henri
FICGS - Search results for henri
There are 38 results for henri in the forum.
Henri Muller (2006-04-10 10:56:31)
success
Bravo et félicitations à Thibault !
Un TRES grand et mérité succès pour ce nouveau site. Bien pensé, bien ordonné, et....facile ( quand on s'y est fait !! )
Il y a qqs jours quand je me suis inscrit, j'étais le 39ème. Il y a déjà plus de 120 membres....et cela continue !
J'espère que Thibault sera en mesure d'assumer ce ghrand succès, car le travail ne manquera pas !
COURAGE - BONNE CHANCE ert....FELICITATIONS !!
hm
Henri Muller (2006-04-11 16:48:16)
langage
I choice also the French langage if it is possible !!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-11 18:30:35)
Henri...
Of course it is :) Thanks for your help.
Henri Muller (2006-04-16 18:11:51)
tournament formules
personnellement je préfère de loin 10 coups/40 jours.
Ne changez rien, c'est parfait....sinon certaines parties (perdues ) "trainent" lamentablement !!
Henri Muller (2006-04-16 18:14:39)
some whiches/qqs souhaits.
Pourquoi pas songer aussi à des matches entre DEUX joueurs ?? ( nombre de parties au choix et à déterminer au début !?)
Graham Wyborn (2006-04-25 17:42:52)
Please join:-
I joined this site recently and still have not started a game!
Forgive the advert 4 the following games.
We need one more player!
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000002
(type : rated round-robin, time : 40 days, increment : 40 days / 10 moves)
7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent)
elo : 1600-2000
Cridland, Graham (USA) 1700
Grady, Richard (USA) 1654
Höppenstein, Michael (DEU) 1700
Fillion, Nicolas (CAN) 1640
Wyborn, Graham (GBR) 1700
Muller, Henri-Louis (BEL) 1923
Henrik Dinesen (2006-05-07 16:35:13)
I'm lost here...
I log in, but I can't find a way to start a game, or enter a tournament.
Should I leave imidiatly becaurse stupity or "blindness"?
"Anything" I see seem to indicate the first, but ??
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-07 21:14:00)
"Help"
Hello Henrik. Sorry if this is not clear enough. Maybe try first to read help section, then take a look at the waiting lists : choose a tournament category, ie. "class tournaments", then click on a tournament name and follow the instructions. (you enter a waiting list after 4 clicks)
Have good games...
Henri Muller (2006-05-19 11:33:45)
délai de reflexion
Il me semble qu'il existe un sérieux problème dans le système de décompte des jours de réflexion.
Il suffit de jouer qques coups, et on dispose ainsi de plus de 40 jours de rélexion!!! Aberrant. N'y aurait-t-il pas moyen de faire un double décompte, en obligeant le joueur à jouer AU MOINS UN COUP tous les 5 ou 6 jours ?
Ainsi, un joueur a répondu aux DEUX premiers coups de la partie, et il dispose de 40 jours de réflexion !!??
Un tournoi, à cette allure, si les deux joueurs s'y mettent, peut durer des ANNEES !!.... ce n'est certainement pas le but du concepteur !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-19 11:43:00)
re : Délai de réflexion
Bonjour Henri.
Ce sont là ni plus ni moins les règles des échecs par correspondance ! :) Une partie peut en effet durer un an dans certains cas, et c'est souvent le cas dans d'autres organisations. Force est de constater que les parties se déroulent ici beaucoup plus rapidement que dans d'autres organisations, mais il n'y a pas d'autres règles de temps raisonnables (ce n'est pas faute d'y avoir pensé). Tout le monde ne peut pas jouer aussi rapidement, il est quasi impossible de trouver une demi mesure entre les cadences classiques et les cadences par correspondance utilisant un incrément d'un jour par coup minimum...
Henri Muller (2006-05-23 09:43:09)
Time reflexion !!
Je rejoins en partie la note de Wayne Lowrance.
Il y a quelque chose d'incorrect dans le décompte du temps de réflexion.
Il suffit de jouer les 10 premiers coups très rapidement, et on dispose ensuite de 60 jours de réflexion !!!
Ainsi, un joueur, sur le point d'être maté, peut attendre DEUX mois avant de répondre !? Et certaines parties traînent ainsi lamentablement....par manque de fair-play de l'adversaire. Aberrant !
Pourquoi pas limiter une réponse à 5 ou 7 jours de réflexion MAXIMUM - tout en conservant le décompte habituel.
Il FAUT donc répondre endéans les 5 ou 7 jours ( ou perdre la partie ). Cette pratique est courante partout !!
Henri-Louis Muller (2006-05-29 14:49:35)
delai de reflexion
Merçi pour les commentaires et la réponse.
Il y a à boire et à manger dans tout cela.
Mais je me rallie à vos opinions à tous. Il est vrai que le jeu par correspondance est aussi - parfois - un jeu de patience !
Henri-Louis Muller (2006-07-04 09:39:01)
temps de reflexion
Je suis également d'avis qu'il existe un très sérieux problème concernant le temps de réflexion dans les parties !
Un joueur peut ainsi rester "trainer"
avec une partie durant DES MOIS sans jouer, et sans AUCUNE justification !
Il faudrait aussi reglementer la durée PAR coup et non seulement sur la totalité des coups joués.
J'ai CINQ parties dans le même cas :perte certaine de l'adversaire, et on attend 50 à 90 jours avant de répondre ou de dépasser le temps !!
Evidemment, le fair-play et la sportivité jouent aussi un rôle.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 12:02:45)
triche et fair-play
Bonjour Henri-Louis.
Encore une fois cela fait partie intégrante du jeu par correspondance... Il n'est pas rare que les joueurs "gèrent" leurs défaites et victoires dans le temps pour les faire coincider avec les calculs de classement de leur choix. Le problème est identique à l'ICCF et ailleurs, et il n'y a aucune solution ou règle raisonnable pouvant régler le problème. Lorsqu'on a compris que le jeu par correspondance est une question de plusieurs mois, on finit par comprendre que le problème est somme toute négligeable...
De nombreuses parties jouées sur le serveur sont jouées beaucoup plus rapidement qu'à la normale, cela n'empêche qu'il s'agit d'échecs par correspondance, avec la cadence du jeu par correspondance. Diminuer le temps par coup ne changerait absolument pas le problème si tu y réfléchis bien. Quoiqu'il en soit, concernant la partie dont tu avais fait appel, qu'elle se termine maintenant ou fin aout, ça ne change rien, elle sera prise en compte dans le classement de septembre.
Pour finir, je rappelle qu'il existe une cadence "rapide" (tournois rapides, championnat), c'est donc le choix de chacun. Patience :)
Henri Muller (2006-07-10 14:02:17)
Football W.Ch.2006
Rideau !! Italie Championne du Monde !! TRES bien !!
Mais quelle belle "sortie" de MONSIEUR Z.Zidane. Sans aucune excuse.
Inadmissible ! à ce niveau, à ce stade et comme professionnel!!
Quel bel exemple aussi pour les jeunes !!
Heureusement que l'Italie a gagné finalement.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-10 15:51:29)
Zidane / Materazzi... provocations
Les esprits sont encore à vifs après ce moment fort du sport...
Un fil sur un événement extérieur aux échecs ou au Go ne me parait pas de trop ici, c'est une manière comme une autre d'échanger, personne n'est obligé de lire.
Je suis d'accord sur le fond avec Henri, même si la forme est un peu rude... Je suis d'accord sur le fond avec Marc pour le signaler, mais la forme est clairement TROP rude.
Nous ne sommes pas sur un terrain de football, mais un minimum de bon sens sur la forme est bienvenu où que ce soit, peu importe les sujets abordés ici et le fond du propos ! .. le coup de tête de Zidane était de trop, quelle qu'en soit la raison et ce post aussi.
J'espère que cet échange s'arrêtera ici, en tout cas sous cette forme, sans quoi j'aurai le grand bonheur de devoir modérer... :(
Bonne journée à tous...
Henri-Louis Muller (2006-07-12 09:19:01)
foorball world cup
On est quand même sur un forum où TOUTES les idées peuvent être débatues. Que l'on soit belge, français ou autre !!C'est du moins ce que je pensais !
En ce qui me concerne, l'incident est clos ( ici du moins !!) et je rejoins les observation pertinentes de Thibault !
Bonnes parties....d'échecs à tous !
Henri-Louis Muller (2006-07-12 09:20:06)
(repetition)
Henri-Louis Muller (2006-07-12 09:27:38)
Football world cup
Cher Monsieur Lacrosse,
Je pense que même un Belge peut avoir son opinion sur le sujet !!??.... sur un forum, quel qu'il soit.
Mais je ne désire pas poursuivre cette polémique ni répondre à une provocation.
Bonnes parties....d'échecs !
Henri Muller (2006-09-18 09:39:42)
match vs gameKnot
I have a great experience to play in Gameknot and can say that ALL( or MIN 95%) players with a rating above 1600 elo uses a chess-engine !!
Dirk Ghysens (2006-09-18 10:33:56)
Not all, Henri
I know of two exceptions:
1. Yelena Dembo, FIDE rating 2466, WGM, IM, and a GM norm; rating at Gameknot 1775;
2. Marius Ceteras, FIDE rating 2427, FM (he missed IM title due to a strange decision by FIDE officials), very well-known correspondence chess personality, chess publisher, organiser etc.; rating at Gameknot 1740 (not in top 2000 there and loses regularly against 1800 rated patzers).
Unfortunately Yelena Dembo is no longer playing at Gameknot; they threw her out.
Also Marius Ceteras has no ongoing games there during the past month.
So you may be right after all: most players above 1600 are using a chess engine (except the WIMs, WGMs, FMs, and IMs rated below 1800), and certainly all players above 1800 (with one possible exception, a WIM from Holland/Russia, who managed a rating slightly above 1800, but she got thrown out also, for being a nuisance).
BTW, it boggles my mind why the use of tablebases is allowed there; unlike engines, tablebases tell you the perfect move to play and what the outcome will be with 100% certainty.
Henri Muller (2006-09-19 12:53:49)
match GameKnot-FICGS
Hello Dirk (Ghysens )
Accordingly with you, there are exceptions - I said that 95% players from GameKnot used computers ! Therefore not 100% !!
Henri-Louis Muller (2006-11-03 11:19:19)
temps de réflexion
j'ai entendu - et j'en fais partie - énormément de plaintes et de discussions concernant le temps de réflexion !
Il est en effet totalement aberrant, illogique et...décevant, de devoir attendre parfois PLUS de 60 jours afin qu'une partie soit déclarée perdue par dépassement de temps - d'un adversaitre qui ne répond plus !!
Ceci est d'autant plus illogique que cett façon d'agir profite à celui qui commet cette...aberration. L'erreur profite donc au fautif !??
Je connais des joueurs qui quittent FICGS pour cette raison !? Dommage.
Mais il doit exister une solution....!!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-03 12:03:47)
temps de réflexion
Bonjour Henri-Louis.
Disons les choses... Ceci est clairement un sujet sans fin et sans solution, discuté sur les forums d'échecs par correspondance (ICCF, IECG etc...) depuis leur création. C'est mathématique, le problème est né de la lenteur de certaines cadences (40 jours + 40 jours / 10 coups), d'où le choix d'une cadence de 30 jours + 1 jour / coup pour les tournois rapides, peu demandés à haut niveau, et le championnat.
Et comme le dirait un certain Dominique de Villepin, j'entends ceux qui se plaignent, mais j'entends également ceux qui ne se plaignent pas :) ... J'ai lancé un fil il y a quelques semaines sur les temps de réflexion, les seules réponses que j'ai eues étaient claires : "Ne changez rien !" .. Tous les joueurs n'ont pas les mêmes dispositions de temps pour jouer aux échecs par correspondance, j'ai simplement mis en place la formule qui à mon avis peut convenir au plus grand nombre.. Pour certains, les cadences lentes sont trop rapides (je ne blague pas), pour d'autres les cadences rapides sont trop lentes... A cela je n'ai pas de solution raisonnable, je suis à peu près certain qu'aucune amélioration sensible ne peut être apportée dans un sens ou l'autre sans que beaucoup de joueurs ne s'en plaignent... La règle des 60 jours ne s'applique en général qu'à ceux qui abandonnent leurs parties et qui n'en tirent donc aucun avantage. Pour les autres, si la limite était fixée à 30 jours, cela ne changerait rien, avec un coup joué tous les 30 jours pour faire "durer", le temps total de la partie serait le même...
Le nombre de plaintes est très faible pour plus de 4000 parties arbitrées. A moins d'une meilleure idée qui satisferait tout le monde, je pense qu'il faut laisser les choses en l'état.
Amicalement, Thibault.
Henri-Louis Muller (2006-11-04 08:55:34)
temps de réflexion
Hello Thibaut,
de toute manière, merçi pour ta réponse !.....même si elle n'arrange rien !! ( ceci dit en toute amitié)
Il y aura tjs deux camps qui s'opposeront. Dans la famille (sic !) nous sommes assez rapides, d'où une certaine incompréhension du système.
Blague à part, je connais (au moins TROIS) des joueurs qui ne jouent plus à cause de ce temps de réflexion "incompréhensible" pour eux !
Moi non plus, je ne comprends pas qu'un certaine joueur dispose encore de 2 jours de réflexion, puis soudain, il en a à nouveau une bonne vingtaine. Je ne cherche pas à comprendre, mais c'est un fait. Il y a des cas où il faudra attendre 60 jours ou plus, pour gagner la partie, car l'adversaire ne répond plus !!! Logique ?? Normal ?? Sportif ??
Le débat est loin d'être clos et acquis !
Amicalement - hlm
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 ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-12 09:45:31)
Google videos
A 20-minutes chess film by Krzymowski Chess TV Production about 2005 European Individual Chess Championship in Warsaw, Poland :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1209188319682979542&q=chess&hl=en
Including interviews with Vassily Ivanchuk, Agnieszka Brustman, Henrik Carlsen, Bartlomiej Macieja, Teimour Radjabov, Baadur Jobava, Sergey Karjakin, Charles Crawford (the British Ambassador), Boris Kutin (President of the European Union), Horst Metzing (Secretary of the German Chess Federation) and last but not least, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony :)
Also to see on Google video : Korchnoi beaten by a cow, Alexandra Kosteniuk playing blitz.....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2085861679131106209&q=chess&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7759628193600089422&q=chess&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7831006117106424885&q=chess&hl=en
The history of computer chess (conference, 2 hours and 6 minutes !)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1583888480148765375&q=chess&hl=en
Jason Repa (2008-05-04 07:45:33)
From??
I agree with most of what you said, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to conclude that all variations of the From's Gambit are busted. We might end up finding out that some variations of it are fine for Black.
I also disagree with your statement that "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". Assuming I'm willing to hypothetically go along with the argument that there's supposedly something "wrong" with 1.f4, even though it's at worst a Dutch Defense a move up......you're not taking into consideration the fact that some people actually do more than "play" correspondence chess and want to practice lines they play in live tournaments. 1.f4 has been played by many of the world's greatest players, and in serious competitive tournaments. Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker, and many others have played 1.f4 occasionally, and there are many current IM's and even a GM (Henrik Danielsen) who have played it quite frequently.
Perhaps your idea of "playing chess" is to simply plug a position into various chess engines and mindlessly relay the moves your program suggests, but as for myself, I use the data I acquire from my cc games to prepare for my real chess (chess between human mind vs human mind). Anything other than that is just analysis or group study at best.
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:46:43)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"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"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""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 "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:57:07)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"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"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""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 "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
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 (2009-01-03 19:02:44)
A world champion with no privilege ?!
... finally, looks like even the top GM are decided to kill the show in the FIDE WCH cycle :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5129
>> Address by Mr Henrik Carlsen on behalf of GM Magnus Carlsen
"(...) In a future Magnus would like to see a world championship cycle with a minimum of privileges, or no privileges at all.
(...) What about the privileges of the reigning World Champion? This is a difficult question but we see strong arguments for reducing the privileges drastically or even abolishing them outright. In the past, with the right to a re-match, a reigning world champion had about 75% chance of retaining the title against an evenly strong opponent, leaving only 25% chance for all the remaining chess players in the world. It was ridiculous. Even without rematches, the 50% chance of today strongly favours the reigning champion. This may have made sense in the past when there were few serious contenders for the title, but today, with about 30 top players within 100 rating points of the top, this is no longer fair."
There are many good points but I'm not sure the game will win at the end. Any opinion ?!
Henri Muller (2009-11-21 18:38:03)
marc lacrosse
hello marc!! on s'est connu à l'occasion de nombreux échanges d'idées - sur les échecs et autres.
Nous avons aussi joué qqs parties ensemble. Mais que s'est-il donc passé ?? Je viens seulement d'apprendre la triste et pénible nouvelle. Repose en paix, Marc. Je pense que tes amis - tu en avais bcp ! - se souviendront de toi comme d'un joueur au fair-play exemplaire ; aux idées larges et à la compréhension totale et amicale de tes adversaires. Tu nous manqueras. Adieu l'ami.
Henri-Louis Muller (2010-02-08 09:19:50)
temps de reflexion !
j'ai l'impression que certaines pendules de mes adversaires fonctionnent à l'envers. Hier un joueur qui n'a plus répondu depuis plus de 3 semaines, avait encore 3 jours de disponibles . Ce jour, le lendemain donc, sa pendule était remontée à 4 jours ( au lieu de 2 !!) !!! Dröle de décompte. Quelqu'un a-t-il déjà constaté de tels faits ??
Henri Muller (2010-02-08 12:27:54)
temps de reflexion !
Exact Brice ! MAIS mon adversaire n'a plus répondu depuis près de 25 jours et il a bénéficié d'un jour de réflexion EN PLUS !!?? Comprends pas ??
Il lui restait TROIS jours hier, et aujourd'hui QUATRE jours, et ce sans qu'il ait joué de coup !!?? Bizarre non ??
Brice Boucher (2010-02-08 13:10:36)
temps de reflexion !
ok Henri, alors peu etre a t il prit un jour de "vacance" ? cela lui aurait ajouter un jour.
Henri-Louis Muller (2010-02-08 15:49:13)
temps de reflexion !
hello Brice ! ben NON - il n'a pas pris de vacances et RIEN n'est indiqué - sauf qu'il a déjà perdu d'autres parties au temps !!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-13 19:52:28)
List ordered by rating
Here is, but as usual the new ratings (january 2012) will be taken in account...
Erwin Thiering 2515
Michael Bergmann 2475
Xavier Pichelin 2454
Thibault de Vassal 2449
Herbert Kruse 2436
Pavel Háse 2332
Ljubomir Tsenkov 2314
Rubén Cómes 2300
Wayne Lowrance 2266
Dariusz Fraczek 2261
Ramil Germanes 2255
Miroslav Gazi 2255
Alexander Blinchevsky 2253
Michael Sharland 2251
Sergey Kokoryukin 2251
Andrey Razumikhin 2250
Valery Nemchenko 2245
Lubos Fric 2241
Kevin D. Plant 2237
Christoph Schroeder 2236
Viktor Shishkin 2234
Slobodan Ilic 2218
Dmitri Mamrukov 2211
Vitaly Rudenko 2203
Alvin Alcala 2203
Carlos Sánchez 2203
Garvin Gray 2200
Scott Nichols 2189
Peter Unger 2181
Martin Zeman 2181
Christian Koch 2167
Stephen Hamby 2163
John Schutte 2136
David Evans 2132
Nelson Bernal Varela 2130
Darren DiAlfonso 2123
Ardiantez Polkwitzauer 2123
Thomas Dineen 2118
Peter W. Anderson 2112
Steve Lim 2110
Yu Ming Hoe 2100
Arkadiusz Wosch 2093
Djordje Kasabasic 2093
Luis Flores 2084
Daniel Parmet 2083
Lalit Kapoor 2080
Erik L. van Dijk 2074
Bernd Wolf 2072
Jose Lopez 2071
Sergey Uzdin 2064
Rodolfo d Ettorre 2064
Janos Helmer 2063
Om Prakash 2053
Mykola Simashkevitch 2043
Alexis Duenas 2037
Ireneusz Kasznia 2036
Mihail Larsky 2028
Joop Simmelink 2026
Pan Hardfeldt 2020
Henri Muller 2000
Jaroslav senior Pech 2000
Jaroslaw Gibas 2000
Bogoljub Teverovski 1997
Willy De Waele 1996
Fernando Vasquez 1992
Jose Moreira 1979
Andrew Endean 1975
Henri-Louis Muller 1972
Jose Maria Velasco 1972
Jordi Domingo 1969
Janeen Walden 1958
Andy Richard 1956
Roberto Migliorini 1949
Erika van Dijk 1943
Daniel Reboredo 1938
Coco Maceda 1938
Michael Rogers 1933
Aleksandr Aksenov 1927
Mariusz Maciej Broniek 1923
Robert Wilhelm 1901
Kieran Moore 1900
John Dyson 1889
Catalin Nita 1888
Daniel Jabot 1878
Johanes Suhardjo 1875
Mikhail Ruzin 1871
Benjamin Block 1863
Ilmar Ambos 1859
Vyacheslav Shchelykalin 1859
Jan Peter Lommler 1844
Stanislas Gounant 1840
Mircea Hrubaru 1838
Sasha Lipsits 1833
Nilson Pereira 1833
Aleksey Payzansky 1804
Jai Prakash Singh 1800
Fredi Brumec 1800
Gleen Duran 1800
Josef Strohmeier 1800
Ryszard Sternik 1776
Stepan Pech 1767
Dieter Faust 1764
Dmitriy Malish 1760
Dimitrios Ropokis 1743
Hasan Kirali 1715
Eddit Moreul 1700
Behzad Shahmiri 1700
Jaimie Wilson 1684
Dinesh Bhandarkar 1682
Philip Roe 1667
Olli Ylönen 1660
Graham Cridland 1655
Juan Alvar 1653
Jeremy Banta 1644
Luís Gonzaga Grego 1643
Pablo Siciliano 1623
Mariusz Jandula 1600
Sergey Biryukov 1598
Alejandro Canovas 1589
Jimmy Huggins 1577
Matthew O Brien 1575
Pablo Ruano 1565
Khaled Toutaoui 1528
Stanimir Denchev 1505
Leo Malagar 1500
Richard Hendricks 1479
Eric Price 1469
Antonio Pereira 1456
Angelo Piantadosi 1420
Simon Huxtable 1388
Peter Krakovsky 1326
Marc-Antoine Leurette 1243
Jorge Orden 1204
Hana Pechova 1204
Jorma Häkkinen 1192
Des Jefferis 1186
Deon Whittaker 1111
Matej Pech 1074
Jiri Mach 1022
Cédric Cavaillé 1003
Jay Melquiades 0909
Jaroslav Pech 0697
There are 129 results for henri in wikichess.
Peter Marriott (1816)
g4
Grob's Attack named after Swiss IM Henri Grob (1904-74).
White intends to put pressure along the h1-a8 diagonal while also threatening to launch a Kingside pawn storm.
The opening is considered inferior for White (-0.32 at this stage of analysis 29/06/2008), but it avoids endless theoretical discussions and cannot be avoided by Black. The positions are often highly tactical and natural play by Black may lead him into several traps.
Evaluation notes from Kjetil Prestesaeter:
I have added all known named lines plus other lines favored by Rybka (Rybka 2.3 mp 32-bit, 17ply). Many of the named lines seem to be more romantic than strong. Please extend the analysis if you have spare time and computer power.
Notes by Peter Marriott:
I used to use the Grob in many blitz games I have played against humans. I actually had good success, not because it is a good move, but because it confused many players. On a chess server, I actually achieved a rating from 16-1700 by playing it. Many, many players simply responded by ...d5 and after I played Bg2, they took the g4 pawn, which led me to win a whole bunch of games by playing 3.c4, with an eye on b7. Maybe the right way to play this for black is simply to play 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 then c6. Then white wonders what he's gonna do (At least I did!)
============
Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Gary Gruwé, Kjetil Prestesaeter, Peter Marriott
Henri-Louis Muller (1991)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 e3 Nf6 Be2
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 fxe4 Nxe4 Nf6
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1991)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 e3 Nf6 Be2 Nc6 O-O
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1991)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 e3 Nf6 Be2 Nc6 O-O g6 c3
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1991)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 h3 e6 g4 b5 Bg2
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 fxe4 Nxe4 Nf6 Qe2 d5
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1991)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 h3 e6 g4 b5 Bg2 Bb7 O-O
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1991)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 e3 Nf6 Be2 Nc6 O-O g6 c3 Bg7 d4
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1991)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 e3 Nf6 Be2 Nc6 O-O g6 c3 Bg7 d4 O-O Ne5
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1991)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Nbd7 Qf3 Qc7 O-O-O b5
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1991)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 e3 Nf6 Be2 Nc6 O-O g6 c3 Bg7 d4 O-O Ne5 Bf5 Nd2
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 fxe4 Nxe4 Nf6 Qe2 d5 Nxf6 gxf6
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e5 Nfd7 Bxe7 Qxe7 f4 c5
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 fxe4 Nxe4 Nf6 Qe2 d5 Nxf6 gxf6 d4 e4
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e5 Nfd7 Bxe7 Qxe7 f4 c5 Nb5 O-O
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 f5 Nc3 fxe4 Nxe4 Nf6 Qe2 d5 Nxf6 gxf6 d4 e4 Nh4 Qe7
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e5 Nfd7 Bxe7 Qxe7 f4 c5 Nb5 O-O Nc7 cxd4
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Qe7 d4 d6
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Qe7 d4 d6 Nf3 Qxe4
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Qe7 d4 d6 Nf3 Qxe4 Be2 Bf5
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Qe7 d4 d6 Nf3 Qxe4 Be2 Bf5 c4 d5
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Qe7 d4 d6 Nf3 Qxe4 Be2 Bf5 c4 d5 O-O c6
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 Qe7 d4 d6 Nf3 Qxe4 Be2 Bf5 c4 d5 O-O c6 Re1 Be7
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1991)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Be7 O-O Nc6
Transpose to wikichess #5287#
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Yann Henrion (1119)
f4 Nh6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
f4 d5 Nf3 e6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
d4 d5 c4 f6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
f4 Nh6 d3 d5
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 Nc6 Nf3
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d3 Nf6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
f4 Nh6 d3 d5 Nf3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 Nc6 Nf3 d6 d4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 e6 Nf3 Nf6 d4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d3 Nf6 g3 Bc5
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d3 Nf6 g3 Bc5 Bg2 O-O
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
f4 Nh6 d3 d5 Nf3 Nc6 e4 e6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 Nc6 Nf3 d6 d4 Nf6 d5
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 e6 Nf3 Nf6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d6 Nc3 Bg4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d3 Nf6 g3 Bc5 Bg2 O-O O-O d5
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
f4 d5 Nf3 e6 e3 Nf6
Transpose to wikichess #10560#
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
f4 Nh6 d3 d5 Nf3 Nc6 e4 e6 Ne5 Nxe5
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 Nc6 Nf3 d6 d4 Nf6 d5 Nd4 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 e6 Nf3 Nf6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Bxa3 bxa3
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d6 Nc3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d3 Nf6 g3 Bc5 Bg2 O-O O-O d5 Bg5 dxe4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 e6 Nf3 Nf6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Bxa3 bxa3 Nxe4 Bd3
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 d4 Bb4 a3
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
f4 Nh6 d3 d5 Nf3 Nc6 e4 e6 Ne5 Nxe5 fxe5 g6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 Nc6 Nf3 d6 d4 Nf6 d5 Nd4 Nxd4 cxd4 Qxd4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d6 Nc3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d3 Nf6 g3 Bc5 Bg2 O-O O-O d5 Bg5 dxe4 dxe4 Bg4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 d4 Bb4 a3 Bxc3 bxc3
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
f4 Nh6 d3 d5 Nf3 Nc6 e4 e6 Ne5 Nxe5 fxe5 g6 Be2 Bc5
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 Nc6 Nf3 d6 d4 Nf6 d5 Nd4 Nxd4 cxd4 Qxd4 e5 Qa4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d6 Nc3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nc6 Bg5 Be7
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 e6 Nf3 Nf6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Bxa3 bxa3 Nxe4 Bd3 Nc3 Qd2
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d3 Nf6 g3 Bc5 Bg2 O-O O-O d5 Bg5 dxe4 dxe4 Bg4 Qxd8 Raxd8
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
d4 d5 c4 f6 Nc3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 e6 Nf3 Nf6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Bxa3 bxa3 Nxe4 Bd3 Nc3 Qd2 Nd5 O-O
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
f4 Nh6 d3 d5 Nf3 Nc6 e4 e6 Ne5 Nxe5 fxe5 g6 Be2 Bc5 d4 Bb6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 c5 Na3 Nc6 Nf3 d6 d4 Nf6 d5 Nd4 Nxd4 cxd4 Qxd4 e5 Qa4 Bd7 Bb5
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 d4 Bb4 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 Nxe4 Qe2
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d6 Nc3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nc6 Bg5 Be7 O-O-O h6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 d4 Bb4 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 Nxe4 Qe2 Nxc3 Qc4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 d3 d6 Nc3 Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nc6 Bg5 Be7 O-O-O h6 Bh4 Nd4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
d4 d5 c4 f6 Nc3 Nc6 e3 e6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 d6 d4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
f4 Nh6 d3 d5 Nf3 Nc6 e4 e6 Ne5 Nxe5 fxe5 g6 Be2 Bc5 d4 Bb6 Bxh6 c6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 d4 Bb4 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 Nxe4 Qe2 Nxc3 Qc4 exd4 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
d4 d5 c4 f6 Nc3 Nc6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 d6 d4 Bg4 h3
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
d4 d5 c4 f6 Nc3 Nc6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Nge7
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 d6 d4 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
d4 d5 c4 f6 Nc3 Nc6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Nge7 Nf3 a6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 d6 d4 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4 Bg6 Bd3
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
d4 d5 c4 f6 Nc3 Nc6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Nge7 Nf3 a6 Bxc6 Nxc6
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 d6 d4 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4 Bg6 Bd3 Nf6 dxe5
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 h6 d4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
d4 d5 c4 f6 Nc3 Nc6 e3 e6 cxd5 exd5 Bb5 Nge7 Nf3 a6 Bxc6 Nxc6 O-O Bb4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 c3 d6 d4 Bg4 h3 Bh5 g4 Bg6 Bd3 Nf6 dxe5 dxe5 Bg5
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 h6 d4 exd4 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 h6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nxd4 Qxd4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 h6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nxd4 Qxd4 d6 O-O
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 h6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nxd4 Qxd4 d6 O-O Nf6 b4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Yann Henrion (1119)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 h6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nxd4 Qxd4 d6 O-O Nf6 b4 Be7 a4
============
Contributors : Yann Henrion
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 Nbd7 Bc4 e6
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 Nbd7 Bc4 e6 Bb3 Be7
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1938)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 Nbd7 Bc4 e6 Bb3 Be7 O-O O-O
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1998)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Bb4 e5 Nd5 Bd2 Nxc3
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1998)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Bb4 e5 Nd5 Bd2 Nxc3 bxc3 Ba5
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1998)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Bb4 e5 Nd5 Bd2 Nxc3 bxc3 Ba5 Qg4 O-O
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1972)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 c6 Nf3 Bf5 Bc4 e6 Bd2 Qc7 Qe2 Be7
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1972)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 d4 c6 Nf3 Bf5 Bc4 e6 Bd2 Qc7 Qe2 Be7 Ne5 Nd7
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri-Louis Muller (1972)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Bb4 e5 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 Ne7 Qg4 Nf5 Bd3 h5 Qf4 Nc6
============
Contributors : Henri-Louis Muller
Henri Muller (1998)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Bg5 h6 Bxf6
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1998)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Bg5 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6 Nf3
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1998)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Bg5 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6 Nf3 O-O e3
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1998)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Bg5 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6 Nf3 O-O e3 c5 Qb3
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henri Muller (1998)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Bg5 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6 Nf3 O-O e3 c5 Qb3 Nc6 Rd1
============
Contributors : Henri Muller
Henrique Hepp (1900)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 c4 Nc6 Be2
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 c4 Nc6 Be2 Nf6 Nc3
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
c4 e5 g3 Bc5 Bg2 Qf6 e3 Nc6 Nc3 Qg6 Nd5 Bb6
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
c4 e5 g3 Bc5 Bg2 Qf6 e3 Nc6 Nc3 Qg6 Nd5 Bb6 c5 Bxc5
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
c4 e5 g3 Bc5 Bg2 Qf6 e3 Nc6 Nc3 Qg6 Nd5 Bb6 c5 Bxc5 Nxc7 Kd8
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
c4 e5 g3 Bc5 Bg2 Qf6 e3 Nc6 Nc3 Qg6 Nd5 Bb6 c5 Bxc5 Nxc7 Kd8 Nxa8 Nf6
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 c4 Nc6 Be2 Nf6 Nc3 Qb6 O-O
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 c4 Nc6 Be2 Nf6 Nc3 Qb6 O-O d6 a3
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 c4 Nc6 Be2 Nf6 Nc3 Qb6 O-O d6 a3 Be7 d3
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 c4 Nc6 Be2 Nf6 Nc3 Qb6 O-O d6 a3 Be7 d3 O-O Rb1
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
e4 c5 Nc3 e6 Bc4
Transpose to wikichess #2776#
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 a6 Bd3 Qc7 O-O Nf6 Qe2 d6 f4
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 a6 Bd3 Qc7 O-O Nf6 Qe2 d6 f4 Nbd7 c4
Transpose to wikichess #38452#
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (1900)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 a6 Bd3 Qc7 O-O Nf6 Qe2 d6 c4 Be7 b3
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 Nf3 e5 Bc4
Transpose to wikichess #176430#
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
c4 c5 g3 g6 Bg2 Bg7 a3 e6
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
c4 c5 g3 g6 Bg2 Bg7 a3 e6 Nc3 Ne7
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
c4 c5 g3 g6 Bg2 Bg7 a3 e6 Nc3 Ne7 h4 h6
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
c4 e5 g3 Nf6 Bg2 c6 d4 e4 Nc3 d5
Transpose to wikichess #193802#
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
c4 c5 g3 g6 Bg2 Bg7 a3 e6 Nc3 Ne7 h4 h6 b4 d6
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 a6 Nc3 Qc7 Bd3 Bb4 Bd2
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 a6 Nc3 Qc7 Bd3 Bb4 Bd2 Nf6 a3
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 a6 Bd3 Qc7 O-O Nf6 Qe2 d6 c4 Be7 Nc3
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
c4 c5 g3 g6 Bg2 Bg7 a3 e6 Nc3 Ne7 h4 h6 b4 d6 Rb1 Nbc6
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
c4 c5 g3 g6 Bg2 Bg7 a3 e6 Nc3 Ne7 h4 h6 b4 d6 Rb1 Nbc6 Nf3 O-O
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
c4 e5 g3 c6 Nf3 e4 Nd4 d5 cxd5 Qxd5 Nc2 Nf6 Nc3 Qe5 Bg2 Na6 O-O Be7 Ne3 O-O
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
Henrique Hepp (2088)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 a6 Nc3 Qc7 Bd3 Bb4 Bd2 Nf6 a3 Be7 O-O
============
Contributors : Henrique Hepp
FICGS : henri , Wikipedia : henri , Dmoz : henri , Google : henri , Yahoo : henri
The most powerful weapon in Chess is to have the next move. (David Bronstein)
Chess is a foolish expedient for making idle people believe they are doing something very clever when they are only wasting their time. (George Bernard Shaw)
Excellence at Chess is one mark of a scheming mind. (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess