exchange
FICGS - Search results for exchange
There are 52 results for exchange in the forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-25 23:23:09)
Forums
Here are some forums where I announced FICGS. Most of them are well known & good places :
http://pub11.bravenet.com/forum/924995304
TCCMB
http://www.quebecechecs.com
Quebec Echecs
http://www.talkchess.com
Talk Chess
http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
Chess Ninja
http://chessexchange.com/
Chess Exchange
Per Lea (2006-05-17 13:39:50)
Criteria for Best game
Can someone please tell me why 11 votes have been cast for game 156 as Best game? The way I see it, Black blunders on move 9 to lose the exchange, and finishes off with a howler on move 17. Or have I missed something here?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-29 23:07:25)
Value of the pieces...
That's exactly what I was thinking about before allowing you to exchange your bishop against two pawns... Actually, I've no idea about it :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-30 00:53:26)
Big chess, theory
Hmm... Interesting ! What about 4 bishops (same color) ? ^^
I think it's really quantum... The relative values may change incredibly according to the position (especially exchanges) and game progress...
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-14 15:32:51)
Rating formula
Hello Thibault!
Where can I found the exact rating rules of FICGS? I have found only these lines in the Memberships - Terms and Conditions:
"11. 7. Rating rules
The FICGS rating scheme is a numerical scheme, in which percentage results can be exchanged into rating differences, and rating differences into percentage performance probabilities. It is mainly based on the principles of rating calculations of prof. Arpad Elo.
The rating formula : New Elo = ((16 x Elo) + (Games x Perf)) / (16 + Games)
..."
What means "mainly based"?
You write in another topic
"1. The rating system do not take account of wins when the ELO difference is superior to 350 points "
Is this valid only for wins or for all games with a rating difference of more than 350 points?
Don Groves (2006-08-24 00:39:25)
re: private messages
ICCF allows this by keeping finished games in a players current game list until the player decides to remove it. This way players can continue to exchange messages about their game until at least one decides to stop.
--
Don
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-05 19:27:54)
Time to display all informations
Of course not. I have other computers... But slow connections have advantages : Finally I just can't loose too much time on the internet this way, watching 'youtube' videos or hunting divx & mp3 on edonkey, bit torrent...
So, convinced ? .. do we exchange ? :)
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-09-19 16:21:14)
Thematic tournament 14
IMO - after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 white has easy win: Nxf7 and Nxh8. Exchange and pawn more.
May be it is possible to put 4.. d5 instead of 4.. Bc5?! No one is in the waiting list yet.
Cirulis
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-29 13:14:25)
Kramnik's team says...........
Kramnik threatens to stop playing the match......
29.09.2006 Statement from the team of Vladimir Kramnik, rejecting the decision of the Appeals Committee of FIDE : "The protests of the Topalov team and the suspicions in the press release of Mr. Topalov are utterly disgraceful and are touching Mr. Kramnik’s privacy."
Elista, 29 September 2006
Open Letter to FIDE President H.E. Kirsan Iljumshinov
Copied to Executive Committee of Kalmykia Mr. Valery Bovaev, Chief Arbiter Mr. Geurt Gijssen, Russian Chess Federation
Dear Mr. President,
The Appeals Committee of the World Championship Match between Veselin Topalov and Vladimir Kramnik made the following decision on the protest of the Topalov Team:
“to close both the toilets in the players rest rooms and to open another toilet that will be available only to the two players”
The Kramnik team received the mentioned decision a few hours before the start of game 5 and was officially informed about the protest of Mr. Topalov only yesterday evening, 10 p.m., 28 September 2006. With such a decision the WCC Committee is clearly violating both the rules and regulations of the WCC match and the rights of Mr. Kramnik.
The relevant clause in contract of Mr. Kramnik expels: “FIDE shall provide a rest room and toilette for the players during the WCC match in the playing hall and close to the stage (if possible backstage) to be equipped with a live monitor furnished with coffee and tea as well as with light refreshments.”
The reasons that Mr. Kramnik is entering his own bathroom often is simple: The restroom is small and Mr. Kramnik likes to walk and therefore uses the space of the bathroom as well. The Appeals Committee has been informed about the issue before they decided. It should also be mentioned that Mr. Kramnik has to drink a lot of water during the games.
On the request of Mr. Topalov the agreed live monitors have been removed as well as the shower cabines in the bath rooms. The moves are provided on demonstration boards only. The substance of Mr. Topalov protests (dated 22, 24 and 28 September 2006) were basically always met by the approval of the Appeals Committee. Everything has been done here to satisfy Mr. Topalov’s requests.
On a regulary basis the restrooms and toiletts are heavily checked by specialists, obviously local police forces. This goes together with the arrival of the players. The arbiters are observing all the measures. One representative of each team has the right of being present in order to observe the activities. The playing area is banned from signals and the glas wall protects from any kind of view contact and/or body language. There is not a single reason or evidence to believe that a player would have any kind of cheating possibilities.
It is and was no problem for the organization to assure all necessary measures in order to avoid any kind of cheating. By starting the match both participants agreed all the playing conditions de facto and de jure and the conditions are therefore legally binding. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would in our understanding request the approval of both players which is not the case here.
Mr. Kramnik believes that the latest decision should increasingly concern the world of chess as it shows very clearly and once again the biased stand of the Appeals Committee members involved. In person: Mr. Makropolous, Mr. Azmaiparashivili (well known as a close friend to Mr. Danailov), Mr. Gelfer (now replaced by Mr. Vega). Therefore Mr. Kramnik requests to exchange the mentioned persons immediately. Enough is enough.
We would like to add that the recent decision not only insults Mr. Kramnik but is clearly critizing both the excellent work of the local organisation at Elista and the nominated arbiters. Yesterday evening the chief arbiter and the head of the excutive committee once again confirmed that the indirect accusations of cheating are nonsense.
The protests of the Topalov team into the direction of Mr. Kramnik and the suspicions in the press release of Mr. Topalov are utterly disgraceful and are touching Mr. Kramnik’s privacy. We do not think that the Topalov team has any right of getting access to the recordings. This shall be job of the nominated arbiters only.
The Topalov team includes a parapsychologist and more people which are obviously having no other tasks as to distract and to insult Mr. Kramnik especially since their team is realizing that Mr. Topalov finds himself in a difficult situation. This is what we call an utterly unfair behaviour which is not in accordance with the FIDE Code of Ethics. The decision taken by the Appeals Committee can only be seen as another attempt to disturb Mr. Kramniks concentration since it is difficult to understand what kind of improvement it shall be to have one toilet instead of two.
Our team does not trust the objectivity of the Appeals Committee anymore. Therefore it makes no sense for us to bring a protest to this table and Mr. Kramnik strongly insists once again that the members of the Appeals Committee will be changed immediately and that the heads of the Organizing Committee are taking their responsibilities.
In the meanwhile Mr. Kramnik will stop playing this match as long as FIDE is not ready to respect Mr. Kramnik’s rights, in this case to use the toilet of his own restroom whenever he wishes to do so.
Further and more detailed legal investigations are already in process.
On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely,
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-30 03:39:05)
Vladimir Kramnik - Open letter
Open Letter To
FIDE President
Kirsan Iljumshinov
Russian Chess Federation
Elista, 29. September 2006
Requests of Vladimir Kramnik
• To proceed with GAME 5
Clause 3.17.1., Schedule 2 of the contract:
“All protests must be submitted in writing to the Appeals Committee not more than 2 hours after the relevant playing session.”
The protest made by the Topalov Team were not made within this window after game 4 (27 September 2006) but only hit the FIDE Office and the Appeals Committee on the rest day (28 September 2006). Therefore the protests are not even relevant and should have been rejected by the Appeals Committee immediately.
Clause 3.18.3., Schedule 2 of the contract:
“After the World Chess Championship Committee agrees with the Organizers on the arrangements in respect of the tournament hall, facilities etc. etc. etc……., no objections from the participants shall be acceptable as long as the conditions are in accordance with the rights of the players granted in their agreements.”
This clause clearly underlines the statement made in today’s Open letter: “By starting the match both participants agreed all the playing conditions de facto and de jure and the conditions are therefore legally binding. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would in our understanding request the approval of both players which is not the case here.”
Therefore it is clear that the Appeals Committee took a completely wrong decision and was obviously not even aware of the Rules and Regulations. The decision of Chief Arbiter Mr. Gijssen to forfeit game 5 was clearly based on a wrong decision of the Appeals Committee and shall be nullified.
Mr. Kramnik is ready to continue the match and to play the 5th game (with a leading score of 3:1) on the conditions that were accepted prior to the start of the match.
• Toilet issue
The toilets connected to the restrooms shall be opened again. This request is in accordance with clauses 3.17.1. and 3.18.3 (see above) and in the general understanding that by starting of the match both participants agreed to all the playing conditions. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would require the approval of both players which is not the case here.
Mr. Kramnik is ready to accept even stricter controls by sealing the toilets before and after inspections. Inspections shall be done before and after each game.
• Exchange of members of the Appeals Committee
We repeat that the Kramnik team does not trust the objectivity of the Appeals Committee anymore. It is evident from this letter and our first Open Letter today that the existing Appeals Committee is biased and incompetent. Mr. Kramnik strongly insists once again that the members of the Appeals Committee will be exchanged immediately.
• Access to Recordings
As Mr. Kramnik in the press conference stated he did not sign a contract for acting in a reality show. The recordings shall be observed by the arbiters. Neither Team Topalov nor Team Kramnik shall have access to the recordings. Investigations shall be in the sole responsibility of the Arbiters.
• Requested Apology
Last but not least Mr. Kramnik believes that Mr. Danailov should apologize to Mr. Kramnik in writing. Remarks such as:
“If the match were to continue, the World Champion will refrain from shaking hands with Mr. Kramnik before the games and will not take part in joint press conferences with him.” and “Veselin Topalov is disturbed by the suspicious behavior of his opponent Mr. Vladimir Kramnik who takes his most significant decisions in the bathroom.” are clearly insulting.
On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely,
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)
Dinesh De Silva (2006-10-08 16:42:04)
Kramnik wins ultra sharp 10th game
Kram. won the 10th game just now. It was a very sharp, complicated game. A real tactical melee! Top. resigned as he was exchange down in an ending.
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-10-10 18:37:31)
g11
Is it my impression or Kramnik wimped out of a rook exchange by 60...Ra5 and missed a good position with a passed pawn?
Most of the people should know my low degree of skill by now, so I'm just asking for help here to understand this. Why was so important for him to keep his Rook on the board over real winning chances?
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
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-21 13:47:55)
Komi vs handicap
IMO, Thibault is quite right: it would make no sense to increase Komi instead of playing with handicap stones.
To give points or to give stones is not the same: the very nature of handicap stones is pedagogic, that is to help *both* players to improve. Go strategy is complex, but can often been seen as a delicate balance between power (thickness) and territory (points). Handicap stones are put on Hoshi on purpose: to help the weaker player to build and use thickness, the most difficult concept to master compare to territory, where a beginner can actually count concrete points (or so he believes at first :-)
Playing at 9 handicap stones, or giving, say, 100 points komi is not the same and never will be: the weaker player has no chance with such a komi, because he will have no anchor to help his stones live and will probably be completely destroyed... but much worse, he cannot improve his play easily because he'll never be in a position where he could *try* to think strategically.
IMO, true go is not non-handicap go, but
a fair game where the tactical and strategic true nature of the game is preserved. How could we say that, for instance, Dosaku 'Go Saint' games are not true go, when he was at least one stone stronger than all his fellow pro players, giving them Black (no komi at that time) or one,two stones?
The beauty of handicap go is that IMO it *is* still true go :-) You can compare to chess where giving a piece, say a N as Lasker used to do, change the strategic nature of the game through a controlled exchange policy.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-19 21:25:20)
Chess forums
Nice best of !
I add these ones :
Chess Chat (australia)
http://www.chesschat.org/
Chess Exchange
http://www.chessexchange.com/forum/
And a last one I don't know much but seems a big russian forum :
Chess Portal.ru (russian)
http://www.chessportal.ru/
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2007-09-28 08:09:33)
Question about e-points
A quote from the rules:
"When you buy tickets, a virtual account in E-Points is created (or modified) with a limited lifetime of 2 years, meaning the account will be emptied at the end of this period. Member's account lifetime will be reconducted each time tickets are bought by the member. The number of E-Points added to the account is the amount in Euros paid to FICGS. Tickets are not paid back."
This means i lost the E-Points after 2 years?
So what i do with E-Points if:
"Tickets for tournaments (E-Points) can't be sold to other members, exchanged with cash money or paid back"
In the summary that you wrote you said:
"... then play money tournaments with entry fees and prizes (bronze, silver, gold) with low rakes in E-Points, finally ask for money prizes instead of E-Points for the tournaments you choose"
This is not clear. For example, I join a gold tournament i must choose before hand if i want E-Points or a money prize.
Also why i want to play more tournaments before redeeming a money prize if i could do nothing with my remaing E-Points (see above)
Any help in my queries will be appreciated.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-28 11:23:24)
Tickets / E-Points
Ok, I'll clarify that. It means that you can choose AFTER a tournament to ask for a money prize (exchanged with E-Points as a prize, not a redeeming). About the 2 years, it means that you have to ask for money prizes if you don't buy more E-Points until this delay - there must be such limits in time, but the aim is surely not to apply such a rule - anyway if you buy ie 10 more E-Points, the account lifetime is reconduced.
In brief, tickets are E-Points you buy, prizes are E-Points or money you win after a tournament.
I'll update it today.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-20 05:17:30)
Rybka 3, Fritz 11, Shredder 11...
Rybka 3, Fritz 11, Shredder 11, also Chessmaster 11... new versions of many engines are announced or coming (Fritz 11 - end of november).
It is said in computer chess forums that one secret of Rybka may be "table of exchanges", in other words knowledge, added to a 'simple' & very fast engine typically like Fruit. Many now think that other engines may catch Rybka in a while, but we might have to wait for the thirteen series at least IMO :)
Anyway, the battle continues... Also waiting for Hiarcs 12 !
Christophe Czekaj (2008-01-25 13:04:00)
In Fischer's honour
Hello everybody !
What about a special Fischer tournament ? Or thematic tournaments, on line he used to play, for example : spanish exchange, or sozin against sicilian...
And yes, thanks for your wonderful play, Bobby.
Iouri Basiliev (2008-02-12 19:54:37)
match is close to the end
Very nice win by GM Andrey Sumets. Positional exchange sacrifice 22. Rxd5! was very impressive.
Ilmars Cirulis (2008-04-18 18:37:37)
Idea..
Hi, Thibault!
What do you think about possibility to save (so, that I can see) message exchange between opponents during the game?
Good luck! :)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-05 12:50:53)
From here to eternity
Yes there might be some variations that are survivable especially OTB but at cc its tough to give up a pawn so early on. I think f4 is a perfectly ok first move (like b4) I just think it does not give any prospect of an opening advantage at cc because there is no surprise value and the black player has the time to research and find a response that equalises fairly quickly. That is why very few GM's have F4 as a main white weapon - it does not give enough prospects for an advantage - at the highest levels. Please note that qualification. I quite agree real chess is between people in real time and cc is a form of research competition. Getting experience for real world chess is a great reason to play a line at cc. There are exceptions OTB I often play the exchange french and have had good success (played by Kasparov Tal Morphy and others) I would not play it at cc though! In fact OTB I always play e4 but at cc gave it up because I see no way to get any adavantage against the caro kahn. Just relaying the moves the computer suggests does not, I think, give much chance of success against good players at cc.
As for the From I do not believe in g5 white has to avoid the tricks and develop and is a pawn up. Not so easy otb!! - but at cc not so much of a problem. As for Nc6 yes I was talking about this move after 5 g3 and you are probably right I will try to look at the game you gave and do some analysis. As for the Mestel variation I thought black would get the pawn back unless e3 and d4 are played but again that was based on a quick look. Anyway perhaps the thematic tournament wil provide some answers.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 15:01:06)
A bird in the hand
I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable - they are both off beat openings. On the question of chess knowledge I do not know how much he knows about b4? It can also be a dangerous practical weapon and can pose the black player more problems than f4. It is played by serious professional chess players in tournaments eg GM Christian Bauer (2626) has played it several times successfully this year and quite a few IM's regularly play it with success.
Now to comparing rating sizes something I confess to not having done since I was in short trousers. My current rating is 2225 with a future rating of 2247 but with 2 rapid games in the pipe line this should be a future rating of 2300 + shortly lets see. Mr Repas rating is 2281 with a future rating at the moment of 2316. How significant is that? Well I had the opportunity to look at his games to see what his rating is made up of. 10 of his wins have come against the same opponent Sandor Porkolab and in 7 of these Mr Porkolab abandoned the games in level, drawn or in some cases better position for him. Given that in these "wins" he was often rated over 2100 or in one case over 2200 this has boosted Mr Repa's rating significantly. He has not so far had much success in WCC not having got past stage 2.
As reference to my loss was made I can say that this was in a variation (the Prins of the sicilian) that I believe is unsound. Actually I overstepped the time limit while on vacation although I think the game could not be saved I learnt my lesson and do not play dodgy openings any more.
I have never on the other hand been busted after 17 moves in a main line opening at cc as sadly Mr Repa found himslef against Bucsa Loan (Game 1249),then rated 1700. Then again I have stopped trusting the books and analyse for myself.
Still less could I imagine being lost in a cc game after 16 moves in an exchange French (by tranposition) An instructive loss to Torsten Opas ( game 4388)- won with simple developing moves - worth playing over. Incidentally proves what I was saying about the exchange french it can be dangerous - although not of course, at cc.
Finally there is Mr Repa's pet Bird shot down by Mr Kotlyansky in the approved way as follows 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 g7 4 Be2 Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d4 c5 7 dxc5 Qc7 and Black was fine winning in 72 moves. Never having lost with f4 did not include this because I suppose it was a bullet bronze game.
I am afraid I am naive enough to think that people play chess on the server to win and increase their rating - clearly there are people who play to learn and strengthen their game and for whom results and rating are secondary. No doubt such people would not be interested in anything so vulgar as comparing ratings. Neverthe less its all just opinion and we are all free to express it within the rules of the server. So: f4 is a waste of time at cc little more than an invitation to draw and the From is unsound and almost like resigning.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-07 05:15:58)
f4 or not f4
1.0 Pablo here is a link you should read: http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-analysis/A_BRAND_NEW_Chessbase_9_for_sale_on_eBay_92649.html
2.0 Mr Repa here is a comment about the Dutch defense: "Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4
3.0 Mr Repa's chess federation of canada rating is listed as 2010 with an active rating of 1737. If he reaches am expected rating here of, by his account, 2370+ then everyone will be impressed particularly as Mr Repa says "I think I'm a bit out gunned here.I'm running BATTLE CHESS on a Commodore 64. I believe its running at 1.023 MHz."
4.0 It might be battle chess that accounted for the following cc (!) game as black he played against Torsten Opas 1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Be7 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 a6 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.Re1 Re8 13.Qf3 Qd6 14.Re3 Qb4 15.Rae1 Bd8 16.Qf5 Qxd4 (oops)17.Bxf6 Bxf6 and the game is already lost
5.0 Together with his loss with 1f4 that he forgot about here is another example of the correct treatment of f4 by black against Mr Repa 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.b3 Bg7 5.Bb2 O-O 6.Be2 b6 7.O-O Bb7 8.d3 c5 9.Ne5 Nfd7 10.d4 e6 11.Nd2 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 completely dead for white no prospects and duly drawn. Like I said 1 f4 is a waste at cc. I doubt we shall see Mr Repa use it again against a good opponent on this site.
6.0 All the games I referred to were white victories OTB with 1. f4 "Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny - thats the whole point. At cc Sengupta's play would not be impressive but otb it was effective. Incidentally the game was played in 2004 in India
8.0 1 g4 is like 1 b4? Well that is clearly wrong. There have been no GM - GM encounters with 1 g4 there have been several with 1 b4 including Topalov v Malakhatsov. Over 50 IM's and a dozen GM's have played 1 b4 very few have ever played g4. 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly.
9.0 "What is weird is that the conversation began with quite civil exchanges before tiny criticisms quickly escalated to nuclear mode despite my genuine and exhaustive efforts at diffusion and removal of misinterpretation" Can anyone guess who is being written about here on another chess site?
Marc Lacrosse (2008-06-17 07:55:59)
Conditionals ?
I know that this has been discussed before...
But I still feel that possible use of conditional moves would be a nice improvement here.
Nothing mandatory : simply the possibility to tell your opponent : "If you play this move my answer is that one".
I cannot see how it could hurt in any way but I feel that it may help soften (and fasten) the play in situations like forced suites, exchanges and so on.
Your opinion ?
Marc
Henrik Jonsson (2008-07-02 23:13:12)
Openings that leads to open games?
I have a rating of 1800 at ICC. But I don´t know very much opening theory. I like open games. So I would like to learn openings, where a lot of pawns are exchanged, that leads to open games. Any recommendations?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-02 23:34:50)
Open games
I just wonder what is a good definition for "open games" ? Exchange pawns is ok, but after how many moves ? It is commonly said : e4 = open game, d4 = closed game, which is very inaccurate.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-07-04 07:17:27)
Open Games
Try the scotch opening, the central pawns are exchanged early.
Phil Cook (2008-08-12 07:34:16)
Morales Vs Cook
[Event "Single game, E4EC"]
[Site "http://gameknot.com/"]
[Date "2008.04.22"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Morales, Rafael (rafafallo)"]
[Black "Cook, Phil (Kiwi)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1078"]
[BlackElo "1170"]
[TimeControl "10/30"]
1. d4 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 } d5
2. Nc3 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 e6..not
commonly played } e6 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5
2. Nc3 e6..not commonly played} 3. a3 {3.blocking ..Bb4} h6 4. e4 a6
5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 {3. ....... h6 4. e4 a6 5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 attemps
white into another exchange} 7. Bg2 {7.Bg2 defends } Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9.
c4 Be7 10. d5 {7. Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9. c4 Be7 10. d5 (white here,trying
to open the middle up) so black attacks} cxd5 11. cxd5 O-O 12. dxe6 {12.dxe6,,(black
gives up a pawn or does he)} Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6 {12. dxe6
Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6(wins the pawn back,has white in disarray
here)} 15. Nf3 Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 {15. Nf3
Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 (note whites black bishop)}
Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5 Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ {19. Bxf3 Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5
Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3(white lost contol and game from here,yet plods on)} 23.
Kxf3 Rxd2 {22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ 23. Kxf3 Rxd(loss of bishop)} 24. Rc6 Rd3+ 25.
Ke4 Rbd8 26. Rxe6 Rd3d6 27. Rxd6 Rxd6 28. Rc1 Rd4+ 29. Kf5 Rxb4 30. Kg6
Rg4+ 31. Kf5 Rc4 32. Rd1 Rc5+ 33. Ke4 b4 34. Rb1 Rb5 35. Rb3 Bc3 36. f4
Rxa5 37. f5 Ra3 0-1
Normajean Yates (2008-08-12 14:52:44)
latvian-fraser 9...d5, and the R-sac
9...d5 10.d3 Kf7 11.Bg5 Bg7 may be better.. [context: latvian fraser exchange-sac line 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Nc6 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Nxg6 Nf6 6. Qh3 hxg6 7. Qxh8 Qe7 8. Nc3 {innovation?} fxe4 9. Be2]
Anyway the latvian fraser R-sac line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Nc6 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh3 fxe4 7.Nxh8 d5 8.Qb3 Bd7 is still on the cards --- real serious play goes 3. Nxe5 Qf6 anyway - pity because the poisoned pawn var, the Svedenborg, 3. ef, and 3. d4 are quite elegant...
Normajean Yates (2008-08-15 18:32:37)
Plus ça change, plus c’est la męme chose
so it seems! in the 1920s or so in MCO-4 Reuben Fine dismissed the greco countergambit in 4 lines as a blunder! (this was AFTER the latvian work due to which it became later known as the latvian gambit)! So the battle rages on, even with fraser? But it does seem that the fraser exchange-sac line is dead - leaving the R-sac line.
Phil Cook (2008-08-16 10:54:51)
(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation)
Morales Vs Cook
[Event "Single game, E4EC"] [Date "2008.04.22"] [Round "-"] [White "Morales, Rafael (rafafallo)"] [Black "Cook, Phil (Kiwi)"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1078"] [BlackElo "1170"] [TimeControl "10/30"] 1. d4 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 } d5 2. Nc3 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 e6..not commonly played } e6 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 e6..not commonly played} 3. a3 {3.blocking ..Bb4} h6 4. e4 a6 5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 {3. ....... h6 4. e4 a6 5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 attemps white into another exchange} 7. Bg2 {7.Bg2 defends } Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9. c4 Be7 10. d5 {7. Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9. c4 Be7 10. d5 (white here,trying to open the middle up) so black attacks} cxd5 11. cxd5 O-O 12. dxe6 {12.dxe6,,(black gives up a pawn or does he)} Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6 {12. dxe6 Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6(wins the pawn back,has white in disarray here)} 15. Nf3 Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 {15. Nf3 Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 (note whites black bishop)} Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5 Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ {19. Bxf3 Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5 Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3(white lost contol and game from here,yet plods on)} 23. Kxf3 Rxd2 {22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ 23. Kxf3 Rxd(loss of bishop)} 24. Rc6 Rd3+ 25. Ke4 Rbd8 26. Rxe6 Rd3d6 27. Rxd6 Rxd6 28. Rc1 Rd4+ 29. Kf5 Rxb4 30. Kg6 Rg4+ 31. Kf5 Rc4 32. Rd1 Rc5+ 33. Ke4 b4 34. Rb1 Rb5 35. Rb3 Bc3 36. f4 Rxa5 37. f5 Ra3 0-1
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-19 02:16:39)
Its a win !!!!
You must be joking!! Thibault its a definite win it will be over in a few moves!!
If anyone thinks black can survive please suggest some moves. The key to the win is that the best black can do is reach the position in a) below with Bishop and 2 pawns v R and 1 pawn. White wins becuse his king has access to e4, the Bishop is restricted by his pawns on a7 and e5 and most importantly his passed a pawn is not advanced.
It has been completely lost since move 63 ...Kxf4 Janos should have taken with the pawn 63..exf4 would have allowed him to reach a table base draw. On 66 Kd3 I had the win completely worked out and have been replying instantly since then. Adjudicating this is a draw is just plain wrong. Anyone who spends time on this position will see the win I have outlined and that there is no defence. The winning method is to force an exchange of rooks by Rc4-g4 with mating threats against the Black king - black cannot allow this and must play Rd4 allowing exchange of a pair rooks when the resulting R+P v B+P+P is won. Before playing Rc4 white checks with the other rook to cut off the f file. The only way to avoid the rook exchange is to allow the white King access to e4 - at the moment the black rook cuts off d3 and the bishop if it goes to b6 will cut off e3. If the king gets to e4 either the e5 pawn drops or the king gets to d5 and e6 either result is fatal
Here are the main lines:
a) 72..Bb6 73 Rg8+ Kf5 (73..Kh5 74 Rc1 Rd4 75 Rh1+ wins the rook) 74 Rf8+ Kg5 75 Rc4! Rd4 (see below a1 for 75..Bd4)76 Rxd4! exd4 77 Kd3 (This ending is completely won the white king penetrates through e4, the black bishop is useless - remove pawn at d4 and its a table base win) Here are the main lines 77... Bc5 78 Rc8 Bb6 79 Ke4 Kf6 80 f4 Kf7 81 f5 Kf6 82 Rc2 Kf7 83 Ke5 a5 84 Rc6 Bd8 85 Bc7+ Kxd4 Table base win Or 77 ...Kg6 78 Ke4 Kg7 79 Rc8 Kf6 80 f4 (if the pawn on d4 falls eg 80 ..Ba5 81 Kxd4 its a table base win) Ke7 81 f5 Kf6 82 Rc2 Ke7 (82 ..d3 83 Rc6+ Kg5 84 Rg6+ and Kxd3 = TB win) 83 Ke5 Kf7 84 Rb2 d3 85 f6 with a simple win
a1)..75..Bd4 (instead of Rd4) 76 Kd3 Ba1+ 77 Ke4 Ra5 78 Rg8+ Kf6 79 Rc6+ Kf7 80 Rgc8 Ra4+ 81 Rc4 Rxc4+ (black cannot avoid exchanging) 82 Rxc4+ and this ending like the one above is completely won. eg 82... Ke6 (82...a5 83 Rc5 a4 84 Ra5 x a4 = TB win) 83 Rc6+ Kd7 84 Kd5 Bd4 85 Rh6 a5 (any Bishop moves loses a pawn = TB win) 86 Rh7+ Kd8 87 f4 x e5 = TB win
b) If the Bishop does not go to b6 the white king gets via e3 to e4 and then penetrates through the white squares d5 and e6 and its over. Sample lines:
b1) 72 ..Kf4/f5 73 Rf8+ Kg6 74 Ke3 Rd1 75 Ke4 Re1+ 76 Kd5 Be7 77 Re8 Bf6 78 Ke6 e4 79 Rc5+ and the bishop is lost
b2) 72..Ba5 73 Ke3 Rb5 74 Rg8+ Kf5 75 Rf8+ Kg5 76 Ke4 Rb4+ 77 Kxe5 with a simple win
b3)72 ..Rd7 73 Rxe5+ (take a pair of rooks off = TB win) Kf4 74 Rcc5 Rg7 75 Re4+ Kg3 76 Rc1 Bb6 77 Rh1 a5 78 Rhh4 - Reg4+ exchanges rooks = TB win
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-14 22:01:56)
exchange slav
Difficult to know what Kramnik was up to in this game. 8 Qb3 has been regarded as pretty harmless and is not much played at GM level - he must have had some new idea - apparently 15 Qxb7 is new but black was always going to get the pawn back. After 6 months preperation and 3 full time seconds a bit strange! I am sure Anand will go full power for the point tomorrow - I still cannot quite believe that Kramnik will play the Petroff he avoided it against Kasparov and I am sure he will avoid it in this match also.
Hannes Rada (2008-12-25 21:12:07)
Game 1
looked very promising for White.
Without deeper looking into the position I thought that white is going to win here. But than I found that black has perpetual check due to his pair of rooks. With only 1 rook on booth side, i think white should win.
Wolfang, have you analysed a possible exchange of rooks at move no. 51
51. Rb7 instead of 51. a4 ?
I did not analyse this position, but at first sight this seems to be a good chance for winning this game.
Can you comment this ?
Normajean Yates (2009-01-20 07:19:07)
nicola [nicola lupinacci ansered it]
nicola lupinacci posted in the international chat in june last year that:
In bigchess, P=1, N=3, B=5, R=8, Q=11.
One of the points is, bigchess is a bigger board, so compared to chess, long-range pieces (B, N, Q)are much more powerful than short-range ones - specially, B is significantly more powerful than N.
I followed nicola's implicit advice, and as you can check, I've won all 6 of my games in one of the two only bigchess tournaments I am playing: FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__000025.
And I have won all 4 of my completed games in the other one.
[ FICGS__BIG_CHESS__TOURNAMENT__000030:
all games are in early stages by bigchess standards ]
my two incomplete bigchess games are keenly contested.
In one of them, opp has exchanged two Bs for my two Ns and 2-Pawns: so, that game puts Nicola's idea to test.
Waiting for the top bigchess players to comment on Sophie's and my posts...
Nicola was so good at chess and bigchess, but she stopped playing.
I have pasted her reason (her profile) below: (so why did she stop playing bigchess is what I do not understand. I mean no one has bigchess engine!)
Lupinacci, Nicola (ITA) [member # 1307]
Nicola Lupinacci
I am a chess amateur, playing only for fun! I do not have any chess engine. Good game to everyone!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-20 17:22:38)
Best chess forums
Hello Nadia.
Not so easy to find your first post ;)
Maybe try these ones :
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com
http://www.talkchess.com
http://www.chessexchange.com
http://www.rybkaforum.net
http://www.chess.com
http://www.chessforums.org
.. or just Google chess forums ;)
Normajean Yates (2009-04-24 00:33:24)
me too: I just ignore the draw offer..
It has happened three times here in *one* game: an ongoing chess game of mine here on ficgs. :)
[The first time *I* offered the draw. Opponent moved, thereby automatically declining and cancelling the draw offer. The other two times *opponent* offered the draw and I moved.]
(btw I declined the offers not out of spite but because I have a win: all lines I tried give me a win. It is a most interesting game: since the annotations will not appear on the record; I'll just say that opponent returned my early exchange-sacrifice setting a trap: I could have reached Q and 3 pawns v Q, but opponent would then draw by perpetual! The [probable] winning line has Q and 2 pawns v Q and P, but my centralised Q and promotion threats win!)
It does look to me like a mountain is being made out of less than a molehill.. (not by me - I didn't start this.)
This post was to illustrate how there is *no* problem at all[1]; and neither me nor my opponent (both were playing their first games when the game began) saw any problem at all.
this is my last post on this topic.
[1] If there is at all a problem here, it is of the same level as the 'problem' that the following rule is not mentioned in ficgs-rules:
. 'gn is not allowed in chess unless n is an integer between 1 and 8 inclusive, where 1 and 8 are to interpreted as the standard numerals standing for integers in the ordered real-closed field R, with the *canonical* ordering. (As opposed to, say, an integer in the domain Z[2+i*sqrt(5)] or an integer in some exotic Grothendieck topos).
;)
Michel van der Kemp (2009-11-13 19:26:27)
If I really want to delve into it
If I really want to delve into a position, I let two different engines analyze a position. If I'm out to win, I let both engines look for closed lines that don't lead to quick exchanges, unless they lead to clear advantages.
If engines evaluate a certain position very different, then those moves will catch my interest very quick, because those are the lines that may be highly imbalanced. I let both engines descend into those lines playing them against each other, and when you see the evaluation of one of the engines drop or go up, then it's a good time to draw a conclusion.
I hope that was clear a bit.
So yes it's good to have multiple engines.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-01-29 06:05:09)
Piece Values in Big Chess
I am amazed at the number of opponents that are still applying piece value from regular chess in big chess.
I made some regression analysis based on what we value in regular chess in terms of mobility and applied to big chess. Using the pawn and knight as the standard since in both games 3 pawns will probably beat a knight (if they are separated far enough). I assigned the pawn the value of 1 and and knight a value of 3 and extrapolated variables that we seem to use in valuing the other pieces such as number of squares it can reach, and penalty for being stuck on the same color.
I got the following values:
Pawn=1
Knight=3
Bishop=7 **
Rook=9
Queen=16
** The bishop value changes by pairs available, for example 4 white square bishops don't even come close to value 2 white squares and 2 black squares bishops so this is best value but it can go down to 6 or even 5 as pairs are lost.
Interesting, just like in chess a rook+bishop almost equals a queen and two rooks beat a queen. And a queen equals the value of the pawns (ok similar).
I still find opponents who exchange bishops for knights with impunity, not knowing the true values of the pieces.
I notice that nobody has ever mentioned this. I hope I did not give out some deep secret.
Of course you mileage may vary.
--laz
Jonathan Gresham (2013-10-12 23:24:13)
Communism
I've been reading about Communism and have concluded that I agree with a lot of the points that the book brings up in favor of it. The working class would overthrow the middle or rich class and thus establishing a one class system. The only thing that would have to be sacrificed would be freedom of speech but when it comes down to it freedom of speech can be sacrificed justly. In exchange for that you would get free education, healthcare etc. Things would be communal being that you would work within communities and share the wealth. This kind of idea has been put forward before and has failed but I believe that with the right leader it is possible.
Eros Riccio (2011-01-13 02:36:42)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ
Thanks everyone guys... Thank you Edward, it was a real pleasure for me to play with you, not only for the interesting games, but also for the many friendly chats we had during our exchange of the moves, you are a very nice person and I also look forward to playing you again soon in the future.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-30 21:07:31)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his win in the 4th FICGS chess WCH, and explained how one particular game influenced another one that he finally won:
- Hi Eros, first of all congratulations for your latest outstanding results at FICGS, you won the Freestyle tournament, now two chess championships in a row... When the privilege of the champion is to defend his title without playing the preliminary tournaments, you are involved in all championship cycles & a few regular tournaments, do you plan to avoid that anyone can even reach the championship final in the future? :-)
Thanks! I must admit that this is really a magic moment for me in chess... if you consider that despite my recent ICCF Grand Master Title, probably I will also soon win my third italian Correspondence Champion Title out of three participations in the Italian Final Tournaments. And now also this huge satisfaction of being the FICGS Champion! I look forward to seeing a new challenger soon, I wonder who he will be, but let me enjoy the next few months for now ;-)
- What are your impressions on the games? Did you have any strategy from the beginning to the end? Finally did it work or was there another factor? (without revealing your secrets, of course :))
The games in the opening were as I expected, all Najdorf Sicilians except one game where I played 1.d4. My goal was to win at least one game, so I tried different aggressive variations as White (6.Bg5, 6.f3, 6.Be3 and 6.h3) with the hope of catching Edward unprepared on at least one of these, but uff, he was very well prepared on each one of them! A curious thing is that my biggest chance of winning happened in a game where I had the Black pieces! So Edward had to take some risks in one of his games where he had Black (the games where he had White were already finished or all very drawish) he was forced to avoid an easy draw he had (the 6.h3 game) and eventually he lost that game. Happy of having reached my goal of winning at least one game, I accepted his draw offer in that other game (6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Be2) where I had good winning chances.
- You probably noticed, like many correspondence chess players, that the hardware still fastly improves while chess engines are continuously getting stronger, particularly since that "supposed" clones of Rybka (some may be even stronger than Rybka herself) appeared in the race. Do you think that the rate of draws will be so high soon that it may definitely kill correspondence chess? Do you have any opinion on these new engines?
I think that despite the big improvement of Hardwares and engines, we are still very far (and we will still be in the next 5 years, hopefully) from a situation where all the games will most probably end in a draw. So I think we can enjoy correspondence chess for many more years in the future, even if of course the Draw percentage at the highest levels will be higher and higher.
- I remember that you were surprised to win your match against Alberto in the Candidates Final of the 5th cycle (the reason why you do not even have to defend your title this time), the WCH rules (particularly the co-existence of the round-robin tournament & knockout tournament) are obviously not well understood by all players, what do you think about this system and the tie in 8 games matches? Are there changes you'd like to see in the future?
Yes, I really was! We were both convinced that with all draws, the higher rated player would have won (Alberto was higher rated than me in that match). Anyway it was our fault, as we didn't read the rules carefully. I am not sure what changes could be done in the future... maybe this is anyway the best setup, no new ideas are coming to my mind right now.
- Do you have a few more words for Edward after these nice games? Maybe also for your future opponents? :)
It was a real pleasure for me to play him, not only for the interesting games we played, but also for the friendly chats we had during the exchanges of the moves. I hope to play him again in the future for a rematch.
- Thanks for your answers and congratulations again!
Welcome, and thanks ;-)
_________
It is very interesting to see that a even a player like Eros prefered to minimize the risks (avoiding mouse drops or whatever) as much as possible by accepting a draw in a game where he had winning chances. Correspondence chess is definitely not all about chess, that's probably the lesson.
Also it is reassuring to read that correspondence chess is NOT dead yet, nor soon :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-24 15:36:57)
5th Go WCH, analysis by SC. von Erichsen
Svante Carl von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion... for the 5th time! After his win in the match that opposed him to Olivier Drouot, here are his analysis on the games:
_______________________
- Congratulations for this 5th win in the FICGS Go championship! By seeing the score you give less and less chances to your opponents who seem stronger each time though... Several games may look quite mysterious to weaker players. What happened during these games?
- Svante Carl von Erichsen:
Hi!
I do not have the impression that my opponents have less and less
chances. I also make many mistakes, and was in a clearly bad position
in at least one game. Olivier made many very unusual moves in the
opening, which were difficult to handle in a calm manner.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47578
In game 3 (47578), this is apparent at move 18. White has gone for a
very centre-oriented game, while Black has made more direct profit.
It is difficult to say who got the better deal. Move 18 itself is
very unusual, and I am not sure whether the result was satisfactory
for me. I think that moves 41 and 43 were important, as stabilizing
the group in the centre takes priority when the centre is dominated by
White like this. At move 53, it is clear that Black needs to stabilize
the top group, but D18 seems more important in retrospect. Move 62 is
a bit odd---I think that living with S16 instead would be better. I
think that Black got a territorial advantage here. Since White got
additional central strength, Black turned to make his central group
safe again, which should be enough to win now. White 94 tries to
shake up things again, but getting separated on the lower side makes
it very hard for him.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47580
In game 5 (47580), Olivier chose a very unusual move again at move 8.
I think that the outcome until move 17 favours Black, however. At
move 36, it looks like Black will have to live in the corner, but the
white enclosure does have its holes. Alas, White's response to the
forcing move at P10 was a severe blunder, as Black can take back the
right side. Move 55 was big, but I had not anticipated that the fight
after move 56 would be so hard for me. I think that after move 93,
White put too much emphasis on hollowing out what once seemed like
prospective black territory. The ponnuki in the centre was worth much
more than what White made on the second line. With that strength,
reducing the white framework on the left was no question. I think
that White then tried too hard in the centre.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47576
Game 1 (47576) was characterized by a big fight starting from the
joseki in the lower right corner. I guess that a stronger player
could point out several mistakes by both sides. It resulted in a big
exchange, where quite some aji remained in both positions. Move 90 is
an unusual idea, it would be more normal to extend on the side. 91
and 95 were intended as forcing moves to give some support to the top
side. I think that Black has good prospects after move 99 and
especially after 113. White started an interesting invasion on the
left then, which was however stopped by the blunder at 138.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47579
Game 4 (47579) again featured some unusual moves in the opening,
namely moves 7 and 9. I think that immediately plunging through at 10
was not good. It was quite difficult for me to keep territorial
balance afterwards. I think that my invasion at the top was
premature, but it seemed like I could not keep up without it. The
attack at L13 was severe. I got lucky that Black kept back a bit, so
that I could get the cut at E7, which was more important than the six
stones around N13. It would have been possible to save them at move
98, but at the cost of letting Black break through L10. Sacrificing
them allowed me to cement the centre to put me comfortably ahead. L9
was then the start of a desperate attempt to reduce the centre. I was
quite sure that I could capture it, even though simply connecting
would most likely have been enough. I then made a big blunder again
with move 130 (I had to double hane), allowing a game-deciding ko.
Black had a lot of threats against the lower right corner, and I think
that this exchange would have put him ahead. However, he thought he
had an internal threat at D10, which I think was not one, as there was
no additional eye in the centre yet.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47577
In game 2 (47577), he got me in the opening with another of his
experiments (move 7). I think that I could have been satisfied if I
simply played the keima to P2 at move 14. However, I activated the
central stone instead, which led to Black getting solid positions on
both sides, while I lived small in the corner and struggled in the
centre. I then succeeded in making him overconcentrated on the lower
side, but at the expense of a quite large corner and not making many
points myself. Move 80 tries to stir things up more. I think that if
Black had secured O13 with move 97, the game would have been over.
However, things only began to look good for White after move 127,
which had to be played at R8 (it is sente against the middle group
then, so Black can live with S5). It is still not over, however, as
White has two weak groups to take care of. The lower side group can
live locally with a ko at G1, but the other group has to struggle---it
would be nice to find a clean sacrifice plan here, because it is hard
for the two groups not to compete for eye space. This was the last
game to end, and my opponent seems to have chosen to resign all when
he did not see a way to win the overall match anymore.
All in all, these were very interesting games where I think I learnt a
lot. I wish to thank my opponent, who played very well.
Thanks!
Svante
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-29 14:45:26)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
The last round was very exciting! And this round has had some great games as well. To speak of there is just 4 games left. Here is the report of the most important games this round.
Starting at the top boards. We have have...
B1-Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21163-
This game followed a Catalan. Gino makes ambitious choice to go with 5.Nbd2! I gave this move a ! Not because of its theoretical standing. But because it will lead to a position were white will give up a whole pawn for rapid development. Never the less, black is equal to the task and managers to hold on to the pawn for most of the game and keep the game balanced. With my human eyes, I thought for sure white had an advantage! After move 20.Be4, It looks like white has 2 racking bishops. While black has one black locked in! But in depth analysis shows, that black can hold on. And shows great defensive technique. Down the stretch. Well played by Gino and Kevin. On of my favorite games to follow.
B3-Mark Eldridge vs David Evans
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21165-
David has gotten tested in both his black games in this tournament. And this game was no different. We had another B90 line in this game. And ...8.h5 was used. This is becoming a common line in this tournament. Mark's treatment on the white side was great! I think his future opponents will think twice before trying this line again. At move 22, the game reaches the sharpest point. After move 22.fxe5! I thought that Mark had a chance vs David. But David founds some good moves to exchanges pieces and hold for a draw. The best of which was the combo of ...33.Rf3 and ...36.Rxg3! This was a nice find by him. Great job to David and Mark! I look forward to seeing both these players again.
B4-Stephanie vs Fulcrum2000
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21166-
I would normally just post FICGS member games here. But this maybe one of the top 2 or 3 most important games of this round. In what turns out to be the most exciting game of the round IMO. White has shown that they are quite good in the opening phase. At move 18 they choose 18.b3 which was suggested as being the novelty move. White gets a very strong game and after a king tour to capture the pawn. It looked like a win for sure!, but it seems a mistake was made at move 38. Instead of 38.Qc1!? the move 38.Qe8! seems to be a near winner. I thoughts on why this move was missed is because, White was in time trouble in both games. I have to believe this was a favor. As we speak Stephanie is close to defeat in the other game that I will talk about shortly. I would watch her for the reminded of the tournament. I think they will learn form this experience and be even stronger going future. Well done by both players.
B5-NATIONAL12 vs Kamesh
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21167
Two of my good friends battling here. This was a B90 battle. The novelty move was the straight forward looking 27.h4, but after some exchanges. White has to settled for equality. A good match to follow, the one other note made was this was a line pioneered by Eros Riccio.
B7-Wayne Lowrance vs tomski1981
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21169-
Wayne plays a good line vs the french vs tomski. In fact by the database expert, it was in a 100% win line!! But after the queens come off the board. It burns out to a quiet draw. Wayne has had good opening results, but has yet to get in the winners column. I have faith that Wayne will win a game very soon. Good game to both in this one.
B8-Uly vs indrajit_sg
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21170-
This was a nice game to follow. A french defense was chosen. The point in which it gets interest is the choice to play 19.bxc3!? Which leads to 21.Nh6+!? I loves this sires of moves! 27.Rh3! was also a good move here. But its seems black has just enough resources to hold the balance. ..54.Bxg6! was a good finally touch. Well played by both players.
B9-Balabachi(William Fuller) vs Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21171
What was talked about as a drawish Ruy position. I found to be quite a game with all the early fireworks. I also liked the material imbalance in this game. Sebi has a rep of being very difficult to beat with the black pieces. This helps when you have the Ruy and the Posion pawn line of the Sicilian. As two of your best weapons. ;)
B10-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Weirwindle
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21172-
This was an interesting Richter-Rauzer game. 15.Qf4 was the novelty move, Form there it got crazy. 21.Nb3 seems to invite a pawn race. Which in the end white loses. This was a tough game for white. I think he should have been able to hold it. But it was still a good game to follow.
B11-donkasand vs Ruben Comes
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21173
This was a nice positional game by Mike (Donkasand), This was a 6.h3 Sicilian. And we get the usually good defense here. ..7.h5 White gets great positional pressure for the whole game and even gets a pawn, but Ruben wholes for a draw.
B12-natmaku vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21174
This game was a Petroff with 5.Nc3. This kind of move gives white rapid development. Its seems black equalize pretty quickly. And on move 21 a draw was agreed on.
B13-Scott Nichols vs Omprakash
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21175
This was an interesting King's Gambit game. I think Scott didn't study his opponents rep. :) The King's Gambit is Om's specialty. So this was an easy draw for black.
B14-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs deka
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21176-
In this game black returns to his pet line of the Sicilian with 2.a6(Which he played in the last round) I believe this is called the O'Kelly variation. This time around he goes for ..7.Qb6 which looks a little better than ..7.Bb5!? A draw probably should have been possible, but George was able to grid out a win. Well played by both players.
B15-parmetd (Daniel Parmet)vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21177
This was a King Indian by black. And white does a good job of out playing his opponent in this game. Unfortunately it seems Peter has gotten busy in his life. This game was decide by time.
B16-Banned for Life vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21178
I face off against Alan who has the white pieces. And is consider to be one of the best players when playing 1.b3. It was a difficult game for me as I decide before hand to play a dangerous line. Needless to say I lose this game after a few small mistakes on my part. I am founding that all the players in the WBCCC are good, I maybe better off being a commentator lol, but no one would have that.
This was the first set of games.
Here is the 2nd game of the 2nd round in the next post.
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!
Jonathan Gresham (2013-10-18 02:30:18)
Communism
In exchange for dictatorial power and personal freedom you would get a classless society, jobs and shelter provided by the government and goods shared among workers.
Pablo Schmid (2015-07-06 00:03:04)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
If we think about the stalemate logic, 2 knight vs 1 knight would be a draw by repetition or move limit if there is no stalemate or knight exchange. But can one bishop or one knight + king force a stalemate vs king alone? Anyway this is not chess anymore, many endings would be artificially become lost, for example king vs king + pawn, pawn a c f h vs queen, and many 1 piece vs 1 piece + pawn.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-14 23:12:38)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela
Nelson Bernal Varela is an early FICGS correspondence chess player, now rated 2277 but also rated 2359 at ICCF (Correspondence Chess Master - CCM).
Last but not least, and as all poker holdem players here probably noticed, he is also our ranked #1 for years, who just reached an outstanding poker rating of 2382, while number two is now rated "only" 2212. A good occasion to ask him a few questions, that he kindly accepted to answer.
-----------------------
- Hello Nelson! You are the 2nd most active player at FICGS for years now. Everyone here probably noticed your incredible results in poker tournaments. "Correspondence poker holdem" was probably a strange idea as it is very unusual and very different from "Internet poker". What's your opinion on this and on the presence of a card game (played without money) at FICGS?
NBV: There are more important things than money and one of those is HONOR; It is honorable to be a chess master, international master, grandmaster, world chess champion at ICCF and at FICGS and to be number one in the ranking. It is honorable to be a FICGS world champion at Go and to be first in the ranking, it is honorable to be poker world champion at FICGS poker and in my case, it is an honor to be number one at poker here at FICGS during the last years, understanding that our general level of play has improved remarkably. None of these activities produces money, but to achieve any of the mentioned titles, it is necessary to have extraordinary abilities.
When I was about 18 years old, I had the opportunity to meet a person with immense material wealth, we spent whole evenings playing chess and then I told him my perceptions about each movement of the game. He thanked me for my chess explanations and paid me with good money. That wealthy man in his turn told me about life and recommended that I should always be proud of the gifts I had, since he knew, with all the money he had and being able to hire the best grandmasters in the world, that it could hardly come at the level of chess master. That person told me that the intellect can be turned into money whenever you want.
Now, by playing poker without money at FICGS, I understood that it was my extraordinary and wonderful opportunity to study-learn-perfect and test my poker theories without costing me a single dollar. In FICGS there is no money, but thanks to the knowledge I gained playing poker in FICGS, today I can go after the money in online poker rooms and probably in OTB poker tournaments. I am studying the possibility of becoming a professional poker player.
- The understanding of your opponent's behaviour is usually quite important at Poker. Do you manage to establish some profiles while playing so many simultaneous hands & games? Did you build any method?
NBV: Today I am sure that the most important thing to raise, and keep raising my level in poker, has been to build a psychological profile of mine, to get to know Nelson Bernal Varela in depth and above all to understand me, accept me, love me and be work every day eliminating my technical errors, strategic, psychological that make me play badly. I am aware that in poker I can play perfectly and still lose, what I can not forgive me is playing badly, which is why I work hard correcting my wrong decisions.
Of course, there is a space in my brain where I have built a psychological profile of each contender, that profile I have been able to elaborate with all the information that is provided to me in each hand we play. The way each of us plays, gives reliable information about our personality.
About my method I can write the following: A few years ago, I created a table in excel, where I had all the games with each contender, I identified them with the FICGS numeration and each movement in each hand (preflop, flop, turn, river ) it I was writing and studying; I started to add technical-psychological variables that seemed important to me, resulting in 20 variables that I had to qualify in each movement. With the passage of time and my effort, I no longer needed the excel table and I did not use it again (it was exhausting and time consuming) because I was assimilating things faster and with greater depth. Today I can say that I evaluate these 20 variables in a natural way, as if I was breathing and that when I am at a poker table, online or real, after a few minutes I get the psychological profile of the table and each of my opponents. In the pocket of my shirt I keep a small paper with the list of variables, periodically reread it and I wonder if I should modify, remove or add something.
- You won 1007 poker games, and lost only 380, with a ratio usually going from 57% to 80% according to your best opponents. Undoubtly you know the mathematics hidden behind poker but that may not explain everything. How did you learn to play?
NBV: Mathematics is an ingredient in poker, in the same way that my psychological aspects and of my opponents (I recommend reading-studying about four times the book “The Poker mindset” of Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger), it is vital to understand the Law of Large Numbers. Next I make a list of topics that I consider important to raise the level of poker; compete with EV+ cards, you have to know the small ball theory of Negreanu (but not apply it, hahaha) you have to always look at the texture of the board, you have to evaluate your reality and your future, also that of your opponents (act and power), the position to talk is important, the stack, the personality of the table, know who has the panic button on. All these and other variables must be evaluated in the few seconds they have to make a move and the only important thing is to make the right decision according to the circumstances. There is a good list of poker books to read... it is mandatory to have read about 15 poker books.
- As for me, I may be wrong but I can't imagine that you reached such a rating without special techniques & maybe by optimizing it in some ways... Of course, "rating management" is not a problem, and it is only one thing with a limited impact, but maybe you have some other secrets? What about this "+1" technique that I noticed in many of our games, if this is not a secret? :)
NBV: In these years I have used different techniques that I had to read, study, learn, repeat, modify, invent and sometimes eliminate. Poker is a sport that seems easy, with time one manages to understand that it has an amazing complexity, today I consider poker to be as complex as chess and I study them in a "similar" way. As an example, I have tried to create "openings in poker"; based only on probabilities I invented something that I called mirror theory and another "opening" that I called opposite outs. I am fascinated by mathematics and from the mathematical perspective they are perfect "theories-openings", but I have lost tournaments and a lot of money for applying such theories in mistaken emotional moments. In poker it is important to never lose sight of the Law of Large Numbers and be aware that this LAW likes to make fun of each one of us... I am working on giving an emotional nuance to my theories "mirror" and "opposite outs". There are moments when perfect mathematics becomes an unforgivable psychological error...
For the last few months I have modified my way of playing and my results have improved; Today it must be much more difficult to win a game me, thanks to small and imperceptible adjustments that of course only I know, because I have followed my mistakes-successes-evolution in the game over several years.
- Isn't it too frustrating for you to play heads up only (here at least) ? Of course it is a way to improve this important technical case but we know that many complexities come with 3 to 8 players on the table, which is the most common case in professional poker tournaments.
NBV: Currently I spend little time every day playing heads-up in FICGS, thanks to the fact that I have the profile of each contender. The 4-5 hours that I study poker daily, include practice in micro limits in cash tables of 6 players and tournaments in tables of 8-9 players. I think I'm covering the whole range of possibilities, experiencing game situations between 1 and 8 contenders.
- What do you think about computer analysis in poker? Do you think it could make a difference here just like the way we play advanced chess?
NBV: I think the algorithms are ready to be written in machine language and the question is where are those algorithms? Well, in the brains of the best players in the world and in their games compiled in huge databases. But programming language can be accelerated with artificial intelligence brains, making A.I. studying databases of the best professionals, playing with itself millions of games and building an invincible TACTIC-STRATEGIC SYSTEM, similar to chess software and GO... I think preflop and flop play would be very similar between humans and artificial intelligence, but on the turn and on the river artificial intelligence would take considerable advantage, but in the short time the level of human poker would rise because artificial intelligence would teach us to play poker, this event that would diminish the profits of the professionals. It will always be said in favor of poker that because it is an incomplete game of information, to make computer algorithms are quite complicated, but despite that, I am sure that artificial intelligence will far surpass the best human poker player. It is possible that an artificial intelligence that plays a perfect poker already exists, but unlike GO and chess, poker does produce a lot of money. Due to the money factor, in today's world, it is very difficult that there is a Prometheus willing to steal fire from the gods and give it to mankind...
- How would you describe your relation to games in general?
NBV: I can summarize it in one of the first chess books I had the fortune to read, by the great Danish master Bent Larsen, "I play to win"
- When did you start to play chess & poker? Do you play other games?
NBV: My first contact with chess was at the age of nine, it was love at first sight and until death separates us; I must confess that for some years we have been separated, due to my stupidity and my erroneous decisions. I have always been self-taught in any subject, my method is to buy about 10 to 15 books of the subject that interests me and I read them thoroughly, sometimes 3 or 4 times; already with that information in my head and thanks to the constant practice, I build MY SYSTEM (Nimzowitch) according to my personality, my dreams, my desires, my anguish, my fears... I was youth champion of Bogotá, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.
I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.
I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.
- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?
NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).
I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.
In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.
In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...
- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?
NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha
- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)
I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...
- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)
NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha
- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.
Garvin Gray (2021-06-13 11:22:28)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
Now that my ficgs cup group has finished, I feel I can reply without feeling like I am pushing my own barrow.
When I highlighting the issue of when there is a group of 5, I was not intending it to be related to either championship.
This is because, in my view, the issue is the same, regardless of whether the group of view occurs in the WCH, the ficgs cup or a general group game.
I am aware that some people probably have read my replies as being rather strong on this topic, and in some cases, unhelpful, but if you look at it from the viewpoint of having engaged in genuine dialogue, exchanged viewpoints, debated back and forth, and gone over many topics again and again and finally after all that time, have gotten in writing and published rules that changes will be made, and then as soon as the situations come up again, the old rules are enforced again and nothing changes, then it becomes quite a bit more understandable why a negative tone and suspicion is underlaid in the discussions.
And as for why not walk away?
Had I been told that the entire format for the FICGS cup was going to be disbanded, that groups of 5 were going to be used and only single round robin was going to be used and three or four stages were going to be used, then YES, I probably would not have entered, and I would have made my feelings known as to why I was not entering.
And, I would have been looking to not enter any further World Championships as well. I have a Round Robin group coming up, as well as a Stage 2. These I will complete and do my best to advance, but if the old rules are maintained, then I will not be entering any future cycles.
Ilmars Cirulis (2021-10-28 19:46:59)
Big Chess theory?
Context: I resigned game with five pawns given away, soon after queen exchange happened. :)
Garvin Gray (2025-11-04 16:15:02)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I have just seen the chat bar exchange where George Jempty has said:
You can play up if you are within 50 points, and now I am in and my account has been debited e points.
Where has this rule come from?
On countless occasions I have enquired about being able to enter a higher division than my rating when I have just been under the rating cutoff, and been told no.
The policy as I have known it has been that a player must win a lower division, and then can only enter the higher division when the field has gotten to the last two entries.
Has this policy changed?
If it has, then it would have helped to have it publicised, but also I would spoken against the changed as it makes a mockery of any rating divisions.
If this is the case, might as well call 2200 - 2600, 2150 - 2600
There are 50 results for exchange in wikichess.
Thibault de Vassal (2522)
e4 c5
The Sicilian Defence is a chess opening which begins with 1.e4 c5
This is the most popular response to 1.e4 at the master level. Black immediately fights for the centre, but by attacking from the c-file (instead of mirroring White's move) he creates an asymmetrical position that leads to complicated situations. Typically, White has the initiative on the kingside while Black obtains counterplay on the queenside, particularly on the c-file after the exchange of Black's c-pawn for White's d-pawn.
According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
d4 d5 c4
The Queen's Gambit is one of the oldest known chess openings, as Lucena wrote about it in 1497 and it is mentioned in an earlier manuscript in Göttingen. During the early period of modern chess queen pawn openings were not in fashion, and the Queen's Gambit did not become common until the 1873 tournament in Vienna.
As Steinitz and Tarrasch developed chess theory and increased the appreciation of positional play, the Queen's Gambit grew more popular. It reached its peak popularity in the 1920s and 1930s, and was played in 32 out of 34 games in the 1934 World Chess Championship.
Since then Black has increasingly moved away from symmetrical openings, tending to use the Indian defences to combat queen pawn openings. The Queen's Gambit is still frequently played, however, and it remains an important part of many grandmasters' opening repertoires.
With 2.c4, White threatens to exchange a wing pawn (the c-pawn) for a center pawn (Black's d-pawn) and dominate the center with e2-e4. This is not a true gambit since if Black accepts the pawn he cannot expect to keep it.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Sebastien Marez (2377)
d4 d5 c4 c6
The Slav is one of the primary defenses to the Queen's Gambit. Although it was analyzed as early as 1590, it wasn't until the 1920s that it started to be explored extensively. Many masters of Slavic descent helped develop the theory of this opening, including Alapin, Alekhine, Bogoljubov, and Vidmar.
The Slav received an exhaustive test during the two Alekhine–Euwe World Championship matches in 1935 and 1937. Played by 11 of the first 13 world champions, this defense was particularly favored by Euwe, Botvinnik, and Smyslov. More recently the Slav has been adopted by Anand, Ivanchuk, Lautier, Short, and other top grandmasters. Today the theory of the Slav is very extensive and well developed.
Black faces three major problems in many variations of the Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD).
- Development of the Black queen bishop is difficult, as it is often blocked by ...e6.
- The pawn structure offers White targets, especially the possibility of a minority attack on the queenside in the Exchange variation of the QGD.
- White often plays Bg5 to pin the black king knight on f6 against the black queen, and unpinning it is awkward for Black.
The Slav addresses all of these problems. Black's queen bishop is unblocked, the pawn structure remains balanced, and the move Bg5 is not yet threatening as the unmoved black pawn on e7 prevents the pin. Also, if Black later takes the gambit pawn with ...dxc4, the support provided by the pawn on c6 allows ...b5 which may threaten to keep the gambit pawn or to drive away a white piece that has captured it, gaining Black a tempo for queenside expansion.
On the other side, Black usually won't be able to develop the queen bishop without first giving up the center with ...dxc4, and moving this bishop may leave the Black queenside weak. White will try to dominate the center with e2-e4.
According to Chessbase, Black chances are about 43%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Sebastien Marez
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 d3
The Giuoco Pianissimo (Italian: "quietest game"). White aims for a slow buildup deferring d4 until it can be prepared. By avoiding an immediate confrontation in the center White prevents the early release of tension through exchanges and enters a positional maneuvering game.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5
Wins material (JC).
I think it's convenient to examine the possible continuation of the game in order to exclude the possibility that Black could get a reasonable compensation for the material, as many Dragon players are sooo happy when losing an exchange :) (TE)
============
Contributors : Julien Coll, Telmo Escobar
Julien Coll (1400)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 Qd2 Ng4
Black threatens to exchange the dark-squared white bishop, and to leave White with tactical weaknesses in the dark squares (ex. b2, d4, a7-g1, etc.). he has a comfortable game.
============
Contributors : Julien Coll
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3
The Morra Gambit is an interesting opening against the Sicilian Defence. It is not common in Grandmaster games or correspondence chess, but at club level chess it is an excellent weapon.
White sacrifices a pawn to develop quickly and create attacking chances. In exchange for the gambit pawn, White has a piece developed and a pawn in the center, while Black has nothing but an empty space on c7.
If black wants to refuse the gambit, he can do so with 3... d5 or 3... Nf6, both of which transpose to the Alapin variation of the Sicilian (usually introduced by the move order 1.e4 c5 2.c3). Alternatively, 3... d6 is the Smith-Morra declined proper, and leads to unique lines.
Some interesting games played on FICGS by David Angeli : Game 563, Game 565 (accepted gambit) or Game 555 (declined, with 3. ... d5).
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5
The Grünfeld Defence is named after Ernst Grünfeld, the player who first employed the defence in the 1920s. The defence was later adopted by a number of prominent players, including Vasily Smyslov, Viktor Korchnoi and Bobby Fischer. Garry Kasparov has often used the defence, including in his World Championship matches against Anatoly Karpov in 1986, 1987 and 1990, and Vladimir Kramnik in 2000. In more recent years it has been regularly employed by Loek Van Wely, Peter Svidler and Luke McShane among others.
The opening relies on one of the main principles of the hypermodern school, which was coming to the fore in the 1920s - that a large pawn centre could be a liability rather than an asset. This idea is seen most clearly in the Exchange Variation of the defence: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4. Now White has an imposing looking centre - and the main continuation 5...Nxc3 bxc3 strengthens it still further. Black generally attack's White's centre with ...c5 and ...Bg7, often followed by moves like ...cxd4, ...Bg4, and ...Nc6. White often uses his big centre to launch an attack against Black's king, which generally ends up on g8 after Black castles king-side.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
d4 Nf6 Bg5
The Trompowski attack is named after the one-time Brazilian champion Octavio Siqueiro F. Trompowski (1897–1984) who played it in the 1930s and 1940s.
With the second move, White is intending to exchange his bishop for Black's knight inflicting doubled pawns upon Black in the process. This is not a lethal threat, Black can choose to fall in with White's plan.
After 1.d4 Nf6, the Trompowski is a popular alternative to the more common 2.c4 and 2.Nf3 lines. By playing 2.Bg5, White avoids the immense opening theory of various Indian Defences like the Queen's Indian and the King's Indian. Some of the grandmasters who often play the Trompowski are Julian Hodgson and Antoaneta Stefanova.
According to Chessbase, white chances are about 56%
============
Contributors : 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
David Grosdemange (1983)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 Bb5+ Nc6
It is an alternative for Black to prepare a favourable exchange with Bd7, then a6. Then White can retire by playing Bf1 (after Re1) or exchange the bishop, then black bishop have a good square in c6.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Ron Keyston (1200)
e4 c6 d4 d5 exd5
Caro-Kann Exchange Variation
============
Contributors : Ron Keyston
Benjamin Aldag (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7 Ne3 c6 d3
d3:
White wants to exchange the strong e4-pawn and will have a very good development. The d3-Line is known as the Budowskys-Line.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag
Dirk Ghysens (2187)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Bb4 e5 h6 Bd2
Lasker's move; Black is now forced to exchange on c3.
============
Contributors : Dirk Ghysens
Ivan Gonzalez (2411)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Bb4 e5 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 Ne7 Qg4 O-O Bd3 Nbc6 Nf3 f5 exf6 Rxf6 Bg5 e5 Qg3 Rxf3 gxf3 c4 Be2 exd4
And black has compensation for the exchange
============
Contributors : Ivan Gonzalez
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
The only way to win for White is to manage the exchange of the queens. ... and after this it stays very difficult - but possible!
============
Contributors : Wolfgang Utesch
Thibault de Vassal (2471)
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+
Now queens are exchanged.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2514)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5
The Exchange Variation of the Kingston Defence sets Black the toughest test.,
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson, Thibault de Vassal
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 Nc3 d5
Black now contests the centre, forcing White to decide immediately whether to advance or exchange the e-pawn.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Kieran Child (1600)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4 c4 dxc4 Bxb7 Nd7 Bxa8 Qxa8 f3
The best move, though the often perceived attack on the black bishop is clearly non-existant. This move also weakens the kingside further, allowing bishop or queen checks later. Black will aim to exploit this. White will aim to defend any attacks and hold on to the exchange.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 Nf6 d4 exd4
Most common move at club level. Black assumes he has won a pawn after an exchange on d4. While he can sometimes be confronted with a lack of spacial allowance after e5, this isn't too bad for black.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 c4 c5 Be3 cxd4 Bxd4 Nbc6 Nf3 Ng6 a3 Qc7 Nc3
White decides to concede the e-pawn, in exchange for whatever Nb5 will bring.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Ilmars Cirulis (1299)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 h3 Bg3 c3 Nf5 d4 exd4 Bd3 Bd7 Qe2
White want to exchange queens.
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Adam Goodwin (1500)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5
The exchange variation of the Gruenfeld Defense.
============
Contributors : Adam Goodwin
Mike Hoogland (1760)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Bf5 cxd5
White exchanges the pawn on c4 for the pawn on c6 (black should take it back with this pawn if black doesn't want to lose any influence in the centre).
As a result, Qb6 after Qb3 on the next move is no longer a strong option. Qxb6 then doubles blacks queenside pawns, leaving them and the b5 square weak. Therefore, after Qb3 black will have to find another way to defend the pawn.
After this, white will try to develop and increase presure on b7 and d5 at the same time.
============
Contributors : Mike Hoogland
Telmo Escobar (2076)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Na3 b5 Bxf6 gxf6 Nd5 f5 Bd3 Be6 Qh5 Rg8 O-O Nd4 c3 fxe4 Bxe4 Bg4 Qxh7 Rg7 Qh8 Nf3+ Kh1 Nd2 f3 Nxf1 fxg4 Nd2 Bf5
White has more than enough compensation for the exchange.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Lauri Lahnasalo (1600)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 Nf3 g6 cxb5
White feels this is good time for exchange.
============
Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo
Lauri Lahnasalo (1600)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 Nf3 g6 cxb5 a6
Black still thinks he can get counterplay after exchange, but he doesn't see that he has to do the exchange using his own time while white is able to further develod his attack.
============
Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo
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 Bg3 Qxd4 Rad1 Qb6 b3 cxb3 axb3 a6 Rd2 c5 Rd6 Bc6 e5 Nd7 Ne4 Bf8 Rfd1 Bxd6 Nxd6+ Ke7 Bf4 Rag8
Analysis by Sergey Shipov. The position looks balanced: White has apparently a reasonable compensation for the exchange, but Black position is solid enough to hold.
============
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 Bxf8 Qe3+ Kf1 Kxf8 Qc1 Qxc1 Rxc1 Nxc5
Black has a terrific compensation for the exchange.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Yugi Inving (0914)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 b3 Qe5+ Ne2 Qxa1 Nec3 Be6
In order to prevent whit play, they will try to put their knight on b3, This move prevent it.
castling and try to exchange the second rook for the queen will take a considerable amout of time.
============
Contributors : Yugi Inving
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 f3 Qb6 Be3 Qxb2 Ndb5
Threatening both 9.Rb1 winning a queen and -eventually- Nc7+ winning an exchange. So Black's reply is forced.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5 Nc6 Nxc6 bxc6 Bxc6+ Bd7 Bxa8 Nxe3 fxe3 Qxa8
A critical position. In order to understand why a single tempo will be decisive for the evaluation of the position, it's advisable to remember that Siegbert Tarrasch postulated that "two bishops plus a rook are better than two rooks plus a knight". According my oddly uneven experience of near forty years of tournament play, during which I lost to many patzers but beat many masters -and a few grandmasters- as well, I think Tarrasch's axiom is correct most of the time. Indeed, *as most players seem to not know about Tarrasch's axiom*, one of my dirty tricks has been to look for these positions, when my adversary think he -one exchange up- is better, but I -one exchange down- usually know better.
In this position, both Black bishops seem to have excellent prospects and, should my dark bishop be already at g7, I'd be sure that Black has winning prospects.
But it's White turn to move, and...
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Mark Hailes (1800)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2
Now If black takes the knight on c3 white can recapture with the other knight avoiding doubled c pawns. However, black will most likely avoid this exchange and then the e2 knight will have to move again before the white light squared bishop can get out.
============
Contributors : Mark Hailes
Yugi Inving (1280)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 Nc3 Nc6 e3
Devlopping the white bishop but white wont exchange it for a knight
============
Contributors : Yugi Inving
Yugi Inving (1280)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 Nc3 Nc6 e3 g6 Bd3 Bg7 Bd2 O-O O-O a6 Re1 Nb4 a3
Chasing black out of the way, making them exchange and then profite from doubled pawn to push e4
============
Contributors : Yugi Inving
Terry Godat (2088)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 g5 h4 g4 Ne5 Nf6 Bc4 d5 exd5 Bd6 d4 Nh5 O-O O-O Rxf4 Nxf4 Bxf4
============
Contributors : Terry Godat
Here Black can either play 11...Bf5 or grab the h-pawn. In either case, White has excellent compensation for the exchange. In the game, Black fought an uphill battle for a draw.
Sophie Leclerc (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6 Bd2 Bg7 h4 Qd7 Qe2 Ncd4 Qd1 Qe6+ Kf1 Qf7 Nxd4 Ng3+ Ke1 Bxd4
Black mate treath force white fo exchange queens, lose the rook for the knight and to have a bad pawn structure.
============
Contributors : Sophie Leclerc
Sophie Leclerc (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6 Bd2 Bg7 h4 Qd7 Qe2 Ncd4 Qd1 Qe6+ Kf1 Qf7 Nxd4 Ng3+ Kg1 Bxd4 Qf3 Nxh1 Qxf7+ Kxf7 Bxh1 c6 Rb1 Rxh4 Ne2
it seen like white wants to exchange pieces where he should note exchange pieces but pawns.
============
Contributors : Sophie Leclerc
Sandor Porkolab (1476)
e4 e6 d4 d5 e5 b6 c3 Qd7 Nf3 Ne7 Bd3 Ba6
6...Ba6 Here is the meaning of the earlier 4...b6 move - giving way to the c8 Bishop to a6 to go for the Bishop exchange. It is a good plan for black to remove the light square Bishops from the table - deactivating an active white bishop for a passive black bishop.
Options for white:
A, 7.0-0 castling
B, 7.Bxa6 go for the Bishop exchange
============
Contributors : Sandor Porkolab
Alex Savu (1350)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5
Exchange Variation
============
Contributors : Alex Savu
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 Nc6 O-O e6 Na3 a6 Qa4 Qa5
An unfair exchange., but best play for black.
============
Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 b6 g3 Bb7 bxc5 bxc5 Bg2 Nc6 O-O e6 Na3 a6 Qa4 Qa5 Qxa5 Nxa5 d3 Nf6 Bd2 Nc6 Ne5 Rc8 Rab1 Ba8 Nxc6 Bxc6 Bxc6+ Rxc6 Rb8+ Kd7 Rfb1 Rg8 Ba5 Bd6 R1b7+ Bc7 Rxg8
An unpleasant exchange, but is the move to do, to keep the game .
============
Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5 Qb3 Bxc5 Qb5
A correct decision... when white lack in developpement, he exchange piece, but he make black, pay the price of those exchange. Whitout that, white would fall behind for the entire game.
============
Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5 Qb3 Bxc5 Qb5 Qxb5 cxb5 Nb4
slightly worse, is Bxa3.... but black won't pay for more exchange..... he already paid much.
============
Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5 Qb3 Bxc5 Qb5 Qxb5 cxb5 Nb4 Bxb4
A free exchange.
============
Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 e3
the normal continuation..
White plan include the exchange of the white square bishop for black's queen knight, b3 Bb2, d3, Ne5 + Nd2-f3-g5....
Altought, this is white's dream, it do not always happen.
lasker had the habit of playing Bd3 when black take long to develop the queen knight and let black scrap his pawn structure. In fact here, white became black and fight for equality.
============
Contributors : Gerard Gonet, Luc-Olivier Leclerc
Gregory Kohut (1574)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e6
This inaugurates the Taimanov/Paulsen lines of the Sicilian Defense. Black's main idea is to play Qc7 and a6 in some order (although the "pure" Taimanov, with ...a6 and Nge7, is also possible), controlling the dark squares with pieces and the light squares with pawns. The d5 and e6 points are generally less vulnerable than in many variations, leaving white with fewer obvious attacking possibilities. The game therefore can take on an oddly positional character for the Open Sicilian, with White seeking to prove dark squared weaknesses or obtain favorable piece exchanges.
============
Contributors : Graham Cridland
Patrick Satonnet (1833)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 exf5 e4 Ne5 Nf6 Be2 d6 Bh5 Ke7 Nf7 Qe8
============
Contributors : Patrick Satonnet
For me,better to avoid queen exchange in the line Nxh8 Qxh5 Qxh5 Nxh5 g4 Nf6 with unclar avantage for white.
The plan is development, with 4 options : d3, d4, Nc3 and oo.
The real decision is the choice bitween d3 and d4, and eventually the exact momment for the 2 other moves.
If other moves aren't winning in line, oo is better move, no waste of time and no irreversible decision..
FICGS : exchange , Wikipedia : exchange , Dmoz : exchange , Google : exchange , Yahoo : exchange
Nonsense was the last thing Fischer was interested in, as far as Chess was concerned. (Elie Agur)
Chess, like any creative activity, can exist only through the combined efforts of those who have creative talent, and those who have the ability to organize their creative work. (Mikhail Botvinnik)
Even the laziest King flees wildly in the face of a double check ! (Aaron Nimzowitsch)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess