formula
FICGS - Search results for formula
There are 63 results for formula in the forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-12 09:14:24)
Tournament formulas
Hello to all.
What do you think about the idea to create a SLOW tournament category ? Clocks could be 60 days + 10 days / move or 100 days + 100 days / 10 moves (very slow) ?
Any idea or opinion ?
Dinesh De Silva (2006-04-12 09:42:18)
Tournament formulas
I personally think such tournaments are too slow..... a real drag.
10 moves per 40 days seems exactly right for standard tournaments.
Kind regards,
Dinesh.
Patrice Verdier (2006-04-12 09:47:09)
Tournaments formulas
I am agree with De Silva. I think that already tournaments are slow. 10 moves for 40 days or 30 days is a good formula. Perhaps it will be interesting to create blitz tournament for players who like this (example : 1 move by day)
Also it will be interesting to create tournament with Cup System.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-12 09:53:48)
Rapid tournaments
Formula for rapid tournaments is 30 days (because players could be in vacation while the tournament starts) + 1 day / move
Marc Lacrosse (2006-04-12 09:57:10)
Tournament formulas : not too many .
Personally I do prefer playing a small number of games simultaneously at a relatively rapid pace instead of a larger number at slower pace.
But I can understand that some prefer the opposite. So why not.
One caveat : I think you should wait a little bit before multiplying categories.
As long as we are not a larger number of active players there is a risk that there will be a small number of players waiting for long before a sufficient number of players will join for starting a tournament in a given category.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-16 18:42:59)
Two players matches
Question about 2 players matches will be discussed too. I first decided not to offer these formulas because it may lead to cheating problems, at least unfair results. I have implemented processes to detect cheaters, but avoiding temptations is probably best for all :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-14 16:07:16)
"Blitz" cup...
Thank you Heinz Georg, for the files you sent to me.
Now I understand better the work and ideas of Reimund Lutzenberger in Chessfriend.com, a great experimentation field for sure...
I first concluded some things not to do in FICGS WCH. In example, a player rated 2500 (even provisional rating from fide) shouldn't have to play in the first stage against a low-rated player in a world championship [but that could be possible in a cup tournament cycle]. So I'll add special rules for high rated players (who are not qualified for the WCH knockout tournament) to begin directly in a 2nd stage tournament...
I agree with Dinesh, the aim is not to use the same formulas, even good ones. Anyway I think we can find new interesting (better :)) ones. But as the WCH is already a rapid tournament cycle, the CUP could be an unrated "blitz" (30 days per game with no increment, or even 10 days + 1 hour / move) knockout (2 games / match + playoffs) !! Something quite "brutal" and unfair between correspondence chess & classical rythms. What do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-30 01:19:41)
Depends...
... obviously more in big chess :)
Actually I already love this game... very exciting ! So many strategies... Just look at this position - http://www.ficgs.com/game_1.html
Now I have to work on the board (size / coordinates) and tournament formula before to offer it here.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-14 15:20:18)
Rating formula
(repetition)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-14 19:21:53)
Elo rating calculation
I just updated the membership page, with the full rating calculation explained.
It is exactly the rules used by the french federation, except the special rule that makes it easier to win than to loose points (and partly provokes Elo inflation). So only one formula is used here.
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?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-16 13:46:10)
Right...
Hello Heinz-Georg.
Thanks for help :) Indeed, I've forgotten the parameter for provisional ratings (that evolve quicker than established ratings)... I'll change these points within hours. (right, 95 to 99 values in the bonus table are useless, but it is informative about the formula)
Wayne Lowrance (2006-06-17 19:02:07)
Rating formula
Okey Dokey, I understand. Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-27 16:58:03)
FICGS world chess championship
A minor update in the rules that fixes many problems for future wch cycles... Nothing has changed in the rules for the 1st cycle that begins in 4 days, changes only concern next cycles, with the extension of the one-time rule mentioned above.
The equation was :
- No confusion with the cycles when entering the waiting list (2300+ players qualified for 2nd stage of the previous cycle is too confusing).
- Avoiding tournaments with too big rating gaps (and encourage high rated players to participate)
- The formula combining knockout tournament, round-robin cycle (so that everyone can play wch, with no more than 5 stages), and the final 2 players matches in the last stages.
- Making it as understable as possible...
It is now mentioned in the rules that 2300+ players will play 1st stage in high rated groups (ratings superior or equal to 2300). Winners of such groups (same criterias) will be qualified for the 3rd stage round-robin tournament, the others will play 2nd stage.
As all games are played with rapid time controls, a new cycle will probably begin every 6 months !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-12 22:54:50)
Tournament entry rating
Hello Heinz-Georg.
Your TER is not taken in account when a rating calculation occurs (your opponent's one is, of course).
But your previous ELO has a weight in the formula...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-20 14:39:21)
Google pagerank
Hi Dinesh.
Ironic ? ;)
Google is definitely the best search engine for several years. Maybe his statistical concept will be outdated soon (or already), but it's the most powerful one (speed, capacity, accuracy...) and most : it still represents 85 % of visitors from search engines (for all websites). Yahoo represents 9% .. the others nothing. About 30 % (only) of FICGS visitors come from search engines, but it will undoublty increase and over 90 % as time passes.
Pagerank is decided on the value (Pagerank) of the links towards a website.. Actually this is a complex formula based on many parameters, but first of all the Pagerank of the websites referrers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagerank
Benjamin Aldag (2006-08-17 19:42:02)
Ratings ???!!!
Hello,
i have a question about the Rating-System here. There are many players here, with an offical FIDE or NATIONAL ratingnumber under 1800. Some of these players have here at FICGS a ratingnumber over 2000 !!! Of course, this is correspondence-chess, but it would be a nice ratingfeature, to include the official FIDE/NATIONAL ratingnumber at the FICS-Ratingformula.
Benny
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-03 16:45:33)
Re: First mover loses
Hello Joachim.
"why nobody seems to enter these tournaments" : first because they are not open yet :)
As I said, this is only an example. New categories will be created, with formulas as simple and fair as possible, and other ones that could allow to low-rated players to meet strong titled players...
Anyway, all suggestions are welcome.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-11 06:16:23)
@ Sebastien Marez
Hello Sebastien.
That's always interesting to compare IECG and FICGS... Several players asked me about your forfeit in the previous tournaments, so I'm curious : Can I ask you why you finally came back to play some games at FICGS (after loosing about 240 points - future rating : 2204) ?? I suppose the time controls here are too slow for you (as Henri), do you have an idea about a "perfect" formula ?
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-20 21:57:03)
Go handicap and rating
Is handicap Go really nonsensical in rated tournaments?
While it seems so in a world championship, where the aim is to determine the stronger player in an absolute sense, why should it be so in a tournament, where the aim is to determine the best player in a relative sense... hum, not a very clean or clear sentence, but I hope you got the idea :-)
In face to face Go, in most amateur tournaments, it is not a problem, and you can win or loose a tournament, win or loose points, playing with an handicap (some tournaments set a limit lower than 9 in the number of handicap stones). I do not know the formulae used to compute the knew ratings, but in practice it works well. (and the same thing works also in Shogi tournaments)
Before WWII, even pros played with handicap (one or two stones at most, more commonly with a fixed color and no komi) and that *for money*!! Nowadays this is not the case anymore: maybe the increase of pro-tournament prizes change the noble way to be the best of two players fighting *their best* at their *respective* level!
Anyway, I think such an idea may be interresting to motivate players: when weaker, I will fight my best because I have a chance to win, and when stronger, I *have* to fight well :-)
We could think of a rating system where you play your first, say, 20 games without handicap to get a starting rating, and then to receive or give handicaps automatically in tournaments. We could then consider a rating as fixed after a bunch of 20 more games...
Or any other system that will always generate tense and dangerous games! That will be, at least for me, a great motivation to play more :-)
(but then I do not care much for my rating :-))
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-21 14:00:19)
French Go Federation rating
Here is a link that shows an example of rating that include handicap-go games
http://ffg.jeudego.org/echelle/echelle_algo.php
Just food for thought, but I like this system because of the balance betwenn fairness and challenge involved.
(sorry but these pages are in french only, but maybe we could check the ratings formulae in AGA?)
Jaimie Wilson (2007-01-08 18:00:37)
ECF ratings
There seem to be two formulae for converting between ECF (formerly the BCF) and FIDE ratings. The old one which still seems to be in use is ECF x 8 + 600 = FIDE ELO. A Newer formula I have seen is ECF x 5 + 1250 = FIDE ELO.
This newer formula rates ECF players higher on the FIDE scale than the old one did. I don't know which is more accurate although I certainly like to believe that the old formula underestimates us a little bit. It's as clear as mud.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-21 14:31:00)
Chess ratings
Hello to all.
I have been submitted this case :
"Rating system: Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200, 10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+ Case 1: Finished games: 01.01-28.02: 9= --> New rating 01.03: 2200 01.03., no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228 Case 2: Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2200 --> New rating 01.03. 2214 In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14. IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you finish in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod. That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings."
This result looks quite normal to me as a player's level may increase as time passes. Rating calculations are done after periods long enough to avoid big differences... I don't know if you're right about IECG rating calculation, FICGS ratings seem to evolve quicker and I think it's best. By the way this system is used by several chess federations.
Best wishes.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2007-01-21 15:16:26)
Chess ratings
I have formatted my message (and partly corrected) to be able to read the text better.
Rating system:
Look at this situation: Current rating ot the player: 2200,
10 games, all players with TER 2200, result 9=, 1+
Case 1: Finished games:
01.01-28.02: 9= New rating 01.03: 2200
01.03. 1+, no other finished games in this period: --> New rating 01.05: 2228
Case 2:
Finished games 01.01-28.02: 9=, 1+ --> New rating 01.03: 2214
In case 1 the value of the won game was 28, in case two it was 14.
IMO the value of a result should not depend from the number of games you have finished in a period. The value of a result only should depend on the rating of both players that they have at the start (preferable) or at the finish date of the game and the result. And the rating formula should be like
NewRating = LastRating + SumOfAllValuesOfFinishedGamesInThisPeriod.
That's the way (idea) IECG is computing the ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-29 19:51:24)
Double round-robin tournaments
Single round-robin tournaments with 7 players remains the very best option in my opinion. Shorter waiting time, more opponents... Playing White or Black against a particular opponent have consequences particularly in WCH tournaments, that is a choice but as there's no perfect system, the idea was to organize more cycles (about one every 6 months) for more chances. This way I'm convinced the best player will reach the final quite quickly :)
Double round robin tournaments with five players will be organized for special events (by the way this formula will not decrease the waiting time before a tournament starts... the more games in a tournament, the longer waiting time to begin another one, it doesn't depend on the number of players only)
Finally I think the idea of double round-robin tournaments with 5 players could be a good one for a new category, with a different time control (maybe longer ?!) .. What do you think ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-07 06:11:03)
Double RR tournaments
The point is there shouldn't have stronger (I mean really) players in class tournaments... Anyway, several players already asked not to change current formula & single round-robin tournaments.
But I'll organize more special events and / or I'll create a new category using double round-robin.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-05 15:43:46)
Go championship cycle
Finally ratings could be enough to give the best chances to the best players... Consequently the 9 highest rated players who entered the waiting list would play the round-robin tournament. That's a pity everyone can't play with this formula, but anyway chances to see 'surprises' is much lower in Go than in correspondence chess.
Nick Burrows (2007-05-12 20:45:57)
money
Im not sure that i follow the formulas correctly.
If i enter a 2 player gold tourney for 100 e-points, and win. Do i recieve a 150euro cash prize and 47 e-points?
What are the alternative payment methods to moneybookers? as i dont have a credit card.
Cheers, nick.
Garvin Gray (2007-07-11 16:15:47)
formula on here for norms
Yeah, it was the formula etc that I was after. I had already seen the information in the link before I asked the question
Mladen Jankovic (2007-07-09 19:14:25)
Re:
There is certainly a formula for calculating the number of points you have to win in order to get a certain norm.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-11 14:29:13)
Norms and titles
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#titles
.. true, the formula should be fully explained too.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 02:59:54)
New rule
Mladen and Jason, there's no need to add or respond to the provocation. Feel free to discuss the (IQ / chess rating) formula anywhere else.
I'm to add a new 'rule' in the terms & conditions : "Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator in private."
Of course, provocation is strictly forbidden also, at the moderator's discretion.
In example, in this thread : Mladen, Garvin and Jason would get a limited access this time.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 18:39:27)
Insults
Hello Andrew.
"Limited access to the server" means (like ICC) that a player still can play his moves, but can't post anymore, ie. on the forum. About tolerance, I have been less tolerant in the past, but like in any game, some turned round the rules and the result was not so good. Trust me, it is not possible to say after 15 messages (provocation -> insults) who "started" and who must be banned.
Anyway, "I will always beat you ! - Show me, let's play a game !" won't be considered as provocation, but provocation about the person (including the IQ / rating 'formula') has not its place in this forum IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-17 16:18:47)
Schuster-Figlio
I have... Definitely I don't like the "speed up" formula, that happened ie. in the Kramnik vs. Topalov match, it changes the nature of the match and adds some more 'random' factors, up to sudden death - White must win - which is no more chess. In our case this wouldn't be correspondence chess anymore (added to potential difficulties to play blitz games).
Anyway no rule can break the tie "properly", at least this rule allows the strongest player by rating (in case of 8 draws) to move to the next stage, which is quite logical IMO.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-21 22:00:03)
Tie Breaks
There are 8-games matches since the very first round, so this extra delay would happen each round (1d+1d/move means at least 4 months, also add vacation) :/ I think too long cycles is a problem. With the current formula a complete cycle (including the final match against previous winner) lasts 2 years and a half. If we add tie breaks, it could last between 4 & 5 years and more players may forget to play next rounds... I don't feel it, definitely.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-22 18:07:25)
Freestyle tournaments
Hi Garvin, indeed 5am is a bit hard to start a 2 or 3 hours crazy chess game :)
Anyway, this tournament may be postponed (E-Points given back), I did not spend time enough to promote it 'cause I'm working to sponsorize it by all ways, so I hope it will be more attractive in a few months :)
Also, I feel that a whole week-end each time is a bit hard for most players interested in this tournament, so the formula may change regularly, we could try next time a faster tournament not during the week end, then alternate...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-04-06 18:06:20)
time control
Once more, you are probably right about time controls.. just tried, but anyway, no formula will fit to everyone :( .. IMO the main points are the site has to improve yet and we need more players, then things should follow. Of course, feel free to make suggestions...
Two points :
- I just wonder if an 'open' waiting list is ok for such a tournament : Maybe players shouldn't be able to see the players who already entered the waiting list (cause of course everyone may wait to see who registered before to register...)
- Following some improvements, bronze games may become free soon. More players could familiarize with short time controls.
What do you think ?
Ulrich Imbeck (2008-04-14 19:05:39)
i tried to resign
In http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=move&game=15697
i tried to resign.
what does i have to do in the move formular?
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:36:18)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What a <1500 player like yourself "has always taken" is meaningless. What is objectively true and factual is what counts. As has been explained to you repeatedly, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings, not even to chess in fact. Are you beginning to understand or still confused?
Also, there is no simple (deduct x) formula to get a FIDE equivalent. Sometimes a national rating is worth more than a FIDE rating. There are various factors to consider.
There is no "magic" about a FIDE rating. You just need to play in FIDE rated events. I've beaten many FIDE rated players otb, including FMs. It's really no big deal.
I never said 2000 was some sort of "high rating", so don't start with the lies again Stephenson. But compared to a guy like you who is rated under 1500, I'm like a more evolved being. Is that why you're so frustrated to the point of stalking me as you're doing? Is it a combination of that and the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess? When are you going to get over that? When are you going to stop whining and crying?
Why don't we play fact to face otb chess, if you have lots of Euro to throw around as you're claiming. Fly to Canada and I'll play you a match for 5000 euro. First to win 6 games or something like that. I'd probably have to spot you 5/6 just to make the match somewhat competitive.
I never challenged you to bullet chess, my <1500 rated acquaintance, but that would be the only other way to play human mind vs human mind chess. I'm certainly not about to fly to the third world country you live in, just to beat some "C" class chess player in person.
Let's take a little tally here. I've already beaten you at correspondence chess, and you've made it clear you want no part of playing chess at time controls that doesn't allow you to consult your program, so I've effectively won that as well. What is left? Arm wrestling? I kinda like my chances there too!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-16 00:15:26)
Openings
Here are the current openings statistics (see /about.html) .. sorry, it is not Chessbase but I'll try to improve it with ie. a formula with ratings to see better what is played most at top level.
Chess openings :
Opening_name #games Line
Scandinavian 310 1.e4 d5
Modern 127 1.e4 g6
Pirc 260 1.e4 d6
Alekhine 208 1.e4 Nf6
French 674 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5
Caro-Kann 487 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5
Grand prix attack 91 1.e4 c5 2.f4
Morra gambit 173 1.e4 c5 2.d4
Alapin 196 1.e4 c5 2.c3
Closed sicilian 228 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3
Sicilian ...d6 1323 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6
Sicilian ...e6 243 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6
Sicilian ...Nc6 759 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6
Petroff 355 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6
Spanish 1038 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5
Italian 354 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
Ponziani 18 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3
Scotch 224 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4
King's gambit 207 1.e4 e5 2.f4
Vienna game 89 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3
Other e4 ... 1524 1.e4 ...
Dutch 181 1.d4 f5
Slav 353 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6
Queen's gambit acc. 181 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4
Queen's gambit dec. 353 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6
Albins counter gambit 18 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5
King's indian 203 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7
Grünfeld 104 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5
Catalan 36 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3
Nimzo-indian 302 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4
Benoni defense 136 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5
Budapest gambit 22 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5
King's knight opening 601 1.d4 Nf6 (... d5) 2.Nf3
Other d4 ... 1442 1.d4 ...
Reti opening 691 1.Nf3
Sleipner 136 1.Nc3
English 858 1.c4
Bird 177 1.f4
King's indian attack 84 1.g3
Orang Utan 143 1.b4
Grob's attack 12 1.g4
French attack 21 1.e3
Mieses opening 10 1.d3
Anderssen 21 1.a3
Thibault de Vassal (2008-06-25 12:03:42)
Khaled
Bonjour Khaled, il est également possible (peut etre plus efficace) d'envoyer un message à quiconque par le formulaire situé en bas de la page "My messages".
Cordialement,
Thibault
Marc Lacrosse (2008-07-27 19:36:41)
The specifics of match play ...
Tanks to FICGS championships interesting formula I just entered Wch 005 in a quarter final 8-games match (against GM Balabaev).
This is the first time I have to play several simultaneous games against the same opponent in correspondence play.
There are interesting questions related to this unusual kind of tournament.
First of all, what kind of opening(s) should you play, and more precisely is it better to vary or to go for the same opening in several games?
Having had a look at my opponents former games I had prepared quite a few options.
As Black I decided to rely on my favorite Bc5 sicilian defence
Four identical games developped and very soon it appeared that these games should be decisive for the whole match
For long I was afraid that my opponent could come with some decisive prepared analysis leading to a 4-0 lead ...
But the opposite happened and all four games ended (draw by position repetition) before I had left my opening prep, after less than one month of play.
Thus I am left with four games where I am white
A considerable advantage IMHO ...
On this precise topic I wonder what is the opinion of top players here : is it better to be the one who vary early or should you go along your favorite analysis as long as your opponent won't diverge himself in case of match play
I have never read anything on this topic anywhere ...
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-24 14:50:09)
Poker Holdem game duration
Well... as a correspondence poker holdem game may last about 500 moves at most, it is quite complicated to think about a multi stages tournament that would last 3 or 4 years... I think the current formula (looking like the Go championship) will be the one... waiting for a Poker freestyle cup :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-17 22:53:06)
Rules updated
I just made this change in the general rules & chess wch rules :
"11.6
There is no withdrawal, from any tournament, however in the case of multi-stages e.g. world championship tournaments, the games won't be rated if a player warns the referee before the tournament starts and at most 15 days after a new stage started but the first one, then a replacement will occur if possible. (this special rule is particularly dedicated to players surprisingly invited to an advanced wch stage, as it would take too much time to wait for confirmations from all qualified players)"
Don't hesitate to make suggestions if you think it can be better formulated. Thanks in advance.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-30 01:54:38)
Moves, ratings...
Thanks Don, I would have made more moves with a better broadband :/ .. If there was a formula taking account of ratings, moves & a lower weight for poker, Josef Riha would probably top the list !
William Taylor (2010-01-03 11:59:09)
ECF
English Chess Federation grades are available online here:http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/
They are very different to FIDE ratings, but can be converted fairly accurately using the formula: ECF x 8 + 650 = FIDE
As for go, I believe at least the Chinese, probably the Koreans, and possibly the Japanese do publish rating lists online, but it would be difficult for me to find them - your best bet is asking on godiscussions.com.
Ralph Deline (2010-03-12 19:36:04)
Rating calculation
Hi Thibault,
Thanks for your earlier explanation. I wanted to respond sooner but then when I was at the FICGS site, I saw another player, also confused about his chess rating, questioning you about it so I threw in my two cents. In my situation, my opponent was rated about 80 points higher so when I drew, I thought I would actually go up in ratings points instead of down. That is still confusing to me.
Maybe my age is catching up with me, but for fifty years or more, using the formula for establishing ratings in Canada, I was always under the impression that your score and your opponents ratings, with a bit of math thrown in, determined your rating. I know at one time it was possible to win a tournament and lose rating points but I believe that was corrected about a decade or so ago. I wasn't playing for over a decade so I'm not certain on dates.
However, let me acknowledge the fact that I understand what you are saying, play less, win more, and your rating will improve. But I still have a hurdle to overcome. When a lower rated player ties with a highed rated player, regardless of colour, why does he get penalized instead of rewarded for achieving a result that is performing above his present rating? It doesn't seem logical.
You are probably busy and I've taken enough of your time. I don't think I will understand any explanation, you know, can't teach an old dog new tricks, so you don't have to try to explain any further. I just wanted my voice to be heard.
I have had three gross blunders in the last half year so maybe I am playing too many games. I hate to do it, but maybe I will try playing less.
Thanks for listening.
Ralph
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-13 21:43:04)
Rating calculation
You have to make the difference between ratings updated in real time (like advanced chess ratings) & the FICGS correspondence chess rating calculation, the idea of those ratings updated every 2 months is to avoid peaks, consequently when you win, draw or lose three games after the last rating calculation, your future rating does not take account of the first result THEN the second one THEN the third one, it is actually completely recalculated by taking account of all results at the same time, so you DO NOT win or lose points AFTER EACH result, your performance is recalculated according to the formula explained in the rules & that looks like the french FIDE rating calculation. One thing that explains "strange" variations after 2 or 3 results only is that the rating calculation is just more accurate when you have many results & particularly when your score is near 50%.
That should answer to the discussions I had with Kamesh & Ralph, but maybe my explanations are not so clear, sorry about that again.
Garvin Gray (2010-11-03 11:16:59)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Wayne, not sure much can be done about the situations you are talking about. I guess they are just how it is when games are being played with tablebases.
I still think my suggestion will knock off some time from each round.
Perhaps, what could occur is that one player claims either for win or draw and the arbiter investigates by asking the other player how they plan to get their desired result.
I know this sounds rather wishy washy instead of being a nice formulated rule, but I am not trying to post a forumulated rule at this stage, until I know if I am going to be person responsible for pairings, being arbiter etc.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-18 00:24:38)
Silver chess games, W/B balance
Ok, I've just made an update... now we're to test the formula:
If result is 1-0, W+ 18.0 / B+ 1.8
If result is 1/2-1/2, W+ 8 / B+ 11.8
If result is 0-1, W+ 0 / B+ 19.8
Have fun :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-10 02:45:04)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I'm not clear enough, as too often :/
Let's say that there are 33 players over 2150 in the waiting list. 8 will play the knockout, 7 (over 2300) will play the M group and 18 will play in two N groups of 9 players. From the M group, 2 will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 will play round 2. From the N groups, 1 from each one will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 from each one will play round 2. So from these 33 players, 12 will play in the round-robin groups stage 2.
Maybe this formulation (that should be included into the wch rules) will be clearer:
"Players with a rating superior or equal to 2300 will play 1st stage in class M groups if possible. From these groups the two players obtaining the best score will qualify for the round-robin final stage 3, the player obtaining the lowest score will be eliminated, the others will play stage 2.
Other players with a rating superior or equal to 2150 will play 1st stage in class N groups if possible. From these groups the winner will qualify for the round-robin final, at most half the players from these groups will qualify for round 2."
Paul Valle (2011-05-03 23:40:03)
Starting Rating
First of all: This is a great site, and love the fact that the Thib interacts with users to improve the site. Many decent chess sites out there, but this is rare.
When it comes to starting ratings, I would like to add some ideas for improvement:
The point of ratings is that they should reflect playing strength.
Likewise, the goal with starting ratings is that it should reflect actual playing strength.
Rules for both should be as equal and fair as possible.
Assumption:
I) the composition of «Active Players» and their ratings here on FICGS, are a valuable source in guesstimating a new players rating. Most players here play aided by an engine and the site is free, so players here should reflect what comes in the door.
(BTW My minimum definition of an «Active Player», is someone who has made at least one move in the period leading up to the official rating list.)
II) Lightning rating is a good estimate of Correspondence Rating.
I further believe that any choices or complications made to the FIDE rules of one starting rating fits all, should mostly be done to aid good Advanced Chess Players, and good OTB-players. Such complications might not be fair, but essential for FICGS to be relevant to the elite.
My proposal:
«Newly Regs» have a choice of THREE options upon starting to play correspondence CHESS on FICGS:
A) Start with a set rating. I would suggest this be set at the average or median off all Active players. Or a fixed numerical constant times this average. You could of course set up all kinds of formulas, but the main point in should reflect the current composition of FICGS members and not estimates based on unverifiable data given by the player.
Some players might feel that they are way better than this and might be discouraged to join and fight for a long time to reach the top tournaments they feel they are entitiled to play. The seccond option is created to encourage these players to join, and give them a choice to prove their skill relativly quickly and accurately.
B) Play 10 preliminary lightning games (starting with the same rating as in A), and then using the end lightning rating as the starting rating for normal tournaments. These players will get a much more accurate starting rating, and may be well motivated to put in the effort if they care. (If all the 10 games went close to 60 moves, and both players used all their time, the playing time would be around 16 hours)
Then there are the top international correspondence or Over-The-Board players. Why bother these with 10 lightning games?
C) Titled players can start in Master with a higher fixed rating (same as in option A, but multiplied with a higher constant), but must register by credit card to prove identity.
Possible drawbacks and problems
1) Assumption I and/or II is flawed
2) A poor player might be highly overrated choosing option A)
3) Players can dump lightning rating points to a friend
4) Implementation cost – development
-What ya think folks?
reg, Paul
Scott Nichols (2012-02-24 20:56:24)
Folding in Poker
I don't know what you did or why with the rating formula, and it doesn't matter anymore. I took some time off from poker, but now I resolve to be back on top by the end of the year, :) At least my peak of 2258 has never been approached.
Garvin Gray (2012-02-25 13:57:13)
Folding in Poker
Ok, the main question to me is-
Which system is more able to predict the rules of a match before it begins?
If it was the first system, then that should return. If it is the current system, then keep it.
A more responsive system is usually better, but in the case of ficgs, this may not be good for two reasons:
1) While in otb chess/poker, there are very few mass time outs by a player, online this can occur, as is seen 'regularly' on here.
2) In otb chess, players do not have any kind of official rating until they have played a certain number of games.
This then means those early games to not affect all the other players ratings, which is not the case on here.
In terms of predictive accuracy, which is more accurate? That is the only consideration for me.
When I said that the ratings should be re-run, I did not mean we should start the ratings from scratch and begin from day one.
What I was saying is that ALL the previous results should be re-fed back into the system with the new rating formula and the ratings adjusted accordingly.
Then this would give information to compare as it would contain one set of ratings all measured by the same rating formula.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-24 15:01:32)
Ficgs World Cup
Following discussions about slow tournament entries, bracket and band rating issues and many other topics, a common item that came out of those discussions is that trying a modified version of the ficgs world championship is worth a trial.
So Ficgs World Cup sounds like a good name.
Format:
In the Ficgs world championship, there are many different qualifying stages, depending on your finishing position from the last cycle, your rating at the time of entry and the strength and total number of the other entrants.
While this format is very good for the concept envisaged when it was created, I think a ficgs world cup, with a format that will be explained below is required to cover a few gaps that are in the ficgs world championship.
The ficgs world cup will work as follows.
1) Everyone enters before a certain date, say June 1st 2012.
2) As soon as entries close, that is it. Entries are not taken after this date and there are NO replacements. The groups are meant to be of equal strength. Adding a new player can distort this.
3) Entrants are then divided into groups of roughly equal strength. Highest rated person is seed 1 in Group A, 2nd highest rated person is seed 1 in Group B. Serpentine pairings are used to allocate all players to each group.
4) How many players and how many groups is determined after the entries have closed. I would think that there will be probably 11 groups of 11 players (121 entries in total). It might be likely that we have to have three stages, depending on total number of entries.
5) 1 person from each group qualifies for the final stage. This is determined by total score, total wins and then TER. This does differ from the tie break formula of the FicgsWCH.
Pros:
1) Everyone gets a game against players of different ratings, no segregated groups or players
2) Everyone starts from stage one
3) The format is clear to understand
Cons:
1) May not be as tempting to the highest rated players (fear of loss of rating points)
2) Might take longer to finish
In my opinion, this is a format that deserves a couple of trial events to see if it is successful
Herbert Kruse (2015-12-14 10:48:02)
TER rating calculation
ok, i formula is not really good, but i can deal with it.
the reason for all of this is, that in a match someone has the advantage of winning with 8 draws, if his TER is higher
Herbert Kruse (2016-09-12 00:07:19)
Rating calculation gain/loss
what is the bonus if % is 93.5 or 93.75 or 93.25
is there a formula or just the table?
Kym Farnik (2018-02-16 09:21:20)
Stockfish 9 released
FYI Development builds now have dynamic contempt.
Author: Stefano Cardanobile
Date: Fri Feb 9 19:07:19 2018 +0100
Timestamp: 1518199639
Introduce dynamic contempt
Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position.
The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide
on the contempt to use during a search :
contempt = x + y * eval
where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option,
and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of
the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch,
we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go
from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20
centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns.
To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if
Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-05-01 22:25:17)
Ratings inflation period
May 2018 ratings : the first effects are quite visible. A few players, who finished many games, actually more games than I expected, made a very good operation (not a problem as points always spread with time). I updated the formula to make it more coherent next time : 10 points per game, now power 0.8, will be added to the bonus.
Wilhelm Schuett (2018-08-15 19:30:46)
How to pass in the game?
How to pass in the game? I see no button or formular where i can pass.
Steven DuCharme (2019-05-23 01:40:02)
New rating system
Start at 10K. Draws don't affect ratings. Ratings adjust via formula 250 - number of loser's moves. Combined adjustment is neitral. No floor or ceiling. ur welcome
Juri Eintalu (2021-09-11 14:07:41)
VENEZUELA HAS BEEN DISMISSED FROM ICCF
"Juri - Quite a few of your questions contain quite a lot of accusations..." (Garvin Gray)
I just shared information about the decision of the ICCF. Garvin Gray demanded twice that I should ask some questions. Finally, I formulated some questions that can come to mind for the ordinary reader. Now, Garvin Gray declares that I have made a lot of accusations, but the questions are not accusations. Therefore, I do not participate in this conversation anymore.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-03-13 23:17:02)
Post-tickets FICGS
The long answer:
FICGS story is a quite simple & classic one, the reasons why it's declining are quite obvious, and unfortunately the solutions aren't. A bit of story:
1. Luckily, FICGS.com was created when there were a demand, just after IECG stopped... It grew very quickly, and I was in a rush to code it (FICGS was the very first dynamic website I ran from A to Z), there were ideas from everywhere. FICGS.com was the shortest domain name available, but not a so good one. Quite hard to remember, hard to tell, not clear for search engines (unlike chess.com which is a perfect one). Maybe it was a mistake to choose it, I can't tell. Either it meant "Free Internet Chess Games Server" or "Free Internet Correspondence Games Server", so I added another game, Go (Weiqi), to FICGS, which is a quite heavy decision: After that, FICGS is not only a chess server anymore.
2. A few years after, there are several thousands players (a few hundreds active). The number of new players slowly decreases month after month but a few sponsors come. Obviously, the way I coded FICGS made it more and more difficult to fully update from a PHP version to another one, or to change it in deep. Even now, I'm not sure to regret it though cause I couldn't have done it differently, so it is what it is. At this time, chess.com was less interesting than FICGS (my taste), but success is already here thanks to a perfect marketing formula: best domain name & pay for options. On the contrary, I chose to keep FICGS completely free.
3. Chess engines explode, correspondence chess continues its evolution (human's thinking decreases in moves decision), finally I add another game that is in a hype: poker texas holdem. New sponsors come, I still play correspondence chess myself but now I play another game even more: Google. FICGS also extends this way and it works in some ways. At its peak, FICGS is about the 32,000th most visited website worldwide. But the number of players continues to decrease, Android & phones started to change the landscape already. Chess.com released its app and added probably its best feature: a quick Stockfish analysis with evaluation & explanation for each move (which is excellent for blitz games but quite a non-sense for a correspondence chess website).
4. The number of players suddenly declines very quickly, I react by creating FICGS apps for Android, a dozen apps... On some apps, you can play against the machine, virtual opponents, chess 960, blindfold & so on. But the way to maintain it is not easy at all for many reasons, but the main one is that Google (Playstore) constantly change technical things & rules. After a few years, I even have to completely remake it, losing what was acquired. And some apps still fail to re-appear at Playstore, that's why I just made the APK files available to direct download. But these applications confirm something clear: blitz is more fun and attracts much more players. Changing rating ranges for correspondence chess tournaments or championships formats won't be a solution for this.
5. FICGS is now 20 years old! Internet completely changed over the years but it survived longer than Messenger, Skype & many other great services. If you look at many websites, new versions of their modern interfaces are often worst (bugs or options) than previous ones. FICGS was never perfect, maybe even clear, but at least it remained coherent. Now Google (just like all major services) is mainly governed by AI, sponsors left - that does not change anything, FICGS will continue to run. I created other websites, but none so far successfully helped in a way or another to solve the problem we encounter here: how to increase the number of correspondence chess, Go or poker players again? If FICGS becomes a pure correspondence chess site again with a brand new interface, I'm quite sure that wouldn't change anything or almost. I might be wrong of course, but according to me, this is a deep problem, connected to society evolutions, computers, phones, our attention, time, even health & so on... In my personal case, I wish to play correspondence chess again, but still cannot find the time to do it. Finally I have no idea what internet will look like within 5 years, but FICGS will be there. Maybe an AI will find a solution soon ^^ Meanwhile, I received many ideas to improve FICGS and I have to thank you very much for this. Few ideas were released for reasons I explained here (but new ones are always wecome), I hope you'll better understand it by reading this.
Have good games & take care!
There are 2 results for formula in wikichess.
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bd3 Ng6 Be3 cxd4 cxd4 Bb4+ Nc3 O-O O-O a6 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 b5 Ng5 h6 Nh3 Qh4 Qf3 Bb7 Qe2 Rac8
Formulaic. An immediate ..f4 would be so much better.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Wilhelm Schuett (1800)
Nh3
1/Played by French amateur chess player Charles Amar in the 1930s, this opening is also known as the Drunken Knight Opening, or the Ammonia Opening (NH3 is the chemical formula of the ammonia).
There is no particular interest in choosing to play NH3, and it is therefore considered as an irregular opening. It prepares for kingside castling, but so would NF3...
2/Here is the "Sodium Attack", an very rarely opening played in profssional tournaments,the interest of this
Non-orthodoxe opening,is to control cells g5
and f4 in One also move... to prépare the attack on column f, with bishop on c1 at thé 3th.move, and to prépare the casting, so of course!
Paul,Emma& Sandra Brand-Lyard. 2021/07/24th.
============
Contributors : Benjamin Block, Normajean Yates, Florian Cafiero, PaulSandra Brand-Lyard
aka "The Sandra Lyard13061975-03081997 Inventor
Chess variants Annapurna' séries., Wilhelm Schuett
FICGS : formula , Wikipedia : formula , Dmoz : formula , Google : formula , Yahoo : formula
That's what Chess is all about. One day you give your opponent a lesson, the next day he gives you one. (Bobby Fischer)
Fischer prefers to enter Chess history alone. (Miguel Najdorf)
Best by test: 1. e4 (Bobby Fischer)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess