influence
FICGS - Search results for influence
There are 49 results for influence in the forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-01 21:25:04)
Discrepancies
It is very clear Lionel.
In another hand, each tournament rules and generally each situation influence the strategy at chess (so other games). And FICGS chess wch rules are special ones in the knockout tournament that should avoid draws. Actually, only a "one game match" can have no influence on 'the game'. (not perfectly true, as the player's strength is another factor)
Rules are flexible, particularly for the game of Go, so I think we can use even uncommom ones, if it is balanced enough (= there's still a challenge). Do you have an idea about this rule avoiding repetition, how many stones or komi it could be worth ?
Another question : Are there situations that look like zugzwang in Go (where the best move could be 'passing') ?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-02 12:52:15)
rules & ratings
Hello Peter.
Indeed, you were one of the very first registered players. I have fixed the rules since this time, though it seems to me this point was the same already.
Anyway, ratings of course are not only informative (like in life :)), as it allows to play class tournaments. Now, there must be a way to choose a winner in certain cases, even if there's no "perfect" way. But if you win the tournament, there's no discussion. It only lights the battle a little more... When a player register he can ask for a >1700 rating only if he has got an "official" rating already, so the influence of choice is not so important at registration.
Your reference to 1789 is amazing, but actually we ARE equal before the law (rules). Doesn't mean the law is perfectly fair, that's impossible, of course. Like in life... The rules slightly favourize the best players. Je t'embrasse itou :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-24 13:03:25)
Future of correspondence chess......
That's a fine analysis, Glen.
However, it's legitimate to consider that chess at a higher level is becoming much harder so that some of the very best players may stop their career, thinking that it's no worth the energy anymore, for results more influenced by 'chance' in statistics...
How many "super-grandmasters" (2700+) said that each point over this mark represents more and more work ?
It's probably the same (and more) in correspondence chess. I do think that it's still possible to improve a lot ! .. but there's a lack of a higher class of players. That's a pity the very best correspondence chess players (ie. former ICCF world champions : Joop van Oosterom, Gert Jan Timmerman...) retire or at least don't defend their title since they achieved it. Of course it's a lot of time, but result is the top class appear to be bigger and there's no clear champion. That's not good IMO to popularize correspondence chess.
All games need champions. I read recently on a Go forum that the success of Chess nowadays was due to his champions (Go is not popular yet in the west because there's noone to represent it, except a manga [Hikaru No Go]..), Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer... That's true IMO, and that's what particularly misses to correspondence chess. Maybe things won't change in ICCF (maybe I should pretend to the board :)), but anyway that's why I chose the knockout system for the FICGS world chess championship, and the possibility for the winner to play a final against a challenger. We'll see...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-08 18:10:52)
Chess tournament : Zero-sum or not ?
While discussing about Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", and the question "Is the best player always the champion ?" (of course not IMO) , I was argued that any chess tournament "was" (actually could be "reduced to") a zero-sum game :
"In 1944 John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern proved that any zero-sum game involving n players is in fact a generalised form of a zero-sum game for two persons, and that any non-zero-sum game for n players can be reduced to a zero-sum game for n + 1 players; the (n + 1) player representing the global profit or loss. This suggests that the zero-sum game for two players forms the essential core of mathematical game theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum_game
It seems to me that it's out of topic, but I couldn't say exactly why... In my opinion, a tournament is nearer life than game, at least quite far from it. Much more rules, often complex ones, and results that depend on many parameters you couldn't influence...
The word "champion" depends on accurate rules (the best player could finish 2nd, even if he wins all games ie. in an open tournament..), the "best player" depends on general opinion (most commonly through ratings), ie. Topalov vs. Kasparov ...
What do you think ? :-)
Where the discussion started from :
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060907/sirlin_01.shtml
I agree with many points about how to win, but the use of some words seems to be dubious...
I like much this quote :
"I was surprised to see that Capablanca did not initiate any active maneuvers and instead adopted a waiting game. In the end, his opponent made an imprecise move; the Cuban won a second pawn and soon the game. “Why didn’t you try to convert your material advantage straight away?” I ventured to ask the great chess virtuoso. He smiled indulgently. “It was more practical to wait.” "
—Mikhail Botvinnik, 6th World Chess Champion
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-09 11:19:53)
UCI / Winboard engine
Hello Yannick.
Maybe you could try a free chess engine like Crafty (quite strong already, also running on Chessbase / Fritz interface), GNUchess, Arasan, Ghost or any engine running on Winboard / Arena free interfaces...
See a list of chess engines here :
http://www.ficgs.com/wiki_en-chess_engines.html
A well-known french speaking website about computer chess :
http://perso.orange.fr/lefouduroi/computerchess.htm
Actually it's probably very hard not to be influenced by chess engines suggestions, but the point is to understand, then find better moves...
All depends on the level you want the engine to play. There are hundred of engines to download...
Yannick Maret (2006-10-10 11:37:56)
Hmm
Thanks for the links... I will have a look!
Actually, I'm looking for a program on which I can set the actual position of a game. Ideally, I would then propose a move and the program would tell me if the move is sound or not (without giving its reasons). Then I can figure out by myself why the move is unsound and choose a new one... without being overly influenced by the engine.
Hmm, I guess I want too much... and should implement an interface for doing just that :(
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-10 16:16:37)
To be continued...
Open Letter
To
FIDE President
H.E. Kirsan Illyumzhinov
To
Head of the 2006 Executive Committee
Mr. Valery Bovaev
Dear Mr President, Gentlemen,
Having received innumerable published and unpublished inquiries I would like to clarify, in the name of Vladimir Kramnik and his team, our position in the decision taken by FIDE regarding the fifth game of the current World Championship match.
As you know Vladimir Kramnik is playing the current match under protest. Nothing has changed in our attitude, which is documented by Kramnik’s actions around the fifth game and our statements, protests and letters:
29.09.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=104
02.10.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=106
04.10.2006:
http://www.kramnik.com/eng/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=107
Consistent with this standpoint Vladimir Kramnik will be playing this match, including a possible tiebreak, up to the last move under protest.
Should the decision of FIDE regarding the fifth game have any influence on the awarding of the World Championship title, with Mr Topalov receiving the title after being granted a free point for the unplayed game, Mr Kramnik declares unequivocally: “I will not recognize Mr Topalov as World Champion under these conditions, and I will take legal action against FIDE at the end of the World Championship.”
The damage done to Mr Kramnik in public opinion (e.g. the slander campaign) after the illegal release of private video images by the then FIDE Appeals Committee or the WCC 2006 Executive Committee to the Topalov team, and the subsequent release of these video images and private information of Mr Kramnik in his restroom to the mass media, as well as the interruption of the match, which broke Mr Kramnik’s concentration and playing rhythm, will all be part of the legal action which will be initiated.
As a sign of good will Mr Kramnik once again requests FIDE to arrange for game five to be played out on the board immediately after game 12. This in our opinion is the only way to alleviate the personal, sporting, judicial and ethical injuries that have been incurred by Mr Kramnik.
Elista, October 10, 2006
On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-13 18:13:05)
Re: Game of time ?!?!
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_SM__000002.html
I must say this is a quite strange strategy, if it is... Several 2300+ players continuously are in zeitnot (and finally loose some games on time). I don't think it can influence 'much' the play at correspondence chess time controls so that's probably their only way to manage time. Some can't play faster, obviously... Some also play at IECG, ICCF and so on. Anyway nothing can prevent that...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-29 14:48:31)
To be continued
It has been discussed already, my conclusion was vacation had to be hard to use enough, in order to reduce influence on time controls, ie. a player shouldn't be able to take days to think more time when having difficulties in some games and cancel his 'holidays' after finding a solution... So it has to be discussed. Anyway, I'll add a message specifying vacation can't be canceled when taking days leave.
Reminder :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#playing
11. 4. Time rules
Any move in any game shall be played in a maximum period of 60 days, otherwise the game will be adjudicated on time. Time accumulated in a game can't exceed 100 days. Please don't call referee since you see your opponent's clock 'Out of time', you just have to wait a few hours a robot automatically adjuges the game.
Please be aware that it's possible sometimes your internet provider or a point between the server and you may block the connection between the server and you. Even it's a rare thing, it's strongly recommended to always have several days left at your clock. No result will be reconsidered or time added due to such a technical problem. No time will be added due to any problem during a period less than 1 day long.
It is possible to take a maximum of 30 days leave per year, called vacation. During this time, clocks are frozen and it is no more possible to play, in order to reduce the effects on time controls.
Please note the time limit per move clock still runs during vacation. Take your days carefully, as it's not possible to take back or displace your leave dates. However you can add days leave.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-21 13:48:44)
Go and chess, IGN Goama newsletter
From IGN Goama newsletter by Alexander Dinerchtein - http://www.gogame.info
Go and Chess Two Games, Shared Experiences
Chess and go show are similar in many ways, yet it's always strange to see how the masters of each game try to "invent the wheel", instead of benefiting from the knowledge of their colleagues.
Let's consider sharing experiences!
These ideas can be useful even for strong Asian Go professionals:
1. Currently, only a few pros use Go databases and programs for studying. It is easy to find commentaries, written by 9-dan masters, which state that a move is new and has never been played before. Yet if one checks such moves in Go databases, one can sometimes find up to 100 examples from professional games. How can they cheat the readers who study these commentaries?
Once in Korea, I showed the Bigo Assistant program (similar to GoGod, MoyoGo and SmartGo) to Lee Sedol's brother Lee Sanghun, 5-dan, who is the director of a large children's Go school. He was surprised and said that the program looked very useful, and he added that he had never met this kind of program before. He even suggested deleting all amateur games and games played on Go servers, because of their low quality. I promised to order the programs and to install them on the school's computers if he liked this idea, but he did not follow up. Lee Sanghun, 5-dan was not able to break the traditions of his forefathers …
2. Even such top chess players as Kasparov, Kramnik and Topalov enlist the support of trainers during important tournaments and matches. During the Communist era, almost every Russian grandmaster worked on behalf of world championship candidates. Our government forced them to help, to show them new moves and ideas. Those who refused to help were punished severely: for example, sometimes a player would be prohibited from playing in tournaments abroad and would be refused foreign visas.
We do not see this in Go. Everyone thinks only about his or her own self. Do you know who is currently assisting Lee Changho? I don't know, either!
3. I would like to say a few words about playing technique. Chess players often used to write the move on paper first and then make it on the board. This helps to avoid impulsive moves and to prevent blunders. Go masters record the game afterwards, and so one can often find terrible mistakes, such as overlooking ataris and recapturing ko without playing a ko threat first. As an example you may see Black's move number 271 from this game:
http://www.go4go.net/v2/modules/collection/sgfview.php?id=10828
I am sure that if a player looked at their move at least twice before they write it on paper and after they would not make such mistakes.
4. Even top Go tournaments are usually run by the knock-out system so we often see sensational results. Mightn’t it be reasonable to think about increasing the number of games in each round? If rounds were best-of-three (in case of time constraints, it would be possible to use blitz time controls for the third game), it would help to minimize sensations.
How about organising a definitive World Go Championship? Chess players have contested one for more than 100 years, and competitions for this World Championship have revealed the very best players of each generation. In Go it's harder to tell which player is true champion. In 2006, for instance, one international tournament was won by Lee Changho and another one by Lee Sedol, while Cho U won the largest amount of prize money. Whom can we call the World Champion? Who can say which tournament is the most important : LG, Samsung, Fujitsu, Chunlan or another? We don't even have a unified rating system …
If we determined a single World Go Champion, he might earn the same degree of popularity as Garry Kasparov achieved in chess, and this could have a very positive influence on Go popularity around the world!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-10 03:08:52)
Rybka, Fritz and future...
Computerchess is definitely an exciting challenge... The community is fast-growing, new versions of chess engines appear every day, many dream to be the next Vasik Rajlich and to produce an engine that would beat the well-known Chessbase engines and the famous Rybka.
These days, I had a look at Fruit 2.1, TogaII and Crafty source code that are available to download, and started to implement new search & evaluation functions. It's quite easy to understand why chess programming is so addictive, so much done and so much to do... finally I did not enter this mad race without an ending, probably for the same reasons Anthony Cozzie (the author of Zap! Chess Zanzibar) and many others retired.
However here are my feelings about future of chess engines, and the fight that just started between most probably Chessbase engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior and Hiarcs) and a new era of chess engines that started with Rybka...
First, it's quite obvious to me that Rybka (now Rybka 2.3) is only another one of a long series of chess engines always stronger than each others ! .. I expect the next ones to reach 50, 100 then 200 points more (and maybe more) on the next chess engines elo rating lists, a scale that definitely can't be compared to human elo rating list ! .. Several reasons to this : (1) Chess engines are human killers at standard time controls, but chess engines are far to play perfect chess yet. (2) The way ratings are calculated.
Rybka taught us several things IMO :
- Algorithms and evaluation functions are no more enough. Now chess engines have to play chess, not only search a tree of chess positions... That's probably what Rybka brought to computerchess. Since Fruit 2.1 & Toga II source code is available, and computerchess community is constantly discussing improvements in algorithms, evaluations of positions and new ideas, to implement a chess engine becomes easier so I have no doubt that new very strong chess engines like Rybka will come.
- To become famous, a chess engine must 'also' beat his rivals. I first thought that Rybka was designed to be an engines killer only (at least before to be an analysis tool) with some tricks exploiting most engines weaknesses. No, Rybka is also a great UCI engine, simply stronger and with many options & features. Like Vasik Rajlich, who is engineer and international chess master, you'll have not only to think like an engineer to create such an engine. However I still don't think it is the best analysis tool for correspondence chess, it doesn't play really better chess and in all cases it is not enough. More, Rybka 3, 4, 5 shouldn't influence correspondence chess (maybe even human vs. machine) much... Computerchess influences computerchess first.
It's written sometimes that the strongest chess engines could reach a IM, even GM level at correspondence chess. I definitely disagree with that, at least for the moment (it will take a long time yet), but as chess engines results tend to approach correspondence chess ones (means more and more draws), I do think chess engines have much to learn from correspondence chess players way of thinking, meaning : A more psychological approach, bonus for traps detection. Evaluate moves, not only positions. A more complex search, not 'only' iterative (brute force is definitely useless). No more anti-human style, speculative moves (=weakness, ie. Deep Junior) for speculative results against strongest chess engines, draws are prefered. To avoid positions not understood by the engine. Longer games, closed games (if supported)... Opening books should look like correspondence chess GMs ones (of course according to the engine's style of play) and no more been made of FIDE GM games. A better time management... Future of computerGo may teach to computerchess about some evaluations.
A chess engine must play good moves AND try to win (which is not always the same). It seems Fruit & Rybka play solid and are waiting to exploit their opponent's weaknesses thanks to a better "chess" algorithm/knowledge. As far as I have seen, Shredder & Fritz still have the best 'eye', they see far but fuzzy. Quite the same about Fruit & Toga developped by a great engineer, Fabien Letouzey : Less chess knowledge but an improved algorithm. As for Rybka, a great chess knowledge and probably a smarter algorithm (not better, smarter !) were probably enough already. The future best chess engines will be made by good chess players...
An interesting point is it could be not so easy, maybe even nonsense, to create the best analysis tool that would also obtain the best results against other chess engines. My first prediction is Rybka won't be the top rated chess engine ever, hundreds of new ideas will appear in all parts of chess programming, slowly breaking Rybka secrets, then speed will be a factor again. Deep Fritz, Junior, Fruit or Hydra are most probably the core of the next generations of chess engines... but there's a lot of work yet :)
My two cents.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-14 17:00:55)
Elections in France :-)
A small thread about politics (could be interesting), just curious about what people from the whole world see and hear about elections in France, that will start in about 40 days from now.....
The news that Jacques Chirac will not try to be re-elected has been relayed everywhere, but what about the election itself ?
One more time opinion polls could influence the way people will vote and create a surprise at the end of the first "round"...
So just curious, who did you hear about among them : Nicolas Sarkozy, Ségolène Royal, François Bayrou, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marie-George Buffet, Dominique Voynet, Olivier Besancenot, Arlette Laguiller, José Bové, Philippe de Villiers, Nicolas Dupont-Aignant, Frédéric Nihous ?
And last but not least, any predictions ? :-)
Charlie Neil (2007-03-17 10:17:07)
Elections in France
Is it true that Jacques Chirac will face charges of corruption from the time he was Mayor of Paris after he steps down as President. The Head of State facing prosecution seems a bit bizarre. Also I believe that the week before the election there are no opinion poll findings released in case it may influence the voter.
Nick Burrows (2007-03-18 18:00:41)
polls
Well, if opinion polls shouldn't influence the decision poll. The decision poll shouldn't influence future opinion polls which will in turn affect the next decision.
Hence, I propose the only sensible course of action is to keep the results of the decision poll secret. From now on the french president must wear a mask!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-07 04:50:03)
Double RR Tournaments
It doesn't influence much the result in class tournaments IMO, it does in WCH tournaments only... Anyway single round-robin is more fun !
Jason Repa (2007-04-07 05:57:23)
Double RR tournaments
I disagree. I think that it has a very significant influence on the result. If you get Whites against the stronger players and Blacks against the weaker ones, you are getting a big advantage over someone who is not. IMO, it greatly adds to the luck factor. I have the most fun from fair competitions where things are balanced.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-30 14:05:46)
The meaning of Go for modern Russia
An interesting (as usual) article from IGN "Goama" newsletter - http://gogame.info
Alexander Rodin, the member of Go Federation
"The meaning of Go for modern Russia"
I'll try to state my thoughts about the meaning of the Go for modern Russia.
To begin with I suggested that we extrapolate Go models on the political and economical maps. These maps are very important as the spheres of social life, because the questions that are discussed at political and economical levels touch upon our lives, the lives of ordinary Russian citizens. In these spheres they continue the fierce struggle for life and death; in these spheres rivalry is especially keen and the made decisions define the vectors of our country development.
Let's imagine a situation if somebody inadequate came to power and set the totalitarian regime! Then all social "dissident" institution would start dying and so would do the Go Federation as a phenomenon which unifies people with independent thinking. Then it would be inevitable to start "hiding in basements" to keep the organization and set the secret addresses. Under conditions of modern Russia such kind of reasoning seems to be mostly fantastic than real. But if we look behind into our history we’ll remember that we have already had this phase of social development and know everything about it.
I am for that only "adequate" people, patriots, must hold power (I mean all its levels: federal, regional, local and busyness elite as well). These people must think independently and it would be just perfect if they were the people who both understand the very notion of strategy and use in their activity all the arsenal of strategic instruments and among them principles, stratagems and Go philosophy.
Someone can argue: "What are the patriots who set Japan draughts?" the heart of the problem is not in the fact that somebody sets draughts and even the Japan ones. The matter of fact is that there is a "pacific" model the centre of which is the idea of balance and peaceful division of the territory and influence. If someone of us can offer something better, so let him rule. In my opinion, it's the same as to rewrite the Bible or "The Treatise of Military Art" Soun Tsi.
The Go essence manifests in the state scale in the following aspects:
The first one is historical and cultural. The game has a great history and longstanding traditions. Go is no less than a civil game with the development of which hand by hand goes statehood making in many countries. Besides, it's followed by strengthening of spirituality and moral principles of society.
The second aspect is social. Go unifies people, sets friendly relationships between them. Through Go a man manifests quickly, through it s/he can see his/her reflection. Owing to "open spiritual fight" your adversary is likely to become your best friend without saying a word during a game.
The third aspect is pedagogical. Through Go they bring up the grown generations and form their active civil position. Like chess, Go forms and consolidates dynamical stereotypes showing in following behavioral models of people. Penetrating and consolidation happen imperceptibly when sleeping, during the junction of conscious and unconscious.
The fourth aspect is economical. Why are business people interested in Go? Because through the game model a man learns how to manage material and non-material resources. Via the game s/he realizes economical and management notions: market (territory), economical integration, SWOT-analysis (the analysis of weak and strong aspects) etc. Managers start realizing the importance of interconnection and interaction of structural subdivisions ensuring. These subdivisions shouldn't be isolated from each other. They should work time in time like a well-tuned tuning fork.
The fifth aspect is political. The idea of community in politics is as relevant as the idea of group of stones. When a group is weak there is always a possibility of dividing it and this is a sign for the whole group. When our country, being a federal union of equitable subjects, was going through its stage of making a number of subjects had a wish to use the weakness of this chain. So, in 1992 1994 for the first time after the collapsing of the USSR there appeared first separatist tendencies. E.Rossel, the governor of Sverdlovskaya region, A. Philipenko, the governor of HMAO, claimed about the possibility of Ural republic creation. The emissary of Chechen separatists Gokhar Dudaev proclaimed the independence of Chechen-Ingush republic. The detachment didn't happen but the country paid with blood for it. Nowadays we can see demonstration of political integration and isolation on the modern political world map. Take a strong unity of the European Union and states-outsiders: Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Iran.
In terms of remaining of the USA's striving for establishment of world hegemony (from V.V.Putin's speech at the recent Munich conference), Russia needs the processes of integration and consolidation with other countries aimed at its strengthening. The unified countries have a lot of dame.
Now we can observe the stronger split in the CIS as a consequence of energetic and territorial policy of Russia that uses economical instruments of pressure upon "unfriendly and opposing" countries. Is it good or not? It's more likely that it‘s bad. But there are some positive tendencies: the role of the EurAsEC as a community which's built not on the basis of "strange brotherhood" and the role of Russia in it are increasing. Go is an ideological and spiritual base making us related to the countries of Asia-Pacific region. Go teaches how to see and distinguish creative and destroying processes.
The sixth aspect is psychological. The game develops thinking, in particular such processes as analysis and synthesis. It develops the ability of seeing the whole board and its details, the ability of seeing processes proceeding at global and local levels.
The seventh aspect is verbal and lexical or even philosophical. Through studying of the game theory we realize such categories as life and death, territory and influence, reliability, stability, the whole and the parts etc.
So, what is the Go meaning on the country scale? I assume that Go, as philosophy (an ideological and spiritual base), is a very important instrument of upbringing of strategic leaders, those who make decisions at high economical and political levels that influence the country's fate. Because in Go the idea of peaceful co-existence shows the way to harmony. The most pleasant is the fact the "Go way" doesn't have an end and there sky's the limit.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-30 22:34:37)
WCH rules
Thanks Sandor & Wolfgang for sharing your views.
As you said, there's no perfect rule for everyone, particularly in a correspondence chess championship, where time is a predominant factor. As for me, I like much FICGS rules so far because of these major points :
1) The best players have the best chances.
2) A new cycle can start every 6 months.
3) There's no external influence in a knockout tournament.
I think the lowest rated player has to prove he's stronger than the highest rated player or champion, so it's coherent in round-robin and knockout tournaments. I particularly like the special rule in the knockout tournament (stage 1, 2 & 3). I'm now playing an exciting quarter final against Wolfgang, that I'm to lose because of this rule - the winner is the player with the strongest TER is all games are draw, the player with the lowest TER if not all games are draw - even if it finishes with a 4-4 score. Simply because I'll lose most probably at least one game. I think it's fair ! .. I knew the rule (of course, I made it :)), I knew I had to draw all games or to win by one point at least. Rules are the game ! .. It's not more unfair than to draw a game with one or two pawns more ;)
However I agree that WCH round-robin tournaments should be 9, 11 or 13 players groups to give more place to chess. I'll take care of this in the next cycle.
Finally, not only rules are to be taken in consideration... To attract players, there must be a real challenge ! .. To take the title to the champion will be really hard for sure :)
Jason Repa (2007-07-15 19:21:37)
Rybka vs. Human
Actually burrows, as usual, you have everything completely backwards. You're the little character here trying to pass yourself off as a DR., not me. If you're going to pretend to be an educated man, you should at least learn how to spell FISCHER. Fischer's IQ has been tested when he was in high school and was in the 180's. I'm not going to hold your hand here, learn how to look something up for yourself for a change.
You're really making it quite obvious to everyone what you are with that silly comment about Fischer merely "winning some games".
And as usual your attention span isn't long enough to remember what we were talking about. It was INTELLIGENCE, not social influence.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-28 03:43:36)
Zappa wins the match
Finally Zappa beats Rybka 5,5-4,5, which is quite an enormous surprise !
Many interesting discussions followed in forums about chess engines programming, Zappa & Rybka strengths and weaknesses, how search & evaluation functions influence each other... and luck :
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=147594&t=16732
http://www.hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=254&start=105
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 21:54:09)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!
"Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response!"
That's not obvious at all. What's obvious is that I beat you quite easily when you and I played cc so you're far from being any kind of authority whatsoever!
"1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily"
I just finished trying to explain to you, in the way a young child should be able to understand, that there is more to think about in chess than trying to play what current theory considers to be the best try for an opening advantage. Yet here you are rambling on about the same nonsense you were in your previous posts. Was Fischer's 2.d3 against the French the objectively strongest move? Even against (and perhaps especially against) computers, it can sometimes be better to play sidelines or moves which may serve to confuse an opponent. Is the King's Indian Attack the best try for an opening advantage for White? Probably not. But it was used by Kasparov to defeat Deep Blue. If you still can't understand the concept I've been trying to teach you, after several posts, I don't know what more I can do for you. Just keep mindlessly playing what established theory tells you are the strongest lines,(without having even the incipience of an understanding as to why) and keep mindlessly trusting the evaluations your program gives you, and you'll keep getting CRUSHED by guys like me.
"1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side."
After this statement, if I didn't know better, I would have thought you were someone who just learned how to set up the pieces. It might be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. Does 1.e4 develop a piece? How about 1.d4? I suppose those moves are "a waste in cc" as well. We should all be playing 1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3 according to you, lol.
1.f4 grabs space. It stakes out influence both in the center and on the kingside. It effectively prevents 1...e5 (lest White goes into a dubious gambit system) as an alternative to other moves which achieve this. There are also other intangibles that are part of the picture, such as the psychological effect the move may have, the lack of preparation an opponent may have against it, etc. If you ever began to understand chess at a level beyond just plugging moves into a program, you might start to appreciate that allowing concessions (such as the slight weakening of the White kingside resulting from 1.f4) is all part of the game. Fischer's famous quote: "you gotta give squares to get squares" is a famous example. If allowing static liabilities were something to be avoided at all cost, you'd never see a Sicilian Scheveningen. It allows all sorts of weaknesses.
As for your so called "analysis". It's a complete joke! For starters, you're "analyzing" a game resulting from the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening. I line I've never played in my life, let alone here on FICGS. Is this how you try to win an argument/debate? By misrepresenting the facts? An intelligent person who genuinely felt that their argument had a leg to stand on, would simply take one of the 4 games I provided to you and do some analysis from there. Showing where Black could have improved. Then finally, after trying to "score points" with examples of the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening, which I have never played, you post a game where White played poorly and lost to a lower rated player. As if that's never happened before in chess, lol. You don't even know enough to post the date of the game. I couldn't find this game on any of my databases(totally over 4,000,000 games), so if you didn't just make it up out of thin air, perhaps you got more wrong, such as the actual moves that were played, in addition to incorrectly stating:
"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."
Is it Black that lost here or White?
I took a brief look at the game, and it's hardly representative of proper play by White. 7.h3 was dubious at best. I prefer 7.Ne5. White then misses another opportunity to play the knight to e5 after 7...c5. Then 9.g4? is a gross thematic mistake. The only thing this game proves is that you're completely incapable of discussing chess in an intelligent way. Real chess players look for games that illustrate the critical lines for both sides, and try to arrive at some actual insights.
There is a reason I crushed you when we played cc last year.
Hannes Rada (2008-05-14 20:10:41)
Jason's query
Jason, I gave up OTB chess some 20 years ago. So I have no OTB rating (anymore)
Playing in my chessclub was not and ist not compatible with my working hours.
CC is perfect for me. Analyzing and making move later in the evening when I am returning from work, or whenever I can find time.
It's wise to play the strongest possible opponents.
But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength.
Too many variables may influence the players chess abilities.
(Too many games at the same time, lack of motivation, ....)
On the other side an ambitious 1800 Elo newcomer can sometimes more dangerous than an "old" CC-GM.
FICGS is quite a nice community.
Here you have the chance to raise your rating and play against the higher rated players pretty soon compared with ICCF.
But your "strong opponent experience" will end here around 2500 - 2550.
Raising your rating in ICCF takes much more time (because tournaments are slower) but when you've established yourselve at a certain level than you have the chance to play the > 2700 guys like van Osteroom & Co :-)
But at this level correspondence chess is no fun anymore. I've talked to GM Peter Hertel from Germany several years ago and he told me that he had to analyze and work on his cc - chess positions around 10 hours per day to compete at this level ....
if you are retired or jobless and a billionaire (van Osteroom) than you have the best chances of winning an ICCF championship final .... :-)
Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities ?
I've talked to several players regarding this issue and I received different answers.
From: Yes I benefit from my cc-opening experience
To: No, these are absolutely different stories.
OTB requires the abilites to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours.
All things which are absolutely not necessary for cc.
My experience for the short time frame when I played both otb + cc is that for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-13 11:41:25)
Random design
Would the design (background color & board color) influence your moves ? :) So red could make us aggressive... Maybe I'll change the design by default to the random one..
Denis Ivanchenkov (2008-09-30 00:08:25)
Iouri Basiliev
"<<you think it is good to use communist methods -
making LESS than 10% of russian language schools>>
where i sad this?"
you just became bold enough to order me what to do:
"Nowadays the situation is opposite.
If you living in Ukraine, spend some
time to learn ukrainian if you are able"
and this is actuall means that you are
considering that this is right (and good of course).
so stop making a fool of you and just read what you are saying.
I live in Central Ukraine where Russian speaking people
are minority - so I don't say that Russian should
be introduced here. But in East and South and 100% in Crimea
Russian WILL BE introduced by people - whatever you(foreigner/traitor/
agent of western influence) want/order/dislike.
Anthony Jones (2009-03-06 14:25:26)
TV influence
Ya, i'm sure the producers of the TV show & the sponsors are overjoyed at such actions. The highest profile players nicknames are after all 'Poker Brat' and 'The Mouth'.
Maybe if there was any chess on television, the behaviour of players may deteriorate!?
I once witnessed a player in a tournament react to losing by flipping the board and pieces over his opponent, knocking his chair over and storming out!!
Is this what chess needs to 'jazz' it up?
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-04-14 20:20:57)
Draw offer
In my opinion only the marked check box should be a regular draw offer. There is also no way to accept a draw offer and finish a game by sending a message to your opponent.
Messages are nice, but should not have any influence on the game. And we should not misuse Thibault (the referee) to decide if our games are drawn.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-04 00:23:27)
On chess openings...
That's an interesting point of view, for sure. My opinion is that this point (e4 vs. d4 and others) quite looks like the openings in the game of Go !
When improving one's play at Go, one change of mind on the complete theory of the game very often... will I play "territory" or will I play "influence", and how... every thing one learn at Go may change one's mind about this because one must manage territory and influence at the same time.
I changed my mind several times about e4 and d4 these last years, in my opinion if a player still change his mind, it may only mean he just improved his play... again :)
Most of us will probably change our mind again & again... fortunately !
Alejandro Suarez-Moreno (2009-06-24 00:43:28)
Strange joseki do it by a good player
Hi Ulrich and Thibault,
this joseki present a good problem. Black stones are ready to form a big shape on the right side and white have to decide "a fast fight for these corners or a strategical fight for zones of influence". I played many games with Don Groves and his style is strong. Maybe he is not dan player, but you'll have to fight very hard for the victory against him!
On the diagram I prefer 4...o16, or 4...r10. The invasion to back corner still remain possible and black attention have to put here during many plays.
Alejandro Suarez-Moreno (2009-06-24 23:18:06)
Strange Joseki
Hi Don, I accept your invitation to discuss the strategy over your joseki.
I don't like to invade suddenly the black corner. If we play q3 then you have to play very exactly. White stones are in dangerous and black can use it to gain influence toward the center and, in the same time, try to kill the white dragon. I remember the comentary of Thibault: "may have no space enough quickly" and I believe him!
But r10 try to avoid this situation and white can make a basis to attack the black shape on top board or fight in the center.
Maybe Ulrich and Thibault can tell us the strategy of play q3.
Michel van der Kemp (2009-07-02 11:56:00)
Chucky
Ivanchuk lost a lot of rating points, but it would have been OK if FIDE had recognised a tournament he won convincingly, in which case he would have had almost 30 points more. Perhaps this is a hidden punishment from FIDE for Ivanchuk's doping incident during the chess olympiad in Germany earlier this year.
Pity how politics can influence our game.
Wayne Lowrance (2009-09-23 02:50:06)
after review
After further consideration and reviewing the responses, I change my vote to #3. After OTB touch-move !no take backs. 2 is the polite thing to do and that influenced me. But there are other considerations. Thibault, keep it simple, no take backs. I have miss moved here but accepted it as the rule !
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-29 20:17:35)
Carlsen leads the Nanjing tournament
The Nanjing tournament starts quite well for Magnus Carlsen, who won his first game with the scotch opening against Peter Leko (maybe the influence of Garry Kasparov), and won his second game against Veselin Topalov !
Thibault de Vassal (2010-01-27 23:23:10)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?
I must say that the case encounted was not clear at all to me as I had very few informations on how this program scores Go games, anyway I should have written "passing MAY change the score"... The document is very interesting, thanks !
I think I'll specify in the rules that "The score is not influenced by which player passes first or last", which looks like more conventional & logical, unless anyone can explain why this decision should be avoided.
Thanks again.
Ralph Deline (2010-03-17 07:27:30)
Rating calculation
Thanks for the helpful comments. I feel much better now that I understand how ratings are derived. I made the assumption that since my rating changed after the conclusion of every game, that the past games had no influence on my future rating, that is, within the two month rating period. It is the same type of rating system I'm accustomed to; results, strength of opponents, a little math thrown in, and presto, a new rating. I can now go on living. Cheers.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-13 18:20:15)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Been giving a lot of thought to this post. At first I was opposed to it. I think primarily maybe I was influenced by my thinking " I climbed through the levels", so anyone can if they dedicate the effort as I did.
Now I am swayed to support Garvin Grey posting ideas.
I recognize very well that there are many players qualified to move up but find it frustrating to make headway.
It comes down to this. Chances are if they win a class tournament, they probably deserve to advance an level. If not competitive, they will not stay at that level. So anyhow I am posting as to what I believe the proposal #1 is in fact.
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
That is a paste of your thread Thibault.
If that is what you and Garvin want or close to it then I say why not ! Give it a go.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-30 21:07:31)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his win in the 4th FICGS chess WCH, and explained how one particular game influenced another one that he finally won:
- Hi Eros, first of all congratulations for your latest outstanding results at FICGS, you won the Freestyle tournament, now two chess championships in a row... When the privilege of the champion is to defend his title without playing the preliminary tournaments, you are involved in all championship cycles & a few regular tournaments, do you plan to avoid that anyone can even reach the championship final in the future? :-)
Thanks! I must admit that this is really a magic moment for me in chess... if you consider that despite my recent ICCF Grand Master Title, probably I will also soon win my third italian Correspondence Champion Title out of three participations in the Italian Final Tournaments. And now also this huge satisfaction of being the FICGS Champion! I look forward to seeing a new challenger soon, I wonder who he will be, but let me enjoy the next few months for now ;-)
- What are your impressions on the games? Did you have any strategy from the beginning to the end? Finally did it work or was there another factor? (without revealing your secrets, of course :))
The games in the opening were as I expected, all Najdorf Sicilians except one game where I played 1.d4. My goal was to win at least one game, so I tried different aggressive variations as White (6.Bg5, 6.f3, 6.Be3 and 6.h3) with the hope of catching Edward unprepared on at least one of these, but uff, he was very well prepared on each one of them! A curious thing is that my biggest chance of winning happened in a game where I had the Black pieces! So Edward had to take some risks in one of his games where he had Black (the games where he had White were already finished or all very drawish) he was forced to avoid an easy draw he had (the 6.h3 game) and eventually he lost that game. Happy of having reached my goal of winning at least one game, I accepted his draw offer in that other game (6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Be2) where I had good winning chances.
- You probably noticed, like many correspondence chess players, that the hardware still fastly improves while chess engines are continuously getting stronger, particularly since that "supposed" clones of Rybka (some may be even stronger than Rybka herself) appeared in the race. Do you think that the rate of draws will be so high soon that it may definitely kill correspondence chess? Do you have any opinion on these new engines?
I think that despite the big improvement of Hardwares and engines, we are still very far (and we will still be in the next 5 years, hopefully) from a situation where all the games will most probably end in a draw. So I think we can enjoy correspondence chess for many more years in the future, even if of course the Draw percentage at the highest levels will be higher and higher.
- I remember that you were surprised to win your match against Alberto in the Candidates Final of the 5th cycle (the reason why you do not even have to defend your title this time), the WCH rules (particularly the co-existence of the round-robin tournament & knockout tournament) are obviously not well understood by all players, what do you think about this system and the tie in 8 games matches? Are there changes you'd like to see in the future?
Yes, I really was! We were both convinced that with all draws, the higher rated player would have won (Alberto was higher rated than me in that match). Anyway it was our fault, as we didn't read the rules carefully. I am not sure what changes could be done in the future... maybe this is anyway the best setup, no new ideas are coming to my mind right now.
- Do you have a few more words for Edward after these nice games? Maybe also for your future opponents? :)
It was a real pleasure for me to play him, not only for the interesting games we played, but also for the friendly chats we had during the exchanges of the moves. I hope to play him again in the future for a rematch.
- Thanks for your answers and congratulations again!
Welcome, and thanks ;-)
_________
It is very interesting to see that a even a player like Eros prefered to minimize the risks (avoiding mouse drops or whatever) as much as possible by accepting a draw in a game where he had winning chances. Correspondence chess is definitely not all about chess, that's probably the lesson.
Also it is reassuring to read that correspondence chess is NOT dead yet, nor soon :)
Juri Eintalu (2021-09-04 17:22:19)
ICCF ratings
Hello. I am new here. I see that my ICCF rating has been converted into a FICGS rating. However, I have not found here any information about whether the FICGS rating influences the ICCF or ELO ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-14 15:39:33)
5 player double round robins
Hi Sebi, sure it's an interesting system! I've explained why I was not favourable to this here though (I did not find the discussion, quite old one). In brief less excitement (IMO), games influenced by each other result, this is just too confusing & different.
Same for double roound robins, I like this format much but it would slow down even more the other tournaments... Be patient guys, let's play bullet games :)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-03 13:57:46)
Houdini and draw rate evolution at ICCF
No, chess engines are not to solve chess yet :) But this blog (link posted by Wolff Morrow in the chat) is quite interesting anyway!
http://blog.chess.com/FirebrandX/are-computers-closing-in-on-solving-chess
There you'll find the draw rate evolution at ICCF these last years, a clear influence of the strongest chess engines (Rybka, Houdini, Fire, IvanHoe, Stockfish & so on...)
Gino Figlio (2012-01-03 15:37:10)
Houdini and draw rate evolution at ICCF
The influence is obvious, if you look at the draw rate of top OTB events you will find much higher numbers (>70%). The draw rate in top ICCF events is also pretty high.
The draws are not evenly distributed. If you look at the relationship of average rating (rating category) and draw rate in ICCF, they are correlated. I found this after reviewing 160 events in 2007 (I was studying how fast the events were ending and not directly draw rate). I am showing the percentage of draws +/- SD for 160 events that ended in 2007:
Events rated under 2200: 19.1 +/-11.6
Events rated 2200 or above: 33.4 +/- 22
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-22 18:49:49)
Answer from Ortwin
Well, here is the answer from Dr. Ortwin Paetzold (LSS/IECG) that he asked me to post here. I'm glad to do it of course so that we can hear from both sides and make our own opinion with:
>>>>>>>>>>
Daniel Parmet is twisting the reality a bit. I take the right to quote my full answers, however as I do not have the permission to do so, I will not post the notes from Daniel to me, unless he quoted it here himself already.
Fact 1 is that Daniel has not read the rules of LSS or forgot about them. There is a function in LSS which lets the webmaster check this esp. in case of rule questions. Therefore he might not have known about the rule, however, when registering on LSS each player is asked to study the rules and to play according to them. I am sure, the same holds for FICGS and any other server.
Fact 2 is that on 4th April Daniel Parmet has lost a game on time by violating the 30-days-rule. The server automatically stopped the game and awarded the point to the opponent, independent from the position. The server also imposed the two week suspension to start a new tournament. The 30-days-rule was installed at IECG more than 10 years ago and I had included it into LSS right from the beginning. Daniel Parmet asked politely why the admin has cancelled his game (which I had not).
Fact 3 is that in my answer about the query why the game was finished, I have answered with reference to the rules:
“Your game was forfeited, because you did not move for 30 days. This is the maximum number of days to be used per individual move, independent of the total amount of time you have left. See the Rules and Usage Section under "Violation of Time Control". This is also the reason of your two-week-suspension. “
In his response Daniel Parmet called the LSS “a joke of a site”.
Fact 4 is that I answered to this insultation:
“Well, it is not my fault that you have not read the rules during the past five years you have played here! To be honest, this is impressing!”
I do not think this is more rude than insulting me/LSS because one has made a mistake!
Fact 5 is that I did not remove him from the waiting list of the LSS Anniversary 2012 as requested, because I thought that – once Daniel thinks reasonably about the case – he might want to continue, esp. as he wanted to continue all other games. Furthermore LSS has a feature where each player can remove himself from the waitinglist of this tournament. This all happened on 5th April! I then forgot about the matter.
Fact 6 is that on 19th April the LSS Anniverary groups were created including Daniel Parmet to one of the groups. As he was no longer suspended that time I missed that he still was on the waitinglist. I would otherwise have tried to get a replacement, which I did in other cases . When he claimed not to play in the anniversary on 20th April, I decided to remove him from all tournaments he was playing. As the tournaments were in an early stage (start date 15th Feb, Parmet finished only 3/10 and 1/12 games in them), I believe it makes less impact to withdraw a player then letting him influence the outcome, esp. as e.g. he would not use a potential qualification to the LSS WC Semi-Final or the Consolation Finals. I commented that action with the following message:
‘I have withdrawn you from this "joke of a site" (your own - wrong - words. It is not my fault that you have not read the rules!)
Thanks for playing here.’
The answer was unfriendly so I decided to cancel the membership permanently.
I would like to thank Thibault for the opportunity to express my view. I do not intend to comment anyfurther in this matter, as I think the two different versions are speaking for themselves.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-27 23:39:12)
Eros Riccio wins 6th and 7th chess WCH
By beating Alberto Gueci in the final match of the 6th chess championship & Ostap Hladky in the candidates final of the 7th chess championship, Eros Riccio will remain FICGS chess champion for at least 16 months! After this huge performance, Eros accepted to answer a few questions:
----------------------------------
- Hello Eros and congratulations again for winning your 3rd and 4th (respectively 6th and 7th cycles) FICGS chess championships in a row, beating Alerto Gueci in the 12 games match of the final match and Ostap Hladky in the 8 games match of the candidates final so that you meet yourself in the last round that thus will not happen for the 3rd time of the championship (first time was during the first cycle because there was no champion yet). All games of the two matches were drawn, but it does not say much on the intensity of the match as we all know your strategy since your win in your first final match vs. Edward Kotlyanskiy when you explained that your preferred a draw that guarantees the victory than a possible win where a mouse slip is still possible. Obviously your strategy works very well but one can add that you had an impressive number of running games at the rapid time control, so very much pressure... How did you live these last months of correspondence chess and these two matches?
Hi Thib! And thanks once again for the congratulations. These 28 games (let's not forget also the 8 games match against Gino Figlio) probably started in the worst moment for me, just a few months after the very important European Team Championship on ICCF had started. When I told my captain that I was starting another 28 games... he was very disappointed and worried, as he had repeated a lot of times to every player of our team not to start new tournaments and to focus only on this tournament. Also for this reason I had decided not to join the new Italian Championship and other tournaments and to withdraw from the Champions League, but unfortunately I had no control on when to start my FICGS games. So... my priority was for my ICCF games, and fortunately for me all I needed to do in my FICGS Matches to win was to make draws, and that's what I tried to do in most of my games as fast as possible, and to my surprise my opponents accepted to draw many games quite quickly, not trying to fight each game "to death" like I would have done if I would have been them. This of course only created quick boring games, but I didn't see the point in putting energy in trying to win games myself.... I think my opponents should have done that!
- We all know that you and Alberto are good friends from long time, did it influence your match in the 6th WCH in any way according to you?
Well, it's a good think knowing your opponent's habits... you can send your moves as soon as you know he goes to bed :-)
- Ostap Hladky is undoubtly one of the strongest players at FICGS, was this match (7th WCH candidates final) very different from the other one?
Hladky was the strongest player I had ever played on FICGS, he is very unpredictable, he simply plays unexpected moves that engines don't suggest, but if you show them those moves, they slowly realize those are very good moves. I risked to lose more than one game vs him, even as White. Luckily I still managed to draw, and in my opinion he also accepted some draws too quickly.
- With the last evolutions of chess engines, playing better & better chess, would you say that you now spend less time on each game or not at all?
I don't spend less time on my games, I still try to use (almost) all the time on my "clock". Trying to analyze as many variations as possible with the time you are given has little to do with engines improvement, who still are far from being able to always suggesting the best move by simply letting them run for hours on a static position. You need to analyze going "forward" in the position in order to be able to find the best moves.
- By the way, it is said sometimes (again) that correspondence chess will not survive the decade, what do you think? Do you envisage to change for Go or poker like many players? :)
Wins and Losses still happen even at the highest levels at the present time. I think that many years still have to pass before having all draws in high level tournaments. When that happens... and it will probably happen sooner or later as chess in my opinion is a draw with perfect play... then probably new rules will be introduced, maybe the board will be enlarged and even new pieces with new movements might be invented.
- You now are ICCF GM with an impressive 2624 rating, how are going your other correspondence chess competitions? Do you have any goal to reach yet?
All my ICCF tournaments are going good, and very soon I will be Italian Champion once again (just waiting my last opponent to resign a lost position). I still haven't reached the first place in the italian elo rating list though. That would be a goal I would surely have pleasure in reaching, and of course I would like to win the ICCF's World Championship at least once. After that I can retire :-)
- Thank you Eros, also for this great correspondence chess lesson.
Welcome Thib! A pleasure for me.
Garvin Gray (2013-02-26 14:48:14)
What size groups do you prefer?
I have played in groups on here that have 5, 7 and 9 players and I am interested in seeing what other players prefer for size of a tournament group?
Having played in these sized groups, I am starting to prefer the 9 player groups, where a game time out or not starting has less influence on the overall group.
What do others think?
Thibault de Vassal (2013-03-19 11:25:56)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
I just received a long and detailed private message from a very strong chess player who explained how vacation have influenced some of his games and I must say it was quite a strong demonstration of the issue.
Obviously it is a problem for certain players.
I'm not really favorable to a change here as it will complicate rules and the use of the site but here are the facts:
- Vacation are just rules... vacation may mean anything. So it is ok right now.
- Is it normal to save games thanks to vacation by gaining day after day ? It is just a question of point of view but IMO the answer is no. At least it cannot be done for each game separately, which is a great thing.
So we have a contradiction here.
Finally my proposal is a change for 2 days minimum that I would install in 2 months from now.
I think it would be a fair compromise... It should reduce the effects on the games in the future and it is quite short yet.
Any opinion on this change for 2 days minimum? Acceptable or not?
Michael Aigner (2013-06-11 13:25:26)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
In my opinion there is no need to change the rules. As far as I understood some people see the normal use of vacation which is defined by the rules as abuse which in itself is a contradiction. Anybody (could) know the rules before starting a game.
I understand that it is kind of a little disadvantage when some people have to use their vacation for vacation or for emergencies while others use it for analyzing their games but that’s life.´
There are many other factors one could consider as unfair e.g. faster hardware, no family to care of, retiree, students versus people who have to work the whole day which have much more influence then this "abuse" of vacation time.
By the way, I think it is very hard to play “good” correspondence chess (in a complex position) by using just one day per move, so I am not unhappy if my opponent have to take one day of vacation to have the time to decide for a move to make.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-01 01:50:23)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Oh, right... big mistake, sorry :) I was probably influenced by your comment "But even fide has recognised that the draw odds to the champion gave too much advantage" (heard "that's why they changed the format to RR")
Anyway, ok I also recognize that the draw odds to the champion gives too much advantage... but this system still looks better than any other one to me. I also remind that even Eros agrees with this draw issue. Finally, yes I'm open to any suggestion for a change, but we really have to find something strong.
Roger Llull (2017-01-20 21:29:00)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Pablo, changes to the WCH wouldn't make a difference for many years because the rules of each running event can't be changed now without sacrificing site credibility.
But I don't think this is about fixing the WCH final. This is about getting rid of the big frustration that represents the almost total impossibility of winning at the top level.
You can't mix thematic and classic CC Elos for the same reason you can't mix the Elo of classic time controls and the Elo of bullet time controls.
Thibault has an opportunity to bring new life to correspondence chess, but we need to see things from a different perspective. Let's make the most of what's already in place, -like Epoints- and introduce ways to add and influence new events even before they start. Because connecting with others and participating in more ways would bring new interest and benefit a lot more people than tring to fix what's already perfect -sort of- but stale.
Garvin Gray (2018-01-14 02:43:50)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Projections for the winning score are now being made. I thought I would bring these discussions to the thread.
Be careful about not actually discussing the games as so not to influence those games.
It seems like 9.5 or 10 out of 16 will be the winning score.
For any player to get a FEM norm, they had to score 12/16.
Now looking at this field and how the scores have panned out, does 75% seems rather unrealistic?
9.5/16 has already been recorded by Ortiz, so use a golfing analogy. Ortiz is in the clubhouse with 9.5 and everyone else is still on course playing out their last holes.
Anything less than 9.5 is no good.
Quite a few players still have so many games still going that making predictions is a rather forlorn exercise at this stage.
Nelson Bernal Varela (2025-10-21 18:30:36)
DNS failure last week
Ficgs.com is back and with it chess with algoritms and poker without influencers. I really missed it. In this digital wasteland where everything is selfies and stupidity, a corner returns to think, bluff and lose with dignity. May it never leave again.
There are 2 results for influence in wikichess.
Torsten Opas (1541)
e4 c6 Nf3 d5
Zucketort gambit declined - Caro Kann
Essentially the Caro-Kann with the moves jostled around. White will want early castling, or possibly early tactical tricks. Black will be aiming for an influence in the centre of the board.
Chessbase considers this a 56% win for white
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Mike Hoogland (1760)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 e3 Bf5 cxd5
White exchanges the pawn on c4 for the pawn on c6 (black should take it back with this pawn if black doesn't want to lose any influence in the centre).
As a result, Qb6 after Qb3 on the next move is no longer a strong option. Qxb6 then doubles blacks queenside pawns, leaving them and the b5 square weak. Therefore, after Qb3 black will have to find another way to defend the pawn.
After this, white will try to develop and increase presure on b7 and d5 at the same time.
============
Contributors : Mike Hoogland
FICGS : influence , Wikipedia : influence , Dmoz : influence , Google : influence , Yahoo : influence
After black's reply to 1.e4 with 1..e5, leaves him always trying to get into the game. (Howard Staunton)
In Chess, at least, the brave inherit the earth. (Edmar Mednis)
Human affairs are like a Chess game: only those who do not take it seriously can be called good players. (Hung Tzu Ch'eng)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess