there can remain a need for a referee which should be human. Linking to table bases does not affect the beauty of an endgame Thibault its just a small range at the moment of 6 piece endings. There is no aesthetic value in following the moves advised by the tablebase the value is in getting there. Every strong player is consulting the tablebases when analysing positions leading to 6 piece situations so automating table base adjudications in say A M and WCC tournaments seems completely logical. Yes strong tournaments are played only for the sporting result Thibault I dont think anyone would choose an inferior move for the beauty they might try it to take a risk to win by complicating the game. I have seen 30+ moves games of yours of absolute poisened pawn Najdorf theory leading to a dead draw ..... I guess what I am trying to avoid is opponents dragging out games which are table base won. In the case of reasonable strong opponents 2100+ in my view this is because they just dont want to resign. by the way how do you call for the referee?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 21:05:48)
chess engines
Following Thibault's comments about Rybka having changed correpondence chess I purchased the rybka engine. It is a very good program but I dont see how it has affected cc anymore than Fritz.
I have used Fritz 8 and 9 extensively for analysis and have until now no experience of other engines. Although I have just downloaded Toga II which is an excellent engine (and free!!) if anyone wants a free engine this is a top program that downloads in seconds and is up there with the commercial programs.
I noticed Rybka seems more conservative evaluating positions than Fritz. However it has blind spots. For an example taken from the current chess cafe "Yasser Annotates" (Ivanchuk Seirawan 1990)after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe 4 Nxe Bc5 5 Ng3 Bg6 6 h5 h6 7 Nf3 Nd7 8 h5 Bh7 9 Bd3 Bxd 10 Qxd Ngf6 11 Bf4 e6 12 0-0-0 Be7 13 c4 b5 Black offers a pawn my reaction is not to take - otb I would never take. Why open the c file for black and grabbing the pawn by Qxb5 looks risky with only 2 pawns to cover the king and open b and c files. Fritz prefers 14 c5 with 14 cxd followed by 15 Kb1 as 2nd choice after 3 minutes ply 15 depth
Rybka r chooses 14 cxb cxb then 15 Qxb5?! even after 1 hour at ply 19! In cc I would look at 14cxb and 15 Qxb5 to see if I could survive and win with the extra pawn but working with Fritz it takes but a few minutes to see black has compensation after 15 Qxb5 Nd5. When 16 Be5 gives an inferior endgame for white and 16 Bd2 Rb8 gives an attack for black. The top professionals work with a range of programs Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Hiracs and Rybka to generate ideas.
Does anyone have any views on these other program's characteristics?
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-11 22:04:32)
Chess comp ratings
Rybka is most dominant in the single processor versions when it comes to multi processor versions the gap is less and suddenly Zap chess appears. I am not sure why this is. Another point thats interesting is Rybkas endgame evaluations there is some significant difference with Fritz here. It seems a bit overoptimistic but sometimes it seems right. Finally a striking point when using Rybka is how comparatively few positions it is analysing per second compared to Fritz maybe only 10%. This illustrates Thibaults point about Rybka's far greater reliance on chess knowledge.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-12 07:36:30)
chess engines endgame play
Right Thibault! I am becoming more impressed with Rybka's endgame knowledge. It seems to have the extra pawn on just one side situations well understood. Is there any engine that is recognised as being the strongest at endgames? This is certainly an area where cc has helped me enormously as it has forced me to get some endgame books (and actually study them!)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-12 07:36:52)
chess engines endgame play
" It seems to have the extra pawn on just one side situations well understood." .. It is undoubtly one of the keys of its success.
As far as I know, Shredder has always been said to be the strongest engine in the endgames.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-12 16:51:49)
Gene
ok Gene let me give you my experience as to why you should use an engine in cc. 1) I have learnt a lot about certain openings and I remember lot more effective systems 2) finding the truth about a position is fun and instructive 3) I have acquired some endgame knowledge I never would have got. 4) Generally I wil try to understand why the engines like certain moves and drill down into the position trying altrentives until I get it. Sometimes in very wild positions its tough. Most of the the time this reinforces principles of develpoment pawn structure piece dynamism and I find it rubs off on my understanding. One proviso - if you take on too many games a lot of this wont work!
Facing a much lower rated player you have to do research and prepare something - trotting down the main line poisened pawn Najdorf may not be the way to go. A lot of top players go for catalan and english openings hoping to utilise their chess knowledge and research.
One thing is for sure always playing the best move of your engine is going to drop 1/2 points and lose some games and that includes Rybka. Finally all this stuff is done by all the top professionals in the otb chess. One example I faced the line that Kramnik got crushed with by Topalov playing b5 and f4. I looked at the game notes and databases and couldnt find a good response 45 minutes with fritz and I cracked it and in the process gained some insight into the opening. In fact its a harmless variation if you know the antidote but over the board one slip and Kram was toasted
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-01 05:20:50)
Tablebases : Mate in 517+
While I was checking some positions in 6-pieces tablebases, I was wondering what was the longest win found in tablebases so far...
I found the answer here (new record established in May 2006) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase#Endgame_theory
"For some years, this position held the record for the longest computer-generated forced mate. (Otto Blathy had composed a mate in 292 moves problem already in 1889.) However, in May 2006, Bourzutschky and Konoval discovered a KQNKRBN position with an astonishing DTC of 517 moves. This was more than twice as long as Stiller's maximum, and almost 200 moves beyond the previous record of DTC = 330 for a position of KQBNKQB_1001."
What I just can't understand is how is it possible not to know the DTM (Distance To Mate) while knowing the DTC (Distance To Conversion) ?!
Anyway, amazing !
.. Any taker ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-01 19:48:57)
Endgames by Ludek Pachman
"Les finales" from "Elementary Theory" (?! translated from french) by Ludek Pachman... Endgames are the most interesting and deepest part of the game IMO :)
Hannes Rada (2007-10-01 20:43:54)
Endgames
Mark Dvoreckij's Endgame University
Don Groves (2007-10-11 23:33:36)
knowledge and 9x9, etc...
My 0.02€: Chess has rules which make it easier to program than Go. Just one example, when the King is in check, the search tree of possible moves is pruned enormously. Go has no analog to this. Until the endgame, even when several pieces are in atari there still may be a better move than saving them. As for "playing like a master...," Chess is far more local than is Go. In Go, the whole board must be nearly always in focus, not so in Chess where losing a local battle can spell almost certain defeat. Another factor in making Go so difficult to analyze is the evaluation function which the program uses to decide on the best move. This is far easier to do for Chess than for Go. Maybe I'll start working on a Go program, just to prove myself wrong ;-)
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!"
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-14 15:40:44)
Tablebases on R+B vs. N+N
Good to know this endgame (Rook + Bishop wins against 2 Knights in 150 to 220 moves in the longest cases - tablebases 6 pieces), as there's no draw granted after 50 moves without any capture according to FICGS rules.
Karjakin, Sergey (2694) - Shirov, Alexei (2739)
World Cup Khanty-Mansiysk RUS (6.3), 11.12.2007
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4322
Lincoln Tomlin (2007-12-20 07:44:37)
Chess variants
Many years ago, a friend and I made up a variant with the idea of practicing our endgame technique from a normal starting position. It worked like this:
The pieces are setup as usual and the rules are exactly the same as in the normal game with the exception that all major and minor pieces cannot move unless they are capturing.
The play then centres on pawn and king moves as if it was a K7vK7 endgame, which would be too easy to draw, but with added strategies of bringing pieces into play via sacrifices to unbalance the position. Which then cannot be moved again unless they take of course.
Jason Repa (2008-05-08 03:13:22)
Pavasovic vs Baklan
This game was played a couple weeks ago in the 2008 European Individual Championship in Plovdiv.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1491774
It's hard to believe a GM would play this in a real game. It's an old cheapo line of the Tarrasch French where White gives up two pieces, then dangles a third, for an attack. Black's defense is simple and intuitive. He gives back one piece to diffuse the attack and wins a relatively simply endgame. I first came across this when someone tried it against me in a bullet game on playchess.com. Even at bullet time controls I was able to come up with 13...Ndxe5 (not too difficult to find) and consolidate the material advantage.
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb
"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."
I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.
But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.
"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"
I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.
"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"
I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.
I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.
"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."
I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.
Lincoln Tomlin (2008-05-17 19:07:03)
Don, Thibault, Jason...
Thanks. I usually do make a habit of copying to the clipboard before hitting any butons but, well, you know that ONE time you forget etc. :)
Not to worry. I just wanted to add what a powerful study tool FICGS can be in analysing structures, plans and ideas in openings for your OTB repertoire. I really think that this form of chess is undervalued in really trying to get an understanding of target middle and endgame positions for use in club and tournament play. I use a lowly 1.7Ghz Celeron based laptop and Chessbase along with an older version of a 'weaker' (not telling which) engine for checking line and ideas but mainly try for lines that I want to head for in games against humans. Unless they prove to be truly disastrous of course. 8|
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-18 14:24:09)
Chessbase Deep Rybka 3
Chessbase, who distributes the best chess engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs, Zappa...) now also distributes the little fish : Rybka 3 and Deep Rybka 3 are available.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4772
Rybka 3 (by Vasik Rajlich) is the reigning computer world champion and should be at least 80 points stronger than the previous version Rybka 2.3.2
Did anyone test it already ? What about the improvements (particularly Monte Carlo Analysis in endgames) ?
Rybka 3 book with 3,387,966 positions (260 MB) is also available.
Normajean Yates (2008-11-04 03:43:33)
Rodolfo, this is not n queens prob!
1. 5 queens prob [none attacking any other] on 5x5 board has ZERO solutions, as is easy to see.
2. n queens problem - fast solution, all solutions, all solutions excluding symmetry etc. is routine exercise after teaching back tracking in a programming course. Also, writing recursive program in lisp, tail recursive program, program with function being called with itself as a parameter [in untyped languages - otherwise you get 'infinite type' error], lazy-eval-function-program [typically for Haskell] - are routine exercises for leaerning a new fundamentally different language for experienced programmers.
BUT I DO NOT SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THE N QUEENS PROBLEM HERE! WE ARE DISCUSSION 5X5 COMPETITIVE CHESS WITH START-POS rnbqk/ppppp/8/PPPPP/RNBQK w Qq !
nxn queens is 2 minutes programming exercise! Writing a good engine for above is a big project!
Continuing the topic of engines for above (nowadays called Gardner minichess) - we also need some endgame tablebases. That should not be difficult: modifying source code of nalimov tablebase generators. [download tbgen.c - or is it cc (c++)? I have the source - it is GPL anyway...
We are not talking about future ficgs things - we are discussing a point of some academic interest, that is all.
Don Groves (2008-11-05 08:02:06)
8 x 8 chess variant
There is another way to foil the computers and re-energize chess: A screen is placed between the two sides of the chess board and each player places their pieces on the board in accordance with two rules: (1) one pawn on each file; (2) no piece past its own third rank. Then the screen is removed and the game begins with White's first move.
Opening books become useless (requiring the computer to begin using its clock from the first move) and the usual endgames will rarely occur (although endgame databases are obviously still useful).
Knowing your opponent's tendencies becomes even more valuable than in the normal game.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-11-30 18:48:14)
Caire - Utesch
Thibault, in accordance to your rules I have to avoid any loss in all games of the match. So I decided to play defences with Black where the risk is lower, because general endgame ideas are more important than tactical play with many figures.
Hannes Rada (2008-11-30 20:20:20)
Good for white !?
Currently I am playing with white a decisive game at the Austria championship against the Marshall
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Re4 g5 16.Qf1 Qh5 17.Nd2 Bf5 18.f3 Nf6
19.Qg2 Nxe4 20.Nxe4 Qg6 21.g4 Bxe4 22.fxe4 Rae8 23.Bc2 Qh6 24.e5 Bxe5 25.dxe5 Rxe5 26.Bd2 Qe6 27.Bb3 Qe7 28.Qf2 c5 29.Re1 c4 30.Rxe5 Qxe5 31.Bd1 h6 32.Qe3 Re8 33.Qxe5 Rxe5
34.Bf3 f5 35.gxf5 Rxf5 36.Bb7 *
The endgame 2 bishops vs 1 Rook + Pawn looks good for white. Black did not have any attacking changes in this game and white quite a comfortable game. However I am not quite sure if white can win it.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-12-01 21:31:30)
15...a5!?
May be easier! Are there known any games?
My idea was it to show, that white endgame ressources (neither by material nor by development) are not big enough for a win! Would be a fundamental investigation of this opening's worth.
But Hannes is right - better to name it Marshall defence.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-01 22:09:55)
15...a5!?
I dont know of any games but when I was following the game and before 15 ...Rae8 I started investigating this move and the more I looked at it the more I liked it - its a very annoying move for white at just the right moment. However Wolfgangs approach seemed to work I just would not have had the courage to enter those endgames
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-12-01 22:17:10)
Endgame knowledge ...
... (with more than 6 pieces) is one of the last differences of todays high level correspondence chess!
Normajean Yates (2009-01-19 15:30:21)
:) [to rodolfo] - and, to sophie: re OTB
to rodolfo:
:)
to Sophie:
[and a general point to all wikichess contributers]:
I think that it will be a bit less confusing if in your wikichess entries, you include the phrase '(at OTB chess)' or something like that.
The reason is that this is (for chess) a site where engine-use and *slow* correspondence-chess is the default.
Contemporary computer programs do not get 'tense' or 'fooled' by an attack -- they just calculate the static evaluation functions for positions on the game tree [using hash tables, alphabeta, iterative deepening, nullmove, quiessence search, endgame recognition heuristics, etc etc for efficiency :) positions]
computer programs *can* be fooled [otherwise every game here would have the same result by now], but not by the same techniques as those by which humans can be... :)
Normajean Yates (2009-05-11 03:52:01)
Daniel, I think you underestimate Rs...
you give B=4, R=4.5 but in the endgame specially, the Rooks pull their weight..15th ('7th' file), escorting Ps to promotion, ...
About people playing on to mate after being a Q down or so without counterchances, well a bigger player-pool is needed ... plus I understand some newbie players not being so sure that mate is easy in a given pos (though much lengthier than in chess) - so, we need *more* non-newbie players!
And a non-newbie begins as a newbie: however, I agree that's not the whole story -- some people *will* play on to mate...one sees that in chess (8x8) too -
lets see: my bigchess record: 17/17 - wow! (with 1 pending: it is still in the gambit-opening stage)
Normajean Yates (2009-05-12 01:02:03)
long bigchess .. and chess games..
from the english wikipedia: "in May 2006, Bourzutschky and Konoval discovered a KQNKRBN position with an astonishing DTC of 517 moves." That is distance-to-conversion! (and that was 2006!) So, you can figure out distance-to-mate and the overall length of a game that reaches this endgame ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-03 19:59:43)
Dead positions/openings
Good (and so large) question, Hannes... I did not exactly mean "openings", this is really beyond my own understanding already :) .. I did mean some endgames (which can be the end of a few openings, at move ~25) in example... On openings, I prefer to be really careful as e.g. there are some really interesting lines (incredibly complex) in Berlin's defence or Petrov's -russian- opening, whose reputation is/was to be drawish.
This could be an interesting debate, does anyone else have some elements on this ?
Hannes Rada (2009-06-03 22:28:52)
Openings very important for corr chess ?
Well about 3 weeks ago I had a discussion with Austrian's only ICCF world champion.
And he told me that in his next world championship final he is going to chance his opening repertoire completely. Instead of 1. e4 which he prefered so far, he is now going to play another move (1.d4 most probably), because after years of studying chess his conclusion is now that 1.e4 is the weakest choice (compared to 1. d4, 1. Nf3, ...)
The same 'ideology' was also published by former ICCF World Champion Hans Berliner in his book "My System".
.
Dead Endgames: This is another interesting topic to be discussed ....
Hannes Rada (2009-06-04 21:56:51)
Dead Endgames
Thibault, you are talking about endgames in this connection.
Do you mean for instance the famous rook endgames, which are always a draw according to Tarrasch :-)
And it is true, there are so many rook endings which cannot be won, with extra material. Even with 2 extra pawns ....
I had 2 times a position with K + R + f+h Pawn, against K + R which is a theoretical draw. Sometimes chess can be really unfair. You are playing much better than your opponent, you manage to to achieve material advantage of 1 or 2 pawns, but the rook endgame is still a draw ...
Here is a proposal against the broad draw corridor
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/reformedchess.htm
http://www.iccf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3618&page=5
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-05 13:13:41)
"reformed chess", "improved chess"
Speaking of rook endings, of course some -maybe most- are dead or at least understood positions, some are very complex for the human brain... I don't think chess is so unfair even with 2 pawns more, every good player has to know the endgames theory, that's the most important part of the game IMO (at least when learning), such draws only show that one didn't manage to complexify the game enough.
Nice ideas in these links Hannes, and there are many others even without changing the way the pieces move (e.g. time handicap..) but it is harder in correspondence chess. Actually we may regret that chess is chess in this current version. As chess rules are everything but "natural", it could have been different, maybe it should have been. It is too late to change anything now because most people want to play the same game than Fischer and Spassky :) .. History prevails, even very intelligent recent games like Blokus will never be the king of the game.
By the way does anyone know about the drawish problem in Xiangqi and Shogi ?
Daniel Parmet (2009-06-10 16:06:56)
draws
consecutive draw offers is absolutely not rude if the position is drawn. I would therefore argue one should not create rules to interfere. If one player wishes to continue to play the drawn game out (as is his right) it is also the other player's right to continue to offer draws in the drawn the position after each move.
I actually consider it quite rude to play out theoretically drawn endgames anyways while I don't find it the slightest bit rude to offer draws in such endgames repeatedly.
Svante Carl von Erichsen (2009-08-28 09:44:30)
Thanks
Thank you very much.
I must admit, though, that I am a bit disappointed that all these games were decided by the clock. Game 1, I am definitely behind, Game 2, I think that I have a winning position, Game 3 is very close and would have been decided by endgame (there are some very large points open), Game 4, I am back in the game after installing a group in his moyo, but I believe he is still slightly ahead, Game 5, I think that he has to defend the group at the bottom now, so I can reduce the left side, then switch to the top right corner; I am still relatively thin at the top (compared to the rest of the board), so I think the game would have had to be decided in a fight there.
So, all in all, I think that these were really interesting games, and it is a pity that they were finished too early. Lu Ke is a very strong player, and I am really lucky to have a positive score against him. I just hope that my next opponent pays a bit more attention to the clock.
John Smith (2009-11-13 02:56:53)
Introduction to Centaur Chess
Hi all,
While I have played allot of chess, so far I only used my computer for an occasional analysis and mostly for the database features.
I am assuming it takes to know engines quite well to become good at advanced/centaur chess, so any advice would be really helpful.
1) Which engines are better at what type of positions? Is Deep Junior best at unclear sacrifices?, Rybka best for positional play?, Schredder best for endgames?
2) Which engines understand different pawn structures better, e.g. which is the best engine to study a stonewall-structure game and which is best for a King's Indian Mar de Plata game?
3) How to interpret the engine value for the position? e.g. if I, say as White, sac a pawn and the evaluation is -0.1, that is less that 1 pawn, does this mean I have enough positional compensation for the pawn?
4) Which engines take long-term weaknesses into their evaluations, even if they can't see anything concrete within their horizon?
5) Which free engines are worth consulting? toga? stockfish? Glaurung? thinker? Which of these are good for complex positions, which for quiet ones?
6) Are there any engines which improve their play during time, that is they learn? e.g. if in a position guiding the engine by hand proves that another move than its preferred one is best, will it be able to spot the move again, if the same position is re-entered?
7) Which is the best interface for analysis?
8) Is there a page with statistics of how each engine performs in every opening?
Thanks!
Hannes Rada (2009-11-30 13:55:08)
Andersson
No he was never ICCF champion.
But what I heard, in contradiction to his OTB chess preference, he played risky and very tactical in ICCF.
Andersson played in real chess extremely technical and low-risk, but winning every equal and boring endgame .....
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-02 18:28:19)
Major update : Chess openings & endgames
A major update just occured, finished FICGS chess games (Go & poker as well) are now analyzed by the server that gives the name of each known opening & classifies the games by endgames, castlings & promotions !
Best, now you can find games by material on the board (like Chessbase) for endgames with less than 10 pieces. Just click "Search games" in the menu, eg. enter KRPP vs. KRP (whatever the order of the letters & colors), and you'll find among others this game (see the description of the game at the bottom of the page) :
http://www.ficgs.com/game_3724.html
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=3724
Note : Finished games are not analyzed in real time, but this update clearly opens new perspectives :)
Please do not hesitate to comment this update or to report any bug you may see.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-29 19:50:45)
RobboLito vs. Rybka 3
What are RobboLito, Ippolit and Igorrit ? It looks like these names are invading computer chess forums... As you may have read in the discussion mentioned below, the Rybka 3's source code may have been compromised and these engines "may" be clones of Rybka 3 (everyone does not agree on this). Good or really bad news, anyway this open source chess engine may have many consequences on the computer chess world, and correspondence chess as well...
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8031
From the wikispace mentioned below :
IPPOLIT : Intellectual Persons Promotion Of Leninist International Tradesunions (!??)
Q. What is RobboLito?
A. RobboLito is the version of IPPOLIT that now contains endgame tablebases, the RobboBases.
A few links on RobboLito 0.085f1a, Ippolit & Igorrit (says it all IMO) :
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/RobboLito
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/Igorrit
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/FAQ
see also : ippolit.wikispaces.com/Clone+(Question)
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/News
-> IPPOLIT banned from chessprogramming wiki!
PlayChess banned IPPOLIT from use online also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r_V_QkmHjo
http://www.chesslogik.com/robbolito.htm
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/free-chessengine-robbolito-is-1-at-swisstest-rybka-2?lc=1
http://www.cyclonechess.com/rybka3.htm
"RobboLito is an open-source UCI chess engine by: Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, and Roberto Pescatore."
RobboLito does not yet support: multiPV, own book, egbbs, tablebases, multiple CPUs/cores, chess variants
Estimated rating: ~ 3300 ELO
Available versions:
RobboLito 0.085g3 w32
(optimized windows 32-bit executable and source code)
RobboLito_0.085g3_w32_no_SSE2
(optimized windows 32-bit executable - for older CPUs that don't support Intel SSE2 instruction set)
RobboLito 0.085g3_x64
(fast windows 64-bit PGO executable
compiled by peterpan)
RobboLito 0.085g3l_x86
(optimized linux 64-bit executable and source code
ported to linux by unisky)
http://www.cyclonechess.com/robbolito.htm
http://www.cyclonechess.com/rybka3.htm
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1261597025/4
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1258991841
http://queenchess.blogspot.com/2009/11/fritz-12-vs-robbolito-e2-latest-version.html
http://lefounumerique.xooit.com/next?t=663 (french)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-02-27 00:14:28)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)
I can't remember such a rule, but this has been discussed for sure... It seems to me that we concluded that any player (so a player without engines as well) should be able to "see" the end of the game -particularly difficult endgames- if he does not last it for any DMD purpose.
Benjamin Block (2010-03-12 16:18:21)
Help : Tablebases, Rybka 3
I like table base. But i never install them on my computer because it takes place. If you have the same problem check this link: http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html
Save over 1000 GB space free :D
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 Leităo, 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 (2010-05-20 15:28:19)
Late resignation
Hi Arno, best is to call the referee a first time (most often it is enough), see the rules :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#adjudications
It was not so easy to build rules that fit to everyone (centaurs & non-centaurs), so you may have to play a few moves yet, but not so many in loooong & obvious endgames.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-17 00:29:38)
Svante Carl von Erichsen on Go WCH #4
As you probably read in the news, Svante Carl von Erichsen won the 4th FICGS Go WCH, beating his challenger Huayong Yang 3-2, Svante Carl wins the Go championship for the 4th time in a row!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match & computer Go:
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, congratulations once again for winning
this match against a surprising challenger who started here a few
months ago with a 10 kyu rank, Huayong Yang, now rated 2438 after
scoring 2 points in your 5 games match (which is a great achievement
for sure). What did you think about his play & yours in these games?
Svante Carl - I think that he greatly underestimated his rank initially. As far as
I know, he had not played for a long time and believed that his
ability had therefore deteriorated. I do not think that you can drop
more than one or at most two stones, though -- it is like cycling or
swimming, you never unlearn it. I had the impression that we were
quite evenly matched in summa, but our strengths are in different
aspects of the game; I cannot really put my finger on the difference,
though.
FICGS - After a previous win, you said that you spend a quite long
time to analyze, which probably helps you to reach a higher level
than 2 dan (your EGF rating) compared to OTB play... It looks
obvious to me that correspondence chess moves generally ask for much
more time than Go moves at a high level but I may be wrong, how much
time did you spend on your longest analysis during the match? Do
you remember for which move?
Svante Carl - I usually spend at least a few minutes on each move, except when the
continuation is obvious. I often use more, and if I do not find a
satisfactory move then, I will even postpone the move to another
day, so that I can sleep over it and let my subconcious work on it.
FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your future opponent
before starting your match? Do you think that this is really important
in preparation like it can be in Correspondence chess?
Svante Carl - I sometimes glance over the games in the championship qualification tournament, but I do not try to prepare this way. I do not think that such preparation has any value in Go, especially in correspondence Go,
since you have time during the game to do deep analysis. I usually
try to take each game out of standard fuseki patterns pretty quickly,
anyway. Of course, I know that my opponents in these title matches
are always very tough and demand my utmost respect.
FICGS - Do you still follow the recent developments in computer Go?
What do you think about the latest Go engines? How much time do we
have yet before the best Go players are caught by computers according to you?
Svante Carl - I have the impression that the currently most promising technology
(Monte Carlo/UCT) has the potential to achieve a rank of about 2 or 3
dan (EGF/KGS). I think that the next fundamentally new idea or
breakthrough might add 2 stones, to get to 4 or 5 dan. I do not have
any idea where it might go from that, but I think that it gets always
harder.
What I would find interesting is having more intermediate board sizes.
The best bots are almost on par with the best professionals on 9x9
now. I would propose to try to achieve a similar level on 11x11, then
13x13, then 15x15 etc.. Regarding 9x9, I think that the currently
predominant komi of 7.5 points is too big, and that this has a
negative impact on the experiments because the bots do not play in a
balanced environment. It might be worthwhile to introduce the Taiwan
rule (last move compensation) to get more fine-grained scores.
FICGS - What programs did you use this year to analyze? (just trying, of course it may be part of your secrets ;))
Svante Carl - It is not a secret. I just use an editor, usually EidoGo or CGoban3, to visualize the variations I imagine.
FICGS - Finally, what thoughts would you like to share on your 5
games, that could help us not to miss the best times or to help us to understand the most complex moves...
Svante Carl - I cannot give a detailed commentary, but I can try to summarize my impressions.
I think that Game 5 was quite balanced until move 21, but I think that
the white invasion was a bit ambitious then. Of course, White did not
need to die there, but after moves 32-33 I think that Black had a good
result anyway (move 32 should go out faster in my opinion; note how
E14 helps Black in enclosing White).
In Game 3, I think things got quite difficult for White in the lower
left, but I let him take the initiative by backing off at move 35 (I
should have simply closed off F10 then). White gained control of the
centre as a result, and in the large endgame, I lost too many points there.
In Game 4, I fell behind in the opening through some slow moves (there
was some discussion on the Life-in-19x19 forum about this, see the
link in the comments of that game). In the endgame, Black then lost some points in the centre, so that I was a bit ahead when the game timed out.
In Game 1, I made some bad decisions on the left side, and never
managed to turn things around. I think I was behind by about 5 points in the end.
In Game 2, I think that Black should not have ignored move 24. After
I got quite some territory from my moyo and also reduced his top side, I could play it safe.
I look forward to the games with Olivier Drouot that recently started,
but I also hope that Yang Huayong will re-enter the championship cycle.
Scott Nichols (2010-09-19 00:07:15)
Corr. Chess Maxims
It is precisely our game Daniel which brought up the draw offer maxim idea. To offer a draw every move or two is clearly distracting. Plus it also included the other maxim about rating differences. You were Black, about 80 points lower in rating, so I had the most to lose by accepting any draw offer.
Maybe in the endgame when it is a book draw, either player can offer the draw "once". But our game was barely out of the opening. Of course these are just "general rules of conduct" and each game is different. So I stand by my original ideas.
Lalit Kapoor (2010-10-20 08:18:46)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
The same happens to me. I started as 1805 (provisional) in WCH 8. Now after 5 games finished I scored 4.5/5. Against 2nd seed I got a draw. And against seed 1 I will get at least a draw with slight advantage as Black in endgame.
Garvin Gray question is right. The 1800 (provisional) player gets an advantage for being an underdog.
But at last there would be only one champion and he have to qualify all stages.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-30 01:02:41)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Your right Daniel, some players will have games finish by then. By now I understand what is being talked about, by not having time on the end to have for the endgame. I'm thinking of some kind of adjustment like after the 30 move mark to have something like 15 days per 20 move after that so players don't get kill by the time
Garvin Gray (2010-11-02 10:28:10)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
At 30 days plus 1 days, I think about 3 months is a fair average.
I am not sure if I am a fast player or not. I do use most of my time across all games, but that does not mean I am looking at all games all the time.
For just a two game match, I would have no issues with 30 days plus 1 day increment and it would not feel fast to me.
14 days plus 2 days per move I think is a better time control for a few reasons.
It will let the organisers know for certain early who will lose their games on time ie two weeks from when the round starts, so decisions about whether to let them continue or kick those players out can be made earlier.
With a 2 day increment, it does give some opportunity for players to analyse for a bit of time in endgames.
If you are wanting to avoid unnecessary delays, the easiest way to it to have rule that as soon as a game reaches a 6 man tablebase position, the result will be declared.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-11-02 20:48:21)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
For 6 man tablebases, there is also:
http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html
Scott Nichols (2010-12-12 00:20:51)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?
"IMO that for some reasons Wayne will play correspondence chess in this tournament while many others may play something between advanced chess and correspondence chess..." (Thibault) That is a brilliant quote Thib. It got me to thinking, I played corr. by mail back in the early 80's, no computers, we had to think and replay each game constantly. I reached a respectable rank. Now, with the machines, I think we take their play to much for granted. I mean, we think, this prog. is 3000+ rated, it has to be the best move, but in many many positions where sacrifice is involved, or complicated endgames, these machines don't have a clue. I think it is time to get back to playing "real" corr. chess again. Thanks Thib!
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....
Scott Nichols (2010-12-15 23:20:40)
Chess positions too complex for engines
Hi Thib. This is one of the main games I had in mind when I responded to your quote.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__BLITZ_SILVER__000019
Or Game #40749
After 50. ...Be2 Rybka could only think of lines keeping the King close to the g4 pawn. Try it yourself anybody, the engine just didn't get it. It was a blitz game, but even at that time control I could see that my black Bishop could guard against the pawn advance from afar. So the winning strategy was to march the King to the other side of the board and escort the a-pawn to the queening square. This idea obviously was far beyond the engines horizon. After that game, my respect for Rybka's endgame play went down considerably.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-16 09:30:34)
Chess positions too complex for engines
Pawn's endgame?! I would be surprised if recent engines don't get it yet.
Josef Riha (2010-12-16 09:49:07)
Chess positions too complex for engines
Exactly, don't forget the engines got informations about any given position in the endgame and at some point in the middlegame from the endgame tablebases whether it's a win, draw or lose.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-16 09:54:53)
Preparation in sicilian
Another game I remember, the typical win by preparation (I was absolutely not prepared in this variant yet) in a blitz game - Eros & Alberto made it well with this line during the 1st Freestyle tournament.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=15363
I don't remember what move is the point exactly at a first sight, somewhere around Qxe5 but Black did not expect what kind of endgame will happen after the next 20 moves, btw many are forced but the line may be too long for most engines. The game was lost already, and I'm not sure if engines choose the right way (wouldn't be a trap anymore)...
Jai Prakash Singh (2010-12-28 16:11:11)
Chess Course by GM Igor Smirnov
Hi Chessfriends,
Can someone visit the link
http://chess-teacher.com/home#oid=1014_5
and please review if I shall buy this course to improve my endgame.
Jai Prakash Singh (2010-12-30 07:48:50)
Chess Course by GM Igor Smirnov
You may get excellent Training courses from GM Igor Smirnov at the link
http://chess-teacher.com/home#oid=1014_5
I recommend "An Endgame Expert", "GM Opening Laboratory" and "How to beat GMs".
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-12 04:18:32)
WBCCC Round 1 Update
This is the first update for the WBCCC, I guess some of you have been following some of the games there. There have been a lot of interesting games and some surprises a lot the way. As I'm reporting on the FICGS forum I will make most of this about the FICGS side. Here are some results so far and starting at the top boards.
B2 Uly(Vytron) vs Gino Figlio- Gino does a good job of defending a ..2.e6 line of the Sicilian. And both players agree to a draw after 34 moves.
B4 Daniel Parmet vs Sebastian Boehme- This was a Poison Pawn line of the Sicilian. The game ended before it even got out of book. A short draw, I think both people agreed that it was a good result for each player.
B6- Matt O'Brein vs Omprakash- A surprise if only for how short the game was. Matt shows his tactual muscles when his higher rated opponent much of had and oversight in this defense. As 23.g6! h6 24.Bxh6! and it looks like black has burned his bridges in this game.
B8-Stephanie vs Ruben Comes- This maybe the biggest surprise in round at least in terms of the bigger name on the FICGS side. Stephanie what looks to be a prefect opening all of the B90 lines and everyone agrees 32.Bc3! to be a new novelty and a very good one at that. Stephanie went on to grind Ruben down to a lost endgame. I very interesting game that has be to be seen to believe, I guess this going to show, that not all B90 lines lend to draws.
B13-Scott Nichols vs indrajit_sg- This was a long fought draw. When looking at the game early I thought white may have some chance to take advantage of his open g-file. But not a lot materialize later in the endgame(form the engines point of view).
B14-donkasand vs David Evans- David enter into dangerous territory with this B90 line. At move 19 he played ..Rb8 which looks to be a move to get out of book, because the other moves didn't look so good. Credit to David for finding a draw line in this game. Its another game with a look.
Kamesh Nookala vs Jimmy Huggins- What can I say I played an experimental opening and it backfired :) A well played game by Kamesh. Thanks for the chance to have a good fight with you.
Now on the 2nd set of games(Each player has 2 games in each round)
B3 Ramil Germanes vs Moz- Ramil here played a safe line in the B90 form the white side. So this looked like and easy draw.
B4 Sebastian Boehme vs Uly(Vytron)- Vytron plays and interesting side line of the Crao-Kann and play was very shape, but I got the feeling black played to ambitiously and had the worse of the position. He found a good defensive sacrifice and the good was hold to a draw. I think Sebi had winning chances, but I will have to look over the game to come up with an idea on that one. Anyway a great game to look over.
Ruben Comes vs Matthew O'Berin- Maybe the sharpest and most ambitious game in round 1. This goes in the the B97 lines, but Ruben goes for the Qf3 side line and produces a complex position after Rd3. I love this game so much I want to post the link again for everyone to please watch this game and post a comment about it.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20213
B13 Fulcrum2000 vs Scott Nichols- Scott tries his luck to be ambitious and backfires with his Bh4 idea. Even when looking at the game. I was thinking it to be a good idea, but as it turns out. It goes as just losing a tempo. I thought this was one of the more instructive games of the round. I liked the way white played the endgame.
And the last result I have for the round for the FICGS players is
B17-indrajit_sg vs Kamesh Nookala- This was an interesting draw were white plays and early sideline in the Sicilian that tends to be drawish unless black forces the play. Another well played game by both sides.
I just want to say there are a lot of games one should look at. As more results come in on the FICGS side I will posted. In my opinion one should follow Wayne's games I have enjoyed his play so far. He had to comeback some in his wild game with black vs deka, but I get the feeling this game will ended in a draw. I would also follow the underrated Matt O'Berin in games to come. He has proven to be a great player so far.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-15 14:08:19)
ChessVibes openings (get 10 issues free)
For correspondence chess fans who like to follow the openings theory, I just received an interesting offer from ChessVibes that I copy/paste here:
__________
Dear correspondence chess lovers,
First, we'd like to thank the administrator of this forum for giving us the opportunity to showcase our product which is especially interesting for this audience, we think. So, here we go:
Subscribe to ChessVibes Openings and get ten issues for free!
Which openings are hot in top level chess? Which are not? Receive the latest opening novelties right in your mailbox with ChessVibes Openings, a weekly PDF magazine (+ PGN!) covering the latest openings news, co-authored by International Masters Merijn van Delft and Robert Ris and published by ChessVibes since January 2009. If you subscribe and mention 'ficgs' in an email to us, you'll receive the last ten issues for free!
What is it?
Every issue consists of a PDF Magazine and the accompanying PGN file. The PDF consists of four pages (A4 size) with the following contents:
- What’s hot? A round-up of this week’s important opening developments, with statistics about the frequence and score of the week’s most important opening novelty (page 1)
- What’s not? Which openings are not recommended at the moment, according to the top players? And why not? (page 1)
Game of the week Each week you’ll find the theoretically most important game analysed by our two IMs, with a detailed survey of the opening phase (page 2).
- This week’s harvest Four more new important opening ideas from this week (page 3) revealed and described with explanation of the opening and early middlegame (page 3).
- It’s Your Move An interactive element: every week two exercises, of which the solutions/explanations will follow one week later. This will improve your understanding of certain opening, middlegame or even endgame themes even further.
Which opening variations have been discussed so far?
You can download an index in PDF here.
http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/cvo/CVO_index_114.pdf
More info & subscribe: You can find more information about ChessVibes Openings, and subscribe, at:
http://www.chessvibes.com/openings/
By subscribing you would join several GMs and IMs, who have responded very positively to our relatively new chess magazine!
Best regards,
Peter Doggers
Editor-in-chief,
ChessVibes
P.S.
If you subscribe and mention 'ficgs' in an email to us at info {at} chessvibes.com, you'll receive the last ten issues for free!
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-29 18:36:20)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
B1-CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant) vs Moz
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21180
Kevin makes an interesting choice here with 2.a4!? vs the Silicon Defense. Not exactly sure what he wanted out of the opening. I can only guess he wanted to mix it up here. Anyway, black equalizes fairly quickly and is better. But after 18.a5! He finds the best way to equalize and both agree to a draw.
B2-jitan vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21181-
The somewhat unknown Jitan has had a good tournament. And is given his ICCF SM opponent all he can handle. In a game that is still going. Gino is down a pawn, but it appears to be a draw and I would guess the game is about to finish. This was an interesting approach by Gino who gets in b5 and h5 very early in this game. And Jitan plays the most naturally looking sac. 13.Nbxd5! it looked like for a long time Gino was in trouble, but he has found enough resources IMO. A well played game by both players.
B3-Fulcrum2000 vs Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21182
This was a nice French game to watch. The novelty move was ..11.Na5, OTB I would like white in this game and I had a feeling that white possibly could have risked an attack, but this game came down to endgame play and White was able to outplay black in the end.
B4-Kamesh vs Stephanie
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21183-
In my opinion this is the most important game the round and it is reaching its fianlly stages. I believe Stephanie to be one of the top players in this event. She has been doing well, but Kam has played the near perfect opening and got her in trouble. If you remember my previous post you remember I talk about Stephanie was in time trouble. Which has not help the cause. The one move I enjoyed the most so far in this game was 36.Ra5!, this was a nice exchange sac. And its given Kam nice pass pawns on the Queen-side. I would guess this game will be over soon. It has been a nice game to watch.
B5-David Evans vs National12
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21184
A battle of the English Countryman here. :) This was the Open Defense of the Ruy. Form the comments I got, it seems that the opening was played about as perfectly as you can get. David posed some problems to Paul(National12), but it ends in a fairly easy draw. One finally note ..10.d4 IMO is a very difficult move to beat.
B6-ppipper vs jitan
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21168-
This is one of the finally 4 games still playing. What looks like to be a draw here. The white black has been dancing for a few moves now, but blacks back rank is weak. That equals a drawish game. :)
This game started out form B90 and so has a ton of theory.
B7-indrajit_sg vs Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21186
I fairly quiet B90 game. I don't think white got much out of the opening. Well played by Wayne here.
B8-tomski1981 vs Uly
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21187
A battle of good friends here. IMO I thought white played the this Queens pawn opening passively. And so we had an early draw at move 26.
B9-Sebastian Boehme vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21188-
This is one of the 4 last games. And I have to say its been a good game. We had an interesting Sicilian position. I had thought black was in trouble. But after he tripled up on the d-file. Then got massive exchanges. He looks like its headed toward a draw.
B10-Weirwindle vs donkasand
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21189-
This was a nice positional Sicilian game. Although it ends in a draw. Its a must see game! Watching the drawing combo at the end is very beautiful. It starts with ..27.e4! and you can watch it form there.
B11-Ruben Comes vs Balabachi(William Fuller)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21190
Ruben opened up this rep with 3.h3!? and we ended up with a closed type of Sicilian. But his opponent stayed strong. Though out the game. Even if it looked like Ruben had some pressure. In the finally position.
B12-ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs keoki010 (George Clement)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21191-
This game saw the Exchange variation in the Queen's gambit. It has a high rate rate. But to Ramil credit he manage to give George a couple of weak pawns in the endgame, but not enough for any real advantage.
B13-Omparakash vs natmaku
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21193-
I would have hoped for more in this game. As I'm a lover of the 6.Bc4 (Sozin) Sicilian. After 14.e5!? this forces unneeded exchanges. After which, the game looked like a draw. And that is how it ended.
B14-deka vs Scott Nichols
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21194
Usually the Exchange Slav is pretty drawish. And this game was no different. But both players did try to mount some kind of advance. Both had good posts on each others side of the board. But a drawish opening is a drawish opening.
B15-TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs parmentd
(Daniel Parmet)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21195
I tried my luck in an opening that was not something with e4. And it didn't go as well I had hoped, Daniel was able to get a equal position fairly quickly. In my try at making new theory in a very uncommon line vs the King's Indian Defense.
And finally we have this last game.
B16-SpiderG (Peter Marriott) vs Banned for Life
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21196
This would have promised to be a nice Larson Attack game. By alas Peter timed out in this game as well. I would have loved to seen this attacking game with both sides castled on opposite sides.
Well that would do it for my reports for this round. This was a great round, and the next promises to be great as well. I will post info for the next round after the last game is over with.
Any feedback is welcome!
Scott Nichols (2012-03-20 17:39:19)
Slow tournament entries
3 days increment! It would be more fun to watch paint dry or grass grow. Some players, and we all know there are plenty of them out there, could keep a totally lost endgame going for over a year, just out of spite.
Which brings up another subject that would help immensely to speed up games without hurting quality.Install the 6-man tablebases on here, or at least let a player claim a win, draw etc when 6-man is reached. In this age of computer chess, if you have the equipment to even sign on to ficgs, you have the ability to go to a tablebase site and see the result. Plus, even the oldest computers, (like mine, :), can find the mate in under a minute in 6-man positions. So for someone to be able to drag the game out just for spite, for me, is a reason not to sign up in the first place.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-21 14:15:34)
Slow tournament entries
Yes, the main reason is that not all players use engines and certain want to end games that way (it may be instructive to play some 6 man, even 4 man endgames).
Also if this is a way to last a game, it is quite easy to last it before to reach such endgame. So it will not change things much.
Garvin Gray (2013-05-10 04:42:58)
Thematic tournaments?
I think one idea that could be worth exploring with these thematics is to set up some kind of opening position that is topical, or could help to explore a bit more.
I think just saying lets have a french, or sicilian does not mean much as players get them in their normal games.
These thematics should have some goal more than just more games, like contributing to expanding opening theory.
Some kind of endgame thematic could be worth exploring as well.
This being said, I do fear that we could have too many options, so playing resources are spread too thin and very few can get regular corro games.
Eros Riccio (2013-05-10 16:29:52)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Hi Alvin:
1) It depends on the position. Deciding a move may take from a few seconds to many days. My longest thought was 64 days for a move, in a decisive game of a past Italian Championship, the move was so hard for me that I also used the 30 days leave in order not to exceed the time limits for a single move. If someone is curious, it's move 40...Rh3 of the game Baiocchi - Riccio 0-1, 57 Italian Championship, played in 2007. Back then, after all my analysis with many different engines, I found out that Hiarcs was the engine that understood better than all the others that endgame, so I sticked to it mostly and its suggestions rewarded me with a win that allowed me to become Italian Champion.
2)The top 2 engines, which I usually use (and consider about equal) in infinite analysis at the same time with 3 cores each on my 6 cores computer are houdini 3 and deeprybka 4.1. Then come all the others, hard to pick a third place, probably critter or stockfish, depending on positions (stockfish is very strong in endgames, critter in tactical positions)
Bogoljub Teverovski (2013-10-01 12:10:10)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
I wonder if usage of the endgame tablebases are permitted or prohibited for n0-engines tournaments?
Lazaro Munoz (2013-10-14 15:43:45)
Tablebases and no-engines tournaments
But most endgame books (I assume books are allowed) these days use tablebase results, for that matter so do many opening books on computer analysis results.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-11-19 09:04:17)
World chess championship Anand / Carlsen
When the match started I thought that if Anand got ahead it would be a tough match but if Carslen got ahead there would be no way back for Anand. I have not seen much to change that view.
I admire Carlsen greatly and particularly his endgame ability but this has not been the most interesting match so far. Yes he set challenging problems where others would have given up, but Anand's mistakes have been too serious to make the wins seem really deserved.
Timofey Denisov (2014-03-11 03:41:27)
Standard time control abusers
Don Groves, I have reason: "Finalgening" endgames, for sample. It takes very much time :( And this process makes engine very slow, so if I finalgening endgame in one game, I not make moves in all games...
Timofey Denisov (2014-03-16 11:41:12)
Standard time control abusers
1) not working. Because vacation days just skipping in count, so clock will gain double speed in 21th day (if player took 1-day vacation).
2) Yes... maybe do more? Maybe decline 50-move rule on 6- or even 7- pieces in "normal chess"? (because exist tablebases for these endgames, and players just do moves from database), and next is do adjudgement in 6- pieces positions? Result can be gained from chessok.com, for sample. Or if 7-pieces position you can gain result from latest version Aquarium (licensed, pirated copy can't access to tablebases).
Ilmars Cirulis (2015-05-19 16:37:59)
Thematic Suggestion: Traxler
Yes, time flows fast. Damn. :)
Sometimes still analyzing it. I wouldn't want to play Traxler against myself. Black usually has to find draw (they can hope) in some boring endgame.
Peter W. Anderson (2015-06-14 17:52:04)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I recently played in an Infinity Chess freestyle event and was impressed by one of their tiebreak rules. If scores were tied a player got a bonus if he had stalemated an opponent.
I would like to suggest this is adopted in the matches (not tournaments) in the FICGS world championship and that is it the first tiebreak rule applied, i.e before ratings and whether wins or only draws have been played. I would also suggest it is adopted for the title matches too. Perhaps it could be introduced from the 15th cycle onwards or even in existing cycles (11 to 14) where a match has not begun.
This seems a very fair tiebreak rule to me, which would normally reflect who overall played better (came closer to winning) in a drawn match, especially where all games are drawn.
The only disadvantage I can see to this rule is that it would prolong games as some that would currently be agreed drawn would in future be played through to stalemate.
On the other hand it would get us thinking hard about which drawn endgames lead to stalemate and which don't and that in itself is quite interesting.
Jan Ohlin (2015-07-06 04:59:02)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
And stalemating gamepoints definitely will favour stupid engine playing and not human thinking with endgame skill
Jan Ohlin (2015-07-06 09:34:18)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=78874
Stalemate points as favour for black´s good opening play or white´s strong middle and endgame play?
Peter W. Anderson (2015-07-09 09:35:12)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I have avoided commenting further on this idea because I wanted to see what other people had to say. But now I will reply to the points made.
“Giving a bonus for stalemate is almost like playing for stalemating your opponent, which is not the aim of the game and this would change the game deeply.”
As I said I am against a points bonus, but am in favour of using stalemates for tie breaks. The real question is would someone start a game aiming for stalemate as opposed to start the game trying to win? I am not sure how you would do that – either way you have to try to build up an advantage and if it gets big enough it will lead to mate and if it is not quite big enough it might lead to stalemate. Anyone who gets the choice between a win and stalemate will presumably always take the win.
The one way I think this will really affect the game is by discouraging some very deeply analysed defences that are known to drawn or close to drawn but will almost certainly lead to stalemate. Personally I think this is a good thing, but I accept that the opposite view could be taken :)
“I think you overlooking a little that a good defense leading to stalemate means showing great skill. It´s not all about luck.”
Reaching stalemate as the defending side can be very simple (e.g. king and pawn vs king) or can indeed show great skill. It is almost never down to luck. In the case where great skill is shown that skill earns you half a point instead of no points. Nonetheless, the very fact that you needed great skill to save the game shows how close you came to losing, so I see no reason not to use this as a tiebreak rule.
“And stalemating gamepoints definitely will favour stupid engine playing and not human thinking with endgame skill”.
Like Pablo, I think quite the opposite is true. In fact one of my motivations for suggesting the change was to increase the human element in the game.
“According to me, stalemating an opponent (or having King + Bishop vs. King) reflects who played better ONLY IF rules say it before the game. In some cases, it actually reflects a better play, but in some others, it only shows that the stalemated player (or naked king) found a clever way to draw the game by giving the opponent the illusion of an advantage. Isn't it quite subjective after all?”
I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. If we could play perfect chess and at the start of the game someone decided to take the draw by allowing themselves to be stalemated then that would be a very good example supporting that view. However, I think the reality is different. In most cases when someone gets stalemated (or would be stalemated if the game was played through to its conclusion) it is because they have got a worse position and have little choice if they want to save the game.
If the defending side could achieve a draw by stalemate or by other means, then under today’s rules they could choose either way. Under my proposed rules they might be wise to choose the other method, unless of course they were confident of achieving more wins in the match.
“Maybe the games become more interesting if instead give small extra score for win with black!? Encourage black to play for a better score, just as UEFA do in football.”
This might be helpful for tournaments but I don’t think it helps at all for match play. In reality, if you can win just one game in a match you will most likely win the match. Therefore you don’t need a bonus to play for a win with black in a match situation.
However, I think this point indirectly touches on an issue with match play and how hard people try to win, and I do think the stalemate tiebreak rules would help a little with this.
The problem as it stands is that the higher rated player (or the champion in the case of the tile match) knows that if all games are drawn he will win the match. The higher rated player (or champion) can therefore take a low risk approach to the match, with both black and white (actually I think the low risk approach with white is just as much a problem).
If the higher rated player (or champion) was not certain that all draws would win them the match then they would probably try harder to win. This would give a better chance of decisive games in matches.
One way of a achieving this would be through a toss of a coin if the match is tied with all draws. Personally I would not find this satisfactory.
Whilst the likelihood of stalemate is quite low, it will nonetheless be there, so this rule might encourage the higher rated player or champion to try harder for a win.
I will speak from personal experience on this matter. In most of my recent matches I have been the higher rated player. I still play some relatively risky defences as black (e.g. the modern against 1.e4) and I always try to win with white. However, I have to be honest, if I am the higher rated player, I do not always play the very sharpest lines as white and I do not often play some of my riskier defences to 1.d4. If the stalemate tiebreak rule was in place, I would be taking more chances with both white and black.
So whilst I accept that it is not perfect, I still think the stalemate tie-break rule is a good idea. However, as nobody else has spoken out in favour of it I accept that it is very unlikely to be implemented and I won’t write any more on this matter unless someone asks me a direct question. It is time to concentrate on my matches under the existing rules! :)
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 ˝–˝
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
Thibault de Vassal (2015-07-11 02:18:11)
E. Riccio on his win in the 10th CC WCH
Once again, Eros kindly answered a few questions after his win in the 10th FICGS correspondence chess championship. His answer on tie break rules meets the discussion in this thread:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11773
____________________________
- Hello Eros and congrats again for this new win in the FICGS correspondence chess championship! This time, your opponent was Peter W. Anderson and you're playing him once again in the next final match. Actually, all games finished in less than 3 months, which looks like superfast, how did it happen?
Hello once again Thibault! Yes, the match with Anderson was very quick. The reasons are that he moves very fast, and like me, I don't seem to remember that he took any day of leave.
Also, our games were not played until the very end; many draws were agreed with many pieces on the board, as soon as we thought that none of us had winning chances.
- For many players, it is quite impossible to beat you in such a 12 games match (probably because of the tie rule). After all these won matches do you start to think that the advantage is too big?
It's a fact that a very high percentage of correspondence games played at the top level ends up in a draw... (and that percentage is even higher in my case, as my strategy is to avoid taking risks) so yes, talking against my interests, I think that something in the rules should be changed.
- By the way, your opponent suggested an interesting tie rule in the forum ( Chess, Poker & Go forum - Topic 11773 ), in the context of more general new ideas for correspondence chess rules (e.g. article by GM Arno Nickel - Correspondence Chess – the draw problem ) in order to increase the interest of the game. Do you have any opinion on all this?
The idea GM Nickel launched could be interesting, even if before we can say for sure if it can be applied in serious tournaments, it needs to be tested.
If I understood correctly, having a piece more in a draw endgame, after the game is over, a little plus on the score would be given to the player who had the small advantage.
I always thought like: How unfair! That player had King and two Knights against a lone King of his opponent... still he only got a half point anyway! Or even worse, in theory, one player could have this position: King in e1, Bishop in h1 and 6 Pawns from h2 to h7. (Black King in h8) Counting the value of pieces that would be a a +9 advantage, like a Queen more, but still it would be a draw. Another crazy scenario, more common, are those blocked positions were 16 pawns block the center (or more simply any fortress position) and not rarely it happens that a color has a huge material advantage but can't break through in any way. In this last case the player with material disadvantage could have found a genial idea to reach that blocked position, should his opponent with extra pieces still be given an advantage after the game?
Another important consideration is that this rule could discourage attacking players to play gambits or make sacrifices, as if the attack fails, their efforts to try to win would be punished! This last case would even increase the draw rate.
Probably Nickel didn't talk about giving a plus after games finished with advantage but still many pieces on board, anyway those positions (except the 16 Pawns one) could very well be played on until only one piece would be left.
After these examples we can see that there are so many different ways that a position with material advantage can be reached... but it's not always fair that the player with the advantage should be given a plus after the game. As a paradox, an advantage should be given to the opponent if he smartly managed to sacrifice one or more pieces in order to reach a draw endgame which he would have lost if he didn't give away material.
- Of course, the level of chess programs is for much in it. Do you feel that high level correspondence chess and centaur chess evolved much this year, or did it reach a kind of peak?
The level of correspondence chess increases in a parallel way as computers, databases and chess programs improve. Slowly everything keeps improving. Of course, due to the more thinking time, correspondence chess will always have a higher draw percentage than blitz games played by computers.
- Finally, what can you tell us about your correspondence chess path this year, particularly at ICCF where you're currently ranked #13?
On ICCF I am fighting with the Italian Team (I am playing in second board behind the World Champion Finocchiaro) in the 9th European Team Championship.
---> https://www.iccf.com/event?id=44123
Ilmars Cirulis (2015-07-15 15:57:00)
Thematic Suggestion: Traxler
This is my best try against Traxler counterattack, today.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 Qe7 7.Nxh8 d5 8.
exd5 Nd4 9.d6 Qxd6 10.Nf7 Qc5 11.d3 Bh4
( 11...e4 12.b4 $1 Qf5 13.dxe4 Nxe4 14.g4 $1 Qg6 15.h3 $1 Be6
( 15...Qc6 16.Ng5 $1 Qxc4+
( 16...Nxg5 17.Kxf2 )
17.Kg2 Nxg5 18.Bxg5 Ne6 19.Nd2 Qxb4 )
)
12.b4 $1 Qe7 13.Nd2 $1 e4
( 13...b5 14.Bb3 Bb7
( 14...e4 {Different transpositions of 13...e4} )
( 14...Bg4 15.Nf3 e4 {Transpositions of 13...e4} )
( 14...Nxb3 15.axb3 )
( 14...a5 15.Nf3 a4 16.N7xe5 axb3 17.Nxd4 Qxe5 18.Qe2 Qxe2+ 19.
Kxe2 {Endgame} )
15.Nf3
( 15.Bb2 Nxb3 16.axb3 Kxf7
( 16...Qxf7 )
( 16...Nd5 )
17.Nf3 Nd5 18.Qe2 )
15...Nxf3 16.gxf3 Nd5 17.Nxe5
( 17.Qe2 )
( 17.Rg1 )
17...Qxe5 18.Qe2 {Long endgame, maybe draw} )
( 13...Bg4 14.Nf3 Bxf3
( 14...e4 15.dxe4 {Transposition of 13...e4 14.dxe4 Bg4} )
15.gxf3 b5 16.Bb3 Nxb3 17.axb3 Kxf7 {Easy endgame} )
14.dxe4 b5
( 14...Bg4 15.Nf3 Nxf3 16.gxf3 Bh3+ 17.Kg1 Qxb4 18.Qe2 Qc5+ 19.Be3 Qh5
20.f4 Qxe2 21.Bxe2 Kxf7 {Endgame} )
15.Bb3 $1 Nxb3
( 15...Bg4 16.Nf3 Nxf3 17.gxf3 Bh3+ 18.Ke2 Nxe4 19.Qd3 Nc5+ 20.Qe3
Nxb3 {Long endgame, maybe draw} )
16.axb3 Qxf7 17.Nf3 $1 Nxe4 18.Qd3
{Long endgame, maybe draw}
Lot's of endgames. :)
George Jempty (2015-11-16 17:28:32)
New quotes?
"Before the endgame, the Gods have placed the middle game" Siegbert Tarrasch
Ilmars Cirulis (2016-01-18 09:52:30)
(Random idea)
Endgame "tablebases" on arbitrary big (N*N) board.
Is there anything like this?
Ilmars Cirulis (2016-01-20 20:35:12)
(Random idea)
More like a program that plays given endgame perfectly for any board size.
Chess Programming wiki had something about it;.
Francois Caire (2016-11-12 16:48:17)
Stockfish fixes memory leak in Syzygy
I tested it and after a 24 hour analysis in an endgame position, stockfish was using only 2.6 Gb of ram with 2Gb hash size.
http://abrok.eu/stockfish/
Author: Marco Costalba
Date: Sat Nov 5 07:55:08 2016 +0100
Timestamp: 1478328908
Rewrite syzygy in C++
Rewrite the code in SF style, simplify and
document it.
Code is now much clear and bug free (no mem-leaks and
other small issues) and is also smaller (more than
600 lines of code removed).
All the code has been rewritten but root_probe() and
root_probe_wdl() that are completely misplaced and should
be retired altogheter. For now just leave them in the
original version.
Code is fully and deeply tested for equivalency both in
functionality and in speed with hundreds of games and
test positions and is guaranteed to be 100% equivalent
to the original.
Tested with tb_dbg branch for functional equivalency on
more than 12M positions.
stockfish.exe bench 128 1 16 syzygy.epd
Position: 2016/2016
Total 12121156 Hits 0 hit rate (%) 0
Total time (ms) : 4417851
Nodes searched : 1100151204
Nodes/second : 249024
Tested with 5,000 games match against master, 1 Thread,
128 MB Hash each, tc 40+0.4, which is almost equivalent
to LTC in Fishtest on this machine. 3-, 4- and 5-men syzygy
bases on SSD, 12-moves opening book to emphasize mid- and endgame.
Score of SF-SyzygyC++ vs SF-Master: 633 - 617 - 3750 [0.502] 5000
ELO difference: 1
No functional change.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-11-15 17:10:55)
7 pieces tablebases
Wow, fascinating informations from 7 pieces tablebases in here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase
More than 540 moves are necessary to checkmate in some situations!
It would only take 1 To for 7p Syzygy Endgame Tablebases while Lomonosov takes 140 To
Thibault de Vassal (2017-11-15 18:02:00)
7 pieces tablebases
By the way, do I read/understand correctly that Queen+Rook+Bishop can win against Queen+Queen in any endgame ??
How's that possible?!
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). :)
Thibault de Vassal (2017-12-22 23:28:18)
Monte Carlo Analysis
Oh wow, it looks like I have no more idea of what Fritz Gui looks like nowadays... Is there a "Monte Carlo" engine or is it a Fritz option? Or is it the old option allowing engines to play each other in tournaments on various openings & positions?
Actually, I don't see the interest of a 'pure' Monte Carlo method in chess as it just looks like a non-optimized search. But it seems to me that it's a long time that engines use algorithms that look like it when it may be useful (particularly in calm positions & endgames). So, it's just a "plus" if you have some processing time to do it (like AlphaZero, having a much more powerful hardware), otherwise...
Right now, I must say I still have no accurate idea of how AlphaZero plays chess.
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-17 16:05:09)
Carlsen Caruana wch match
this endgame in game 6 was really draw ? wow
Charles Bovary (2020-02-19 17:09:29)
Game decided by tablebase
At ICCF the tournament director is the one whom you'll have to address your request to.All 6 and recently 7 pieces endgame tablebases positions are arbitrated automatically. If your request is correct.
Daniel Parmet (2020-04-28 22:59:06)
The State of correspondence chess
I have played correspondence chess now for 13 years. During that time, I have played 983 correspondence games. These days I mostly play at ICCF and some of these issues may be ICCF specific... but since ICCF has no forum and I want to get a sense of the health of correspondence chess in general... I posit my thoughts here.
First of all, I think the number of correspondence players and the number of correspondence games are decreasing across the board on all correspondence websites due to the things I want to talk about.
Second, I primarily shifted my playing to ICCF years ago for two reasons: 1) The higher level of competition available; 2) The norms available. Although I was concerned with their fees which are usually minor but, in many cases, certain organizers do construct outlandish tournaments that you need to be wary of (looking at you Venezuela).
On the first point, I think ICCF is a little more open to high caliber players competing up until a point (they really try to prevent you from playing a 2450+ player until you are 2450+ yourself). And the rating protections get tougher and tougher the further you go but they make it easy to play 2300 players. While most websites outside of ICCF, usually have one annual Cup / WCH or Thematics, these other websites usually make it impossible to play anyone more than a few hundred points above you no matter your rating outside of these few events.
On the second point, I think ICCF norms are somewhat of an illusion. They’ve always been hard and much harder to achieve than OTB norms which received a watering down of requirements of decades ago. In fact, ICCF norms are so much harder than FIDE norms that one actually needs to achieve two norms to receive the prerequisite title in ICCF vs the standard three norms required by FIDE. In the US, for example, there are 116 ICCF Titled players in history (13 GMs, 25 SIM, 78 IMs) vs 828 FIDE Titled players in present (101 GMs 166 IM 561 FMs) [https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml]. Now however, there is a proposal, for the ICCF GM Title only, proposed by Dennis Doren, ICCF Rules Commissioner who really does a lot for correspondence chess, and SIM Uwe Staroske, ICCF Qualifications and Ratings Commissioner, to remove the requirement to have to play GMs to get the GM Title [leaving IM and SIM untouched] [https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1280]. This proposal states, “A search of the ICCF data indicates that 21 players obtained at least 2 GM norms across 24 games but failed to get the GM title because of the requirement of "5 GM" opponents. (Only 5 of those players are currently active).” Leaving aside the fact that this proposal violates the very definition of the GM Title, one must beat the club in order to join it, the proposal further outlines the real problems without addressing them, “The GM Title has already become far harder to earn than it used to be, due to the rating suppression caused by the increase in draws.” Wow, let’s unpack that one line because it is a doozy!
Really, this one line, that is easily overlooked, is two huge problems that correspondence is facing: 1) death by one thousand draw paper cuts and 2) rating deflation. I will argue later that there is a third huge problem but let’s start with the ones acknowledged by ICCF itself. Every correspondence player knows the draw rate is going up. As engines and hardware get stronger, players are able to save positions that in the past would have been lost and we are finding ever easier ways to head straight towards 0.00 as Black. I would love to see a detailed analysis that describes how much harder it has become to win as Black against a decent correspondence player (let’s say someone 2300+). In the last five years, I have beaten three 2300+ players as Black without counting mouseslips (one in 2015, one in 2016 and one any day now in 2020) despite playing extremely aggressive openings like the KID (for the record that’s three Black wins out 103 Black draws or 2.91% Win rate). That may be part of the draw problem, but I have witnessed my own draw rate skyrocket 2014: 82.4% 2015: 86.7% 2016: 90.2% 2017: 90.6% 2018: 91% 2019 is still in progress. Often for these norms, you need to score +2, +3, +4 or +5 despite the fact that +1 usually wins the event… and with the draw rate North of 90% in a 12-13 game event that means you are likely to win 1 game on average… but in many events the entire cross table often sees one to three entire wins (look at a recently completed tournament here where I scored my first IM norm that required +0 and I scored +1). My win was one of five wins in the entire tournament 100/105 = 95.2% draw rate! [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=73482]. People love to tell me that’s fine because we are talking about such a weak event as Category 8 [2449 was the rating average]. Fine, I do not accept your argument but let’s look at the World Championship then shall we? Let’s look at the most recently concluded World Championship 30 which finished on 10/2/2019, Category 13 [2562 was the rating average]. This event was won by the new World Champion SIM Kochemasov, Andrey Leonidovich 2540 [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745]. Congrats to the new World Champion on his two wins! The event had 8 decisive games out 136 or a draw rate of 91.2% (not far off my own). But wait did I say SIM? I did. In fact, congratulations to the World Champion on scoring his final GM norm as well! This World Championship saw 5 SIMs compete in a field with 12 GMs. While 3 of the SIMs finished 1st 2nd and 3rd, only our new World Champion scored a GM norm. The problem is with all the draws that norms are not just becoming hard, but maintaining or increasing one’s rating is becoming hard. And one’s rating is how one receives any decent invites to have a chance at a norm in the first place.
The draws are a death by one thousand cuts as I recently played one of the ICCF’s proposal’s outlined “21 players that could have obtained a GM norm.” My rating is 2389 and his rating is 2504 (although SIM, he is recognized by all his peers as a GM caliber player). As Black, I obtained an easy draw without ever being in any trouble at all. The player had a rather angry initial discussion with me post mortem about how he felt it was wrong that a 2504 should have to play a player as weak as 2389 where the draw would kill his rating. He felt that his rating was being destroyed by these draws with weaker players and that ICCF should protect him from us. He felt I have it easier as a lower rated player because I can gain rating from these draws. Let’s look at his argument that one is causing the other and it is only happening to those 2500+. At the time that draw occurred, I gained exactly 1.17915 rating points from it (and he lost the same); however, this was the first draw in over 40 games in which I *gained* rating points (this statement is no longer true as a few higher rated players have since given me draws but at the time of the game’s conclusion this was the case). Yes, that’s right, ICCF already does such a good job of protecting higher rated players that it actively hands out advice to new players to be very particular about what invites and events they play because the draws could kill their initial rating. I too have experienced a net negative loss of rating points from draws and still seen my rating going up only due to the fact that wins are easier and ever so slightly more common to come by at my level. However, it means I am not exempt from the draw problem. It is patently false that this problem is limited to those 2500+ as in my last 43 draws, I lost rating in 42 of them and gained rating from 1 of them. Therefore, it appears draws are causing rating deflation and this is the real problem in both norms and correspondence in general. With the exception of matches, perhaps there is a way to have draws not count against one’s rating since there are so many of them? It kind of blends the Chess rating concept with that of Bridge where one cannot lose rating points once earned. What we can see is that the player’s argument that draws are causing rating deflation is probably true. One problem is at least partly causing the other one.
There is a third more devious problem worse than the two outlined above in my opinion. While rating deflation, draws, less players and norms are real issues… they are dwarfed by the change in behavior caused by these issues. I know it is a bit overdramatic to talk about such issues in a time of COVID, but there has been a great increase in the number of players playing Dead Man Defense (often shortened by correspondence players to DMD+ and DMD=). It is important to note that the death rate in COVID for those in the elderly category is markedly higher and the correspondence community in general is also markedly higher. I have heard estimates of the average age of correspondence player being 70-75 range though I haven’t seen any data. Back to DMD, what is DMD and why is it such awful behavior? The players are hoping you die before you win so they can claim either a win on time or if it goes to adjudication then at least claim a draw. The other hope is that you might mouse slip by being forced to play more moves which while that would never happen over the board does surprisingly account for a large portion of wins in ICCF correspondence high-level play. One of the main problems this issue causes is that if someone takes an early draw against a player who then goes on to die, the entire rest of the field gets a free half point and you are punished for playing your game quicker than your peers. Often, players over the board resign once mate is unstoppable or a simple endgame is reached in which the result is known to players of all levels. In correspondence, often even sooner than these players will resign or offer draws, knowing that perpetual check is unavoidable should we play another 10 moves past the piece sac against a bare king? How about when the engine reads +25 +30 or +40? So, for the most, correspondence players draw or resign much earlier than one might over the board due to engine and tablebase assistance. On that note, depending on the tournament, players can outright claim wins and draws either on the 6-piece tablebase (always allowed) or the sometimes allowed on an event by event basis the 7-piece tablebase. It is considered out right rude to make a player play all the way to the 6-piece tablebase to claim. I recently claimed one win in a six piece tablebase up an entire piece where my jolly opponent wanted to discuss the game in a post mortem (rarely done in correspondence in general anyways). I declined to even respond to him even though I was already having a very lively and fun post mortem with a Venezuelan on our extremely interesting draw. A worse example is the 92 move game I played with opposite colored bishops where I had two extra pawns. I offered a draw as white and the higher rated player to my lower rated opponent who declined it, forcing me to play to a 7-piece tablebase claim to end the game. This kind of behavior used to be quite rare. In the past, I would say it happened in 1 out of every 100 games… these days it seems to happen in every other game (1/2!). I have seven different opponents right now that are DMD+ against me where the engine reads +148 (or in some cases even sees mate! The 2504 player that complained about my rating earlier also complained someone was DMD+ him… I remarked that I have no less than 7 players DMD+ me and if they would resign? My rating would be about 2450 right which sort of eliminates his claim about our “giant” rating difference). The issue is that due to rating deflation these players need to artificially keep their rating high as long as they can because that’s how they will get their next invite. With the new terrible time control that is not yet Official (although there is a proposal to make it Official: https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1282), players only need to make a move once every 50 days to pointlessly extend the game. I have a DMD= draw currently going on 16 months now where the player is just moving Kg1 Kf1 Kg1 every 50 days. This time control exasperates the DMD problem. When I contacted ICCF Officials to point out the severity of this problem, I was told that I should report it to the TD on a case by case basis only if it is DMD+ as they will not look at DMD= at all. However, it is usually the TDs that are the biggest offenders (6 of the 7 players described above were TDs). In fact, it is usually the same general casts of characters which allows for an easy black list to be created that bars these players from play until they can fix their atrocious behavior. This behavior needs to be punished. These players need to be reprimanded. In the end, lack of norms, rating deflation and the draw death will not make me quit correspondence chess. It is DMD+/DMD= that will make me quit. This experience is my personal experience with high level correspondence over thirteen years and I would love to hear from other correspondence players concerning these problems.
Thibault de Vassal (2020-06-04 13:04:11)
chess archives in pgn
Hello Roberto,
Thanks for detailing your question here.
Yes, the "Go" function below the menu is very general and does not help much for what you would like to do.
The "Search games" option in the menu (below "Waiting lists" and "Tournaments") brings more specific ways:
Years ago, I considered that the complete PGN database was enough to build easily specific databases (player or any criteria, combinations of it, etc.) by using a database software.
Then I added a few search options, per player & per game (chess or Go), per opening, per rating (black or white) and per material for endgames... Of course, this will not replace a serious database like Chessbase.
I hope I was clear too... Does this help?
Thibault de Vassal (2020-10-19 01:01:54)
Duda Demolishes Carlsen!
This one I guess?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzoUVQh-l2g
Tough endgame, quite original one at least...
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-13 18:13:22)
What happened to all the players?
Well the thing is that the rule is not specific so we don't know how it will be applied but it is hard to come up with a scenario where it isn't the logical course of action. We have people that play R+3 vs R +3 for years or Opposite color bishop endgames that are obviously draw. This has to stop.
Ilmars Cirulis (2021-11-01 15:36:57)
First steps in 8-piece endgame TBs
http://arves.org/arves/index.php/en/latestnews/latest-news/2-ongecategoriseerd/1509-8-men-tablebase-first-explorations
Thibault de Vassal (2021-11-07 00:45:47)
First steps in 8-piece endgame TBs
Woooooww..... some 8 pieces endgames are completely stunning!
I like quite much BBBN-30 RN
Juri Eintalu (2021-11-07 01:08:42)
First steps in 8-piece endgame TBs
32-piece endgame TBs...
Ilmars Cirulis (2022-10-29 23:59:26)
What about this position?
Do we have any rule that allows deciding (?) games when they have reached 7 piece endgames? (Too lazy and sleepy to read Help section...)
Ilmars Cirulis (2024-07-09 20:13:02)
Big Chess theory?
Big Chess endgames with pawns and knights are from outer space, imho. :) I can't say that I understand them.
Scott Ligon (2025-04-23 15:21:53)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
My goal is to find the minimal setting where Stockfish can't be beaten, or close to the minimal setting anyway. The title of the thread shows my point of view on this issue. I think currently available versions of Stockfish with relatively modest computing power are already good enough to be unbeatable, regardless of how much money an opponent is being offered or how many supercomputers and grandmasters they have at their disposal when devising a strategy. From the starting position of a game of chess, it simply isn't that hard for modern engines to hold the draw with black. The draw rate on this very site is evidence.
I could make the task easier by generating a small opening book to keep Stockfish out of trouble in the opening, so in the case of Stockfish 17 @ 15 million nodes it might be good enough to simply dictate that it play e5 in response to e4 (I don't know if that specific example is true but it might be - I never found any trouble spots for that strategy with black outside of the Sicilian). But I want to do this with no opening book and also no access to endgame tablebases, just the engine's recommendation using a set number of nodes for the search. The settings I've tried so far fell short, but I think they weren't far off, so I'm taking only small steps forward. Stockfish 17.1 @ 10 million nodes seems like a good next step to me. If somebody finds a winning line against it, then I'll take the next step, either increasing the node count or if enough time has passed I'll move on to the next version of Stockfish.
There are 14 results for endgame in wikichess.
Thibault de Vassal (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6
The Berlin Defence is logical and solid, although it can be hard for Black to generate winning chances. Arthur Bisguier played this line for decades, and it was later taken up by Alexei Shirov and other young grandmasters. Vladimir Kramnik used the Berlin Defence as a drawing variation against Garry Kasparov in their 2000 World Championship match.
After 4.0-0, Black can play either the solid 4...Nxe4 or the more combative 4...Bc5. After 4...Nxe4 5.d4 (5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 is also reasonable) Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ (8.Qe2?! Nd4! 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 favors Black. After 10.Rd1, Bg4!? 11.Rxd4 Bxe2 gives Black a pleasant endgame.) Kxd8 White is usually considered to have a small advantage in light of his somewhat better pawn structure and Black's awkwardly placed king, but Black, with a solid position and the bishop pair, has excellent drawing chances.
============
Contributors : Julien Baudement, Tim Bredernitz, Thibault de Vassal
Adrian Tan (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6
The Ruy Lopez exchange, White gives up the advantage of the bishop pair, but gains compensation by damaging black's pawn structure.
White has a long range plan of creating an endgame where he is able to profit from a king side majority while Black is unable to due to the doubled pawn on the Queen's side.
Traditionally, this opening has not being very popular at the top level, but Fischer had some success with it in the 60s.
Note: White doesn't actually win the e pawn with this move because dxc6 Nxe5 Qd4 recovers the pawn.
============
Contributors : Tim Bredernitz, Adrian Tan
Mike Hoogland (1760)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 d4
An old move, played before Fischer's 0-0. After the pawn exchange, White creates a favourable endgame pawn structure, given his 4-3 pawn majority on the Kingside. Black is unable to exploit his Queenside majority because of the doubled pawn. However in practise, Black is able to to create sufficient counterplay with his bishop pair to hold the balance.
============
Actually, I think this is a bad move. After 0-0 black will have to defend the pawn on e5. 6. Nxe5, Qd4. 7. Nf3, Qxe4 does not work anymore for black, because white can play his rook to e1 and win the queen (the queen is pinned).
Therefore, black usually defends the pawn with f6. f6 is not very useful however, and black would rather have made another move, if he could have done so. Qd6 and Qf6 are also good moves that defend the pawn on e5. However, after 6. d4, exd4 7. Qxd4, Qxd4 black will have lost a tempo in comparison to this variant.
Contributors : Adrian Tan, Mike Hoogland
Wolfgang Utesch (2461)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Bc5 c3 O-O d4 Bb6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 d6 Qd3 Bd7 Nbd2 a6 Bxc6 Bxc6 Rfe1 Re8 a4 Ba7 b4 b5 axb5 axb5 Ra5 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Rxa8 Bxa8 Bxf6 Qxf6 Qxb5 Re7 Qd3 Bb7 Re3 Qf4 Qb5 Qg4 h3 Qf4 g3 Qf6 Kg2 Re6 d5 Re7 Re2 Qa1 Qc4 Ba6 b5 Bb7 Qd3 Qd1 Re1 Qa4 Rb1 Qa7 Nh4 Bc8 f4 Bd7 Nhf3 Re8 g4 Qa4 Kg3 f6 f5 Rb8 Qc3 Kf8 h4 Re8 Kf4 Re7 Nc4 Qa2 Nfd2 Qa7 Nxb6 Qxb6 Qe3 Qa5 b6 cxb6 Rxb6 Be8 Nf3 Qa7 g5 fxg5+ hxg5 hxg5+ Nxg5 Qa2 Nf3 g5+ Nxg5 Qh2+ Qg3 Qd2+ Kg4 Qd1+ Kh3 Qf1+ Qg2 Qxg2+ Kxg2 Rg7
That's the nice endgame, which is won for White! .... really??? - definitely, but very complicate!
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Wolfgang Utesch
Telmo Escobar (2048)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 f3 O-O Qd2 Nc6 Bc4 Bd7 O-O-O Rc8 Bb3 Ne5 Kb1 Nc4 Bxc4 Rxc4 g4 b5 b3 Rc8 Ndxb5 a6 Nd4 Qc7 Nde2
with the idea of Be3-d4 and eventually h2-h4 or even g4-g5. Black has not any compensation for the pawn and the probable result is an easily won endgame for White.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Kieran Child (1600)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh3 fxe4
The most common move, and a double edged one. Black aims to gain a huge lead in development, the initiative and a better position with d5. White can take the rook, technically safely, but will need to defend against a big attack in order to win the endgame.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
d4 e5 dxe5 d6
Hartlaub variation
The initial idea of Henry Charlick when playing the Englund. It's more respectable than the modern trap, but is unsound. Black aims for early development and castling. White will aim to not stray too far behind development-wise, and win a pawn-up endgame.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Collin Bleak (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bc4 Be6
This leads to a very passive endgame for Black, where it seems White needs great patience to accomplish anything against the weak Black pawn structure.
============
Contributors : Collin Bleak
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5 dxc5 Qa5+ c3 Qxc5 Nf3 Nbc6 Be3 Qa5 Ng5 Nxe5 Bd2 N7c6 c4 Bb4 Bxb4 Qxb4+ Qd2 h6
Now an endgame is in sight, Black tries to wreck White's pawn structure.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Telmo Escobar (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bb3 Qe8 O-O Rf8 Nc3 d6 Nd5+ Kd8 c3 h6 d4 exd4 Nxf6 Rxf6 e5 Rf5 Nf3 Nxe5 Nxd4 Rf6 Be3 Ng4 Re1 Nxe3 Rxe3 Qf8 Qe2 c6 Re1 Bd7 Be6 Bxd4 cxd4 Bxe6 Rxe6
White is going to have a winning endgame advantage.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Ilmars Cirulis (1299)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 d4 exd4 e5 Ne4 Qxd4 d5 exd6 Nxd6 Nc3 Nc6 Qf4 Bf5 Bb5 Qe7+ Be3 Nxb5 Nxb5 Qb4+ Qxb4 Bxb4+ c3 Ba5 b4 Bd3 a4 a6 Nbd4 Bb6 Nxc6 bxc6 Bxb6 cxb6 O-O-O O-O-O Ne5 Be4 Nxf7 Bxg2 Rxd8+ Rxd8 Nxd8 Bxh1 Ne6
IMO that endgame is won for white.
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Telmo Escobar (2055)
h4 e5 h5 d5 h6 g6
Now white is strategically lost as, after spending three tempi with his "h" pawn, he has no chances to eventually open the "h" file. Now the probable continuation of the game might be both players castling long, after which Black has the upper hand both in the middlegame (due to his superiority in space and centre control) and the endgame (when White pawn at h6 will be a painful weakness).
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Ne5 h5 h4 g4 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Qc2 Nxe5 Bxe5 Bg7 Rad1 O-O Bg3 Nd7 f3 c5 dxc5 Qe7 fxg4 hxg4 Bd6 Qxh4 Rf4 Qh6 Rxg4 Bc6 a4 Qe3+ Kh2 Qh6+ Kg3 Qe3+ Bf3 Nf6 Rxg7+ Kxg7 Qc1 Qxc1 Rxc1 bxa4 Bxf8+ Rxf8 e5 Nd5 Ne2 Rb8 Nd4 Be8 Rxc4 Rxb2 c6 Nb6
The endgame, is correctly played, should be a draw.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Sophie Leclerc (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+ g6 Bc4 Bg7 Bf7+ Kf8 Qf3 fxe5 Bxg6+ Kg8 Qf7+
mate, endgame aleready for black.
============
Contributors : Sophie Leclerc
FICGS : endgame , Wikipedia : endgame , Dmoz : endgame , Google : endgame , Yahoo : endgame
What would Chess be without silly mistakes ? (Kurt Richter)
Some sacrifices are sound; the rest are mine. (Mikhail Tal)
In Chess, at least, the brave inherit the earth. (Edmar Mednis)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess